49er

I doubt a 4x4 single isle aircraft would be able to be certified by the FAA. No way to safety evacuate passengers in enough time unless you put exits all over the thing (not practical to design and the fact you would be limiting who could sit in those rows because of exit row requirements)

Not enough overhead space if it was single isle too. At least a double isle can fit more bags above. I don't see pax demanding that type of seating.

Dave Fitzgerald

Since when do passengers design planes? I'm sure our management listens to our customers regularly.....

Andy

I'd bet on a 4/4 seating configuration happening before a 2/2/2 seating configuration for 'normal' steerage class.
In business class, a 2/2/2 configuration makes sense but not for the $79 transcon seating section. The industry is moving toward hanging passengers on meathooks, not giving them extra aisle space.

intrepidcv11

GUPPY 4 LIFE!

Oh you poor silly souls. Appears Boeing will have this covered. And since it holds less people and cargo, it fits right into the CAL philosophy of "you never lose money flying the smallest equipment." Bring on the .76M cruises on Track W at 29K!

rp2pilot

Just deadheaded ORD->SFO on an Airbus configured with the slim line seats and I thought it was an improvement, comfort wise, to the old seats .. better foam maybe?

DashTrash

I completely agree, but I believe that part of the criteria for a new airframe was going to be based on pax comments and considerations. At least, that was what was communicated. The reason most pax like the Airbus is because the cabin is roomier than the comparable Boeing product. That will not change for Boeing unless they change. Twin aisle configuration also allows another set of overhead bins so that less luggage has to be checked at the gate. Further reducing turn times. Part of the additional cost might be offset by creating more frequency, thereby more usage of each airframe.

Dave Fitzgerald

Anything larger than the current 757, turn times are not limited by number of aisles, pax, or doors, the turn time is limited by baggage and the ability to on/off load bags in the time allotted. More overhead bins will help but not solve the issue. Manual loading simply cannot keep up unless you go to a palletized system. Nesting cargo sections is only a partial solution.

Probe

I couldn't disagree more. When you search online for a ticket, it gives price and number of flights. Nowhere does it say Airbus, Boeing, Seat width, or seat pitch.

I love riding on a bus compared to any Boeing narrowbody, but at the end of the day, Airbus made a design and marketing F___ up. They gave everybody in back more room, but nobody pays for it. They should have made the tube narrower, lighter, etc. It costs the airplane weight, performance, cost, and fuel, for no additional revenue premium over a 75 or 73.

I am one of the very few who do choose to buy tickets based somewhat on comfort. For a short flight I don't care. For a longer flight I alway choose Airbus if I can. That includes a 330 over a 777, as most 777's are configured 10 across now internationally. It is really tight. 330's in the back are fantastic (340's too but there aren't a lot left).

I guarantee when Boeing builds a new narrow body, it won't be an inch wider than a 737.

Sonny Crockett

I have flown the 757 and the Bus....in the back as a PAX in coach the Bus wins....b but up front in the Cockpit going through the weather on a dark and stormy night the BOEING wins hands down....just one mans opinion...your mileage may vary....offer not good in China.

Probe

I used to prefer Boeing for that as well. I got a lot of bus time, including into a couple of really windy airports on daily basis, on the other side of the world. I think I actually prefer airbus now for the rough stuff.

Overall, I will take a 757 over anything as a pilot.