# The Future of Airline Seating?



## AmtrakBlue

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2013/02/the-future-of-airline-seating-lets-hope-so/


----------



## jis

Gosh that looks horribly claustrophobic, and it comes nowhere near First Class or even Business Class lie flats in comfort. I think I will pass. I could deal with the 41" pitch just using the current seats.


----------



## jsreeves

"Because the seats do occupy 16 percent more floor space, the airline would have to sell 16 percent fewer seats."

Yeah, I'm sure the airlines will jump right on this!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

True First Class service is basically dead on most routes at this point. Today's domestic First Class is more accurately called Regional Business Class. Customers who used to buy First Class seats are either in Business Class or they're making use of fractional private jet ownership. There is a market for a seat that is better than economy but less involved than Business Class, although I doubt it will ever look like this. Many designs for more comfortable and efficient seats have come and gone, some have even been licensed to various airlines at substantial cost, but most never make it into actual revenue service.


----------



## xyzzy

Except for a very few domestic routes like JFK-LAX, domestic first class is basically a larger seat, meal service (sometimes but not always), preboard privileges, and improved attention from the flight attendants. Many or most people sitting in domestic first class don't actually pay extra for it; they are the elite frequent flyers of each airline. (I am one on American.) It is not what domestic first class was like 25 years ago, but it's a lot better than cattle class. American is still flying three-class 767 with true first class on some transcontinental routes and will replace those with three-class Airbus 321. American still offers international first class on 777 aircraft but not the international 767 fleet (which is separate from the domestic 767 fleet). Most other U.S. airlines have dropped international first class entirely and offer only business class.


----------



## railiner

xyzzy said:


> Except for a very few domestic routes like JFK-LAX, domestic first class is basically a larger seat, meal service (sometimes but not always), preboard privileges, and improved attention from the flight attendants. Many or most people sitting in domestic first class don't actually pay extra for it; they are the elite frequent flyers of each airline. (I am one on American.) It is not what domestic first class was like 25 years ago, but it's a lot better than cattle class. American is still flying three-class 767 with true first class on some transcontinental routes and will replace those with three-class Airbus 321. American still offers international first class on 777 aircraft but not the international 767 fleet (which is separate from the domestic 767 fleet). Most other U.S. airlines have dropped international first class entirely and offer only business class.


I have enjoyed AA's 'Premium Class' (first), on some of those three class 767's from JFK to and from LAX and SFO, and they really do pamper you. From the welcome aboard champagne and hot mixed nuts cup, all the way thru the made-to-order ice cream sundae, the parade of food goes from coast to coast. And just when you thought it was over,

the delicious fragrance of the freshly baked chocolate chip cookies wafts thru the cabin. Sort of like being on a cruise ship......


----------



## xyzzy

To a large degree AA depends on just two sectors of the economy -- Wall Street and Hollywood -- to buy F tickets between JFK and the west coast. The most recent SAG-AFTRA contract largely eliminated the requirement that actors travel in F. At the time people wondered if this would put an end to American's transcontinental F, but apparently it did not.


----------



## John Bredin

The future of airline seating? Haven't you seen the movie "Running Man" with Arnold Schwarzenegger, where passengers on an LA-Hawaii flight stand and strap-hang as on the subway? :blink: 

I'm just about half-serious.

The airline business isn't lucrative to begin with, and is going to be even less so with the price of fuel, so every additional body that can be stuffed in helps pay the bills.

Meanwhile, passengers make a national pastime of kvetching about the incredible shrinking amenities of flying, but they don't put their money where their mouth is by choosing an airline that doesn't treat them like cattle. In other words, they continue going to CheapOAir :wacko: , Orbitz, Kayak, Travelzoo :blink: etc., sort the search results by cheapest-first, and book the first flight. In a Google search for "buy airline tickets", the first four non-sponsored results have "cheap" prominently in the subtitle if not the website name itself. 

IMHO, all it would take for Airbus to become Air-subway :giggle: is an airline industry desperate after a few years of high fuel prices pleading "save us!" to a anti-regulation, free-market-worshipping pro-business regulation-skeptical Congress, which in turn would either pressure or outright command a not-overly-resistant :giggle: FAA to "lift the burden of this antiquated regulation from the backs of the airlines." Not a guaranteed scenario, but by no means a long-shot either.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

I like the 767s, especially the original -200s, but they are rarely used on domestic flights anymore. The planes keep getting worse and worse as far as comfort, I wouldn't be surprised to see "partial standing" seats with 24'' pitch!


----------



## xyzzy

When the 767 was introduced 30 years ago, it was more fuel-efficient than the three-engine and four-engine aircraft (727, L-1011, DC-10, DC-8) that it replaced. Many airlines used the 767 on short routes in the 1980s and early 1990s. But over time as the price of fuel increased, the 767 was mostly confined to routes of 2000+ miles because other aircraft were more cost-effective at short routes.

Only a small number of 767-200 are still flying passenger routes in the USA -- but not for long. The rest of the -200's have been parked in the desert, scrapped, sold as freighters, or sent overseas. However the 767-300 and 767-400 will be around as passenger aircraft for another 10 years or so.


----------



## railiner

I remember nostalgically, when UAL introduced its brand new "City of Chicago" to the world....touting it as "if you had a favorite airliner before, this will be your new favorite".....

Indeed, its comfortable coach 2-3-2 twin aisle seating layout is very nice. Also loved those indivdual center F class seats (2-1-2).....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> I remember nostalgically, when UAL introduced its brand new "City of Chicago" to the world....touting it as "if you had a favorite airliner before, this will be your new favorite".....Indeed, its comfortable coach 2-3-2 twin aisle seating layout is very nice. Also loved those indivdual center F class seats (2-1-2).....


Here the City of Chicago (N606UA): http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-Airlines/Boeing-767-222/1271469/L/.

Those were sure nice planes to fly on. Now the skies are polluted by 737s and A320s.


----------



## jis

IMHO nothing wrong with 737s and A320s. It is the furnishing inside, and they are equally bad in the 767s today.

If you experience a PrivatAir 737 or 320, for example, with its all business class layout, there is nothing at all to complain about them. Actually I kind of like the new Sky interior in the 737-900ERs, and if accommodated in Y+ they are not bad at all.






Actually I almost wish that the Acelas could be equipped with such streamlined Sky Interior luggage bins. Increases the headroom over most seats considerably. They could look sort of like this, of course with the large Acela windows instead of the aircraft gunslits.


----------



## chakk

railiner said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for a very few domestic routes like JFK-LAX, domestic first class is basically a larger seat, meal service (sometimes but not always), preboard privileges, and improved attention from the flight attendants. Many or most people sitting in domestic first class don't actually pay extra for it; they are the elite frequent flyers of each airline. (I am one on American.) It is not what domestic first class was like 25 years ago, but it's a lot better than cattle class. American is still flying three-class 767 with true first class on some transcontinental routes and will replace those with three-class Airbus 321. American still offers international first class on 777 aircraft but not the international 767 fleet (which is separate from the domestic 767 fleet). Most other U.S. airlines have dropped international first class entirely and offer only business class.
> 
> 
> 
> I have enjoyed AA's 'Premium Class' (first), on some of those three class 767's from JFK to and from LAX and SFO, and they really do pamper you. From the welcome aboard champagne and hot mixed nuts cup, all the way thru the made-to-order ice cream sundae, the parade of food goes from coast to coast. And just when you thought it was over,
> 
> the delicious fragrance of the freshly baked chocolate chip cookies wafts thru the cabin. Sort of like being on a cruise ship......
Click to expand...

And don't forget Elaine Bennett attempting to sneak into the window seat in the last row of Premium Class.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> IMHO nothing wrong with 737s and A320s. It is the furnishing inside, and they are equally bad in the 767s today.
> If you experience a PrivatAir 737 or 320, for example, with its all business class layout, there is nothing at all to complain about them. Actually I kind of like the new Sky interior in the 737-900ERs, and if accommodated in Y+ they are not bad at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I almost wish that the Acelas could be equipped with such streamlined Sky Interior luggage bins. Increases the headroom over most seats considerably. They could look sort of like this, of course with the large Acela windows instead of the aircraft gunslits.


I haven't been on one of the new Boeing's, with the 'Sky' interior as yet.....so I will have to reserve judgement. But perhaps I am old-fashioned, because I much prefer the almost flat, featureless ceilings on the MD80's, to the last generation 737's et. al., with that 'scalloped' looking ceiling....


----------



## railiner

'Guest'? Guess I forgot to sign in before posting the above.....anyway I would like to add that the interior design of the MD80 ceiling is almost like riding on Amfleet......


----------



## railiner

Swadian Hardcore said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember nostalgically, when UAL introduced its brand new "City of Chicago" to the world....touting it as "if you had a favorite airliner before, this will be your new favorite".....Indeed, its comfortable coach 2-3-2 twin aisle seating layout is very nice. Also loved those indivdual center F class seats (2-1-2).....
> 
> 
> 
> Here the City of Chicago (N606UA): http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-Airlines/Boeing-767-222/1271469/L/.
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing that link. I remember seeing that bird on its public display at the old Stapleton Field in Denver. Those sure were the days......


----------



## PRR 60

chakk said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for a very few domestic routes like JFK-LAX, domestic first class is basically a larger seat, meal service (sometimes but not always), preboard privileges, and improved attention from the flight attendants. Many or most people sitting in domestic first class don't actually pay extra for it; they are the elite frequent flyers of each airline. (I am one on American.) It is not what domestic first class was like 25 years ago, but it's a lot better than cattle class. American is still flying three-class 767 with true first class on some transcontinental routes and will replace those with three-class Airbus 321. American still offers international first class on 777 aircraft but not the international 767 fleet (which is separate from the domestic 767 fleet). Most other U.S. airlines have dropped international first class entirely and offer only business class.
> 
> 
> 
> I have enjoyed AA's 'Premium Class' (first), on some of those three class 767's from JFK to and from LAX and SFO, and they really do pamper you. From the welcome aboard champagne and hot mixed nuts cup, all the way thru the made-to-order ice cream sundae, the parade of food goes from coast to coast. And just when you thought it was over,
> 
> the delicious fragrance of the freshly baked chocolate chip cookies wafts thru the cabin. Sort of like being on a cruise ship......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And don't forget Elaine Bennett attempting to sneak into the window seat in the last row of Premium Class.
Click to expand...

Ah, Tuscany!!

One of my favorite episodes.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

I also prefer the plainer ceiling with block luggage bins and block seats. I don't like the new seats with adjustable headrests, either. The old seats were better. The 737-200 or 747-200 was better than the 737-800 or 777-300 in their respective original configurations.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

xyzzy said:


> Except for a very few domestic routes like JFK-LAX, domestic first class is basically a larger seat, meal service (sometimes but not always), preboard privileges, and improved attention from the flight attendants. Many or most people sitting in domestic first class don't actually pay extra for it; they are the elite frequent flyers of each airline. (I am one on American.) It is not what domestic first class was like 25 years ago, but it's a lot better than cattle class. American is still flying three-class 767 with true first class on some transcontinental routes and will replace those with three-class Airbus 321. American still offers international first class on 777 aircraft but not the international 767 fleet (which is separate from the domestic 767 fleet). Most other U.S. airlines have dropped international first class entirely and offer only business class.


These 767's have some domestic uses. I was on a 3-class 767 sitting in first with meal service and truly lie-flat seats on all four legs of a LAX-Nicaragua via Miami. Even though none of the legs were longer than 5 hours, it was still a nice service.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

johnny.menhennet said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for a very few domestic routes like JFK-LAX, domestic first class is basically a larger seat, meal service (sometimes but not always), preboard privileges, and improved attention from the flight attendants. Many or most people sitting in domestic first class don't actually pay extra for it; they are the elite frequent flyers of each airline. (I am one on American.) It is not what domestic first class was like 25 years ago, but it's a lot better than cattle class. American is still flying three-class 767 with true first class on some transcontinental routes and will replace those with three-class Airbus 321. American still offers international first class on 777 aircraft but not the international 767 fleet (which is separate from the domestic 767 fleet). Most other U.S. airlines have dropped international first class entirely and offer only business class.
> 
> 
> 
> These 767's have some domestic uses. I was on a 3-class 767 sitting in first with meal service and truly lie-flat seats on all four legs of a LAX-Nicaragua via Miami. Even though none of the legs were longer than 5 hours, it was still a nice service.
Click to expand...

I agree, but AA think they are too expensive to operate, so even your route would probably get replaced by 757s.


----------



## jis

Specially considering that all these airlines have now configured their International ETOPS 757s with lie flat business Class seats.


----------



## Braniff747SP

johnny.menhennet said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for a very few domestic routes like JFK-LAX, domestic first class is basically a larger seat, meal service (sometimes but not always), preboard privileges, and improved attention from the flight attendants. Many or most people sitting in domestic first class don't actually pay extra for it; they are the elite frequent flyers of each airline. (I am one on American.) It is not what domestic first class was like 25 years ago, but it's a lot better than cattle class. American is still flying three-class 767 with true first class on some transcontinental routes and will replace those with three-class Airbus 321. American still offers international first class on 777 aircraft but not the international 767 fleet (which is separate from the domestic 767 fleet). Most other U.S. airlines have dropped international first class entirely and offer only business class.
> 
> 
> 
> These 767's have some domestic uses. I was on a 3-class 767 sitting in first with meal service and truly lie-flat seats on all four legs of a LAX-Nicaragua via Miami. Even though none of the legs were longer than 5 hours, it was still a nice service.
Click to expand...

Indeed, they still do--but the F-J-Y configuration is on its way out on US airlines. Other airlines (SQ, EK, BA, et al) still operate three-class aircraft on certain routes because they make sense.

In domestic flights, even UA is dropping F from their p.s. product and moving to a two class product.

Also... just noticed your 'interests'. Fellow debater?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> Specially considering that all these airlines have now configured their International ETOPS 757s with lie flat business Class seats.


At least it's a 757. Not a terrible narrowbody.


----------



## jis

Swadian Hardcore said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Specially considering that all these airlines have now configured their International ETOPS 757s with lie flat business Class seats.
> 
> 
> 
> At least it's a 757. Not a terrible narrowbody.
Click to expand...

The interior body width of a 757 is just 7cm larger than that of a 737. Does 7cm make that much of a difference. I bet no one even notices the difference between a 737 and a 757 as far as body width goes.


----------



## railiner

I wasn't even aware of that small difference....I had thought that all Boeing 'narrow-bodies' from the 707 thru the 757 basically had the same width. The 757 does have a distinctive appearance on the outside however.....it seems 'flat' under the cockpit compared to the others. And I notice that the 757 is selected to go in and out of mountain airfields like in the Colorado Rockies. I suppose it is the 'hot-rod' of the narrow-bodies'?


----------



## xyzzy

The 757 was designed to fly 3000+ miles, and like every twin-engine aircraft there is a lot of power available (needed to maintain flight under a one-engine-out scenario). If you put just enough fuel in a 757 for a 1000 mile flight and don't load the belly with heavy cargo, it will take off like a scalded dog at full power. Likewise a 767. When these aircraft became operational, there was a rumor that if lightly loaded they could out-climb an F-4 Phantom II to FL 200 so long as the F-4 did not go to afterburners.

In the beginning the 757s in the U.S. were used mainly on domestic runs of 2000 miles or less, but gradually they went transcon and then transatlantic from the northeast to western Europe.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

xyzzy said:


> The 757 was designed to fly 3000+ miles, and like every twin-engine aircraft there is a lot of power available (needed to maintain flight under a one-engine-out scenario). If you put just enough fuel in a 757 for a 1000 mile flight and don't load the belly with heavy cargo, it will take off like a scalded dog at full power. Likewise a 767. When these aircraft became operational, there was a rumor that if lightly loaded they could out-climb an F-4 Phantom II to FL 200 so long as the F-4 did not go to afterburners.
> In the beginning the 757s in the U.S. were used mainly on domestic runs of 2000 miles or less, but gradually they went transcon and then transatlantic from the northeast to western Europe.


That's why a 757 is better than other narrowbodies: it has a long range and powerful engines. Most modern planes don't have much power in order to save fuel.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Braniff747SP said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for a very few domestic routes like JFK-LAX, domestic first class is basically a larger seat, meal service (sometimes but not always), preboard privileges, and improved attention from the flight attendants. Many or most people sitting in domestic first class don't actually pay extra for it; they are the elite frequent flyers of each airline. (I am one on American.) It is not what domestic first class was like 25 years ago, but it's a lot better than cattle class. American is still flying three-class 767 with true first class on some transcontinental routes and will replace those with three-class Airbus 321. American still offers international first class on 777 aircraft but not the international 767 fleet (which is separate from the domestic 767 fleet). Most other U.S. airlines have dropped international first class entirely and offer only business class.
> 
> 
> 
> These 767's have some domestic uses. I was on a 3-class 767 sitting in first with meal service and truly lie-flat seats on all four legs of a LAX-Nicaragua via Miami. Even though none of the legs were longer than 5 hours, it was still a nice service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, they still do--but the F-J-Y configuration is on its way out on US airlines. Other airlines (SQ, EK, BA, et al) still operate three-class aircraft on certain routes because they make sense.
> 
> In domestic flights, even UA is dropping F from their p.s. product and moving to a two class product.
> 
> Also... just noticed your 'interests'. Fellow debater?
Click to expand...

It would appear so!


----------



## Braniff747SP

Swadian Hardcore said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 757 was designed to fly 3000+ miles, and like every twin-engine aircraft there is a lot of power available (needed to maintain flight under a one-engine-out scenario). If you put just enough fuel in a 757 for a 1000 mile flight and don't load the belly with heavy cargo, it will take off like a scalded dog at full power. Likewise a 767. When these aircraft became operational, there was a rumor that if lightly loaded they could out-climb an F-4 Phantom II to FL 200 so long as the F-4 did not go to afterburners.
> In the beginning the 757s in the U.S. were used mainly on domestic runs of 2000 miles or less, but gradually they went transcon and then transatlantic from the northeast to western Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why a 757 is better than other narrowbodies: it has a long range and powerful engines. Most modern planes don't have much power in order to save fuel.
Click to expand...

This is true. And this is (partially) why the 739ER and 321 can't replace the 75 effectively.



johnny.menhennet said:


> It would appear so!


Not to derail this thread too much... LD or CX?


----------



## jis

Braniff747SP said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 757 was designed to fly 3000+ miles, and like every twin-engine aircraft there is a lot of power available (needed to maintain flight under a one-engine-out scenario). If you put just enough fuel in a 757 for a 1000 mile flight and don't load the belly with heavy cargo, it will take off like a scalded dog at full power. Likewise a 767. When these aircraft became operational, there was a rumor that if lightly loaded they could out-climb an F-4 Phantom II to FL 200 so long as the F-4 did not go to afterburners.
> 
> In the beginning the 757s in the U.S. were used mainly on domestic runs of 2000 miles or less, but gradually they went transcon and then transatlantic from the northeast to western Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why a 757 is better than other narrowbodies: it has a long range and powerful engines. Most modern planes don't have much power in order to save fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is true. And this is (partially) why the 739ER and 321 can't replace the 75 effectively.
Click to expand...

The unique characterstic of the 757 that makes it special is that it is one of the few commercial aircrafts that can take of with full fuel load and payload and yet remain within its MTOW (Maximum Take Off Weight). So to travel its full design range it does not have to take a payload hit. All current twins that are targeted as substitutes for 757 do not have that capability. If they have to fly full range, they have to take a payload hit and conversely, if they don't take any payload hit they cannot carry full load of fuel and hence cannot fly full range.
This is not to say of course that there are no 757 flights that take a payload hit. 757s are scheduled very near the edge of their capability on flights from say Newark to Berlin, and in the westbund direction in the winter often they have to take payload hit and also occasionally land at Gander to top up. But then that is an operation risk decision taken by the airline and not an inherent problem with the 757.


----------



## xyzzy

On the other hand, if you're simply flying JFK-LAX, either the 737 MAX 9 (replacement for the 739ER) or the A321neo will have a much lower cost per seat-mile than the 757 and nearly the same pax capacity. And I believe that over time, you will see the 737 MAX 9 and A321neo in transatlantic service too. They will have the range because of lower fuel consumption per hour at cruise.


----------



## jis

xyzzy said:


> On the other hand, if you're simply flying JFK-LAX, either the 737 MAX 9 (replacement for the 739ER) or the A321neo will have a much lower cost per seat-mile than the 757 and nearly the same pax capacity. And I believe that over time, you will see the 737 MAX 9 and A321neo in transatlantic service too. They will have the range because of lower fuel consumption per hour at cruise.


Yes they will. But they won't have the lift to carry the amount of cargo that a 75 can carry in its belly. It all depends on what the plane is used for. They are just not designed to have bothr ange and lift at the same time.


----------



## railiner

xyzzy said:


> The 757 was designed to fly 3000+ miles, and like every twin-engine aircraft there is a lot of power available (needed to maintain flight under a one-engine-out scenario). If you put just enough fuel in a 757 for a 1000 mile flight and don't load the belly with heavy cargo, it will take off like a scalded dog at full power. Likewise a 767. When these aircraft became operational, there was a rumor that if lightly loaded they could out-climb an F-4 Phantom II to FL 200 so long as the F-4 did not go to afterburners.
> In the beginning the 757s in the U.S. were used mainly on domestic runs of 2000 miles or less, but gradually they went transcon and then transatlantic from the northeast to western Europe.


I have flown on 757's in and out of Jackson, Wy., Steamboat Springs (Hayden), Gunnison, and Montrose, Co. I can attest to their climb abilites....


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> I have flown on 757's in and out of Jackson, Wy., Steamboat Springs (Hayden), Gunnison, and Montrose, Co. I can attest to their climb abilites....


Heh! And I have done so out of Lhasa Gongar Airport at almost 12,000' AFAIR. Their climbing ability is not diminished much up there either.  It is disconcerting though when the mountain peaks on both sides are higher than you, way higher for quite a while. It is also crazy that after they shut the door they pressurize the plane on the ground to 7000'!
Incidentally the flight from Lhasa to Kathmandu flies almost directly over Mt. Everest. So they do have to get high enough before they get to the Great Himalayan Range from Lhasa to skip over it and then rapidly descend into Kathmandu.


----------



## xyzzy

For a while, American operated a 757 nonstop from Orange County, Calif (SNA) to the east coast. Not many large aircraft can get off the ground in 5700 feet with enough fuel for 2500 miles, even with tailwind.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Maybe they should built a 737LR or some type of super-A321 for transatlantic or even transpacific flights. The airlines really do want to save money, though I would prefer a very small widebody like a mini 787/A350 with very long range. The 783 would have been small but with short range. That got cancelled.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have flown on 757's in and out of Jackson, Wy., Steamboat Springs (Hayden), Gunnison, and Montrose, Co. I can attest to their climb abilites....
> 
> 
> 
> Heh! And I have done so out of Lhasa Gongar Airport at almost 12,000' AFAIR. Their climbing ability is not diminished much up there either.  It is disconcerting though when the mountain peaks on both sides are higher than you, way higher for quite a while. It is also crazy that after they shut the door they pressurize the plane on the ground to 7000'!
> Incidentally the flight from Lhasa to Kathmandu flies almost directly over Mt. Everest. So they do have to get high enough before they get to the Great Himalayan Range from Lhasa to skip over it and then rapidly descend into Kathmandu.
Click to expand...

IIRC, on some of those flights from the Rockies, even with the climb ability, we had to 'spiral' around a bit while climbing out of the valley before having enough altitude to cross the mountain range in the intended direction.... 

One time I took short hop on a Rocky Mountain Airways DHC Dash 7, an awesome four engined turbo prop STOL aricraft. We boarded at Peterson Field in Colorado Springs destined to Denver Stapleton International. COS altitude is around 6000 feet, and DEN around a mile. As soon as the cabin door closed, I watched my handheld altimeter drop to Denver's altitude, before we even left the gate. Cool...


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Too bad Rocky Mountain Airways dosen't exist anymore, and it's very hard to fly on a Dash 7 these days. Most turboprops are Dash 8s.


----------



## railiner

Another one I never got a chance to fly on was the four jet engined BAe 146, or known later as an RJ-85, IIRC. Awesone power for such a relatively small aircraft.

It kind of reminded me of the old USAF B-58 "Hustler".......


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Another one I never got a chance to fly on was the four jet engined BAe 146, or known later as an RJ-85, IIRC. Awesone power for such a relatively small aircraft.It kind of reminded me of the old USAF B-58 "Hustler".......


They still fly in Europe. I'll try to get a flight if I travel to Germany again.


----------



## Trogdor

railiner said:


> Another one I never got a chance to fly on was the four jet engined BAe 146, or known later as an RJ-85, IIRC. Awesone power for such a relatively small aircraft.It kind of reminded me of the old USAF B-58 "Hustler".......


I was ticketed to fly one back when Mesaba dba Northwest Airlink flew them. It was the last day before the schedule change which permanently pulled them from the DTW-MDW route (I was flying back from the east coast, having just ridden the last-ever Metroliner). So, naturally, my inbound flight was late and I misconnected.

Never got another chance to fly one.


----------



## railiner

After 'Googling' around, I found that CityJet in Ireland still flies 23 of them....there doesn't seem to be any active in North America, unless I missed something....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Dosen't Swiss International and/or Lufthansa still fly them? They're actually the same airline now because Lufty fully owns Swiss and Austrian.


----------

