737 for trans Atlantic Flights

slo town said:
No love for the 777? Serious question - why the dislike? Someone mentioned them being underpowered. Back in my working days I flew on 777s several times. Yes, I was flying either First or Business Class (usually on American), but I always liked the 777.

Scott
Click to expand...
I think the aircraft is fine. However, United’s configuration of their domestic B777 leaves literally everything else as better option.
 
slo town said:
My last business trip before retiring was from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles to Heathrow to Cape Town. From SBP to LAX was via a regional CRJ, then 747's on the next two legs (British Air going, South African Air returning). In the span of 27 hours I was airborne for 24 of them. Wide body or not, it wasn't fun.
Click to expand...

The way I view modern commercial air travel is: affordable = almost guaranteed discomfort. Or, pay exorbitant sums for less discomfort.

Plus, any nice plane can be easily rendered moot by the other passengers.

And, let's see what kind of new nth-degree price discrimination schemes the airline industry can come up with as well.
 
edyvw said:
I think the aircraft is fine. However, United’s configuration of their domestic B777 leaves literally everything else as better option.
Click to expand...
Yep. That one is a cattle car. People don’t wanna spend a lot of money going to Hawaii, so we put enough seats in the airplane that they can pay the low ticket price and still get there while we still make money.

We don’t advertise that one as luxury. Never have. And that configuration is being phased out.

You will be pleased to know that we intend to put the 737 Max 10 on that route. So, if that’s the market: cheap, packed interiors, then that’s what we will provide.

It’s not only the size of the airplane that matters. It’s the appointments. But you’ll never see a nice first class seat on a 737, there just isn’t enough real estate.

I mentioned the 767 because we have them equipped with 45 first class seats and we fly them on international routes, and that airplane, with its low density, nicely appointed Polaris interior, makes us a ton of money, running back-and-forth between London and other major cities dozens of times a day.

The 321 XLR will be considerably nicer than the 737 Max. That slight fuselage width advantage matters.

Size isn’t everything, but it does matter.
 
Astro14 said:
Yep. That one is a cattle car. People don’t wanna spend a lot of money going to Hawaii, so we put enough seats in the airplane that they can pay the low ticket price and still get there while we still make money.

We don’t advertise that one as luxury. Never have. And that configuration is being phased out.

You will be pleased to know that we intend to put the 737 Max 10 on that route. So, if that’s the market: cheap, packed interiors, then that’s what we will provide.

It’s not only the size of the airplane that matters. It’s the appointments. But you’ll never see a nice first class seat on a 737, there just isn’t enough real estate.

I mentioned the 767 because we have them equipped with 45 first class seats and we fly them on international routes, and that airplane, with its low density, nicely appointed Polaris interior, makes us a ton of money, running back-and-forth between London and other major cities dozens of times a day.

The 321 XLR will be considerably nicer than the 737 Max. That slight fuselage width advantage matters.

Size isn’t everything, but it does matter.
Click to expand...
Between JFK and LAX/SFO/SNA American Airlines flies a narrow body Airbus (321) with a first class, business class l, and economy class. The NB Airbus has a private lie flat first class seat with nobody sitting next to the passenger, business class is semi lie flat, but a passenger sitting next to you, and economy is a cattle car.

The NYC CA routes support this with all the entertainment industry PAX, and a lot of very deep pocket PAX traveling between NYC and California.
 
GON said:
Between JFK and LAX/SFO/SNA American Airlines flies a narrow body Airbus (321) with a first class, business class l, and economy class. The NB Airbus has a private lie flat first class seat with nobody sitting next to the passenger, business class is semi lie flat, but a passenger sitting next to you, and economy is a cattle car.

The NYC CA routes support this with all the entertainment industry PAX, and a lot of very deep pocket PAX traveling between NYC and California.
Click to expand...
Over 20 years ago, we used to offer “premium service“ between JFK and San Francisco and JFK and LA.

757 configured with 32 first class seats, the rest were economy plus, 36” pitch.

There were only 108 seats on the whole airplane.

Same route. Same customers.

United was forced to give up slots at JFK after the merger. Or I expect we would still be doing it.
 
Astro14 said:
Yep. That one is a cattle car. People don’t wanna spend a lot of money going to Hawaii, so we put enough seats in the airplane that they can pay the low ticket price and still get there while we still make money.

We don’t advertise that one as luxury. Never have. And that configuration is being phased out.

You will be pleased to know that we intend to put the 737 Max 10 on that route. So, if that’s the market: cheap, packed interiors, then that’s what we will provide.

It’s not only the size of the airplane that matters. It’s the appointments. But you’ll never see a nice first class seat on a 737, there just isn’t enough real estate.

I mentioned the 767 because we have them equipped with 45 first class seats and we fly them on international routes, and that airplane, with its low density, nicely appointed Polaris interior, makes us a ton of money, running back-and-forth between London and other major cities dozens of times a day.

The 321 XLR will be considerably nicer than the 737 Max. That slight fuselage width advantage matters.

Size isn’t everything, but it does matter.
Click to expand...
I completely understand where United is coming from on this. This airplane is used in lower 48 routs. I flew it from DEN to ORD recently.
My point was that single aisle is not always the worst choice. Though, I am trying to avoid that to Europe like a plague.
I flew UAL B777 on ORD to FRA route and it is less cramped then high density version.
 
Astro14 said:
I mentioned the 767 because we have them equipped with 45 first class seats and we fly them on international routes, and that airplane, with its low density, nicely appointed Polaris interior, makes us a ton of money, running back-and-forth between London and other major cities dozens of times a day.
Click to expand...
Found that 1-1-1 Polaris to be really unique - however my upcoming Polaris flight is 1-2-1 again - and grabbed a bulkhead single window …
Fantastic seat 😷
 
Just a civilian pilot said:
I think Juan Browne and many would disagree, it’s a sleek beauty.

Like muscles cars, any jet that got muscles is cool looking ( Juan Browne said it was a muscle jet ).
Click to expand...

I still think most airliners look pretty much the same these days. Round aluminum alloy tube (although the 787 changes that), two engines, swept wings (maybe some winglets), fuselage-mounted horizontal stabilizer, single tail, retractable landing gear at the nose and under the wings. I get that it works, but to me it's the same aesthetic. I mean - why not a large taildragger? Now there are some cool things done with engines.

image




I've got this set up for when he mentions the 757:



So what has been of everything your favorite?

Oh it depends on the mission.

Good answer.

What's your favorite mission? All right bikes or motorcycles. You need a a bike you need about six or seven bikes for all these different missions.

Um, the airline. For the airlines the 75. Yeah that definitely. The last of the muscle jets. I mean excess power built for those high altitude airports um and and not a lot of assistance on the single engine work. So you really kind of had to manage that on a single engine situation and um big roomy comfortable and easy to fly and land. And I'd say second to that the well 76 and then the Triple 7. The Triple 7 is just so easy to handle and land which is good because you're sitting up there for 16 hours and you're only hand flying for 15 minutes. So yeah if flying it every 3 months and that be the case too right.
 
y_p_w said:
I still think most airliners look pretty much the same these days. Round aluminum alloy tube (although the 787 changes that), two engines, swept wings (maybe some winglets), fuselage-mounted horizontal stabilizer, single tail, retractable landing gear at the nose and under the wings. I get that it works, but to me it's the same aesthetic. I mean - why not a large taildragger? Now there are some cool things done with engines.

image




I've got this set up for when he mentions the 757:



So what has been of everything your favorite?

Oh it depends on the mission.

Good answer.

What's your favorite mission? All right bikes or motorcycles. You need a a bike you need about six or seven bikes for all these different missions.

Um, the airline. For the airlines the 75. Yeah that definitely. The last of the muscle jets. I mean excess power built for those high altitude airports um and and not a lot of assistance on the single engine work. So you really kind of had to manage that on a single engine situation and um big roomy comfortable and easy to fly and land. And I'd say second to that the well 76 and then the Triple 7. The Triple 7 is just so easy to handle and land which is good because you're sitting up there for 16 hours and you're only hand flying for 15 minutes. So yeah if flying it every 3 months and that be the case too right.
Click to expand...

I notice he mentions the B767 as his next favourite. I have never met a pilot who didn’t like the B767 so it doesn’t surprise me it’s his second favourite.

Nice to know the B777 is easy to land if I make the switch.

A320 isn’t easy in strong crosswinds.

Regarding hand flying….if you don’t use it, you lose it. I try to hand fly as much as possible ( even 100% raw data, auto thrust off ) when it’s suitable.

Lots of pilots don’t trust themselves to take everything off because they rely on the automation too much.
 
Last edited:
GON said:
Thanks for posting the link to the article.

Must be a very sad and miserable long haul flight. One number really stood out, these Air Canada 777 only have one bathroom for every 70 economy passengers.
Click to expand...
When we used to go to Universal Studios in Florida, we could have bought the cheaper tickets , or, the more expensive tickets to avoid the long lines.

Cheaper prices can be less enjoyable but some people feel it’s more miserable to spend more money even if they can afford it.

I like working out but hate overcrowded ( cheaper gyms ) gyms, I paid more to workout out at club that many consider “ too expensive” but well within the means of most people’s budget ( I don’t own expensive cars or get new phones all the time ).
 
Last edited:
Okay so 737 Max 8 on SW from Oakland to Honolulu was not bad at all. I’m 6’2 and still had a few inches from knees to seat in front of me and the 17.8” width was noticeably better than the 737-700 we just had flown on. Obvi wouldn’t want to go much longer in the plane but not bad for 5-6hrs flight.
 
I<3oil said:
Okay so 737 Max 8 on SW from Oakland to Honolulu was not bad at all. I’m 6’2 and still had a few inches from knees to seat in front of me and the 17.8” width was noticeably better than the 737-700 we just had flown on. Obvi wouldn’t want to go much longer in the plane but not bad for 5-6hrs flight.
Click to expand...
How was the washroom, serious question.

Was it o.k given your height?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom