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  

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