# New seats let airlines squeeze in more passengers



## CHamilton

New seats let airlines squeeze in more passengers






> ...The big U.S. airlines are taking out old, bulky seats in favor of so-called slimline models that take up less space from front to back, allowing for five or six more seats on each plane.
> 
> The changes, covering some of the most common planes flown on domestic and international routes, give the airlines two of their favorite things: More paying passengers, and a smaller fuel bill because the seats are slightly lighter. It's part of a trend among the airlines to view seats as money-makers, not just pieces of furniture. Add a few inches of legroom and airlines can charge more for tickets. Take away a few inches and they can fit more seats on the plane.
> 
> Some passengers seem to mind the tighter squeeze more than others. The new seats generally have thinner padding. And new layouts on some planes have made the aisles slightly narrower, meaning the dreaded beverage cart bump to the shoulder happens more often....
> 
> Whether the new seats are really closer together depends on how you measure. By the usual measure, called "pitch," the new ones are generally an inch closer together from front to back as measured at the armrest.
> 
> Airlines say you won't notice. And the new seats are designed to minimize this problem. The seats going onto Southwest's 737s have thinner seatback magazine pockets. Passengers on Alaska Airlines will find slightly smaller tray tables. United's new seats put the magazine pocket above the tray table, getting it away from passengers' knees. And seat-makers saved some space with lighter-weight frames and padding.
> 
> This allows airlines to claim that passengers have as much above-the-knee "personal space" as they did before, even if the seats are slightly closer together below the knee.
> 
> New seats going into United Airlines' Airbus A320s are an inch closer together from front to back. The new seats Southwest has put on nearly its entire fleet are 31 inches apart, about an inch less than before. In both cases, the airlines were able to add an extra row of six seats to each plane. Southwest went from 137 seats to 143. Both airlines say the new seats are just as comfortable.
> 
> United's says the new seats make each A320 1,200 pounds lighter. Southwest says the weight savings is cutting about $10 million per year in fuel spending. In addition, the extra seats allow Southwest to expand flying capacity 4 percent without adding any planes, says spokesman Brad Hawkins, while also collecting more revenue from the additional passengers....


----------



## Oldsmoboi

good lord... I am 5'10" with a slim build and I log a lot of air miles... I already find the seats too small and I'm not a big guy.


----------



## RampWidget

I've flown on the Southwest 737-700 with their new "Evolve" interior. While it is true that the seat is thinner, you still easily perceive the decreased seat pitch (from 32" to 31") no matter what the carriers say about there being no change in the passengers' "personal space'.


----------



## SarahZ

Oh goody. Less cushioning in seats that already feel like torture devices. Fabulous.


----------



## Texan Eagle

I have been on consecutive flights on Lufthansa, same aircraft type (747), one with regular "thick" seats and the next one with these "slimline" seats, and I can tell you, both versions are equally uncomfortable. Comfort and economy class travel these days shouldn't be spoken in the same sentence, I have given up to that fact. If putting lighter seats can allow an airline to provide me a lower fare, that's ok let them do it. If they overdo it, I'll eventually move to another airline. Simple.


----------



## tp49

Hence why when I fly I carry both an inflatable seat cushion and lumbar pillow I picked up at REI. Makes the long haul TATL or TPAC a little more bearable.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Pretty soon airliners are gonna look like urban transit. Imagine riding a LRV all the way to Frankfurt or Tokyo.

For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.

Sure, KE and OZ have the same pitch with a truly reclining seat, but I once got sick from eating OZ food, so no more for me. Plus, NH has a much better safety record than both.


----------



## Texan Eagle

Swadian Hardcore said:


> For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.


I am flying ANA's Dreamliner trans-Pacific in December. Will let you know how those seats are.


----------



## xyzzy

Seat pitch is one thing. Seat width is another. For the 777, airlines are moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast in economy class. Most airlines offer a form of premium economy that has the older seat width - but unless you pay extra for the privilege or have elite status in an airline's frequent flyer program, don't expect to grab a seat in those rows. It stinks.


----------



## jis

Texan Eagle said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I am flying ANA's Dreamliner trans-Pacific in December. Will let you know how those seats are.
Click to expand...

On United 787s the Economy seats and the BF seats seeemed to be exactly the same as on their other planes.


----------



## saxman

Our United CRJ-700's are also getting these slim line seats installed. I haven't see any yet though. They will add a row to make it 70 passengers instead of 66. We are wondering how it'll affect some of our ultra long flights (for the RJ) when it comes to weight restrictions. May not be able to take a full load on those AUS to SFO flights or the newly announced MSP-LAX on an RJ. I feel bad for you guys in back of my airplane.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

xyzzy said:


> Seat pitch is one thing. Seat width is another. For the 777, airlines are moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast in economy class. Most airlines offer a form of premium economy that has the older seat width - but unless you pay extra for the privilege or have elite status in an airline's frequent flyer program, don't expect to grab a seat in those rows. It stinks.


Not only that, but true Premium Economy is often twice the fare of Economy. Sure, Economy Plus is not that expensive, but the width is the same and the pitch is a bit better.



jis said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I am flying ANA's Dreamliner trans-Pacific in December. Will let you know how those seats are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On United 787s the Economy seats and the BF seats seeemed to be exactly the same as on their other planes.
Click to expand...

I heard the same with NH, their 777s and 787s have the same IOJ seats but the interior is somewhat different. The 777 flights have a cheaper fare and I've never flown with a 2-4-3 config so I'll try that if they offer a good deal.



saxman said:


> Our United CRJ-700's are also getting these slim line seats installed. I haven't see any yet though. They will add a row to make it 70 passengers instead of 66. We are wondering how it'll affect some of our ultra long flights (for the RJ) when it comes to weight restrictions. May not be able to take a full load on those AUS to SFO flights or the newly announced MSP-LAX on an RJ. I feel bad for you guys in back of my airplane.


You're a pilot? As a passenger, I flew on the CRJ-200 quite a bit for 1-2 hours, they were very uncomfortable, it will be horrid to fly AUS-SFO or MSP-LAX on a CRJ-700, especially since Delta offers full-sized 757s on the MSP-LAX. Unfortunately, there's no good options by train or bus either on that route.


----------



## saxman

Swadian Hardcore said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seat pitch is one thing. Seat width is another. For the 777, airlines are moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast in economy class. Most airlines offer a form of premium economy that has the older seat width - but unless you pay extra for the privilege or have elite status in an airline's frequent flyer program, don't expect to grab a seat in those rows. It stinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, but true Premium Economy is often twice the fare of Economy. Sure, Economy Plus is not that expensive, but the width is the same and the pitch is a bit better.
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am flying ANA's Dreamliner trans-Pacific in December. Will let you know how those seats are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On United 787s the Economy seats and the BF seats seeemed to be exactly the same as on their other planes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard the same with NH, their 777s and 787s have the same IOJ seats but the interior is somewhat different. The 777 flights have a cheaper fare and I've never flown with a 2-4-3 config so I'll try that if they offer a good deal.
> 
> 
> 
> saxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our United CRJ-700's are also getting these slim line seats installed. I haven't see any yet though. They will add a row to make it 70 passengers instead of 66. We are wondering how it'll affect some of our ultra long flights (for the RJ) when it comes to weight restrictions. May not be able to take a full load on those AUS to SFO flights or the newly announced MSP-LAX on an RJ. I feel bad for you guys in back of my airplane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a pilot? As a passenger, I flew on the CRJ-200 quite a bit for 1-2 hours, they were very uncomfortable, it will be horrid to fly AUS-SFO or MSP-LAX on a CRJ-700, especially since Delta offers full-sized 757s on the MSP-LAX. Unfortunately, there's no good options by train or bus either on that route.
Click to expand...

The 700 is a little more comfortable than the 200. Just a little though.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

saxman said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seat pitch is one thing. Seat width is another. For the 777, airlines are moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast in economy class. Most airlines offer a form of premium economy that has the older seat width - but unless you pay extra for the privilege or have elite status in an airline's frequent flyer program, don't expect to grab a seat in those rows. It stinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, but true Premium Economy is often twice the fare of Economy. Sure, Economy Plus is not that expensive, but the width is the same and the pitch is a bit better.
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am flying ANA's Dreamliner trans-Pacific in December. Will let you know how those seats are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On United 787s the Economy seats and the BF seats seeemed to be exactly the same as on their other planes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard the same with NH, their 777s and 787s have the same IOJ seats but the interior is somewhat different. The 777 flights have a cheaper fare and I've never flown with a 2-4-3 config so I'll try that if they offer a good deal.
> 
> 
> 
> saxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our United CRJ-700's are also getting these slim line seats installed. I haven't see any yet though. They will add a row to make it 70 passengers instead of 66. We are wondering how it'll affect some of our ultra long flights (for the RJ) when it comes to weight restrictions. May not be able to take a full load on those AUS to SFO flights or the newly announced MSP-LAX on an RJ. I feel bad for you guys in back of my airplane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a pilot? As a passenger, I flew on the CRJ-200 quite a bit for 1-2 hours, they were very uncomfortable, it will be horrid to fly AUS-SFO or MSP-LAX on a CRJ-700, especially since Delta offers full-sized 757s on the MSP-LAX. Unfortunately, there's no good options by train or bus either on that route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 700 is a little more comfortable than the 200. Just a little though.
Click to expand...

I sure don't feel a difference between the two except the CRJ-700 might fly a bit smoother because it's a bit bigger. Do you mean more seat pitch, width, or what? You are a pilot, right?


----------



## PRR 60

I am in the minority. I love the RJ's due to the 2x2 seating. I can have my window and my wife can have her aisle with no middle seat complication. Someone once called it the "all First Class" configuration (I won't say who). Plus, my wife and I are in the lower segment of adult size, so that works well.

The biggest issue is headroom. I inevitably stand up to get off and hit my head on the overhead. It's kind of nice to think I'm too tall for something.


----------



## saxman

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I sure don't feel a difference between the two except the CRJ-700 might fly a bit smoother because it's a bit bigger. Do you mean more seat pitch, width, or what? You are a pilot, right?



The windows are bigger and raised slightly so you don't get a neck cramp. The floor is dropped as well. The seats are larger. I have no idea about pitch, but UAX offers economy plus and there are a couple rows of 1st class seats as well. Also a few improvements to some systems were made, such as a better air conditioning, better engines, and well better everything else.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

saxman said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure don't feel a difference between the two except the CRJ-700 might fly a bit smoother because it's a bit bigger. Do you mean more seat pitch, width, or what? You are a pilot, right?
> 
> 
> 
> The windows are bigger and raised slightly so you don't get a neck cramp. The floor is dropped as well. The seats are larger. I have no idea about pitch, but UAX offers economy plus and there are a couple rows of 1st class seats as well. Also a few improvements to some systems were made, such as a better air conditioning, better engines, and well better everything else.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks. I really couldn't see much improvements myself but that sounds good anyhow, especially for those pax flying AUS-SFO or MSP-LAX. What's the world's longest flight in a RJ? Including things like an ATR, Yak-40, Saab 340, etc, but not including the 737 or A318.


----------



## jis

Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.


That route may have been dropped. AC only lists YVR and YYC as destinations to and from PDX.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> That route may have been dropped. AC only lists YVR and YYC as destinations to and from PDX.
Click to expand...

Interesting, Toronto is the largest city in Canada, so why would they keep Vancouver and Montreal but drop Toronto?

I would still like to know, what's the longest RJ route still in operation?


----------



## PRR 60

Swadian Hardcore said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> That route may have been dropped. AC only lists YVR and YYC as destinations to and from PDX.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting, Toronto is the largest city in Canada, so why would they keep Vancouver and Montreal but drop Toronto?
Click to expand...

YYC is Calgary, not Montreal (YUL).


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

PRR 60 said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> That route may have been dropped. AC only lists YVR and YYC as destinations to and from PDX.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting, Toronto is the largest city in Canada, so why would they keep Vancouver and Montreal but drop Toronto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YYC is Calgary, not Montreal (YUL).
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Canadian airport codes. The Y-- always gets be confused. Then I do understand why they dropped Toronto, because it's probably too far away to make a profit.


----------



## PRR 60

Swadian Hardcore said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> That route may have been dropped. AC only lists YVR and YYC as destinations to and from PDX.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting, Toronto is the largest city in Canada, so why would they keep Vancouver and Montreal but drop Toronto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YYC is Calgary, not Montreal (YUL).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Canadian airport codes. The Y-- always gets be confused. Then I do understand why they dropped Toronto, because it's probably too far away to make a profit.
Click to expand...

I think that is it. It's probably due to the fact that Portland is not a major US city. Seattle, San Francisco and LA make sense for non-stops from Toronto. Portland: maybe not.

Some of the Canadian "Y" codes are a bit wacky. YVR I get. YYC: I guess I see something. YYZ and YUL: no clue.


----------



## SarahZ

Victoria = YYJ. I don't get that one either.

I only know that code because I flew from London to Winnipeg to Calgary to Victoria in 2007.


----------



## Garethe7

I'm so glad I no longer fly (if I can help it). A flight a couple of years ago on U.S. Air from Dallas to Phoenix to Seattle was one of the most cramped in recent memory. What are they going to cut out or trim down next?

Edit: About 20 years ago Alaska Airlines ran a hilarious set of commercials asking that very question, they were quite humorous with one of them featuring "pay toilets" and a man desperately going around the plane to get "change for a dollar". Could this be far off? The moral of the story was the nickel/diming of the airlines....what irony.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Garethe7 said:


> I'm so glad I no longer fly (if I can help it). A flight a couple of years ago on U.S. Air from Dallas to Phoenix to Seattle was one of the most cramped in recent memory. What are they going to cut out or trim down next?
> 
> Edit: About 20 years ago Alaska Airlines ran a hilarious set of commercials asking that very question, they were quite humorous with one of them featuring "pay toilets" and a man desperately going around the plane to get "change for a dollar". Could this be far off? The moral of the story was the nickel/diming of the airlines....what irony.


I do agree but I still fly internation a lot because the ocean liners are almost all gone (QM2 being the exception). International's not that bad, I check seat figures beforehand to book a more comfortable flight. Most of the fares are not that different. It's not just pitch and width, seat quality itself is important too. Generally I like the AA seats as far as US airlines go, but their new seats are no good. Thankfully, Greyhound is upgrading their whole fleet so I'll just ride them.


----------



## xyzzy

YYZ for Toronto comes from an old telegraph and railway station code, YZ, for Malton. I believe YUL has a similar explanation (UL for Dorval).


----------



## PRR 60

xyzzy said:


> YYZ for Toronto comes from an old telegraph and railway station code, YZ, for Malton. I believe YUL has a similar explanation (UL for Dorval).


 Thanks for the explanation! I always seemed like Canada took their "Y" prefix and just used a random generator for the second and third letters to come up with YYZ and YUL. This makes some sense: at lease as much as Moisant Stock Yards being the source of the New Orleans airport code (MSY).


----------



## jis

Speaking of telegraph office codes, back in the days in India when railway telegraph was used to arrange reservations from enroute points, special telegraph codes were used to transmit status of a reservation request. As I vaguely recall for example, the code KIMBAM was used to transmit status "waitlisted" and KASKAM was used to transmit "confirmed".


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.


I find it interesting how an EMB190 is considered a 'regional', while classic 737's and DC-9 variants with less seats than the Embraer are considered 'mainline' airliner's....


----------



## Texan Eagle

railiner said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting how an EMB190 is considered a 'regional', while classic 737's and DC-9 variants with less seats than the Embraer are considered 'mainline' airliner's....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call EMB190 a "regional jet". They are as much, if not more, comfortable as 737 and A320 series. When someone says "regional jet", I think of CRJ and the smaller ERJ-135/145 etc small planes, may I suggest a name for them? "Crampliners" 

Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.


----------



## railiner

Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......


----------



## trainman74

Texan Eagle said:


> When someone says "regional jet", I think of CRJ and the smaller ERJ-135/145 etc small planes, may I suggest a name for them? "Crampliners"


Hmm, I might take out the "M" in that term.


----------



## jis

Texan Eagle said:


> Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.


Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.
> 
> 
> 
> Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.
Click to expand...

What about outside the US?

I think the E-190 could be a regional jet because it only has two-abreast. But that is probably the confusion point between RJs and mainliners.

Then again, DC-3s were considered mainliners back in the day.



railiner said:


> Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......


Woah, how'd you book that one? Was it cheap or expensive? I would not pay extra to fly on a RJ transcon consering the 767 is a lot more comfortable.


----------



## railiner

Swadian Hardcore said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.
> 
> 
> 
> Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about outside the US?
> 
> I think the E-190 could be a regional jet because it only has two-abreast. But that is probably the confusion point between RJs and mainliners.
> 
> Then again, DC-3s were considered mainliners back in the day.
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woah, how'd you book that one? Was it cheap or expensive? I would not pay extra to fly on a RJ transcon consering the 767 is a lot more comfortable.
Click to expand...

VERY cheap....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.
> 
> 
> 
> Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about outside the US?
> 
> I think the E-190 could be a regional jet because it only has two-abreast. But that is probably the confusion point between RJs and mainliners.
> 
> Then again, DC-3s were considered mainliners back in the day.
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woah, how'd you book that one? Was it cheap or expensive? I would not pay extra to fly on a RJ transcon consering the 767 is a lot more comfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VERY cheap....
Click to expand...

Hmm? How much cheaper than the regular fare? You probably don't want to say how much it actually cost but just about what percent off the regular fare?

If it's cheap and safe, I would do it too!


----------



## railiner

Swadian Hardcore said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.
> 
> 
> 
> Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about outside the US?
> 
> I think the E-190 could be a regional jet because it only has two-abreast. But that is probably the confusion point between RJs and mainliners.
> 
> Then again, DC-3s were considered mainliners back in the day.
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woah, how'd you book that one? Was it cheap or expensive? I would not pay extra to fly on a RJ transcon consering the 767 is a lot more comfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VERY cheap....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm? How much cheaper than the regular fare? You probably don't want to say how much it actually cost but just about what percent off the regular fare?
> 
> If it's cheap and safe, I would do it too!
Click to expand...

Percentage? Hmmm....let's just say "three figures", and let it go at that.....


----------



## xyzzy

American and perhaps other airlines looked closely at a proposed E195X that would have had about 120 seats. However, no design could produce the range that AA needed, so AA went with the A319. As far as I know, the E195X is dead although it could be revived if airlines show interest.

For all practical purposes the E170, E175, E190, and E195 are "mainline" aircraft. They just don't have transcontinental range.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.
> 
> 
> 
> Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about outside the US?
> 
> I think the E-190 could be a regional jet because it only has two-abreast. But that is probably the confusion point between RJs and mainliners.
> 
> Then again, DC-3s were considered mainliners back in the day.
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woah, how'd you book that one? Was it cheap or expensive? I would not pay extra to fly on a RJ transcon consering the 767 is a lot more comfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VERY cheap....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm? How much cheaper than the regular fare? You probably don't want to say how much it actually cost but just about what percent off the regular fare?
> 
> If it's cheap and safe, I would do it too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Percentage? Hmmm....let's just say "three figures", and let it go at that.....
Click to expand...

You work for AA? I thought you worked for Trailways?


----------



## chakk

Texan Eagle said:


> I have been on consecutive flights on Lufthansa, same aircraft type (747), one with regular "thick" seats and the next one with these "slimline" seats, and I can tell you, both versions are equally uncomfortable. Comfort and economy class travel these days shouldn't be spoken in the same sentence, I have given up to that fact. If putting lighter seats can allow an airline to provide me a lower fare, that's ok let them do it. If they overdo it, I'll eventually move to another airline. Simple.


Rode this week on a Lufthansa Airbus 319 with the new slimline seats this week. I found them no more and no less uncomfortable then other seats. Same amount of legroom as on the other seats. But, with the slimmer bodies, I am guessing that the airline is able to add one or two extra rows in coach. Although this will upset window alignment with the seats, such as it may be.


----------



## jis

Just read today that Emirates is gunning for 11 abreast on the main deck of the A380. Which is interesting since Airbus was trying to make a case for 18" seat width standard, and now their biggest customer is telling them to go screw their marketing needs. It was EK that became a big proponent of 10 abreast on 777s and many followed suit. Boeing originally positioned the 777 as a 9 abreast aircraft.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> Just read today that Emirates is gunning for 11 abreast on the main deck of the A380. Which is interesting since Airbus was trying to make a case for 18" seat width standard, and now their biggest customer is telling them to go screw their marketing needs. It was EK that became a big proponent of 10 abreast on 777s and many followed suit. Boeing originally positioned the 777 as a 9 abreast aircraft.


Wow! Imagine Riding Steerage Class on Over the Pond Flights in these Cattle Cars!!


----------



## SarahZ

Ugh. 18" is borderline okay. 17" is torture for a flight longer than an hour or two. There's a reason a lot of movie houses are switching to 20" seats. It isn't even so much that people are heavier; there are lots of guys who are tall with broad shoulders and have to assume the croquet mallet position just to fit into the middle seat.

I know they want to get more people onto each plane, but at what expense?

On the other hand, if enough people get fed up, maybe they'll start using Amtrak.


----------



## jis

Emirates, who started all this won't care since Amtrak cannot get you from anywhere in the world to anywhere else bouncing through Dubai. 

Coach seats that are 17" to 17.5" inch wide have been around for a long long time, so that is nothing new. Started with the 6 abreast in 707s and DC-8s. The cabin width of a 737 is pretty much the same as that of a 707, and 6 abreast has been pretty routine in those for decades.

I believe American is the only US carrier who has gone for 10 abreast on a 777 so far, that too only in the 777Ws.

The most common US Domestic Mainline fleet has 17.2" (Boeing narrow body) to 18" (Airbus narrow body, and most wide bodies).


----------



## SarahZ

jis said:


> Emirates, who started all this won't care since Amtrak cannot get you from anywhere in the world to anywhere else bouncing through Dubai.


Yeah, I was just venting. <_< 

I've seen pictures of Emirates' first class seats - the lie-flat cubicle bedroom type things, and wow. They are _swank_.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I couldn't care less about 17" vs 18" width to be perfectly honest. I'm tall so it's the seat in front of me that is closer than ever and crushing my knees. Doesn't matter if it's an aircraft or a theater or a stadium. If you're tall then you're screwed.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> I couldn't care less about 17" vs 18" width to be perfectly honest. I'm tall so it's the seat in front of me that is closer than ever and crushing my knees. Doesn't matter if it's an aircraft or a theater or a stadium. If you're tall then you're screwed.


One of the few times in life that short people have the advantage......mostly height is an advantage, right?


----------



## SarahZ

Devil's Advocate said:


> I couldn't care less about 17" vs 18" width to be perfectly honest. I'm tall so it's the seat in front of me that is closer than ever and crushing my knees. Doesn't matter if it's an aircraft or a theater or a stadium. If you're tall then you're screwed.


Truth. I feel cramped, and I'm only 5'5". I always feel really bad for people over 6'.


----------



## railiner

One other factor in seat pitch comfort, is how the seats are designed. By that, I mean how much 'shin room' you actually get. Sometimes seats may have the exact same spacing, but due to differences in their design, some will allow you to slouch down and slide your feet far forward under the seat ahead of you, while others will hit your shin, and not allow much stretching. I don't fly different airlines enough to identify which...


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

SarahZ said:


> Ugh. 18" is borderline okay. 17" is torture for a flight longer than an hour or two. There's a reason a lot of movie houses are switching to 20" seats. It isn't even so much that people are heavier; there are lots of guys who are tall with broad shoulders and have to assume the croquet mallet position just to fit into the middle seat.
> 
> I know they want to get more people onto each plane, but at what expense?
> 
> On the other hand, if enough people get fed up, maybe they'll start using Amtrak.


I'm thin, seat width dosen't matter for me. I care more about the actual comfort of the seat, lumbar support, padding, headrest positioning, etc. That's why I'm happy to ride LD in a Greyhound 102DL3 even though they only have 17"x34" seats, they are better for sitting than the new seats on the newer buses.


----------



## xyzzy

Seat width matters to me. I can feel the additional butt-room in an Airbus narrowbody compared to a Boeing narrowbody. The idea of anything less than 18" transatlantic is awful.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

xyzzy said:


> Seat width matters to me. I can feel the additional butt-room in an Airbus narrowbody compared to a Boeing narrowbody. The idea of anything less than 18" transatlantic is awful.


But Airbus narrowbodies don't fly transatlantic.


----------



## xyzzy

Oh yes they do. Besides the small number of transatlantic 319s that are configured for all business class, Air Canada flies 319s with regular cabins into Heathrow part of the year.

But my comment wasn't limited to Airbus. Take the American 772, for example. The 9-abreast seats in the main cabin are 18 inches, just like the Main Cabin Extra seats in the 773. But the 10-abreast 773 main cabin cuts them down to 17 inches.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

xyzzy said:


> Oh yes they do. Besides the small number of transatlantic 319s that are configured for all business class, Air Canada flies 319s with regular cabins into Heathrow part of the year.
> 
> But my comment wasn't limited to Airbus. Take the American 772, for example. The 9-abreast seats in the main cabin are 18 inches, just like the Main Cabin Extra seats in the 773. But the 10-abreast 773 main cabin cuts them down to 17 inches.


Point understood.


----------



## SarahZ

Even when I was thin, I still hated 17" seats. I don't like my thigh touching a stranger's thigh. But then again, I'm super weird when it comes to personal space and being touched, so maybe it's a me thing and not a seat thing.


----------



## railiner

SarahZ said:


> Even when I was thin, I still hated 17" seats. I don't like my thigh touching a stranger's thigh. But then again, I'm super weird when it comes to personal space and being touched, so maybe it's a me thing and not a seat thing.


If you ever visit here, I would suggest you avoid the New York subways at rush hour..........


----------



## Devil's Advocate

SarahZ said:


> Even when I was thin, I still hated 17" seats. I don't like my thigh touching a stranger's thigh. But then again, I'm super weird when it comes to personal space and being touched, so maybe it's a me thing and not a seat thing.


I don't like sleeping against a stranger, but on Amtrak it's virtually impossible to avoid unless the train is empty, you're traveling in an even numbered group, or you're in a sleeper. Was it like that in the 50's or is sleeping with strangers some sort of thing that Amtrak pioneered?


----------



## PRR 60

Devil's Advocate said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even when I was thin, I still hated 17" seats. I don't like my thigh touching a stranger's thigh. But then again, I'm super weird when it comes to personal space and being touched, so maybe it's a me thing and not a seat thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like sleeping against a stranger, but on Amtrak it's virtually impossible to avoid unless the train is empty, you're traveling in an even numbered group, or you're in a sleeper. Was it like that in the 50's or is sleeping with strangers some sort of thing that Amtrak pioneered?
Click to expand...

As I recall, the pre-Amtrak coach seating also lacked the arm rest between the seats. I took my first long distance train trip in 1963, and that is how I recall it. But, given that it was 50 years ago (yikes), I can't say for sure,


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

PRR 60 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even when I was thin, I still hated 17" seats. I don't like my thigh touching a stranger's thigh. But then again, I'm super weird when it comes to personal space and being touched, so maybe it's a me thing and not a seat thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like sleeping against a stranger, but on Amtrak it's virtually impossible to avoid unless the train is empty, you're traveling in an even numbered group, or you're in a sleeper. Was it like that in the 50's or is sleeping with strangers some sort of thing that Amtrak pioneered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall, the pre-Amtrak coach seating also lacked the arm rest between the seats. I took my first long distance train trip in 1963, and that is how I recall it. But, given that it was 50 years ago (yikes), I can't say for sure,
Click to expand...

Here's a greatg interior pic of the old seats on the El Capitan: http://streamlinermemories.info/SF/Hilevelseats.jpg.

As you can see, there is a armrest between the seats but it matches into the seatback when you don't need it, so no gap between the seats.


----------



## railiner

Swadian Hardcore said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even when I was thin, I still hated 17" seats. I don't like my thigh touching a stranger's thigh. But then again, I'm super weird when it comes to personal space and being touched, so maybe it's a me thing and not a seat thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like sleeping against a stranger, but on Amtrak it's virtually impossible to avoid unless the train is empty, you're traveling in an even numbered group, or you're in a sleeper. Was it like that in the 50's or is sleeping with strangers some sort of thing that Amtrak pioneered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall, the pre-Amtrak coach seating also lacked the arm rest between the seats. I took my first long distance train trip in 1963, and that is how I recall it. But, given that it was 50 years ago (yikes), I can't say for sure,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a greatg interior pic of the old seats on the El Capitan: http://streamlinermemories.info/SF/Hilevelseats.jpg.
> 
> As you can see, there is a armrest between the seats but it matches into the seatback when you don't need it, so no gap between the seats.
Click to expand...

Great photo! Thanks for the link.....those Hi-Level seats were made by Karpen....much more comfortable than anything out there today. And because they did not have tray tables, they reclined much further, as well. For those that "Vant to be alone".....the transition coach had some single coach seats on either side of the steps leading down to the standard level end door.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even when I was thin, I still hated 17" seats. I don't like my thigh touching a stranger's thigh. But then again, I'm super weird when it comes to personal space and being touched, so maybe it's a me thing and not a seat thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like sleeping against a stranger, but on Amtrak it's virtually impossible to avoid unless the train is empty, you're traveling in an even numbered group, or you're in a sleeper. Was it like that in the 50's or is sleeping with strangers some sort of thing that Amtrak pioneered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall, the pre-Amtrak coach seating also lacked the arm rest between the seats. I took my first long distance train trip in 1963, and that is how I recall it. But, given that it was 50 years ago (yikes), I can't say for sure,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a greatg interior pic of the old seats on the El Capitan: http://streamlinermemories.info/SF/Hilevelseats.jpg.
> 
> As you can see, there is a armrest between the seats but it matches into the seatback when you don't need it, so no gap between the seats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great photo! Thanks for the link.....those Hi-Level seats were made by Karpen....much more comfortable than anything out there today. And because they did not have tray tables, they reclined much further, as well. For those that "Vant to be alone".....the transition coach had some single coach seats on either side of the steps leading down to the standard level end door.
Click to expand...

Do you know the seat pitch on those things?


----------



## railiner

No, sorry...but probably similar to Superliner's......


----------



## chakk

jis said:


> Just read today that Emirates is gunning for 11 abreast on the main deck of the A380. Which is interesting since Airbus was trying to make a case for 18" seat width standard, and now their biggest customer is telling them to go screw their marketing needs. It was EK that became a big proponent of 10 abreast on 777s and many followed suit. Boeing originally positioned the 777 as a 9 abreast aircraft.


My trip-7 across the pond last Thursday from Germany to D.C. was still 9 abreast -- at least in the Economy Plus section. Reasonably comfortable, and, in Economy Plus plenty of legroom, too.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

chakk said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read today that Emirates is gunning for 11 abreast on the main deck of the A380. Which is interesting since Airbus was trying to make a case for 18" seat width standard, and now their biggest customer is telling them to go screw their marketing needs. It was EK that became a big proponent of 10 abreast on 777s and many followed suit. Boeing originally positioned the 777 as a 9 abreast aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> My trip-7 across the pond last Thursday from Germany to D.C. was still 9 abreast -- at least in the Economy Plus section. Reasonably comfortable, and, in Economy Plus plenty of legroom, too.
Click to expand...

Economy Plus? You must've been flying United. All United 777s are in 9-abreast, United and Delta don't have great service but at least they have no 10-abreast 777s. Air Canada is going for it though, squeezing 458 seats into a 777-300ER and American is also trying it out.


----------



## jis

Yeah, I was a bit puzzled about what having flown 9 abreast on United 777E had to do with Emirates or American doing 10 abreast on their 777Ws. BTW American has the equivalent of E+ on their 777Ws which is 9 abreast. Only the regular E is 10 abreast.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> Yeah, I was a bit puzzled about what having flown 9 abreast on United 777E had to do with Emirates or American doing 10 abreast on their 777Ws. BTW American has the equivalent of E+ on their 777Ws which is 9 abreast. Only the regular E is 10 abreast.


AA's Main Cabin Extra seems a bit better than Economy Plus, the former boasting 36" of pitch compared to 34" on the latter. But Main Cabin Extra is not offered on the 777-200ER which is a major problem for loung-haul Economy flyers.


----------



## xyzzy

Indications in the last two weeks are that AA is already beginning to back away from domestic MCE. Also, MCE on the international flights isn't really the same as E+ because AA does not consider MCE a 4th cabin. On their partner BA, WT+ is ticketed as a fourth cabin and you don't have people from the rear contending for those seats.

The AA 772's will be reconfigured next year: F removed, new C seats, MCE 3-3-3, and Y 3-4-3. Suck it up, Y travelers who don't have Advantage status.


----------



## jis

Does United really consider E+ to be a fourth cabin?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

xyzzy said:


> Indications in the last two weeks are that AA is already beginning to back away from domestic MCE. Also, MCE on the international flights isn't really the same as E+ because AA does not consider MCE a 4th cabin. On their partner BA, WT+ is ticketed as a fourth cabin and you don't have people from the rear contending for those seats.
> 
> The AA 772's will be reconfigured next year: F removed, new C seats, MCE 3-3-3, and Y 3-4-3. Suck it up, Y travelers who don't have Advantage status.


If I book a Y ticket on an old AA 777 next year, can't I just pay for an upgrade to MCE? When is MCE going to be completed on the old 777s?



jis said:


> Does United really consider E+ to be a fourth cabin?


I don't think so, I mean, they have the same seats and service, the only difference is more legroom.


----------



## xyzzy

AA hasn't yet announced a specific schedule for 772 reconfig. It's your roll of the dice. Yes you can pay extra for MCE on the aircraft that have it, although you've got a lot of Advantage elite status holders to contend with.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

xyzzy said:


> AA hasn't yet announced a specific schedule for 772 reconfig. It's your roll of the dice. Yes you can pay extra for MCE on the aircraft that have it, although you've got a lot of Advantage elite status holders to contend with.


But if you book early, you can get it before the elites get it, and a lot of elites fly Business anyway. I failed to get elite status on any airline because I keep flying different airlines.


----------



## xyzzy

Subject to how many MCE seats AA releases that early, yes. But there are a lot of elites whose employers don't permit transatlantic C. I work for one. I think you'll find that close to departure time, the competition for transatlantic MCE is very keen. If you're not Platinum or Executive Platinum, don't bother.


----------



## chakk

Swadian Hardcore said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indications in the last two weeks are that AA is already beginning to back away from domestic MCE. Also, MCE on the international flights isn't really the same as E+ because AA does not consider MCE a 4th cabin. On their partner BA, WT+ is ticketed as a fourth cabin and you don't have people from the rear contending for those seats.
> 
> The AA 772's will be reconfigured next year: F removed, new C seats, MCE 3-3-3, and Y 3-4-3. Suck it up, Y travelers who don't have Advantage status.
> 
> 
> 
> If I book a Y ticket on an old AA 777 next year, can't I just pay for an upgrade to MCE? When is MCE going to be completed on the old 777s?
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does United really consider E+ to be a fourth cabin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think so, I mean, they have the same seats and service, the only difference is more legroom.
Click to expand...

However, passengers who are not "qualified" to sit in United E+ can purchase seats in that section. Not sure if United will automatically seat Economy passengers on an oversold Economy section into E+. On my recent trip on a United 757, the E passengers were kindly advised not to walk forward to use the toilet facilities in the E+ section.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

If I'm flying AA next year, which I might, then I would definately book MCE instead of risking to fly on a 10-abreast 777. If I can't book MCe, I will just fly some other airline, I'll probably try out NH.


----------



## xyzzy

If you want to be sure you're not in 777 10-abreast but you're trying to accumulate AA miles, just take a BA flight for which you would get full credit on AA. Their 777s are still 9-abreast.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

xyzzy said:


> If you want to be sure you're not in 777 10-abreast but you're trying to accumulate AA miles, just take a BA flight for which you would get full credit on AA. Their 777s are still 9-abreast.


BA dosen't fly Trans-Pacific and CX is too expensive, they detour south to HKG, and they have those shell seats. I think I would be better off flying NH and get UA MileagePlus.

I really need some help with those NH shell seats, they seem better than the CX ones and their route is much more direct for me.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Swadian Hardcore said:


> CX is too expensive, they detour south to HKG, and they have those shell seats. I think I would be better off flying NH and get UA MileagePlus.


CX Y is reasonable while Y+ is overpriced IMO. Pitch in CX Y is terrible. HKG is a nicer airport than NRT. AA points are probably worth more than UA. No experience with NH.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Devil's Advocate said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> CX is too expensive, they detour south to HKG, and they have those shell seats. I think I would be better off flying NH and get UA MileagePlus.
> 
> 
> 
> CX Y is reasonable while Y+ is overpriced IMO. Pitch in CX Y is terrible. HKG is a nicer airport than NRT. AA points are probably worth more than UA. No experience with NH.
Click to expand...

Reasonable with terrible pitch? I do like CX, but flying them takes 4-5 hours longer to get to PEK compared to NH and much longer than UA's direct flight on a 747. The only airlines flying SFO-PEK nonstop are UA and CA, which both fly 747s that have no PTVs. I love the 747, but no PTV?!

I could fly JL if they would lower their fares a bit.

I like to visit China, the airfare's expensive but once you get there everything is so cheap, especially train tickets! Unlike Germany or Japan.....


----------



## CHamilton

On Jammed Jets, Sardines Turn on One Another






> With air travelers increasingly feeling like packed sardines, flying has become a contact sport, nowhere more than over the reclined seat.
> 
> Now, it is only getting worse, as airlines re-examine every millimeter of the cabin.
> 
> Over the last two decades, the space between seats — hardly roomy before — has fallen about 10 percent, from 34 inches to somewhere between 30 and 32 inches. Today, some airlines are pushing it even further, leaving only a knee-crunching 28 inches.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

CHamilton said:


> On Jammed Jets, Sardines Turn on One Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With air travelers increasingly feeling like packed sardines, flying has become a contact sport, nowhere more than over the reclined seat.
> 
> Now, it is only getting worse, as airlines re-examine every millimeter of the cabin.
> 
> Over the last two decades, the space between seats — hardly roomy before — has fallen about 10 percent, from 34 inches to somewhere between 30 and 32 inches. Today, some airlines are pushing it even further, leaving only a knee-crunching 28 inches.
Click to expand...

28 inches would truly be horrors. United used to have very comfortable DC-8's with 38" of pitch in Y. Remembering the good old times of flying.....


----------



## railiner

My all time favorite was the United DC-8-61 or -63.....The largest airliner until the 747 came out. Sitting inside, or viewing from outside, especially if watching one taxi over the tunnels on I-70 enroute to take off from Denver's old Stapleton Airport, they looked like a train crossing over. They had a long fuselage with a relatively small tail....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> CX is too expensive, they detour south to HKG, and they have those shell seats. I think I would be better off flying NH and get UA MileagePlus.
> 
> 
> 
> CX Y is reasonable while Y+ is overpriced IMO. Pitch in CX Y is terrible. HKG is a nicer airport than NRT. AA points are probably worth more than UA. No experience with NH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reasonable with terrible pitch?
Click to expand...

Reasonably priced but with the caveat that the pitch kills it unless you're a tiny Asian person or you're seated in a bulkhead or exit row.



Swadian Hardcore said:


> I do like CX, but flying them takes 4-5 hours longer to get to PEK compared to NH and much longer than UA's direct flight on a 747. The only airlines flying SFO-PEK nonstop are UA and CA, which both fly 747s that have no PTVs. I love the 747, but no PTV?! I could fly JL if they would lower their fares a bit.


I never watched anything besides the air show on the CX PTVs, even on the huge screens in F, so I guess I can live without PTV's at this point. Load up your phone, tablet, and laptop with content that is perfectly selected just for you (by you) and you'll have a better entertainment setup than anything CX or SQ can ever provide and it won't be edited for content like on the PTV.



Swadian Hardcore said:


> I like to visit China, the airfare's expensive but once you get there everything is so cheap, especially train tickets! Unlike Germany or Japan.....


 I had a flight to Shanghai planned to help me earn EXP but I blew it off and cancelled. I just didn't have it in me to visit Asia twice in two months. Plus that smog is insane. If and when they ever clean that up I might visit. Until then no thanks. Seriously.



railiner said:


> My all time favorite was the United DC-8-61 or -63.....The largest airliner until the 747 came out. Sitting inside, or viewing from outside, especially if watching one taxi over the tunnels on I-70 enroute to take off from Denver's old Stapleton Airport, they looked like a train crossing over. They had a long fuselage with a relatively small tail....


If you like the look of a long fuselage you should try an A340-600. I know the 748i is actually longer but in my view the 346 is much more visually striking than any 747. I have difficulty understanding the love people express for DC-8's or 707's or planes of a similar vintage. In my experience DC-8 seemed to be little more than an early model MD-80 and didn't seem that special to me. For that matter a 707 shares a lot of traits with 737's, which nobody I know considers to be any sort of favorite.

In my travels ninety-nine out of a hundred DC-8/MD-80 flights were boring as could be. Once upon a time I was flying on a NW DC-8 when the pilots took us on the steepest climb I've ever experienced. The cabin was nearly empty and the freight below must have been extremely light as pilot in charge appeared to be channeling an old Air Force maneuver. It was quite a ride, but it was only one out of a hundred DC-8/MD-80 flights that was memorable in any way.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Yeah, China is frigging bad on smog. I'm not Chinese but one of the other Swadians (my friend) is Chinese. Maybe I'll just cancel the trip and go somewhere else. Not sure yet.

I really do need a PTV because I can't sleep on jet lag and I don't have a smartphone or tablet. Regular cell phones can't be loaded with things like that. My laptop has a broken battery so it needs an outlet at all times to operate.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> ....
> 
> If you like the look of a long fuselage you should try an A340-600. I know the 748i is actually longer but in my view the 346 is much more visually striking than any 747. I have difficulty understanding the love people express for DC-8's or 707's or planes of a similar vintage. In my experience DC-8 seemed to be little more than an early model MD-80 and didn't seem that special to me. For that matter a 707 shares a lot of traits with 737's, which nobody I know considers to be any sort of favorite.


I do like the look of the A340-600....about as close to a 'Super DC-8-63' as you can find. The 748 is long, but its distinctive profile does not resemble a train at all....

The predecessor of the MD-80 was the DC-9 in various series, completely different than a DC-8. The DC-9 had two fuselage mounted engines, a fuselage only wide enough for 5 across seating, etc. The Boeing 707 is more like its 'baby brother' 737, at least in cabin width, and wing mounted engines....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> The predecessor of the MD-80 was the DC-9 in various series, completely different than a DC-8. The DC-9 had two fuselage mounted engines, a fuselage only wide enough for 5 across seating, etc. The Boeing 707 is more like its 'baby brother' 737, at least in cabin width, and wing mounted engines....


You're absolutely right. I should go back to flight school. :lol:


----------



## railiner

Ha ha....I dropped out of flight school many years ago....it was much too expensive for me at the time....perhaps when I retire, I'll pursue it again....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Ha ha....I dropped out of flight school many years ago....it was much too expensive for me at the time....perhaps when I retire, I'll pursue it again....


You do have a CDL, right? Do you have a Train Operator's License or something like that?


----------



## railiner

Swadian Hardcore said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha....I dropped out of flight school many years ago....it was much too expensive for me at the time....perhaps when I retire, I'll pursue it again....
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a CDL, right? Do you have a Train Operator's License or something like that?
Click to expand...

I do have a CDL Class 'A', with N, T, and P endorsements...

No, I do not have a 'train operators' license, and no, I do not have a master mariner's' license, nor an 'ATP' pilot's license..(.but that's okay, because I play as one on TV) :lol: ....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha....I dropped out of flight school many years ago....it was much too expensive for me at the time....perhaps when I retire, I'll pursue it again....
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a CDL, right? Do you have a Train Operator's License or something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do have a CDL Class 'A', with N, T, and P endorsements...
> 
> No, I do not have a 'train operators' license, and no, I do not have a master mariner's' license, nor an 'ATP' pilot's license..(.but that's okay, because I play as one on TV) :lol: ....
Click to expand...

Woah, you must be a good driver! So isn't Class A the highest class of CDL? That T endorsement must be very difficult. I see you must've been a truck driver before.


----------



## railiner

Swadian Hardcore said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha....I dropped out of flight school many years ago....it was much too expensive for me at the time....perhaps when I retire, I'll pursue it again....
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a CDL, right? Do you have a Train Operator's License or something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do have a CDL Class 'A', with N, T, and P endorsements...
> 
> No, I do not have a 'train operators' license, and no, I do not have a master mariner's' license, nor an 'ATP' pilot's license..(.but that's okay, because I play as one on TV) :lol: ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woah, you must be a good driver! So isn't Class A the highest class of CDL? That T endorsement must be very difficult. I see you must've been a truck driver before.
Click to expand...

Truck driving was so far back, it seems like another lifetime, now......but once you earn the rating, you don't want to let it go.....


----------



## Blackwolf

railiner said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha....I dropped out of flight school many years ago....it was much too expensive for me at the time....perhaps when I retire, I'll pursue it again....
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a CDL, right? Do you have a Train Operator's License or something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do have a CDL Class 'A', with N, T, and P endorsements...
> 
> No, I do not have a 'train operators' license, and no, I do not have a master mariner's' license, nor an 'ATP' pilot's license..(.but that's okay, because I play as one on TV) :lol: ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woah, you must be a good driver! So isn't Class A the highest class of CDL? That T endorsement must be very difficult. I see you must've been a truck driver before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truck driving was so far back, it seems like another lifetime, now......but once you earn the rating, you don't want to let it go.....
Click to expand...

I hear you there! California CDL class B/M1 with X, FF, AMB, tank and air-brakes. I like that my "trucks" come with red lights and sirens.


----------



## railiner

Blackwolf said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha....I dropped out of flight school many years ago....it was much too expensive for me at the time....perhaps when I retire, I'll pursue it again....
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a CDL, right? Do you have a Train Operator's License or something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do have a CDL Class 'A', with N, T, and P endorsements...
> 
> No, I do not have a 'train operators' license, and no, I do not have a master mariner's' license, nor an 'ATP' pilot's license..(.but that's okay, because I play as one on TV) :lol: ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woah, you must be a good driver! So isn't Class A the highest class of CDL? That T endorsement must be very difficult. I see you must've been a truck driver before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truck driving was so far back, it seems like another lifetime, now......but once you earn the rating, you don't want to let it go.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear you there! California CDL class B/M1 with X, FF, AMB, tank and air-brakes. I like that my "trucks" come with red lights and sirens.
Click to expand...

And a neat water-gun??  :lol:


----------

