distant_traveler

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.

rkkwan

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.

dfr4848

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.

AAFrequentFlyer

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.

wally34949

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.

Gardyloo

&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.

BlueSea

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!

ipod_robbie

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?

rkkwan

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.

rkkwan

distant_traveler - What airline, what route?

distant_traveler

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.

AAFrequentFlyer

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.

BlueSea

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.

rkkwan

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.

AAFrequentFlyer

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.

kmowatt

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.

AnthonyGA

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.

alanRow

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

wally34949

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.

rkkwan

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.