[ReGenGen]

I just flew in a KLM E190 "CityHopper" and the seating was significantly more spacious than recent 737ng experiences. Seat layout allows for large carry ons under the seats. No problem. 2x2 rows means football players don't get stuck in a middle seat. I also noticed the E190 noise level was lower than 737.

[eecc]

I took one once and I was blown away by how smooth it felt in flight.

Airbus are nervous, jiggly and constantly jittering along as the avionics happily acknowledges the plane is within envelope. Boeing planes feel more damped and they don’t remind me of my flight stress as often.

But the Embraer?! I flew one over the English Channel, windy and all that; and yet, it sailed along gently.

[dboreham]

Hmm...I fly frequently (every month) on either Boeing or Airbus planes and but for the seat pocket card I'd be hard pressed to identify one from the other.

[salex89]

As the other comment mentioned, I also can't notice the difference between a A320 and 737, although flown on both massively. Of course, weather has a great influence. The worst turbulence in my life was over North Macedonia on a flight to Greece and from Stockholm to Oslo, both in a 737 (300 and 800). But I can't relate that to the aircraft, the weather was poor.

But I'm convinced I can feel the difference between them and the A321. Maybe because of the lengthy fuselage, but it always feels much more comfortable.

[avh02]

Honestly this might just be the KLM part. Recently flew a very short flight between Berlin and Amsterdam (don't remember if 737 or a320, but definitely one of them), paying for extra legroom... When I got on the plane I couldn't tell the difference between extra legroom seats and regular seats very easily (cos they were all relatively spacious). Was also the most I've felt a flight to be "just like a bus" in my life (smoothest takeoff/landing I'd had in a long time and smooth operations)

[wahern]

For me seat width matters more. The A320 inner fuselage is more than 6 inches wider than a 737, which means an A320 will be able to offer up to an additional inch of seat width. An airline may chose to split the allowance between seat width and aisle width, but an A320 will almost always have the seat width advantage.

I've always found A320s more comfortable. It's a big reason why Jet Blue and Virgin are generally much more comfortable than Southwest or other 737-based carriers. For seat pitch the thickness of the seats can matter, so the fact that Jet Blue and Virgin had more modern, thinner seats mattered for legroom. And of course you can add and remove rows. But thinness doesn't matter for seat width and everybody uses 6 abreast rows, so there's little a 737 carrier can do to make up the difference.

The 737MAX carries forward this handicap (737 has a circular fuselage while A320 is more elliptical), so Airbus will continue to have the leg up in this regard for the foreseeable future. Newer planes like the C-series provide even greater width[1], and considering the C-series is basically Airbus now that's just more reason to prefer Airbus when booking. Indeed, given that most 777s have been converted to 10-abreast seating in coach[2], I'd prefer an A320 (or preferably a C-series, though I haven't flown one, yet) over any Boeing plane if flying coach.

[1] The configurations so-far have been 18.5" for window and aisle, and 19" for the middle seat. 19" is like business class on Boeing planes! Compare that to a 737 where the typical seat width is 17". That's a huge difference, especially if you're traveling alone and are the conscientious type (i.e. avoid rubbing shoulders).

[2] From the originally envisioned 9-abreast configuration. Apparently the 777X is being designed for 10-abreast and will more seat width as compared to the 777, but I'll be surprised if it provides better width than a comparable Airbus plane. Boeing seems singularly focused on the demands of the big American carriers, and they couldn't care less about coach comfort.

[thr0w__4w4y]

Yes, this. I fly about 200k miles a year (mostly US, some international). I'm 50 years old, but I have an athletic build - very wide shoulders. I'm 6'2", but the width is much more important to me than leg room. I'm upgraded to first class a lot b/c of my status, and the only thing I care about is the seat width -- not the service, not the food, not the free alcohol, not the thicker upholstery.

My shoulders literally protrude into my neighbors' personal space, and I can't do anything about it. Even if I wasn't as athletic, my frame is built that way. Sucks for them, sucks for me.

As a thin American who observes many corpulent Americans flying, I would think seat width would be a big issue. but then I see large people squeezing into small seats and realize that my screams of protest are in vain.

Carry on. thanks at least for bringing up the topic, it's a real thing.

[avh02]

I agree on the seat width being important (I'm both overweight and tall) - this is why I avoid exit seats on the "nicer" airlines (since that usually means the tables/screens are stored/flipped-out from the armrest --> narrower seats) - but on budget airlines this is usually not the case. (at least in the EU/Middle East region)

But the nicer airlines offer general legroom's that's survivable - some budget airlines my knee is basically in somebody else's back (thinner seats help here).

[ginko]

KLM has quite spacious seating in general.

[WildGreenLeave]

But is this because it is KLM or because you are paying more in general compared to other airlines?

In the last 6 months I traveled between Amsterdam - Bangkok twice (11 hour flights) both times using KLM, and although they aren't as cramped as some other (cheaper) airlines I upgraded my seat every single flight to get a bit more leg room. But I can't compare to other (premium) airlines yet.

[philjohn]

Dutch people are tall, with an AVERAGE height of 1.83m (>6')

It therefore makes sense that the Dutch flag carrier has slightly more generous leg room than the norm.

[zerkten]

That's an interesting point which is probably something the manufacturer can accommodate to some degree with their configurations.

Generally my experience is that US carriers will select the cheapest and densest configurations, especially for domestic routes, including Hawaii. They've been applying this to transatlantic routes recently as well, but I think they'll do this globally as refits occur. It all fits with the pattern of a race to the bottom that is horrible for customers and staff that turn up every day to get us safely to our destinations.

I think EU and other global carriers are at a different stage on the race to the bottom. There is still some differentiation between national and budget airlines. There are consumer protections and regulations that US air travelers could only dream of. In terms of outlook, I see these comforts diminish with future recessions and pressures on the airlines.

[bobthepanda]

The main difference is that the low-budget in EU is much more aggressive, to the point where IMO there's not much sense in racing to the bottom with them; you'd never beat them on cost. And European consumers are more willing to put up with crappier flights because (Western) Europe is so much smaller; Lisbon to Berlin is under 4h. Plus the high speed rail is available as an additional competitor, so national airlines have to differentiate there as well.

The major American carriers mostly compete with each other and Southwest.