From DC8's Era To Now, Not Much Changed For The Passengers?
May 22, 2022, 11:36 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Denver, Colorado
Programs: IHG Spire, Hilton Honors Gold, Marriott Titanium, Mileage Plus Gold
Posts: 1,736
From DC8's Era To Now, Not Much Changed For The Passengers?
I was going through a bunch of pictures on another site and was thinking, outside of more efficiency and technology, nothing has really changed for the passenger from the United's DC8 era to their A320/737 era now. We are flying further and further in the latest narrow body aircraft and I'm sure we are not that far away from when United will probably fly narrow bodies again from SFO to Tokyo. Outside of food and entertainment, has anything really changed for the average person flying in the back of the plane from when United flew DC8 to A320/737 now? Seems six abreast seating has and will be pretty much here to stay for the foreseeable future of medium to longer flights. Is there some engineering explanation on why the DC8, 707, and 727 which all have more or less similar fuselage width became the standard cabin width for the majority of aircrafts?
United's DC10 and 747 100/200 all came and went and their original promises of flying wide body comfort on domestic flights did not last long. Even to Hawaii, most or all of United's LAX to the islands are flown by 757 or 737's.
United's DC10 and 747 100/200 all came and went and their original promises of flying wide body comfort on domestic flights did not last long. Even to Hawaii, most or all of United's LAX to the islands are flown by 757 or 737's.
May 23, 2022, 5:11 am
#2
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 843
Is there some engineering explanation on why the DC8, 707, and 727 which all have more or less similar fuselage width became the standard cabin width for the majority of aircrafts?
United's DC10 and 747 100/200 all came and went and their original promises of flying wide body comfort on domestic flights did not last long. Even to Hawaii, most or all of United's LAX to the islands are flown by 757 or 737's.
United's DC10 and 747 100/200 all came and went and their original promises of flying wide body comfort on domestic flights did not last long. Even to Hawaii, most or all of United's LAX to the islands are flown by 757 or 737's.
Per regulations, no seat can be more than two additional seats from an aisle, so six abreast is as much as you can get without adding a second aisle. The second aisle adds drag with no additional capacity, so effectively, you have to add the equivalent width of two seats to gain one (i.e. the 767 is wider than the 737/757 by more than just one seat width; but rather a seat *plus* an aisle). To make the extra width “worth it,” you’d need to go to 8 or 9 across at least, and that makes the plane far larger than it really needs to be for most routes (from a structural and design efficiency perspective, “short and fat” planes tend to be inefficient, requiring a lot of fuselage weight for not a lot of capacity).
The idea of having widebodies provide extra comfort and luxury quickly died when fuel prices spiked in the 1970s, making such ideas cost-prohibitive.
As fuel-efficient narrowbodies gained more and more capability throughout the 1980s and 1990s (and even moreso today), it became a lot more cost-effective to have a large fleet of those that could fly almost any domestic route, rather than a handful of widebodies flying the longer domestic routes with inefficient equipment utilization.
As for the premise that “not much has changed,” well:
*Safety is so much better today that a fatal crash is pretty much unheard of at a major US airline today, vs. a nearly monthly occurrence, despite a significant growth in air traffic.
*Route selection and frequency is considerably better today, mainly thanks to deregulation that occurred in the late 1970s. Back then, no single carrier could easily get you from a small or medium-sized city on the west coast to a similar city on the east coast. Heck, maybe only one or two carriers could even get you from the east coast to the west coast nonstop.
*As an extension of the above point, I’d argue that competition is much higher today than it was back then. Sure, you had more carriers in the 60s and 70s, but a lot of them didn’t really compete with each other thanks to the way things were regulated. Even fares on interstate routes were regulated, limiting fare-based competition.
*Fares, generally speaking, are a lot lower today than they were in the days of the DC-8.
May 23, 2022, 7:49 am
#4
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Tucson, Southern Arizona, North America, Western Hemisphere, The Earth, a small planet in the solar system. Previously OnePass Infinite Platinum Elite, now over entitled 1K
Posts: 2,288
It appears that the window separation is greater in the older planes, reflecting the evolution in seating pitch
May 23, 2022, 10:17 am
#5
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,134
Only with the typical inefficient configuration of a fuselage and wings. With the much more efficient lifting body/flying wing design, the equation is significantly different.
May 23, 2022, 10:30 am
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,691
Overall, I think things are better today. Off the top of my head: IFE, safety, more affordable fares, no smoking, quieter cabins (those old jet engines were LOUD), schedule choice, lie-flat seats on some routes, longer ranges possible.
Main cabin food and leg room is probably worse (but even with that most airlines have some sort of premium economy seat these days) but the improvements outweigh the negatives IMO.
I know a lot of people here pine for some sort of idyllic nostalgic "golden era" but I don't think that really existed as remembered. I tend to think if most FTers were transported to the past to take a (say) 707 from JFK-CDG in the front cabin 1970s, the trip report comparing it to a major airline's business class today (well, at least pre-Covid) would be full of negatives.
Main cabin food and leg room is probably worse (but even with that most airlines have some sort of premium economy seat these days) but the improvements outweigh the negatives IMO.
I know a lot of people here pine for some sort of idyllic nostalgic "golden era" but I don't think that really existed as remembered. I tend to think if most FTers were transported to the past to take a (say) 707 from JFK-CDG in the front cabin 1970s, the trip report comparing it to a major airline's business class today (well, at least pre-Covid) would be full of negatives.
May 23, 2022, 12:14 pm
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Denver, Colorado
Programs: IHG Spire, Hilton Honors Gold, Marriott Titanium, Mileage Plus Gold
Posts: 1,736
For one, six-abreast is pretty much the most efficient design when comparing drag (which, in part, is a function of the width of the fuselage/frontal area that the air must pass around), structure, and capacity.
Per regulations, no seat can be more than two additional seats from an aisle, so six abreast is as much as you can get without adding a second aisle. The second aisle adds drag with no additional capacity, so effectively, you have to add the equivalent width of two seats to gain one (i.e. the 767 is wider than the 737/757 by more than just one seat width; but rather a seat *plus* an aisle). To make the extra width “worth it,” you’d need to go to 8 or 9 across at least, and that makes the plane far larger than it really needs to be for most routes (from a structural and design efficiency perspective, “short and fat” planes tend to be inefficient, requiring a lot of fuselage weight for not a lot of capacity).
The idea of having widebodies provide extra comfort and luxury quickly died when fuel prices spiked in the 1970s, making such ideas cost-prohibitive.
As fuel-efficient narrowbodies gained more and more capability throughout the 1980s and 1990s (and even moreso today), it became a lot more cost-effective to have a large fleet of those that could fly almost any domestic route, rather than a handful of widebodies flying the longer domestic routes with inefficient equipment utilization.
As for the premise that “not much has changed,” well:
*Safety is so much better today that a fatal crash is pretty much unheard of at a major US airline today, vs. a nearly monthly occurrence, despite a significant growth in air traffic.
*Route selection and frequency is considerably better today, mainly thanks to deregulation that occurred in the late 1970s. Back then, no single carrier could easily get you from a small or medium-sized city on the west coast to a similar city on the east coast. Heck, maybe only one or two carriers could even get you from the east coast to the west coast nonstop.
*As an extension of the above point, I’d argue that competition is much higher today than it was back then. Sure, you had more carriers in the 60s and 70s, but a lot of them didn’t really compete with each other thanks to the way things were regulated. Even fares on interstate routes were regulated, limiting fare-based competition.
*Fares, generally speaking, are a lot lower today than they were in the days of the DC-8.
Per regulations, no seat can be more than two additional seats from an aisle, so six abreast is as much as you can get without adding a second aisle. The second aisle adds drag with no additional capacity, so effectively, you have to add the equivalent width of two seats to gain one (i.e. the 767 is wider than the 737/757 by more than just one seat width; but rather a seat *plus* an aisle). To make the extra width “worth it,” you’d need to go to 8 or 9 across at least, and that makes the plane far larger than it really needs to be for most routes (from a structural and design efficiency perspective, “short and fat” planes tend to be inefficient, requiring a lot of fuselage weight for not a lot of capacity).
The idea of having widebodies provide extra comfort and luxury quickly died when fuel prices spiked in the 1970s, making such ideas cost-prohibitive.
As fuel-efficient narrowbodies gained more and more capability throughout the 1980s and 1990s (and even moreso today), it became a lot more cost-effective to have a large fleet of those that could fly almost any domestic route, rather than a handful of widebodies flying the longer domestic routes with inefficient equipment utilization.
As for the premise that “not much has changed,” well:
*Safety is so much better today that a fatal crash is pretty much unheard of at a major US airline today, vs. a nearly monthly occurrence, despite a significant growth in air traffic.
*Route selection and frequency is considerably better today, mainly thanks to deregulation that occurred in the late 1970s. Back then, no single carrier could easily get you from a small or medium-sized city on the west coast to a similar city on the east coast. Heck, maybe only one or two carriers could even get you from the east coast to the west coast nonstop.
*As an extension of the above point, I’d argue that competition is much higher today than it was back then. Sure, you had more carriers in the 60s and 70s, but a lot of them didn’t really compete with each other thanks to the way things were regulated. Even fares on interstate routes were regulated, limiting fare-based competition.
*Fares, generally speaking, are a lot lower today than they were in the days of the DC-8.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_Douglas_DC-8
Overall, I think things are better today. Off the top of my head: IFE, safety, more affordable fares, no smoking, quieter cabins (those old jet engines were LOUD), schedule choice, lie-flat seats on some routes, longer ranges possible.
Main cabin food and leg room is probably worse (but even with that most airlines have some sort of premium economy seat these days) but the improvements outweigh the negatives IMO.
I know a lot of people here pine for some sort of idyllic nostalgic "golden era" but I don't think that really existed as remembered. I tend to think if most FTers were transported to the past to take a (say) 707 from JFK-CDG in the front cabin 1970s, the trip report comparing it to a major airline's business class today (well, at least pre-Covid) would be full of negatives.
Main cabin food and leg room is probably worse (but even with that most airlines have some sort of premium economy seat these days) but the improvements outweigh the negatives IMO.
I know a lot of people here pine for some sort of idyllic nostalgic "golden era" but I don't think that really existed as remembered. I tend to think if most FTers were transported to the past to take a (say) 707 from JFK-CDG in the front cabin 1970s, the trip report comparing it to a major airline's business class today (well, at least pre-Covid) would be full of negatives.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; May 23, 2022 at 3:53 pm Reason: merged consecutive posts by same member
May 23, 2022, 12:37 pm
#9
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the Cone of Silence
Programs: UA Gold; AA Dirt; HH Diamond; National Emerald; CONTROL SecretAgent Platinum; KAOS EvilFlyer Gold
Posts: 1,499
For one, six-abreast is pretty much the most efficient design when comparing drag (which, in part, is a function of the width of the fuselage/frontal area that the air must pass around), structure, and capacity.
Per regulations, no seat can be more than two additional seats from an aisle, so six abreast is as much as you can get without adding a second aisle. The second aisle adds drag with no additional capacity, so effectively, you have to add the equivalent width of two seats to gain one (i.e. the 767 is wider than the 737/757 by more than just one seat width; but rather a seat *plus* an aisle). To make the extra width “worth it,” you’d need to go to 8 or 9 across at least, and that makes the plane far larger than it really needs to be for most routes (from a structural and design efficiency perspective, “short and fat” planes tend to be inefficient, requiring a lot of fuselage weight for not a lot of capacity).
The idea of having widebodies provide extra comfort and luxury quickly died when fuel prices spiked in the 1970s, making such ideas cost-prohibitive.
As fuel-efficient narrowbodies gained more and more capability throughout the 1980s and 1990s (and even moreso today), it became a lot more cost-effective to have a large fleet of those that could fly almost any domestic route, rather than a handful of widebodies flying the longer domestic routes with inefficient equipment utilization.
As for the premise that “not much has changed,” well:
*Safety is so much better today that a fatal crash is pretty much unheard of at a major US airline today, vs. a nearly monthly occurrence, despite a significant growth in air traffic.
*Route selection and frequency is considerably better today, mainly thanks to deregulation that occurred in the late 1970s. Back then, no single carrier could easily get you from a small or medium-sized city on the west coast to a similar city on the east coast. Heck, maybe only one or two carriers could even get you from the east coast to the west coast nonstop.
*As an extension of the above point, I’d argue that competition is much higher today than it was back then. Sure, you had more carriers in the 60s and 70s, but a lot of them didn’t really compete with each other thanks to the way things were regulated. Even fares on interstate routes were regulated, limiting fare-based competition.
*Fares, generally speaking, are a lot lower today than they were in the days of the DC-8.
Per regulations, no seat can be more than two additional seats from an aisle, so six abreast is as much as you can get without adding a second aisle. The second aisle adds drag with no additional capacity, so effectively, you have to add the equivalent width of two seats to gain one (i.e. the 767 is wider than the 737/757 by more than just one seat width; but rather a seat *plus* an aisle). To make the extra width “worth it,” you’d need to go to 8 or 9 across at least, and that makes the plane far larger than it really needs to be for most routes (from a structural and design efficiency perspective, “short and fat” planes tend to be inefficient, requiring a lot of fuselage weight for not a lot of capacity).
The idea of having widebodies provide extra comfort and luxury quickly died when fuel prices spiked in the 1970s, making such ideas cost-prohibitive.
As fuel-efficient narrowbodies gained more and more capability throughout the 1980s and 1990s (and even moreso today), it became a lot more cost-effective to have a large fleet of those that could fly almost any domestic route, rather than a handful of widebodies flying the longer domestic routes with inefficient equipment utilization.
As for the premise that “not much has changed,” well:
*Safety is so much better today that a fatal crash is pretty much unheard of at a major US airline today, vs. a nearly monthly occurrence, despite a significant growth in air traffic.
*Route selection and frequency is considerably better today, mainly thanks to deregulation that occurred in the late 1970s. Back then, no single carrier could easily get you from a small or medium-sized city on the west coast to a similar city on the east coast. Heck, maybe only one or two carriers could even get you from the east coast to the west coast nonstop.
*As an extension of the above point, I’d argue that competition is much higher today than it was back then. Sure, you had more carriers in the 60s and 70s, but a lot of them didn’t really compete with each other thanks to the way things were regulated. Even fares on interstate routes were regulated, limiting fare-based competition.
*Fares, generally speaking, are a lot lower today than they were in the days of the DC-8.
There's also transport considerations- a 6-abreast fuselage segment can be transported by rail car, larger-diameter sections may have limitations on how to ship them to the final assembly location.
May 23, 2022, 8:35 pm
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TOA
Programs: HH Diamond, Marriott LTPP/Platinum Premier, Hyatt Lame-ist, UA !K
Posts: 20,061
FWIW, the way the DC-8 is showcased here, it didn't look so bad to me at least:
source: //www.flickr.com/photos/159696410@N03/40059516891
David
source: //www.flickr.com/photos/159696410@N03/40059516891
David
May 24, 2022, 6:38 am
#11
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,121
Not to be overlooked is that before the DC-10 and L-1011, only four-engined aircraft could fly in transcon operations, not to mention intercontinental operations. Though narrow body a/c may, in theory, be more efficient from an aerodynamic standpoint, that efficiency went out the window with fuel-guzzling 707s and DC-8s being the only long range options. The new widebodies were a big step up all around over the four-engine narrow body jets.
May 24, 2022, 8:35 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,762
Don't forget how loud those JT4's were. There is a HUGE improvement from a "mind being scrambled from the loud engines" old aircraft.
As for the lovely luxe seating .. whatever, that kinda inefficient space utilization wasn't long for this world.
As for the lovely luxe seating .. whatever, that kinda inefficient space utilization wasn't long for this world.