DC-9 Comfort (Was: new jetliner developments)

From:         spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola)
Date:         04 Mar 93 01:53:35 PST
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Karl Swartz writes:
>...  And comfort has never been a word I would associate
> with any member of the DC-9 clan.

I beg to differ.  I systematically pick DC-9s/MD-80s over ANY  
narrowbody Boeing type, _specifically_ because of comfort.   
Three-abreast seating, quite simply, sucks.  At least the DC-9/MD-80  
has 2-3 seating, which allows me (by picking the right side of the  
aircraft) to have a window seat and easy access to the aisle.  I fly  
a Boeing narrowbody only when there is no alternative (unless, of  
course, it's a 707, in which case I'd gladly fly on it even if it was  
in a cargo config :-) (Ditto for a DC-8 :-).

By the same token, I always try to fly any other widebody rather than  
747s; again, the smallest set of seats on a 747 is usually  
three-abreast (most airlines have 3-4-3 seating) while all the others  
have two-abreast seating available (eg 2-5-2 on the DC-10/MD-11;  
2-4-2 on the A300/A310).  Nothing against Boeing, mind you; its just  
that except for the 767 (which is fantastic) the seating  
configurations on the aircraft they build tends to be so  
uncomfortable.

Ciao, Stefano
---
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)