The Aircraft-Size PARADOX!

[@MentourNow]

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

[@edvardnilsson9555]

Du har blivit fet precis som jag. Ger lögnerna dig sömnproblem som du dövar med mat?

[@fourthdeconstruction]

hope you're ok. you look different. I'm a long time viewer.

[@tomhejda6450]

VPN services are villains. Please stop getting themas sponsors. Thank you.

[@KK-fg1mi]

Planes are getting bigger but the seats are getting smaller. Some of the economy class seats and the space in front of them is pathetically tiny.

[@kennyg1358]

​@Karl with a K 😊😊

[@jojr5145]

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.

[@cpgoef6]

Ya, I don’t see why Airbus didn’t do this with the A321. It’s painful getting on an off versus the middle door on a 757. The same goes for the 737-9. I can’t imagine the 737-10

[@PsRohrbaugh]

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.

[@taseefr3959]

Great point!

[@jlinkels]

Agreed. That is why Boeing presented the 373 MAX as "nothing changed"

[@TonyM132]

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.

[@mattscarf]

Indeed, and then they switched to the -300 to illustrate the -200 😂

[@emerald39]

This video is only for entertainment purposes

[@MrReasonabubble]

@@emerald39 not sure why you're saying it's only for entertainment purposes. This video and the host channel are clearly meant to be providing insight, information and education. As such, it's important that the images should be consistent with the narration. I'm sure the channel owner would welcome these points - I certainly would if it were my channel.

[@noob.168]

@@MrReasonabubble A pilot should be focused on flying. This is for fun only.

[@williamjglover]

Ackchyually

[@anorlunda]

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.

[@bokusimondesu]

Yep, it's interesting to sit in the rear and loose sight of the front end of the aisle.

[@EscapeTheCloudsOfficial]

Years ago, I was in the last row of a Virgin Atlantic A340 on an aisle seat. As we were on approach, the FA's had secured the curtains between each cabin section and I could look down the entire length of the cabin. I could clearly see the whole tube flexing and shuddering and warping, and heard the metal groaning and creaking. I asked the FA in his seat beside me if that was normal. He shrugged and said, "Yeap." And that was an A340-300. I could imagine how that would look on a -600.

[@AlbertusMagnus_44]

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.

[@stevesmoneypit6137]

My limit is 4 hours. And boarding is insane in the stretched versions.

[@MentourNow]

Yeah, I would tend to agree with you.

[@toomanyuserids]

I don't care about aisles, I care about seat pitch.

[@suserman7775]

Number of aisles is barely relevant during cruise. It's deboarding where 2 aisles makes a difference. During cruise you probably like the wider planes because they're TALLER and consequently more spacious.

[@suserman7775]

Why is this video forcing the topic of Hydrogen? What's the relevance? Hydrogen is a terrible idea and pretending it has potential benefits is dishonest.

[@lawrenceedger292]

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!

[@gteixeira]

The 757 was built for performance and the 737 was built for economy. Shockingly, airlines rather saving money.

[@MyJerseybean]

I agree, I think Boeing stopped building one of the best Narrow Body Aircraft it ever produced, far better than the 737 will ever be.

[@g7eit]

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.

[@raccoon874]

same here!! but back in 1976... MEA beauty

[@whatever8282828]

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.

[@andy_in_colorado7060]

I was trying to remember if I'd been on one of the 757-300s myself. I think I most likely have been at some point. As I recall, the 757 was one of those aircraft where if you were important, you turned left when you boarded, otherwise you went back with the rest of the vermin to the right.

[@vbscript2]

I've been in them several times with Delta. Delta's interior on it is actually pretty nice for a domestic config. It's at least on par with any other narrowbody out there for comfort in a config that doesn't have flat-bed seats installed. It does take a while to deplane when you're in the back, though. One nice thing about both the -200 and -300, though, is that boarding and deplaning are typically done from the L2 door rather than L1 (or even both L1 and L2 if parked at a gate that has 2 jet bridges.) So, everyone seated behind the L2 door doesn't have to walk past everyone in front of it to board or deplane. While the A321 does have a full-size L2 door, at least in North America, airlines do not use it for boarding because it's too close to the #1 engine to safely get a jet bridge in there. The -300 also has another pair of full-size exit doors behind the wing, so that creates another row of economy seats with nearly-unlimited legroom in the first row of the economy section behind the L3/R3 doors.

[@whatever8282828]

@@andy_in_colorado7060 I don't think so.

[@rainscratch]

I think the Flying Pencil looks ridiculous whichever side you are on.

[@vbscript2]

@@whatever8282828 Yes, the 757 is indeed an aircraft that is often boarded through the L2 door, so you turn left to go to First (or sometimes also the few rows of economy+) or right to go to the main economy cabin(s). Personally, I highly prefer that regardless of whether I'm seated in First or in economy.

[@sonic2000gr]

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

[@1wwtom]

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.

[@yohannessulistyo4025]

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.

[@lzh4950]

Some of SIA's shorter widebody flights are to slot-constrained airports e.g. SIN-CGK/HKG (which for instance has 1/2 the no. of runways as YYC but has almost 5x the number of passengers). It rented A333s to replace its older B772s while waiting for its order of 78Xes to be delivered (it'd originally ordered 789s but diverted them to Scoot, which meanwhile is taking delivery of the even smaller E2, to serve smaller regional destinations e.g. USM)

[@Deltarious]

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

[@onyxorigin]

That would actually make it first-class!

[@skunkmakgakga]

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

[@mrichards55]

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.

[@MentourNow]

That’s actually a good point

[@rainscratch]

Fares could be based on per KG/Pound of passenger weight? Larger or smaller seats supplied accordingly.

[@oberstvilla1271]

@@rainscratch But that would be very discriminatory against overweight people and would certainly bring a shitstorm to the airline.

[@KaiHinLkh]

​@@oberstvilla1271 Discrimination is defined as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, while a person occupying more than one seat when they only paid for one is a stone-cold fact, not a prejudice. If the airline charges hundreds of dollars for a piece of luggage that's 1 KG overweight, it is only fair to charge someone more for bringing 30 KG in themselves and occupies half of someone else's seat.

[@oberstvilla1271]

@@KaiHinLkh That is correct in principle. However, it should be borne in mind that severe obesity can be the result of an illness. And charging sick people a higher airfare is highly questionable from an ethical point of view.

[@mike03a3]

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

[@stephenspackman5573]

Yes, there was more than one moment where I thought, wait, but we're forgetting the hating-the-passengers component in these decisions :-}.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

I remember flying home from Athens, having to eat meals in such an awkward and contorted way because I there was so little space for my arms to properly use a fork and knife. Too often I would just grab the hot food container and bring it to near my mouth, instead of bothering to try and eat from the seat tray.

[@MegaLokopo]

@@stephenspackman5573 You can't blame the airlines, you voted for your money and are forcing them to fight for the lowest price. If you want more space pay for more space and when demand for more space is high enough more seats will have more space.

[@princekamoro3869]

@@Edax_Royeaux So exactly like Brian Regan's portrayal of flying?

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@MegaLokopo That's not how that work. If the airlines want to make air travel so miserable, then fewer people will fly. If fewer people will fly, the airlines will then move to make their planes even more cramp and efficient to compensate for fewer flights. The biggest factor for airlines is fuel, so they will always strive for efficiency, giving you more seat space is the opposite of that.

[@willardSpirit]

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

[@elbuggo]

Or a Burnelli!

[@cruisinguy6024]

I’m actually surprised a flying wing has not entered civil service yet

[@johnnyliminal8032]

@@elbuggo Always nice to learn of a new type or make of airplane. I searched for images, found different models/types, all utilizing the body as a wing component. Thanks! Seems this configuration would benefit from use of a turboprop (x2) or a 7J7-type external/free fan.

[@johnnyliminal8032]

@@cruisinguy6024 The metal fatigue has likely been the engineering crux. In even just a blended wing body design, the interior space (desired as pressurized, different than military platforms that support just a few souls) available is by definition not circular, and so not simple to make it a pressure vessel. I am mystified that FLAPPING WINGS are not yet a thing. Birds obvs have efficiency dialed, and some kinds do insane long flights. Not sure how Reynold’s Number would factor into that for big airframes, but Pterosaurs flew between continents - my reference for that is a vid (one of two on Pterosaurs) from the YT chan of the Royal Tyrrell Museum.

[@briancavanagh7048]

I believe the blended wing type design does not lend itself for “smaller” aircraft due to the cabin dimension requirements is not compatible with the wing chord/depth for the smaller aircraft. Where the size trade off is will be interesting to see. But the biggest disadvantage for the blended wing will be the inability to vary the aircraft size, seating wise easily. Its not as easy where you can just lengthen the fuselage compared to the tube & wing type design. Another problem with blended wing type design is the magnitude of single individual parts required to achieve the unique shape required. Whereas the fuselage tube is symmetrical and easier to produce with plenty of common parts. Maybe it will be the robot controlled production line that finally gets us the blended wing into service.

[@fomfom9779]

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.

[@Paolo8772]

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.

[@--Dani]

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

[@dougrobinson8602]

There is literally no other aircraft that does what the 757 does. United and Delta will be flying them until fatigue issues become unmanageable. The combination of passenger capacity, cargo capacity, and incredible short field/ high altitude and hot field performance is unmatched. I agree that the 757 is only the second most beautiful airliner because of the Concorde. I still remember the feeling of awe when I got to do my first overnight inspection on one. Quickly followed by frustration trying to figure out how to properly open and close the passenger doors!

[@toomanyuserids]

It's not beautiful. But yeah, it's brutally effective at what it can do. Unfortunately that does fractionally impact its economics but airline economics are all in the fractions.

[@thomasbaker6563]

​@@dougrobinson8602 VC10 used to be a pretty stellar aircraft for hot and g High take offs, and actually pretty.

[@aseem7w9]

Would a 757 max even be worth it? The 737-10 alone has almost outsold the whole 757 family so I can't see the 757 max being anything other than a niche product for how much they'd have to invest.

[@paulfromperth5713]

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.

[@chrisjeanneret5091]

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.

[@johngeorgegately7402]

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.

[@Raminagrobisfr]

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

[@MentourNow]

Yep, that’s the I’ve I was referring to

[@Boffin55]

And they built 107x DC8-63, vs only 55x 757-300s

[@TonyM132]

@@Boffin55 Don't forget the DC-8-61 was the same length as -63 and had 88 examples built. Adding to the 107 -63's, that makes 195 longest DC-8's.

[@ahmadtheaviationlover1937]

That’s long

[@toomanyuserids]

The Super 60s were very comfortable and re-engined lasted for decades

[@rosscorr]

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.

[@thomasward4505]

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

[@CaptainKremmen]

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.

[@marybaker8582]

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

[@mikebauer6917]

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

[@murphsmodels8853]

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.

[@TimothyChapman]

Wouldn't that just mean more exits are needed?

[@innocento.1552]

​@@TimothyChapman i think more exits might be problematic. You can't jump off too close to the engines which inconveniently are in the middle of planes

[@murphsmodels8853]

@@TimothyChapman Exits require large holes in the fuselage. Plus added weight. Airlines won't pay for that. They'll just cut a few more inches out of the gap between seats to add more people.

[@marcmcreynolds2827]

@@innocento.1552 "which inconveniently are in the middle of planes" (MD-80 just laughs...)

[@tonyverhulst9948]

@@murphsmodels8853 Well, Ryan Air will pay for that with the 737 max 10 order

[@Redbirdgangipad]

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.

[@MentourNow]

Absolutely. I wouldn’t be as much of a pilot if it wasn’t for my previous experiences.

[@rainscratch]

@@MentourNow CRM should apply everywhere there as occupation where you are not working alone. A happy coordinated team means a job well and safely done.

[@theengelsbak]

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!! 🇩🇰🇸🇪!!

[@jfmezei]

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.

[@history_leisure]

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

[@TheCondoInRedondo]

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.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

And a Dornier in WW2. The stretched DC9 was known as The Long Beach Sewer Pipe.

[@CriticalThinker1967]

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

[@Coolsomeone234]

I mean you could fly via Qatar or Singapore airways

[@radicallyrethinkingrailwaysina]

​@@Coolsomeone234 Exactly. Adelaide people like to whinge but still choose to fly Qantas and are thus responsible for what they get.

[@thepalace2446]

@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 🤦‍♂️ 🤦‍♀️ 😮😢

[@Lucien86]

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.

[@Lucien86]

@avkay12Sorry I was talking about the section of the cabin. Virtually all airliners rely on the same self-supporting (at pressure) round shape.. Same principle as a diving tank or rocket fuel tank - or balloon.

[@Middy_37]

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

[@StevePemberton2]

Thanks for the reminder. Although as far as categories go I'm pretty sure that supersonic has its own category. But Tu-144 has the distinction of being the longest single-aisle supersonic🙂

[@kleeblattchen38]

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...

[@Moonstone-Redux]

Singapore regularly files A350s (!) on their 1 hour SIN-KUL route. A massive overkill if you ask me but that's the only thing in their fleet that can regularly take the demand until Malaysia gets their head out of their posterior and starts building the high speed train that their country seriously needs.

[@steve3291]

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

[@luisdestefano6056]

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.

[@jasonhoch7105]

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.

[@mightymo-ij9pz]

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

[@imagseer]

I think I read somewhere that biplane wings cannot give twice the lift as they are working in the same air space. They only developed them in the early part of the last century because they couldn't build engines which were powerful enough and the extra wings gave the aircraft more robustness. Also additional wings add to the drag plus parasitic drag from struts etc. Maybe one day if engines can become much more efficient a biplane design could be used to save space in airports. But that's like the tail wagging the dog.

[@mightymo-ij9pz]

The Piaggio Avanti doesn’t have struts though, the wings are in tandem. Neither is it a Canard, both sets are true wings

[@oadka]

You have no idea what I would give to see something like that. Imagine an aircraft with all of those improvements. Elliptical fuselage, truss braced wings with folding wing tips, forward wing and maybe even a boundary layer thruster. Its efficiency would be unparalleled. Might be particulary useful for hydrogen based aircraft where they really want to decrease fuel tank volume.

[@lzh4950]

Or they might use folding wings e.g. 777x, 737 MAX (whose wings nautrally curl outwards when in flight to extend their wingspan)

[@keinlieb3818]

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.

[@Manuel-9-]

Both

[@abodamdfr2298]

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

[@jamesfirnhaber984]

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.

[@EliteGroupInternational]

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

[@raccoon874]

*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*

[@john_hind]

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.

[@Moonstone-Redux]

A stubby A380 with only two engines sounds like the most cursed plane design ever. But I like that way of thinking.

[@claybrown6140]

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?

[@MentourNow]

I have several of my VERY early videos, over on the Mentour Pilot channel, talking about this. The firefighter job gave me a lot of understanding about that part of the operation, for sure. Also, check out www.theairlinepilotclub.com for more specific guidance. Good luck! 🍀

[@claybrown6140]

@@MentourNow awesome, Thank you!

[@richardlewis4288]

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

[@MentourNow]

We do what we can! Glad you liked it

[@22vx]

Always interesting and informative 👍 thanks Petter!

[@MentourNow]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@tomc.2808]

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...

[@ericfielding2540]

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

[@oadka]

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.

[@lzh4950]

Or you might do what RyanAir does & rent another airstair to let people board from the rear too

[@GeoStreber]

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

[@williamfence566]

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.

[@Hamachingo]

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.

[@donaldwest8130]

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.

[@williamantico7768]

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

[@franciscosilva7317]

@MentourNow sorry for the late comment (it's been a year I think), anyway : one clear advantage sigle aisles have is the market of low-demand high altitude airports : Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, but also Nepal, Bhutan, Kenya, Uganda.. These are destinations still using hub and spoke (there are two flights from Quito in Ecuador to Europe, and two or three to the US, passengers enter Europe in Amsterdam or Madrid and from there spoke everywhere else), but not having enough passengers to fill an A380 or 747. The 757 was perfect for Miami-Quito flights (and boarding time wasn't a problem since it's a long flight anyway and there's no chance the aircraft will do two trips per day, neither parking space in airports having no bigger plane than the Europe and US bound ones). Iberia used A340s, BUT since they were bigger they needed a longer runway (especially at 2800 meters) and had an accident in 2007, the brand new aircraft was ruined (I'd genuinely be interested if you cover the effects of altitude on landing on your @MentourPilot channel, I remember Quito being famous as a dangerous airport, and having a few accidents, I think La Paz and Bogota are similar). Now, about composite oval fuselages, the problem with composites is the added weight of steel bolts (steel-composite friction is more of a problem than steel-aluminuim) and of course the copper net that has to go around it to redistribute lightning energy. I'm not sure the gained weight would be worth the higher manufacturing costs (sort of how A350 and 787s weren't as much of a success at first).

[@PatrickImboden]

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.

[@JMPDev]

RIP legroom

[@RikSandstromCalifornia]

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. 😺😺😺

[@ponchoremerize5508]

I like and feel more comfortable in a larger aircraft. I think that they should be getting bigger to more economically move more people.

[@garthmacleod]

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

[@elgordoloney5743]

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

[@stevehines]

See exterior truss example on the river Singapore almost same fuselage design

[@user-uh6kq2wh9g]

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

[@TomskiZima]

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

[@sjuksköterska]

"The aircraft is only making money while it's in the air." Yes, new merch coming soon! I need this:)

[@mr88cet]

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.

[@TiptronicSS]

15:43 looks very Star Trek TNG 😄

[@alankeyes8267]

It's amazing to think the 737 and A320 have a higher capacity than a high density 707.

[@terrymoore1830]

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.

[@vijayKA27]

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

[@andrewmole745]

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.

[@zhivalidiya1899]

Считаю тебя профессором в своем любимом деле. Ты - лучший, Петтер!

[@quitscher71]

Speaking of wide body aircrafts for domestic flights: in Japan where I live, ANA and JAL are regularly using B787, B767, B777, and (in case of JAL) A350 for the mere 400km between Tokyo-Haneda and Osaka-Itami. The domestic version of ANA’s B777-200 has a bit more than 500 seats in eco and premium eco class. So, there are already domestic versions of wide body aircrafts in the market. What I’m wondering, though, is why nobody is thinking about the passenger comfort. Nobody likes aircrafts with middle seats, why I would always prefer an A330 or A340 with a 2-4-2 configuration in eco over a B777 with a 3-3-3 one. It would be great to have a slightly wider domestic aircraft with twin aisles and 2-2-2 configuration in eco than one with a single aisle and 3-3 seating.

[@kosefix]

What about making the jetbridges longer and place the entry door closer to the middle(like the 757). And also use the aft doors more often. That'll speed things up.

[@felixli5279]

"...making jetbridges longer" No need as Jet bridges are already extendable to accommodate all kinds of door position/ fuselage length. "..place the entry door closer to the middle..." Exact position of each entry door is highly regulated for safety reasons. E.g. at least 1 door must be located in front of any pax seats because cabin crew seats must also be there facing aft for seated crew being able to see each pax during emergency. Therefore, any "entry door closer to the middle" must be IN ADDITION to that forward door even though it's not required for safety AND take up space that could hv been used for more seats. "...use the aft doors more often.." Physically how? Jetbridge designed for aft door entry cantilevered over the wing does exist but it's extremely rare for widebody gates(I've only used it once @ AMS Schipol terminal) and non-existent for narrowbody gates. In addition to higher risk of collision damage, it's much more costly to buy+maintain than normal jetbridge which is already costly for LCCs(the airline type which care the most about quick turnaround time) to use.

[@mycosys]

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.

[@Flexflex744]

I recently flew a 757-300 and it's length was absolutely massive inside.

[@FlightX101]

Its a very long plane

[@762rk95tp]

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.

[@rainscratch]

Excellently detailed and on point analysis.

[@MV_96]

Great explanation! Really interesting.

[@MentourNow]

Glad you think so! 💕

[@azaril7780]

American airlines may not care to use 747s but ups loves those things! There's at least 5 parked at worldport on any given night. They're apparently the only plane that can take the largest can ups has.

[@StevePemberton2]

For sure, UPS in fact is what kept the 747 in production for a few more years, their order of 28 planes in 2016 was more than the combined 747 orders of all airlines in the previous seven years. When the UPS order was completed in April 2022 the 747 production line was closed down a few months later after building four more planes for Atlas.

[@SJR_Media_Group]

Former Boeing Everett... I proposed getting rid of the fuselage all together. 2 GE9X's, no fuselage, no wings, seats duct taped around turbofans. Now you know why I'm 'Former Boeing'. Kidding, but I did propose a more modular design with wings that could be easily lengthened for more lift on larger aircraft. New fixtures capable of making all different variants without retooling. Similar concept for fuselage. The B-797 has wings and a fuselage, lots of seats, giant engines, composite structures, plus a bunch of new features. Date of release - TBD.

[@GustavoRodrigues]

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.

[@larrylong6268]

Extra high speed rail travel could reduce an appreciable number of aircraft. If the trip does not exceed 500 miles it is more efficient to drive. Just getting to and from the air port plus boarding time can eat up 5-6 hours. When we add flight time we only save about an hour or less by flying.

[@godless266]

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).

[@Doc_Dolan]

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!

[@katherynedarrah4245]

It can all be boiled down to efficiency in routing: A long-haul flight is only going to be able to make so much. You have more fuel you generally need, more baggage weight to account for, generally you need more staff, you may need 3 or more airports if the fight has a stop for like fuel or whatever. A lot of that is mitigated with a short haul flight. If I'm flying VA-PA, I'm not taking 3 bags, 2 at the most, plus my carryon. If I pack frugally I can even manage only my carryon. Which means you can fit more people in the same amount of airplane

[@bret9741]

Years ago I flew for a Delta owned regional airline out of Cincinnati Ohio. I remember when the 757-300 was ordered by Northwest. It seemed like a pretty smart move. I don’t know why Delta didn’t order this platform. At the fine delta was competing heavily against Jet Blu out of Kennedy. So they fitted out their 757 wirh in seat entertainment and a newer updated interior. It was a nice product. Anyway, most of those 757 were operating at 95% passenger capacity. I think ultimately Delta felt the 757-300 probably wouldn’t be operating full. Flash forward to today. Delta and NW have merged and under the Delta flag, NW influence has been dominant at the strategic level of decision making. The move NW was making toward larger narrow body Air Bus products. However, Delta still loves the 757 and in particular the 757 300 is operating full. I’m convince that had Delta just updated the 757 with a new composite wing and new engines … well I’m Verdi. There would be a boat load of deliveries already with string orders for years to come.

[@ElohimÆsir]

Since the infrastructure needed for greener aviation would only be implemented in a limited amount of airports, wouldn't it mean that this could lead to a turnaround back to the Hub and Spoke model, at least for the long-haul fligh. This could make sense together with Airbus's intentions of experimenting with a greener a380. Considering all the factors you mentioned, this makes sense to me 🤔

[@vbscript2]

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.

[@KJAkk]

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.

[@PratonicSky]

Excellent insight. Thank you you Mentour 🙏🏽

[@Dirk-van-den-Berg]

Thanks Petter! You showed me two things in larger single-aisle I didn't consider yet. The wingspan that makes it impossible to dock at smaller gates, and the pressurisation. But Boeing has another, albeit minor, naming issue. Usually, you have aircraft types that, as the number goes up, indicate that the type is bigger. Airbus is the perfect example. The 318 is the smallest, 319 is larger, 320 larger again, 321 larger again, 330 larger, 350 larger and .... The 737 is the smallest. Oddly enough the 747 is the largest, then the 757 is much smaller, and don't get me even started on the 767, 777 and 787. I have no idea about them.

[@traveller23e]

727 was a lot larger than the 737. It's chronological, rather than based on sizes. In Airbus's case, the reason it seems to work is because 318-321 are all part of the same family; it's just like 737-700, 737-800, 737-900. Also, the A300 and A310 were both wide-bodies. As for the 717, originally the number was used internally to refer to the C-135/KC-135 military aircraft, but as it was not widely used the number was later recycled for the former MD-95.

[@martinzeidler5743]

The use of a compact twin isle elliptical body would seem to be a good fit with a blended wing-body design - especially for short haul budget carriers where fast turn round of passengers is needed and limited cargo space isn’t a problem.

[@andrewmole745]

Ellipses do not perform well under internal pressure. Circles are the only efficient shapes that stay in direct tension, which is more efficient than flexure in resisting load. That is why fizzy drink bottles are always prismatic simple circles, never ellipses.

[@BerndFelsche]

Point to point is limited by human tolerance to sit still for more than 10 hours. There's only so much sedation that one can imbibe without hangover. 😊 Here in isolated Perth, Western Australia one can suffer up to 16 hours or more in direct flights. Or take cheaper flights and spend maybe 6 hours more in total travel time between airports.

[@alexdhall]

Agreed. Though the more connections one has, the higher the chance for issues. So having a trip with more than 2 connections isn't great...