The Aircraft-Size PARADOX! 

Get a Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ nordvpn.com/mentournow It's completely risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee! ✌

Having been the 757 a few times, the experience of getting on and off the plane actually wasn’t that bad compared to the 737 or 320. The big reason I noticed why is because the airlines didn’t typically use the door near the cockpit for boarding and disembarking, they used one closer to the wing / center of the aircraft. This meant about 2/3 of passengers went aft and 1/3 went forward, which significantly sped up this process. Wish more planes used this approach.

I remember when a 737 could barely fly from Seattle to San Francisco. Now 737s can fly coast to coast and San Francisco to Honolulu. I know efficiency is good, but at some point you will find passengers who don't want to fly extra-long trips in a single aisle aircraft. Six hours is about my limit for a single aisle non-stop flight. Anything longer and give me a 787 (always preferred) or a 777.

Part of the capacity increase can be attributed to an ever decreasing space per seat.

I remember the Super DC8 or Stretch DC8. We did a go around at JFK one day in the early 70s. I was stilling in the back. During initial climb-out, the fuselage started bending like a piece of wet spaghetti. I could see waves of flex moving aft/forward in the cabin. It took 2-3 seconds for the wave to move the length of the cabin. I should have been scared, but instead I was fascinated.

I am mostly intrigued about 7J7. Please make a video about it!

You've mentioned it in other videos, but type rating is also important. Airlines want as much compatability between pilots and aircrafts as possible. A new aircraft which requires specially trained crew is a hard sell.

The Icelandair airplane shown a few times while you're talking about the 757-300, the first time even with "54.4 meters 178 feet" captioned on the screen below it, is actually the shorter 757-200 variant. That is registration TF-FIU, a 155 ft long 757-200 painted in the "Aurora Northern Lights" special livery.

When the 757 first came along, I was sure the 737 would stop being built and the 757 would be its replacement. Boy was I wrong!

In 1979 I stood next to a 747, I was just 12. I couldn’t get my head around how this huge metal thing managed to stay in the air for so long. This is a concept I’ve been battling to this day.

In the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich who worked for and later took over with Kelly Johmson's retirement, he told that they looked into Hydrogen for the SR71 but concluded that it would be too expensive to use considering all they would have to do to Store and Use it as a fuel.

Passengers are getting bigger too. When Kevin is spilling over to one and a half seats it’s difficult to put him in the middle of three.

Canceling the beautiful 757 was a stupid move at the time I thought because I loved the looks, now they probably wish they had 757max for the market

I love every mention of the "Flying Pencil" 757-300. I think I sure would hate to be a passenger on it. I can't recall if maybe I was, maybe decades ago, but I am amused and also chagrinned to see tales of it taking *forever* to exit the plane after landing! It surely looks better on the outside than the inside.

If we're going an elliptical body might as well do a flying wing plane for super efficiency!

i really enjoy your videos when you mention both airbus and boeing at the same time

One must not forget that Boeing is now catering to airline accountants by certifying aircraft with greater seta density. The 787 did not sell as an 8 across aircraft but when Boeing started to pitch it as a 9 across aircraft, airline accountants applauded and sales came in by the hundreds, and once the narrow seats of the 787 were accepted by airlines, Boeing certified the 777 as 10 across with the narrower seats. And it is important for those who forget that the 787 was designed as a replacement for the 767 because the 767 was losing all sales against the 8 across 330, and when Boeing launched the 787, Airbus's first response was a mild update to the 330 and Steven Udvar Hazy told Airbus to go back to drawing board and it came back with the 350, originally also 8 across, but after Boeing started to sell the 787 as 9 across, Airbus added the "XWB" after the 350 and widened its fuselage to handel 9 across too. And the passenger 767 stopped being sold for passenger flights. A 777 with 10 across narrow seats and reduced seat pitch doesn't have much difference in capacity compatred to a comfortable 747. yet, the ecoomics of a twin engine 777 against 747 are indeniable. So by allowing densification of seats in the 777, Boeing killed the 777. But as a result, flying coach si no longer pleasant, especially not for a trans pacific flight 15 hour on a 777. As long as airlines fill their planes with fancy yield management pricing, they will continue to reuce seat pitch and make seats narrower to make coach as miserable as accountants can. The 321 now has positive image for oongr flights because it generally has wider seats in coach than the 787 and 777 and 350. On twin aisle narrowbody: the 767 was a great aircraft for passengers but terrible for accountants. Only one extra seat per row added at the cost of all the extra structural weight to support the wider fuselage and the second aisle, and the cargo area still too small to accomodate standars containers. This is one reason Boeing made sure the 787 was as good or better than the 330 which had hige advantage over the 767. The problem with your argument is that it isn't one OR the other, it is one AND the other. An airline could fly A380s hourly between JFK and LHR while flying A321 between Cleveland and Stockholm. There are routes where the large planes are better and routes where smaller planes are better. And the problem in USA is one of religion where airlines such as Delta , Continental and American have a "no big plane" religion and prefer to be inefficient on certain flights in order to avoid having big planes. Especially since domestically they compete on frequency and how their flights are ranked by the airline reservation systems. Note that the smaller 737 MAX is not yet in production since it is not a priority due to low sales (Southwest only). My guess is that whe there is a total refresh of the nattowbody product, the focus will be on what size will the 737/320 be optimized for, with variants up and down. Airbus has the 220 optimized for the 130-140 passengers, so its next plane will likely be optimized for for the 321 size with 320 being smaller, and a 322 being offered. And Boeig's 737 replacement (or "NMA)" will be optimized for the larger 737, with the enxtended version covering the 757-200 and a smaller version. Had boeing concluded its purchase of Embraer, it would have had somethint to fiull the gap at the lower end, so now it remains to be seen how it fills that gap. In terms of tech: it is not yet clear to me whether the bets made with 787 (composide one piece fuselage plugs, all electric system etc) have paid off and would bve used for a new aircraft. the 787 hasn't exactly been a production success. It might be cheaper to spit out aluminium aircraft with bleed air it the produtio costs are much lower and operating costs only slightly higher than a all carbon plane.

This has been going on for a long, long time in the industry. DC-1, DC-2 and DC-3, in the 1930's, for example.

Shame the 787-3 could not be made to work as on paper it looks pretty good. Personally I hate flying on the 737! Being tall it is very uncomfortable, the A320 is a little better.

Short haul widebodies are basically Asia's primary target. There are a lot of exclusive widebody fleet airlines until recently, like Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, and so on. Some of them have to fold back their feeder operations and absorb its narrowbody fleet. SIA has been using A310 for most of its regional short routes and medium low density ones. They used A330-300 briefly to fill the gap, and currently is still forever looking for something similar. As you mentioned, the turn around time and cargo capacity is simply unbeatable.

yet the DC-8 had the "series 60" versions that was 57 meters long. Still the longest single aisle airliner ever.

Including how complex and challenging hydrogen logistics are likely to be was a great choice and is a real key factor. A suggestion I have for videos like this though is to maybe try to include direct side-by-side size comparisons when talking about different aircraft types, particularly narrow vs widebody. I believe that in most people's heads a twin engined aircraft is one 'fixed' size somewhere around the size of a 737 whereas your 777s are literally in a different size league to them and the fuselage of the 737 is about the same diameter as a GE90 on the 777. This way people can better visualise both extremes of the spectrum and they can really start to understand how interesting it's getting in that middle ground where they're starting to get closer and closer in size

The DC-8 stretch was epic in its day; I remember loving to fly in them in '78-'79 .Domestic flights in North America United Airlines; I'm guessing a DC-8 super 61. Even female flight attendants who were still referred to as stewardesses at the time were bragging about the fact that it was longer than a DC-10 "by 3 feet" Good times for an 8 or 9 year old like I was at the time.

Just a passenger. First flight was 1968 -- B727 National Airlines, DCA to PBI. 55 years later it is impossible to believe that passenger comfort is ever considered in new designs. The seats are narrower & harder (ask me about a red-eye nonstop from LAX to CLT during which the pain in my legs and hips became excruciating. Last time for that. I'll gladly take the layover @ DFW. Wait -- did I mention the space between rows? How about my knees jammed against the seat in front of me! And then the passenger reclines -- aaagghhh! I should get my hairstylist license and do their hair since their head is in my lap. Flying has become less expensive, but the cost is in comfort. I'd rather pay more -- thank you very much. Your channel is among my favorites.

Another limit to how long planes can get and how many passengers can be crammed into them is the FAA's requirement that in an emergency, they have to be able to be evacuated in 90 seconds.

Listening to all the different directions in aircraft size, configuration and logistics that the airline industry seems to be headed at the same time made me think of Juan Browne's commentary on how inefficient the industry can be sometimes. He was referring specifically to staffing and training, but I suspect it applies to many areas.

I like seeing the assembly-line shots that you show of them building various parts of the airplanes

I used the Perth - London non-stop flights last November and it was much better than having to make a stop or change flights. They were long flights but much less of a hassle.

Absolutely love your videos. I’ve been watching for years and seeing the channels grow makes me so happy. I would love to hear your perspective on why there has been a ton of ground incident/accidents. Planes hitting each other when taxing, planes hitting light poles etc… seems alot of these things are occurring more frequently as of now. Much love from a fellow Scandinavian!! 🇩🇰🇸🇪!!

Are planes getting longer or is seating space getting more cramped? I just took a flight on Friday and had to seat coach because business was sold out and my knees were right into the back of the person in front of me. He kept giving me dirty looks because my knees were in his back and finally I told him "I'm sorry I'm so tall, what would you like me to do to remedy this situation?" We finally talked and he apologized and know my height is just something I have no control of and as long as leg space keeps getting reduced, this is going to continue to happen. Especially since people are getting taller on average, not shorter.

Longest single isle aircraft isn't the 757-300 or any of the DC-8's, the title is held by the Russian TU-144 at 66 meters (65.7 metres or 215.6 feet according to Encyclopedia Britannica) And Concorde is about 62 meters long

Completely fascinated, I love your channels. I’d love to see a video about ATC systems and the importance of communications between pilots and controllers

I am eagerly waiting for a new video of aviation accidents and incidents in your other channel❤ I love them soooo much!! Thank you for interesting me with these types of videos as I am an aviation enthusiast and maybe dreaming of becoming a pilot in the future but still not sure

Standing “seating” is another option for shorter flights. As a taller than average flyer I’m all for this.

I am 6th in comments! Seriously great content. I am really impressed that you were both a luggage handler and a firefighter before becoming a pilot. I think the crew resource management in flying has a place in fire and EMS. Particularly with our large scale incidents.

Excellent insight. Thank you you Mentour 🙏🏽

The preference for direct flights is much more pronounced when they are short. For long-haul flights, many people will take a connection to get an A380. If the direct alternative is a single-aisle plane, even more people will go out of their way to avoid that option. If you're flying for 20 hours, a few extra hours to avoid a single-aisle plane is worth it.

Highly elliptical pressurized fuselages have already been used with success. I used to fly on them all the time: the beech 1900 series. By far, the funkiest looking commuter plane I’ve ever flown on.

I can see the A321 being popular with US and A320 low-cost carriers because of the major US Domestic and near international destinations like Mexico and the Caribbean that are popular and can fill the void of the B757/767 replacement in those parts

Excellently detailed and on point analysis.

One possible explanation for the ever increasing size of single aisles is 1) the ever increasing costs of pilots, well above inflation, 2) a natural increase in traffic, to the tune of 2-4% per year, and 3) somewhat lower COC costs per seat km. For a 1-2,000NM distance, an A321NEO is more competitive than say a MAX8 or an A220. Provided obviously that the bigger craft can be filled to capacity. Consequently, the sweet spot is A321s. Not the smaller A220s or MAX7. Things are different for twin aisles. Single aisles have almost always almost exclusively used on point to point routes. Twin aisles went the opposite way. The big copernican jump came about from 707s to 747s. They flew substantially further and for a fraction of the cost per seat km. The snag was that such big planes required that a lot of seats be filled, day in, day out, high or low season. So a hub and spoke model was created, which exists to this very day. And double spokes. Typical examples were found in the North Atlantic routes. For example, American passengers per concentrated in New York, taken to London, and then distributed from there to European destinations, and viceversa. A380 was a further expansion of this scheme. But then came 767, A330, 787 and A350, all of which offered comparable COC per seat km than the bigger craft, but very importantly far easier to fill. And the possibility to offer 2 daily departures rather than one, a situation greatly favoured by business travellers. As a consequence, the bigger 747s and A380s went the way of the dinosaurs. Further, this market fragmentation has also affected A350-1000 and 777-9. Their sales are not doing well at all, and this has been going o for some time. In this case. 787-9 and A350-900 are today in the sweet spot of the twin aisle market. Sales for 787-8, and even more A330-800 are quite disappointing.

Always interesting and informative 👍 thanks Petter!

I worked in military and commercial aerospace in the 1970s. "Flying Pencil" was a name for the stretched DC-8, more than a decade before the first Boeing 757 ever rolled out of Renton.

There is another way to make a larger plane fit in a gate built for a 36 meter wingspan: have more wings. Think of something like a Piaggio Avanti scaled up, it’s a configuration that naturally works with something like a RISE engine

Thank you very much for this very informative thoughts!🙂👍

Great video thanks Mentor!!!

Fantastic analysis and an interesting shift. I must say since COVID I am doing less long haul and more short haul myself.

I grew up in Adelaide SA, a city of 1.4mil that for many years had no direct international flights. We always had to fly to Sydney or Melbourne first. The introduction of twin engine wide bodies saw direct international flights beginning and I think something like the A321XLR might open up even more direct international flights. Even in 2023 our flight to France to France in October still requires us to go via Melbourne…which is 70 minute flight in the opposite direction

This is awesome stuff to think about! Planes could be getting more efficient soon!

Would be interesting how many passengers when booking opt for the seats with more room ( a cost on the budget airlines ) . First class and private flights are a different bracket but on commercial slots I'd pay extra just for the sake of comfort if the flight is 5-6 hours point to point.

I don’t know how you make so many amazing videos! Thank you!

Great explanation! Really interesting.

@mentournow - you have hit the nail on the head when you said “have you had to wait for people to reach seat before removing their back packs etc” I am paraphrasing but ffs you would have thought people had a bit more foresight… imagine this on a 250 seat single isle plane. Especially when they have an archaic boarding process like tui 🤦‍♂️ 🤦‍♀️ 😮😢

15:43 looks very Star Trek TNG 😄

*the problem with the MAX series, as told to me by a pilot, is the fact that it is flying on engine vs wings - it's gotten too big for a comfortable wing span ratio, thus taking lot more runway to take off.. an issue with hot days at altitude*

I assumed long-haulers got smaller because people hate having to transfer at a hub and direct flights got cheap enough. Having basically the same plane for short and medium trips makes sense for airlines, you can certify pilots, crew, maintenance for one plane and only pay a bit extra for upgrading that certification to the longer/shorter version.

Interesting! I remember the talk about the 7J7, but I hadn’t heard (or at least I don’t recall) that it was discussed as a double-aisle.

Hey man, I'm currently a firefighter in the States and I'm strongly considering a career change. do you have any videos outlining the path to becoming an airline pilot? particularly the education side of things. Did your job as a FF help prepare you for this line of work?

Another GREAT video. I really appreciate you balanced perspective and presentation of details . As a long time aircraft/aviation fan, I would like to know if you have done (or would do) a video an how (specifically) Airbus got the upper hand on Boeing. I could be wrong, but way back when Airbus was started didn't they receive massive subsidies from European governments? If so, how did this affect Boeing's ability to compete? I'm sure that there are many other factors, but I would really like to know how much subsidies may have affected the competition. Thanks so much. 😺😺😺

I liked that 7J7 . That plane looked really cool.

I just came back from E.U., both flights from US and back were late - our lugggage was lost in both ways. 1 hour waiting in passport line in Brussels, and 1hour waiting in security line in N.Y. They changed our schedule during flight back to US and we had to trvale in four different airplanes. Its VERY BAD my friend...

I need bars, restaurant and bedrooms in my planes 😤 or I'll bring back liner ships 😤

Don't forget that Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and Skunkworks put a lot of money into U.S. military aircraft. One can guarantee that the technologies developed for military aircraft will find their way into commercial aircraft as well. I don't know anything at al about Airbus and their military side of things.

I like how you said “squeeze in more passengers”. Lol. Seats seem to shrink more every year”.

Thanks!

Excellent article! Really interesting. FWIW i think we're more likely to see a fuel like methanol as a hydrogen carrier for fuel cells, either direct or indirect. The energy density per volume is 4-5 times higher and comparable with kerosene, and the handling is equally comparable.

If you are going for an elliptical fuselage, 'tall body' seems advantageous over 'wide body'. Double-decker with two single-aisle decks would allow double the passengers in the same footprint without the boarding time issues. Yes it needs the air bridges updating, but potentially just new equipment in the same footprint.

Just to clarify though, the A330's in asia aren't the first airbus wide bodies to operate short haul routes at all... A300's and A310's were extensively used on short haul and domestic flights even in Europe back in the 90's (with Lufthansa for example)... I mean that was actually the main purpose of the A300, it still lacked the range to operate longer long haul flights despite it getting better etops clearances that previous twin engine jets... the same goes for boeing, maybe a smaller wide body with similar range to 737's was a new concept in the 80's but there were even purpose built 747 for japanese carriers to operate domestic routes... you could actually say wide body short haul operations were already booming in the 80's and have experienced a decline over past decades in some places because a lot of these jets have since been retired like the aforementioned 747's and A300's and Lufthansa for example hasn't operated wide bodies on short haul routes regularly ever since...

*they need to start making TRIANGULAR airplane bodies, like Toblerone bars*

15:00 The thing with an elliptical fuselage is that it would be under much higher stress than a round fuselage. The reason round is so popular is that the structure isn't fighting its own internal air pressure - this makes it stronger for a given weight.. Its a particular problem in spacecraft (which are always round) but also applies to aircraft as well.

Great & insightful video, the "flying wing" design is a consideration for future aircraft design... Keep up the Above Average work!

In the last few days I flew in the following aircraft for the first time: 777-300ER AMS-->GRU with KLM A350-900 GRU-->CDG with Air France A220-300 CDG-->CPH with Air France I liked the 777 the least, and both Airbusses more or less identically. That 220 is glorious though, and holy shit the size of the turbines on the A350

Fantastic, your videos are very interesting, congratulations, especially the economic considerations, on the choice of planes and strategies. In this regard, it would be interesting, I don't know if you've already done it, an analysis of the costs of individual tickets, compared to the cost of a flight, and how the companies manage to carry out important flights (Rome-London) at ridiculous costs without failing, in short an examination of the total cost of a flight, cost of airports, personal cost, fuel and final income, but all in broad terms, just to be understood by everyone ... thank you very much greetings

the sizing trends for twin aisle aircraft I believe is due to airline shifting to twin engine configuration from anything more than that. Twin engine aircraft are becoming larger while 3-4 engine passenger airliner are going away

757-300 Flying Pencil. Yep that just about sums it up. Always thought this was the goofiest looking aircraft.

The reduced boarding and deboarding times for double aisle aircraft might make it very attractive for short trips. The time saved might probably allow the airline to operate 1 more trip in the same day with the aircraft.

Thank you for this very interesting and thoughtful video. One point of information, however - composites _do_ experience fatigue, and this is affected by a number of factors. The fatigue mechanisms may be different from metals, however. For example, composites can suffer from delamination over time due to cyclical loading.

I recently went on a trip and was reminded that I hate 777 economy class seating. The E175 I flew on for my connection to Chicago was more comfortable.

6:23 that pronunciation of humongous though 😂😂😂😂😂

Finally a video that doesn't make me terrified of flying!

I can think of two US airlines that use 747's however they are cargo / charter flights, Atlas Air and Kalitta Air.

There are studies from BBD for the eco-jet that may point to use the body as part of the entire wing (blended wing-body). Openfans are red herring for gearbox development.

Love the tee blue up brown down.

The dH106 tee looks cool, one on order!

I flew last week on an A321 on row 38... last row... i hated the long waiting time to disembark... I always liked more the wide-body airplanes... the narrow body airplanes just seem so "cheap".... I don't know why, but for me the wide body just have more class.... maybe because I flew so many time in the 747 as a child... and I used to love it.

good work

The 757-300 is still very fuel efficient, especially given its age. I flew it and recall doing the passenger mile per gallon calculation numerous times and no-wind it was about 50, which is pretty darn efficient. The elliptical fuselage idea is interesting but does it confer a big enough advantage to build a stubby widebody that can't carry a lot of cargo. I'd have to see the numbers to judge intelligently. Boeing definitely needs to up their game versus Airbus and come out with a game changing design. 2030-2035 is a long time to wait.

I really wouldn't agree that the same thing hasn't been seen with widebodies. Pretty much every popular family of widebody jets that has been around long enough has been extended, some of them multiple times. Demand for larger widebodies has certainly reduced and the largest ones have essentially become entirely obsolete (with both the 747 and A380 having stopped production now,) but, within each family of widebody jets that lasted long enough, new models with longer fuselages have been common. The 747 was extended several times over its long life. Even the -8 was substantially larger than the -400. The 767 was extended several times, with the -400ER being quite a lot larger than the early 767s. The 777 had its MTOW increased for both of the original length jets (-200 -> -200ER/LR and -300 -> -300ER) and then both were lengthened into the -8 and -9 for the 777X. The 787 and A350 both received stretches as later releases to their original generation (the -10 and -1000, respectively.) Even the relatively short-lived A340 was lengthened considerably when its re-engined variants (the -500 and -600) came out, to the point that the smaller -500 was larger than the previous largest variant, the -300. Basically the only recent notable widebodies that haven't been stretched are the A380 (which had a longer variant planned, but never had enough demand to actually launch it) and the A330. The A330 is the odd one out here, as it's a very popular aircraft and has been around for quite some time, but its re-engined versions (-800 and -900) are the same length as the original versions (-200 and -300.) However, I would assume the reason for this is that the A330 is already relatively close in size to the smaller A350 variant, so Airbus likely doesn't want to invest money to make a longer A330 just to end up cannibalizing orders from the A350-800. Also, a slight correction regarding the narrowbodies: the 717 is smaller than its most of its predecessors, not larger. This is why it's jokingly called the "Angry Puppy," being younger and smaller than the "Mad Dog" MD-80/MD-90. The 717 was originally the MD-95, which was designed to be the smaller variant of the MD-90, but was renamed to the 717 since Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglass before it entered service. The DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 family of jets is certainly not an exception to the rule of jets being stretched over time (the DC-9 was stretched several times, stretched further into the MD-80, then stretched yet further into the MD-90,) but the 717 just happened to be a shorter version of the MD-90 rather than a longer one. As far as needed gate and taxiway size is concerned, I don't think that was really the 757-300's problem at all. After all, the 757-200 requires exactly the same gates and taxiways and was enormously successful (and airlines still love them today, especially on busier domestic and regional routes within or from the U.S.) The 757-300's problem was more one of timing and fuel efficiency. It just happened to enter the market at a very terrible time for the aviation industry with the .com bust's recession in full swing and 9/11 causing a further dramatic drop to air travel. Also, when the -300 came out, it was still using the same RB211's and PW2000s from the -200. This was an aircraft entering service in 1999 with an engine that had its first run in 1969! Needless to say, they weren't winning many fuel efficiency competitions in 1999 with a 30-year-old engine (or the 20-year-old PW2000) and this came at a time when fuel costs were also rising dramatically and the airline industry was also receiving a lot more pressure to reduce carbon emissions than it was in the early 80s when the 752 entered service. While the 752 and 753 do require wider stands and taxiways than the 737 and A320 require, virtually all U.S. airports other than the smallest regional ones support them. Delta and United fly 757s all over North, Central, and even Northern South America all the time, as well as from the West Coast to Hawaii and including to medium and even relatively small-market airports. I've even flown on a Delta 757 into Bozeman, Montana, for example, hardly a major airport. Especially since the A330neo was brought up as possibly filling this role, while it's true that the 757 (both -200 and -300) require ADG IV stands and taxiways (vs. ADG III for the A320 and 737,) the A330 (ceo and neo) requires the same ADG V stands and taxiways that the 777, A350, and even 747-400 use, so the 757 actually has quite large advantage over the A330 here. Granted, this advantage might not be as pronounced in Asia as it is in North America. Pretty much the only ADG IV plane that are still being heavily used are the 757 and 767, with the vast majority of those being in the North America market, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of airports around Asia, Europe, Africa, etc. simply don't have any ADG IV stands or else very few of them and just go straight from ADG III to ADG V. For airports like Atlanta, though, being able to use ADG IV stands is a big advantage for both the 757 and 767, as Delta operates hundreds of them and they can fit a lot more of them in the same space than if they had to use ADG V stands, such as are needed for the 787, A330, A350, and 777.

Recently my wife and I had 4 flights on Airbus aircraft, on British Airways. BA has always been great for us in the past (ever since Thomas Cook stopped operating - THEY were the best!) I can tell you, in the future, if I have the choice I am never, ever flying them again, BA or Airbus! 2 A350's and 2 A319's from Las Vegas Nevada to Newcastle UK - via London / Heathrow. A fair amount of the actual passenger equipment on board simply did not work! On 2 of the four lights I could not recline my seat (1 each of the two types), on the other flight the foot rest was frozen solid, and the entertainment (important on a 10.5 hour flight) did not function correctly. Sadly the 2 A350's were completely full so we could not get different seats. On ALL of them it felt like the tails were always vibrating back and forth horizontally, even when the "visible wing action" did not indicate any massive turbulence problems. In addition, the aisles on both aircraft are now so narrow a normal person (6'1", 175 lb male) can hardly get down them when they are fully lighted! To say nothing about the middle of the night with the near total darkness, and the need to navigate the articulated aisle of the A350 when you go from the "Economy Plus" section to the "cattle car" section that you must use to get to the toilets! The Staff was excellent, as was the food & special diet my wife requires. Also, the exterior noise coming through the planes seemed to be seriously excessive, in all phases of the flights. It just seems like the aircraft were either poorly designed, or they were well past their removal from service dates! At the prices they are now charging, even for the lowest grades of tickets, with all of the "add-on" fees that were over 58% of the ticket price, it might just be better to gather a few friends and fly private! Rant over now! Sorry! PS: I am not a new flyer, just bitching a little. I had flown well over a million miles, before retiring in 1986, and flown a lot since then as well. These were the worst 4 flights of my life, for almost 4 times the cost of the same flights just 5 years ago!

If they want to make two aisles, I sure hope they make the plane wider and not even narrower seats. I barely fit now.

My favorite flights if going solo is the single left side first class seats on the E175. Not most luxurious but incredible space

More seats in an aircraft that is cheaper to fly than the older smaller jets is what i think is causing the surge in the popularity of the 321 neo

The most profound difference between the 757 and the other stretched versions of single aisle planes is the double-bogie gear. And so I have to ask; how does Boeing continue to stretch the 737 without adding more wheels to support the added weight?

I think that wide bodied aircraft could be a commercial success for the US market as it could accommodate the waistline of a lot of the passengers.

Absolutely awesome video Petter!

You're over stating the demise of the hub and spoke model. It's still alive and well and not going anywhere for major international carriers.

I recently travelled on an Airbus A320 Neo (IndiGo Airlines)... It's a beauty for domestic travels in India...

Probably best phrase to describe A321XLR isn't "point to point", but "long and skinny". The route airlines can fly with it is long range flights that wouldn't be economical at all with any widebody.

I normally only fly 2 to 4 hours but for boarding a dual aisle plane would be wonderful (we can now move at twice the speed of the slowest passengers).

The MD DC 8 or the flying hotdog pushed the limits of the day. There are those who swear you could see the fuselage flex in EXTREME weather/crosswinds while landing when sitting in the last row.