6 ms·

I have no desire to cross the Atlantic in a narrow-body. It's inhumane to have that many people locked together in a thin metal tube for that long.

by Stevvo 4y ago

erddfre3423 4y ago
I don't see what impact the aircraft being narrow-body has on travel comfort. It's all about seat pitch IMO, and that can be bad also in a wide-body.
yread 4y ago
The cabin is a bit wider than standard a320. They advertise 18" wide seats. If they are 32" apart that's ok. It can even fit lie flat business class seats. And if it means flying direct instead of changing planes in a busy overcrowded airport and having to lose time waiting and queuing (and "saving the planet") that's pretty appealing
- version_five 4y ago
  > And if it means flying direct instead of changing planes in a busy overcrowded airport and having to lose time waiting and queuing (and "saving the planet") that's pretty appealing That is the most important thing imo. A 6 or 7 hour flight to your destination is so much better that the same length to Frankfurt or wherever and then waiting and taking another 1-2 hour flight somewhere. Most of the pain with flying, except maybe of ultra long-haul, is what goes on before take off and after landing. If you only have to go though that once, it's a big deal. Plus, I dont see any material difference in comfort between modern wide and narrow body, other than your less likely to be stuck in a middle seat on a narrow plane and they board faster.
- exidy 4y ago
  The A321 is not wider than an A320. The A320 family[1] comes in a variety of sizes and configurations to support different profiles, but they are all variations in length, fuel capacity and MTOW. Making a plane longer is relatively straightforward, just insert additional sections before or after the wings. Making a plane wider you may as well design a whole new aeroplane. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family#Specificati...
  - yread 4y ago
    I said "cabin is a bit wider" not the plane itself. I was under the impression that with neo they made the isolation on the walls of the cabin a bit thinner (2 inches?) gaining more room in the cabin while keeping the outside shape the same but I can't find anything about it anymore EDIT: oh yeah found it: https://tqpr.com/airbus-new-single-aisle-airspace-cabin-enters-into-service-with-lufthansa-group/ https://tqpr.com/airbus-new-single-aisle-airspace-cabin-ente... > The new Airspace features include: slimmer sidewall panels for extra personal space at shoulder level or https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-06-20/airbus-offering-airspace-cabins-a320s https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-0... > The Airspace package includes new sidewalls that provide one additional inch of shoulder-height cabin width
maxcan 4y ago
I'd take 8 hours in a A321 with Jet Blue's layout (in mint or economy) than any wide body from AA or United.
- StillBored 4y ago
  As a tall person, I don't think there really is any significant difference. The seat pitch in economy on most jetblue flights is 32" (per seatguru), which is generally the same as united/aa on transcontinental. Yes there are UA/AA/etc layouts with 31, as there are jetblue with 34". The bottom line, is that if you don't fit in these smaller seats, paying the upgrade fee on a crappy airline/ticket generally gets one more space than flying a more premium airline. But the difference is frequently nullified (cross airline) simply by selecting a different date/flight with an alternative plane/seat layout. (and the widths all tend to be ~17.5" or so)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Stevvo 4y ago
    It's not all about seat pitch; on an A380 you can get up and walk around for a hundred meters or so, on a small plane you are basically stuck in your seat or the bathroom.
    - GrifMD 4y ago
      Not to mention the bars and lounges in business & first class. https://onemileatatime.com/guides/airplane-bars-lounges/ https://onemileatatime.com/guides/airplane-bars-lounges/
    - usr1106 4y ago
      A380 is mostly history. Many airlines abandoned them during Covid and I have not heard of any revivals.
      - stephen_g 4y ago
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
Narrowbodies have much less people in them. Already they're enabling much cheaper business class seats across the Atlantic. To me international narrowbody travel is all win.
nickvanw 4y ago
Airlines have been doing this with 757s for quite some time. This is the best spiritual successor to the 757, which is going to have to be retired in a lot of fleets sooner rather than later. The layout makes much more of a difference than the number of aisles - I am fine with a 757 but have hated my economy experience in a 9-abreast 787.
jacquesm 4y ago
I've flown more than I care to even think about, the carbon footprint of my life is about as ugly as it gets. That said, I do have a bit of experience to draw on and my current favorite is a narrowbody: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220 Originally designed by Bombardier, every flight with it that I've made so far (~10) has been an extremely nice experience, especially when compared to other planes on the same routes. The only plane that I would prefer is the 747 but that's pretty much gone on passenger routes now and those two planes would not be found on the same routes anyway. So a long flight in a narrow body is definitely not something that I would run away from.
- uf00lme 4y ago
  Yes, I will pay extra if it’s an option to fly with their planes.
- GrifMD 4y ago
  I've only flown on 747-400s with BA and Qantas, and I've found them to be terribly loud. I've heard the 747-8s were a little quieter, but would you really say that would be better than a 787, A350, or A380? I too have heard that the A220 is a fantastic plane. I'm looking forward to Qantas flying them.
  - usr1106 4y ago
    The A220 emits very strange engine noises in some phases of the flight. Personally I must say I find them very unpleasant. My wild guess it's the gear fan. It doesn't help to know that their have quite some engine problems. Although objectively I doubt the noises and engine failures are related.
    - thecosmicfrog 4y ago
      You mean the "whale song"? It's just a quirk of the Pratt and Whitney PW1000G series at low power settings. The same engine family is fitted to new Airbus A320neos and makes the same sound. Examples: https://youtu.be/Eeq4rYQUozY https://youtu.be/Eeq4rYQUozY
chrisseaton 4y ago
What's the difference? Like how does the width of the body have any impact on me? I'm asleep in my seat the whole time either way. I'm not pacing side to side!
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Not only is it wider, but it's taller. At least for me, all else being equal, widebodies feel far less cramped just because there is much more room inside. It's a bigger difference than a regional jet versus a mainline narrowbody.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Are you flying standing up?
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      I said they feel far less cramped.
    - FredPret 4y ago
      Ryanair is going to pounce on this idea
      - Stevvo 4y ago
        They already tried to implement it years ago, or at-least Michael O'Leary claims so.
      - dzhiurgis 4y ago
        Imagine how much GHG emissions they could reduce if authorities let them innovate on pods or bunk beds. Heck just give me bean bag or even a yoga mat and I’ll be happy.
    - koyote 4y ago
      When you have long flights it's nice to have space to walk around the cabin, go to the back and have a drink etc. Also I feel like even if you are sitting the whole time, there's a difference in perception between sitting in a small confined space vs sitting in a space that is larger.
rdl 4y ago
I've done JFK-OPO on TAP on a 321LR a few times; it's 2-2 staggered 1-1 in Business and quite nice. (https://thepointsguy.com/reviews/tap-air-portugal-a321lr-business-class/ https://thepointsguy.com/reviews/tap-air-portugal-a321lr-bus...)
- Stevvo 4y ago
  That doesn't look bad at all. I probably just hate A320s and 737s from too many easyJet and Ryanair flights where there wasn't even the option of a good seat.
salex89 4y ago
This is a frequent argument I see, but I don't see much substance in it. I've flown with both narrow and wide body, and the most critical dimension is leg room and shoulder width. And I did not find any particular wide body advantage with the sardine-packed 777 comparing to a regular A320, or especially A321, which I have flown in many times. Comparing to a 737, maybe some, but the 737 is an age old design, it is known for not being too spacious. It's not a A321 contender.
- erikig 4y ago
  I expect they'll have different seat configurations for longer range planes. 3-4hrs is fine but I can't see how anyone would want to fly 8 hours with the legroom common in Ryanair or Spirit.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    I mean, people have been trying to make transatlantic low-cost happen for a while now. not successfully, but people have tried.
  - dzhiurgis 4y ago
    > 8 hours with the legroom common in Ryanair or Spirit At this point I’d rather just stand like in a bus
- lbotos 4y ago
  Jet Blue is doing narrowbody JFK to London and I have to say the seat isn't the problem. One aisle is. It was fine but even as a JetBlue fan, I'm not in a rush to get back on the narrrow body for transatlantic.
  - petesergeant 4y ago
    What was wrong with the single aisle?
    - lbotos 4y ago
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
Still beats swimming. Besides if it means not having to transfer to a connecting flight I'll take it. Airports are hell.
rsynnott 4y ago
I was once on a United 757 from Chicago to Dublin. It wasn't my favourite flight.
petesergeant 4y ago
I’ve flown 7 hours on a (commercial) all business class A320 and it was pretty nice. Seat config is going to be everything

I have no desire to cross the Atlantic in a narrow-body. It's inhumane to have that many people locked together in a thin metal tube for that long.

by Stevvo 4y ago

I have no desire to cross the Atlantic in a narrow-body. It's inhumane to have that many people locked together in a thin metal tube for that long.

erddfre3423 4y ago

I don't see what impact the aircraft being narrow-body has on travel comfort. It's all about seat pitch IMO, and that can be bad also in a wide-body.

yread 4y ago

The cabin is a bit wider than standard a320. They advertise 18" wide seats. If they are 32" apart that's ok. It can even fit lie flat business class seats. And if it means flying direct instead of changing planes in a busy overcrowded airport and having to lose time waiting and queuing (and "saving the planet") that's pretty appealing

version_five 4y ago
> And if it means flying direct instead of changing planes in a busy overcrowded airport and having to lose time waiting and queuing (and "saving the planet") that's pretty appealing That is the most important thing imo. A 6 or 7 hour flight to your destination is so much better that the same length to Frankfurt or wherever and then waiting and taking another 1-2 hour flight somewhere. Most of the pain with flying, except maybe of ultra long-haul, is what goes on before take off and after landing. If you only have to go though that once, it's a big deal. Plus, I dont see any material difference in comfort between modern wide and narrow body, other than your less likely to be stuck in a middle seat on a narrow plane and they board faster.
exidy 4y ago
The A321 is not wider than an A320. The A320 family[1] comes in a variety of sizes and configurations to support different profiles, but they are all variations in length, fuel capacity and MTOW. Making a plane longer is relatively straightforward, just insert additional sections before or after the wings. Making a plane wider you may as well design a whole new aeroplane. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family#Specificati...
- yread 4y ago
  I said "cabin is a bit wider" not the plane itself. I was under the impression that with neo they made the isolation on the walls of the cabin a bit thinner (2 inches?) gaining more room in the cabin while keeping the outside shape the same but I can't find anything about it anymore EDIT: oh yeah found it: https://tqpr.com/airbus-new-single-aisle-airspace-cabin-enters-into-service-with-lufthansa-group/ https://tqpr.com/airbus-new-single-aisle-airspace-cabin-ente... > The new Airspace features include: slimmer sidewall panels for extra personal space at shoulder level or https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-06-20/airbus-offering-airspace-cabins-a320s https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-0... > The Airspace package includes new sidewalls that provide one additional inch of shoulder-height cabin width

maxcan 4y ago

I'd take 8 hours in a A321 with Jet Blue's layout (in mint or economy) than any wide body from AA or United.

StillBored 4y ago
As a tall person, I don't think there really is any significant difference. The seat pitch in economy on most jetblue flights is 32" (per seatguru), which is generally the same as united/aa on transcontinental. Yes there are UA/AA/etc layouts with 31, as there are jetblue with 34". The bottom line, is that if you don't fit in these smaller seats, paying the upgrade fee on a crappy airline/ticket generally gets one more space than flying a more premium airline. But the difference is frequently nullified (cross airline) simply by selecting a different date/flight with an alternative plane/seat layout. (and the widths all tend to be ~17.5" or so)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Stevvo 4y ago
  It's not all about seat pitch; on an A380 you can get up and walk around for a hundred meters or so, on a small plane you are basically stuck in your seat or the bathroom.
  - GrifMD 4y ago
    Not to mention the bars and lounges in business & first class. https://onemileatatime.com/guides/airplane-bars-lounges/ https://onemileatatime.com/guides/airplane-bars-lounges/
  - usr1106 4y ago
    A380 is mostly history. Many airlines abandoned them during Covid and I have not heard of any revivals.
    - stephen_g 4y ago

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

Narrowbodies have much less people in them. Already they're enabling much cheaper business class seats across the Atlantic. To me international narrowbody travel is all win.

nickvanw 4y ago

Airlines have been doing this with 757s for quite some time. This is the best spiritual successor to the 757, which is going to have to be retired in a lot of fleets sooner rather than later. The layout makes much more of a difference than the number of aisles - I am fine with a 757 but have hated my economy experience in a 9-abreast 787.

jacquesm 4y ago

I've flown more than I care to even think about, the carbon footprint of my life is about as ugly as it gets. That said, I do have a bit of experience to draw on and my current favorite is a narrowbody: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220 Originally designed by Bombardier, every flight with it that I've made so far (~10) has been an extremely nice experience, especially when compared to other planes on the same routes. The only plane that I would prefer is the 747 but that's pretty much gone on passenger routes now and those two planes would not be found on the same routes anyway. So a long flight in a narrow body is definitely not something that I would run away from.

uf00lme 4y ago
Yes, I will pay extra if it’s an option to fly with their planes.
GrifMD 4y ago
I've only flown on 747-400s with BA and Qantas, and I've found them to be terribly loud. I've heard the 747-8s were a little quieter, but would you really say that would be better than a 787, A350, or A380? I too have heard that the A220 is a fantastic plane. I'm looking forward to Qantas flying them.
- usr1106 4y ago
  The A220 emits very strange engine noises in some phases of the flight. Personally I must say I find them very unpleasant. My wild guess it's the gear fan. It doesn't help to know that their have quite some engine problems. Although objectively I doubt the noises and engine failures are related.
  - thecosmicfrog 4y ago
    You mean the "whale song"? It's just a quirk of the Pratt and Whitney PW1000G series at low power settings. The same engine family is fitted to new Airbus A320neos and makes the same sound. Examples: https://youtu.be/Eeq4rYQUozY https://youtu.be/Eeq4rYQUozY

chrisseaton 4y ago

What's the difference? Like how does the width of the body have any impact on me? I'm asleep in my seat the whole time either way. I'm not pacing side to side!

jaywalk 4y ago
Not only is it wider, but it's taller. At least for me, all else being equal, widebodies feel far less cramped just because there is much more room inside. It's a bigger difference than a regional jet versus a mainline narrowbody.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Are you flying standing up?
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    I said they feel far less cramped.
  - FredPret 4y ago
    Ryanair is going to pounce on this idea
    - Stevvo 4y ago
      They already tried to implement it years ago, or at-least Michael O'Leary claims so.
    - dzhiurgis 4y ago
      Imagine how much GHG emissions they could reduce if authorities let them innovate on pods or bunk beds. Heck just give me bean bag or even a yoga mat and I’ll be happy.
  - koyote 4y ago
    When you have long flights it's nice to have space to walk around the cabin, go to the back and have a drink etc. Also I feel like even if you are sitting the whole time, there's a difference in perception between sitting in a small confined space vs sitting in a space that is larger.

rdl 4y ago

I've done JFK-OPO on TAP on a 321LR a few times; it's 2-2 staggered 1-1 in Business and quite nice. (https://thepointsguy.com/reviews/tap-air-portugal-a321lr-business-class/ https://thepointsguy.com/reviews/tap-air-portugal-a321lr-bus...)

Stevvo 4y ago
That doesn't look bad at all. I probably just hate A320s and 737s from too many easyJet and Ryanair flights where there wasn't even the option of a good seat.

salex89 4y ago

This is a frequent argument I see, but I don't see much substance in it. I've flown with both narrow and wide body, and the most critical dimension is leg room and shoulder width. And I did not find any particular wide body advantage with the sardine-packed 777 comparing to a regular A320, or especially A321, which I have flown in many times. Comparing to a 737, maybe some, but the 737 is an age old design, it is known for not being too spacious. It's not a A321 contender.

erikig 4y ago
I expect they'll have different seat configurations for longer range planes. 3-4hrs is fine but I can't see how anyone would want to fly 8 hours with the legroom common in Ryanair or Spirit.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  I mean, people have been trying to make transatlantic low-cost happen for a while now. not successfully, but people have tried.
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  > 8 hours with the legroom common in Ryanair or Spirit At this point I’d rather just stand like in a bus
lbotos 4y ago
Jet Blue is doing narrowbody JFK to London and I have to say the seat isn't the problem. One aisle is. It was fine but even as a JetBlue fan, I'm not in a rush to get back on the narrrow body for transatlantic.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  What was wrong with the single aisle?
  - lbotos 4y ago

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

Still beats swimming. Besides if it means not having to transfer to a connecting flight I'll take it. Airports are hell.

rsynnott 4y ago

I was once on a United 757 from Chicago to Dublin. It wasn't my favourite flight.

petesergeant 4y ago

I’ve flown 7 hours on a (commercial) all business class A320 and it was pretty nice. Seat config is going to be everything