Flew FIFI as a captain for 7 years. Flew many transcons and never a fuel stop...On the A319, the BDL-SFO, I believe that was the longest route with enough fuel to divert to PDX. Also MIA-LIM with dirvert fuel back to Guayaquil if needed.
I miss the "130lbs" weight rated tray table!

 

Airbus is definitely more comfy in coach, including the 330/340. This was a design mistake by airbus. Passengers click on the lowest fare, period. Making the fuselage wider/heavier/draggier to give the cheap bas$#@$ds more room was a mistake.

Coach passengers value cheap. Give them cheap. They might complain, but next time, they click on the cheapest seat again.

When you search on any travel site, "seat width and pitch" is not one of the descriminators.

 

Before the merger, no matter what happened through the years of airplanes coming and going, I was going to be top 15 upon retirement. So THAT was my career expectation. That woud make top 25 or so a "fair" number for the combined company, no? What do you think the odds of that happening are? I give it slim and none, and slim just left town.

Look, all this "I went to CAL or UAL for the projected movement" train of thinking left the station. NONE of us that were hired pre-9/11 have had anything CLOSE to the career that we thought we were going to have. We can sit on here and rip each other new bung holes about what's "fair and equitable" when we have absolutely no way of affecting a different result, or we can just accept where we are now and move along.....hopefully with some semblance of getting together for our own self interests.

 

Huh!?!? I've flown BOS-SFO in the A319. And I was EXTREMELY disappointed that we ordered the 737MAX vs the NEO. The Airbus is substantially more comfortable in the front AND the back than the 737 will ever be. All the improvements on the MAX are bean counter improvements. Ergonomically it's the same jet. Avionics and build quality wise, the Boeing is far superior, but as a place to spend 7 hours on a BOS-SFO leg, there is no comparison for comfort. The 757 is still the best airplane I've ever flown, and I'm bitter that I was kicked off it and will probably never fly it again, but even that can't touch the A320 for comfort.

By the way, what's with the CAL 737 seats? They are hard as ROCKS? I really like the folding headrest on all seats, but they are WICKED hard. Are the new ones being delivered with the same seats, or was a change made? Not a dig at CAL guys, just curious. Obviously the live TV is MUCH better than the entertainment options we have at LUAL on the narrow side

 

What does the 319 hold? 120 paxs? The 320 holds what, 138? Point is, a transcon with the 319/320 carrying the same load is not the same as a 73 and it never will be. It just doesn't have the range when you put a decent load on it. You simply can't carry the same number of paxs. Comfort doesn't pay the bills. Filled seats and ancillary revenue does. That's why you see the MAX over the NEO. They are not the same jet, not even close. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

We used to do transcons in 747's and DC-10's, then Bethune replaced them with 757's and 767's. Doing a transcon in a 737 is just as idiotic as going to Berlin in a 757. Unfortunately for us, the only thing that matters to the fools running this sham is what looks good on a spreadsheet. Apparently passenger comfort has no place on a spreadsheet either.

 

Nothing new as the pattern matriculates....Gordo--->Larry--->"El Jefe" Jeffery--->???
Example..LAX-HNL:
2008-ish: B767/400
2009-ish: B757-300
2010-ish: B737's "Tri-Motors" (APU's a runn'in)

 

OK, it doesn't hold the same number of uncomfortable bodies as a stretch-gup, I will grant you that. Math, who would have guessed? However, it does fly FULL, from east to west in winter.

"It doesn't have the range when you put a decent load on it"....Full isn't a decent load? Range? Why fly past California or Seattle in it? Where are you going? The country is this wide------------------------------> the bus easily crosses it without bumping anyone or their bags 99 times out of 100.

The seats are filled, so are the pits....with plenty of gas to spare. I will agree with you that a longer, narrower plane has a greater number of more uncomfortable and cramped seats in it and can therefore generate more revenue. But that's not what this tangent was all about.

 

Pre 2008: LAX-HNL 747, DC-10

The standard bean counter explanation is HNL is a leisure market and is saturated with frequent flier award seats, hence low revenue. The Harvard Business School graduates from the late 80's and early 90's are absolutely obsessed with costs at ALL costs. This management style has worked it's way into almost all of corporate America, they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Long term planning in corporate America is as abundant as spotted owls.

 

Miss the 10. Really miss the 10. But reality is what it be. If that means we gotta cram em in like sardines to make a buck, ok. We do our best to make it as comfortable as possible. You do realize we have nothing left on the pizza, right?