I fly small piston aircraft for a lot of our travel, so even an A319 or MD90 is top luxury in some sense.
I don’t think people generally feel like they’re “settling” in a 737. I just got off a 737-800 BOS-ATL in fact. I do feel like I’m settling when I strap on an E170/175 on a short haul flight. I put them as clearly superior to Saab 340s and Dash-8 aircraft, but that’s about it. It makes taking the train (Amtrak!) seem worthy of consideration for BOS-PHL type trips.
On many of these routes the 737 is over provisioned and Boeing is not really winning the deals on the merits. You can see Boeing cozy up further with Embraer since that's been on the cards for a long time and then they'll be able to offer something other than the 737.
Airbus are nervous, jiggly and constantly jittering along as the avionics happily acknowledges the plane is within envelope. Boeing planes feel more damped and they don’t remind me of my flight stress as often.
But the Embraer?! I flew one over the English Channel, windy and all that; and yet, it sailed along gently.
But I'm convinced I can feel the difference between them and the A321. Maybe because of the lengthy fuselage, but it always feels much more comfortable.
I've always found A320s more comfortable. It's a big reason why Jet Blue and Virgin are generally much more comfortable than Southwest or other 737-based carriers. For seat pitch the thickness of the seats can matter, so the fact that Jet Blue and Virgin had more modern, thinner seats mattered for legroom. And of course you can add and remove rows. But thinness doesn't matter for seat width and everybody uses 6 abreast rows, so there's little a 737 carrier can do to make up the difference.
The 737MAX carries forward this handicap (737 has a circular fuselage while A320 is more elliptical), so Airbus will continue to have the leg up in this regard for the foreseeable future. Newer planes like the C-series provide even greater width[1], and considering the C-series is basically Airbus now that's just more reason to prefer Airbus when booking. Indeed, given that most 777s have been converted to 10-abreast seating in coach[2], I'd prefer an A320 (or preferably a C-series, though I haven't flown one, yet) over any Boeing plane if flying coach.
[1] The configurations so-far have been 18.5" for window and aisle, and 19" for the middle seat. 19" is like business class on Boeing planes! Compare that to a 737 where the typical seat width is 17". That's a huge difference, especially if you're traveling alone and are the conscientious type (i.e. avoid rubbing shoulders).
[2] From the originally envisioned 9-abreast configuration. Apparently the 777X is being designed for 10-abreast and will more seat width as compared to the 777, but I'll be surprised if it provides better width than a comparable Airbus plane. Boeing seems singularly focused on the demands of the big American carriers, and they couldn't care less about coach comfort.
My shoulders literally protrude into my neighbors' personal space, and I can't do anything about it. Even if I wasn't as athletic, my frame is built that way. Sucks for them, sucks for me.
As a thin American who observes many corpulent Americans flying, I would think seat width would be a big issue. but then I see large people squeezing into small seats and realize that my screams of protest are in vain.
Carry on. thanks at least for bringing up the topic, it's a real thing.
But the nicer airlines offer general legroom's that's survivable - some budget airlines my knee is basically in somebody else's back (thinner seats help here).
In the last 6 months I traveled between Amsterdam - Bangkok twice (11 hour flights) both times using KLM, and although they aren't as cramped as some other (cheaper) airlines I upgraded my seat every single flight to get a bit more leg room. But I can't compare to other (premium) airlines yet.
It therefore makes sense that the Dutch flag carrier has slightly more generous leg room than the norm.
Generally my experience is that US carriers will select the cheapest and densest configurations, especially for domestic routes, including Hawaii. They've been applying this to transatlantic routes recently as well, but I think they'll do this globally as refits occur. It all fits with the pattern of a race to the bottom that is horrible for customers and staff that turn up every day to get us safely to our destinations.
I think EU and other global carriers are at a different stage on the race to the bottom. There is still some differentiation between national and budget airlines. There are consumer protections and regulations that US air travelers could only dream of. In terms of outlook, I see these comforts diminish with future recessions and pressures on the airlines.
The major American carriers mostly compete with each other and Southwest.
Especially in economy, I find this to be moot - seats are crammed in at near DVT-inducing density regardless of the size of the fuselage.
I've flown in 787s and A380s numerous times. I'm also mildly claustrophobic, and I've never had a "living room" experience, even when flying business or first (TBF, I've only done so twice, both times with BA; it might vary for some carriers)
Yes, the chairs are relatively comfortable, and if you're just going to sleep it's OK (especially with the BA arrivals lounge at Heathrow meaning you don't need to wake up for breakfast on the flight) but after being the trailblazers with lie flat seats BA have really dropped the ball compared to their competitors.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/airline-sues-man-who-t...
As long as it's one of their newer planes, I find BA's business to be "good enough"; the food is invariably shite, the service is usually shite, but the wines are decent and you can sleep, But you're correct it's not as good as others (e.g. Singapore Airlines).
The couple of times I flew first with BA, I have to say I was mightily dissapointed - no way was it worth twice the price of business... it was barely any better at all. Luckily they were free upgrades!
TBH, all of BA feels like it's stagnated for 1-2 decades, and is slowly becoming a budget airline - but without the budget prices.
Yep, I just flew twice on Singapore Airlines, on 777s, and it was excellent, even in the economy section. Service was fantastic, food was fantastic (for airline food), I couldn't complain.
I think, at this point in time, the Asian and Middle Eastern airlines are what you want to fly on, because the American and European ones mostly suck. Some of the European ones are still supposed to be pretty good (like KLM I think), but all the American ones are horrible, and many of the European ones don't have the greatest reputations either (e.g. RyanAir).
If you want isolation from other passengers, wear some headphones. But noisy engines are not good for your health.
Headphones and earplugs are uncomfortable when worn for several hours in a row, either because they are inside my ears, or because they are bulky. This is a matter of comfort, particularly since I try to pass time on planes by sleeping. A noisier commercial airliner, all else being equal, simply is more comfortable than a quiet one.
(I dare say sleep loss and jet lag have a more measurable impact on my health than whatever hearing loss is induced by a typical commercial airliner.)
Traffic noise is usually much more intermittent, unless you're walking next to a busy freeway. You just hear cars as they go by, but it's not usually a constant. Ears handle intermittent sounds much better than constant noise, even when the intermittent sounds are much louder. It's a lot like radiation exposure: it's cumulative.
>A noisier commercial airliner, all else being equal, simply is more comfortable than a quiet one.
Honestly, you sound like someone who already has a lot of hearing damage.
They really don't, because it's much easier to cross-qualify between types of the standard Airbus range (the A3x0) than it is across Boeing's 7x7: the quotes I've seen are 2 to 15 days depending on the move (15 is going from A320 to A380) whereas outside of specific pairs for Boeing it's pretty much a full type rating (30~40 days).
Also I'm not aware of airlines flying only and solely the A320. Airlines like Southwest which refuse to fly anything other than the 737 were a big reason for the MAX.
Finally, the A320 is a much younger frame than the 737 and was FBW from the start, A320 launched in 1984, the 737 launched in 1967.
Allegiant and EasyJet are, IndiGo was for years A320-only, and Batik Air (part of the Lion Air group) will be soon. Edelweiss has A330 and A340 as well but it's relatively easy to move between the 320/330/340.
I don't know any better, but I thought - statements by the companies to the contrary aside - that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo... is what drove the Airbus partnership.
Perhaps the Wikipedia page is being edited by Boeing?
The possible difference being with fly-by-wire it's much more likely they can keep the same(ish) flying behaviour (meaning no new training) whilst making fairly dramatic future changes to the airframe if required.
I also doubt they'd go to anything smaller than the A318 in terms of derivatives...
Hopefully with a full fly-by-wire system they're a little more careful to make sure it's reliable and won't suddenly nosedive the plane...
Remember, with FBW, that's the plane's primary control system, so of course they're going to be ultra-conservative and make sure it's right. With Boeing's MCAS, it was tacked on at the end as a cheap hack to try to make the plane have the same flying characteristics as the older 737s. Basically it was an afterthought.
Also, Airbus has a longer history of pushing fly-by-wire.
28–29 in (71–74 cm) 737 max 2nd class 100@31/32" - 114@29/30” E190
Bigger is better
Thought the ride was gonna suck since, well, unpopular short routes is where most carriers put their old pieces of crap, since they're too fuel and maintenance hungy to do anything else.
Hopefully, other nations' air regulators will refuse to certify the 737MAX, and will be extremely reluctant to certify any other Boeing planes to fly in their airspace in the future. They cannot be trusted, and the FAA can't be trusted to do their jobs either.
Public perception will play a big role in that. If the general public opposes the aircraft, regulators will be more likely to go with that flow. Standing up to Boeing's bullying is easier when you've got the moral support of the common people.
Why would Boeing want to help their competitor, Airbus, like that?
If I remember correctly, when the sale was completed, it was a common opinion that Boeing’s tactics had completely backfired.
They absolutely wanted to kill Bombardier, but due to the fact that Airbus stepped in, took over a majority of the project and assembles the plane in the US Boeing's calculation badly backfired.
Boeing discounted the 737 MAX by more than 70% to force Bombardier to sell the C-Series below cost, which forced Bombardier to sell a controlling share to Airbus for $0.
I rode in a E175 and was blown away by the passenger experience; the 2nd generation E-Jets are much better and the A220 is better still. Boeing hopes that you don't ride in one and realize you don't have to settle for a 737.
(Not like I trust Airbus with the A220, since they've got the same motivation to string the A320 along that Boeing has to string along the 737)