For years, I have read on here about how many a.nutters wouldn't want to fly a narrow body over the pond.

Well, after travelling the over the pond 3-4 times a year for a long time, I finally got to ride a 757 transatlantic this week. Specifically, a DL 757. My experience was different to my expectation. I thought I would feel cramped. I thought there would be long waits for the loo. I thought the ride would be more bumpy.

In reality, once I was sat in my seat and enjoying the view, I could have been on any plane. It was no more bumpy than a wide body and I didn't feel remotely cramped.

So, am I alone? What do those think who have actually rode the 757 across the pond? Better, worse or simply..no different to the more familiar widebody?

Unless you are someone who has to constantly get up and walk around the aisles/galleys in my experience it is no different from a widebody. Your comfort entirely depends on the airline and who is sitting next to you. I use to enjoy flying CO's 757s tatl over the dated SK A330s (~6 or so years ago, I think SAS has finally updated their cabins now).

I've done ORY-JFK and EWR a number of times on 757 on EC. This has been in 'BizBed' and the cabin there is quite spacious and along with the service gives the feel of a private jet. A modern Airbus or B787 would be quieter and have a more comfortable atmosphere (pressure and humidity), but otherwise it is just fine.

I fly non-rev so I'm really happy to have literally any seat on any plane. This year I finally flew a 757 TATL PHL-AMS in Y and was expecting it to feel different as well. I completely agree - It could've been any TATL flight. The meal service was the same, the flight felt the same, I slept the same... Now I can say I've done it!

I've crossed the pond several times in a 757

EWR-DUB
IAD-KEF
IAD-DUB

feels no different than other widebody I've flown. Only possible downside is the isle may be more crowded.

As Polot said, your experience depends much more on the airline you fly than the aircraft type.

No matter the plane, I always sleep. No difference to me.

FB330 wrote:

For years, I have read on here about how many a.nutters wouldn't want to fly a narrow body over the pond.

Well, after travelling the over the pond 3-4 times a year for a long time, I finally got to ride a 757 transatlantic this week. Specifically, a DL 757. My experience was different to my expectation. I thought I would feel cramped. I thought there would be long waits for the loo. I thought the ride would be more bumpy.

In reality, once I was sat in my seat and enjoying the view, I could have been on any plane. It was no more bumpy than a wide body and I didn't feel remotely cramped.

So, am I alone? What do those think who have actually rode the 757 across the pond? Better, worse or simply..no different to the more familiar widebody?

I agree. It makes no difference to the majority of people. It's basically like flying DEN-OGG except you get a meal, free beer, and better IFE.

I flew IAD-LIS on a 757 and LIS-EWR on a 767 and the 767 was definitely more comfortable. But then again, the 767 is probably one of the most comfortable. The problem with the 757 was the meal cart blocking the aisle and people getting up at the same time, but it wasn't a big deal. More or less like a 757 on a domestic trip

I've only flown across the pond on a 757 once, on EWR-HAM. I ate dinner, I went to sleep, when I woke up they were serving breakfast, then we landed. Maybe I got up to use the lav once somewhere in between. In other words it was the same as any other eastbound transatlantic flight, just like everyone else said.

They are just fine flying transoceanic. East bound, I just try to get some sleep after the meal. I don't need to get up that often during a flight. I normally prefer to sit by a window seat, so any time the person in the middle seat takes a bathroom break, I take one too. That cuts down on having to disturb the people in the aisle and middle seats. One big advantage to a narrow body is there is a higher proportion of window seats that on a wide body.

I have flown EWR-BCN and HNL-PHX on 757's. I have also flown on BN DC-8's to and from South America. It was pretty similar to flying on a 757 transoceanic flight. I would much rather arrive in the morning at my destination in Europe than arrive at a large hub jet lagged and needing to find my way to a connecting flight.

Flew JFK-AGP on DL in Y and I got two meals, AVOD, the whole nine yards. Nothing is sacrificed on TATL 757s.

I relish the few flights I take that are long enough to offer a widebody, so for me I wouldn't just be judging the experience, I would be disappointed regardless of it.

Recently I flew ORY-CMN and was delighted to get a 767 on the return leg on a route plied by countless narrowbodies !

I've done UA's EWR to TXL route three times now. First was on a very nice, updated 757. The second time it had been replaced with an incredibly shabby 767 (I'm hoping this has bitten the dust by now). Third time was on an updated 767. Both of the updated planes were fine, they didn't feel different to me.

Flew DL on the 757 MAN-JFK-MAN last December in Economy. It was perfectly acceptable and had no problems dozing on the eastbound leg. DL now also use 763's on the route and next year will see VS run the route in the summer with A330's, so there's not many opportunities to scoop one in again (which is good in one sense as it's proven to be a successful route since it was relaunched last year), but I'd happily do so again if the equipment on the day is a 757.

The stigma about flying 757's (or narrowbodies in general) on TATL flights is misguided in some cases as it's all down to the config. DL use 757's that are configured suitably for TATL flights and are no better or worse than a widebody. If it was an all-Y cabin with 28" legroom, or say an AA 757 with no seat back IFE in Y then yes I'd probably avoid.

Out of interest, what's the config on the 737's WestJet use on TATL sectors?

I flew Newark-Bristol once. It's one of the shorter TATL flights and was fine in a 757.

I flew EWR-BCN-EWR in 2006 on a CO 757 with no winglets and no AVOD, only drop down screens. It was perfectly fine.

Not exactly a 757, but I've flown on the upper deck of a 747-300 which was configured 3-3 all economy on a long haul flight (ZRH-BOM-MNL) and it wasn't so bad. There was no envy for the folks downstairs who were in the wide body part of the plane. We got the same food and friendly service, and in those days, IFE was a movie projected on a large screen, or BOB (bring your own book!)

I have flown Finnair Toronto - Helsinki on 757. I don't feel any difference. Essentially the seat pitch and width is not much different.

I found that whether you feel cramped or not really depends on the person sitting BESIDES you, not the seat itself. You got a big guy sitting besides you, you are doomed even if you are on a 747.

I've done it a couple times - Newark to UK on Continental (shortly before the United merger). The other main way I've flown to the UK is British, a couple times each on 777's and 747's. I'd say the widebodies were slightly more comfortable (except the times I got bumped to World Traveler Plus - then they were way better, but not a fair comparison), but not radically.

Seat widths (per Seat Guru):
UA 757-200: 17.3"
BA 777: 17.5"
BA 747: 17.5"

I don't recall noticing the slight nominal difference in seat widths, except BA aligns the seat frames oddly, so my foot space was divided. This was obnoxious, but not fundamental to widebodies.

The cabin height was an obvious difference. I can't stand as upright in the middle or window seat on a 757 as on the widebodies. This makes it more difficult to get in and out, especially if your neighbor is the sort who just tucks their legs to the side instead of standing up to let you out.

Lav lines: depends mainly on the ratio of lavs to passengers, and Murphy's law dictates there will have just been a rush on the lavs by the time your neighbor wakes up and lets you out. The widebodies usually have a little more space around the lavs to wait, and you're not trapped by galley carts during meal service.

So all things being equal, I'd slightly prefer the widebody for long-haul comfort, but it's not generally a deciding factor on which ticket I buy.

Two big things do significantly affect my comfort:
1.) Every now and then I seem to get a bit of fluid build-up in my knee. This is excruciating during and for an hour or two after the pressure change of climbing. Leg room is critical to allowing me to flex my knee and relieve the pain.
2.) I have trouble staying hydrated when traveling. Higher pressure and humidity cabins would probably significantly help. This is currently only available on a couple widebodies.

Flying WW's A321 from BWI-KEF last winter was interesting. The turbulence in the jetstream felt quite severe.

I've only ever gone TATL on A330s, 777s and 757s. The 757 was fine (UA last year) with IFE. I did find I experienced every bit of turbulence compared to an A330 with Wing gust alleviation.

Varsity1 wrote:

Flying WW's A321 from BWI-KEF last winter was interesting. The turbulence in the jetstream felt quite severe.

Looks like a NB with wing gust alleviation isn't all that helpful...

Not TATL, not 757 but...
I've flown Copa Airlines GRU-PTY in a 737-800, a 6:30h trip and it was perfectly fine, with no lines for using the lavatories.
Honestly, it felt even more comfortable than the Air France 77W I got on a GRU-CDG leg.

It really depends on the airline configuration. Copa's economy class has the same seats of United's 757/764, so it's really ok for these 6/7h flights.

The best TATL flights have been on were NW 757's. I could sit back, stick my arms straight out and not touch the seat in front of me. It is all about how much personal space I have and not how crowded the aisle is. I tried the same thing on a DL757 and my hands could touch the seat in front of me but there was still a good amount of space.

FB330 wrote:

For years, I have read on here about how many a.nutters wouldn't want to fly a narrow body over the pond.

Let's face it, a good percentage of a.nutters have never flown across (or never will) the pond, and speak from another orifice on the subject. They generally believe that even flights between Garden City, KS and Enid, OK should be done on a BoeBus 1000-300, with full First Class meal service and 200 channels of IFE.

Dardania wrote:

I've only ever gone TATL on A330s, 777s and 757s. The 757 was fine (UA last year) with IFE. I did find I experienced every bit of turbulence compared to an A330 with Wing gust alleviation.

Varsity1 wrote:

Flying WW's A321 from BWI-KEF last winter was interesting. The turbulence in the jetstream felt quite severe.

Looks like a NB with wing gust alleviation isn't all that helpful...

You can't make that judgement. You don't know if Varsity1's flight was just more turbulent and your flights. The only way to compare would be if both airplanes were basically formation flying so that they experienced the exact same conditions.

I've flown TATL in 757's any number of times, on various airlines. DL does a nice job with their TATL 757 seating but the other carriers I've flown were OK as well. I'm perfectly happy on a 757 as long as the airline does its part with the seating. I know some people want to have the additional sense of space in the cabin for long flights, but that is a personal - and psychological - thing IMO. For me it just doesn't matter.

I've flown on 757s with CO (UA) and EI and all have been fine. Comfortable rides, direct flights without the need for a stop & with PTVs. On the other hand I've flown on an AA 757 from JFK-DUB & US 757 DUB-PHL and they were dire. No PTVs, the overhanging TVs were dated & unwatchable, dirty tired planes and not very comfortable seats.

The 757 has allowed much better transatlantic access here in Dublin & for that I'm grateful, I just wish some carriers (AA) improved their product

on 757, I've flown FM PEK-PVG (almost 2 hrs flight), with No AVOD whatsoever, and the old type bulky seats. Feels pretty comfortable though, with seat width at about 17.5" and seat pitch of 32". No different than 763 except for the single aisle thingy. Yes, on a transatlantic routes that can be a letdown, esp when you need to visit toilet quite frequently.

on the side note, I've flown a TK 737-800NG on IST-DUB (about 5hrs), on a dreadful full flight Y-class. The one sitting next to me is a pretty lady from Israel, and a Turkish big guy. During the flight, there was one time I slanted on the window to keep me awake, while the recline doesn't really help much. The lady was leaning towards me because of the big guy sitting next to him. I had no problem because she is pretty (as shallow as I am, but am being truthful), but legroom feels very cramped, and hard to get good position for sleeping. It was a BSI-equipped 738, but nonetheless it wasn't very helpful at all, given the long duration of flight on single aisle plane. Now that is horrible, despite the good catering from do&co and the pretty lady next to me.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Out of interest, what's the config on the 737's WestJet use on TATL sectors?

Same as the rest of their 737-700 fleet, 136 seats, with 3 rows of "Plus" seats at the front with 36" pitch and the middle seat left empty, so in fact total capacity is 130 seats if all the Plus seats are sold.

Never been on a 757 TATL but been on the -300 variant LAX-HNL with 6hrs or so (northernly route) and it was fine regarding seat comfort and feeling at arrival. Delta IFE was a good company i have to say.

I flew EWR - LHR on 757s both ways with my daughter. Perfectly fine. I don't understand the obsession with having a widebody over water. Most West Coast - Hawaii flights are on 737s. Then again, I'm old enough to have flown DC-8s many times across the Atlantic, so a 757 is hardly a hardship.

One of the main a.net arguments against narrow bodies on transatlantic flights has always been that they only have one aisle. This supposedly inhibits movement around the cabin and is were wide bodies are superior with their two aisles. Especially during cabin service.

The truth is single or double aisle makes no difference. BOTH aisles are blocked up with carts during cabin service, so there goes that supposed advantage. And WB have more PAX so more chance of those ignorant types that block up the aisle chatting to their friends in the next row. When deboarding, both aisles have to merge into the one exit this can often lead to hold ups as some PAX cannot figure out how to merge into the traffic. So if anything, on the deboarding side of things, NB's are slightly quicker.

The other argument is NB's have longer queues for the toilets. Also not true. NBs carry less pax, so the toilet to pax ratio remains about the same.

In short, there are no real disadvantages or advantages between WB and NB flights across the Atlantic. Both types get you there and both types feature comparable IFE and seating these days.

Stuck on a Continental 757 from Gatwick to Cleveland.
- Not one but TWO large groups of teens on group tours singing and clogging up the aisle.
- The pilot threatening to divert to Iceland if the kiddies didn't shut the **** up and get out of the aisles.
- Bathrooms smelling. Did I mention I was near the back of the plane and got the full aroma treatment?
- Flight attendants surly and rude, telling me to control my children. Um, I was flying solo. The misbehaving preteens seated near me were the property of their parents, conveniently sitting a couple of rows away. No apology from the FA for yelling at me. Yes, literally yelling over the behavior of adolescents who weren't even mine.
- The yelling FA got her revenge for being wrong by denying me a beer. I had one beer right after the plane took off several hours previously and wasn't drunk. She was sure as shootin' going to show me what's for! How dare she be proven wrong! Talk about classless and rude. I have never been treated so poorly on a flight, ever.
- It took 30 minutes to deplane. I'm not joking.

Okay, so what's the moral of the story? That single aisle was a problem and was the main issue, in my view that the FAs were so nasty. They literally couldn't do their jobs because it was constantly blocked, which elevated their blood pressures and rage levels, making the flight miserable. The single aisle works fine IF the passengers behave and everything works smoothly, but if not it's horrid.


.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Okay, so what's the moral of the story? That single aisle was a problem and was the main issue, in my view that the FAs were so nasty. They literally couldn't do their jobs because it was constantly blocked, which elevated their blood pressures and rage levels, making the flight miserable. The single aisle works fine IF the passengers behave and everything works smoothly, but if not it's horrid.
.

And you think these ignorant teens wouldn't have blocked both aisles on a wide body? You did way there were two groups.
You had a poor flight, but the single aisle was not the issue. Your reasoning is wrong.

garpd wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

Okay, so what's the moral of the story? That single aisle was a problem and was the main issue, in my view that the FAs were so nasty. They literally couldn't do their jobs because it was constantly blocked, which elevated their blood pressures and rage levels, making the flight miserable. The single aisle works fine IF the passengers behave and everything works smoothly, but if not it's horrid.
.

And you think these ignorant teens wouldn't have blocked both aisles on a wide body? You did way there were two groups.
You had a poor flight, but the single aisle was not the issue. Your reasoning is wrong.

The narrowbody jet has economical operation, enough to lower the price of a ticket that classless parents can bring their children with them transatlantic. So yes, you can blame to single aisle!

Dardania wrote:

The narrowbody jet has economical operation, enough to lower the price of a ticket that classless parents can bring their children with them transatlantic. So yes, you can blame to single aisle!

I'm sorry (no, I really am not) but that is complete hogwash. With that logic, there should be no children on wide bodies!

garpd wrote:

Dardania wrote:

The narrowbody jet has economical operation, enough to lower the price of a ticket that classless parents can bring their children with them transatlantic. So yes, you can blame to single aisle!

I'm sorry (no, I really am not) but that is complete hogwash. With that logic, there should be no children on wide bodies!

Suppose you're right - money can't buy class.

I'd say with a widebody, and a gang of boisterous kids, it could actually be worse, as they could chase each other around...

Dardania wrote:

Suppose you're right - money can't buy class.

Agreed!

Both aisles have been blocked on several occasions on every wide body flight I've been on. Be it passengers, crew or both. Blocked aisles are a fact of life when flying.
Wide body, narrow body, makes no different. The more pax that the plane holds, the more likely it'll be that the aisles will be blocked at some point in flight.

And you think these ignorant teens wouldn't have blocked both aisles on a wide body? You did way there were two groups.
You had a poor flight, but the single aisle was not the issue. Your reasoning is wrong.

Um, no.

The FAs were actively talking about how hard the plane was to work. They had trouble with the carts, for some odd reason, in the aisles. I'm just reporting what happened. You can call my reasoning faulty all you want, but that's what happened. The fact that the kids were blocking the aisles was an issue. Toss in people trying to use the lavs, standing in the aisles waiting for the lavs, etc., and the single aisle exacerbated the situation. I suppose both aisles could have been blocked on a widebody, but at least on a widebody there would have been more room for the disruptors to spread out. The plane would have also felt far less claustrophobic.

Dardania wrote:

The narrowbody jet has economical operation, enough to lower the price of a ticket that classless parents can bring their children with them transatlantic. So yes, you can blame to single aisle!

LOL - you've got that mixed up and upside down there. Single aisle aircraft were exclusive to TATL flights with B707s and DC8s, it was the wide body twin aisle that brought TATL travel down to affordable prices with the introduction of aircraft such as the B747, DC10, L1011 and eventually the A300/310 and B767.

Your account and logic on how your in flight experience is the fault of a specific aircraft type or design was extremely humorous though

Having done several TATL in the B757 since the mid 90s starting with Canada 3000 - there is no difference. People simply have way too much time on their hands while flying and let their minds wander to make up ridiculous conclusions.

Having flown TATL well over a hundred times with aircraft ranging from the DC8 to B747 to Citation CJ1, I'm really curious as how having an aisle on the port side of an aircraft is going to make the slightest bit of difference to anyone sitting in seat 40K.

Aptivaboy wrote:

The fact that the kids were blocking the aisles was an issue. Toss in people trying to use the lavs, standing in the aisles waiting for the lavs, etc., and the single aisle exacerbated the situation.

And that never happens in a twin aisle

Aptivaboy wrote:

I suppose both aisles could have been blocked on a widebody, but at least on a widebody there would have been more room for the disruptors to spread out. The plane would have also felt far less claustrophobic.

And where is all this extra magical space for the disrupters to spread out in a twin aisle?

And guess what? A twin aisle equates to more seats, more seats equates to more disrupters in the aisles

Flown Aer Lingus 757 Dublin/Toronto in both Y and J, as well as WestJet 737 Dublin/St. John's.

No complaints with either as regards being comfortable. I slept on all eastbound overnight sectors.