Widebody good, narrow body bad - why ?

[davidjohnson6]

Dotted around the web, there seems to be a fairly common opinion expressed, that when flying more than a few hours, one should prefer to fly in a wide body (i.e. twin aisle) plane instead of a narrow body (single aisle) plane.

I'm specifically excluding the A380 and 787 from this question as they are a far newer design than the vast majority of planes. Looking only at aircraft in common usage and not about to be sent to the scrapyard, narrow body in this context means something like the 737, 757, or the A320 family, while widebody would refer to the 747, 767, 777, A330 and A340.

I can appreciate there is often a difference in the premium cabins, but am puzzled as to why this perception exists for the seats in economy. Is it that people want the seat-back TV which narrow bodies generally don't have ? The higher cabin ceiling of a widebody ? Or something else entirely ?

[Seat62K]

I remember that widebody aircraft were marketed as giving passengers more space (anyone remember BEA's TriStar advert with the slogan "European Space Travel"?)

BOAC initially planned to have 9-across in economy on its 747s but this soon became ten. As load factors rose economy widebody travel became more uncomfortable. The days of having acres of free seats, say, between Perth-Melbourne-Auckland on BA disappeared as greater distances could be flown nonstop. I seem to remember DC10s had 5-across in the central section. Yuk! (I may be wrong about that.)

In more recent years I recall deliberately seeking out single-aisle aircraft for transatlantic travel, e.g., Canada3000 757s. This was once I'd overcome misgivings about ETOPS! Last but not least, the numbers milling around at baggage reclaim were much lower.

[UniFoxOs]

I seem to remember DC10s had 5-across in the central section.

Me too. Air New Zealand, late '70s, seem to remember having two on the end of the five. Don't remember it as being uncomfortable, though (AKL-LAX) - but I was much thinner and more supple then!

Cheers
UFO

[strake]

I seem to remember DC10s had 5-across in the central section.

Oh yes, memories of flying with United to the States in the late eighties sitting in the middle of that centre set. At mealtimes, the (even then) ageing flight attendant would shuffle down the aisle, using the cart as a sort of Zimmer frame and yell, "Whaddya want, fish or meat?" before slinging the choice expertly across the row.

[liteswap]

I'm still intrigued as to why a wide body should be economical enough to stop a/c makers building longer aircraft with less frontal area. I suppose there must be limitations on the ground that effectively mandate a/c length. What are the other constraints?

[Xeque]

Out of the current crop of wide bodies, the A330 and A340 (and the upper deck of the A380) are the best choice with 2-4-2 seating ensuring that if you are on the inside (window seat or central) you only have one seat to get across to get to an aisle.
I'm told the cabin crews like this arrangement too when it comes to meal and beverage services.
3 across seating is a pain except in the centre (B777). As I get older I find having to get over 2 seats in order to get out (particularly on night flights where I'm trying not to wake the pax in B-C or H-J) is a feat of athleticism I am no longer able to achieve.
I realise that 3-3 seating is unavoidable in narrow body aircraft with a single aisle but there must surely be some better way for the B747, B777 and lower deck A380?
How about seats facing each-other with common leg room like the old style railway carriages?

[Browners]

Having done an 8 hour flight from BHX to Newark in a Continental 757, I would've given anything for a widebodied jet with 2 aisles.

Having only the one aisle meant it was difficult to get up and walk around freely. I couldn't feel my backside when I got off the plane!!!

[PAXboy]

I think that Seat62K says it right. I can't see why people think this, other than in VERY specific cases. It also depends on what you/they call 'lh'? Across the pond is long but it's not the 10/11/12 hours of UK to LAX/JNB/CPT/BKK/SIN.

The very long haul are wide bodies and so we are back to the usual problem of reviews on the web being indistinct and scatter-gun. I avoid reviews by people I do not know and that imprecise.

Yes, it WAS (or is) 5-across in DC-10Y and I still have reservations about ETOPS!!

[Skipness One Echo]

Widebody good, narrow body bad - why ?

The definition of a size queen. Dear me!

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by liteswap

I'm still intrigued as to why a wide body should be economical enough to stop a/c makers building longer aircraft with less frontal area. I suppose there must be limitations on the ground that effectively mandate a/c length. What are the other constraints?

There are a range of aerodynamic considerations. Foremost is that as the aircraft rotates for takeoff on the runway, that you do not bang the tail. This applies to the landing flare as well. To overcome this you would need to make the landing gear taller to increase the distance between fuselage underside and the ground, and that in turn makes it both more of a handful to control, and more difficult for ground equipment to service it.

Stretched versions of aircraft, such as the 757-300, or the 737-900, are regarded as being at the limit of tailstrike liability, and also for overlong ground unloading/loading times. Notably, both have been poor sellers compared to their standard-bodied conterparts.

Originally Posted by Seat62K

I seem to remember DC10s had 5-across in the central section. Yuk!

The DC-10, also the MD11 and the current Boeing 777, have fuselages that are sized for 9 seats across (the 747 is a bit wider, and is 10-across). With 9 seats you can either do 2-5-2 or 3-3-3. There are supporters of both layouts. Everey DC-10 I saw had 2-5-2, whereas I have seen both in the MD11 and the 777. The middle seat of 2-5-2 requires two people to move out of your way if in the middle of the row, but you can go in either direction, whereas there are two window seats in the 3-3-3 that require the "double excuse me". If the flight is 90% full then 2-5-2 allows four pairs in each row with the middle seat free, this is more difficult with 3-3-3. If we start a discussion of which is better, you go on for ever. I was once given a reprimand by a pax seated alongside for having the temerity to get up from my inside seat twice in a TWELVE HOUR flight from LAX to London; it's experiences like this that lead people to dislike seats not on the aisle.

Originally Posted by xeque

How about seats facing each-other with common leg room like the old style railway carriages?

The problem with this one is that there is then wasted space behind and underneath the backs of the two passengers in adjacent sections, which the "bus style" of conventional aircraft overcomes by having your legs go under the seat in front. So you would not get as many seats in. Also, pax are generally unhapy with rearward-facing seats, configurations with a few of these find them unpopular, and there are also safety issues as rear-facing pax are not protected from debris and loose items flying forward in a major incident (a Boeing study found loose items thrown forward were the No 1 cause of injuries in such incidents).

[philbky]

On long flight (8 hrs+) both the availability of 2 aisles (and thus the chance to walk around) plus the less tube like construction of the cabin militates for the wide body.

Recently flew LHR-GIG and back on a BA 777 and got to thinking just how constrained the pax would have been on the 707s, DC8s and Comets of days gone by - somehow the trip seemed longer than trips I've made to Singapore or the US West Coast.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Recently flew LHR-GIG and back on a BA 777 and got to thinking just how constrained the pax would have been on the 707s, DC8s and Comets of days gone by - somehow the trip seemed longer than trips I've made to Singapore or the US West Coast.

Having flown in a British Eagle Britannia trooper from LHR to Singapore, which took something like 2 days to get there, it seemed to take forever. Luckily, I was seated next to a single Nurse

Best trip was definitely 2 day from UK to Little Rock in a C-130, with a night-stop in Goose Bay. Most of the trip was spent swinging from my hammock slung from the beams above the rear loading ramp - cold but comfy!!

Airliners - yeuch!

[nascargeek21]

Wide-body aircraft aren't as comfortable now because of the increased number of seats abreast, but wide-body and narrow-body aircraft sure beat cramped regional jets! I remember flying on an American Connection ERJ with an aisle so small that one passenger was audibly complaining. Aside from the seating, however, I find regional jets quite nice. However, wide-body aircraft are also nice because some are equipped with personal entertainment systems, even in economy class.

[adfly]

There's more room in a Flybe E195 than a Virgin 744, Flybe have a lower seat pitch but it is easier to get your feet and lower legs under the seat in front. It is easier to walk around on a widebody though.

[paulc]

EK 777's are 3-4-3 in economy. United 777 are 2-5-2 so you do not want to get stuck in the middle seat

[praa]

I've always understood the argument to be that a wide body offers a more spacious environment (even if you personally don't have much more room in economy) when you are cooped up in a plane on a long haul trip. Despite that, many people seem to love the top deck of a 747 for its smaller overall size and more intimate atmosphere. There might be a contradiction in there somewhere.
I'll settle for a business class seat as long as someone else is paying.

[TightSlot]

Passengers' perception of space, and seat pitch is (fascinatingly) directly linked to the size of the cabin. People will swear blind that seat pitch and personal space are reduced on narrow-body aircraft even when I know them to be identical across the various fleets: Upper-deck 747 is often perceived to be having lesser personal space than downstairs, although people prefer the upper deck believing it to be in some way more exclusive. The same is true of economy on A380.

It's a funny old world.

[Final 3 Greens]

People will swear blind that seat pitch and personal space are reduced on narrow-body aircraft

The bins are generally lower on single aisle aircraft, so in that sense there is less personal space.

[Seat62K]

Part of the attraction of BA's upper deck, for me at least, is the additional space which window seats have between seat and sidewall (containing handy storage bins, some of which, but not all, are quite cavernous) plus not having large numbers of passengers streaming past you to reach their seats if you choose to board early.
Much as I like the current version of BA Club World, for me the smaller upper deck of its 747-136s with non-flat bed Club seating was almost as appealing. I preferred it to the main deck when configured with 6-across economy seating.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

I'm with Seat62K on the 744 upper deck. When seated, the sensation of width seems more significant than the height, and that outboard space completely alleviates the feeling of being jammed into a tube. And those side lockers are a great place to stuff bits and pieces without leaving your seat. Only the creaking floor [when you're trying to sleep] spoils the experience!