Can You Fly Around The World Using Only Narrowbody Flights?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 дек 2022
- Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks:
masterworks.art/longhaul
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more!
See important Masterworks disclosures: masterworks.io/cd
With advancements in fuel efficiency and other aircraft technologies, the increased prevalence of long-haul narrowbody flights had us asking ourselves if it would be possible to fly around the world using only single-aisle aircraft. This is something we’ll explore today, while examining which flights we might take to get the job done!
Seeing as this is just a simple thought experiment, we won’t be setting stringent parameters and extremely precise criteria. Nor will we take into consideration the difficulties and challenges of obtaining visas and meeting requirements amid various border restrictions. Ultimately, the goal is to depart one location in the world, travel in one direction, and get back to that same spot - all the while using regular, scheduled flights operated by narrowbody aircraft. We might have to skip over a few continents for our “main journey,” but we’ll be sure to mention some travel options to make our round-the-world trip a little more diverse and comprehensive.
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com 
Развлечения
No just no. Don't give these CEOs any ideas
What they’re talking about has been possible for years. Among other possibilities the airline PLAY! gets you across the Atlantic via Iceland, then several Korean and Japanese carriers get you from the Asian mainland to Guam, and United gets you across to North America via several island hopping flights. With the reintroduction of the Max, you may even be able to get fancy with it and fly around the world on only the 737 or only the A320.
Narrow body long haul is great
Narrow body if fine. 3 across in a 320 is no worse than 3 across in a 777
@@papatango2362 fuck off. 1 single isle isn’t good at all
Honestly its that bad. Because wide body planes are just as crowded. If you are into first class seating then that’s different
When I planned a Hawaii-Guam-Manila-Singapore trip pre-Covid, all of the flights were on narrowbodies.
Want to trace an EWR based B737 that needs to do GUM-MNL then do it as EWR-LAX-HNL and the mentioned Island hopper route.
Must have been on UA. They have done that for years from the CO days.
@@johniii8147 You got it. Some of my classes in college were taught by instructors that were mechanics on the golden tailed birds.
@@EpicThe112 UAL’s 737s that operate on the island hopper service are based in Guam. I believe that even maintenance is done either there or in Xiamen, so those 737s hardly ever get swapped with ones from Continental US.
@@YSLaurens Thanks for the information but seat map wise it's the same as an EWR based one unless those have a different seat map
Would be great to have a follow-up video getting round the world entirely on turboprop (or as near as possible--there may be a few segments that can only be done on a jet). I have seen videos of transcon-CA and transcon-US on turboprops, likely possible in EMEA, maybe in Asia?
I can already see the likes of Noel Philips or Josh Cahill doing this challenge xD
I would definitely use Fiji Airways as apart of my narrow body journey. Plus stopping over in NAN would be so much fun.
Just a little correction, in Brazil, the Portugal leg, you can fly with tap from Maceió and Recife, with a a321-LR service flying 1 day a week.
Indeed, TAP Portugal has complained that it doesn’t have enough A321LRs. For instance, EWR used to be served once daily by the A332 and later the A339, and then later 9 times weekly (daily from LIS and 2 weekly from OPO) on the A332/A339. Now, it will be 19 times weekly (twice daily from LIS and five times weekly from OPO) on only the A321neo.
Also from Natal.
To legally count as a circumnavigation, your route must be longer than the Tropic of Cancer - 36,770km (19,850 nmi). You're about 914km too short.
I think it’s possible. It would be fun to try just very expensive.
Awesome video. Keep up the good work.
the way I'd do it. starting in Houston, Texas where I live.
First, I'd go to Fort Lauderdale on United Airlines. likely on a 737-800 or -900
2. I'd fly from FLL to Belem (BEL) in Brazil on one of Azul's Airbus A320s.
3. I'd fly from BEL to Lisbon (LIS) on TAP Air Portugal's A321LRs.
4. from LIS I'd take one of TAP's A321neo towards Accra (ACC).
5. I'd fly from Accra towards Istanbul on a 737max8 most likely.
6. I'd fly to Almaty on Air Astana's A321neo.
7. from there I'd fly to Bangkok on the Air Astana A321neo.
8. from BKK I'd fly towards Singapore on Scoot or Air Asia or something.
9. from SIN I'd likely fly to Cairns on Singapore Airlines' 737-800 or max8
10. from Cairns i'd fly to Brisbane on Qantas or maybe Virgin Australia.
11. from BNE I'd fly to Fiji on either Virgin Australia or Fiji Airways' 737s.
12. from Fiji i'd fly to Honolulu on the 737 as well, and from there i'd likely take AA, UA, DL, AS, WN or HA to any airport in the west coast
13. from which i'd take a flight back home to Houston.
here i basically hit every continent even if it was just one airport like ACC in Africa or 2 in Europe (LIS and IST).
Love the vid- can you do one where you talk about the environment, using the most eco friendly airlines and aircraft
How about propeller only commercial aircraft? Extra challenge no one would want.
you wouldn't be able to cross the oceans
Not commercially but definitely still possible
an around the world narrow-body itinerary from my hometown of Athens for anyone interested:
Athens-Abu Dhabi-Chennai-Singapore-Perth-Brisbane-Nadi-Honolulu-Los Angeles-New York-London-Athens.
10 stopes. Pretty sure there is a better route
Island hopper is a really cool trip… especially because it can be done in one shot!
I did it a few months ago. Incredible, but long trip. I’d do it again without hesitation.
Great video. The next question is, can you fly around the world only using turboprop aircraft on commercial airlines?
maybe go transatlantic with air Greenland, but I don't believe you can go around the world
WAIT, at 8:40 you listed the 767 which isn't a narrowbody. You didn't list any other aircraft type for the Southeast Asia to Guam route so 🤷 did I misunderstand??
You forgot mentioning SAS, they operate their A321LR from ESSA to KJFK
Fun fact: Westjet, a canadian low cost airline used to fly their 737s max from Toronto YYZ to Paris CDG.
A more difficult challenge would be a round the world journey by turboprop scheduled airline flights.
In theory yes but no such thing currently exists
Did you guys forget you used a 707 & the DC-8?
Missed the Azores option across the atlantic. Seasonal flights from Oakland and regular flights from Boston & JFK And from Ponta Delgada to either Lisbon or Frankfurt.
Ryanair CEO: we gonna fly around the world in B737 25 euros for seat or 0,01 cent for standing
They already said no to flying to the likes of the US
Mostly because if they were going to throw so much into flying intercontinental, they'd need to expand across the entirety of the US.....which they cannot due to foreign carriers being banned from flying domestic US routes
I made it as a joke
In reality, many have and do travel regularly - around the world on “narrow-bodies ”.., albeit minus having your meals served to you by flight attendants, or even having to share a toilet with another person!
I think in true "around the world" spirit, I'd like to see crossing the Equator to the brief.
GREAT JOB ON THIS VID!!! The only thing I would've added would be the price of each flight leg. Obviously not every flight, just a lowest to highest range, that's all. 😉👍✌️
You could go from europe to australia & new zealand on a narrowbody.
Most of it will be old kangaroo route style on low cost carriers...
I was planning to do this!
There is another option to cross Asia, you can go from Istanbul to Delhi or other cities in India to Bangkok, Singapore or Hanoi to Tokyo to Guam.
It is possible, if you start from LA, you could first fly to any city in the east coast of US/Canada on a narrow-body jet, then hop on a flight to western Europe(jetblue, aer lingus, tap air portugal etc.). Next you hop on a series of narrow-body jet flights that could bring you to the philippines, then take the flight PR110(operated by philippine airlines) to guam, then take the united airlines "island hopper" UA133 flight to honolulu. Finaly you fly back to LA on a hawaiian airlines A321neo.
You are perfect on that however on the Philippine Airline section PR110 you lose out the AC plugs. There is the alternative option to the United Airlines Manila to Los Angeles via Guam on B737-724/B737-824 the seat map for that one is basically the same as an EWR version.
Correction: Air Canada flies the A330-300 and the Boeing 737 MAX 8 in the summer to LAX, and Air Transat flies the A321neoLR to LAX in the summer
The 787-9 also visits LAX sometimes. I flew it once on LAX-YYZ
I also flew a 787-9 from YUL to PUJ and back
And it’s common to see Air Canada Widebodies fly into LAX from YYZ
Years ago American used the DC 10 on the Toronto to LAX flights vs Air Canada 767
All models mentioned in the comment was from YUL to LAX
Just wait until Alex Praglowski tries this challenge
There’s a reason why there are Widebodys equipped for those long routes, and the Narrowbodys are not
There's one more route from London Heathrow to Tashkent intl on a321 neo (longer than from London to Kazakhstan)
I'd do the following route, starting from my home airport of Turin:
Turin (TRN) to London (LGW) on British Airways or EasyJet;
London (LGW) to New York (JFK) on JetBlue;
New York (JFK) to Los Angeles (LAX) on American Airlines or JetBlue;
Los Angeles (LAX) to Honolulu (HNL) on American Airlines, Alaska or Southwest;
United Airlines' island hopper route (Honolulu-Majuro-Pohnpei-Chuuk-Guam);
Guam (GUM) to Manila (MNL) on United or Philippine Airlines;
Manila (MNL) to Singapore (SIN) on Jetstar, Cebu Pacific or Scoot;
Singapore (SIN) to New Delhi (DEL) on IndiGo or Vistara;
New Delhi (DEL) to Dubai (DXB) on IndiGo or FlyDubai;
Dubai (DXB) to Catania (CTA) on FlyDubai;
Catania (CTA) to Turin (TRN) on Ryanair or Wizz Air.
What do you mean passengers prefer widebodies? Apart from first class of big seats versus a lieflat bed, there is no real difference. Economy will be the same, premium economy will also be the same. That’s what most of the people here fly. (Also American Airlines proved you can put lieflat seats on a narrow body).
I love narrowbodies long haul if they can reduce the price.
I know right, unless you regularly travel in business class, your experience won't be too different. I guess it boils down to the fact that the flying public associate narrowbody aircraft with budget airlines and a pretty subpar travel experience, whereas widebodies are associated with long-haul travel with some of the best airlines out there, as well as enclosed suites, showers on board and the A380. I've never taken a narrowbody longer than 2 hours, but if the product is right, long-haul narrowbody, no problem.
This is not true. Traveling in big wide body aircrafts is way different than flying narrow bodies. The sensation during all flight phases is different. And even though you don't think so, there is in fact more space even in economy class.
Narrowbodies are slower, not only because their lower design cruise speed, but also lower ceiling. On congested routes narrowbodies are stuck below widebodies which overtake them. On long flights this can make more than half an hour of difference in flight time.
Furthermore the generally higher cabin altitude on narrobodies makes for a more exhausting ride.
we can consider even this route :
NY(JFK) to LONDON(GATWICK) ------> JetBlue A321neo
Gatwick to Istanbul --> Wizz Air A321
Istabul to Mumbai ----> INDIGO A321neo
Mumbai to Bangkok ---> INDIGO A320
Bangkok to Guam -----> Philiphines A321
Guam to honolulu -------> United B737
honalulu to SFO -------------> Alaska B737
SFO TO NY(JFK )--------> JetBlue A320neo😀
Good idea but you forgot something United Airlines operates MNL🇵🇭-GUM🇺🇲. Basically what you do for the final leg is Bangkok to Manila Philippine Airlines or Cebu Pacific then UA MNL-GUM-HNL-LAX/SFO. You don't have to worry about the customs in Los Angeles instead you hand in the CBP form in Guam its a domestic flight from Guam to LAX/SFO. Meaning you pay the meal in economy class.
Well.. Going back to pre 1969, narrow body was really the only option.. well sort of (There was prop wide bodies but they was quite rare)
Even during the 1970s and really quite a bit into the 80s, the 707 and DC8 did service most routes. While the 747 and DC10 (and that is really quite it) did cover high capacity routes in the early 80s. While the L1011 and A300 did exist, there fairly short range really mostly put them on continental services.
In mid 80s we see the 767, still with a tad short range, and not capable of intercontinental service yet. and 757 and later A320.
What really change the situation from really 747 and DC10/MD11 being the go to wide body was the A330, A340 and 777, the later introduced with "Engine turn or passenger swim" feature. This was really when 707 and DC8 was beginning to be phased out rapidly. Have to remember, that despite being from the 1950s, the 707 was produced until 1978 and then with a range of 5000nm, way more than both 757 and probobly more than A321XLR. So the long haul narrowboddy is actually nothing new. It would take 10 more years until the wideboddies was truly dominating the medium and long haul fights.
Glad to see someone else who has a memory of flying the world in the B707, DC8, and other single aisle aircraft, or if not a memory, the knowledge that such was the norm until the advent of the B747.
It amazes me that so many people comment on not wanting to fly long haul on single aisle aircraft, believing that twin aisle aircraft are more comfortable.
My view is that comfort is determined by seat width and seat pitch, and not the number of aisles, as I spend upwards of 95% of the time seated during the flight. I also prefer the option of a direct flight, which is becoming a greater option with the re-introduction of long haul single aisle aircraft.
@@barrylenihan8032
More interesting is that the fuselage is exactly the same width in a 707 as a 737max... and.. a A321neo is... well not a lot wider, but a bit. And the A220 is per seat even wider.
Really anoying when people watch movies and say "wow how wide those seates are"... when they just have wider backrest.
I never flow a 707, i did fly a DC8 once in the very late days.
But what people don´t think about is while the 747 was really quite popular even from the start. Between 1969 and 1979 there was still only 35 747 build per year. It was first really during the 80-tys that the production ramped up. and even more so during the 90-tys (at least early part). Of cause when the 777 came along the sales dropped quite fast and the 747 gone back to replacement rate.
Of cause also, prior to somewhere in the mid 90s, flying long range was not really common for the middle class. Between 1994 and 2000 the total flying passenger km increased more than from the dawn of time (Well really 1903) until 1980.
That just happened to be the time when there was many wide-bodies around. Not only was the MD11 and the 747 still under production but also the A330, A340, the 767 and the 777 all started with in 10 years or so.
Personally i really want to put them in 3 different categories. 8 wide, 9 wide and true 10 wide.
A330, A340, 767 would be 8 wide.
MD11, 777 (and L1011, A350) would be 9 wide.
747 and A380 would be true 10 wide.
The 777x is sort of 9½ wide.
Does anyone knows about the visas required for this kind of trip? Or if you are in transit you don't need any?
Yeah 'Into the night ' did it already 💅🏻
Basically all of these airlines should get the A321XLR
Yes you can.
I did that in xplane using Toliss A321neo.
I just wished to abide by ETOPS while flying through oceans so I bought a 767 regardless
Would have loved to get a cost for this
Spirit also flies EWE-LAX
A common aeronautical requirement for circumnavigation would be that you must cross all meridians in one direction, travel a distance of at least 36,787.559 km (the length of the Tropic of Cancer), and complete the journey at the point of departure.
Flying to LHR and PEK would fall short, but this itinerary would meet the requirements for official circumnavigation, based on the options mentioned in the video: LAX-JFK-LIS-IST-NQZ-BKK-MNL-GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL-LAX
The total distance comes out to 36,838.055 km.
9:35 I’m flying on that flight IRL tomorrow form OGG (Kahulu) to YVR (Vancouver) on westjet’s 737MAX8
Reminds me of when someone flew across Canada on Dash 8s
I specifically chose to fly widebodies where possible. Just way more comfortable than narrowbodies
I would have done LAX-IAD United 757. IAD-Oslo on SAS to get to the European leg
Or just use those specialised long range private jets that go very far
You can fly an air Canada 737 max 8 from Halifax to london Heathrow
I personally preferred to fly on a widebody aircraft on all flights (short, medium, and long). They just feel more comfortable no matter what. I can tolerate a flight on a single aisle aircraft for about 4 hours.
There is a direct flight from my country El Salvador(SAL Airport) to Madrid, Spain(MAD Airport). It could be another option to jump the Atlantic 🤭
Can you test this out by alliance? I can see Star being the key to this.
Between Bangkok to Guam, you can choose Airbus A321 Philippine Airlines from BKK to MNL then fly another airline to Guam.
Wait, you can fly an A220 from LAX to YUL? Jeebus Christmas on a pink-painted bicycle, do they pass out cyanide capsules with the drink service?
There should be a version of this, but widebodies only.
too easy
SYD-DFW-DXB-SYD
@@adamsiroky161 lol that is only 3 flights around the entire earth
@@adamsiroky161 I also found JFK-SIN-LHR-JFK
Can actually do it in 2 flights
SQ23 Singapore-New York JFK A359
SQ24 New York-Singapore A359
Both flights head East
how about quadjets only?
edit: found one: JFK - DXB (Emirates A380) - ICN (Emirates A380) - JFK (Korean 747)
I enjoyed your trip planning, narrow body aircraft are as important in the industry as wide body and hold a big part of future aviation. As to flying the Boeing 737 Crash & Burn MAX anywhere, no thank you, I avoid them like the plague. Give me an a320 or a321 any day.
I hope you aren’t serious about your claims on the 737-MAX safety. Since it was under so heavy scrutiny to flush out all of the safety issues possible it is now one of the safest aircraft in the sky. I hope you do some more research before you continue fear mongering for no reason.
@ricardo melengez you couldn’t call those fears unjustified though . they are certainly unreasonable, but not unjustified
Good thing, I see the 737 MAX filling up all the time when I travel , you won't be missed.
@@UDMH Boeing may have fixed the problems with the 737 that gave rise to two crashes of new aircraft and the loss of 350 lives, but it will take a lot longer to repair the reputational damage to a once great aircraft manufacturer.
what about honolulu to kona or maui and maui to LA
What's the range of a jet pack??
I’ve gone transatlantic only on 747s, an A330, and 777s. So far.
Same plus A350
Me only on 787, 330 and 346.
U forgot air asia and routes across south east asia abd scoot and Australia
Short answer, yes. But it would be an awful idea tbh
Yes very easily actually.
I wonder why Boeing did or hasn’t yet done a longer range 737
Northern Pacific won't make it. Their geriatric 757's will have too many maintenance problems and passengers would rather fly nonstop on a widebody than connect through Anchorage and add all that extra time to their trip.
LAX-JFK-LHR-ATH-DOH-BOM-CNG-GUM-(United Island Hopper service)-HNL-LAX
A321XLR: _allow me to introduce myself_
Indigo flies from IST to DEL on an a321
Verylongname - can you advise where IST and DEL are so that I can understand what you are trying to say.
And why would you wanna do that?
Nahhh... it's not as comfy as widebody, claustrophobicly low ceiling, a lot drier cabin humidity. Maybe it's just me, but 3hr plus in a narrow body just gave me a splitting headache.
By experience, narrowbodies dont handle turbulence that good. Besides, economies of scale dictates that widebody airliners are better-suited
Economies of scale have been upended with the introduction of such aircraft as the A321LR due to their greater efficiency. They are more economical to operate on leaner routes. Also, most passengers would prefer to fly direct rather than have the inconvenience of one or more stop-overs.
All Continents least amount of flights:
Los Angeles
Fort Lauderdale
Belem
Lisbon
Accra
Istanbul
Almaty
Bangkok
Manilla
Brisbane
Nadi
Honolulu
Los Angeles
Meanwhile, Singapore Airlines fly Jakarta-Singapore with a 777 :)
Only half as impressing as Korean Air 777 on Gimpo to Jeju, ANA 777 on Tokyo to Fukuoka.
Around the world on 4 engine aircraft only with only 1 transit via DXB permitted.
Right, this video needs some work. You've missed a number of connections between airports in Asia, and surely the whole point of this exercise would be to not have to switch airport within city?
more chance of a window seat
It's possible it just take a while
So no Africa or Australia!! Very pleased to hear that!!
Nobody in their right mind will fly long haul in a single aisle 3-3. If they make the whole plane 1-1 and 2-2 it's conceivable.
give me enough points and I'll gladly do this.
"Anyways"????
Boeing 707 and DC-8: *cough *cough
Air asia
could we please get you to say "Los Angeliss" (rhymes with "bliss") rather than "Los Angeleez" (rhyming with "ease")? (at least for narration in English)
this is nearly as annoying for a Western American as the easterners who rhyme "Oregon" with "gone" rather than "gun"...
Prayer for worldwide ,earth business.over takers .fraudsters.
"How to suffer deliberately by flying on narrowbodies"
I mean apart from more connections, what’s the big deal?
@@papatango2362 Aside from preferring to travel at the pointy end on flights 7+ hours, flying for that long in a narrow body, with usually just two toilets for cattle class, and having to deal with meal service aisle blockage... no thanks. I might consider JetBlue or AA A321XLR in a 1-1 pointy end suite... but if the same route has a wide body, I'd still rather fly on that...
@@JonathanStanley those seem like very small inconveniences (especially the blockage statement) to the point of why does that matter. And as a gentleman, I don’t care about the toilets as much.
@@papatango2362 You have a point,It opens up so many cities for long haul flights were traditionally you have been forced to wait for a connecting flight for hours at a bigger Airport.
@@JonathanStanley And if the route doesn't have a direct wide-body service, would you prefer to fly with one or more stop-overs just to have more than one aisle?
Great, have Noel Phillips fly all narrow body flights around the world.. he can endure this kind of torturous travel. caveat, no business class and no lounge visits.. fly like regular joes like rest of us...
Yes you can, in fact you can do it all on 737s!
ryanair will charge Simple Flying and the passengers on that flight in this video for that clip.
This sounds like a totally miserable experience, no one in their right mind would do this. And don’t give the airlines any ideas.
I think the exercise was intended to be hypothetical. After all, who in their right mind would want to fly around the world just to get to the spot they started from.
Keys thieves
No thanks lol
I strongly recommend to avoid TAP Air Portugal. They are horrible. If they cancel your flight, good luck getting a refund. US DOT fined them $1.1 million for taking to long to refund.
You could but why would u choose to, narrow bodies suck for longer than 5 hr flights, there slow, and to small be confortable. I’ll stick with the 787, A350, etc
If you want to get to get to your final destination in the shortest time, direct flights are the best option, and newer more efficient aircraft, such as the A321LR, are increasing the available options in that regard.
Real shame about the lengthy sponsors' interruption. Otherwise good video.
God please no.
Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia and Philippines were skipped
I certainly would be more comfortable on wide bodies. LAX-LHR, which BA and AA both operate, then Qantas direct LHR-SYD, then SYD-LAX either AA or Qantas (maybe others too?)
It's not that hard
Plans.jets.thieves
i hate narrow bodies for everything longer than 2 hours....
Obviously you are not old enough to have experienced the golden age of jet travel when the B707, DC8 and VC10 ruled the skies on long-haul routes.
@@barrylenihan8032 you're absolutely right. My first long haul journey in the mid 80s was already on a DC10. As a 7yo I might add 🙂. But I guess they didn't pack them as dense as they do nowwadays :-)