I should write a letter to the editor.

For starters, ever notice that all the writers of aviation articles always use the same adjectives? Usually for older aircraft it is "fuel-guzzling" while newer aircraft are "fuel-sipping" "misers" etc.

I was especially amused that the WSJ actually seemed to think (with a straight face) that people would make some moral-based decision on which aircraft to fly based on the fuel efficiency.

What I really wanted to contrast was the trans-con experience on any single-aisle versus twin-aisle. With a single-aisle 3x3 configuration, you have one aisle, 1/3 of the seats are aisle seats, fully 1/3 are middle seats, and the other 1/3 that are window seats require the window seat passenger to climb over two other passengers to use the lav--which is frequently unavailable due to the FAs and cart blocking the (one and only) aisle.

With a 767 on a 2x3x2 setup, only 1/7 of the seats are middle seats, and they have two options for leaving the seat to hit the lav. 4/7 of the seats are aisle seats. The 2/7 of the seats that are window seats only require the passenger to inconvenience one other passenger to get out of the seat.

A few years ago I flew a few trips with a 6 hour ATL-YVR non-stop. 6 days a week it was on a 757, and on Saturdays it was a 767 due to cruise ship tourists. The FAs told me that they could sense a palpable difference in the stress and attitudes of the passengers comparing Saturdays with any other day.

Of course the real issue is: do we make any money on most 767 domestic flying? And despite their complaints, do passengers really buy a domestic ticket based on the aircraft type? I think that answer to both those questions is no.