Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
East Coast To W. Coast In A Single Aisle Plane  
User currently offlineTolosy From Luxembourg, joined Oct 2003, 357 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5062 times:

Last year, I had to fly many times between the East and West Coast.

JFK SFO
IAD SFO
LAX MIA
MIA SFO

I was disappointed to fly single aisle plane on these flights. (I was not only traveling with B6).

In Europe, a same distance flight takes us to Africa or Middle east, so by consequence we are used to flying long haul planes.

Do you mind traveling on a single aisle plane between the two coasts.

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBenjamin From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 444 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5003 times:

I think it's terrible but I'm used to it. It's standard practice here in the US. I commonly spend 6+ hrs in a narrow body. However, on certain city pairs (JFK-SFO/LAX) on UA, they consider it "Premium" transcon servce and you get an old 767. Not exactly a real long haul plane, but it's better!

User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8181 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4997 times:

Single aisle aircraft have been so common on such flights for so long (727, 757, etc) that I almost don't care at this point. There's still the occasional 76 and 77, and honestly, as long as the seat pitch is decent, I really don't care. I just want to get there.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4977 times:

The preferences of an American business traveler are probably different from those in Europe. In the US, time is money -- probably more so than in most European countries, but not all -- so having several flight options is very important. In the 1970s and 80s, most of these routes would probably have 3-4 frequencies per day with DC-10s or 767s. Today, the high efficiency of the 757, 737NG, and A320 series has enabled airlines to offer two or three times as many flights throughout the day. The average business traveler cares more about this option than whether he flies on a narrow- or wide-body aircraft. It's just a difference in market preference.


"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3076 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4880 times:

I would add that as long as comfort and inflight amenities are equal, I wouldn't really care which I flew on....


Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4801 times:

I don't know how I'd feel if I flew often like you do but my Continental 757 Newark to L.A. flight and back was just fine. I didn't mind a narrow-body at all for that trip. While I'd guess I get spoiled if I did it in a wide-body; I doubt I'd mind doing the single-aisle in the future. An advantage is having fewer people sitting to my side, crowded rows on a wide-body sometings unnerve me. But either configuration is fine for me.

User currently offlineLImamura From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4746 times:

I think its terrible having all these single aisle planes flying from coast to coast. Its already so uncomfortable being cramped in any cabin for 4 or 5 hours but when its a single aisle plane, it makes it 10 times more worse.
Since there is only one aisle when they start to serve the meal, you can basically forget about going to the bathroom. At least on a two aisle airplane there are exit rows and one aisle does not get as congested and does not take the brunt of it all. I think the worst plane for this kind of trip is the B757 because its a long airplane with no exit rows except the front and rear of the economy cabin. I try to take A320 or A319 because its not as long in length so usually they can finish the meal service faster and vacate the aisles.
I think that's what amazes me about ANA and JAL's system of using widebodies for domestic flights in Japan, which may be only 1 hour flight time. Of course they have the passenger loads to account for that.
(most of the time)


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4720 times:

I've done a few US transcons on Widebodies and a few on Narrowbodies - honestly, I tend to prefer the Narrowbodies on those: somehow, the little bit of service that you do get on those flights was always better on the smaller planes - I'm aware that this is a somewhat subjective view, but that's how my trips worked out...


Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4688 times:

If you are sitting in a window seat on 767, 777 etc, or you are sitting in a window seat on a 757, 737, A320 series etc, there is really no difference. Your pitch, width etc is the same, and you still have 2 people between you and the aisle. I think it is more psychological than anything as the physical reality is the same. 90% of passengers aren't aware, never mind care about what plane they are on as long as it is clean, feels maintained and feels safe.

Jeremy

[Edited 2003-10-31 21:41:39]

User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4671 times:

Doesn't bother me at all. I've flown SEA-ATL on a 757 many times, and also on a 767. Makes no difference to me. I've flown SEA-EWR and SEA-IAH on 757s and 737s and really I think the most pleasant flight of those was on a Continental 737.


But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offline757KSLC From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4635 times:

Hey... I'm just glad I'm not DRIVING cross-country. I could care less what the airlines stick me in, a wide body would be nice, but if the airline makes a bigger profit of a smaller plane well, then they will obviously want to make a larger profit off that smaller plane, just as any business would. The airlines don't force anyone to fly them, you're more than welcome to drive your big, spacious, SUV San Francisco, to New York. However, I'd rather fly for 5 hours in a 757 than spend an X amount of days in my car. If you want more room, or better service on an airplane, then buy your own dang jet, or fly first class. If you can't afford it, stop whining and be grateful you're not driving... or worse, in a train, or even walking like you would have been doing only three or four generations ago. I've flown LAX to PHL and back in a 757 many times and I have no problem with it.


"That wasn't flying! That was falling with style!" Woody, Toy Story.
User currently offlineMeister808 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 973 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4539 times:

Wow. I feel so sorry for those corporate executives who have to fly from Chicago to Moscow in a G-V. That must suck, since the only criteria for quality of flight is the size of a/c, right?  Smokin cool

-Meister



Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
User currently offlineWorldperks From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4462 times:

I'm old enough to remember taking both the train and the overland bus long distances, and I remember the very first U.S. discount carriers flying DC-4s and DC-6s coast-to-coast. So to me, being able to fly from the Atlantic to the Pacific in just over five hours or from Washington DC to Alaska in under ten hours is still overwhelming. The type of jet used--single aisle or twin aisle--is irrelevant.

I wonder if anyone who's done Philadelphia-to-Los Angeles, New York/Idlewild-to-Seattle, or Baltimore/Friendship-to-San Francisco in a piston-powered aircraft would decline to fly because the jet was a narrowbody, because the inflight movies were not award winners, or because the champagne served was domestic or of the wrong vintage?

It's all a matter of perspective.



User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

I've done a red-eye LAS-CLT on a 757 (US Airways flight 606, if you were wondering), and the only part that was miserable was the fact that I couldn't sleep...being on a narrowbody was fine...having a row to myself (practically a plane to myself) on the CLT-EWR leg more than made up for that though


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4345 times:

If you are sitting in a window seat on 767, 777 etc, or you are sitting in a window seat on a 757, 737, A320 series etc, there is really no difference. Your pitch, width etc is the same, and you still have 2 people between you and the aisle.

Actually, this is not accurate. The 767 configuration is 2-3-2, so when you're at a window seat you only have one person between you and the aisle. That's also true of the 777, at least on Delta, where the 777s are 2-5-2.

As a result, I feel much less cramped in a window on the 767 or 777 than I would in the narrowbody models.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16883 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4319 times:

Some of the best flights I've had are EWR-LAX, EWR-SFO, EWR-IAH-SEA on 757s, 737-800s.

" commonly spend 6+ hrs in a narrow body."

Newark-LAX is about 5 1/2 hours, this Summer I flew EWR-LAX on a CO 757 and made it there (the pilot mentioned favorable winds) in about 5 hours (perhaps 5-10 minutes short of 5 hours!).

CO's 737-800s, 737-900s and 757s feature the mid-cabin lavatories, the 757 is really perfectly suited for trans-Cons. The 737NG and A320s are also suited for trans-cons to smaller markets, Long Beach, San Diego, Orange County etc..

Also keep in mind , when you compare a 5-6 hour flight from the US East Coast-West coast consider the huge amount of competition and routings/connections available.

Where in Europe they do not have that much competition on long routes, plus they are still funneling passengers through hubs like FRA, AMS, CDG etc to get to place like North Africa.

In the US you can fly from Charlotte NC to San Francisco, or Hartford to Las Vegas.

Apples and Oranges, the European airlines are about 10 years (or more) behind US Carriers due to their later de-regulation experiece.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineBicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4288 times:

The preference for American travelers and thus the airlines, is to offer greater frequencies on routes. I like the fact that I can fly at almost any time of day from city to city. So, they fill several smaller, single aisle planes several times a day rather than load up the big ones at less frequency.

Wide bodies, smide bodies. As long as I get there when I want, I'm happy.



User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

Allow me to pose a question. On long-haul flights, why does it matter if the aircraft is a widebody or narrowbody? To me, seat pitch and in-flight service takes precedence.

I fly from the East Coast to West Coast and back a few times a year. I've done various routes (for a few examples but by far from being all of them: EWR-PHX HP A320, PHL-LAX 752 (several times), PHL-PHX/LAS HP A320/A319 (cant count how many times I've done that on two hands), PHL-SLC DL 738, SAN-CVG 752, and MANY MANY more) And this December 24th I'll be doing PHL-SAN on an A321.



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12118 posts, RR: 49
Reply 18, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4209 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

DeltaMD11

I agree with you! It should be the level of service offered, seat pitch and entertainment over the wide body or narrow body plane.



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineProudtoflyaa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4198 times:

Allow me to pose a question. On long-haul flights, why does it matter if the aircraft is a widebody or narrowbody? To me, seat pitch and in-flight service takes precedence.

If I'm in a premium cabin, I don't mind what the aircraft type is.
I don't mind narrow body or widebody on length of flight, as long as it isn't a B757, which I dislike even on short flights and try to avoid if the flight is full.
My last transcon flight as a redeye (LAX-MIA) a couple of weeks ago on a B757 in the exit row. Flight was only a third full so space wasn't an option. I think on completely full flights, a widebody has the illusion of more space and the load isn't as much of a factor in perception.


User currently offlineMidway2airtran From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 864 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4182 times:

I've flown in a narrow body aircraft on every E-W coast trip I've been on and it doesn't bother me a bit. Those were...

B737NG
A320
MD-80
A319



"Life is short, but your delay in ATL is not."
User currently offlineKevin752 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4160 times:

I have flown on a 757-200 from LAX-MCO and I really liked it. I do not mind if the plane is a single asile or double asile.


"Keep Climbing"
User currently offlineAussie747 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4160 times:

It all has to do with frquencies when it comes down do it, It is looked more favourable to have several services on a 737 than only a couple of services a day on a larger plane eg 763,A330,777 or 747 for instance. That is what it comes down to in Australia on sevices ex Perth to East coast ports MEL,BNE and soon to be CBR, to Sydney they use the A332 mostly.

User currently offlineIndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4142 times:

In the end, it really doesn't make a difference...

User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4118 times:

Pate,
Well said.

~Fly the Cactii~
America West Airlines



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
25 Futureualpilot : I've flown CO SAN-EWR many times aboard their 737s, as well as SAN-IAD on a UA 757, and not to mention LAX-many different east coast cities on narrow-
26 AIR757200 : Doesn't cross my mind. It's all the same. People should be considerate and wait until cabin service has completed before getting up from their seat.
27 ATA767 : ATA just started using its 737-800 and 757-300 from EWR-SFO with 175 and 247 seats respectively. Sure that it is tight on a 737.
28 Artsyman : 2-5-2 on the delta 777 would make me prefer to fly narrow body than be stuck in the middle of that. Most 777 operators use 3-3-3 Jeremy
29 IndustrialPate : ATA just started using its 737-800 and 757-300 from EWR-SFO with 175 and 247 seats respectively. Sure that it is tight on a 737. Yeah, but most of TZ'
30 Jafa : Try flying Sprit from DTW-LAX in a MD80. However I still got there, since NW was full.
31 IMissPiedmont : Wow! I am old. The only nonstop transcontinental flights I've been on have been DC-8s and 707s. I ahve flown long haul on widebodies, 747s and 767s, b
32 PROSA : Narrow-body or wide-body, it makes no difference to me whatsoever.
33 Post contains images Alpha 1 : I think its terrible having all these single aisle planes flying from coast to coast. Yes, the airlines should fly more widebodies, and lose more mone
34 N751PR : I only experienced a transcon trips on narrowbodies (PHX-JFK HP A319, JFK-LAS HP 757) but I didn't really mind it. But then again I never flew a wideb
35 MSPman : I like widebodies because it has the image of more space, and the takeoff is better. I don't mind narrowbodies except over large bodies of water. JB
36 WGW2707 : Actually, there has been some inaccuracy here. I just flew a DL 777 FRA-CVG, and it was 3+3+3. In 2000 I had flown a CO 777 which was 2+5+2, and I mus
37 Airxliban : if you have a problem with coast to coast narrowbodies...how do you like Continental 757's operating Newark-Geneva (scheduled for a 767, but there hav
38 Dragon-wings : I flew on Delta from JFK-LAS on a 757-200 and I also flew on Delta from PHX-ATL on a 767-300 and both planes were comfortable to me. I didn't feel cra
39 Tiger119 : I can not tell you the number of times I have caught a ride in a single aisle aircraft flying over three hours, and I have never felt cramped (except
40 Elwood64151 : I've flown trans-con on 767s, A321s, 73Gs, and on connecting trans-con routes on DC-9s, MD-80s, 732s, and various other aircraft. From what I can tell
41 ATA767 : Yeah, but most of TZ's pax found out about their service at their local Wal-Mart, Aldi Food Store, gun show, flea market, etc. and probably don't know
42 FrequentFlyKid : It's more about comfort of the airplane/airline than it is the size of plane. However, I have noticed that widebody airplanes seem far more comfortabl
43 Bmacleod : I'd fly a 757 from Charlotte to LA, but the smallest from Miami to Seattle would be a 767!!!.
44 Post contains images Type-rated : Most people don't know the diff between a 767 and a 757 anyways, except for us goofballs on forums like Anet.... Some people don't even know what airl
45 Mikesairways : I remember back in 93 or 94 AA used to fly an M11 on the SJC-BOS route and at points off and on in the past year they'd use the 767 on the JFK-SJC rou
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Airways Lowers Fares In 20 East-Coast Markets: posted Thu Jan 5 2006 18:08:03 by SHUPirate1
Cheap Fares In US - East Coast? posted Mon May 23 2005 12:41:27 by Ansett767
East Coast Nightmare Again! posted Mon Nov 13 2006 22:55:30 by JetJock22
Question On East Coast Air Traffic W/o The Shuttle posted Tue Aug 15 2006 23:02:33 by PanAm747
Hawaii / East Coast, Farthest Same Country Flight? posted Fri Aug 11 2006 08:53:39 by B737-112
F9 East Coast Hub/Focus City? posted Tue Jul 25 2006 02:36:16 by JetBlueGuy2006
Rumour - AQ To Buy 787's Launch Asia/East Coast posted Mon Jul 10 2006 19:43:09 by Dc10s4ever
Travel From East Coast To HK posted Thu Jun 29 2006 14:37:20 by Legallykev
5th Freedom U.S. East Coast - Europe posted Wed Apr 5 2006 06:52:27 by EddieDude
Will Any East Coast U.S. Cities Ever See The A380 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 04:49:29 by AviationAddict