The Rise Of Long Haul Narrowbody Flights

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 15 дек 2021
  • Since the introduction of the 757, long-haul flying has not just been the domain of widebody aircraft. This has expanded more in recent years and is set to go further with the new A321XLR. It’s a trend that seems set, offering new routes options and economics for airlines. Whether you want to or not, you are likely to end up flying this way soon.
    Article link: simpleflying.com/the-rise-of-...
    Photo and video sources: bit.ly/3dZpN84
    Simple Flying:
    Visit our website where we publish 150-200 news stories per week: simpleflying.com/
    Listen to our weekly podcast: simpleflying.com/podcast/
    Download our iOS & Android app: simpleflying.com/simple-flyin...
    Daily email digest sign up: simpleflying.com/daily-digest/
    Check out our main RUclips channel: / @simpleflyingnews
    Follow us on social media:
    Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
    Twitter: / simple_flying
    Facebook: / simpleflyingnews
    Linkedin: / 33222643
    #aviation #flight #avgeek #airlines #flying
    #Aviation #Flight #Avgeek #Flying

Комментарии • 334

  • @ATIMELINEOFAVIATION
    @ATIMELINEOFAVIATION 2 года назад +186

    I think it’s a really cool idea to fly long haul into smaller airports, but I would still prefer flying on widebodies.

    • @cupcake0011
      @cupcake0011 2 года назад +7

      The wide bodies such as the B787 and the a350 has a huge problems, so in my opinion flying on smaller planes are much safer.

    • @BojanTomic
      @BojanTomic 2 года назад +23

      @@cupcake0011 B737 Max is a smaller plane, yet it's beyond awful aircraft. B787 and A350 don't have any major issues which would impact safety, really.

    • @ATIMELINEOFAVIATION
      @ATIMELINEOFAVIATION 2 года назад +5

      @@JarosRC Yeah I know most people just wanna get from point A to point B

    • @punnequraq
      @punnequraq 2 года назад +7

      why, exactly? unless you’re in first class, you’re not getting any more space, just more people around you

    • @ATIMELINEOFAVIATION
      @ATIMELINEOFAVIATION 2 года назад +8

      @@punnequraq The fuselage is smaller and the whole environment just seems more cramped

  • @ant647448336
    @ant647448336 2 года назад +63

    Air Transat restarted their YUL to AGP route with the A321LR, that's one heck of a long trip on a single aisle aircraft. These were previously operated by the A310 or A330.

    • @Vicstarz26
      @Vicstarz26 2 года назад

      They also started YYZ - LGA with their A321LR

    • @igorluiz9551
      @igorluiz9551 2 года назад

      @@JarosRC I don't about the comfort, but imagining flying so much hours ins a 737 seems dreadful to me.

    • @abelmolina3835
      @abelmolina3835 2 года назад

      TAP is doing A321LR on 8 hours transatlantic trips, too

    • @sduoqsoq7478
      @sduoqsoq7478 2 года назад

      what back in the day they had a really nice a340 on similar routes

  • @lb_reflections
    @lb_reflections 2 года назад +11

    In my opinion, it's less about narrow- vs wide-body but about seating density. One of the most pleasant flying experiences in Economy that I've ever had was in fact in an IL-62, from SVO to KUL. It had a generous seat pitch, was half empty and obviously a narrow body!

  • @geoffreyboyce3015
    @geoffreyboyce3015 2 года назад +19

    I recall spending 7 hours in a C 47 (Dakota) on a Medivac to Butterworth (Malaysia) to Jakarta, canvas seats. The longest narrow-body jet was Cairns to Guam

    • @MrJimheeren
      @MrJimheeren 2 года назад +1

      Pretty cool story though

  • @gregsells8549
    @gregsells8549 2 года назад +13

    Even after the 747 came out, there were still lots of long-haul flights on narrow bodies. I flew across the Pacific on a 707 in 1974 from LAX to Taipei, with a stopover in Honolulu, on China Airlines, which didn't fly 747s until a year later. However, I took the connecting flight from DFW to LAX on an American DC-10. Domestic flights on wide bodies seemed more common from when wide bodies came out until airlines moved toward the hub-and-spoke system.

  • @wenkeli1409
    @wenkeli1409 2 года назад +108

    I feel that cramped is more a function of the seat arrangements. Have you guys ever flown on a 777 with 10 seats per row? Ugh, talking about cramped, and I'm a pretty skinny guy. That was probably the worst flight experience I've had. I'll take a A320 over that any day.

    • @JuanWayTrips
      @JuanWayTrips 2 года назад +28

      I feel like those who complain about narrowbodies on long-haul routes are mainly focused on the lack of first/business class offerings compared to widebodies. But in the main cabin/economy, it's basically the same (though 737s/757s are a bit narrower than their A320/321 counterparts). Airlines have basically made their widebody seats the same as their narrowbody seats too.

    • @jaredabraham622
      @jaredabraham622 2 года назад +2

      I flew on British airways b777 200 er and that is not the case and I’m not skinny.

    • @MARBLEHEAD07
      @MARBLEHEAD07 2 года назад +8

      Really depends on the company tbf. I flew on a 777W with a 3-3-3 configuration in economy class and it didn't felt cramped at all. In fact, I even noticed that the seats were more spacious(and adjustable) than the 737s of the same company.

    • @_w_w_
      @_w_w_ 2 года назад +15

      I am a frequent long-haul flyer. I would rather do a 6-abreast economy long-haul in a A321XLR, instead of a 10-abreast B777. Most people moaning about this are not frequent flyers, or not enough to experience what it's like to get cramped in 10-abreast B777 or 9-abreast 787 for 12-14 hours.

    • @_w_w_
      @_w_w_ 2 года назад +3

      @@MARBLEHEAD07 VAST majority of 777 in the sky are now up to 10 abreast. 9-abreast 777 is wider per seat than 737 but there just aren't many out there anymore. 320 family 6-abreast is wider than 737 6-abreast. However, 10-abreast 777 or god-forbid 9-abreast 330 will be narrower than a 6-abreast 320/LR/XLR. Boeing has brainwashed people to believe 737 and 320 are the same. They are not.. 320 per seat is wider by a bit more than 0.5in per seat and it does make a difference for most people. 320 or 737 can't really squeeze in the 7th seat, so ironically, they may be more comfortable than some widebodies. The real issue is noise. Widebodies with the like of A350 and A330neo are incredibly quiet... Even with new engines, 320 and 737 are still noisier just because they are smaller and closer to the engines.

  • @JEmricR
    @JEmricR 2 года назад +24

    I really think comfort has more to do with the airline and their outfitting than the aircraft. I recently did a trip from the US to MAN. Virgin Atlantic cancelled all their flights between Manchester and the US last minute, so I had to rebook on partner flights. I ended up on a KLM A333 for ATL to AMS, and that was such an awful experience I called Virgin as soon as I got to MAN and made them put me on DL operated A333 flight for the return, which was infinitely better. Both in economy, both same 2-4-2 layout. Maybe a 3-2 layout like the old MD-80 would be smarter for a narrowbody long haul to reduce density. I can't imagine just 3 lavs being sufficient for 150+ pax on a 7+ hour flight.

    • @MrJimheeren
      @MrJimheeren 2 года назад

      What’s wrong with the KLM A330. A perfectly fine product. It’s not the newest layout but it’s still very much KLM standard.

  • @toronrocarao4206
    @toronrocarao4206 2 года назад +37

    Holiday begins immediately after boarding widebody. Sheer amount of space brings me a relaxing experience that I look forward to. Narrowbody is certainly much better than coach but I get off it easier than from widebody.

    • @badgerattoadhall
      @badgerattoadhall 2 года назад +2

      The personal space is basically the same.

    • @Cl4rendon
      @Cl4rendon 2 года назад +1

      It`s an illusion to believe you have "more space" in a wide body. Seat pitches are 1-1 the same in Eco and the lavatory is yet near enough.

  • @gabrielfelipemuniz6341
    @gabrielfelipemuniz6341 2 года назад +3

    Worst experience ever to fly longhaul in a narrow jet, whenever the service starts, you can't go the bathroom, the toilet queue was endles, not enough space in the beam, the embarking and disembarking was slowest ever.

  • @EinkOLED
    @EinkOLED 2 года назад +5

    Narrow body single aisle planes have a lower cruise mach speed compared to wide body aircraft. In which it lags behind + 300 miles for 6 hours flown, or over 40 minutes for a NY - LHR flight. And with a max operating altitude of 39,000 ft it is unable to fly higher to take advantage of faster higher jet streams or to avoid a lower headwind.

  • @dumindudesilva083
    @dumindudesilva083 2 года назад +1

    Glad to hear that, you keep in touch even with Sri Lankan Airlines' moves

  • @Damioooooooooooooooon
    @Damioooooooooooooooon 2 года назад +7

    Yes another long haul video let’s go

  • @billyhill2488
    @billyhill2488 2 года назад +7

    The last long-ish haul flight I was on was a flying pencil (757) with Northwest for 6 hours. Before someone points out the obvious about Northwest yes it's been a while since that particular trip. Last plane I was on was a DC-9 and LOVED that flight. My cousin and uncle were going to the same place and booked with Continental for an 8.5 hour flight on a 767 (my friend and his family did too) and I wish I would have paid slightly more at the time for one less stop and a wide body for the long ride. Narrow body flights are fine for a couple hours but that closed in feeling will really get to you after a bit. I think a shorter wide body in the form of a 797 would be a great idea. Just make the 737 fluffy, lol. Possibly just a more modern and efficient 767. Loved my flights on a 767. Pretty sure I have hearing damage after being stuffed in the back of a 727 more than a few times.

    • @wraith8323
      @wraith8323 2 года назад +1

      If there was a 'Make 737 Fluffy' petition I would sign immediately 🤗

  • @devariemckoy5176
    @devariemckoy5176 2 года назад +1

    The best aviation documentary. 👍👍

  • @glorfindel17
    @glorfindel17 2 года назад +3

    Did the TAP LIS > IAD on a 321LR on Sunday. Compared to the UA 757, the “business class” seats felt narrow. Coming back on a 339 tonight, let’s hope that’s better.

  • @filledwithvariousknowledge1065
    @filledwithvariousknowledge1065 2 года назад +14

    Technically this has been ongoing since the 707-320B which still has more range than what A321XLR offers never mind it had 60 to 80% higher operating costs being a quad with 1st generation engine tech with the JT3D loud low bypass turbofans

    • @Boffin55
      @Boffin55 2 года назад +5

      And the DC8, and the IL62 and and and...

    • @ricfermi5886
      @ricfermi5886 2 года назад +3

      Well, flying a 707 was a voyage, an event! People well groomed and neat and polite! The roar of the 4 engines are unique music! And you could feel how heavy the plane was, absolutely wonderful!!

    • @MrJimheeren
      @MrJimheeren 2 года назад +1

      @@ricfermi5886 oh please, I remember in the late 90s when the last 707s landed at Schiphol, horrible loud machines spewing thick black smoke even when landing. Don’t act like the past was so great

    • @ricfermi5886
      @ricfermi5886 2 года назад +1

      @@MrJimheeren please don't assume I was referring to the 80's or 90's. I'm talking about the 60's up to mid 70's. B707, DC-8 and peers were brilliant and all exciting marvels until B747 was introduced worldwide around 1972 followed by DC-10 and L-1011.

    • @simonm1447
      @simonm1447 2 года назад +1

      The old 707 consumed around 7 l per seat and 100 km, modern airliners around 2,5 l, the 747-8 and the A 380 around 3 l.
      I don't have the specs for the 747-100, however it was surely significantly more fuel economic then the 707

  • @explorenaked
    @explorenaked 2 года назад +68

    I will certainly pay more to fly a larger aircraft for long flights. Fortunately with today's booking technology you can see the type of aircraft that is used and be more selective. This is the wave of the future though. Most people will endure the cramped quarters for cheap fares (and then complain about it).

    • @jaredabraham622
      @jaredabraham622 2 года назад +1

      Facts!!

    • @williamerazo3921
      @williamerazo3921 2 года назад +1

      Truth

    • @sylviaelse5086
      @sylviaelse5086 2 года назад +8

      It's not as if you get a bigger seat, or more leg room, just because you're in a wide-body.

    • @sking2173
      @sking2173 2 года назад +3

      @@sylviaelse5086 - The typical narrow-bodies (A320 and B737) are crap because of the 3x3 seating. On a long flight in the aisle seat, you stand twice the chance of having to get up to accommodate a pee-break than you would in the aisle seat in a 2x2 layout, or a wide-body 2x3x2 layout.
      If you fly with a spouse, the 2x3x2 or 2x4x2 layouts are ideal, because you are never disturbed by anyone other than your spouse. In a 3x3 config, there is still a third party involved that you must climb over, or that will need to climb over you.
      For that reason, I don’t do narrow-body flights across the pond ...

    • @aarronhanson6248
      @aarronhanson6248 2 года назад

      I think in the new airbus airspace cabin they have increased the seat width in that awkward middle seat and airbus do have a goal of 18 inch width which the neos achieve. The dreamliner 9 abreast didnt have that seat width it was gastly.

  • @strafrag1
    @strafrag1 2 года назад

    Excellent video. Thanks.

  • @nicholasbuonagura7374
    @nicholasbuonagura7374 2 года назад +5

    AA doesn’t have a hub in BOS, they us JetBlue for hub operations there. They would likely add the A321XLR at JFK instead

  • @mgbaviation4009
    @mgbaviation4009 2 года назад +3

    I am so excited for the A321XLR to be welcomed to Qantas’ fleet! I can imagine the amount of routes coming out of Perth, Adelaide and even Brisbane or Darwin. I have a few routes which could work to Asia, New Zealand and even South Africa pushing the aircrafts limits!
    Perth - Mauritius
    Perth - Kuala Lumpur
    Perth - Christchurch
    Perth - Delhi
    Perth - Hong Kong
    Adelaide - Auckland
    Adelaide - Nadi
    Adelaide - Tokyo
    Adelaide - Manila
    Adelaide - Taipei
    Brisbane - Taipei
    Brisbane - Tokyo
    Brisbane - Delhi
    Brisbane - Beijing
    Brisbane - Honolulu
    Brisbane - Seoul
    Darwin - Dubai
    Darwin - Delhi
    Darwin - Singapore

  • @pongtormnakornsri4840
    @pongtormnakornsri4840 2 года назад +7

    In the early years of service Qatar Airways had flown the Airbus A320 from Doha to Berlin before switching to their larger twin engine Aircraft’s. I had flown that route on a A320 before and must say the limited number of toilets/lavatories was well kind of a nuisance especially the passengers had their meals. And their is no room to stretch a leg on medium haul flights.

  • @ma77mc
    @ma77mc 2 года назад +11

    My limit is 4 hours on narrow body, much prefer a wide body aircraft.

  • @krokodilen31
    @krokodilen31 2 года назад +1

    What kinda configuration do they use/plan to use the 321 i been flying in they are pretty cramped....so a 9 hr flight with 3+3 config will be terrible.

  • @MarcusNesbitt4
    @MarcusNesbitt4 2 года назад +4

    Ive seen a La Compagnie 757 on radar flying between Newark and Paris in the last 6 months

    • @JAYfromTHEworld
      @JAYfromTHEworld 2 года назад +2

      They're all business class and I believe they now operate the a321LR

  • @andyrob3259
    @andyrob3259 2 года назад +3

    Of course you left out the L1011, DC10 when talking wide body. Wasn’t just the jumbo.

  • @papatango2362
    @papatango2362 2 года назад +16

    Narrow bodies are the exact same as wide bodies in terms of passenger comfort on a class for class basis. Assuming you put the exact same seat, it doesn’t matter wide or narrow body.

    • @lbowsk
      @lbowsk 2 года назад +4

      Not at my airline. Not even close.

    • @jrwxtx
      @jrwxtx 2 года назад +1

      Obviously, you have never flown transcontinental on AA's 737-800/900.

    • @sking2173
      @sking2173 2 года назад +2

      On a 3x3 narrow body, the aisle services six people per row. On a 3x4x3 widebody, each aisle services five people per row. Fewer seats serviced by each aisle means more bin space and faster boarding and deplaning ...

    • @jonathanchester5916
      @jonathanchester5916 2 года назад +1

      complete nonsense. The space allocation and areas for pax to move about in vary wildly between models and airlines. I suggest you actually do some flying and come back when you have some experience.

    • @steinwaldmadchen
      @steinwaldmadchen 2 года назад +1

      Jetblue essentially beats everyone in the game with A321, even when some of their competitors fly widebody transcon. Their Transatlantic Mint is competitive against more premium European carriers.
      Of course if you fly Wizzair that sicks.

  • @jetaddicted
    @jetaddicted 2 года назад +15

    Yay, can’t wait to feel short haul cramped during a long haul.
    Enjoy the future of aviation…

    • @scottanno8861
      @scottanno8861 2 года назад +2

      But if you can fly for 100 bucks vs 300 bucks....

    • @spongebubatz
      @spongebubatz 2 года назад +2

      Are you also cramped on widebodies, or in other ways, are you implying that widebodies are more comfortable? That would be strange, as airlines, at least full service ones, install the same seats as they do on widebodies, TAP for example. So you’re basically complaining about the exact same seat, the only downside I see is the missing second aisle

    • @jeffreyanderson1851
      @jeffreyanderson1851 2 года назад +1

      @@spongebubatz which is an enormous difference. Along with wider, longer, and higher cabin, wide crossovers. More toilets, more windows, etc.

    • @gteixeira
      @gteixeira 2 года назад +1

      Just take the bus instead of flying. If it is too far to get a bus, just don't go on far away vacation. Get a feeling of what most people can afford and live happy!

    • @lroke2947
      @lroke2947 2 года назад +1

      @@spongebubatz For me any 3-4 seat configuration means cramped, any 2-seat configuration is acceptable. Thus my first choice is A330 or B767 for long haul and I'll pick e.g. A330 over A350 any day (which was at least recently a choice for most Finnair Helsinki - Far East Flights).

  • @prathibhayr6594
    @prathibhayr6594 2 года назад

    Nice video

  • @spoppy3060
    @spoppy3060 Год назад

    I'm about to fly my first widebody a330 - 200 in about 1 week, but suddenly, Qantas change my flight to a 737 - 800 🤬, should I reschedule to cath that A330 or not?, or maybe catch the 787 but it's a bone cracking 6 hours transit, is it worth it?

  • @AdamSmith-nl5be
    @AdamSmith-nl5be 2 года назад +10

    Living in Australia, any international flight, besides to New Zealand, is a long flight. And I hate the idea of doing it in an narrow body aircraft.

    • @magical_catgirl
      @magical_catgirl 2 года назад +1

      Qantas today announced they would be replacing the 737 fleet with A320neos and A220s. Firm orders of 20 A321XLRs and 20 A220s and another 94 rights for A320neo/A220 types over the next 10 years, in addition the existing Qantas Group (Jetstar) order of 109 A320neos (inc 36 XLRs).
      The A321XLR has the range for Sydney-Tokyo and Qantas Group now has 56 of them on order.
      Qantas currently has 75 737s and 20 717s, which this new airbus order is to replace.
      Before the pandemic, Qantas had 3 weekly flights to Osaka and seasonal flights to Sapporo from Sydney.
      With the current long haul fleet, removal of 5 747s since the pandemic started, pending removal of 2 A380s and only 3 787s confirmed to join the fleet, the new routes to Delhi and Rome and currently no mention of when the Osaka and Sapporo routes will resume, it is possible that by 2024-2025, we may see Qantas A321XLRs operating from Sydney or Brisbane to parts of Japan, Korea or China.

    • @cab63868386
      @cab63868386 2 года назад

      also a few days ago Qantas announced a direct flight from perth to rome expanding the idea of perth to london

    • @magical_catgirl
      @magical_catgirl 2 года назад +1

      @@cab63868386 I do have to wonder which routes they aren't going to resume and/or cut back on.
      They have this new seasonal SYD-PER-FCO route and new routes to India from SYD and MEL, meanwhile they haven't even restarted their full prepandemic network yet, or even announced when some of those routes will resume (poor ORD).
      All while they've reduced the long haul wide body pax fleet by 2 A330s (getting converted to freighters), 5 747s (retired months ahead of plan) and 2 A380s (not returning to service) and only have 3 787s (completed and stored by Boeing awaiting delivery) confirmed as joining the fleet.
      They don't have enough aircraft to operate the full pre pandemic international network, much less these new routes. They have to cut back somewhere.

    • @cab63868386
      @cab63868386 2 года назад

      @@magical_catgirl 🤷‍♂no idea all i know is perth to london route broke records for passenger load and profitability

    • @magical_catgirl
      @magical_catgirl 2 года назад

      @@cab63868386 only because Qantas had been directing people towards that flight in preference over the via SIN flight.
      eg, if someone was booking BNE-LHR, the booking engine would put BNE-PER connecting to QF9 over BNE-SIN connecting to QF1.
      A lot of people have been reporting, after taking the PER-LHR sector of QF9/10, that they wouldn't want to do it again.

  • @sainnt
    @sainnt 2 года назад +4

    The narrator mentioned the 747 and A300, but nothing about the DC-10 and L-1011

  • @ricfermi5886
    @ricfermi5886 2 года назад +8

    TAP already flies successfully A321 NEO LR from Lisbon to Brazil's northeastern capitals: Fortaleza, Natal, Recife, salvador. The world lives a different prospect according to pandemic new rules and mentality. Narrow body is a sure bet to aviation worldwide. Lower capacity, economy and hygiene controlled aircraft cabin!

  • @walterjaner
    @walterjaner 2 года назад +1

    The difference is in the seat. I have flown horribly uncomfortable widebody flights (including a 747-400) because of cramped seating and very comfortable narrowbody flights because of comfortable seating.

  • @lessserious1135
    @lessserious1135 2 года назад +1

    if the ticket is dirt cheap then i'll definitely opt for narrowbody

  • @chandrachurniyogi8394
    @chandrachurniyogi8394 Год назад

    the A321-200 Neo LR and A321-200 Neo XLR was conceived for international long haul operations . . .

  • @jannepoyhonen6031
    @jannepoyhonen6031 2 года назад +2

    Cargo! Many airlines carry cargo. Before covid Finnair used A350s and A330s Helsinki London route. Because cargo capasity was full both ways. I went twice to Hong Kong. There was only 50-60% passengers. But flight attendant said cargo capasity is full all time.

  • @stephenfienberg8765
    @stephenfienberg8765 Год назад +1

    From where I live in Cape Town, I can totally see the middle eastern carriers like Qatar and FlyDubai starting 9-10 hour flights here. Easyjet might even attempt the 11hr30 LGW-CPT flight. Condor will almost certainly attempt a the 11hr FRA-CPT flight when their 757s are replaced with the A321XLR.

  • @WillTheVideoMaker
    @WillTheVideoMaker Год назад +1

    At first glance, the A321XLR looks almost identical to the A350 counterpart, except that it is only the narrow-body version of the A350
    FYI: Both the 737 and the 757 could potentially have its own LR and XLR variants to properly compete with the A321LR and A321XLR

  • @MostHigh777
    @MostHigh777 2 года назад +2

    This is a form of torture that I as a passenger would always seek to avoid.

  • @saifu8578
    @saifu8578 Год назад +1

    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?

  • @deanlands5535
    @deanlands5535 2 года назад +1

    What about aircraft performance? Narrow body aircraft will not be able to operate at the higher altitudes. This could be problem especially when crossing the North Atlantic in the winter months and also when navigating around storms. Narrow body aircraft are also slower, cruising between 7:8 and 8:2 Mach while the wide body is normally 8.2 to 8.7 Mach

  • @matthewwelsh294
    @matthewwelsh294 2 года назад

    Do a video on the new British Airways flight from London to Portland and what other international airlines should fly to Portland

  • @AndreyVanjura
    @AndreyVanjura 2 года назад +5

    I don’t feel like taking a long flight on a narrow body

  • @JeffBart
    @JeffBart 2 года назад +1

    In the 60s, through the 90s, 727s and 737s flew abroad from the USA to countries (Mexico) to Latin America and on to Canada I am sure many of those planes flew to different countries in Europe

  • @Ianmundo
    @Ianmundo 2 года назад +40

    I have recently flew on Icelandair 737-Max and honestly they are nowhere near as nice as the A321 NEO operated by Wizz Air. Legroom is quite good on the Icelandair but the extra 1ft of body diameter of the A321 makes the interior feel much more spacious

    • @_w_w_
      @_w_w_ 2 года назад +6

      Very true. 737 is narrower than 320... That extra bit of width of the 320 makes a HUGE difference, in both per seat width and wall panel curvature. I used to be a stupid Boeing fanboy until I started to commute to work by flying... When you fly twice a week for work commute, then even more flights during the week for business travel, one I quickly realizes which plane is better for passenger comfort. 320 is better all around as much as hard for me to admit as an American.

    • @mabamabam
      @mabamabam 2 года назад

      @@_w_w_ For me the A320 is the worst option. Of the regulars the best is B717 then F100, A330, B787, B737 finally A320. But thats only because the A320s i use have a terrible seat. No leg room and the head rest pushes forward meaning its impossible to sleep without you head falling forward.

    • @_w_w_
      @_w_w_ 2 года назад +6

      @@mabamabam Your A320 issue with legroom is an airline issue. There are many ULCC or LCC super densify there B737 and you would have the same issue. The benefits I listed about A320 are native immutable DNA-level feature that an airline can't alter. With my crazy travel, I have been on every plane type. A380 is the winner for me, it's very stable, quiet and spacious. It's the most calming aircraft to do work or sleep in. I would rank them as A380, B767, A350, A330neo, A330ceo, A220, A320, B717, E175, B777, B737, B787. I have a thing for B767 because it's basically the smallest widebody but also the most comfortable per seat.

    • @mabamabam
      @mabamabam 2 года назад

      @@_w_w_ width might be immutable but it is irrelevant if the chair is a torture device. Sure the airline could change seats but that's unlikely to happen between now and Monday so my 0700 flight on an a320 is going to be uncomfortable.
      The slight extra width makes zero difference, saying the plane is "all round" better is silly when the most important part, the seat, is so much worse. "Like for like" the 320 might be nicer but "all round" the noisy, old, low head room, 717 with the slightly smelly seats is so much better.

    • @_w_w_
      @_w_w_ 2 года назад +2

      @@mabamabam Stop picking LCC or ULCC... Curious, what airline does this much hated A320 belong to?

  • @ElIsrolak
    @ElIsrolak 2 года назад +5

    If this means Point to point routes for 5+ on a stretch aluminum tube, then I'll pass, will prefer to make it to a Hub and take a widebody

  • @teomartini1105
    @teomartini1105 Год назад

    What is the point with the A321XLR if Boeing 707 offered 10000km routes 60 years agol?

  • @hanj31
    @hanj31 2 года назад +1

    UA and AA will definitely use them for some
    Of their east coast to Hawaii flights.

    • @avesraggiana
      @avesraggiana 2 года назад +2

      AA already are. A321 NEOs from PHX and LAX to HNL, KOA, OGG and LIH. The distance is only 2500 nautical miles. The reason why AA loves using the A321 NEO is because it is so fuel efficient. When taking off from the “outer” islands (not HNL or KOA), the NEO can be filled to capacity with 197 passengers and cargo and still take off while meeting the pretty severe takeoff performance restrictions that are presented by the shorter runways on those islands. The NEO can do this because it doesn’t have to tanker as much fuel to make the oceanic crossing plus required reserves.

    • @hanj31
      @hanj31 2 года назад +1

      @@avesraggiana that’s not the east coast. I’m talking about the likes of Charlotte and philly and even maybe Chicago

    • @avesraggiana
      @avesraggiana 2 года назад +2

      @@hanj31 Ah. Sorry. Didn’t read everything carefully enough.

  • @stuartjohnston1086
    @stuartjohnston1086 2 года назад +1

    I actively try to avoid long haul narrow body flights. First one I did was Glasgow to Toronto. ( don't remember what aircraft it was ) I'm 6.2" and it could only be described as awful. Cramped and uncomfortable. Other flights, mostly on 747's have been excellent.

  • @noroy2
    @noroy2 2 года назад +1

    A 2-2-2 main cabin configuration could work, two isles emulating a wide body and no more hated middle seats…

    • @BlownMacTruck
      @BlownMacTruck 2 года назад +1

      Uh, did you forget that an aisle takes up space too?

  • @darkredvan
    @darkredvan 2 года назад +1

    There are 450 + orders already. So at least some airlines are convinced customers will fly on narrowbodys long haul. I doubt they all order without any market analysis.

    • @spongebubatz
      @spongebubatz 2 года назад +2

      Yeah, in reality it’s only us geeks who may even book a certain flight just to fly on a certain aircraft type. The general flying public tends to book what’s the cheapest

  • @theamazinghippopotomonstro9942
    @theamazinghippopotomonstro9942 2 года назад

    Why no ICAO abbreviations?

  • @dknowles60
    @dknowles60 2 года назад

    there has been long haul flying since apx 1960. it was call the 707 and dc8

  • @andyvu4577
    @andyvu4577 2 года назад

    So a321XLR vs b737 max 10 LR: 7-8hrs flight hours and around 200 seats
    A220-700 vs e195e2 LR: 5-6 hrs flight and around 150 seats

  • @andrzejjaworski4360
    @andrzejjaworski4360 2 года назад +1

    I just had this wild thought: what if Airbus was able to offer A321XLR before it created A380. This would create many point-to-point routes, thus exhausting airport slots and in effect create demand for huge aircraft taking many passangers using one slot.
    Unfortunately what happened was opposite🤔

    • @gteixeira
      @gteixeira 2 года назад +2

      This happens already in big hubs like LHR since much before the A380. If we could make more point-to-point flights, those congested hubs would get bypassed, thus lowering the demand for slots. However, the air routes would be the ones that would become congested, in special the North Atlantic corridor.

  • @AlexJ1037
    @AlexJ1037 2 года назад +18

    I had the absolute displeasure of flying a United 747 from San Francisco to Sydney (and back) in the very back of the plane. It was awful! LAX-Auckland on an Air New Zealand 777 was a much, much better experience. I’ve had good and bad domestic long haul flights on 737s. Much of your comfort depends on the seating configuration and the service on board.

    • @conorcorrigan765
      @conorcorrigan765 2 года назад +1

      I flew SFO-SYD on a UA 747 back in 2008/2009 as well and remember it being particularly awful. United's long-haul economy product was total crap back then...

  • @user-ip5hw6co7u
    @user-ip5hw6co7u 2 года назад +6

    I am definitely not excited and will always choose wide body aircraft for any flight longer than 4 hours.

  • @iimexicanLaw
    @iimexicanLaw Год назад

    AAL does not have a hub is BOS, Delta has a hub in BOS.

  • @mrdr89
    @mrdr89 10 месяцев назад

    Why are long haul flights considered more comfortable on a widebody plane? Aren't the seats all the same?

  • @landocalrisian2014
    @landocalrisian2014 2 года назад +5

    Boeing better catch up with a replacement for the 757 because Airbus is on a hot buttered ROLL.

    • @steinwaldmadchen
      @steinwaldmadchen 2 года назад

      They better work on a new narrowbody instead, before 225 eats their lunch.
      A321XLR orderbook drawfs compare to just 7M8, let alone combining with 32N.
      btw, neither 757 was competitive against 321. It had higher weight and fuel burn, while its superior performance is useless, when majority of carriers just wanted a peoplemover between major airports, within the continent.

    • @faizierazali3494
      @faizierazali3494 2 года назад

      @@ulungrinjanidharma8609 wdym few years while Boeing need 10 years to release the b777x

  • @Jimblefy
    @Jimblefy 2 года назад

    Didn't the max smash into the ground a couple of times?

    • @sking2173
      @sking2173 2 года назад

      The MAXes are still equipped with the infamous M-CRASH system ...

  • @G-546
    @G-546 2 года назад +2

    0:03 that was probably the shortest amount of time it took you guys to put inaccurate information in a video. When the 757 was introduced in 1983 ETOPS would not let if fly transatlantic. It only started flying transatlantic frequently in the early 2000’s. Also the DC-8 and 707 were being flown transatlantic and transpacific into the 80’s.

  • @p1xlb522
    @p1xlb522 2 года назад +3

    The perfect low density long haul aircraft has to be the Airbus A310. If Boeing made the new NMA wide body, Airbus could re-engine the A310 (thus A310neo) and give it the modern cockpit with sidesticks.

  • @noble_xx1000
    @noble_xx1000 2 года назад +3

    The world needs a wide single aisle plane with a cabin wide enough to fit 20inch wide seats and long enough to fit atleast 230 passengers with 32inchs of pitch in economy

    • @G-546
      @G-546 2 года назад +1

      The A321XLR has 18 inch wide seats. The same as the the A330NEO and A350

  • @ronaldfish1569
    @ronaldfish1569 2 года назад +2

    Boeing needs to update the 757 it is a very popular aircraft and we do very well

  • @jeremymurphy7320
    @jeremymurphy7320 2 года назад +1

    Bring back the Flying Pencil!

  • @eduardodaquil158
    @eduardodaquil158 2 года назад +1

    Thinking to cripple the 777x,but as long as the latter remain fuel efficient in longhaul flight,it will be succeeding its goal.Small long haul can not bring enough cargo which is neccedsary for airplane to besuccessful.

  • @godwinmshiu832
    @godwinmshiu832 2 года назад +1

    Icelandair is flying the 737 MAX 9 from Reykjavik to Seatle. And there is Turkish Airways flight from Istanbul to Zanzibar via Dar es Salaam. They utilize the Boeing 737 MAX 8. All these are impressive, but I am not sure how comfortable these will be flying 7+ hours.

    • @sking2173
      @sking2173 2 года назад

      I’m not ready to fly an aircraft with M-CRASH ...

  • @henrivanbemmel
    @henrivanbemmel 2 года назад +1

    Makes no difference except to say that over say 7h everyone should get wider seats and there should be Wifi and excellent IFE. They are saving plenty on the smaller planes with their up front cost and far cheaper operating costs.

  • @ColinPrince
    @ColinPrince Год назад +1

    A major step back for mankind. After wide- body planes, it's going to seem like back to sardine can flying!

  • @magnustan841
    @magnustan841 2 года назад +1

    I’ve never been on a long flight (more than 4h) using a narrowbody aircraft, so I’m actually intrigued to see if it’s as bad as everyone here makes it out to be. I think the comfort levels are all down to the airlines rather than the manufacturer. Boeing made the 777, but it was up to airlines whether they want to put in 10-abreast or 9-abreast seating. If you fly 10-abreast long haul, I’m don’t think you’ll be singing the praises of widebodies. you’d much rather be on an A320 with an 18-inch economy seat. Let’s wait and see, looking forward to the experience of going far on a little plane. Even if I’m less comfortable, if the trend results in lower fares, that’s some consolation.

    • @sking2173
      @sking2173 2 года назад

      @@sncy5303 - Airlines can increase seat pitch easily. But the width isn’t easily changed unless an airline is willing to sacrifice one seat per row. And how many 737’s have you seen in a 3x2 configuration ??

    • @spongebubatz
      @spongebubatz 2 года назад

      It’s of course obvious that these long haul narrow bodies won’t have the same configuration as those used for shorter flights. Airlines often install seats which are very similar, often even better, to those installed on widebodies. As an economy passenger there won’t really be a difference, except the second missing aisle of course

    • @magnustan841
      @magnustan841 2 года назад

      @@spongebubatz Yeah, personally I think some people are too sceptical when it comes to the new trend. But I’ve hardly had any narrowbody flights, let alone a really long one, so I can’t speak from experience. Plus, im a small Asian guy, so I don’t have any issues with the supposed “lack of space” on narrowbody. Will probably notice it on a regional jet or turboprop though, yet to experience one of those. In fact, I prepare narrowbody aircraft in the sense that I can reach the overhead bin easier.

    • @sking2173
      @sking2173 2 года назад

      @Alfred Weber - The only 10-abreast seating that I’ve found acceptable has been on the 380.
      You’re right, the 777 with 10-across is horrible ...

  • @tentingaroundflorida
    @tentingaroundflorida 2 года назад +3

    Wide body have more room and don't feel cramped

    • @spongebubatz
      @spongebubatz 2 года назад +2

      Full service airlines usually install the same seats in their long haul narrow bodies as they do on their widebodies. I had several transatlantic flights on the 757 already and trust me, when you’re seated you won’t really feel a difference and the only downside I see is the lack of a second aisle

    • @_w_w_
      @_w_w_ 2 года назад +1

      I literally fly long-haul every week for work... I practically live in planes before the pandemic. Widebody does NOT offer more room when you are sitting down. It's a silly assumption. I can write a book about this... Widebody is quieter and does offer more standing room... but sitting down, they are no better especially all the airlines are densifying their widebodies.

    • @sking2173
      @sking2173 2 года назад

      @@spongebubatz - Seat widths vary by available space. A long haul 777 with 9-across seating will accommodate 18+” seats, while the 757 will only have 17.3” seats in the INDUSTRY-STANDARD 3x3 seating.
      And before you spout off that it’s up to the airline how wide the seats are on that 3x3 757, be reminded that you can’t put 10 pounds of crap in a 5-pound bag ...

  • @RudolfGraspointner
    @RudolfGraspointner 2 года назад +1

    We sit in buses and cars for 8+ hours!

  • @stephancox9105
    @stephancox9105 2 года назад +7

    Going back to the days of the 707 and DC-8, but without the human dignity. Because in the airline industry, human dignity isn't a sustainable business model.

  • @dougharris7665
    @dougharris7665 2 года назад +2

    To go the long haul narrow / body route is a calculated risk for airlines as the paying public will ultimately decide value for money. It might be wise to limit orders until they see what the market will bear. My long haul (~5+ hrs) flights will be wide body only.

  • @joseleonriv
    @joseleonriv 2 года назад +1

    I'll be taking a 6-hour flight on an A321neo. jetBlue flight fron New York-JFK to Guayaquil, Ecuador

  • @JohnnyAmerique
    @JohnnyAmerique 2 года назад +6

    Great so long haul flights are going to become even more cramped and uncomfortable than they already are, awesome.

  • @kennedymatthew25
    @kennedymatthew25 2 года назад +1

    Tbh I’m not a fan of long haul on narrow bodies but I do understand it is cheaper to operate.

  • @epapa737
    @epapa737 2 года назад

    Imagine at the presentation at Boeing: introducing the 757: 2

  • @CO84trucker
    @CO84trucker Год назад

    Narrowbody long haul is fine if seated in first/business class. 3-3 abreast in long haul economy is ripe for claustrophobia.

  • @sportsMike87
    @sportsMike87 2 года назад

    It's doable if the airline doesn't cram so many seats in. Wishful thinking on my part though

  • @dezede591
    @dezede591 5 месяцев назад

    That's heresy
    I love 737 and 320 (especially 320), I got a tattoo of a MD80 on my arm, but I just need those planes when I fly less than 5 hours. More than 5 hours = considered long-haul = widebody, eagles doesn't fly with pigeons

  • @janfrosty3392
    @janfrosty3392 2 года назад

    I would hate to fly long haul in narrow body aircraft, in any case I would fly business class. I flew several times in business class from Sydney via Dubai with Emirates and then onto Europe again in A380, the only way to go. Love Emirates A380 launch and service.

  • @jun_suzuki42
    @jun_suzuki42 2 года назад

    Cannot complain much if I only able to afford for LCC here in Asia.

  • @williamerazo3921
    @williamerazo3921 2 года назад

    Boston to SFO AA 757

  • @apa182
    @apa182 2 года назад

    why no mention of the A220....

    • @spongebubatz
      @spongebubatz 2 года назад

      Because it’s not intended to fly on long haul routes (!?)

  • @thonoe1
    @thonoe1 2 года назад

    You bring up the 707 but those were not as crammed full of seats

    • @spongebubatz
      @spongebubatz 2 года назад

      Airlines operating the A321XLRs and A321LRs mostly will install or already have the same seats installed that you can also find on widebodies

    • @sking2173
      @sking2173 2 года назад

      @@spongebubatz - Which widebodies? The 777 with 10-across seating can only get 17 inch seats. The 321 in 3x3 can (and do) fit 18-inch seats.

    • @spongebubatz
      @spongebubatz 2 года назад

      @@sking2173 for that example I would’ve meant the wider seats, like 18 inch seats which are seats you can find on most A320-family aircraft, still it’s often the same seats you can find on (most of) their widebodies and they aren’t less comfortable. If you’re seated you won’t know which plane you’re flying in

  • @wagnerbejaranocarvalho9971
    @wagnerbejaranocarvalho9971 2 года назад +5

    People are forgetting that the world has changed, there is a milestone before and "after" the pandemic. I dare say that if Boeing moves forward with the idea of ​​retrofitting the AA-retired B757, DL will lease these aircraft and resurrect them by putting them to flight. It will be much more economical for DL ​​instead of putting in a new car, let's prefer the obvious over the unknown

    • @_w_w_
      @_w_w_ 2 года назад +2

      I said that several times...as a top tier DL flyer. I think DL would/should buy up discarded 757. DL is probably just messing with Boeing by talking about NMA. DL can use 321XLR and 757 to cover most of its very limited international routes and operations.

    • @wagnerbejaranocarvalho9971
      @wagnerbejaranocarvalho9971 2 года назад +2

      I agree with you!!!

    • @sking2173
      @sking2173 2 года назад +1

      @@_w_w_ - I’ll take the 321 over the 757 any day !

  • @lingus4268
    @lingus4268 2 года назад

    LH never operated the 737-7, they only ever operated the 737 classics which was the 737-1,2,3 & 5 series. They never had an NG.

  • @kgjplym
    @kgjplym 2 года назад

    I don't think that long haul on a narrow-bodied plane for the majority of passengers is going to be much different from a wide body. Just because a plane like a 747 is wider they of course cram in around 10 passengers across the cabin whose seats and legroom will be no bigger than the 4 or 6 seats across a narrowbody.

    • @timhershel2940
      @timhershel2940 2 года назад

      It's awful. There is definitely a difference. Single isle planes get claustrophobic and bathroom trips become a production especially if you want to sit near a window. You have to climb over two people instead of just one. You can't walk around and stand up and stretch during the flight. I will never take another narrow body transatlantic. I will actually fly into another airport instead.

  • @HeadPack
    @HeadPack 2 года назад +4

    Much will depend on the cabin. If, say they do a 3+2 eco, then this may well be bearable.

    • @bboyjunyor
      @bboyjunyor 2 года назад

      Are you willing to pay for that space (increase in ticket price)?

  • @Cl4rendon
    @Cl4rendon 2 года назад +3

    I appreciate narrow body long haul flights.
    To me it`s an illusion that a flying ballroom equals more comfort. Seat pitches in Eco are equal sometimes even worse than in narrow body.
    If the service is good, it`s all fine.
    I recall on several NB flights from Europe down to Latin America back in the 70s and it was brilliant.

  • @prajwalramgond4192
    @prajwalramgond4192 2 года назад +4

    Imagin Emirates doing Dubai-Lax on A321 XLR no thanks I like my Whale.

    • @spongebubatz
      @spongebubatz 2 года назад +3

      From Dubai you couldn’t even reach Newfoundland...

    • @jaredabraham622
      @jaredabraham622 2 года назад

      Lol that’s facts. It will take years to convince ppl to cross the Atlantic in that. When ppl see big planes the feel more safe.

    • @prajwalramgond4192
      @prajwalramgond4192 2 года назад

      @@spongebubatz metaphor

    • @prajwalramgond4192
      @prajwalramgond4192 2 года назад

      @@jaredabraham622 imagin being the ATC at lax and giving vectors to an Emirates watching it land and suddenly you notice it is a narrow body twin engine aircraft lol the look on the face

  • @wojomojo
    @wojomojo 2 года назад +2

    Boeing's NMA: Nonexistent Midsize Aircraft

  • @laustinspace5838
    @laustinspace5838 2 года назад +4

    Narrow body long haul - no way. Cramped, noisy and a ride more susceptible to adverse weather. Flights of 3 hours max

    • @cupcake0011
      @cupcake0011 2 года назад

      8 hours*

    • @magnustan841
      @magnustan841 2 года назад

      Noisy? Have you been on a MAX or Neo yet? I’ve been on the MAX, no other aircraft I’ve been on was quiter, not even the Dreamliner.

  • @josephlindquist506
    @josephlindquist506 2 года назад +2

    I did New Jersey to Vietnam (WRI-HOA) in 1970, on a DC8-63CF), with three enroute stops. Total time enroute 29 hours. Return trip in 1971, two enroute stops, 24 hours. No problem with a narrowbody. We Viet Vets would welcome a chance to fly on something that reminds us of the DC8 Super Sixties, the greatest planes ever to lift off a runway. The 757 supposedly comes close, but most of us have not had the experience, and it is rapidly disappearing from passenger service, especially with the pandemic. Bring on the A321LR/XLR!!!

    • @jaredabraham622
      @jaredabraham622 2 года назад

      No one wants to feel there trapped on transatlantic flights 8-9 hours we are just looking at it in one direction not all

    • @pham3383
      @pham3383 2 года назад

      Now if you go to vietnam you will either go on a a350xwb or boeing 777 300 ,thats it,no one ,even the vietnamese hate flying long haul narrow body jet

  • @explorewithahsann
    @explorewithahsann 2 года назад +2

    Narrow bodies are not comfortable for long flights. Even a 5 hour journey on an A320 takes a toll on the body.

  • @WarthunderDude69
    @WarthunderDude69 2 года назад +1

    This video had 747 views when I clicked on it. Lol pretty ironic

  • @skylineXpert
    @skylineXpert 2 года назад +1

    Going to espargos from copenhagen on a sunclass a321-200. Necessitates a stop on gran canaria for refueling.
    Even tried United back in 2011 from EWR to HAM.
    Honestly i have high hopes for the a321xlr.
    I hope its more spacious. The 757-200 felt like a number 2 pencil

    • @JEmricR
      @JEmricR 2 года назад

      funny, ai often hear the 757 referred to as the "flying/winged pencil".

  • @tomasmarcataio2066
    @tomasmarcataio2066 2 года назад

    I always love when you attempt to pronounce Buenos Aires and Aerolíneas Argentinas, though you actually pronounce them very well!!