46 minute layover in Charlotte

[vermonter16]

Looking at a flight from Seattle (ultimately ending in Knoxville) that goes through Charlotte on AA.  It will connect on a Sunday evening (about an 8pm departure time from Charlotte).  Do you think 46 minutes is reasonable?  We would be in first class so able to leave the plane expeditiously.  I see that the departing  Knoxville flight will be departing from an E gate...and the current flight from Seattle (totally different times) comes in to gate C or D.

[klfrodo]

Yes

 

Unless,,,,,

 

You incoming flight from Seattle is extremely delay.

Unsure what the timeframe is but I've been on many many flights, boarded, in my seat, while the plane is waiting for delayed incoming flights so passengers can make the connecting flights.

[vermonter16]

Thanks.  If we miss it - not a huge deal since we are at the end of our trip but I wanted to make sure it wasn't totally idiotic.

[dogs4fun]

2 hours ago, vermonter16 said:

Looking at a flight from Seattle (ultimately ending in Knoxville) that goes through Charlotte on AA.  It will connect on a Sunday evening (about an 8pm departure time from Charlotte).  Do you think 46 minutes is reasonable?  We would be in first class so able to leave the plane expeditiously.  I see that the departing  Knoxville flight will be departing from an E gate...and the current flight from Seattle (totally different times) comes in to gate C or D.

Charlotte's airport is small and easy to navigate. You should have plenty of time providing your flight is not significantly delayed.

[vermonter16]

Thanks.  I am used to Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC, Atlanta, etc.  I miss having an international airport in my backyard.  We booked the flight....one leg (the way back is booked), now just have to book the way there.  They say not to book on a weekend, but I've been watching fares and was going to book this one days ago and finally decided to pull the trigger.

[fbgd]

I connect through CLT a few dozen times a year so am very familiar with it, as it happens I'm on AA.com booking another two connections through there, ha!

 

The only concourse guarantees are if you are on a widebody aircraft then it will definitely use D, if you are using regional jets they will definitely use E. Otherwise you could arrive on A-D. 

 

If you aren't fussed about potentially staying overnight at CLT then I'd probably risk it. As a guide based on my experiences one of the connections I'm looking at on the trip I mentioned above is 33mins, arriving on a regional jet and departing on a mainline aircraft. As I'll have a rollerbag I'll need to gate check that on the CRJ, so that'll cost me time, along with a potentially long walk from one of the E gates. I'll be flying in F myself and know that even if I make the connection by the time I make it to my next gate the overhead bins in FC will be full and I'll have to get check it or put it above row 43. With confidential work documents in my bag I'm not doing that...I can access the Admirals Club (or Minute Suites) for free so I'd rather pad the schedule slightly as I'd rather be safe and have someone to go than risk a connection and end up stuck overnight/downgraded etc.

 

I have found generally speaking that for mainline to mainline CLT works rather well. I always travel in F and so being first off the aircraft and knowing where I'm going even on 30min connections I'll usually arrive at the next gate before boarding has even started. 

[vermonter16]

I think it is going to be an old A321 so maybe C since it sure isn't a wide body.  That will be 5 hours of no in-flight entertainment, lol.  But, I'll still take it for the price.

 

[fbgd]

Oh dear. I'm not a fan of those order A321s on flights between NYC and CLT, let alone cross country! Last month my seatmate lost his mind when the 90min flight had no power and no wifi. 

 

TYS has AA options through all the big hubs...nothing better through DFW or ORD?

[vermonter16]

LOL, I was on a flight last year out of Vancouver through Delta that had no in-flight entertainment and it was several hours.  I definitely don't prefer it but the flight time was perfect and the price was good too.  The other times were ok for us but a lot pricier - this one just seemed to work.  I never bothered to check to see if they had TVs or not - doh.  Guess I'll just break out my Kindle!

Edited January 25, 2020 by vermonter16

[Zach1213]

On 1/25/2020 at 4:54 PM, vermonter16 said:

LOL, I was on a flight last year out of Vancouver through Delta that had no in-flight entertainment and it was several hours.  I definitely don't prefer it but the flight time was perfect and the price was good too.  The other times were ok for us but a lot pricier - this one just seemed to work.  I never bothered to check to see if they had TVs or not - doh.  Guess I'll just break out my Kindle!

 

Greatest thing I ever did was start downloading Netflix/Prime Video stuff to my iPad in case there are no TVs or I can't find anything I like to watch. Combined with a book, there's always IFE for me 🙂

[Budget Queen]

Can't you just download the AA app?    There is plenty of entertainment, there.    I don't really pay much attention to what aircraft I'm flying.   🙂    But did over 60 individual flights with AA last year.   

[vermonter16]

Yes, I can download the app.  The only reason I pay attention is because DH and I fly so infrequently...and I simply hate flying....because I hate every single airline, lol.  I used to work for United in the early 90s and flying was wonderful.  Now, they just pack you as tight as they can into a metal tube traveling through the air....  I have flown 5 times in the last 10 years 🙂

[waterbug123]

On 1/30/2020 at 9:24 PM, vermonter16 said:

 I hate every single airline, lol.  I used to work for United in the early 90s and flying was wonderful.  Now, they just pack you as tight as they can into a metal tube traveling through the air.

 

Seat width hasn't changed all that much.  Legroom may be less, but the legacy airlines all have some kind of economy comfort/comfort plus seating with extra legroom.  Book one of those seats and I don't think it's really all that different from flying 30 years ago.  I think if you go into a flight expecting to hate it, you will.  YMMV

[vermonter16]

Lol...it isn't the flights I hate per say, It just isn't what it used to be on any level.  Now, if the flight has lots of turbulence, that makes me very happy.  I love turbulence- my husband hates it.  

[Globaliser]

8 hours ago, waterbug123 said:

Seat width hasn't changed all that much.

 

Have you ever "enjoyed" an economy seat on a 787?  I have witnessed myself the extraordinary number of people who would prefer to stand than sit for large chunks of the flight (having previously heard about it from people in the industry).

 

6 hours ago, vermonter16 said:

It just isn't what it used to be on any level.

 

Including the fares. Which is, of course, the beginning of the problem.

[slidergirl]

On 1/25/2020 at 3:54 PM, vermonter16 said:

LOL, I was on a flight last year out of Vancouver through Delta that had no in-flight entertainment and it was several hours.  I definitely don't prefer it but the flight time was perfect and the price was good too.  The other times were ok for us but a lot pricier - this one just seemed to work.  I never bothered to check to see if they had TVs or not - doh.  Guess I'll just break out my Kindle!

Was that on a mainline DL jet or one run by it's regional partner, SkyWest?  I've done SkyWest between Calgary and SLC many times.  They use to have no IFE.   I believe my DL flight home from Vancouver was also SkyWest.   SkyWest does now offer IFE on some of their newer planes.  

 

As for the connection time in CLT, I thought of that famous line from a movie based in that "Southern" Carolina: "Run Forrest, Run!"  <sorry, I couldn't help it>

Edited February 1, 2020 by slidergirl

[zdcatc12]

11 hours ago, waterbug123 said:

 

Seat width hasn't changed all that much.

 

3 hours ago, Globaliser said:

 

Have you ever "enjoyed" an economy seat on a 787?

 

 Or the 10 abreast 777s.

[waterbug123]

16 hours ago, Globaliser said:

 

Have you ever "enjoyed" an economy seat on a 787? 

 

13 hours ago, zdcatc12 said:

 

 Or the 10 abreast 777s.

 

I've only flown on a 787 once and it was in business class.   My point was simply that I don't find the seating to be drastically different than it was in the 90's, particularly given the "extra legroom" sections of the cabin that many airlines offer.  I was responding to someone who claims they hate every single airline because they pack you in so tightly.  Maybe my recollection of seat width isn't good; do either of you have stats showing the difference in average seat width from the 90s and now?  I'm truly curious.

[Twickenham]

3 hours ago, waterbug123 said:

 

 

I've only flown on a 787 once and it was in business class.   My point was simply that I don't find the seating to be drastically different than it was in the 90's, particularly given the "extra legroom" sections of the cabin that many airlines offer.  I was responding to someone who claims they hate every single airline because they pack you in so tightly.  Maybe my recollection of seat width isn't good; do either of you have stats showing the difference in average seat width from the 90s and now?  I'm truly curious.

 

Well, I do know that most airlines used to have their 777s with 9 across, and now they have 10; as well it has been mentioned that the 787 was designed for 8 across and now most fly it with 9, so yes, seats have gotten narrower. I personally have also only flown the 787 in business class, but am scheduled to fly economy on WestJet's 787 this March, so I'll be able to experience the squeeze then...

[zdcatc12]

3 hours ago, waterbug123 said:

 

 

I've only flown on a 787 once and it was in business class.   My point was simply that I don't find the seating to be drastically different than it was in the 90's, particularly given the "extra legroom" sections of the cabin that many airlines offer.  I was responding to someone who claims they hate every single airline because they pack you in so tightly.  Maybe my recollection of seat width isn't good; do either of you have stats showing the difference in average seat width from the 90s and now?  I'm truly curious.

  This is what I found: Advocacy group Flyer Rights has noted that the average width of airplane seats has been reduced from 18.5 inches to 17 inches. The average pitch (legroom) between seats has decreased from 35 inches to 31 inches, and in some aircraft, the pitch is as little as 28 inches.

 

 I believe it is a combination of a few things, the pitch, the width, more seats in the same cabin, e.g. pre-merger AA had 150 seats in the 738, now I believe it is 172. I flew an AA 777 with the 10 abreast seating and it was not fun, they have reduced the aisle width also, which doesn't help. Some of the economy plus seats now have the pitch that economy seats had 20+ years ago and some domestic first class pitch is what economy plus was a few years ago.

[Globaliser]

20 hours ago, waterbug123 said:

I was responding to someone who claims they hate every single airline because they pack you in so tightly.

 

I agree that that's an overstatement. If you pick your airline / aircraft / seat properly, it can still be acceptable. But some newer seating arrangements are clearly unacceptable to some - other than the fact that given the cheaper ticket, they'll still book it next time.

 

16 hours ago, zdcatc12 said:

Some of the economy plus seats now have the pitch that economy seats had 20+ years ago and some domestic first class pitch is what economy plus was a few years ago.

 

It reminds me again of when our trains in the UK were rebranded from first class and second class to first class and standard class. Some wag said that this was wrong; the new names ought to be standard class and sub-standard class.

 

If you want decent seat comfort without going into business class, then premium economy is often more closer to what people would like economy to be. That's the answer to everyone who doesn't like modern economy seating. Getting people to pay for it, though, is another job altogether, even though premium economy is often still cheaper (in real terms) than economy was in the not-too-distant past.

[waterbug123]

2 hours ago, Globaliser said:

 

I agree that that's an overstatement. If you pick your airline / aircraft / seat properly, it can still be acceptable.

 

This is the key, and why I find it difficult to believe that someone can "hate EVERY airline" because of the seating.  Just choose better and you can likely have a decent seat and won't need to resort to "hating" every single airline because you feel cramped. 

I mostly fly Delta.  Some of their coach seats are indeed around 17" wide, but on many of their aircraft they are 18" or 18+.  On long haul flights, almost all of their coach seats are 18".  And their 777s are all 9 across, not 10.  (As are quite a few of British Air's 777s; they aren't all 10 across.)  After Delta, domestically I usually fly either Jet Blue or Southwest.  Jet Blue coach seats are mostly 18" or wider, with just a couple of aircraft measuring 17.8.  Southwest seats are just 17" wide, though if the Max aircraft ever fly again they are almost 18" wide (17.8).  On very rare occasions I end up on American, whose seat widths are all over the place.  On some aircraft they're as narrow as 16.5; on others they are as wide as 18" or 18.1. 

In Europe I am usually on Air France, Alitalia or KLM.  KLM seats are indeed 17" wide, but all of Air France's Airbus aircraft are 18"; only their commuter jets are 17", though most cruise pax would fly to major cities which means no commuter jets.  All of Alitalia's are 18".  The funny thing is that while everyone maligns Spirit for the tight pitch (no arguing there!), the width of their seats is actually listed as 17.75-20", which seems to be well better than average.

Overall, while there are plenty of aircraft with 17" wide seats, there also seem to be plenty of aircraft with seats around 18" wide, which is pretty darn close to the former average of 18.5 quoted by zdcatc.  And if you pay a little more to sit in economy plus/economy comfort, or an exit row, you'll get more legroom (seat pitch) as well, regardless of airline.   And I'm not talking about true premium economy, which is clearly often out of the budget for many/most travelers, I'm just referring to the economy plus products that many airlines offer now. 

[vermonter16]

So, when I used to work for the airlines there were lots of standards inside the cabin, flight attendants, service, seating width.  The implementation of baggage fees, (because who travels without a bag - which was supposed to be temporary) charging now for an aisle seat, exit row seating, etc, etc....  that is why (I hate) the airlines....they make a ton more money and the service and product has been cheapened A LOT.  I was flying first class on Delta and they of course ran out of one of the meals with 6 people still left to get a meal (it happens),  I said 'no worries', I would do without.  The flight attendant said...I'm sorry, we picked our meals first...but I can bring you the garnish from the plate if you'd like...oh, because that's exactly what I wanted, lol.  That incident and what the attendant offered (and I do believe she was trying to be helpful but it came off horribly wrong) has always left a bad taste in my mouth since we travel so infrequently and actually do pay a full fare for first class seating.  I remember when Flight Attendants were always smiling and happy and some still do...but many act like they simply no longer care and it's accepted. You could say that they are beat down and work with ungrateful people day in and day out...but I work with tourism hospitality with the public and you have to put those feelings aside...so I always give those working with the public the benefit of the doubt.

 

So, when I say I hate all the airlines (maybe I should have said, I hate how the airline industry has gone) take it as you will but they know they have you (supply and demand) and the standard of service has gone way below what it used to be and you're paying a lot more.  Didn't mean to ruffle anyone's tail feathers.

Edited February 3, 2020 by vermonter16

[fbgd]

For a lot of travel the price of business class today is equivalent to economy back in the 1980s and 1990s. Nobody was offering flat beds in economy back then.

 

The way I look at is you are getting WAYYY more for your money than you were 20+yrs ago and a new class of travel has been created for those who only care about price. And if you only care about price then can't really complain too much when you're sandwiched in and don't get anything service wise.

[Globaliser]

11 minutes ago, vermonter16 said:

The implementation of baggage fees, (because who travels without a bag ...

 

I do, frequently.

 

11 minutes ago, vermonter16 said:

that is why (I hate) the airlines....they make a ton more money and the service and product has been cheapened A LOT.

 

Airlines are now taking much less money from you than they used to, yet you still want the same levels of service and product as before? There's a saying that comes to mind about quarts and pint pots ...