Are bigger jets the answer for congested airports and airline rising costs?

A larger jet to me is a twin aisle, not a single aisle like the A321

There is a reason why Japan and China flies large 747 between major cities. Japan used to fly 747-400D
Even today you can find Air China flying 777 and 747-8i between Beijing and Shanghai a trip only abit over 4 hours in flight time.
CA1521 on May 11 2023 is just a such flight.

Oh the irony of it. Get rid of a wonderful machine like the 747 all over the world, then just as you get to the point of tearing the last ones apart, find that aircraft of this size are actually needed in the system. You couldn't make it up ...

Seems that the idea of less aircraft at the ramp and less "time slots" into large airports have now become a factor. Sure, smaller aircraft and more frequent service is nice for passengers, but if you can run a larger aircraft and not have so many landing fees and other costs that are fixed, that could be better in some cases. There is a case for both large and small aircraft depending on the route.

I guess I would need to understand the efficiency data of whether a a larger plane makes better economic sense or not. Is it actually cheaper to fill a 777 to run once every 3 hours vs. flying a 737 once an hour? Someone obviously knows the revenue per seat to determine the cost benefit when factoring in crew and fuel costs.

Larger jets also have increased service and turn times. In the USA, our passengers expect a certain level of comfort and haven’t overpopulated tot he point of just jamming them in.. although we are headed that way. My vote.. keep the American comfort culture and size aircraft to the market..as is current practice on some airlines. It seems everyone can dunk these days.. (Bigger seats) so, seat spacing and pitch research is ongoing. With the advent of certain eco-fuels, the transport cost is somewhat mitigated to keep the right airplanes in the right market. We will need more pilots and pilot training to be modified into the next gen system that can handle the increase in air traffic in destinations and frequency to handle population growth. With all factors considered, bigger airplanes are not the answer in the domestic market. We need more pilots who have experience, so keep the senior pilots onboard will give a stop gap solution while they also help train the junior less experienced pilots. When I am riding in the back of the airplane.. I want that comfort not only in the seat I am sitting in, but peace of mind that someone up in the flight deck has at least learned from someone who flew during 9-11, Covid, and maybe a military skirmish or stand-off..
Am I asking too much? I don’t think so.

wrong sized airliners are all over the system now. and many aircraft are stored that have needed capacity, just lousy fuel burn on top of that.

Why not! There’s common sense to a lot of these questions. Yes…. Bigger plane….more people. Less crew.

Been saying that for many years. And not to the tune of putting widebodies in place of current A32x and 737s where things like gate space would be an issue (though I also remember back in the day where the gates weren't so packed so they could all accommodate larger aircraft).

LIved in and flew out of ORD and MDW a couple times a month for almost 15 years. Could not understand why United and AA would fly 3-5 embraers each in a 2 hour span to the same mid/large airport destinations instead of 2 73's or A320s in a 3 to 4 hour span. Just made no sense to me - and there is no possible way it is cheaper. More pilots, more crew, more points of maintenance and failure, more opportunities for backups/delays/missed connections, more congestion on the ground and at the gate. Just nonsensical.

Smaller aircraft should be reserved for smaller airports. Period. Not between mids and majors.

No, the point of having small planes fly is to have more frequent flights. As a solution, I prefer using smaller airports.

No, they aren't the answer.

An A380 can't get into Midway Airport, or most of the smaller fields, and neither can the venerable and now discontinued Boeing 747.

You need the:
Right Ship for
The Right Passenger Traffic
at The Right Cost.

Southwest has the best working model.

After having recently flown 8 transcon flights on the A321neo at full capacity, I still feel that comfort-wise the 757 was a better aircraft for passengers.

"Bigger jets" meaning the AB321Neo and Max 9+ versus the CRJ and EMB175? Yes.

What is old is new again. Just change the date to immediately before Airbus a380's release and you'd find the same story.

well duh....

I can even see flights being done that don't have a schedule on really busy stretches. Flights won't leave till it's full.... or max amount of time sitting (and getting a slot). like trains. ofcourse this would require changes in terminals. But with current growth it might happen.

Will make runways better but the gate areas which are already disasters will become even worse.

Having reliever airports was proposed in WA state using shuttle type of service from there to other destinations. One in point was Moses Lake WA receiving passengers who would have gone to SeaTac in Seattle and then transferred to other flights and there final destination. Thus taking 747 and 380 aircraft and passengers away from a congested airport. This fell apart when county commissioners on the Moses Lake/ Grant County end voted no on trying it.