firecat69 wrote:It really is dependent on the Airline . ANA and JP are a joke. Yes they give 2 inches more width but economy is 16". No Thanks!
The statistics for JAL are not exactly correct. JAL has widths of between 17.3" up to 19" on its 777 fleet and between 17.5" and 18.9" on its 787s. None of its aircraft has 16". ANA is certainly less good. I'm not sure an inch actually makes much difference as I assume the armrests are narrower. Mind you, I'm not prepared to try it!https://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_economy.php
firecat69 wrote:IMHO Airline comfort and service has at best stayed even and mostly gone backwards one the last 50 years. With all the advances in certain segments of the world , Airline Comfort, Service, Food etc is last IMHO especially if you have to fly in the back of the airplane!
Oh I know there has been a small uptick in speed and range but when compared to advances in other segments of the economy , it is pitiful.
I fail to understand why the Concorde SST was not the beginning of an adventure in the skies instead of a failure.
Totally agree. When I first started flying 747s, if I was sitting at a window seat on an overnight flight, I could pass the two other passengers without disturbing them. Seat pitch then must have been around 38". And if my memory is not playing tricks on me, meals and wines were far better and more plentiful.
Jun wrote:1 Cost is still a major factor. Supersonic flight guzzles more fuel & therefore is expensive. When it comes down to it, most people were happy to pay less for a subsonic flight.
2 Countries don't like the noise from supersonic flight over land, so the number of routes was limited.
3 I don't recall the details, but I believe the US was also one of the countries not keen to have supersonic passenger flights. Of course, the US had the dominant sub-sonic air craft manufacturers at the time & Concorde was made in UK/France.
I reckon Concorde failed for two reasons - the fact that it was 1950s technology designed at a time when the oil price was $3.00, and the horrendous crash in Paris. It did land at JFK, Washington and Miami and had various other charters. But a joint venture between BA and Singapore Airlines for flights between London and Singapore did not last because, as Jun points out, countries would not permit the sonic boom over land. So with a fuel stop in the Gulf and supersonic only over the ocean, the time saving was minimal. But then Concorde was designed specifically for the transatlantic market with a top range of just 4,500 miles. The makers hoped that US airlines would buy it partly to compete with BA and Air France over the Atlantic and partly to use between the West Coast and Tokyo with a stop in Hawaii. Seeing the success of the early Concorde flights, Boeing rushed plans for a larger SST onto its drawing board. That got cancelled when the oil price rocketed in the early 1970s.
I flew it only once (I got an upgrade and it was only about 60% full). It really was not very comfortable inside with narrow seats, not much pitch and not much recline. Despite that I loved it!! The food and wines were certainly way better probably than the regular first class. But it was the time saving for top executives that made it work. Passengers arriving at JFK had a guarantee of not more than 15 minutes for Immigration and getting your bag after landing and then a complimentary limousine which meant you reached your hotel whilst a subsonic 747 that departed at the same time was still probably over Newfoundland!