11 ms·

Latest Airbus single aisle aircraft innovations

74 points by r2sk5t 2mo ago

r2sk5t 2mo ago
[flagged]
w4yai 2mo ago
Ah, look at all these things I will never be able to afford
baaron 2mo ago
Main points: - "seats measure up to 18-inches wide in economy, the same standard configuration found on Airbus widebody aircraft" - "To minimise cabin pressure effects on the body, the cabin maintains a 6,000-feet average altitude pressure, roughly equivalent to that of a mountain ski town. This is the same cabin pressure as the modern A350 widebody, and it helps to reduce physical fatigue, headaches and jet lag." - "Modern next-generation LED lighting systems aboard the A321XLR gently transition through customised hues, mimicking natural sunrises and sunsets to help reset the body’s circadian rhythm. Temperature control is split into three actively controlled zones, and airlines can even opt for heated floor panels to give passengers an extra touch of cozy luxury. Last but not least, advanced acoustic technologies have been integrated through the aircraft’s frame to minimise engine noise, resulting in a 50% noise footprint reduction compared to previous-generation single-aisle aircraft."
- lbriner 2mo ago
  I've always wondered why airlines are so bad at managing jet lag for passengers. On a long-haul with Virgin Airways from SFO to LHR, instead of telling people to sleep early in the flight and waking them up for food before arriving at Heathrow at 12pm local time. They kept everyone up for hours with food and then let them sleep for about 2 hours before waking people up for arrival at 12pm. Weird. My general approach is to switch to destination time as soon as I am seated and then act like I am in the destination timezone. Sleep as best I can if it is night at the destination and force myself awake if it is still day time. Seems much easier to synchronize that way. The LEDs might work well though if they have been designed to do the job.
  - vlovich123 2mo ago
    Generally your body can only adjust 1 hour per day (varies by direction of travel). So shifting at the start of your travel is a bit late. You probably want to shift gradually a few days before travel if it’s a major shift.
    - bbqbbqbbq 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - rconti 2mo ago
      But that argues equally strongly for what the parent suggests in terms of flight meal/sleep timing.
      - vlovich123 2mo ago
        Not really - if anything it argues against. You have no control or information about who did and didn’t start shifting when and people may be connecting from another flight and have different jet lag differentials to begin with. Serving it on the destination time is probably the best, but if someone hasn’t started shifting, they’ll be a hungry and cranky passenger vs you being cranky and tired after you’ve left the plane and you’re not the airline’s problem.
  - raverbashing 2mo ago
    Yeah there's no way you're going to fix the jet lag on SFO-LHR or any similar city pair in one day
  - advisedwang 2mo ago
    Generally because they prioritize ease of operations over helping customers overcome jetlag. In this particular situation I'd guess the ease of operation comes from: * full customers are easier to deal with than hungry customers * Doing meal service early avoids the risk that weather turns rough, making a late meal service hard/impossible. * Crews are fresher earlier in the flight, and so are do a better job and prefer doing meals early. * Waking customers up is extra work for crews, and may not be wanted by passengers.
- itopaloglu83 2mo ago
  Will the speakers sound like a dollar store model or are we going to finally understand what the pilots are saying?
  - simondotau 2mo ago
    The issue in that case will be the headset microphone and an unsophisticated audio chain with clipping.
- AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
  Oh, yeah, Airbus is in Europe. In the US, many "mountain ski towns" are considerably above 6,000 feet.
- throwaway2037 2mo ago
  I wasn't aware of this model before the article. I had a look at the stats on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A321neo#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A321neo#Specifications Amazingly, it has a "typical range" of 8,700 km. That is crazy for a single aisle aircraft. That potentially means flights of up to 10 hours at cruise speed around 833 km/h. I think most people would feel incredibly cramped in a single aisle aircraft for that long. I also found a list of the longest scheduled commercial flights with this aircraft: https://simpleflying.com/over-8-hours-30-minutes-the-worlds-11-longest-airbus-a321xlr-flights-so-far/ https://simpleflying.com/over-8-hours-30-minutes-the-worlds-... The longest is Madrid (Spain) to Washington, D.C. (USA) at 9h 40m. Yikes. The pairings look similar to 787/A350 (point to point for non-hub cities), only the city pairs are even smaller.
krunck 2mo ago
How about seats that are adjustable to fit small people. I'm sick of sitting in seats with concave lumbar regions. It tears up my back. I know, I know, the seats need to accommodate large, more spherical people. Cant there be an adjustable lumbar support though?
- seanosaur 2mo ago
  Any time you say "adjustable" the manufacturer and operator only here "heavier" which translates to "more expensive to operate."
  - nickff 2mo ago
    The manufacturers are willing to put in whatever seats the operators want, and airlines want to have the lightest, most compact seats possible because that allows them to offer the lowest price, which is what passengers choose.
- sassbadger 2mo ago
  Seats are airline equipment. They depend on the airline and it's suppliers and are optionally assembled by Airbus.
- neonstatic 2mo ago
  Since we are voicing seat related complaints, I want seats that don't recline. I don't want that asshole in front of me ruining my flight again.
  - FergusArgyll 2mo ago
    I don't get this attitude. The seats are meant to recline, as soon as takeoff is finished I recline. If you want more space, you should too.
    - ceejayoz 2mo ago
      Yeah, I'm six foot, always in the most basic economy, and never once has the person in front reclining impacted me. It feels like the same phenomenon when people bitched and moaned about having to take even the slightest COVID precautions.
cryo32 2mo ago
Can still hear the person snoring opposite.
- r2sk5t 2mo ago
  lol
mrtksn 2mo ago
Maybe its due to the lessons learned, the extreme conservatism in air travel should be up to a disruption. It's nice that they make blue light to look like the sky but: 1) The windows are disappointing. This is, I think, due to the fatigue caused by large rectangular windows that previously caused a disaster but it begs for improvement. A way to make large windows or get rid of all the windows and use very high definition screens to imitate windows with live footage would be nicer 2) Noise is still a problem. I am sure they are trying hard, even the engines are designed around addressing the noise issue but it would be a huge improvement to have this solved. ANC maybe? 3) Automate the pilot out. This is I believe an area where plane makers are pioneers but we still got pilots, I would love to see flying with a plane becoming about the same as taking an elevator. IMHO travel times are reasonable, the improvements in comfort, cost and practicality are due. Airports themselves too are due for an overhaul, it shouldn't be taking hours to get on a travel machine.
- trollbridge 2mo ago
  It only takes hours for administrative reasons. Pre-COVID, I used to show up at IAD 25 minutes before departure time when I knew security would be fast and I could get right to my gate. Overall, facilities that handle millions of people tend to have a lot of "standing in line" and the slightest disruptions can mean you'll be standing in line for an extra hour.
- iSnow 2mo ago
  > Automate the pilot out. That's a complete non-starter for now and the next decades. Fully automated operation for 1-dimensional transport (trains) is a solved issue, for 2D, not so much and most certainly not for 3D. Even though modern planes are very reliable, too many things can go wrong during flight to leave it to a machine - and for what? Just for bragging rights?
  - datakan 2mo ago
    There are whole fleets of unmanned drones being flown by the military today
gregdaniels421 2mo ago
The first class seats look like a nightmare if you have kids.
- rconti 2mo ago
  They're a nightmare if someone else has kids, too!
- infecto 2mo ago
  In what way? So many international first class seats are similar to this already. Either there is a massive barrier between seats or separated.
  - FireBeyond 2mo ago
    Qatar's 777s have a fairly good setup, where the middle business class rows can be turned into something of a pod, with separators removed in both axes so you can have four people in a 2x2 facing each other setup... ... for a cost.
- buildsjets 2mo ago
  Good. Children do not belong in first class.
- kelnos 2mo ago
  Whenever I see kids traveling in first class, it grosses me out a little. When I was a kid, we didn't have the money to fly at all; it was just road trips for us, when we could manage it. I really think parents putting their kids in first class does them a disservice. And on top of that, if they're at all disruptive, that's incredibly rude to other first class passengers who have paid quite a bit of money for a better experience. I always think of the early scene in the movie Home Alone when Catherine O'Hara's character asks her husband if they should feel bad about the kids flying coach while they're in business, and he assures her that the kids are fine. That's the right way to do it! (Before the inevitable "but!"s, yes, I know that won't work super well if you just have one kid traveling with you; it's understandable that you might not feel comfortable with them sitting alone. And of course they need to be of a certain age, or have old enough siblings, to be on their own in that situation. But that's not an excuse to bring your kids up to first or business class. You should be flying with them in economy if they can't sit there on their own.)
rconti 2mo ago
My dislike for single aisle aircraft isn't about cabin pressure or the "impression of a wider open space". It's about the fact that it is ACTUALLY cramped, and the _one_ aisle will be blocked for most of the flight. In a typical single aisle airplane, sitting in coach, you're expected to use the restroom "in your cabin" which is at the rear. If you're sitting anywhere _except_ the rear, your access to the restroom will be blocked for a significant portion of shorter flights by food/bev carts. By contrast, on a widebody, there are restrooms front and rear. If your access to one is blocked, you can go the other way, and you can _also_ use the front or rear to access the _other_ aisle. It's the difference between feeling totally confined versus freedom to move about (other than having to hassle any passengers between yourself and the aisle). I admit, with limited cabin service in economy, on a longer flight, the blocked aisle isn't such an issue -- but on the typical 1.5-3h narrowbody flight, the food/bev service does seem to be a significant obstruction. I'm someone who would happily pay up for a lie-flat more frequently if it was priced at 2-3x a regular ticket rather than 5x+. Airlines are slowly expanding premium cabins, and I'd be hopeful that narrowbodies like this permit further growth, but the demand seems to be increasing faster than the supply, so the prices are still crazy.
- nexus7556 2mo ago
  The new, larger narrowbodies are adding a lav at the front of economy which helps with this. https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/aircraft/boeing-737-max-9.html https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/aircraft/boeing-737...
  - tedd4u 2mo ago
    True, but it's not all roses. If you like to sit at the front of economy to exit as fast as possible when arriving, you will be sitting next to a heavily-used lav which is not enjoyable. You have to sit 4-6 rows back from the lav to avoid the annoyance.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      There will always be good seats and bad seats. They can't all be good seats.
cpgxiii 2mo ago
Not covered: the inevitable even-smaller lavatory to further insult the dignity of the flying public. At this point, the designers of narrow-body interiors should be actively shamed for how hostile they have made lavatory designs. In a world in which every major flying population is aging and more overweight, yet every generation of airplane lavatories is even narrower and less accessible for everyone.
- itopaloglu83 2mo ago
  Lavatories are seen as a waste of space because they cannot seat passengers in it. A regulation is required when the incentives are misaligned with the reality.
  - cpgxiii 2mo ago
    Indeed, regulation is the only way to protect passengers from market greed here, but the airplane makers play a critical role in what designs they make available to airlines. Airbus and Boeing both like to market their newer designs and interiors in terms of passenger comfort (lower cabin altitude, reduced noise, larger windows, etc) so clearly they (and their customers) understand that passenger comfort justifies spending somewhat more than the bare minimum. And given past designs (and designs still fitted in widebodies) they very much know how to build useful lavatories. I suspect in time there will actually be safety consequences to the continued downsizing of airplane lavatories. There are already a number of serious incidents that have been caused by fluid leaks from galleys and lavatories (IIRC Quantas came pretty close to losing a 747-400 due to a kitchen leak leading to massive water intrusion into the main electrical/avionics bay - once you end up pouring large quantities of water on your avionics all bets are off about the systems failures that will happen and you are well beyond any backup/redundancy that has been designed in, and during the 60s and 70s the USAF experienced serious corrosion of flight control cables on C-130s due to urine "leakage"). Too-small lavatories basically guarantee that water and urine are going to end up in undesirable locations and at best they will cause expensive interior corrosion and at worst they will cause serious corrosion to the airframe or critical equipment.
  - seydor 2mo ago
pudgywalsh 2mo ago
Because everyone sleeps soundly with bright blue LED lighting blaring in their faces. I fail to see what's innovative about "we shoved business class seats into a narrow-body aircraft". An A321 is still an A321. Flying internationally in a single-aisle aircraft is under any circumstances torture no matter how you sugar coat it: "Come fly in our modern, innovative sardine can." By the way BA did this years ago with their London City A318 which doesn't exist anymore because it was a failure that merely burned money.
- alistairSH 2mo ago
  That flight was an odd bird from the outset. It didn't have the range to make NY in a single go, so it stopped in Shannon Ireland to refuel, where passengers deplaned, went through US Preclearance, and rebounded. IIRC, the US->UK return was non-stop. So one leg was longer than normal. Ultimately, it was dying on it's own when COVID drove the final nail into the coffin.
  - gib444 2mo ago
    It was bad for IRROPs too. You'd have to schlep over to Heathrow in case of any issues. And you have to explain to your boss why you picked the weird oddball flight over the reliable Heathrow with tons of flights to New York
- wat10000 2mo ago
  I never understood why the airplane size matters so much to an individual passenger. What's the difference to me, as a standard economy passenger, between flying internationally in an A321 or a 787? I have the same tiny seat either way. My knees are crammed into the next seat's back the same on both. I see this sentiment stated frequently and I just don't get it.
  - kelnos 2mo ago
    I don't get it either, but my guess is that the narrower plane induces claustrophobia at higher rates. If you're in a widebody, you can look to your left or right (depending on where you are), and see a decent amount of plane on either side of you. Not so for a narrowbody.
gib444 2mo ago
Remember that airlines almost always opt for the more cramped and cheaper variants of interiors, asking "ok but how do we fit even more cattle in here?"
- wat10000 2mo ago
  But also remember that airline customers also opt for the more cramped and cheaper variants.
  - gib444 2mo ago
    But also remember they do that because their employer has opted to pay them as little as possible How far do you want to take this? :)
    - fragmede 2mo ago
      Well, we could always try communism just one more time.
    - wat10000 2mo ago
      The thing is, this is far from universal. People don't buy a substantially worse smartphone or car to save $5. But they'll accept a substantially worse product to save $5 on airline tickets.
      - gib444 2mo ago
        Which two airlines have substantially different products for a $5 difference? If you didn't mean literally $5 perhaps you can give us some real examples of cost differences? Personally I find so little difference between airlines in economy these days. And Premium Economy is nowhere close to a '$5' difference long haul these days
        wat10000 2mo ago
        They don't, because competition erases those differences. It's a very competitive market. If people were willing to pay a little extra for a few more inches of seat pitch in economy, you'd have an airline that offered a few more inches of seat pitch in economy with slightly higher fares.
alistairSH 2mo ago
We flew from IAD to DUB on Aer Lingus a month ago. Outbound was an A321neo LR/XLR and it was not bad at all. Legroom was fine (for me at 5'7"), big overhead bins should be required these days, and the entertainment setup was passable. The only complaint was flaky seat-back trays that required a real SLAM to latch. The damn things were constantly dropping down, getting slammed back not quite hard enough, and falling again. Not all of them, but enough it was noticeable. Return was on their A330, which was noticeable worse in every way EXCEPT it's 2-4-2 seatings, so we had a pair of outside seats to ourselves, where on the A321, it's 3-3, so you have a neighbor in the window seat.
- whyagaindavid 2mo ago
  All these 2-4-2 are 20 year old aircrafts - seats are not slim. so less legroom. Airlines don't retrofit.
  - tuna74 2mo ago
    Delta has 2-4-2 on their new A330Neos: https://www.delta.com/eu/en/aircraft/airbus/a330-900 https://www.delta.com/eu/en/aircraft/airbus/a330-900
  - alistairSH 2mo ago
    The -300s in use by Aer Lingus are a bit newer than that (but the 200s they use for west coast routes are in fact ~20 years old), but not by much. IAG has orders for 21 A330Neos, which, I believe, retain the 2-4-2 layout in economy.
  - 4fterd4rk 2mo ago
    Sure they do. Cabin refits are pretty standard. A lot of the 777s flying for AA, Delta, and United were delivered with very different interior configs.
cwmma 2mo ago
Is there a term for a product which is really only really for a minority of it's users? Air travel seems like this as most airlines and manufacturers seem to bend over backwards for their wealthy and high margin passengers and basically treat economy class as "fine I guess we'll throw the rest of you in the back" Mobile games seem the apotheosis of this as a lot of games are really about finding whales and any enjoyment anyone else has is really an accidental side effect.
- datakan 2mo ago
  Airlines treat people like cattle then wonder why people behave like animals. I just did a cross country trip, about 4 hours per hop. I was so sore after that I've basically sworn off traveling that way ever again. You can tell they keep removing space to fit more bodies in at all costs because they don't even try to line up seats with windows anymore. Multiple seats had windows in places that made them basically useless and one seat from what I could tell had two windows just due to the placement. Don't even get me started on the cart that goes up the aisle handing out dry cookies to everyone followed by the person with a trash bag coming along to gather it from you. I had school buses as a kid that were more comfortable and the people better behaved.
  - wat10000 2mo ago
    It's worth remembering that the airline market is very competitive and this happens because it matches consumer preferences. Yes, nobody wants to be crammed into a tiny seat. But given the choice between a large seat or a tiny seat that costs $5 less, people reliably choose to save $5. The only reason the experience is so miserable is because the flying public will accept nearly anything to save a little money. It's also worth remembering that there are various premium options available. You can pay extra for economy plus or really splurge on business/first. "That's too expensive" OK well you made your choice....
    - dingaling 2mo ago
      Premium Economy is so much more expensive than steerage class that it's not a realistic 'option' for the majority of potential passengers. > " OK well you made your choice...." The only choice for most people is "fly cheap" or "don't go".
4fterd4rk 2mo ago
The pressurization system being improved is the only thing of note in this promotional material that is for some reason on HN.
proee 2mo ago
It's a shame everyone can't fly first class, but I guess this is just life? I've had the opportunity to take an international business class flight and couldn't believe how great I felt after the trip. Huge difference getting that extra legroom to actually lay flat and sleep. Also, the business class staff are so nice, they make you feel like a million bucks. To the back of the plane, all you poor people!
TheBigSalad 2mo ago
For coach, I wish they would just stack people in laying down. Laying down for the flight would be much better than sitting. I don't see why they couldn't get the same amount of people in if they configured the plane correctly.
- ipdashc 2mo ago
  As much as I'd prefer this, I assume it's for evacuation reasons. Well, that, and people wouldn't like feeling trapped.
  - TheBigSalad 2mo ago
    I would. Just throw me in a coffin.

74 points by r2sk5t 2mo ago

r2sk5t 2mo ago

[flagged]

w4yai 2mo ago

Ah, look at all these things I will never be able to afford

baaron 2mo ago

Main points: - "seats measure up to 18-inches wide in economy, the same standard configuration found on Airbus widebody aircraft" - "To minimise cabin pressure effects on the body, the cabin maintains a 6,000-feet average altitude pressure, roughly equivalent to that of a mountain ski town. This is the same cabin pressure as the modern A350 widebody, and it helps to reduce physical fatigue, headaches and jet lag." - "Modern next-generation LED lighting systems aboard the A321XLR gently transition through customised hues, mimicking natural sunrises and sunsets to help reset the body’s circadian rhythm. Temperature control is split into three actively controlled zones, and airlines can even opt for heated floor panels to give passengers an extra touch of cozy luxury. Last but not least, advanced acoustic technologies have been integrated through the aircraft’s frame to minimise engine noise, resulting in a 50% noise footprint reduction compared to previous-generation single-aisle aircraft."

lbriner 2mo ago
I've always wondered why airlines are so bad at managing jet lag for passengers. On a long-haul with Virgin Airways from SFO to LHR, instead of telling people to sleep early in the flight and waking them up for food before arriving at Heathrow at 12pm local time. They kept everyone up for hours with food and then let them sleep for about 2 hours before waking people up for arrival at 12pm. Weird. My general approach is to switch to destination time as soon as I am seated and then act like I am in the destination timezone. Sleep as best I can if it is night at the destination and force myself awake if it is still day time. Seems much easier to synchronize that way. The LEDs might work well though if they have been designed to do the job.
- vlovich123 2mo ago
  Generally your body can only adjust 1 hour per day (varies by direction of travel). So shifting at the start of your travel is a bit late. You probably want to shift gradually a few days before travel if it’s a major shift.
  - bbqbbqbbq 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - rconti 2mo ago
    But that argues equally strongly for what the parent suggests in terms of flight meal/sleep timing.
    - vlovich123 2mo ago
      Not really - if anything it argues against. You have no control or information about who did and didn’t start shifting when and people may be connecting from another flight and have different jet lag differentials to begin with. Serving it on the destination time is probably the best, but if someone hasn’t started shifting, they’ll be a hungry and cranky passenger vs you being cranky and tired after you’ve left the plane and you’re not the airline’s problem.
- raverbashing 2mo ago
  Yeah there's no way you're going to fix the jet lag on SFO-LHR or any similar city pair in one day
- advisedwang 2mo ago
  Generally because they prioritize ease of operations over helping customers overcome jetlag. In this particular situation I'd guess the ease of operation comes from: * full customers are easier to deal with than hungry customers * Doing meal service early avoids the risk that weather turns rough, making a late meal service hard/impossible. * Crews are fresher earlier in the flight, and so are do a better job and prefer doing meals early. * Waking customers up is extra work for crews, and may not be wanted by passengers.
itopaloglu83 2mo ago
Will the speakers sound like a dollar store model or are we going to finally understand what the pilots are saying?
- simondotau 2mo ago
  The issue in that case will be the headset microphone and an unsophisticated audio chain with clipping.
AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
Oh, yeah, Airbus is in Europe. In the US, many "mountain ski towns" are considerably above 6,000 feet.
throwaway2037 2mo ago
I wasn't aware of this model before the article. I had a look at the stats on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A321neo#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A321neo#Specifications Amazingly, it has a "typical range" of 8,700 km. That is crazy for a single aisle aircraft. That potentially means flights of up to 10 hours at cruise speed around 833 km/h. I think most people would feel incredibly cramped in a single aisle aircraft for that long. I also found a list of the longest scheduled commercial flights with this aircraft: https://simpleflying.com/over-8-hours-30-minutes-the-worlds-11-longest-airbus-a321xlr-flights-so-far/ https://simpleflying.com/over-8-hours-30-minutes-the-worlds-... The longest is Madrid (Spain) to Washington, D.C. (USA) at 9h 40m. Yikes. The pairings look similar to 787/A350 (point to point for non-hub cities), only the city pairs are even smaller.

krunck 2mo ago

How about seats that are adjustable to fit small people. I'm sick of sitting in seats with concave lumbar regions. It tears up my back. I know, I know, the seats need to accommodate large, more spherical people. Cant there be an adjustable lumbar support though?

seanosaur 2mo ago
Any time you say "adjustable" the manufacturer and operator only here "heavier" which translates to "more expensive to operate."
- nickff 2mo ago
  The manufacturers are willing to put in whatever seats the operators want, and airlines want to have the lightest, most compact seats possible because that allows them to offer the lowest price, which is what passengers choose.
sassbadger 2mo ago
Seats are airline equipment. They depend on the airline and it's suppliers and are optionally assembled by Airbus.
neonstatic 2mo ago
Since we are voicing seat related complaints, I want seats that don't recline. I don't want that asshole in front of me ruining my flight again.
- FergusArgyll 2mo ago
  I don't get this attitude. The seats are meant to recline, as soon as takeoff is finished I recline. If you want more space, you should too.
  - ceejayoz 2mo ago
    Yeah, I'm six foot, always in the most basic economy, and never once has the person in front reclining impacted me. It feels like the same phenomenon when people bitched and moaned about having to take even the slightest COVID precautions.

cryo32 2mo ago

Can still hear the person snoring opposite.

r2sk5t 2mo ago
lol

mrtksn 2mo ago

Maybe its due to the lessons learned, the extreme conservatism in air travel should be up to a disruption. It's nice that they make blue light to look like the sky but: 1) The windows are disappointing. This is, I think, due to the fatigue caused by large rectangular windows that previously caused a disaster but it begs for improvement. A way to make large windows or get rid of all the windows and use very high definition screens to imitate windows with live footage would be nicer 2) Noise is still a problem. I am sure they are trying hard, even the engines are designed around addressing the noise issue but it would be a huge improvement to have this solved. ANC maybe? 3) Automate the pilot out. This is I believe an area where plane makers are pioneers but we still got pilots, I would love to see flying with a plane becoming about the same as taking an elevator. IMHO travel times are reasonable, the improvements in comfort, cost and practicality are due. Airports themselves too are due for an overhaul, it shouldn't be taking hours to get on a travel machine.

trollbridge 2mo ago
It only takes hours for administrative reasons. Pre-COVID, I used to show up at IAD 25 minutes before departure time when I knew security would be fast and I could get right to my gate. Overall, facilities that handle millions of people tend to have a lot of "standing in line" and the slightest disruptions can mean you'll be standing in line for an extra hour.
iSnow 2mo ago
> Automate the pilot out. That's a complete non-starter for now and the next decades. Fully automated operation for 1-dimensional transport (trains) is a solved issue, for 2D, not so much and most certainly not for 3D. Even though modern planes are very reliable, too many things can go wrong during flight to leave it to a machine - and for what? Just for bragging rights?
- datakan 2mo ago
  There are whole fleets of unmanned drones being flown by the military today

gregdaniels421 2mo ago

The first class seats look like a nightmare if you have kids.

rconti 2mo ago
They're a nightmare if someone else has kids, too!
infecto 2mo ago
In what way? So many international first class seats are similar to this already. Either there is a massive barrier between seats or separated.
- FireBeyond 2mo ago
  Qatar's 777s have a fairly good setup, where the middle business class rows can be turned into something of a pod, with separators removed in both axes so you can have four people in a 2x2 facing each other setup... ... for a cost.
buildsjets 2mo ago
Good. Children do not belong in first class.
kelnos 2mo ago
Whenever I see kids traveling in first class, it grosses me out a little. When I was a kid, we didn't have the money to fly at all; it was just road trips for us, when we could manage it. I really think parents putting their kids in first class does them a disservice. And on top of that, if they're at all disruptive, that's incredibly rude to other first class passengers who have paid quite a bit of money for a better experience. I always think of the early scene in the movie Home Alone when Catherine O'Hara's character asks her husband if they should feel bad about the kids flying coach while they're in business, and he assures her that the kids are fine. That's the right way to do it! (Before the inevitable "but!"s, yes, I know that won't work super well if you just have one kid traveling with you; it's understandable that you might not feel comfortable with them sitting alone. And of course they need to be of a certain age, or have old enough siblings, to be on their own in that situation. But that's not an excuse to bring your kids up to first or business class. You should be flying with them in economy if they can't sit there on their own.)

rconti 2mo ago

My dislike for single aisle aircraft isn't about cabin pressure or the "impression of a wider open space". It's about the fact that it is ACTUALLY cramped, and the _one_ aisle will be blocked for most of the flight. In a typical single aisle airplane, sitting in coach, you're expected to use the restroom "in your cabin" which is at the rear. If you're sitting anywhere _except_ the rear, your access to the restroom will be blocked for a significant portion of shorter flights by food/bev carts. By contrast, on a widebody, there are restrooms front and rear. If your access to one is blocked, you can go the other way, and you can _also_ use the front or rear to access the _other_ aisle. It's the difference between feeling totally confined versus freedom to move about (other than having to hassle any passengers between yourself and the aisle). I admit, with limited cabin service in economy, on a longer flight, the blocked aisle isn't such an issue -- but on the typical 1.5-3h narrowbody flight, the food/bev service does seem to be a significant obstruction. I'm someone who would happily pay up for a lie-flat more frequently if it was priced at 2-3x a regular ticket rather than 5x+. Airlines are slowly expanding premium cabins, and I'd be hopeful that narrowbodies like this permit further growth, but the demand seems to be increasing faster than the supply, so the prices are still crazy.

nexus7556 2mo ago
The new, larger narrowbodies are adding a lav at the front of economy which helps with this. https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/aircraft/boeing-737-max-9.html https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/aircraft/boeing-737...
- tedd4u 2mo ago
  True, but it's not all roses. If you like to sit at the front of economy to exit as fast as possible when arriving, you will be sitting next to a heavily-used lav which is not enjoyable. You have to sit 4-6 rows back from the lav to avoid the annoyance.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    There will always be good seats and bad seats. They can't all be good seats.

cpgxiii 2mo ago

Not covered: the inevitable even-smaller lavatory to further insult the dignity of the flying public. At this point, the designers of narrow-body interiors should be actively shamed for how hostile they have made lavatory designs. In a world in which every major flying population is aging and more overweight, yet every generation of airplane lavatories is even narrower and less accessible for everyone.

itopaloglu83 2mo ago
Lavatories are seen as a waste of space because they cannot seat passengers in it. A regulation is required when the incentives are misaligned with the reality.
- cpgxiii 2mo ago
  Indeed, regulation is the only way to protect passengers from market greed here, but the airplane makers play a critical role in what designs they make available to airlines. Airbus and Boeing both like to market their newer designs and interiors in terms of passenger comfort (lower cabin altitude, reduced noise, larger windows, etc) so clearly they (and their customers) understand that passenger comfort justifies spending somewhat more than the bare minimum. And given past designs (and designs still fitted in widebodies) they very much know how to build useful lavatories. I suspect in time there will actually be safety consequences to the continued downsizing of airplane lavatories. There are already a number of serious incidents that have been caused by fluid leaks from galleys and lavatories (IIRC Quantas came pretty close to losing a 747-400 due to a kitchen leak leading to massive water intrusion into the main electrical/avionics bay - once you end up pouring large quantities of water on your avionics all bets are off about the systems failures that will happen and you are well beyond any backup/redundancy that has been designed in, and during the 60s and 70s the USAF experienced serious corrosion of flight control cables on C-130s due to urine "leakage"). Too-small lavatories basically guarantee that water and urine are going to end up in undesirable locations and at best they will cause expensive interior corrosion and at worst they will cause serious corrosion to the airframe or critical equipment.
- seydor 2mo ago

pudgywalsh 2mo ago

Because everyone sleeps soundly with bright blue LED lighting blaring in their faces. I fail to see what's innovative about "we shoved business class seats into a narrow-body aircraft". An A321 is still an A321. Flying internationally in a single-aisle aircraft is under any circumstances torture no matter how you sugar coat it: "Come fly in our modern, innovative sardine can." By the way BA did this years ago with their London City A318 which doesn't exist anymore because it was a failure that merely burned money.

alistairSH 2mo ago
That flight was an odd bird from the outset. It didn't have the range to make NY in a single go, so it stopped in Shannon Ireland to refuel, where passengers deplaned, went through US Preclearance, and rebounded. IIRC, the US->UK return was non-stop. So one leg was longer than normal. Ultimately, it was dying on it's own when COVID drove the final nail into the coffin.
- gib444 2mo ago
  It was bad for IRROPs too. You'd have to schlep over to Heathrow in case of any issues. And you have to explain to your boss why you picked the weird oddball flight over the reliable Heathrow with tons of flights to New York
wat10000 2mo ago
I never understood why the airplane size matters so much to an individual passenger. What's the difference to me, as a standard economy passenger, between flying internationally in an A321 or a 787? I have the same tiny seat either way. My knees are crammed into the next seat's back the same on both. I see this sentiment stated frequently and I just don't get it.
- kelnos 2mo ago
  I don't get it either, but my guess is that the narrower plane induces claustrophobia at higher rates. If you're in a widebody, you can look to your left or right (depending on where you are), and see a decent amount of plane on either side of you. Not so for a narrowbody.

gib444 2mo ago

Remember that airlines almost always opt for the more cramped and cheaper variants of interiors, asking "ok but how do we fit even more cattle in here?"

wat10000 2mo ago
But also remember that airline customers also opt for the more cramped and cheaper variants.
- gib444 2mo ago
  But also remember they do that because their employer has opted to pay them as little as possible How far do you want to take this? :)
  - fragmede 2mo ago
    Well, we could always try communism just one more time.
  - wat10000 2mo ago
    The thing is, this is far from universal. People don't buy a substantially worse smartphone or car to save $5. But they'll accept a substantially worse product to save $5 on airline tickets.
    - gib444 2mo ago
      Which two airlines have substantially different products for a $5 difference? If you didn't mean literally $5 perhaps you can give us some real examples of cost differences? Personally I find so little difference between airlines in economy these days. And Premium Economy is nowhere close to a '$5' difference long haul these days
      - wat10000 2mo ago
        They don't, because competition erases those differences. It's a very competitive market. If people were willing to pay a little extra for a few more inches of seat pitch in economy, you'd have an airline that offered a few more inches of seat pitch in economy with slightly higher fares.

alistairSH 2mo ago

We flew from IAD to DUB on Aer Lingus a month ago. Outbound was an A321neo LR/XLR and it was not bad at all. Legroom was fine (for me at 5'7"), big overhead bins should be required these days, and the entertainment setup was passable. The only complaint was flaky seat-back trays that required a real SLAM to latch. The damn things were constantly dropping down, getting slammed back not quite hard enough, and falling again. Not all of them, but enough it was noticeable. Return was on their A330, which was noticeable worse in every way EXCEPT it's 2-4-2 seatings, so we had a pair of outside seats to ourselves, where on the A321, it's 3-3, so you have a neighbor in the window seat.

whyagaindavid 2mo ago
All these 2-4-2 are 20 year old aircrafts - seats are not slim. so less legroom. Airlines don't retrofit.
- tuna74 2mo ago
  Delta has 2-4-2 on their new A330Neos: https://www.delta.com/eu/en/aircraft/airbus/a330-900 https://www.delta.com/eu/en/aircraft/airbus/a330-900
- alistairSH 2mo ago
  The -300s in use by Aer Lingus are a bit newer than that (but the 200s they use for west coast routes are in fact ~20 years old), but not by much. IAG has orders for 21 A330Neos, which, I believe, retain the 2-4-2 layout in economy.
- 4fterd4rk 2mo ago
  Sure they do. Cabin refits are pretty standard. A lot of the 777s flying for AA, Delta, and United were delivered with very different interior configs.

cwmma 2mo ago

Is there a term for a product which is really only really for a minority of it's users? Air travel seems like this as most airlines and manufacturers seem to bend over backwards for their wealthy and high margin passengers and basically treat economy class as "fine I guess we'll throw the rest of you in the back" Mobile games seem the apotheosis of this as a lot of games are really about finding whales and any enjoyment anyone else has is really an accidental side effect.

datakan 2mo ago
Airlines treat people like cattle then wonder why people behave like animals. I just did a cross country trip, about 4 hours per hop. I was so sore after that I've basically sworn off traveling that way ever again. You can tell they keep removing space to fit more bodies in at all costs because they don't even try to line up seats with windows anymore. Multiple seats had windows in places that made them basically useless and one seat from what I could tell had two windows just due to the placement. Don't even get me started on the cart that goes up the aisle handing out dry cookies to everyone followed by the person with a trash bag coming along to gather it from you. I had school buses as a kid that were more comfortable and the people better behaved.
- wat10000 2mo ago
  It's worth remembering that the airline market is very competitive and this happens because it matches consumer preferences. Yes, nobody wants to be crammed into a tiny seat. But given the choice between a large seat or a tiny seat that costs $5 less, people reliably choose to save $5. The only reason the experience is so miserable is because the flying public will accept nearly anything to save a little money. It's also worth remembering that there are various premium options available. You can pay extra for economy plus or really splurge on business/first. "That's too expensive" OK well you made your choice....
  - dingaling 2mo ago
    Premium Economy is so much more expensive than steerage class that it's not a realistic 'option' for the majority of potential passengers. > " OK well you made your choice...." The only choice for most people is "fly cheap" or "don't go".

4fterd4rk 2mo ago

The pressurization system being improved is the only thing of note in this promotional material that is for some reason on HN.

proee 2mo ago

It's a shame everyone can't fly first class, but I guess this is just life? I've had the opportunity to take an international business class flight and couldn't believe how great I felt after the trip. Huge difference getting that extra legroom to actually lay flat and sleep. Also, the business class staff are so nice, they make you feel like a million bucks. To the back of the plane, all you poor people!

TheBigSalad 2mo ago

For coach, I wish they would just stack people in laying down. Laying down for the flight would be much better than sitting. I don't see why they couldn't get the same amount of people in if they configured the plane correctly.

ipdashc 2mo ago
As much as I'd prefer this, I assume it's for evacuation reasons. Well, that, and people wouldn't like feeling trapped.
- TheBigSalad 2mo ago
  I would. Just throw me in a coffin.