Still not my idea of a good time
Reader EF dips into the blog archives and writes:
I disagree with your hatred of the Boeing 757 for international flights. It’s no different than flying from New York to LA, which I do in a 757 all the time. And you talk about the size of seats. I don’t see such a big difference between the seats on a 757 or a 747. What’s the big deal? What do you hate so much about this plane?
Indeed, a while back, I argued against the growing trend of using single-aisle Boeing 757s for flights across the Atlantic. I like my international planes big, and the 757 isn’t big enough for my tastes.
To me, EF, it’s not just the narrower seats. Instead, it’s the single aisle.
The single aisle makes lavatory access harder, even if you don’t have the aisle seat. It means more climbing over people, which disturbs you and them.
So forgive me while we wonk out with the numbers for a moment. Let’s compare the 757 to the most common widebodies flying over the oceans (and yes, we’re talking about coach here… let’s assume your upgrade didn’t clear):
- If you’ve got a 757, then only 2 out of 6 passengers per row (33%) have an aisle seat.
2 out of 6 have to climb over two people to reach the aisle. That’s 33% of passengers who have the discomfort of the double-climb-over. - If you’re on a 767 (2-3-2 configuration), then 4 out of 7 passengers per row (57%) have an aisle seat.
0 out of 7 passengers have to climb over two people to reach the aisle. - If you’re on an A330 or A340 (2-4-2 configuration), then 4 out of 8 passengers (50%) have an aisle seat.
Once again, no one has to climb over two people to reach the aisle. - The 777 depends on the configuration. It’s usually 3-3-3 (e.g., Continental, Delta, Cathay Pacific, Singapore, Air New Zealand…), but sometimes it’s 2-5-2 (American, United), or a tight 3-4-3 (Emirates).
If it’s 3-3-3, then 4 out of 9 passengers per row (44%) have an aisle seat, and 2 out of 9 (22% – both window seats) have to climb over two people to reach the aisle.
If it’s 2-5-2, then it’s still 4/9 (44%) aisle seats, but only 1 out of 9 (11%, the dreaded middle-of-five seat) has to climb over two people to reach the aisle. - The jumbo 747 has a 3-4-3 configuration, with only 4 out of 10 (40%) of passengers per row having an aisle, and the folks at the windows (20%) with the 2-person climb.
- The A380 is like a 747 downstairs and like an A340/330 upstairs. See above.
So the bottom line: A 757 offers the lowest odds (33%) of getting an aisle seat. The 767 offers the best odds of the aisle, with 57%.
Simultaneously, the 757 offers the highest odds (33%) of being pinned in, forced to climb over two people to use the loo. The 767 and A330/340 force no one to crawl over two people.
Sounds to me like the 757 is the worst of both worlds for long trips.
And especially in an age of increased awareness of deep-veined thrombosis, getting out of your seat is something you really should be doing on medium- to long-haul flights.
I’ll stick to my preference for widebodies, thanks.
(image)
RSS (FeedBurner)
Read with Amazon Kindle
Subscribe by E-mail
Follow on Twitter
November 29th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Good points here. The only way I’d fly a 757 transcontinental is on an all-business airline like EOS or L’Avion.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:44 am
I agree Mark.
757s are the worst way; I know, I’ve done it. The last time was with FlyGlobespan from Doncaster in the UK to Hamilton in Ontario (an obscure trans-Atlantic trip if ever there was one). Tiny seats, double climb over, long toilet queues, dreadful
A little later in the year we went BA from LGW to DFW in a 777, which was 3-3-3 and that was a little better. I had the centre seat in the centre section and it was OK. On the way back it was a 747 from SFO to LHR and that was better still.
Still, my favourites have been A330s: 2-4-2. When my wife and I travel together a 2 by the window is by far the best way to fly.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:34 am
I’ve flown on a 757 with CO from MAN to EWR and while it was an experience (because I quite like the a/c myself) I don’t think I’ll be looking to take a 757 across the pond again.
Why? well for many of the reasons stated in this blog it just feel like everyone has less room to relax even the FA’s look like they have less room to work.
My return flight was only bettered becuase I had a whole row to my self, but that doesn’t happen too often.
I’m going to stick to my 767-300 to ORD for now.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:46 am
[...] oder Muenchen. Und stellenweise scheint man sogar meine Meinung zu dieser Kiste zu unterstuetzen: Reader mail: Why Boeing 757s are sub-par for trans-Atlantic travel:Simultaneously, the 757 offers the highest odds (33%) of being pinned in, forced to climb over two [...]
November 30th, 2007 at 8:59 am
I think EF’s main point — that an international flight from the east coast to Europe isn’t really much different in length than a flight from New York to LA — hasn’t really been addressed by this post.
The other thing is — you have the choice not to take those 757 flights. And it also offers a choice to those who would rather not connect at a major hub like LHR after flying in on a giant 747 and instead can go to straight to their actual destination.
And finally, it might offer you service to destinations that simply wouldn’t be economically viable otherwise (similar to RJs or other smaller aircraft to smaller regional airports in the US). E.g., EWK-TXL on Continental. You could fly on CO to Frankfurt on a larger aircraft, but then CO probably wouldn’t have an alliance connection to TXL (since LH is Star Alliance). Or you could fly via alliance partner NW to Amsterdam and then onwards to TXL on a Fokker 70.
Let’s face it, we all want low prices, choice of airlines (competition) and large comfortable planes with a direct flight. But it seems like you can only have two of the three. Merge CO and DL and their EWK/JFK-TXL 757 flights into a larger aircraft and you have less choice (and probably higher fares).
But hey, here’s a solution for you: move to the west coast
November 30th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Agreed that the 757 is not the most pleasant plane to fly in, but you left out one important measure of comfort: percentage of middle seats. The 757 has 33% middle seats, same as the 777 (whether 2-5-2 or 3-3-3). 2-4-2 A330/340s have 25% middle seats, and the 767 has a terrifically low 1/7 middle seats. However, the 3-4-3 747 has 40% middle seats, worst of all.
Since I’d prefer to be at a window with a 2-seat climb over being in any middle seat, a 757 represents better odds than a 747.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Out here on the left coast, the 757 is being used extensively for Hawaii runs. Frankly, I dislike that trend for all of the reasons listed above. Not too long ago it was unheard of to fly in anything other than a wide body on that run. But with all of the new ETOPS regulations etc, the 757 is the aircraft of choice.
However, (more bad news) the coming trend is the longer range 737s! Aloha runs them out from secondary markets in California (SNA, OAK, SMF etc.) and Alaska is using these from Seattle.
I have heard that the Aloha planes are very comfortable and that the flight is very nice, but just wait until Southwest decides to get into that business…not going to be pretty.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
[...] I don’t want to add a stop in Newfoundland just for kicks. Granted, I’ve never been wild about 757s on trans-oceanic routes, but the low-fuel issue isn’t limited to those routes. [...]
March 5th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
My Opinions about Boeing 757s they are OK, I think those planes are good for like 3hour haul trips like Boston to Florida of San Francisco to Las Vegas, etc. As a Rule because I’m from Boston MA and I fly to either Los Angelas or San Francisco and they only use Boeing 757s, 737s, and Airbus 319s only for the six hour haul flights and they over crowd the plane when they should use either Boeing 767s, 777s, and 747s with a better chance for atleast a three quarter of the plane empty.and have better chances to stroll and use lavatories in the twin aisle
Ive seen flights out of Chicago Ohare to either Los Angelas and San Francisco they use 767s, and 777s for only a four hour haul flights and they are not always full fights like the Boston ones.
It doesn’t seem to make sence to use smaller planes to fit more people on with a six or seven hour flights where as they use larger aircrafts from Chicago to California with almost half empty 767s, 777s and sometimes 747s (rarely) only in the four hour flights.
I guess someday soon, from BOS to Calif the 757s when they become obsolete, you may think they’ll use boing 747s, 767s and/or 777s for 6 hour flights but think again, they’ll only go to Boeing 737s and/or Airbus 319s with over booked planes.
Its one thing about the fuel issues to operate larger planes but I feel paying more money for the air fare and obligated to pay extra now for suit case handling and food for purchase.
Back in the good old days they used to fly larger aircrafts from Boston and many other places with much cheaper air fare, with hot meals, snacks, drinks (except alcoholic drinks and headphones) and luggage handling were included.
Also have a much better service then, more stewardesses were nicer to us passengers. the atmosphere of those olden days flights were more comfortable than they are now. I think most of the airlines have changed so much not for the better.
John Bernardini
March 5th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Basically They use more dinky size planes for long haul flights for the money that is paid for these flights with bad services is quitley ridiculous. is what I’m trying to say.
John Bernardini