10,000th 737 delivered to SW - Guinness record
maybe there's a third side: passengers who like to be comfortable, which is compromised in a 737
Well, no. Airbus 320 family is 7 inches wider (inside and outside) than the 737 family. I suppose an argument could be made that 7 inches is closer to 1 foot than it is to zero feet, but it's not "almost" in the sense that most people use the word "almost". More to the point, that 7 inches does not equate to 1.166 inches more seat width. It of course varies by airline, and most which have both types have slightly wider seats in the Airbusses, but not by a lot. Some have the same width seats, and Lufthansa, inexplicably has slightly narrower seats in their Airbuses than their 737's.
Well, no, if Boeing did that, the Airlines would turn them into 4 and 3 configuration, if they could.
Well, no, if Boeing did that, the Airlines would turn them into 4 and 3 configuration, if they could.
i don't care if the plane is made in France or Washington state.
On the contrary, many passengers are equally concerned with their own bottom line and willing to trade comfort for lower cost, hence the growth of the LCCs.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Bucuresti
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was on a releatively 'modern' 737ng at the weekend and remain astonished at how many seats "benefit" from having no window at all, as I understand because of the routing of aircon ducts. That is just sheer laziness.
Mind, I was on a 787 last week and was reminded that Boeing apparently shop for plastics and cabin fittings at the same place as British Leyland in the 70s, so hardly a surprise I guess.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't much care myself either, although I can't say that I've noticed the AirBusses are substantially wider. Still, the Airline/Aircraft/Seat width chart I looked at shows that the Airbus does, on the average across airlines have a half an inch wider seats, so that's something. The thing is (and I think this ties into DavidReid's post) *you* may be vitally interested in things like seat width, and place that high in your list of criteria for choosing an airline, but for the most part, travelers don't, it's a long way below a small price difference. Passengers make a lot of noise complaining about seat size, but when it comes time to click the "buy" button, they are driven primarily by price. That's how we have arrived at the current state of affairs. Airlines have been reducing seat pitch and width for long time. If passengers were truly as interested in seat size as they claim, the first airline to reduce seat size would have discovered that a significant portion of their passengers were going to their competitors, who had not reduced the seat size, and that trend would have been stopped as an unprofitable strategy. But that's not what happened, airlines kept making seats smaller and smaller and people still kept on buying tickets. If seat width was a a significant driving factor in purchasing airline tickets, all the seats on Airbus 320's would all be 1.1666" wider than all the seats on 737's and Airbus and the airlines would be making that fact well known, and Boeing wouldn't have sold many 737's after the 320 got rolling.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair 737-800 lockers.
May I chip in with an opinion? I am only a lowly SLF and a regular user of Ryanair. Recently I had the pleasure of flying on one of their very latest 737-800s. It really was only days old and had the new skinny seats -still with absolutely nowhere to put anything at all-- not even a place to stash the wrist watch perfume and snacks price list which ends on the floor. At least the knee room was better but the back was hard.
But the nub of this post was the overhead lockers. When we got on all the bins were open. So we began to look for our row. We could not see any row numbers. Very odd everyone thought. Then a small woman shouted out "Oh look they are here".
The row and seat numbers are on the front of the bins. Instead of having a front door that opens upwards and leaving the numbers on display the new scoop shaped bins drop down towards the floor and take the numbers down with them. The row and seat numbers are only visible if you are sub five feet in height and looking directly upwards. Like most male and some female passengers my eye level was above the downward pointing numbers. Sure slowed things up.
I chatted to an English speaking cabin crew about the weird number placement and she agreed. She also said the bins take far more effort to push up to close. She was not full of joy.
I thought it was triumph of design over function. Often called progress.
Overall the lighting and general appearance was very pleasant and a real improvement.
Just my two cents worth.
Thanks for a brilliant website.
But the nub of this post was the overhead lockers. When we got on all the bins were open. So we began to look for our row. We could not see any row numbers. Very odd everyone thought. Then a small woman shouted out "Oh look they are here".
The row and seat numbers are on the front of the bins. Instead of having a front door that opens upwards and leaving the numbers on display the new scoop shaped bins drop down towards the floor and take the numbers down with them. The row and seat numbers are only visible if you are sub five feet in height and looking directly upwards. Like most male and some female passengers my eye level was above the downward pointing numbers. Sure slowed things up.
I chatted to an English speaking cabin crew about the weird number placement and she agreed. She also said the bins take far more effort to push up to close. She was not full of joy.
I thought it was triumph of design over function. Often called progress.
Overall the lighting and general appearance was very pleasant and a real improvement.
Just my two cents worth.
Thanks for a brilliant website.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I chip in with an opinion? I am only a lowly SLF and a regular user of Ryanair. Recently I had the pleasure of flying on one of their very latest 737-800s. It really was only days old and had the new skinny seats -still with absolutely nowhere to put anything at all-- not even a place to stash the wrist watch perfume and snacks price list which ends on the floor. At least the knee room was better but the back was hard.
But the nub of this post was the overhead lockers. When we got on all the bins were open. So we began to look for our row. We could not see any row numbers. Very odd everyone thought. Then a small woman shouted out "Oh look they are here".
The row and seat numbers are on the front of the bins. Instead of having a front door that opens upwards and leaving the numbers on display the new scoop shaped bins drop down towards the floor and take the numbers down with them. The row and seat numbers are only visible if you are sub five feet in height and looking directly upwards. Like most male and some female passengers my eye level was above the downward pointing numbers. Sure slowed things up.
I chatted to an English speaking cabin crew about the weird number placement and she agreed. She also said the bins take far more effort to push up to close. She was not full of joy.
I thought it was triumph of design over function. Often called progress.
Overall the lighting and general appearance was very pleasant and a real improvement.
Just my two cents worth.
Thanks for a brilliant website.
But the nub of this post was the overhead lockers. When we got on all the bins were open. So we began to look for our row. We could not see any row numbers. Very odd everyone thought. Then a small woman shouted out "Oh look they are here".
The row and seat numbers are on the front of the bins. Instead of having a front door that opens upwards and leaving the numbers on display the new scoop shaped bins drop down towards the floor and take the numbers down with them. The row and seat numbers are only visible if you are sub five feet in height and looking directly upwards. Like most male and some female passengers my eye level was above the downward pointing numbers. Sure slowed things up.
I chatted to an English speaking cabin crew about the weird number placement and she agreed. She also said the bins take far more effort to push up to close. She was not full of joy.
I thought it was triumph of design over function. Often called progress.
Overall the lighting and general appearance was very pleasant and a real improvement.
Just my two cents worth.
Thanks for a brilliant website.
That's not unlike the problem I saw the first few times I flew on an Airbus. It's been long enough that I don't really recall what type or what airline, but on boarding there were no row numbers visible as I was walking down the aisle. For whatever reason, the row and seat numbers were labeled on this little octagonal or hexagonal projection whcih projected down from the bottom of the overhead, near the reading lights and F/A call buttons. I'm of average height and had to duck down to read the numbers, they weren't visible from a normal upright stance in the aisle. I remember thinking that it was kind of a stupid design. I guess other people thought so as I haven't seen that particular "feature" in a decade or 2. Interesting to see that Boeing has managed to essentially duplicate the problem, in their own special way.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in the barrel
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO the fault is only partly with Boeing customers.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If"? 737 has marginally better operating economics (about 2%) than A320, so it was a customer decision not forced upon them by the manufacturer.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not unlike the problem I saw the first few times I flew on an Airbus. It's been long enough that I don't really recall what type or what airline, but on boarding there were no row numbers visible as I was walking down the aisle. For whatever reason, the row and seat numbers were labeled on this little octagonal or hexagonal projection whcih projected down from the bottom of the overhead, near the reading lights and F/A call buttons. I'm of average height and had to duck down to read the numbers, they weren't visible from a normal upright stance in the aisle. I remember thinking that it was kind of a stupid design. I guess other people thought so as I haven't seen that particular "feature" in a decade or 2. Interesting to see that Boeing has managed to essentially duplicate the problem, in their own special way.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re downward-opening bins - is that also a safety feature, i.e. Designed to stop luggage braining passengers if bins pop open in flight? Curious.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now look closely at those old 707 overhead bins. How big are they? Then remember that back in the day it was quite rare to have any significant carry-on baggage. The elite "jet setters" who flew back then simply did not go around carrying their own luggage. The highly regulated world of "jet-setting" back then is totally different than the de-regulated "air travel" of today. Consider the very name of the manufacturer that now produces about half of those narrow body/single aisle jets: AirBUS. A bus is what the "great unwashed" ride in, not elites. It's a different world. With deregulation air travel has dropped to the lowest common denominator that achieves the lowest possible cost.
So no, no bullsh!t. Just look at the pictures. The difference in the bins is quite obvious and 707 and 737 have essentially the same cross section.
And separately look at the top rail above the second set of bins in the picture. Most of the bins have that tiny top rail located quite high above the aisle. Putting row/seat numbers up there may not be such a good idea after all, assuming the airlines would even allow Boeing to do so. That top rail is designed to be interchangeable with the top rails at many different locations in the cabin. Put row/seat numbers on them and interchangeability goes away, which most airlines are vehemently opposed to.
So no, no bullsh!t. Just look at the pictures. The difference in the bins is quite obvious and 707 and 737 have essentially the same cross section.
And separately look at the top rail above the second set of bins in the picture. Most of the bins have that tiny top rail located quite high above the aisle. Putting row/seat numbers up there may not be such a good idea after all, assuming the airlines would even allow Boeing to do so. That top rail is designed to be interchangeable with the top rails at many different locations in the cabin. Put row/seat numbers on them and interchangeability goes away, which most airlines are vehemently opposed to.
Last edited by KenV; 6th Apr 2018 at 13:57.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV
How right you are. Remember the era of the "Wake me for meals" seatback pins?
That's from a time when there wasn't a row of screaming kids behind to keep you awake.
How right you are. Remember the era of the "Wake me for meals" seatback pins?
That's from a time when there wasn't a row of screaming kids behind to keep you awake.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - it's true - we have given up on service and gone to a bus model - but we all pay a lot less
Air Travel Then and Now | Nomad Wallet
Air Travel Then and Now (Pssttt… It’s Cheaper and Better Now)
Only one out of five people had ever flown back then.
Flight ticket prices: then and now
Since 1974, airfares have dropped by about 50 percent.
Consider this: in 1934, for the privilege of flying on one of TWA’s first transcontinental flights from Newark to Glendale, you’d have to pay $160. That sounds like a bargain, but — if we adjust that amount for inflation — it’s about $2,700 in today’s dollars. And that’s a one-way fare on a flight that made three stops along the way.
Airfare price case study: New York – London through the years
In 1950: a round-trip New York – London airfare would set you back $500 for an off-season ticket or $675 at all other times. Again, those fares sound fine, but they actually translate into $4,700 (off-season) or $6,300 (on-season) after adjusting for inflation.
In the 1970s: you’d have to pay $550 to fly the same route. This fare would only cost $3,200 today.
In 2013: At the peak of holiday season, you could get a return ticket on the same route for about $1,100 on British Airways — fees and taxes included.
But what about service?
I hear people say all the time that air travel used to be better. Flight attendants were actually nice; we had food; we had leg room; we didn’t have to pay extra fees; we didn’t have to go through strict security screening, etc. Thanks to the airfare regulations, airlines in the past didn’t have to compete in pricing and knew that they would certainly turn a profit. That’s why flying came with the best services. Among them:
The truth is: you can still get great service today if you’re willing to pay a premium
If you want great in-flight service, you can always spring for business class or first class. (Let’s not discuss the security hassles because, arguably, they’re there for a good reason.)
Air Travel Then and Now | Nomad Wallet
Air Travel Then and Now (Pssttt… It’s Cheaper and Better Now)
Only one out of five people had ever flown back then.
Flight ticket prices: then and now
Since 1974, airfares have dropped by about 50 percent.
Consider this: in 1934, for the privilege of flying on one of TWA’s first transcontinental flights from Newark to Glendale, you’d have to pay $160. That sounds like a bargain, but — if we adjust that amount for inflation — it’s about $2,700 in today’s dollars. And that’s a one-way fare on a flight that made three stops along the way.
Airfare price case study: New York – London through the years
In 1950: a round-trip New York – London airfare would set you back $500 for an off-season ticket or $675 at all other times. Again, those fares sound fine, but they actually translate into $4,700 (off-season) or $6,300 (on-season) after adjusting for inflation.
In the 1970s: you’d have to pay $550 to fly the same route. This fare would only cost $3,200 today.
In 2013: At the peak of holiday season, you could get a return ticket on the same route for about $1,100 on British Airways — fees and taxes included.
But what about service?
I hear people say all the time that air travel used to be better. Flight attendants were actually nice; we had food; we had leg room; we didn’t have to pay extra fees; we didn’t have to go through strict security screening, etc. Thanks to the airfare regulations, airlines in the past didn’t have to compete in pricing and knew that they would certainly turn a profit. That’s why flying came with the best services. Among them:
- Lounge and observation area.
- Actual tables and wicker chairs.
- Silverware and crystal.
- A portable altar (!) on Sunday flights in case you missed church to get on the plane.
- A vanity table and chair in the lavatory.
- Toiletries you could actually steal from the lavatories, like individually wrapped bar soaps.
The truth is: you can still get great service today if you’re willing to pay a premium
If you want great in-flight service, you can always spring for business class or first class. (Let’s not discuss the security hassles because, arguably, they’re there for a good reason.)