Can You Fly Around The World Using Only Narrowbody Flights? 

What they’re talking about has been possible for years. Among other possibilities the airline PLAY! gets you across the Atlantic via Iceland, then several Korean and Japanese carriers get you from the Asian mainland to Guam, and United gets you across to North America via several island hopping flights. With the reintroduction of the Max, you may even be able to get fancy with it and fly around the world on only the 737 or only the A320.

Narrow body long haul is great

Narrow body if fine. 3 across in a 320 is no worse than 3 across in a 777

@@papatango2362 fuck off. 1 single isle isn’t good at all

Honestly its that bad. Because wide body planes are just as crowded. If you are into first class seating then that’s different

Want to trace an EWR based B737 that needs to do GUM-MNL then do it as EWR-LAX-HNL and the mentioned Island hopper route.

Must have been on UA. They have done that for years from the CO days.

@@johniii8147 You got it. Some of my classes in college were taught by instructors that were mechanics on the golden tailed birds.

@@EpicThe112 UAL’s 737s that operate on the island hopper service are based in Guam. I believe that even maintenance is done either there or in Xiamen, so those 737s hardly ever get swapped with ones from Continental US.

@@YSLaurens Thanks for the information but seat map wise it's the same as an EWR based one unless those have a different seat map

Indeed, TAP Portugal has complained that it doesn’t have enough A321LRs. For instance, EWR used to be served once daily by the A332 and later the A339, and then later 9 times weekly (daily from LIS and 2 weekly from OPO) on the A332/A339. Now, it will be 19 times weekly (twice daily from LIS and five times weekly from OPO) on only the A321neo.

Also from Natal.

I made it as a joke

you wouldn't be able to cross the oceans

Not commercially but definitely still possible

maybe go transatlantic with air Greenland, but I don't believe you can go around the world

I did it a few months ago. Incredible, but long trip. I’d do it again without hesitation.

I know right, unless you regularly travel in business class, your experience won't be too different. I guess it boils down to the fact that the flying public associate narrowbody aircraft with budget airlines and a pretty subpar travel experience, whereas widebodies are associated with long-haul travel with some of the best airlines out there, as well as enclosed suites, showers on board and the A380. I've never taken a narrowbody longer than 2 hours, but if the product is right, long-haul narrowbody, no problem.

This is not true. Traveling in big wide body aircrafts is way different than flying narrow bodies. The sensation during all flight phases is different. And even though you don't think so, there is in fact more space even in economy class.

Narrowbodies are slower, not only because their lower design cruise speed, but also lower ceiling. On congested routes narrowbodies are stuck below widebodies which overtake them. On long flights this can make more than half an hour of difference in flight time. Furthermore the generally higher cabin altitude on narrobodies makes for a more exhausting ride.

In theory yes but no such thing currently exists

You are perfect on that however on the Philippine Airline section PR110 you lose out the AC plugs. There is the alternative option to the United Airlines Manila to Los Angeles via Guam on B737-724/B737-824 the seat map for that one is basically the same as an EWR version.

Good idea but you forgot something United Airlines operates MNL🇵🇭-GUM🇺🇲. Basically what you do for the final leg is Bangkok to Manila Philippine Airlines or Cebu Pacific then UA MNL-GUM-HNL-LAX/SFO. You don't have to worry about the customs in Los Angeles instead you hand in the CBP form in Guam its a domestic flight from Guam to LAX/SFO. Meaning you pay the meal in economy class.

The 787-9 also visits LAX sometimes. I flew it once on LAX-YYZ

I also flew a 787-9 from YUL to PUJ and back And it’s common to see Air Canada Widebodies fly into LAX from YYZ

Years ago American used the DC 10 on the Toronto to LAX flights vs Air Canada 767

All models mentioned in the comment was from YUL to LAX

Glad to see someone else who has a memory of flying the world in the B707, DC8, and other single aisle aircraft, or if not a memory, the knowledge that such was the norm until the advent of the B747. It amazes me that so many people comment on not wanting to fly long haul on single aisle aircraft, believing that twin aisle aircraft are more comfortable. My view is that comfort is determined by seat width and seat pitch, and not the number of aisles, as I spend upwards of 95% of the time seated during the flight. I also prefer the option of a direct flight, which is becoming a greater option with the re-introduction of long haul single aisle aircraft.

@@barrylenihan8032 More interesting is that the fuselage is exactly the same width in a 707 as a 737max... and.. a A321neo is... well not a lot wider, but a bit. And the A220 is per seat even wider. Really anoying when people watch movies and say "wow how wide those seates are"... when they just have wider backrest. I never flow a 707, i did fly a DC8 once in the very late days. But what people don´t think about is while the 747 was really quite popular even from the start. Between 1969 and 1979 there was still only 35 747 build per year. It was first really during the 80-tys that the production ramped up. and even more so during the 90-tys (at least early part). Of cause when the 777 came along the sales dropped quite fast and the 747 gone back to replacement rate. Of cause also, prior to somewhere in the mid 90s, flying long range was not really common for the middle class. Between 1994 and 2000 the total flying passenger km increased more than from the dawn of time (Well really 1903) until 1980. That just happened to be the time when there was many wide-bodies around. Not only was the MD11 and the 747 still under production but also the A330, A340, the 767 and the 777 all started with in 10 years or so. Personally i really want to put them in 3 different categories. 8 wide, 9 wide and true 10 wide. A330, A340, 767 would be 8 wide. MD11, 777 (and L1011, A350) would be 9 wide. 747 and A380 would be true 10 wide. The 777x is sort of 9½ wide.

I hope you aren’t serious about your claims on the 737-MAX safety. Since it was under so heavy scrutiny to flush out all of the safety issues possible it is now one of the safest aircraft in the sky. I hope you do some more research before you continue fear mongering for no reason.

@ricardo melengez you couldn’t call those fears unjustified though . they are certainly unreasonable, but not unjustified

Good thing, I see the 737 MAX filling up all the time when I travel , you won't be missed.

@@UDMH Boeing may have fixed the problems with the 737 that gave rise to two crashes of new aircraft and the loss of 350 lives, but it will take a lot longer to repair the reputational damage to a once great aircraft manufacturer.

too easy SYD-DFW-DXB-SYD

@@adamsiroky161 lol that is only 3 flights around the entire earth

@@adamsiroky161 I also found JFK-SIN-LHR-JFK

Can actually do it in 2 flights SQ23 Singapore-New York JFK A359 SQ24 New York-Singapore A359 Both flights head East

how about quadjets only? edit: found one: JFK - DXB (Emirates A380) - ICN (Emirates A380) - JFK (Korean 747)

Same plus A350

Me only on 787, 330 and 346.

Verylongname - can you advise where IST and DEL are so that I can understand what you are trying to say.

Economies of scale have been upended with the introduction of such aircraft as the A321LR due to their greater efficiency. They are more economical to operate on leaner routes. Also, most passengers would prefer to fly direct rather than have the inconvenience of one or more stop-overs.

Only half as impressing as Korean Air 777 on Gimpo to Jeju, ANA 777 on Tokyo to Fukuoka.

this is nearly as annoying for a Western American as the easterners who rhyme "Oregon" with "gone" rather than "gun"...

If you want to get to get to your final destination in the shortest time, direct flights are the best option, and newer more efficient aircraft, such as the A321LR, are increasing the available options in that regard.

I mean apart from more connections, what’s the big deal?

@@papatango2362 Aside from preferring to travel at the pointy end on flights 7+ hours, flying for that long in a narrow body, with usually just two toilets for cattle class, and having to deal with meal service aisle blockage... no thanks. I might consider JetBlue or AA A321XLR in a 1-1 pointy end suite... but if the same route has a wide body, I'd still rather fly on that...

@@JonathanStanley those seem like very small inconveniences (especially the blockage statement) to the point of why does that matter. And as a gentleman, I don’t care about the toilets as much.

​@@papatango2362 You have a point,It opens up so many cities for long haul flights were traditionally you have been forced to wait for a connecting flight for hours at a bigger Airport.

@@JonathanStanley And if the route doesn't have a direct wide-body service, would you prefer to fly with one or more stop-overs just to have more than one aisle?

I think the exercise was intended to be hypothetical. After all, who in their right mind would want to fly around the world just to get to the spot they started from.