I spent 12h aboard a narrow-body aircraft, so here are my thoughts of the world's longest flight on an A321LR

Statistics, including the internal surveys of our community, they say. the average passenger does not distinguish one plane from the other. I therefore decided to try the most "extreme" experience possible among those in commercial service today.

So after flying on the direct Singapore/New York JFK, the world's longest flight, I decided to try the other record flight, that is, one operated in a narrow-body machine, such as those used by low-cost airlines, flying from Lisbon to Manaus, in the heart of the Amazon, sitting for more than 12h on an A321LR.

Of course when you compare an A380 with a 737 the difference is obvious, but borders have now been broken down completely with the debut of the first A321lxr, But things had begun to change well before the arrival of this variant.

Who flies today from Europe intercontinental with narrow-body aircraft.

The airlines that already fly, and have been flying for years, across the Atlantic are several.

From Italy for example Compagnie flies, with planes outfitted with only business class seats, from Milan to New York. However, we are talking about a niche product.

The big numbers do, however TAP Portugal, from Lisbon, Scandinavian Airlines from Copenhagen and Oslo, Aer Lingus, from Dublin, e Icelandair is also coming . All of these carriers take advantage of geographic location and with their A321LRs arrive in the States and in the case of TAP also in South America.

In the U.S. there is Jeblue taking the reverse route, flying from JFK and Boston to London, Paris, Amsterdam and other Western European destinations.

Then there is Iberia, a carrier that was the launch customer for the A321LXR, the one that with more than 700 nautical miles more travel than the LR variant will allow nonstop flights from Miami to Rome.

To the list ITA Airways can't be added since the A321neo is not capable of reaching the distances of the LR versions and has too many seats on board to compete with La Compagnie and Beond.

What are the merits of these planes

Let's start to see what the benefits are for passengers and companies. The former will have the ability to travel on routes that are not sustainable today with wide-body aircraft, this means that point-to-point connections could be opened between Pisa and New York or between Turin and Toronto. Smaller planes, with reduced maintenance and operating costs and easier to fill.

Potentially, but currently not, they could lead to a lowering of the price, given the lower costs of use.

For companies, the argument is very similar, a flexibility to open destinations on the network even for small periods by taking advantage of ethnic or special event-related traffic, for example a Genoa/Miami only boat show or cruise-related events.

What are the shortcomings of these flights

Here, too, a distinction must be made between inconvenience for passengers and "worse" life for crews.

Less relaxing environment for both parties involved. Few bathrooms, no crew rest, galleys stripped down to the bare minimum, and the main problem: one hallway to get around. There is no galley to stretch your legs, the bathrooms are tiny and not accessible, even changing a baby's diaper is complicated.

The onboard experience can never be comparable: If in some respects the IFE and seats may be even better than what is found on a wide-body machine, it is unimaginable that the same levels of catering are offered on board, due to the lack of space for finalizing dishes and the limited equipment available on board.

Smaller fuselage, impossible to escape the noise on board. If the facility is smaller, it is obvious that a screaming, crying child will not be avoidable. Precisely because everything is smaller.

Turbulence can be felt much more. If the fuselage is as wide as the engine of a 777, if the wingspan is half that of an A380, it is easy to see that turbulence will be felt much more on these machines. If you are dancing on an A380 it means that with an A321 you are sticking to the ceiling (or almost).

To travel yes or no, what aspects to evaluate

I personally believe there are two main aspects: price and course.

If you can Arriving with one less stopover at your destination, saving time and stress in airport travel can be a valid motivation. For example, I have recently Flew to Manaus, from Lisbon specifically with TAP Portugal's A321LR. We had a technical stop in Belem, but we did not get off the plane and arrived at our destination then on a direct flight from Lisbon.

Alternatively, to fly to the same destination I would have had to take a connection around Brazil with the need to lengthen my trip, add the stress of transit in an unfamiliar airport and where one might be in trouble with travel, luggage or of delays.

The other variable is price. If the service is less, the cost of the ticket must be less. No matter if you travel in economy or business, life will not be the same aboard an A380 from Emirates or an A321 from any other carrier. I am not saying that the price has to be halved, but still it has to be profoundly different, otherwise I will always choose the bigger plane.

Barbone what do you recommend

I think answering this question is not easy, certainly those who fly little, are not "quiet" when flying or suffer the plane must choose to fly on the largest possible machine.

On the contrary the FF might sacrifice a tiny bit of comfort for a faster ride, where when the plane lands there will be less than half the number of passengers in the immigration queue and where baggage will be delivered faster.