Date: 09 Apr 97 03:09:27 From: Chuck Till <email@example.com> Organization: MindSpring Enterprises References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
Steve Lacker wrote: > Uncomfortable? Maybe its just a matter of opinion, but in my view the > BIGGEST offender in the "long-haul-small-plane trend" has got to be the > MD-80/90. I'll gladly take the extra head, hip, shoulder, and luggage > space of a 737 over the extra-narrow MD 80/90 any day... On the other hand, the MD-80/90 has two advantages. First, the probability of getting the dreaded "middle seat" (that is, not an aisle or window) is 20% on a full MD-80/90 and 33% on a full 727/737/757. Second, the overhead bins tend to fill up less quickly on a full MD-80/90 because there are only 5 passengers putting stuff into them in a given row. The size of the overhead bins varies greatly from aircraft to aircraft; I have seen some MD-80/90 with bins larger than some 727 and 737. The storage space under the seats also varies greatly from aircraft to aircraft depending on the type of seat mounts. Again, it's better on some MD-80/90 than on some 727 and 737. I have never measured the seat widths of MD-80/90 vs 727/737/757, but in coach I don't think there is much difference. Fuselage curvature is more noticeable in a window seat on an MD-80/90, granted, but it's not as bad as a Fokker or one of the new regional jets.