Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Sun Jan 30, 2000 2:08 pm

I'd sure like to know what's the most uncomfortable plane or flight you've flown on. Like in terms of legroom, loudness, bad landings, etc.

In my case, it was on a Canadian Regional F28. I flew on them from YYC to YVR and back on the Thanksgiving weekend in October of 1999. The F28's economy class seats were even smaller than a Dash 8's! The legroom was even worse than a Dash 8's, believe me. I'm only average sized for a man, about 5'9", but my knees were pressing against the seat in front of me. The engines were LOUD. Think of the whining shrieking sound that any large airliner makes from the outside when taxiing - that's exactly what it sounded like INSIDE the cabin when taxiing before and after landing, only a notch or so less. But still awful. During flight, the shriek was replaced by the roar, yet it was still louder than a 737-200 or a DC-9! The turbulence was so bad over the Rockies that drinks and snacks didn't get served, and nobody could get up out of their seats. The FAs were pretty good, though, and the plane was clean. Coming a close second were the Convair CV580 flights on Time Air(now part of Canadian Regional) from YQU(Grande Prairie) to YEG, back in the'80s. Yep, they did indeed have at least a few of these ancient prop planes. They were loud, rattly and had old, musty cabins.
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 1999 10:28 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Sun Jan 30, 2000 2:13 pm

Mine was a Boeing 727. It was an American Airlines flight from ORD to BNA. It was really bumpy the whole way. The whole flight was bad. That was my worst flight.

Worst Planes...

Sun Jan 30, 2000 2:18 pm

for large body: A340. Slow and really uncomfortable.
Small body: I don't like the 737-200. Boeing 727 was not one of my favorites either. A320 isn't that great, as well.

Anyways, it's good to see another Edmontonian posting here. I thought I was the only one.
Posts: 1410
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 1999 3:51 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Sun Jan 30, 2000 2:42 pm

The ATR is the most uncomfortable plane that I've ever been on. The seats recline in the MIDDLE of your back! It's loud, and the gear has no travel at all. Feels like your in the Flinstonemobile when you're on the ground. Oh yeah, and when the gear doors open, it's such a loud bang that it scares the crap out of me everytime it happens.
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Sun Jan 30, 2000 2:54 pm

This is an easy one for me. A Northwest Boeing 747-400 from Detroit to Seoul. I was stuck in the row against the bulkhead, meaning that I couldn't recline my seat at all. The seats were really uncomfortable too. Even the DC-9's were comfortable than that flight.
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2000 3:58 pm

RE: Worst Planes... (What's With The Slow?)

Sun Jan 30, 2000 3:58 pm

One thing I don't understand here. People say things, but don't back them up - they make unsubstantiated claims.

They also don't differentiate between airline and airframe related issues. However, let me make it clear that you are most entitled to have your opinion, just that it infuriates me when people

a) say something like, "The A320 is crap." end of story.

b) make up rubbish like, "Oh, the A320 crash at Mulhouse was caused by the early design of the CFM engines". Rubbish - the CFM engines actually spooled up faster than their book figures; they performed better than they are supposed to.

Back to the point. Why do people always say that the A340 is slow, slow etc. People don't complain about the 737, which is M0.05 slower than the A320, but the A340 is only M0.02-3 slower than the 747, M0.01 slower than the B777 and M0.02 FASTER than the B767.

As I said in a previous post, it would require a 17hr+ flight for a A340 to be an hour slower than a B747. It would require a 12hr+ flight for a 767 to be an hour slower than the B747. Do the math, its really quite simple.

The bottom line is cruise speed for all jet aircraft (bar the BAe146 & Concorde/TU144) is largely insignificant on the bulk of flights. To a certain extent, cruise speed can be determined by the airline (fairly limited) dependign on the Airlines Cost Index (punched into the plane's FMC). For example, on Ansett, depending on the length of the flight, the A320 will fly at M0.80, when most fly it at M0.78.

Bojicat, why was the A340 uncomfortable? It's quieter than the 747, 777 and any othe widebody. If it's because it's cramped, don't blame Airbus (you should thank them for designing aircraft where it is impossible to squeeze an extra row, ala B777 9 abreast vs 10abreast, etc.) blame the airline. It's THEIR FAULT. If the food is bad, it's the AIRLINE'S FAULT! Next time, please say the airline as well as well as the aircraft, as it's really useless by itself unsubstatiated.

Most uncomfortable flight, MEL-KUL. My view of MAS (MH) pilots was significantly discoloured to put it nicely. What happened was during the approach (established on a very long final) the pilot did not circle to hold for landing (800m vis), instead he pitched the aircraft up and down to slow its progress. This made the landing sequence very uncomfortable as the aircraft would undergo some fairly strong G forces, where one moment you felt weightless, the next moment you can feel the springs and bolts in the seat press on your buttocks (Yes, I'm not joking). The flight was ordinary (just like plain old Ansett domestic service {it's great, but it's domestic service. You expect better on international services {AN Intl. is amazing I'm told}), but the flying really was detrimental to my experience.

Another thing, MAS really does recirculate its air. During late '97, there were some serious forest fires in Indonesia, which led to a large cloud of smog (the haze) in South East Asia. During the decent, only then did the smoky smell enter the cabin, despite the fact that we were flying through a black haze.. While this example seems a bit trivial, I did have the recirculation confirmed by the FO.

I wondered whether this was legal. In the light of the MAS incidents at LHR and the common image of MAS in Malaysia as "Mana adda sistem" - there is no system (excuse my Malay) and the fact that their pilot's fly very "chin chai" - carefree, simply, simply do, etc (accd to my aunty), I wondered whether this is a general trend.

Still, I think our Aussie Ansett & Qantas pilots are pretty good. Make the Ansett pilots pretty damned good :-) Especially the Skystar A320 ones, eheheh.



RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Sun Jan 30, 2000 3:58 pm

My most uncomfortable flight was on an Air China 737-300. I usually like 737s because they are nice and comfortable, but on this flight, the seats were stiff! It was raining so most of the flight was pretty bumpy. I had average legroom. On approach, it looked like we were going to do a go-around, but we bumped the runway once, and it felt like we went up a little, and then we came back down for a hard landing. We didn't make a go-around. The Captain apoligized for the landing. He said it was really hard to land in weather like this.
I'm glad I live in the U.S where the 737's seats are comfortable, not that international carrier's 737 seats are uncomfortable, just Air China's.

-WiL SW737
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 10:07 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 12:19 am

The most uncomfortable plane I've ever been on was a KLM 737-200. The exit rows had only one seat, to make up for this the pitch was about 1/2" (just kidding) they seats were so small and the aisle so wide that I literally couldn't move my arms without hitting the passengers on either side! The A/C was configured as a commuter, it was without question my best and worst flight, the service was excellent (good food, real china, a Steward (not a F/A, a Steward) who spoke, with no accent, Dutch, Spanish, German, English (american or British accent) and french. Given this case I'd have to say that the flight was a decent flight overall, but it was without question the most uncomfortable. My second most uncomfortable flight was with Northwest on a 747-400 from Detroit to Amsterdam, I was infront of the bulkhead, no recline, small seats, bad flight.

Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 1999 6:13 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 12:21 am

Any NWA DC-9. I get stuck on these 25/30-year vintage crates a lot. DTW-MCO sitting in the last row - no recline and the guy in front of you has his seat in your face. Bonus - you are close to the lavatory. But you can usually smell that blue stuff from your seat because the airplane's fixtures and fittings are so ancient that the gaps allow the odors to escape. "First" class on these things is bearable if you can get the upgrade.

NWA please do your pax a favor, convert the C9's to freighters, sell 'em to Kitty Hawk and expedite the delivery of the A319s!!!! Then turn your attention to the DC-10-40's.....
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 6:47 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 1:31 am

My most uncomfortable flight was on a Fokker 50, from Oslo to Gothenburg (In Sweden, don't think that's how you spell it, but anyways...) Fokker 50 are a turboprop, which you all know, i'm sure. It's not a big aircraft, it's rather very very very small. Worst tubulence ever...funny sometimes, but not in a prop.

Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 6:47 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 1:37 am

I forgot to tell you that it was a SAS flight and it was my worst flight, and it's my worst plane.


CX Flyboy
Posts: 6079
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 1:50 am

I've got to say that one of my most uncomfortable has been a Virgin A340. Very cramped indeed.

I've also flown a CAP10 doing aerobatics. Didn't particularly enjoy it the first time. Ended up vomiting. That was very uncomfortable!
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 1999 11:16 pm

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 2:02 am

I don't need to think about this one --- it was Aeroflot from Moscow to Samarkand in the former Soviet Union. An old, dirty, vile Tupelov airplane. It was a mob scene trying to get onto the plane. Many seats didn't have working seat belts and the overhead bins were just netting and overpacked. The flight was almost 5 hours if I remember correctly and food --- well one scrawny chicken wing and a glass of water. When I requested a second glass of water it was nyet, nyet, nyet (no, I'm not kidding). The toilets were unclean and had numerous flies.

Then as we began our descent we thought the nightmare was over, but alas we landed and taxied to a terminal and sat. Nothing at all was said, neither in Russian nor English. We had been in Russia for about 5 days so we were beginning to adjust to the alphabet, but the airport sign sure didn't look like Samarkand. And in fact it wasn't, it was Duchambe, an area for which we did not have any travel documents, which were mandatory. We were taken off the plane, still no information, and taken to a hotel. At the hotel we received dinner and then were taken back to the airplane.

After a relatively short flight we landed in Samarkand and were taken to our hotel. There in the hotel was an entire group of French tourists who were sitting in the lobby because their flights out of Samarkand had been cancelled "because the sandstorm had closed the airport". In speaking with them, they wondered how we had gotten there? We told them, by plane, but not directly as was planned. They questioned us as if this couldn't be true since they knew the airport was closed by the sandstorm! Sandstorm, we said?

After the fact, we tried to decipher what in the world had gone on since no information was ever forthcoming from our Intourist guides --- from their perspective, no answers were needed, things just were, that's all. This was in 1981 and we assumed this must have had something to do with troop movements into or out of Afghanistan and the Russians didn't want the French tourists or the American tourists looking over their shoulders......but we'll never really know.

See why I had not trouble deciding on this one?

Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 1999 8:35 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 2:03 am

Delta 727 from Atlanta to Denver. No leg room what so ever and I was near the noisy engines in the back.
Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind carries me across the sky.
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:34 am


Mon Jan 31, 2000 2:29 am

A CRJ filght from IND-CVG, only 18 minutes, but those things are tiny; maybe it's because i'm 6'2" 250 pounds?!?!?! EMB-145's sound a lot more comfortable!

Posts: 449
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 11:46 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 2:59 am

Hey yall, the most uncomfortable plane i've flown on was a little old Lear 23, S/N 16, that was soooo crapmed! even worse than any regional! It was as fast as a rocket, but i was so cramped, and boy was i glad to get off of that thing in CMH.

Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 3:06 am

Mine had to be Aeroflot's IL62 flight SFO-ANC-SVO, in 1993. Russian airliners have the most horribly uncomfortable seat cushions I've ever experienced; I had to constantly shift my position, because there is a bar right at the back of the cushion which chaffes, and the cushion itself is concave. Also, legroom was minimal, and there was no in-flight entertainment. Not an experience I'd care to repeat. Though the food and service were pretty good in and of themselves.

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 4:57 am

The worst for me was a United 747-400 on a four hour flight from Honolulu to San Francisco. The service was pretty good - there was a little snack box that you don't see on short red-eyes in the mainland (west coast-Chicago, e.g.). The aircraft, however, was extremely uncomfortable. My legs were pressed against the seat in front of me and I had no personal space. I couldn't imagine being on this plane for one of UA's long US-Asia flights - hat would really be torture!
nwa man
Posts: 1752
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 1999 3:24 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 5:21 am

My most uncomfortable flight was a Northwest DC-10-40 from Minneapolis to Boston. I was in seat 26F, in the middle of the 5 seats in 2-5-2, the legroom was weak, the plane was full, and to top it off, my giant roll-on didn't have an overhead bin, so I had to put my feet on it. Other than the lack of space, the flight was good, because of the good sandwich and the strong tailwind!

Create your own luck.

To Skystar...

Mon Jan 31, 2000 7:48 am

Dude, have you ever flown from YVR-HKG? I have on both a 744 and on an A340. Both flights were going the exact same route, but the A340 took two hours more. Weather conditions on both flights were good, and during the same time of the year. What's with the two extra hours?

As for it being uncomfortable, it's one hell of a crammed plane. Narrow, noisy, just plain uncomfortable. I wouldn't know about the 777 because I've never flown it, so I can't comment nor compare it. And I think Air Canada has a pretty good reputation in terms of service and spaciousness.
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2000 3:58 pm

RE: To Skystar...

Mon Jan 31, 2000 6:59 pm


I cannot say I have flown YVR-HKG.

However, on a east-west route like that, you can never make a fair comparison between the flights unless you have perfectly replicated the weather conditions for both.

I am not saying you are a liar, but your comparison is flawed as weather conditions have the potential to increase hours and any strong wind at altitude is usually a lot more useful that any increase in cruise speed.

To say that the weather was the same is incorrect as merely saying it is good. For example, I've flown MEL-PER with a 40kt headiwnd and conditions were good, great. I've flwon PER-MEL, 2 days later with a 120kt tailwind and it was bloody fantastic, smooth flight all the way. If you can hand me some hard evidence such as a flight plan, then I can believe your claim that the A340 is so much slower and such a terrible plane :-) My point is, saying flight conditions are good is no real answer.

It is not feasable for an A340 to be 2hrs slower than a 747 in 'windless' conditions.

The A340 cruises at M0.82, which is 870kmh. The 744 cruises at M0.85 (If heavy, starts at M0.86 slowing to M0.84) which is 920kmh (I'm being very generous here - do not believe airline magazines, I have lot's of flight plans and some simulator experience to back myself up. Realistically it's about ) Noone flies 744s at M0.92 (985kmh?). Mach number is roughly proportional to ground speed, it doesn't dramatically differ with altitude.

So, the 744 is 50kmh faster than the A340. Agreed - this is windless conditions, it would be stupid to compare a A340 with a 120kt headwind with a B744 with a 120kt tailwind. Agreed?

Seeing the 744 is 50kmh faster than the A340, an A340 would require 17.4hrs to be 1 hr slower. You cannot deny this. Simple math, 870/50 = 17.4. You can test it out, 17.4 x 920 = 16008km. 17.4 x 870 = 15138km. 16008 - 15138 = 870km = 1hr flying.

Any more argument? But let me make it clear that I'm not saying you're a liar (easterly winds can make aircraft supersonic (gspeed wise)) - but this is the reality.

In regards to the A340 being noisy, I cannot relate to that as the A340 according to Airbus and Flight International has the quietest widebody cabin in the skies and Boeing has never challenged that. I can tell you the 747 is quite noisy. Strictly the speaking the A340 should be quieter as it has full length nacelles which is an advantage. CFM56 engines are fairly quiet too.

I don't think the A340 is narrow, it is 5.68M wide and the benefit of the Airbus design is that you cant squeeze an extra row to make it 9 abreast. Like they do 10 abreast with the 777.

Perhaps if you were on an empty flight, things may have been different. But the A340 isn't narrow. A 767 is only 4.8M wide in comparison, for those who feel that the A330 (which shares the same fuselage x section with the A300/310 & 340) is it's real compeditor as opposed to the 777). There are several factors which affect a passengers impression of an aircrafts comfort.

However, I thank you for responding to my challenge and at least you have explained yourself better.


Posts: 1224
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 1999 8:56 pm

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 8:00 pm

IL 18 (Interflug) from Berlin to Damascus nonstop! (7 hrs.) back in 1981

Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2000 3:58 pm

RE: To Skystar... 2

Mon Jan 31, 2000 8:22 pm


I have found some great discrepancies in your posts, just looking at the ones in this forum and the one on the 4 Jet Poll page.

You said "even the 767" is faster. Now I take it that's not on the YVR-HKG route as that's probably too long for a 767, but how do you make this.

This shows to me to me a total lack of knowledge of basic flying principles.

To put it in simple terms.

Optimum Cruise Speeds.

B762 & B763 - M0.80
B764 - M0.81

A340 - M0.82

It would be foolish to fly the A340 at a speed below M0.82 as the aircraft would be flying below it's optimum AoA (esp at high weights) so I don't understand your argument, especially when that M0.02 is rougly 20km/h.

Translated, that means the aircraft would have more drag flying at a slower speed, which would mean the engines would need higher N1 settings, which would mean more fuel burnt for no reason.

Again, I put to you, that if that happened, there are 2 possible factors.

1. The aircraft (B767) was being flown extra fast (uncommon as it's not economical and generally not much time can be made up)

2. The weather conditions meant that the A340 was at a disadvantage (winds).

Can you produce METAR reports, etc? I'd like to see that.



RE: To Skystar...

Mon Jan 31, 2000 8:56 pm

Hi Bojicat,

That explanation made absolutely no sense, firstly, you argued basic laws of aerodynamics, increasing AoA will slow you down, it doesn't cause such a dramatic effect you need to add afterburners, it makes a small difference, and secondly Skystar was talking about set speeds, not comparisons of real life events, rendering the second half of your post irrelevant

just clearing up stuff


RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Mon Jan 31, 2000 9:15 pm

try 25 hrs, i think with 2 stops for fuel, and a 6hr wait for protesters to clear the runway

i think that illustrates how no matter what the aircraft is, or how good the airline, there are some things that no-one has control over

Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 1999 10:44 pm

Metro III

Tue Feb 01, 2000 12:03 am

I flew twice on a Aerolitoral Fairchild Metro III from MTY to MFE (50 min. flight) and it was LOUD and with very small seats I'm an average mexican (5'7) and i had no space for legs. No meal or drink served in-flight, no attendant, and if there is a pressure problem you need to get your mask from the front seat and plug it on the oxigen. I think that could be hard to do at 20,000 ft

Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:47 am


Tue Feb 01, 2000 2:15 am


RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Tue Feb 01, 2000 4:43 am

The most uncomfortable plane I ever flew on was an Air Transrat (actually Transat) 757 from LHR to YVR via Iceland and YYC. This is a charter airline where the plane was configured for max pax. There was no upgraded class, just straight economy. I am 6'5" tall, 215 pounds and ended up with a middle seat. My knees obviously were jammed into the seat the entire trip. Extremely uncomfortable for someone my size.

I realize that this is probably an isolated problem due to my size but I will never fly that airline again due to the seat configuration. I will pay the extra couple of hundred dollars to fly on BA or another airline with slightly more leg room.

You Guys Must Be Too Bored...

Tue Feb 01, 2000 11:42 am

Gosh, you guys must have nothing better to do with your times than to check out my previous posts. A boeing 767-300 (according to the Austrian air/ Lauda air schedule) has a max cruising speed of 930km/hr, compared to 926km/hr for the A340. If you guys don't believe me about it actually taking two extra hours (and I have flown that route several times, so I think I'm a better judge of it than you), then try it yourself on BOTH planes. I guarantee you will notice a difference.

Sung-min In
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2000 3:58 pm

RE: You Just Wont Listen...

Tue Feb 01, 2000 1:03 pm


I only check your posts on this thread and the post on the 4 engine airliner poll page (seeing that I voted there).

Now, look at this. You say the 763 has a max speed of 930km/h, the A340 926km/h. Surely you can see something here. Now, I don't have to be Einstein, but there's a good chance that the figures for the 763 have been rounded.

If we want to do our grade 3 math, that means for the A340 to be 2hrs longer than the 763, it would take 463 hours!!! DO YOU THINK 4KM/H WOULD MAKE ANY NOTICEBLE DIFFERENCE???!!!. Read on for a better, more relevant explanation.

And hey presto, I'm actually correct, believe it or not. The B763 has a maximum cruise speed of M0.86. Wonders of wonders, the A340, topspeed M0.86. Even ask the pilots.

I said, do not believe airline magazines, and what do you do - you go and quote an airline magazine. Firstly it is not likely to be correct and secondly, if you were to make a fairer comparison - compare from the same people. Have you noticed in the NG/OS schedule that the CRJ topspeeds for Lauda and Tyrolean are different? But why, they're in the same book, they're the same planes with the exact same engines.

What does top speed have to do with this anyway. Surely, you would know that aircraft rarely fly at their maximum speed because on long haul sectors, aircraft just don't have the fuel to burn to go that fast.

The figures that matter are LRCs (long range cruise) or optimum cruise. In this case, the A340 has a clearer lead over the 767 (but not the 747) as it's optimum cruise is M0.82 over the 763's M0.80 - any argument, you can check Boeing & Airbus documentation, you can check Jane's All the World's Aircraft. And to repeat it, the 744s optimum speed varies between M0.86 & M0.84 - depending on weight.

To do some simple maths (if this was true). You have always failed to take into account the variables which can affect the result (ala wind). I wouldn't mind betting that a 763 at FL290 @ M0.86 would be faster than an A343 at FL410 @ M0.86.

Let's look at AC's timetable (YVR-HKG). AC827, 343 - 14:20. I can't find anything else but A340s - so unfortunately I can't find a comparison (does the AC schedule make the A343 2hrs slower than everthing else??? I can't find any other direct AC flights that use planes other than the 343), however, I challenge you to find a source which proves a 767 is 2hrs faster than an A340 (tip, find a source which says the 763 flies 120km/h faster than the A340 (990km/h), in otherwords, M0.93 - faster than any subsonic jet in the sky, 727, 747. And I'm talking normal cruise speed, if you think the 767 is 120km/h faster at max speed, well, that would give the 767 a cruisespeed of 1050km/h, M0.99.

At the risk of being called arrogant, I feel that I am a bit more qualified to comment on this than you. You have simply dismissed everything I have said, despite it being technically correct. On a technical basis, no one has had to correct me. But, if I am wrong, please correct me.

One last thing - did I ever say that there is no difference? You put words into people's mouths, fortunately I have the benefit of the fact that these messages are archived and are not altered.

To finish, I will not be continuing on this thread as you obviously are too stubborn to accept these facts or even concede points. The only possibility I can concede is that you got delayed 2:19 for the A340 to be 2hrs slower.



PS - Why don't you actually go and rebutt my points instead of dismissing them all. Can't you handle the fact that everything I have said is fact.
Posts: 576
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:53 am

Is This Some Sort Of OK Coral?

Tue Feb 01, 2000 2:37 pm

What is this here? Anyways, BOJIcat: ha-ji-ma! Skystar, you're not doing any better. I don't know, I thought this place was somewhere where you could ask questions and exchange information about airlines, but maybe I was wrong. Seems more like a wrestling match here.

The most uncomfortable plane I was on was a YEG-YYZ flight on an AC A320 and it was really cramped. I'm only 5'8" and I barely had any leg room! Other nominees were a FRA-YYZ LH DC-10 (thank GOD they don't fly those anymore!) and a YYC-LHR AC A340 (sorry, Skystar, but I didn't really like it much). The San Antonio-SLC (salt lake city) DL 737-200 was terrible too. So many bad flights!

To be honest, it's a combination of the airline, the seat configuration, the service, the plane (I guess) and your mood at that time. I threw up the night before the YEG-YYZ flight, so that didn't put me in the right frame of mind!

Anyways, if anyone has any info about how I can work for an airline, what kind of jobs are available for an airline and what they look for, please let me know!


RE: Is This Some Sort Of OK Coral?

Tue Feb 01, 2000 3:27 pm

Weird. I thought AC A320s and A319s have pretty good legroom . I flew a YEG-YYZ flight on an AC A320 last year in June, on my way to Moncton. No, I wasn't even sitting in Executive Class! This was the economy class. I'm 5'9" and have mild, but chronic knee problems, so AC's legroom was OK. Even the CP 737's legroom is OK, though not as good as AC's Airbuses. But I do agree with you about DC-10s. I flew on a Canadian DC-10-30 from YVR to HNL on the way to SYD and back. The legroom was a bit tight - and the tray went unhinged on the return flight! Luckily, I didn't have any drinks or food on it. Maybe it was like what you said - the frame of mind, mood, service, etc. Hope you got better before you went on that flight.

Besides, I don't know if you've been using forums that much before, but expect to see the "wrestling" once in a while here in this forum. Things like that happen. As a matter of fact, this is a pretty civilized one compared to some others.

Nice to see an Edmontonian here, BTW.

Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2000 3:58 pm

RE: It Is A Bit Tense...

Tue Feb 01, 2000 7:29 pm


I participage in many forums, mainly on a more technical nature. This is a blend of everything, air travel tips, technical aviation, etc

I hope you could understand my frustration. I was trying to clear mistruths. Sure I could sit back and look aghast, but no one would benefit, correct? I never said you can't exchange questions or anything (I hope I didn't give you that impression, I though we were having a discussion, where I was dispelling mistruths or at least offering my views.). But as you can see, I have a great passion for commercial aviation and it is annoying when people disregard everything you're said. Admittedly, I'm a lot used to forums where I ask the questions to the big gurus who are technically savvy.

It's like teaching. You want to teach, help someone, spend some good time explaining and then they respond with a , "yeh, whatever". It's like "I don't give a damn, who cares..." you feel as if everything is a waste. Really, "You guys must be too bored..." - I type at 85words a minute, don't think I go to the Encyclopedia Britannica for advice.

Perhaps I may have offended some, however I hope you can understand that I'm trying to offer what I know and sometimes that may be a bit brash at times (but I have good intentions at heart).

Hopefully you can learn somethings from me, just as I have learned somethings from others (I appreciate the work that Nick [Starship] did, I've learnt more about the CRJ)


Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:32 am


Wed Feb 02, 2000 6:35 pm

dc-10 is the worst!
Posts: 4688
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Dc-10

Wed Feb 02, 2000 10:20 pm

The worst would have to be an ATR-42 on Canadian Regional. I can remember bumping my head on the storage bin and having no leg room- and I was only 12 at the time!

Louis: if you want an airline job, obviously a good way is to look for postings at the company websites. Both AC and CP are still hiring.
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 1999 12:35 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Wed Feb 02, 2000 10:54 pm

BA 747-100 Y class, JFK-LHR.
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 1999 2:24 pm

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Thu Feb 03, 2000 12:15 am

Without a doubt, it would have to be a Virgin Express Boeing 737-300. Talk about terrible!

Sorry I moved from SXM, looking for a new house on Anguilla now!
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Thu Feb 03, 2000 12:20 am

I would have to say a Lufthansa (still my favorite airline) 747-200 from IAD to FRA. I'm a tall guy, but Jeez! The coach class seat width and pitch were insane. After 8hrs of inadvertently providing lumbar support with my knees for the seat in front of me, I limped off the plane wishing I had simply ridden in the overhead baggage compartment. The return flight, economy class on a 747-400, was infinitely more comfortable.
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Thu Feb 03, 2000 12:34 am

My most uncofortable flight was from Port Of Spain Trinidad to Toronto onboard a Canada 3000 Boeing 757-200 ER.The flight is approximately 5.5 hours.
Posts: 9183
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: It's The Avro RJ

Thu Feb 03, 2000 3:47 am

I've flown on quite a few cramped aircraft, but somehow the Avro RJ (Cityflyer)stands out. It wasn't just the lack of seat pitch, must have been around 29-30", but the width of the seats. The 146/RJ was really designed as a 5 abreast aircraft and when it's full, it's not a nice experience. I flew London/LGW - DUB and back last year. Still, it was cheap.

Now I read Cityjet are to get a whole pile of BA LGW Euro routes - and a whole pile of RJs to go. Couldn't they find something decent, like 737s or 319s?


RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Thu Feb 03, 2000 6:41 am

I have to break this into jets and props.

Most uncomfortable jet: F28 from YOW to TOR
Most unpleasant jet: L-1011

Most uncomfortable and unpleasant propeller aircraft:

tie between Saab/Fairchild 340 and Shorts 360
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Most Uncomfortable Plane You've Flown On

Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:17 pm

my most uncomfortable flight was on Gulf Air A330-200 from Bahrain to heathrow. On the outbound (from LHR- in row 24) it was OK but on the return back to LHR in row 44 there was not enough legroom to put the tray table flat over my knees!!!

This was in economy - Hwver my father flew the same a/c type in business a short while ago - no way is the advertised seat pitch 50 inches the same as what you get in the actual plane!

Most comfortable - BA777 in Club World - great food, great ife, great seats, great service.

Popular Searches On

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos