I've flown more than I care to even think about, the carbon footprint of my life is about as ugly as it gets. That said, I do have a bit of experience to draw on and my current favorite is a narrowbody:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220

Originally designed by Bombardier, every flight with it that I've made so far (~10) has been an extremely nice experience, especially when compared to other planes on the same routes. The only plane that I would prefer is the 747 but that's pretty much gone on passenger routes now and those two planes would not be found on the same routes anyway. So a long flight in a narrow body is definitely not something that I would run away from.

I've only flown on 747-400s with BA and Qantas, and I've found them to be terribly loud. I've heard the 747-8s were a little quieter, but would you really say that would be better than a 787, A350, or A380?

I too have heard that the A220 is a fantastic plane. I'm looking forward to Qantas flying them.

I've never flown an A380 so I can't really comment on that and yes, I much prefer the 747 on longer routes over 787, A350 vs 747 would be more or less a wash, noise is mostly a function of where you're sitting in the plane so you have a bit of control over that (and these days: very good noise cancelling headphones).

The A220 emits very strange engine noises in some phases of the flight. Personally I must say I find them very unpleasant. My wild guess it's the gear fan.

It doesn't help to know that their have quite some engine problems. Although objectively I doubt the noises and engine failures are related.

You mean the "whale song"? It's just a quirk of the Pratt and Whitney PW1000G series at low power settings. The same engine family is fitted to new Airbus A320neos and makes the same sound. Examples:

https://youtu.be/Eeq4rYQUozY

Ah, I didn't know it's called whale song, but yes that's what I mean. Low power setting might be correct, I think you hear that typically in approach phase. I have been flying with many types planes from Vickers propeller, Caravelle, 727, L-1011, 717 and its predecessors to 747-8, A350, Dreamliner, but I never remember hearing a sound making me feel so uncomfortable. Despite the fact that the old ones were uncomfortably loud. After over 40 years of flying I nearly thought, now I can understand people suffering from flying anxiety.

Don't remember hearing it on a A320 neo, but I guess they come with 2 engine options?

Yes, I will pay extra if it’s an option to fly with their planes.

Airlines have been doing this with 757s for quite some time. This is the best spiritual successor to the 757, which is going to have to be retired in a lot of fleets sooner rather than later.

The layout makes much more of a difference than the number of aisles - I am fine with a 757 but have hated my economy experience in a 9-abreast 787.

The cabin is a bit wider than standard a320. They advertise 18" wide seats. If they are 32" apart that's ok. It can even fit lie flat business class seats. And if it means flying direct instead of changing planes in a busy overcrowded airport and having to lose time waiting and queuing (and "saving the planet") that's pretty appealing

The A321 is not wider than an A320. The A320 family[1] comes in a variety of sizes and configurations to support different profiles, but they are all variations in length, fuel capacity and MTOW.

Making a plane longer is relatively straightforward, just insert additional sections before or after the wings. Making a plane wider you may as well design a whole new aeroplane.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family#Specificati...

I said "cabin is a bit wider" not the plane itself. I was under the impression that with neo they made the isolation on the walls of the cabin a bit thinner (2 inches?) gaining more room in the cabin while keeping the outside shape the same but I can't find anything about it anymore

EDIT: oh yeah found it: https://tqpr.com/airbus-new-single-aisle-airspace-cabin-ente...

> The new Airspace features include: slimmer sidewall panels for extra personal space at shoulder level

or https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-0...

> The Airspace package includes new sidewalls that provide one additional inch of shoulder-height cabin width

> And if it means flying direct instead of changing planes in a busy overcrowded airport and having to lose time waiting and queuing (and "saving the planet") that's pretty appealing

That is the most important thing imo. A 6 or 7 hour flight to your destination is so much better that the same length to Frankfurt or wherever and then waiting and taking another 1-2 hour flight somewhere. Most of the pain with flying, except maybe of ultra long-haul, is what goes on before take off and after landing. If you only have to go though that once, it's a big deal.

Plus, I dont see any material difference in comfort between modern wide and narrow body, other than your less likely to be stuck in a middle seat on a narrow plane and they board faster.

This is a frequent argument I see, but I don't see much substance in it. I've flown with both narrow and wide body, and the most critical dimension is leg room and shoulder width. And I did not find any particular wide body advantage with the sardine-packed 777 comparing to a regular A320, or especially A321, which I have flown in many times. Comparing to a 737, maybe some, but the 737 is an age old design, it is known for not being too spacious. It's not a A321 contender.

Just booked a cautionary flight on new airline called Breeze, nonstop LAX > WHITE Plains, bypassing the major NY airports and impressive bridge tolls in an A-221 configured with 5 seat rows where the middle seat is innovatively wider than the rest, at a very competitive coach fare even after the upsells. A first passage with a new airline is always a leap of faith but my first translantic flight back in 1971 was a venerable, loud and smoky 707, so the long-haul single aisle flight doesn't faze me like it does the younger travellers.

Jet Blue is doing narrowbody JFK to London and I have to say the seat isn't the problem. One aisle is.

It was fine but even as a JetBlue fan, I'm not in a rush to get back on the narrrow body for transatlantic.

What was wrong with the single aisle?

1 person can block the aisle completely.

Every person that goes to the bathroom in front of you will pass you and the plane is smaller so the commotion is noticeable.

Service blocks the bathroom for a long time because of less bathrooms.

I expect they'll have different seat configurations for longer range planes. 3-4hrs is fine but I can't see how anyone would want to fly 8 hours with the legroom common in Ryanair or Spirit.

I mean, people have been trying to make transatlantic low-cost happen for a while now. not successfully, but people have tried.

> 8 hours with the legroom common in Ryanair or Spirit

At this point I’d rather just stand like in a bus

Narrowbodies have much less people in them. Already they're enabling much cheaper business class seats across the Atlantic.

To me international narrowbody travel is all win.

Still beats swimming. Besides if it means not having to transfer to a connecting flight I'll take it. Airports are hell.

I've done JFK-OPO on TAP on a 321LR a few times; it's 2-2 staggered 1-1 in Business and quite nice. (https://thepointsguy.com/reviews/tap-air-portugal-a321lr-bus...)

That doesn't look bad at all. I probably just hate A320s and 737s from too many easyJet and Ryanair flights where there wasn't even the option of a good seat.

I'd take 8 hours in a A321 with Jet Blue's layout (in mint or economy) than any wide body from AA or United.

As a tall person, I don't think there really is any significant difference. The seat pitch in economy on most jetblue flights is 32" (per seatguru), which is generally the same as united/aa on transcontinental. Yes there are UA/AA/etc layouts with 31, as there are jetblue with 34". The bottom line, is that if you don't fit in these smaller seats, paying the upgrade fee on a crappy airline/ticket generally gets one more space than flying a more premium airline. But the difference is frequently nullified (cross airline) simply by selecting a different date/flight with an alternative plane/seat layout.

(and the widths all tend to be ~17.5" or so)

It's not all about seat pitch; on an A380 you can get up and walk around for a hundred meters or so, on a small plane you are basically stuck in your seat or the bathroom.

Not to mention the bars and lounges in business & first class.

https://onemileatatime.com/guides/airplane-bars-lounges/

A380 is mostly history. Many airlines abandoned them during Covid and I have not heard of any revivals.

Emirates have them going full steam ahead again (they have 120 of them). I hear the 9:00pm flying from my city to Dubai every night. Qantas have re-introduced them - I think four at least are back in service, three are undergoing cabin refits and by mid next year they will have 10 back in service (they are retiring 2 of the 12 they had).

Emirates for sure, but they are an exception. No other operator uses them at the same scale.

While I like the A380, I must say I am glad having avoided the Gulf Airlines so far. One time it was close that I booked family trip with Ethiad, but then my wife said they are supressing women, she will stay at home. Of course ethical arguments could be probably applied to any airline in Europe, flying with oil from the Middle East and now from Russia. And of course for all cars, but luckily I don't drive.

I was once on a United 757 from Chicago to Dublin. It wasn't my favourite flight.

What's the difference? Like how does the width of the body have any impact on me? I'm asleep in my seat the whole time either way. I'm not pacing side to side!

Not only is it wider, but it's taller. At least for me, all else being equal, widebodies feel far less cramped just because there is much more room inside. It's a bigger difference than a regional jet versus a mainline narrowbody.

Are you flying standing up?

When you have long flights it's nice to have space to walk around the cabin, go to the back and have a drink etc.

Also I feel like even if you are sitting the whole time, there's a difference in perception between sitting in a small confined space vs sitting in a space that is larger.

I said they feel far less cramped.

Ryanair is going to pounce on this idea

Imagine how much GHG emissions they could reduce if authorities let them innovate on pods or bunk beds.

Heck just give me bean bag or even a yoga mat and I’ll be happy.

They already tried to implement it years ago, or at-least Michael O'Leary claims so.

I don't see what impact the aircraft being narrow-body has on travel comfort. It's all about seat pitch IMO, and that can be bad also in a wide-body.

I’ve flown 7 hours on a (commercial) all business class A320 and it was pretty nice. Seat config is going to be everything