What do you think of the trend of single aisle Boeing 757 planes to Europe?
 

I am flying to Europe next week and was shocked to find out we are making the 7 and 1/2 hour flight in a small single aisle plane (Boeing 757). I looked into it and found they now have new technology that allows this cramped single aisle plane to fly over 4000 miles. In time the only flights that will be using the more comfortable larger wide body planes will be flights to Asia.

I tend to be claustrophobic on flights and wonder if I will have an attack on this long and cramped flight.

Only you can tell. Thousands of people fly on 757s across the Atlantic and survive without having panic attacks each day.

But if you worry, then there are plenty of flights and plenty of airlines that fly widebodies to Europe, and those flights are going to stay.

<i>&quot;In time the only flights that will be using the more comfortable larger wide body planes will be flights to Asia.&quot;</i> is a false statement.

I'm one of those that dislikes them intensely for long flights, but the trend is definitely toward their increased use, especially on &quot;secondary&quot; markets. But as rkkwan says, there are still plenty of options in choosing routes that continue to use wide-bodies. You just have to check which planes are being used when making your reservations - and it may require a stop-over or change of planes if you want to avoid a 757. But that's a personal decision you'll have to make as to whether the trade-off is worth it.

The 757s are being used on secondary, smaller markets at either end. Most passengers prefer non-stop to their destination, so it's a win-win situation for both sides.

If you think that you may have a problem with a single aisle plane than try a connecting flights through a major hub. In most cases these are served by twin aisle planes not only because of the passenger load that can sustain it but also because of cargo. Airlines do make a nice $ on cargo. Cargo needs to be delivered to major hubs.

I would much rather fly upstairs on a 747-400, however, if the 757 will get you to your final destination without a connection, go for it. Try to get an isle seat. You won't feel so cramped. Too bad these airlines can throw in a free glass of wine with what they call dinner.

&quot;Cramped&quot; and &quot;single aisle&quot; are not necessarily tied together. Seating can be just as cramped on a 747 as on a 757, depending on how the airline orders the plane equipped. Coach seating on British Airways' 747s has less legroom than AA's 757s, for example.

The ETOPS-equipped 757s are cheaper to operate than the widebodies. So which would you prefer - more space or cheaper fares? No free lunches, but whines are complementary.

I've travelled on several 757's lately and they have more leg room than the cramped BA 777's.

I don't care about how many aisles as long as I have reasonable leg and head room!

OP writes: &quot;I am flying to Europe next week and was shocked to find out we are making the 7 and 1/2 hour flight in a small single aisle plane (Boeing 757).&quot;

how is it that you first found out about this 1 week before travel? The reason you are shocked at this late date is you paid no attention to the detail when you booked the flights. You made a choice of which flight to book, presumably long ago. You chose this flight. Why the shock?

Agree with most that's being said here, except what wally said makes no sense.

The upper deck of the 747 is no wider than a 757, but the side walls come in at sharper angle with smaller overhead bins. The cabin is also much shorter. So, if one gets claustrophobic on a 757, he/she should really stay away from the upper deck of a 747.

distant_traveler - What airline, what route?

US Airways from PHL to Lisbon

I feel that the narrow plane for such a long period of time leads to panic attacks from claustrophobia.

Your theory may be based on a personal fear, and that's perfectly acceptable, but you have to realize there are thousands of passengers flown daily on 757s across the pond and there are no reports of mass panic attacks.

Like I said earlier, if your fears are real, book a connecting flight through New York, London, Paris or something similar. You will still end up on a single aisle flight to get to/from the connecting flight but the longest flight will be on a bigger, 2 aisle planes.

Cripes!!! I've flown on a few USAirways 757s across the country (some overnight) and they are BAD - cramped.

I do hope the USAirways transatlantic 757's are better - can rkkwan tell us if the pond 757's are different from the land ones.

I've never flown USAirways 752, only CO's, across the pond.

The planes are configured differently. CO's are 16/159, US' 12/161, but USAirways have extra exit doors that took up more room. [CO's have overwing emergency exits instead.] According to seatguru, CO has 31&quot; pitch, US 32&quot;.

Anyways, nobody says these are comfortable planes across the Atlantic, but if I were to choose between non-stop on a 752 to LIS, or a connection elsewhere with the trans-Atlantic segment on a widebody, I'll take the 752 non-stop.

The plane type has nothing to do with seat pitch. It's the airlines that put in the seating according to their needs.

I've flown on JL 747 that had about 28-29&quot; seat pitch. If you want to know what cramped is, try it some day.

On the other hand, EOS Airlines, all business class airline operates 757s across the Atlantic with only 48 seats.

Canada 3000 (now defunct) charter airlines flew 757's across the Atlantic back in 1989 so why this is a new trend I'm not quite sure.

However, I understand what the OP is saying as I tend to choose wide body flights whenever I can (even on my 1hr rapidair between Toronto and Montreal). I just feel less cramped overall with wider cabin space to view and much easier to embark and disembark, especially when you choose seats in H to K. It's a personal thing I guess.

The current trend among many airlines is to have a vast number of flights on small aircraft, rather than a smaller number of flights on large aircraft. Apparently this is in response to perceived marked demand, even though it's extremely wasteful and bad for the environment.

The 757, in particular, has had a reputation for being a &quot;budget&quot; aircraft for a long time, meaning that it was designed to be economical to operate rather than comfortable.

One advantage is that you can't get a seat in the centre row like on widebodies

Unless you strike lucky and have all 4 seats I don't know anyone who likes them

But I can see distant_traveler's disapointment. Everyone has flown on a 757 which is similar to a 737. When one travels across the Atlantic, one hopes to fly on a bigger plane. 31&quot; pitch and no individual tv monitor on a seven hour plus flight isn't a lot of fun. And no free alcohol!! And the fasten seat belt sign will probably be on ALL of the time.

Seven years ago, I flew my then 98 year old aunt to Denver. From Orlando to Atlanta, it was a 777. From Atlanta to Denver they used a 767. My aunt was amased at the size of the plane. She had flown to the Soviet Union three times during the 60's, but had never experienced such a big plane.

And as for the upper deck of a 747 being claustrophobic, rkkwan needs to consult www.seatguru.com. Only 20 people on BA's 747 upstairs and everyone has either an isle or window with plenty of room and two toilets. And the fasten seatbelt sign was on for only the first three minutes and last 20 minutes of the flight. NOW THAT IS NOT CLAUSTROPHOBIC.

However, during Christmas I will be flying Air Pacific upstairs and they have 69 people upstairs compaired to BA's 20. That could be claustrophobic, but at least they have free alcohol.

wally - I'm not talking about myself. I am talking about the OP.

I'd love to be on a tiny business jet across the Atlantic.

You do love to post irrelevant stuff with no logic.

There are quite a few comment about flying 757's across the Atlantic Ocean on this link to Airlinequality by people who have done it. The big comments is that there is simply no where to get up and stretch.

www.airlinequality.com/Forum/contl.htm

But I suppose rkkwan will find it irrelevant.

For how many years did most flights between North America and Europe use 707s? I don't know about seat pitch back then, but they were also single aisle and 3-3 seating, same as the 757 and 737. Other than the medically claustrophobic people generally loved that aircraft.

This is a really interesting article about flying in the 50's and 60's. It was a little different back then. Can someone help me with the link if it doesn't work. The article is only two pages. Worth the read.

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E1D81F3FF93AA25753C1A9659C8B 63&amp;sec=travel

Here are some photos of coach seats on the upperdeck of the 747s:

www.airliners.net/open.file/1172038/L/
www.airliners.net/open.file/1101373/L/
www.airliners.net/open.file/0823944/L/
www.airliners.net/open.file/0823091/L/
www.airliners.net/open.file/0781809/L/
www.airliners.net/open.file/0763122/L/
www.airliners.net/open.file/0750003/L/
www.airliners.net/open.file/0687605/L/
www.airliners.net/open.file/0659839/L/
www.airliners.net/open.file/0460520/L/

and so on...

Many of them are Iran Air's 747SP or many domestic JAL or ANA.

This one is more representative of longahul, from a South African 747-400:

www.airliners.net/open.file/0220846/L/

NoFlyZone - FWIW Pan Am first flew the 707 across the pond in 1959 and many airlines continued to use them (and DC8s) well into the 1970s even after jumbos were introduced. I agree people loved them (including me when I made my first trip to Europe during college in 1969) - they cut hours off the flight times of the old props and were quieter. Pitch wasn't much different than now. I guess the point some people are making is that wide bodies at least seem (whether psychologically or otherwise) more comfortable and enjoyable than the single aisle planes.

The last time I flew on a 707 was from Antigua to LHR in July 1980.

'twas the olden days when there was plenty of leg room and the aisle passengers never had to get up to allow the middle- and window-seater into the aisle and back into their seats.

and you probably paid twice as much as you would today for the same flight....

I never paid attention to pitch when I rode those 707s and DC-8s in the 70's. But that's because I was a kid then. :D But they certainly don't have any inflight entertainment.

And like others have said, a lot of it is simply how the airline configure the seat. The narrowest seat I've sat on is on a widebody - Cathay Pacific's Lockeed L1011 Tri-star with 10-abreast seating.

The worst legroom I've gotten is on a widebody - Virgin Atlantic's 747-200. The seatback of the front touches my knee and as many already know, I'm only 5'4&quot; with short legs.

And of course, it also depends on how full the flight is. One of the best sleep I've got on a trans-Atlantic flight is on a Continental 757-200, but only because I have 3 seats for myself.

My last flight on a 707 was a Pan Am flight from Seattle to London on which I sat next to a crazy drunk guy. How's that for combining thread topics?

My wife's last 707 flight was on another Pan Am plane from Hong Kong to San Francisco, on which one of the FAs (we didn't call them that then) dropped acid and started walking up and down the aisle using the armrests instead of the floor. My wife said she was &quot;chirping&quot; as she went, until the other FAs and one of the (3) people from the flight deck got her restrained. Also crazy enough?

Actually the seat pitch was slightly greater than in current coach setups.

Perhaps Continental could put a bar in the basement of the plane like the earlier Stratocruiser's had. This way people could stretch their legs a little.

Oh, but wait, $5 drinks and a Fasten Seatbelt Sign that never goes off--that just wouldn't work.

AAFF - point well taken. The fare for that trip I took in 1969 was $350 (RT from Houston to London with refueling stops in Bangor, ME). By far, it was the single biggest expense for the 3 months I spent in Europe that summer. I got that through my university's travel agency and it was considered a huge bargain at the time. Hate to think what that would be in today's dollars.

In absolute terms (not inflation-adjusted) the average system-wide yield (12.69 cents per passenger mile) for ATA member airlines in 2006 was lower than in 1990 (12.76 cents.)

But adjusted for inflation using the US CPI, it was 36% <i>cheaper</i> to fly in 2006 than it was in 1990, and less than half what it was in 1980. That despite the fact that fuel prices were through the roof last year.

What other service or commodity can you name that costs less than it did in 1990?

For one easy example, anything, everything electronic costs less today than it did in 1990.

regards - tom

<b>dfr4848</b>,

here is your answer:

<i>In 2006, $350.00 from 1969 is worth:
$1,924.19 using the Consumer Price Index
$1,560.25 using the GDP deflator
$0.00 using the value of consumer bundle
$1,981.68 using the unskilled wage
$3,171.46 using the nominal GDP per capita
$4,690.38 using the relative share of GDP</i>

Back to the original subject.

When you turn off the lights, a Motel 6 looks the same as the Four Seasons. So, I suggest the OP take some eye-shades. [And to go along with the ear-plugs for those noisy European hotels.]

One more thing to think about. For the 757's to make it to Europe, the pilot needs to very very gradually accend to 35,000 feet. Continental will not turn off the fasten seat belt sign until they reach cruising altitude.

When I flew from Berlin to Newark on Continental, it was 37 minutes before we reached cruising altitude and the fasten seat belt sign was turned off, however, the flight attendants were announcing that the captain has not turned off the fasten seat belt sign 24 minutes after take-off.

Europeans are used to seeing the fasten seat belt sign turned off 5 minutes after take-off. It takes more time to board a single isle plane so many people had been sitting for almost 1 1/2 hours and needed the toilet.

wally is right, and CO/US charge $5 a drink on their 757 flights across the Atlantic. So, those hoping to intoxicate themselves to avoid panic attacks need to bring a stack of $5 bills with them.

No, most take credit cards. I wonder when the booze surcharges will start up - market elasticity of demand, devalued dollar... maybe California whine will stay at $5 but the fancy imported stuff will go up to &euro;5.

I know how it is, Wally. Those ignerent Euros don't have the cents to use the loo before getting on a plane.

Wait... I just got it! Alcohol is a diuretic, so the seatbelt signs HAVE to be turned off sooner. D'oh!

CO still charges 4EUR or $5. With today's exchange rate, one really should buy USD to get booze onboard!

Speaking for myself, I can't wait to fly with Qantas on their A380 plane. They have 4 areas in economy for self-service shacks.