Have you looked at TAP Air Portugal? They fly from LIS to Washington, New York, Toronto, Montreal, Boston & Northern Brazil with a A321LR with flat beds in business class.
@@kyleb7435 It’s just funny to me that they don’t even mention the European carrier that has the most A321LR in their fleet, shows a huge lack of research to me.
@@pf4106 So true. Air Portugal also flies to Natal in Brasil, so I don't understand why they just focus on airlines you always see in the news, e.g. Norwegian, who are barely even flying during this pandemic compared to TAP.
@@kyleb7435 Exactly! & TAP Air Portugal also offers a premium service being a national carrier but what can you do. I’m always quick to mention in the comments tho 😂
A smaller 767 is known as the 757 🤭 - you can’t shrink that any more and retain twin aisles, it’s an enormous waste of space where you could be seating paying passengers.
With twin aisles and 2-3-2 seating, the cross section couldn’t be reduced much. With 2-2-2 seating, it would be inefficient compared to 3-3 seating. I think 2-3-2 is ideal, though. No adult likes middle seats, but it works for two adults with a child.
As sad as it is to see larger aircraft becoming less and less common, I recently flew on a 757 and it absolutely changed my mind on narrow bodies to the point that I will intentionally go out of my way to fly flights with the 757 rather than other aircraft. If the rumors of a 757 plus are true, I absolutely cannot wait to fly on another flying pencil.
Flying a 757 long haul is much more comfortable than the a320 or 737 because it’s still 3-3 but wider and the plane is much more spacious than the 320 and 737. It feels like a widebody even tho it isn’t.
This shift really depresses me tbh, plane spotting is gonna suck, and flying will feel cramped as hell. I love flying widebodies just because of their size
It’s not cramped if you fly first/business class. Anything over 2 hours and you should upgrade, it’s worth it. Trust me. I haven’t flown in the back in years and I enjoy flying as a passenger again, but I’m also a Delta Diamond member so I get free upgrades and when I don’t I just splash some cash for the upgrade.
The saving grace is the B787. I like the A350 as well, but the 787s I've flown on have all been very comfortable and inviting. I've sat in business and economy and enjoyed my flights in both. Unfortunately when I have to travel to South America from the U.S., the airline that flies out of my local airport uses an A320 on the route and it's extremely cramped.
tbh I hate boarding and deboarding a wide-body aircraft. It consumes an hour or more to fill, whereas narrow-body aircraft can be filled half an hour or less. Plus it solely depends on the airline configuration, flying on Philippine Airlines' A321NEO is a lot better than flying Cebu Pacific's A330.
@@spkpnxe I get your point, but for longer flights I’d rather have a way more comfortable flight in a wide-body than spend lesser time boarding a narrow-body but have a worse flight. So it all depends on your situation, but I always tend to have a nice time in a larger aircraft.
Personally hate the trend. I much prefer longer flights in wide bodies since I feel much less claustrophobic. Luckily, the route I take the most always has a high volume of passengers, so wide bodies are likely to stay for that route
If you are lucky enough to have access to a well served airport, good for you. But most people need to go through huge hubs. I rather having a single flight in a narrow body rather than taking long walks and flight connections in huge airports.
@@xiaoka Domestically, I agree. I'm amazed at all the places from Seattle that don't have direct flights to places. Denver was different, you could get anywhere for cheap and it was direct. Internationally, I'd rather have a wide-body plane and change planes for comfort.
I'm still suffering PTSD from the loss of the grace, pace, and space of B747 flights for my LAX-LHR travels. Grateful that this route is a no-go for the narrow bodied aircraft you mention.
Burning hydrocarbons is going to get exponentially more expensive as the governments of the world introduce "global warming taxes" Interesting rapid developments sure to follow?
The A220 is by definition more comfortable, since its 3-2 configuration cannot be squeezed to 3-3 and the seats are quite wide. I really liked the B767 for its 2-3-2 setiup, but some budget holiday line did squeeze in an extra seat...
@@mattevans4377 The 767 is the airplane that the 787 replaced. While it is technically a "widebody", it is not as wide as a 747/777, A380 or MD-11/DC-10
I could see the A-220 being used to fly to Hawaii from Boise, Spokane, Reno and Las Vegas without having to connect in LA, San Francisco, Portland or Seattle easy enough with adequate range and reserves. I would go that route to avoid the big airports.
@@owenklein1917 Kind of off topic but I'm honestly surprised Las Vegas survived Covid and come back. I thought the city was toast a few years ago. Also, with the proliferation of gambling everywhere, I'm also still amazed by Vegas' economic resiliency. I still wonder over the longterm how sustainable a city based almost entirely on tourism can last.
And the people flying long haul on single aisle aircraft are NOT happy about doing it. If there's a twin aisle flight available, it's going to sell out long before the single aisle.
I have flown on 757 from Helsinki to Toronto and back, and I would always, always prefer a wide-body. To me, it's a whole different experience. I think narrow-bodies will only work in long.haul operations when we consider service between unlikely candidates (e.g. Eastern Canada to Europe).
I'm definitely in the camp that would much rather fly widebody. For those saying it depends on the airline, name some that have comfortable narrowbodies. Premium cabins will be much more limited which likely means packing in more seats. I'm glad the video mentions fewer lavs
That image of the Airbus 220 showing five across seating resurrected some long dormant early 1970s memories. Cathay Pacific provided quick and pleasant flights out of Hong Kong aboard their slender Convair 880s.
I think it’ll be really interesting to see how cabin products change with the increased popularity of narrow bodies. I reckon we’re seeing the death of first and business class with premium economy on the rise.
@@inomad yeah that’s actually a very good point, Wendover Productions made a video about it, I think the issue airlines will find is differentiation their products with such narrow cabins.
@@emicairo yeah we saw BA make this work with the Concorde all those years ago, making it quite profitable. It’ll definitely be interesting to see how next-gen supersonic flight will transform the industry.
Let's not forget the famous Houston (KIAH) long haul B737 flights that were of the longest in the world for nearly 15 years. There was KLM and SAS that were flying Boeing 737-700s from Houston to Amsterdam and Oslo respectively. These were operating until as late as 2018 or 2019.
The Airbus A220 can fly almost 4,000 miles. That’s a very small and efficient airplane for such a long route. One really wonders how much Boeing will regret not bringing this on as the Boeing 797 instead of allowing Airbus to partner and rebrand the C300.
Andrew Day Boeing is an unfair competitor. When it saw Airbus talking to Bombardier and proceed with the C300 it immediately try to have some special taxation to stop the competition on American market. Cleverly, Airbus decided to continue building the now A220 in US. Well done ! We can see with this video the potential and the value of modern narrow body airplane.
@@alainmare8081 That’s why I posted what I did. Boeing should have partnered on the C300. But no the arrogant short sighted corporate leaders failed yet again. Boeing should lead Boeing not the McDonald Douglas crew who took over.
@@andrewday3206 That merger was decades ago. Any senior staff employed by either company at the time of the merger would have retired long ago. Blaming problems on former McD-D staff might have still been valid at the turn of the century, but it's lost any validity by now.
You obviously dont understand how airlines think or work.. Boeing actually partnered with embraer for a short time to counter the c300.. they canceled it because of logistical issues with pilots and unions because of the airlines would be forced to negotiate new contracts and pay..
@@Dave_Sisson MDD staff ended up taking most senior management positions. You need to check on that one. Their culture followed through of fiscal over engineering. Check that out too
I have done US domestic transcon and west-coast Hawaii flights on narrowbody aircraft, many times as redeye flights. Narrowbody experiences vary and it has more to do with the airline than the aircraft, so instead of whining that you'll never do a long-haul on a narrowbody, maybe you're flying with the wrong airline.
This. Whenever there is a 787 vs a350 comfort debate people on here are quick to scream “but it’s the airline’s fault for cramming in more seats”. Same can be said for narrow body long haul.
About to retire with 46 years at a major carrier in the u.s. Worked in multiple departments from flight attendant to marketing and sales to aircraft routing. What I learned in the marketing and sales area primarily', was that customers want frequency and no connection over aircraft type . The introduction of the max, xlr , 787, a350, once the industry recovers is going to be the boom. The 777x is essential and will be ordered , in much smaller numbers however as important or more is the point to point and frequency. A customer will stay with one carrier that can offer two or three flights a day from large cities to Europe, Asia or coast to coast. They will not stay with a carrier because they fly giant aircraft once a day. While I'll take my final bow, I'll always keep up with industry. Of course if demand drives a 787 , a350 in the three times a day frequency, you give that choice to your customer, that will be the winning carrier. The deal is , these aircraft are available for the three biggest , already flying or ordered, and the competition will drive more comforts and perks in the two aisle offering. Very exciting.
Long-haul single aisle: Took a C-5a (single aisle, 72 permanent 50s era comfortable seats in upper deck) non-stop from USA to Saudi Arabia 30+ years ago. Refueled in flight. I had three seats; could sleep horizontally. Slept half the time. Great flight.
More point to point routes in long haul, also has a very important benefit: you need more workers than in a hub based operation. More pilots, more cabin crew and if flying ETOPS, more engineers.
Is this really true? Consider 5 labor roles: pilots, cabin crew, gate agents, ground crew, and baggage handlers. Consider 3 independent variables: number of passengers, aircraft size, and hub-spoke vs. point-to-point. Consider 3 dependent variables: number of flights, passengers per flight, and average flight duration. First, let's only reduce aircraft size. Passengers per flight goes down, therefore the number of flights has to go up (average flight duration is unaffected). Smaller aircraft reduces the need for cabin crew, and fewer passengers per flight (holding the number of flights steady) reduces the need for baggage handlers and gate agents (but the need for pilots and ground crew is unaffected). More flights (holding passengers per flight steady) means a greater need for all labor roles. Net result: Increased need for pilots and ground crew. Now let's only change from hub-spoke to point-to-point. Number of flights goes down, and average flight duration goes up (passengers per flight is unaffected). Fewer flights (holding average flight duration steady) means less need for all labor roles. Increasing the average flight duration (holding number of flights steady) increases the need for pilots and cabin crew (but makes no difference for gate agents, ground crew, and baggage handlers). Net result: Reduced need for gate agents, ground crew, and baggage handlers. Netting the two scenarios together, we get an increased need for pilots, and a reduced need for gate agents and baggage handlers. So, the result isn't so clear cut. Granted, I've vastly oversimplified this--I know, right?--so I can't actually make a meaningful conclusion. My point was to demonstrate that this is so complicated that there's no way any layperson can say with any certainty what the effect on labor is. Perhaps Pablo is an expert and just didn't bother to mention that?
I would actively avoid long haul on a narrowbody, just seems like misery to me. I love the A330's 2-4-2 configuration as you don't feel penned in. Flew on a United 757 from DUB to IAD it was grim.
I flew CS300 (now called Airbus A220) numerous times in Korea. They are surprisingly roomy (for a small narrow body "regional" jet). QANTAS has been flying 737's on their Perth-Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane route (6+hrs) for decades. 8+ hour journey is definitely do-able in a narrow body.
Its also about the turnaround time I think.... obviously a single aisle aircraft's turnaround time is lesser than a double aisle one' and this in turn saves some essential bucks for the airline
Honestly, I don't think I would mind flying long haul on a narrowbody. I absolutely hate to get stuck in the section between the aisles on a wide body, and that's just not possible on a plane with one aisle
As a passenger, I totally hate the idea of a long-haul flight on board a narrowbody plane. I already find 4-5 hours from Germany to the Canary Islands on a 737 hard to bear. I don't even want to imagine being stuck in such a narrow tube for a transatlantic flight. It doesn't need to be an A380 or a B747 to make me happy, I will gladly fly on a 767 or A330 or A350. Getting a seat that is comfortable enough into the fuselage of a 737 would mean airlines had to switch to a 2+3 layout even in economy. Otherwise it is just way too narrow to handle for a long flight. I also don't see how people don't like the hub and spoke system. I absolutely enjoy those breaks, being able to walk around, stretch my legs, get decent food, see new airports, compare how well or poorly they are organized... when booking long flights, I even try to get interesting routings to see more.
R.I.P plane spotting in the future. I'm tired of seeing narrow bodies at my local airport, so I don't want to go to a busy airport just to see even more.
@@sido12ification websites starting to look the same, cars are looking the same too. These fuckers are destroying customization. I remember back in Soviet Union we had one size socks for all? Why-the economies of scale. Same fir cars. We loved it when somebody brought a TV or a screw driver from the Westerm Europe because it meant it was a good match for your need. But now, I grew up to the day when the free market we were told so much to trust to is one by one dominishing our choices "for our good" . I fail to follow their reasonings
you mean the days of no security at airports, smoking in the cabin, and "fine dining" hassle in a tube? No thanks, I'll take my on board entertainment, safety, and aircraft meal canteens any time.
I don't necessarily want luxury; I want some leg room and especially elbow room. I don't need a fancy meal, free alcohol, or even being served a meal on china. What I do want is to not be treated like a human sardine. Flying coach anymore is like what an episode of The Flintstones referred to as "Steerage Class."
@@JBM425 Agreed. I don't mind airport security, have no desire to smoke in the cabin and am not picky about food. What I want is ROOM on a long-haul flight. That is my only real concern being 6'3 with a back problem.
If the shift is going toward narrow body long haul then the airlines must invest in a MORE comfortable seat, who cares about stylish, I want COMFORT on a long flight in an economy cabin.
It seems many viewers, let alone people that fly don't really understand the concept of "narrow-body" and how it operates. Yes, it's cheaper to operate due to their efficiency and etc, but that doesn't mean they will be used on long haul flights like NY to Frankfurt or flight ranging more than 8 hours. It really depends on the route and demand. Most airlines make way too much money on wide body aircraft in high demand routes, so they would lose money if they use a narrow-body aircraft on a high demand route. Narrow-body will most likely fly transatlantic routes or connecting major cities that require stop overs in one nonstop flights. This doesn't mean you're going to be "cramped". Airlines are adapting to more space in economy seats rather than have you pay extra for a higher class. In other words, the cheaper it is for an airline to operate an aircraft, the more bang for your buck you will get. The entire point of new generation narrow-body aircraft, is to either launch new routes and see how they do and then adjust route and aircraft as it progresses. The cheaper it is to operate an aircraft, the better it is for customers/passengers. It really depends on the airline and how they utilize the aircraft.
There is just one single issue. Where and how will wide-body sized crew-rest compartments be installed? Airbus has stated that the 4,700nmi range A321neo XLR is capable of 11hr flights, were we could easily see the use for 4 pilots and 6 flight attendants. For half of the flight, at least half of the crew will be on-duty. So where will the other 5 rest? Current narrow-bodies have adequate crew-rest compartments for 2-3hrs of rest max. For 5.5hrs, I would see the need for crew-rest compartments, at least ones similarly sized to the ones in the Boeing 767, to be fitted on to the 737 MAX and A320neo. It will be very interesting to see how arrangements for compartments of such sizes to be fitted on to these narrow-bodies.
I prefer big planes and wide, not only do I feel safer in them but you don't feel as much turbulence either and that's important because I'm going back and forth between Europe and the US and crossing the Atlantic can be very scary when there's turbulence
We did have a few all Business Class as you mentioned, but I wonder if in future with more choice for point to point we may start to see the likes of the wider single isled aircraft (737 and A320 series) with Business at 4 abreast and the majority if not all the remainder being a 'premium' 5 abreast with wider seats and isle to give a much less claustrophobic feel on a narrow body? Could we even see the return or addition of the door just ahead of the wing to allow speedier loading of passengers from a single doorway? It would also be a good place to install an additional toilet for passenger comfort, and a central galley for more efficient in-flight service on the longer journeys. While there will always be a need for the lower margin 'squeeze as many in as you possibly can' operation, I feel that many will still want an offering more in line with what they have come to expect in the current wide-bodies and may even be prepared to pay just enough extra to not only make it profitable, but lucrative.
You make a lot of assumptions in this video the biggest one that I'll address is Cargo ... narrow-body aircraft cannot carry equivalent Cargo in their hold in lieu of the fuel needed to fly the longer routes ..one of the biggest profit makers for Airlines is Cargo.
@@aswler yes.. for United airlines.. every pound of cargo is pure profit once they hit thier seat coast per mile. So if a 737 8 max needs 50 pax to break even and they fill the holds to max load you could see a potential profit 8,000 $$ on 16,000 lbs
I can imagine routes from FNC (Funchal, Madeira) and TFN/TFS (Tenerife, Canary Islands) to CCS, given migration links between these islands and Venezuela with A321 Neo or XLR, or maybe a 737 MAX variant. These routes have existed before but with very few weekly frequencies, often as a stop between CCS and LIS or MAD, and/or over seasonal basis. It turns out that these routes have had historical potential but insufficient for frequent services with wide body aircrafts. Candidates? Mainly TAP.
I'd still prefer widebody aircrafts similar to the 777s. It is definitely more comfortable and it also has more legroom too, good for long haul flights.
My main concern is the level of confort on board. No space, and by consequence, no toilettes enought for long flights. My 2 favorites aircrafts for flights with 6 hours or more are, still, the B 747 and B 767!
Business/First Class on narrow bodies with one lie flat seat on each side is a no brainer. Some airlines are already doing this and more will follow. More privacy and social distance to entice high profit business travelers back into the air again. Point to point is another plus for them.
Point to point makes sense in Europe and Asia, here in Australia I will always prefer a 380, 747 or a 787 over narrow bodies for our proper long haul work.
@@Bobspineable Nah. One aisle means the usual rush for the toilets when the food cart isn't there, being stuck miles from your seat when it's inadvertently wheeled out mid shit... Then you've got the noisy 737 cabin, the lack of space to just stand-up in a stretch your legs.. It's far more than a seat - narrow bodies are shite.
Me and many others flew from the USA to a tropical vacation paradise called Viet Nam back in the 60's & 70's with Douglas DC-63's with 269 seats and Boeing 707-320's with only 189 seats. We survived. My longest flight was from New Jersey to VN. Also used a few C-141's and even a C-5 or two in those days. My best flight was on a 707 to VN. About halfway through the pilot came on and told us the first Lunar Lander arrived on the moon and there was lots of cheers!!! Another great ride took place on a C-141 from Frankfurt to Tinker AFB, OK. During the flight I found a copy of the Air Force Times on the plane. As I was reading it, I found the yearly promotion list. reading the article showed that I had made that year's promotion list for Master Sergeant! Icing on the cake!!!!!!!
I went with Turkish Airlines on a 737-800 from Istanbul to Kilimanjaro Airport, via Zanzibar. It took around 10 hours. Everything was good, except the fact, that it was nearly impossible to get up for a little walk to stretch legs. I simply felt squeezed in and it was stress for the whole body. I was so disappointed. In 5 weeks time, I will go with KLM on a Boeing 787. At least one can get up without getting in the way with food trolleys so often. I went from Nairobi to Paris with this Aircraft last year. Was very ok
Agreed. Also with 737 and A320 they are mostly used by low cost airlines that offer limited service etc which is fine for short flights but not longhaul
@loli best If the passagers dont buy tickets at airlines who only use norrow bodys and rather buy tickets at an airline who uses widebodys then the ll have no choice
@loli best It’s the first rule of business - not just for airlines but for any business - if you don’t make your customer happy then you will lose customers. And no business can survive without customers. That is the bottom line. For decades the airlines have been making air travel cheaper, but at the same time less and less comfortable and convenient. At some point there’s a limit how far you can push this because price - while important - is not the only thing that matters. I am a frequent traveler and am already at the point where I’m fed up with tiny seats, shrinking legroom, fully packed airplanes and overhead bins, tiny restrooms... I would happily pay 30% more to have the middle seat empty, or to have a decent wide body on long haul flights. And I suspect I’m not the only one. Low ticket prices are great but not as important as avoiding deep vein thrombosis, frustration, claustrophobia, high blood pressure, ... Without satisfied customers, any business will fail.
Certainly it makes economic sense to fly long haul routes with smaller, cheaper, narrow body aircraft; the airlines’ accountants will love it. There are of course advantages to passengers, as the video points out, in connecting smaller regional airports with long-haul destinations. I’ve used these several times myself, including between Glasgow, Birmingham and Bristol, in the UK, transatlantic to Newark New Jersey. All these were with Continental (now part of United of course) and they did have the advantage of being cheap, as well as meaning that I didn’t have to drive to Heathrow, but could use an airport close to where I was living at that time. The disadvantage was that they were not very comfortable, and the service was dreadful. These routes all used Continental’s 757 aircraft, and whilst the newer planes, like the A321XLR might be more comfortable, I’m sure that the airlines will want to get as many seats on board as they can get away with. Personally I’m going to continue to look for a wide-body for long-haul wherever possible.
When the 787 launched to replace the 767, it was designed to compete against the 330/340 with 8 across seating. Sales were lacklustre. They picked up only once Boeing pitched the plane as 9 across with narrow seats and increased capacity that the airlines got interersted and look at sales of -9 vs -8 to see airlines prefer the larger model. If Airlines are looking at smaller planes, how come they are almost all adding capacity on their 777s by making it 10 across with tight seat pitch and narrow seats? The interest we are seeing is due to the retirement of 757s that served certain routes and the A321 is currently the closest replacement. Another aspect to look at is cargo. Having Podunk USA to Podunk Europe flight on a cessna is great "point to point", but if cargo demand is from Chicago to Paris, then that small plane from Podunk to Podunk doesn't help. There is also the issue of finances. Once finances become tight, airlines reduce marketing flights that cost more and are forced to streamline operations, and you will see long haul hubs.
these four engines narrowbodies are shit economics and range compared to even the 747, which is why they couldn't exist after 747 came. Against the latest narrowbody twins there is really no comparison.
To all who dislike the thought of narrowbody long haul... I'd like to remind you that we are also already in the age of the 10 abreast 777 and 9 abreast 787.
I was travelling a lot pre-COVID both on Australian domestic routes some as long as 5 hours and international routes. I tried my best to chose the airline and the departure time with respect to the planes being flown whereas the utmost effort was taken to select the flight which was operating double aisle aircraft. Sometimes it meant a different airline than the one I wanted to fly and sometimes not a convenient time of the flight. The same are the views of my family and over 90% of the friends I have spoken to. There will always be a great market for twin aisle aircraft.
The advantage of narrow body aircraft is that they can land on many more airports. For instance, a direct flight between Liverpool, UK and Newburgh, NY, USA would be possible, provided of course there is a market for such a flight. Liverpool is of course a major UK city, and Newburgh, NY can be used as cheaper alternative to New York City airports, as it is about 1 hour north of the Big Apple. The biggest requirement for these kinds of routes is proper US/UK Customs/International area in the airports.
@@maartena Yeah, however many smaller countries have several international airports since most of the flights are necessarily international, but the customs are small and they are allowed to process flights of a maximum number of pax.
@@clydeinverness1197 Hopefully more airlines adopt Ryanair's model of infrequent but direct flights and flight connections only when absolutely needed.
Many people complain about the narrow body jets, but I welcome them. I'll fly jetBlue's A321XLR from JFK to LHR, and I hope they'll soon offer the same route on an A220. Perhaps the increase in smaller planes will spread international travel to more airports.
Your videos are excellent with great information and reporting. However commercial interruptions every 90 seconds makes it impossible to watch. I do not know if it is RUclips or the content provider deciding to mangle the viewing experience, but there really is a limit as to how much advertising is appropriate for the viewing experience to be palatable.
@@jonathandpg6115 Thank you for your reply. However, I'm not exaggerating. Besides the channel owner having some say, it may also be that there are other factors in play. I just re-watched the video and my commercial interruptions averaged every 97 seconds on this go, and three of them were these "double" breaks where you're presented with X number of seconds you can't escape followed by a longer one you are able to opt out of after 5 seconds. I'm not counting six lower-third screen banner overlays that you have to click to remove from view. Although the breaks come randomly, averaging the number of breaks and the length of the content, In today's run I experienced about one minute and 40 seconds of content for each interruption. Geography and RUclips Premium Subscription (commercial free service) marketing might also play a role in my experience compared to your experience and location. Maybe they're making a stronger push for permium subscription sales in my neighborhood compared to yours. I'm in Europe, Berlin, Germany specifically, and I'm guessing the YT marketing department's logic is that the more annoying they make the "free" RUclips experience, the more likely we'll be herded into buying a premium subscription.
I'll be voting with my ticket purchase and it wont be on a narrow body. I hate flying a 737 cross continent from Sydney to Perth (even in business) let alone 5+ hours. Perhaps for long hall buget carriers but it wont change the fact that long flights on a narrow body is shit.
I wouldn’t be so sure... Norwegian, Thomas cook, Asiana. Just to name a couple budget-long-haul carriers that have either gone bankrupt, or are on the edge to do so... Long-haul budget airlines are unfortunately a high-risk, low success business venture... Especially now in highly unstable markets - when the slightest expense change can change profit do loss quickly, especially in a low-margin, high-volume: business.
The industry needs to be very careful. Racing to acquire smaller aircraft for thin long haul routes is going to create future problems. What is the industry going to do when traffic returns to an acceptable "normal" level and business flyers in particular will not be satisfied flying on a small aircraft (single aisle, crowded cabins) ? Imagine an airline stuck with dozens of aircraft on which nobody wants to fly ? What will carriers do with such aircraft, how will they be utilized ? Twin engines are "all the rage" but narrow body aircraft on flights more than 3-4 hours will never be in high demand.
I agree. The Hub-Concept is obsolet. I prefer point-to-point. Therefore i think narrow-body A/Cs will play a bigger roll in the future than now. Even if wide-body A/Cs are more comfortable for long-haul flights.
I’d rather fly garuda’s 737-800 than AA 787 or emirates a380 It’s all about seat comfort and the plane not being overly crowded One of the reasons why I always pick a seat in the upper deck when flying 747
I feel like some countries will really benefit from narrow body long haulers. Imagine for example cities such as Almaty Kazakhstan. They are perfectly positioned for making flights between Europe and Asia, with roughly 6000km each way. It would be amazing if some of these often forgotten central Asian cities can develop as a sort of miniaturized Dubai. They actually have a major advantage because time and distance wise, Kazakhstan and Russia are better positioned than the Gulf states.
One of the prestigious scheduled long-haul flights was also one of the most cramped and claustrophobic aircraft. On the other hand, you could get there much quicker on this four-abreast narrowbody, better known as Concorde
Tried long haul on a 757-200 years ago and i swore: not again unless a good excuse. Going west is the achilles heel. As i was heading east it wasnt that big a deal. But rebooting IFE was annoying
I have a question. A long haul flight would mean more fuel, more fuel would mean more weight. Similarly, the number of passengers plus the luggage (which is reasonably more on long haul flights) would also significantly add on to the weight. Doesn’t this increase in aircraft weight exceed the MTOW? And also does it not reduce the range? How do airlines manage this issue?
I see United airlines using some of there A321 XLR for Chicago Honolulu Denver Honolulu Houston Honolulu and doing it with multiple flights a day for each hub and using the 737 Max for West coast flights to Hawaii also replacing wide bodies
HNL doesn’t have the gate availability for that. And as a leisure destination HNL likes certain time slots than frequency. Fun fact, AA is running almost all widebodys right now to HNL, except one evening flight
The A220, A321 XLR and the B337-10 Max however, can be very instrumental in routes that normally do not attract huge passenger volumes and easily become the most popular aircrafts to many less popular destinations.
Who would ever want to do one of those flights in economy class in a low cost airline like Wizz Air? If people think the 757 flights to Europe from the US with the US3 full service airlines was bad imagine A321XLR at a tighter seat pitch, no service, IFE etc with Wizz Air. It’s just not for me. I could only do it in business class but even then I’d prefer a widebody for a more spacious cabin feeling and with a full service airline
The aircraft would not have the full range capacity if stuffed Wizzair style. Some seats would have to be left empty. Then you can just as well put less seats in and offer a better comfort product out in front.
So many of you are talking about reduced legroom. But that's decided individually by the airlines. There's no connection between that and wide vs narrow bodied. That said, my main concern is legroom as well. I'm only 6'1" and fairly thin, but I feel like 6'5" & 250lbs whenever I go into economy class. Interesting the article didn't mention what is a major impetus for point-to-point flights: urban traffic congestion increasing the time it takes to get to a major hub.
The main reason for the American and United A321XLR orders: they _desperately_ need to replace their rapidly aging 757-200's on longer, "thin" routes. American will use them on routes to South America from DFW and MIA, while United will use them on transatlantic routes from smaller airports in the eastern USA.
United will mainly use them on transatlantic flights from Newark and Washington, at least 11 new or "new" Destinations in Europe and North Africa are on their Radar.
I am a small person so I have never had a legroom issue. However two long distance flights on a narrow body aircraft showed me how horrible they are and why the 747 became such a success. I can only predict that even without the covid virus a move to small planes on long routes will give a strong disincentive to tourist travel. As one example people who had gone to the toilet were trapped by the food trolley. They couldn't return to their seats nor could the trolley get out because of all the trapped people. If a plane needed evacuation the single corridor is likely to be a death trap.
Hmmm. I never though about flying a single aisle plane for 8-9 hours. That doesn't sound fun, especially with people getting up out of their seats in a single aisle more on an 8 hour flight than on a 4 hour flight. But what do I know. Aren't aisle widths smaller on smaller planes compared to bigger ones? I hope they improve toilet capacity.
hmmm... in the "good old days" when one flew DC8-33, and a couple of years later on, by DC8-62/-63 non-stop Stockholm - or Copenhagen - New York ... It was absolutely single aisle aircrafts... but it did work fine. 😊 Not to mention, before that, by DC7C, 14 hours non stop Copenhagen - New York...
It’d be cool if Boeing were to develop a 767-1 and 767-2, the -1 having a shortened fuselage like an A210, and the -2 would be like that of the old 767-200ER. It’d be similar to the 747-8 with the new engines and modern refinements to an older design, but with reduced length of course. I’d rather have the comfort and spacious feeling of a wide body and convenience of twin aisles, (quicker boarding) in a plane that’d be around the same capacity as a 757-300, but much less cramped feeling. Boeing’s current smallest wide body, the Dreamliner, still is relatively large even though it was designed to replace many of the larger 767s.
A few years ago, this would have been true. But in today's modern times, manufacturers and airlines are offering more space in economy (this is coming from someone that's 6"4). Within the next few years, it's going to become mandatory for airlines to offer more space considering they have to keep up with other competing airlines. Keep in mind, just because an aircraft is "narrow-body", doesn't mean the aircraft is small. It's cheaper for airlines to operate, meaning: it will give you more bang for your buck. For example, aircraft such as the A230/21 NEOs XLR and A220s already come with standard 32 - 37 inches. It doesn't sound big, but trust me, it is. It just comes down to the airlines and their flight product.
@Boeing 737 MAX 8 depends on the airline, aircraft, product on aircraft and route. I've flown Aer Lingus new A321 NEO from JFK to Shannon on basic economy. It was surprisingly comfortable and this is coming from someone that is over 6 feet. That said. I wouldn't expect this on a 737-800 with United for over 5 hour flight...
@@RaghunandanReddyC like I’ve said, it really depends. For example a newer generation narrow-body aircraft with 180 passengers (such as an A321NEO XLR) will have more space than a fully loaded wide-body (older A330, B777, B767). The way older configurations were set, was more space and as much seats as possible, thus less room. Newer models have been getting more space (depending on airline and product) but generally more bang for your buck. A “smaller” doesn’t necessarily mean less space. It really comes down to the airline. That said, can’t really say that applies for low-cost airlines who operate on a limited budget. It’s for that very reason that seating may be a packed as possible, to make up for the cost of operating a low-cost airline, despite having a newer generation aircraft. Most of the time, they don’t survive considering their competition and the fact that competition will offer a different and possibly better product on the same type of aircraft. Again, it really depends on the airline.
@@RaghunandanReddyC Not on many airlines, a 17 inch seat and 30 inch pitch is the same in back, wide or narrow body. Stuck in the middle of the middle section, no thanks.
Air Canada used to run a transatlantic A319. Of course YYT-LHR is a pretty short hop at just over 3700 km. Westjet has used a 737-700 from YHZ to the UK. People may complain about a long haul narrow-body, but if it a choice between a narrow-body and a MUCH longer travel time then I'll take take the narrow-body happily
I always wondered why "cabin comfort" is so often seen as different between widebody and narrowbody. I think that only the seat configuration does matter. Implementing long-haul-legroom can make narrowbodies even more comfortable due to the smaller number of people right next to you and the lack of middle row seats. BUT there is ONE thing that might not work with the current narrowbodies: A seperated business class area left of the main entrance. Currently, the left door right behind the cockpit is used and all people need to pass through the potential business class, where the business class guests might seek for privacy. Only on some extended versions an additional door in front of the wing is possible.
Yes certainly... that was back in the day when the four-engine single-aisle 707 was doing the same thing. That was the golden age of flying - when in economy class they would serve real meals with real plates, real silverware, glasses, and a table cloth. Let’s all have a moment of silence... I don’t think we’ll ever see those days again, at least not in our lifetimes.
Im fine aslong as 777, a350 and 787 market will remain untouched. Im a pilot myself and the rise of narrow bodies means more aircraft flying, more pilots having jobs, i like this trend but as a passenger and an avgeek, seeing or riding a widebody still feels wayyyyyy better.
Ahh, good old ETOPS: Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim.
I actually chuckled 🤭
I came here to say this, but knew, in my heart, that it had already been said
Hahaha
😂😂😂
Wendover production.
Have you looked at TAP Air Portugal? They fly from LIS to Washington, New York, Toronto, Montreal, Boston & Northern Brazil with a A321LR with flat beds in business class.
I've been lucky enough to fly on the 321LR in 2019 to EWR. What a great plane (and airline)!
@@kyleb7435 It’s just funny to me that they don’t even mention the European carrier that has the most A321LR in their fleet, shows a huge lack of research to me.
@@pf4106 So true. Air Portugal also flies to Natal in Brasil, so I don't understand why they just focus on airlines you always see in the news, e.g. Norwegian, who are barely even flying during this pandemic compared to TAP.
@@kyleb7435 Exactly! & TAP Air Portugal also offers a premium service being a national carrier but what can you do. I’m always quick to mention in the comments tho 😂
That's a shame. One aisle on a long flight is not comfortable. I flew TAP because of the widebody 330 instead of the single aisle 757.
I would much prefer a redo of a 767, only smaller and twin aisle. Single aisle cabins are extremely cramped.
A smaller 767 is known as the 757 🤭 - you can’t shrink that any more and retain twin aisles, it’s an enormous waste of space where you could be seating paying passengers.
@@EstorilEm not with that attitude
787-8?
yes a wide body with the fuselage length of like an A318
With twin aisles and 2-3-2 seating, the cross section couldn’t be reduced much. With 2-2-2 seating, it would be inefficient compared to 3-3 seating. I think 2-3-2 is ideal, though. No adult likes middle seats, but it works for two adults with a child.
As sad as it is to see larger aircraft becoming less and less common, I recently flew on a 757 and it absolutely changed my mind on narrow bodies to the point that I will intentionally go out of my way to fly flights with the 757 rather than other aircraft. If the rumors of a 757 plus are true, I absolutely cannot wait to fly on another flying pencil.
If Boeing released a new 757, my faith in them would be restored
Flying a 757 long haul is much more comfortable than the a320 or 737 because it’s still 3-3 but wider and the plane is much more spacious than the 320 and 737. It feels like a widebody even tho it isn’t.
@@owenklein1917 A320 is wider than the 757
@@owenklein1917 The 757 cabin is narrower (11 ft 7 in) than the A320 (12 ft 1 in)
@@owenklein1917 Width of A320 cabin (not the fuselage) is 3,70 m. The 737 and 757 btw have same width - 3,54 m
This shift really depresses me tbh, plane spotting is gonna suck, and flying will feel cramped as hell. I love flying widebodies just because of their size
It’s not cramped if you fly first/business class. Anything over 2 hours and you should upgrade, it’s worth it. Trust me. I haven’t flown in the back in years and I enjoy flying as a passenger again, but I’m also a Delta Diamond member so I get free upgrades and when I don’t I just splash some cash for the upgrade.
@@CaptainCreampie69 First is only worth it if it’s a long flight or you fly often
The saving grace is the B787. I like the A350 as well, but the 787s I've flown on have all been very comfortable and inviting. I've sat in business and economy and enjoyed my flights in both. Unfortunately when I have to travel to South America from the U.S., the airline that flies out of my local airport uses an A320 on the route and it's extremely cramped.
tbh I hate boarding and deboarding a wide-body aircraft. It consumes an hour or more to fill, whereas narrow-body aircraft can be filled half an hour or less. Plus it solely depends on the airline configuration, flying on Philippine Airlines' A321NEO is a lot better than flying Cebu Pacific's A330.
@@spkpnxe I get your point, but for longer flights I’d rather have a way more comfortable flight in a wide-body than spend lesser time boarding a narrow-body but have a worse flight. So it all depends on your situation, but I always tend to have a nice time in a larger aircraft.
Personally hate the trend. I much prefer longer flights in wide bodies since I feel much less claustrophobic. Luckily, the route I take the most always has a high volume of passengers, so wide bodies are likely to stay for that route
I’d rather have a smaller plane without changing flights...
But that said, non stop 787 is the best balance. ;-)
@@xiaoka exaclty
If you are lucky enough to have access to a well served airport, good for you. But most people need to go through huge hubs. I rather having a single flight in a narrow body rather than taking long walks and flight connections in huge airports.
@@xiaoka Luckily for me, both airports I go to are Hub airports
@@xiaoka Domestically, I agree. I'm amazed at all the places from Seattle that don't have direct flights to places. Denver was different, you could get anywhere for cheap and it was direct. Internationally, I'd rather have a wide-body plane and change planes for comfort.
I'm still suffering PTSD from the loss of the grace, pace, and space of B747 flights for my LAX-LHR travels. Grateful that this route is a no-go for the narrow bodied aircraft you mention.
I hear you - it's no fun being in a tiny can. But don't give yourself more than another 10 years - it's coming !!
For now....
Burning hydrocarbons is going to get exponentially more expensive as the governments of the world introduce "global warming taxes"
Interesting rapid developments sure to follow?
You do know BA operates the A380 on that route, right?
C'mon, everybody knows that ETOPS stands for Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim.
not me, i didnt know
I thought the point of the life suite that you didn´t need to swim.. you can just float there
Especially Wendover productions.
Thats pretty funny! ......but no!
or: Engines Turn Or Passengers Sing
I still prefer to fly on larger aircraft for long haul flights :-)
Aviation is constantly new for me daily but Simple flying always keeps me caught up
The A220 is by definition more comfortable, since its 3-2 configuration cannot be squeezed to 3-3 and the seats are quite wide. I really liked the B767 for its 2-3-2 setiup, but some budget holiday line did squeeze in an extra seat...
Isn't the 767 a widebody? Which are the aircraft that are going to die.
@@mattevans4377 The 767 is the airplane that the 787 replaced. While it is technically a "widebody", it is not as wide as a 747/777, A380 or MD-11/DC-10
I could see the A-220 being used to fly to Hawaii from Boise, Spokane, Reno and Las Vegas without having to connect in LA, San Francisco, Portland or Seattle easy enough with adequate range and reserves. I would go that route to avoid the big airports.
Las Vegas is a busier airport than Portland by a long shot.
Las Vegas has multiple direct flights to Hawaii everyday
@@owenklein1917 Kind of off topic but I'm honestly surprised Las Vegas survived Covid and come back. I thought the city was toast a few years ago. Also, with the proliferation of gambling everywhere, I'm also still amazed by Vegas' economic resiliency. I still wonder over the longterm how sustainable a city based almost entirely on tourism can last.
@@Robert-z8z1z yeah it’s impressive lol. Even without the gambling, there’s so much stuff to do in Vegas. Really incredible city.
People are flying long haul flights with narrowbody aircraft, and I'm watching long haul videos with Simple Flying.
Superb
And the people flying long haul on single aisle aircraft are NOT happy about doing it. If there's a twin aisle flight available, it's going to sell out long before the single aisle.
@@davidkamen I would tend to agree with you
@@davidkamenThat's a massive oversimplification.
@@moekitsune No, it is a marketing reality. Check your stats and info before generalizing.
I have flown on 757 from Helsinki to Toronto and back, and I would always, always prefer a wide-body. To me, it's a whole different experience. I think narrow-bodies will only work in long.haul operations when we consider service between unlikely candidates (e.g. Eastern Canada to Europe).
I'm definitely in the camp that would much rather fly widebody. For those saying it depends on the airline, name some that have comfortable narrowbodies. Premium cabins will be much more limited which likely means packing in more seats. I'm glad the video mentions fewer lavs
That image of the Airbus 220 showing five across seating resurrected some long dormant early 1970s memories. Cathay Pacific provided quick and pleasant flights out of Hong Kong aboard their slender Convair 880s.
I think it’ll be really interesting to see how cabin products change with the increased popularity of narrow bodies. I reckon we’re seeing the death of first and business class with premium economy on the rise.
I think business class will continue to exist (high profit for airlines), but fewer first class equipped aircraft for sure.
@@inomad yeah that’s actually a very good point, Wendover Productions made a video about it, I think the issue airlines will find is differentiation their products with such narrow cabins.
@@inomad it’s a trend we are seeing already today, even with the likes of Emirates
I think, in the future, first class will become supersonic flying with subsonic planes left with economy and maybe business
@@emicairo yeah we saw BA make this work with the Concorde all those years ago, making it quite profitable. It’ll definitely be interesting to see how next-gen supersonic flight will transform the industry.
Let's not forget the famous Houston (KIAH) long haul B737 flights that were of the longest in the world for nearly 15 years. There was KLM and SAS that were flying Boeing 737-700s from Houston to Amsterdam and Oslo respectively. These were operating until as late as 2018 or 2019.
Ouch. It must be painful sitting in that cabin for so long.
@@williamhuang8309 On the contrary. It was an all business-class airliner with only 44 luxury seats. Ultra-exclusive!
The Airbus A220 can fly almost 4,000 miles. That’s a very small and efficient airplane for such a long route. One really wonders how much Boeing will regret not bringing this on as the Boeing 797 instead of allowing Airbus to partner and rebrand the C300.
Andrew Day Boeing is an unfair competitor. When it saw Airbus talking to Bombardier and proceed with the C300 it immediately try to have some special taxation to stop the competition on American market. Cleverly, Airbus decided to continue building the now A220 in US. Well done ! We can see with this video the potential and the value of modern narrow body airplane.
@@alainmare8081
That’s why I posted what I did. Boeing should have partnered on the C300. But no the arrogant short sighted corporate leaders failed yet again. Boeing should lead Boeing not the McDonald Douglas crew who took over.
@@andrewday3206 That merger was decades ago. Any senior staff employed by either company at the time of the merger would have retired long ago. Blaming problems on former McD-D staff might have still been valid at the turn of the century, but it's lost any validity by now.
You obviously dont understand how airlines think or work.. Boeing actually partnered with embraer for a short time to counter the c300.. they canceled it because of logistical issues with pilots and unions because of the airlines would be forced to negotiate new contracts and pay..
@@Dave_Sisson
MDD staff ended up taking most senior management positions. You need to check on that one. Their culture followed through of fiscal over engineering. Check that out too
I have done US domestic transcon and west-coast Hawaii flights on narrowbody aircraft, many times as redeye flights. Narrowbody experiences vary and it has more to do with the airline than the aircraft, so instead of whining that you'll never do a long-haul on a narrowbody, maybe you're flying with the wrong airline.
This. Whenever there is a 787 vs a350 comfort debate people on here are quick to scream “but it’s the airline’s fault for cramming in more seats”. Same can be said for narrow body long haul.
About to retire with 46 years at a major carrier in the u.s. Worked in multiple departments from flight attendant to marketing and sales to aircraft routing. What I learned in the marketing and sales area primarily', was that customers want frequency and no connection over aircraft type . The introduction of the max, xlr , 787, a350, once the industry recovers is going to be the boom. The 777x is essential and will be ordered , in much smaller numbers however as important or more is the point to point and frequency. A customer will stay with one carrier that can offer two or three flights a day from large cities to Europe, Asia or coast to coast. They will not stay with a carrier because they fly giant aircraft once a day. While I'll take my final bow, I'll always keep up with industry. Of course if demand drives a 787 , a350 in the three times a day frequency, you give that choice to your customer, that will be the winning carrier. The deal is , these aircraft are available for the three biggest , already flying or ordered, and the competition will drive more comforts and perks in the two aisle offering. Very exciting.
Long-haul single aisle: Took a C-5a (single aisle, 72 permanent 50s era comfortable seats in upper deck) non-stop from USA to Saudi Arabia 30+ years ago. Refueled in flight. I had three seats; could sleep horizontally. Slept half the time. Great flight.
More point to point routes in long haul, also has a very important benefit: you need more workers than in a hub based operation. More pilots, more cabin crew and if flying ETOPS, more engineers.
wait how is that a good thing for airlines
Is this really true?
Consider 5 labor roles: pilots, cabin crew, gate agents, ground crew, and baggage handlers.
Consider 3 independent variables: number of passengers, aircraft size, and hub-spoke vs. point-to-point.
Consider 3 dependent variables: number of flights, passengers per flight, and average flight duration.
First, let's only reduce aircraft size. Passengers per flight goes down, therefore the number of flights has to go up (average flight duration is unaffected). Smaller aircraft reduces the need for cabin crew, and fewer passengers per flight (holding the number of flights steady) reduces the need for baggage handlers and gate agents (but the need for pilots and ground crew is unaffected). More flights (holding passengers per flight steady) means a greater need for all labor roles. Net result: Increased need for pilots and ground crew.
Now let's only change from hub-spoke to point-to-point. Number of flights goes down, and average flight duration goes up (passengers per flight is unaffected). Fewer flights (holding average flight duration steady) means less need for all labor roles. Increasing the average flight duration (holding number of flights steady) increases the need for pilots and cabin crew (but makes no difference for gate agents, ground crew, and baggage handlers). Net result: Reduced need for gate agents, ground crew, and baggage handlers.
Netting the two scenarios together, we get an increased need for pilots, and a reduced need for gate agents and baggage handlers.
So, the result isn't so clear cut. Granted, I've vastly oversimplified this--I know, right?--so I can't actually make a meaningful conclusion. My point was to demonstrate that this is so complicated that there's no way any layperson can say with any certainty what the effect on labor is.
Perhaps Pablo is an expert and just didn't bother to mention that?
@@dsdy1205 People seem to be less expensive than aviation fuel. To those looking for work, that would be a blessing.
I would actively avoid long haul on a narrowbody, just seems like misery to me. I love the A330's 2-4-2 configuration as you don't feel penned in. Flew on a United 757 from DUB to IAD it was grim.
330 2-3-2 was the most uncomfortable flight I have ever taken..... Barcelona to Charlotte, sheer torture. I am 5-11, 190lbs,
I flew CS300 (now called Airbus A220) numerous times in Korea. They are surprisingly roomy (for a small narrow body "regional" jet). QANTAS has been flying 737's on their Perth-Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane route (6+hrs) for decades. 8+ hour journey is definitely do-able in a narrow body.
Agreed, but Perth to Sydney is 4 hours, not 6+
8 hours? No!
What? “8+ hour journey is definitely doable in a narrow body”??!
Speak for yourself.
@Su Geun Narrowbody and widebody configurations aren't that different but the bigger seat makes it more comfortable.
I think parking a wide body aircraft is more expensive than narrow body.
You have to tip the valet at least twice as much!
The parking fees are the same but the landing fees are higher. At least in Hawai’i.
You are right, but I think it's the weight of the aircraft which decides the fee. The 757 apparently lands in the ICAO medium class.
NOPE..
Its also about the turnaround time I think.... obviously a single aisle aircraft's turnaround time is lesser than a double aisle one' and this in turn saves some essential bucks for the airline
Honestly, I don't think I would mind flying long haul on a narrowbody. I absolutely hate to get stuck in the section between the aisles on a wide body, and that's just not possible on a plane with one aisle
As a passenger, I totally hate the idea of a long-haul flight on board a narrowbody plane. I already find 4-5 hours from Germany to the Canary Islands on a 737 hard to bear. I don't even want to imagine being stuck in such a narrow tube for a transatlantic flight. It doesn't need to be an A380 or a B747 to make me happy, I will gladly fly on a 767 or A330 or A350. Getting a seat that is comfortable enough into the fuselage of a 737 would mean airlines had to switch to a 2+3 layout even in economy. Otherwise it is just way too narrow to handle for a long flight.
I also don't see how people don't like the hub and spoke system. I absolutely enjoy those breaks, being able to walk around, stretch my legs, get decent food, see new airports, compare how well or poorly they are organized... when booking long flights, I even try to get interesting routings to see more.
R.I.P plane spotting in the future. I'm tired of seeing narrow bodies at my local airport, so I don't want to go to a busy airport just to see even more.
It’s definitely all starting to look the same...
@@sido12ification websites starting to look the same, cars are looking the same too. These fuckers are destroying customization. I remember back in Soviet Union we had one size socks for all? Why-the economies of scale. Same fir cars. We loved it when somebody brought a TV or a screw driver from the Westerm Europe because it meant it was a good match for your need. But now, I grew up to the day when the free market we were told so much to trust to is one by one dominishing our choices "for our good" . I fail to follow their reasonings
Also, T-tailed aircraft are disappearing fast.
Peak oil and global financial civilisation decline is a bitch isn’t it
*back to the 1960s*
The days of flying in luxury continue to diminish and the era of human freight beckons 😉 have a nice flight!
Passengers really are just self loading cargo ;-)
you mean the days of no security at airports, smoking in the cabin, and "fine dining" hassle in a tube? No thanks, I'll take my on board entertainment, safety, and aircraft meal canteens any time.
I don't necessarily want luxury; I want some leg room and especially elbow room. I don't need a fancy meal, free alcohol, or even being served a meal on china. What I do want is to not be treated like a human sardine. Flying coach anymore is like what an episode of The Flintstones referred to as "Steerage Class."
@@JBM425 Agreed. I don't mind airport security, have no desire to smoke in the cabin and am not picky about food. What I want is ROOM on a long-haul flight. That is my only real concern being 6'3 with a back problem.
If the shift is going toward narrow body long haul then the airlines must invest in a MORE comfortable seat, who cares about stylish, I want COMFORT on a long flight in an economy cabin.
It seems many viewers, let alone people that fly don't really understand the concept of "narrow-body" and how it operates. Yes, it's cheaper to operate due to their efficiency and etc, but that doesn't mean they will be used on long haul flights like NY to Frankfurt or flight ranging more than 8 hours. It really depends on the route and demand. Most airlines make way too much money on wide body aircraft in high demand routes, so they would lose money if they use a narrow-body aircraft on a high demand route.
Narrow-body will most likely fly transatlantic routes or connecting major cities that require stop overs in one nonstop flights. This doesn't mean you're going to be "cramped". Airlines are adapting to more space in economy seats rather than have you pay extra for a higher class. In other words, the cheaper it is for an airline to operate an aircraft, the more bang for your buck you will get.
The entire point of new generation narrow-body aircraft, is to either launch new routes and see how they do and then adjust route and aircraft as it progresses. The cheaper it is to operate an aircraft, the better it is for customers/passengers. It really depends on the airline and how they utilize the aircraft.
No matter how efficient they become they aren't as majestic as the big boys.
At least the 747 might survive as a freight aircraft.
There is just one single issue. Where and how will wide-body sized crew-rest compartments be installed? Airbus has stated that the 4,700nmi range A321neo XLR is capable of 11hr flights, were we could easily see the use for 4 pilots and 6 flight attendants. For half of the flight, at least half of the crew will be on-duty. So where will the other 5 rest? Current narrow-bodies have adequate crew-rest compartments for 2-3hrs of rest max. For 5.5hrs, I would see the need for crew-rest compartments, at least ones similarly sized to the ones in the Boeing 767, to be fitted on to the 737 MAX and A320neo. It will be very interesting to see how arrangements for compartments of such sizes to be fitted on to these narrow-bodies.
The B757-200 remains an amazing aircraft for long range flights. Hopefully it will come back
It’s long gone. Get over it.
@@GH-oi2jf The Airbus A321 LR (and XLR) replaced the 757 basically.
I prefer big planes and wide, not only do I feel safer in them but you don't feel as much turbulence either and that's important because I'm going back and forth between Europe and the US and crossing the Atlantic can be very scary when there's turbulence
We did have a few all Business Class as you mentioned, but I wonder if in future with more choice for point to point we may start to see the likes of the wider single isled aircraft (737 and A320 series) with Business at 4 abreast and the majority if not all the remainder being a 'premium' 5 abreast with wider seats and isle to give a much less claustrophobic feel on a narrow body? Could we even see the return or addition of the door just ahead of the wing to allow speedier loading of passengers from a single doorway? It would also be a good place to install an additional toilet for passenger comfort, and a central galley for more efficient in-flight service on the longer journeys.
While there will always be a need for the lower margin 'squeeze as many in as you possibly can' operation, I feel that many will still want an offering more in line with what they have come to expect in the current wide-bodies and may even be prepared to pay just enough extra to not only make it profitable, but lucrative.
You make a lot of assumptions in this video the biggest one that I'll address is Cargo ... narrow-body aircraft cannot carry equivalent Cargo in their hold in lieu of the fuel needed to fly the longer routes ..one of the biggest profit makers for Airlines is Cargo.
even on passenger lines? interesting
@@aswler yes.. for United airlines.. every pound of cargo is pure profit once they hit thier seat coast per mile. So if a 737 8 max needs 50 pax to break even and they fill the holds to max load you could see a potential profit 8,000 $$ on 16,000 lbs
Emirates has now reavealed the new preuim economy
Yes. Debuting in their new A380s taking delivery in 2021-2022.
@@inomad they actually have 1 A380 with pr economy
Everyone is first until they refresh
ye lol
Yes
I can imagine routes from FNC (Funchal, Madeira) and TFN/TFS (Tenerife, Canary Islands) to CCS, given migration links between these islands and Venezuela with A321 Neo or XLR, or maybe a 737 MAX variant. These routes have existed before but with very few weekly frequencies, often as a stop between CCS and LIS or MAD, and/or over seasonal basis. It turns out that these routes have had historical potential but insufficient for frequent services with wide body aircrafts. Candidates? Mainly TAP.
I remember when I first heard a 737 was
Flying from Los Angeles to Hawaii
I thought I was reading a typo back
Around 2005.
I'd still prefer widebody aircrafts similar to the 777s. It is definitely more comfortable and it also has more legroom too, good for long haul flights.
My main concern is the level of confort on board. No space, and by consequence, no toilettes enought for long flights. My 2 favorites aircrafts for flights with 6 hours or more are, still, the B 747 and B 767!
Business/First Class on narrow bodies with one lie flat seat on each side is a no brainer. Some airlines are already doing this and more will follow. More privacy and social distance to entice high profit business travelers back into the air again. Point to point is another plus for them.
Point to point makes sense in Europe and Asia, here in Australia I will always prefer a 380, 747 or a 787 over narrow bodies for our proper long haul work.
Yay I get to be stuck in a narrow tube for 9 hours with no legroom.. fun.🥲
but you're paying 15% less... yay?
@@Jet-Pack You're certainly not saving 15%! They are!
@@Bobspineable Nah. One aisle means the usual rush for the toilets when the food cart isn't there, being stuck miles from your seat when it's inadvertently wheeled out mid shit... Then you've got the noisy 737 cabin, the lack of space to just stand-up in a stretch your legs.. It's far more than a seat - narrow bodies are shite.
@@Bobspineable Why is sitting on a private jet different to sitting on a 737? Are you a bit thick?
@W. W. Because I'm a rude mother
Me and many others flew from the USA to a tropical vacation paradise called Viet Nam back in the 60's
& 70's with Douglas DC-63's with 269 seats and Boeing 707-320's with only 189 seats. We survived. My longest flight was from New Jersey to VN. Also used a few C-141's and even a C-5 or two in those days. My best flight was on a 707 to VN. About halfway through the pilot came on and told us the first Lunar
Lander arrived on the moon and there was lots of cheers!!! Another great ride took place on a
C-141 from Frankfurt to Tinker AFB, OK. During the flight I found a copy of the Air Force Times on the plane. As I was reading it, I found the yearly promotion list. reading the article showed that I had made
that year's promotion list for Master Sergeant! Icing on the cake!!!!!!!
I went with Turkish Airlines on a 737-800 from Istanbul to Kilimanjaro Airport, via Zanzibar. It took around 10 hours. Everything was good, except the fact, that it was nearly impossible to get up for a little walk to stretch legs. I simply felt squeezed in and it was stress for the whole body. I was so disappointed.
In 5 weeks time, I will go with KLM on a Boeing 787. At least one can get up without getting in the way with food trolleys so often. I went from Nairobi to Paris with this Aircraft last year. Was very ok
Nah i highly disagree on this.
I prefer flying the A350 or 777 or 787 than smaller A320neo family, 737 Family.
Agreed. Also with 737 and A320 they are mostly used by low cost airlines that offer limited service etc which is fine for short flights but not longhaul
@loli best well... REALLY at the end of the day it’s up to the customers. People vote with their feet - and their money.
@@johnlacey3857 That's right !
@loli best If the passagers dont buy tickets at airlines who only use norrow bodys and rather buy tickets at an airline who uses widebodys then the ll have no choice
@loli best It’s the first rule of business - not just for airlines but for any business - if you don’t make your customer happy then you will lose customers. And no business can survive without customers. That is the bottom line.
For decades the airlines have been making air travel cheaper, but at the same time less and less comfortable and convenient. At some point there’s a limit how far you can push this because price - while important - is not the only thing that matters. I am a frequent traveler and am already at the point where I’m fed up with tiny seats, shrinking legroom, fully packed airplanes and overhead bins, tiny restrooms... I would happily pay 30% more to have the middle seat empty, or to have a decent wide body on long haul flights. And I suspect I’m not the only one. Low ticket prices are great but not as important as avoiding deep vein thrombosis, frustration, claustrophobia, high blood pressure, ...
Without satisfied customers, any business will fail.
No thanks! I'll keep booking on the wide bodies.
Certainly it makes economic sense to fly long haul routes with smaller, cheaper, narrow body aircraft; the airlines’ accountants will love it. There are of course advantages to passengers, as the video points out, in connecting smaller regional airports with long-haul destinations. I’ve used these several times myself, including between Glasgow, Birmingham and Bristol, in the UK, transatlantic to Newark New Jersey. All these were with Continental (now part of United of course) and they did have the advantage of being cheap, as well as meaning that I didn’t have to drive to Heathrow, but could use an airport close to where I was living at that time. The disadvantage was that they were not very comfortable, and the service was dreadful. These routes all used Continental’s 757 aircraft, and whilst the newer planes, like the A321XLR might be more comfortable, I’m sure that the airlines will want to get as many seats on board as they can get away with. Personally I’m going to continue to look for a wide-body for long-haul wherever possible.
i love this new video series. keep up the good content!
Glad you enjoy it!
When the 787 launched to replace the 767, it was designed to compete against the 330/340 with 8 across seating. Sales were lacklustre. They picked up only once Boeing pitched the plane as 9 across with narrow seats and increased capacity that the airlines got interersted and look at sales of -9 vs -8 to see airlines prefer the larger model.
If Airlines are looking at smaller planes, how come they are almost all adding capacity on their 777s by making it 10 across with tight seat pitch and narrow seats?
The interest we are seeing is due to the retirement of 757s that served certain routes and the A321 is currently the closest replacement.
Another aspect to look at is cargo. Having Podunk USA to Podunk Europe flight on a cessna is great "point to point", but if cargo demand is from Chicago to Paris, then that small plane from Podunk to Podunk doesn't help.
There is also the issue of finances. Once finances become tight, airlines reduce marketing flights that cost more and are forced to streamline operations, and you will see long haul hubs.
Surprised you didn’t mention the DC-8 along with the 707 era of narrow body long haul.
these four engines narrowbodies are shit economics and range compared to even the 747, which is why they couldn't exist after 747 came. Against the latest narrowbody twins there is really no comparison.
@@mingming9604 Right, I was talking about the place in history of the DC-8 and 707; not asserting they would be cost competitive today.
Forgot the DC10 & L1011.
I can't even imagine being stuck in a 737 for 8hrs. 😫
U didn't watch the rest of the video.
To all who dislike the thought of narrowbody long haul... I'd like to remind you that we are also already in the age of the 10 abreast 777 and 9 abreast 787.
Especially for those of us who can't afford business class (or even premium economy). That would be the vast majority of the flying public.🙁🙁🙁
I was travelling a lot pre-COVID both on Australian domestic routes some as long as 5 hours and international routes. I tried my best to chose the airline and the departure time with respect to the planes being flown whereas the utmost effort was taken to select the flight which was operating double aisle aircraft. Sometimes it meant a different airline than the one I wanted to fly and sometimes not a convenient time of the flight. The same are the views of my family and over 90% of the friends I have spoken to. There will always be a great market for twin aisle aircraft.
If this means less flight connections, I'm down for it. If I will still have to go through hubs, no way!
The advantage of narrow body aircraft is that they can land on many more airports. For instance, a direct flight between Liverpool, UK and Newburgh, NY, USA would be possible, provided of course there is a market for such a flight. Liverpool is of course a major UK city, and Newburgh, NY can be used as cheaper alternative to New York City airports, as it is about 1 hour north of the Big Apple. The biggest requirement for these kinds of routes is proper US/UK Customs/International area in the airports.
@@maartena Yeah, however many smaller countries have several international airports since most of the flights are necessarily international, but the customs are small and they are allowed to process flights of a maximum number of pax.
I would think there will be more hubs with smaller planes
@@clydeinverness1197 Hopefully more airlines adopt Ryanair's model of infrequent but direct flights and flight connections only when absolutely needed.
So you like being a sardine?
Many people complain about the narrow body jets, but I welcome them. I'll fly jetBlue's A321XLR from JFK to LHR, and I hope they'll soon offer the same route on an A220. Perhaps the increase in smaller planes will spread international travel to more airports.
Your videos are excellent with great information and reporting. However commercial interruptions every 90 seconds makes it impossible to watch. I do not know if it is RUclips or the content provider deciding to mangle the viewing experience, but there really is a limit as to how much advertising is appropriate for the viewing experience to be palatable.
I only got a midroll and one after the video ended
depends but content creators have some say. they can decide where ads go. that being said there aren’t as many ads as you say you are exagerating
@@jonathandpg6115 Thank you for your reply. However, I'm not exaggerating. Besides the channel owner having some say, it may also be that there are other factors in play. I just re-watched the video and my commercial interruptions averaged every 97 seconds on this go, and three of them were these "double" breaks where you're presented with X number of seconds you can't escape followed by a longer one you are able to opt out of after 5 seconds. I'm not counting six lower-third screen banner overlays that you have to click to remove from view. Although the breaks come randomly, averaging the number of breaks and the length of the content, In today's run I experienced about one minute and 40 seconds of content for each interruption. Geography and RUclips Premium Subscription (commercial free service) marketing might also play a role in my experience compared to your experience and location. Maybe they're making a stronger push for permium subscription sales in my neighborhood compared to yours. I'm in Europe, Berlin, Germany specifically, and I'm guessing the YT marketing department's logic is that the more annoying they make the "free" RUclips experience, the more likely we'll be herded into buying a premium subscription.
I'll be voting with my ticket purchase and it wont be on a narrow body. I hate flying a 737 cross continent from Sydney to Perth (even in business) let alone 5+ hours. Perhaps for long hall buget carriers but it wont change the fact that long flights on a narrow body is shit.
Yeah I find the 737 a bit uncomfortable as a passenger. A320 is way better
You'll be paying more then.
@@MrMakeDo Some things are more important than money. Like avoiding deep vein thrombosis. Or insanity.
How will you get around when it's only narrow body? Because that's the way it's going. I'm just glad I live in Europe....
@Su Geun It means I can take trains places instead of flying, even if it takes longer to some places.
I think the time is right for long haul budget carriers. This can have big impact on business & trade in general.
I wouldn’t be so sure... Norwegian, Thomas cook, Asiana. Just to name a couple budget-long-haul carriers that have either gone bankrupt, or are on the edge to do so... Long-haul budget airlines are unfortunately a high-risk, low success business venture...
Especially now in highly unstable markets - when the slightest expense change can change profit do loss quickly, especially in a low-margin, high-volume: business.
We also have sizeable orders from other jets
Air New Zealand ordering at least 7 aircraft: It feels so empty without me
It will definitely be nice to travel to less demand locations without multiple flights
Just make sure to mail your luggage beforehand and eat, drink, and use the toilet at the airport because you aren’t getting them on the flight.
The industry needs to be very careful. Racing to acquire smaller aircraft for thin long haul routes is going to create future problems. What is the industry going to do when traffic returns to an acceptable "normal" level and business flyers in particular will not be satisfied flying on a small aircraft (single aisle, crowded cabins) ? Imagine an airline stuck with dozens of aircraft on which nobody wants to fly ? What will carriers do with such aircraft, how will they be utilized ? Twin engines are "all the rage" but narrow body aircraft on flights more than 3-4 hours will never be in high demand.
It would be really nice if range and speed were also expressed in nautical miles and knots.
I agree. The Hub-Concept is obsolet. I prefer point-to-point. Therefore i think narrow-body A/Cs will play a bigger roll in the future than now. Even if wide-body A/Cs are more comfortable for long-haul flights.
Everything over 3,5 hours in a single isle tube is too long.
I’d rather fly garuda’s 737-800 than AA 787 or emirates a380
It’s all about seat comfort and the plane not being overly crowded
One of the reasons why I always pick a seat in the upper deck when flying 747
@@rickywinataa wait, I guess you don't fly economy class in any planes you mentioned
@@hobog nope, all economy
I used to fly EVA 747 which has economy seat on the top deck with longer legroom
Your personal space is about the same on both.
Did a 3 hours flight to Iceland from london that's a little too long for me in single isle. Even A350/787 is not very comfortable above 7 hours.
I flew 757 from NYC to London many times. Narrow-body planes will become the future for long haul.
757/707 is a much different beast to a tiny, cramped A320 or 737
@@Socialistcheese111 Yes those planes are tiny inside.
@@V8_screw_electric_cars the a321 XLR should be quite good, i ve flown the JetBlue a321 lr london-NYC and its been awesome
@@Socialistcheese111The 757 has a narrower cabin lol
the correct spelling is Pune not Puna
Actually, isn’t it spelled with a ‘t’?
@@terrenceklaverweide6356 no
We’re a Delta focus-city and they have 130 757s. Already see the 752 nearly 8 times daily and we’ll probably see more in the future
I feel like some countries will really benefit from narrow body long haulers. Imagine for example cities such as Almaty Kazakhstan. They are perfectly positioned for making flights between Europe and Asia, with roughly 6000km each way.
It would be amazing if some of these often forgotten central Asian cities can develop as a sort of miniaturized Dubai. They actually have a major advantage because time and distance wise, Kazakhstan and Russia are better positioned than the Gulf states.
One of the prestigious scheduled long-haul flights was also one of the most cramped and claustrophobic aircraft. On the other hand, you could get there much quicker on this four-abreast narrowbody, better known as Concorde
Philippine airlines sometimes use their A321Neo to fly Manila-Sydney. Lie-flat business class seats offered.
Where is TAP Air Portugal??? When i go to north brazil i always fly on their A321lr on flights of more than 6h. Its a superb aircraft.
Tried long haul on a 757-200 years ago and i swore: not again unless a good excuse.
Going west is the achilles heel.
As i was heading east it wasnt that big a deal.
But rebooting IFE was annoying
Dot a big difference than a wide body in the same class.
Flew transatlantic on 757s regularly and never had issues, best thing about it was getting a nonstop while the alternative was connecting!
I have a question. A long haul flight would mean more fuel, more fuel would mean more weight. Similarly, the number of passengers plus the luggage (which is reasonably more on long haul flights) would also significantly add on to the weight. Doesn’t this increase in aircraft weight exceed the MTOW? And also does it not reduce the range? How do airlines manage this issue?
That’s sad that we’re going in this direction. Luckily, where I live in Seattle, narrowbodies aren’t viable to Europe or Asia.
It's also comfort. Carriers specially low ones tend to put the seats super close. Like XL did before they went defunk
I see United airlines using some of there A321 XLR for Chicago Honolulu Denver Honolulu Houston Honolulu and doing it with multiple flights a day for each hub and using the 737 Max for West coast flights to Hawaii also replacing wide bodies
perhaps now, but you'd think Honolulu would warrant a wide-body for volume, while the A321 does make sense for the other islands
HNL doesn’t have the gate availability for that. And as a leisure destination HNL likes certain time slots than frequency. Fun fact, AA is running almost all widebodys right now to HNL, except one evening flight
The A220, A321 XLR and the B337-10 Max however, can be very instrumental in routes that normally do not attract huge passenger volumes and easily become the most popular aircrafts to many less popular destinations.
Who would ever want to do one of those flights in economy class in a low cost airline like Wizz Air? If people think the 757 flights to Europe from the US with the US3 full service airlines was bad imagine A321XLR at a tighter seat pitch, no service, IFE etc with Wizz Air. It’s just not for me. I could only do it in business class but even then I’d prefer a widebody for a more spacious cabin feeling and with a full service airline
You usually get what you pay for. Many people are prepared to put up with some discomfort if a flight is hundreds of dollars cheaper.
The aircraft would not have the full range capacity if stuffed Wizzair style. Some seats would have to be left empty. Then you can just as well put less seats in and offer a better comfort product out in front.
So many of you are talking about reduced legroom. But that's decided individually by the airlines. There's no connection between that and wide vs narrow bodied.
That said, my main concern is legroom as well. I'm only 6'1" and fairly thin, but I feel like 6'5" & 250lbs whenever I go into economy class.
Interesting the article didn't mention what is a major impetus for point-to-point flights: urban traffic congestion increasing the time it takes to get to a major hub.
I'm betting on the A220-300 will be in heavy demand for the long hauls as well
The main reason for the American and United A321XLR orders: they _desperately_ need to replace their rapidly aging 757-200's on longer, "thin" routes. American will use them on routes to South America from DFW and MIA, while United will use them on transatlantic routes from smaller airports in the eastern USA.
United will mainly use them on transatlantic flights from Newark and Washington, at least 11 new or "new" Destinations in Europe and North Africa are on their Radar.
At 5:30 I actually though it was the end of the video lol
Me too
I am a small person so I have never had a legroom issue. However two long distance flights on a narrow body aircraft showed me how horrible they are and why the 747 became such a success. I can only predict that even without the covid virus a move to small planes on long routes will give a strong disincentive to tourist travel. As one example people who had gone to the toilet were trapped by the food trolley. They couldn't return to their seats nor could the trolley get out because of all the trapped people. If a plane needed evacuation the single corridor is likely to be a death trap.
Hmmm. I never though about flying a single aisle plane for 8-9 hours. That doesn't sound fun, especially with people getting up out of their seats in a single aisle more on an 8 hour flight than on a 4 hour flight. But what do I know. Aren't aisle widths smaller on smaller planes compared to bigger ones? I hope they improve toilet capacity.
hmmm... in the "good old days" when one flew DC8-33, and a couple of years later on, by DC8-62/-63 non-stop Stockholm - or Copenhagen - New York ...
It was absolutely single aisle aircrafts...
but it did work fine. 😊
Not to mention, before that, by DC7C, 14 hours non stop Copenhagen - New York...
It’d be cool if Boeing were to develop a 767-1 and 767-2, the -1 having a shortened fuselage like an A210, and the -2 would be like that of the old 767-200ER. It’d be similar to the 747-8 with the new engines and modern refinements to an older design, but with reduced length of course.
I’d rather have the comfort and spacious feeling of a wide body and convenience of twin aisles, (quicker boarding) in a plane that’d be around the same capacity as a 757-300, but much less cramped feeling. Boeing’s current smallest wide body, the Dreamliner, still is relatively large even though it was designed to replace many of the larger 767s.
I hate travelling small aircrafts to further destinations, it's so crammed and lame
A few years ago, this would have been true. But in today's modern times, manufacturers and airlines are offering more space in economy (this is coming from someone that's 6"4). Within the next few years, it's going to become mandatory for airlines to offer more space considering they have to keep up with other competing airlines.
Keep in mind, just because an aircraft is "narrow-body", doesn't mean the aircraft is small. It's cheaper for airlines to operate, meaning: it will give you more bang for your buck. For example, aircraft such as the A230/21 NEOs XLR and A220s already come with standard 32 - 37 inches. It doesn't sound big, but trust me, it is. It just comes down to the airlines and their flight product.
@@StallionFX1 still, the smaller planes are relatively cramped compared to wide body.
@Boeing 737 MAX 8 depends on the airline, aircraft, product on aircraft and route. I've flown Aer Lingus new A321 NEO from JFK to Shannon on basic economy. It was surprisingly comfortable and this is coming from someone that is over 6 feet. That said. I wouldn't expect this on a 737-800 with United for over 5 hour flight...
@@RaghunandanReddyC like I’ve said, it really depends. For example a newer generation narrow-body aircraft with 180 passengers (such as an A321NEO XLR) will have more space than a fully loaded wide-body (older A330, B777, B767). The way older configurations were set, was more space and as much seats as possible, thus less room. Newer models have been getting more space (depending on airline and product) but generally more bang for your buck.
A “smaller” doesn’t necessarily mean less space. It really comes down to the airline. That said, can’t really say that applies for low-cost airlines who operate on a limited budget. It’s for that very reason that seating may be a packed as possible, to make up for the cost of operating a low-cost airline, despite having a newer generation aircraft. Most of the time, they don’t survive considering their competition and the fact that competition will offer a different and possibly better product on the same type of aircraft. Again, it really depends on the airline.
@@RaghunandanReddyC Not on many airlines, a 17 inch seat and 30 inch pitch is the same in back, wide or narrow body. Stuck in the middle of the middle section, no thanks.
Air Canada used to run a transatlantic A319. Of course YYT-LHR is a pretty short hop at just over 3700 km.
Westjet has used a 737-700 from YHZ to the UK.
People may complain about a long haul narrow-body, but if it a choice between a narrow-body and a MUCH longer travel time then I'll take take the narrow-body happily
I always wondered why "cabin comfort" is so often seen as different between widebody and narrowbody. I think that only the seat configuration does matter. Implementing long-haul-legroom can make narrowbodies even more comfortable due to the smaller number of people right next to you and the lack of middle row seats. BUT there is ONE thing that might not work with the current narrowbodies: A seperated business class area left of the main entrance. Currently, the left door right behind the cockpit is used and all people need to pass through the potential business class, where the business class guests might seek for privacy. Only on some extended versions an additional door in front of the wing is possible.
I don't think that's very high on airlines priorities.
I barely remember it (was 3 at the time) but I did fly transatlantic in a narrow-body DC-8.
Yes certainly... that was back in the day when the four-engine single-aisle 707 was doing the same thing. That was the golden age of flying - when in economy class they would serve real meals with real plates, real silverware, glasses, and a table cloth. Let’s all have a moment of silence... I don’t think we’ll ever see those days again, at least not in our lifetimes.
Economically, this obviously makes sense. But I absolutely hate it. No longer having widebodies in the skies will be a sad day for aviation.
Nobody's killing widebodies
Im fine aslong as 777, a350 and 787 market will remain untouched. Im a pilot myself and the rise of narrow bodies means more aircraft flying, more pilots having jobs, i like this trend but as a passenger and an avgeek, seeing or riding a widebody still feels wayyyyyy better.
Well there goes the whole raison dètre for Emirates Airlines and it's Dubai hub model...not to mention Dubai's brand new massive airport.
The long range narrow body 707 and dc8 would be proud of them.
Hope you do a video about the fantastic new Emirates Premium economy
Probably a short video on the main channel
Is Embraer still in business, no mention of ERJ/E2 at all, are you all Canadians?