In an effort to privatize its national flag carrier TAP Air Portugal, the Portuguese government has selected Lufthansa Group to acquire a 44.9% stake in the airline, beating out Air France-KLM in the process. Employees are getting a 5% stake in the company, while the Portuguese government is retaining a 50.1% stake for now. The company currently operates a fleet with just under 100 mainline aircraft, and it is particularly known for being the largest European airline to Brazil, which was surely a major part of its appeal to Lufthansa Group.

The airline holding company currently owns German flag carrier Lufthansa, as well as SWISS, Austrian Airlines, Brussels Airlines, Lufthansa City, Air Dolomiti, Eurowings, and Discover. In addition, it holds a 50% stake in SunExpress (jointly owned with Turkish Airlines) and a 41% stake in ITA Airways, which is set to rise to 90%.

What do you see as being the biggest implications of the new acquisition? How do you think this will affect the European aviation market, especially with the likely possibility of TAP joining the Star Alliance transatlantic joint venture?

Air New Zealand plans to launch its Skynest sleeping pods in December 2026 on Auckland-New York flights. The concept features six lie-flat bunks on its Boeing 787-9, giving Economy passengers a dedicated space to sleep for four-hour sessions.

However, limited availability, proximity to galleys and lavatories, and an additional cost of reportedly around NZ$495 could divide passenger opinion. Would you pay extra for a lie-flat bed in economy class? Do you think other airlines will follow suit? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments!

This is user-generated content. The views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Simple Flying.

After widebodies became prevalent, narrowbodies weren't operated on long-haul flights in high numbers until the 1990s. ETOPS became common throughout the industry, and carriers such as Continental Airlines began operating the Boeing 757-200 on transatlantic flights. More recently, we've seen Airbus introduce the A321LR, and even more recently, the manufacturer created the improved A321XLR to essentially take the 757's role of being the default narrowbody aircraft type for long-haul flights.

There have been mixed opinions on these operations, with some expressing concern about the comfort of traveling on a narrowbody for close to eight hours, while others are more enthusiastic. I think these flights are cool, but I've never been on a narrowbody for so long, as my longest narrowbody flight ever was from Newark to San Francisco on the Boeing 757. It was perfectly fine, but the flight also isn't the same length as a typical transatlantic trip. What is the longest narrowbody flight you've ever taken, and what was the aircraft type/airline? If you haven't already, would you cross the Atlantic on a 757 or A321R/A321XLR?

The Airbus A321XLR is the newest plane on the market, but not everyone seems to be excited about it. It seems like the general perception is that the A321XLR is a less pleasant aircraft on longer flights due to its smaller size compared to a widebody. However, A320 family aircraft do tend to have wide seats in economy, and the A321XLR is also a quiet airliner with a modern interior.

The Boeing 777 is one of the largest widebodies ever built. However, they're generally considered to be pretty loud, and the ten-abreast economy layout (which most 777s have) is notoriously tight. Given the benefits and drawbacks of either, would you rather take the narrowbody Airbus or the massive 777 on a long-haul flight?

Two of the biggest factors in economy class comfort are how much space you have in front of you and how much space you have beside you. If you could improve only one of them on your next flight, which would you choose?

An empty middle seat can make a standard economy row feel considerably less cramped. Window and aisle passengers effectively gain more shoulder and elbow room, there is no need to negotiate the shared armrests, and having an unoccupied seat beside you can provide a greater sense of privacy. On a longer flight, that extra lateral space can make it easier to relax or sleep even if the seat pitch itself remains unchanged.

Extra-legroom seating tackles the opposite problem. Several additional inches of pitch can make it easier to stretch your legs, work on a laptop or get in and out of your seat, and the difference can be particularly noticeable for taller passengers. However, you could still end up sitting directly beside two other people in an otherwise full row.

If both were offered free of charge, would you rather have an empty middle seat or an extra-legroom economy seat?

British Airways will fly the Boeing 787 Dreamliner on its short-haul route from its main hub at London Heathrow to Madrid–Barajas this winter. While the Spanish capital is a key short-haul route for BA on account of being home to its oneworld partner Iberia, passenger demand isn't the sole reason for its use.

A window seat in economy gives you control of the shade, somewhere to lean while sleeping, and the reassurance that nobody needs to climb over you during the flight. For many travelers, especially on a long-haul journey, having that private corner of the cabin can matter more than a few extra inches of space.

Premium economy offers a very different advantage. Seats are generally wider, provide more legroom and recline, and usually come with upgraded meals, bedding, and service. Even in the middle seat, the overall experience can be significantly more comfortable than standard economy, particularly on an overnight flight.

The catch is that you would be giving up one of the most desirable seats on the aircraft for one of the least desirable positions in a better cabin. Some passengers would gladly trade the window for more space and comfort, while others would rather keep their preferred seat even if it means flying in economy.

If both options cost exactly the same, would you rather have a window seat in economy or a middle seat in premium economy?

Live departures and arrivals for Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD). Real-time flight status, delays, gates and airlines serving IAD.

I've noticed that there is a consensus that the Airbus A320 is a more comfortable aircraft than the Boeing 737 because of the wider seats. That is real, for sure, although the difference is not dramatic in my opinion. For me personally, I wouldn't make my flight decisions based on the aircraft type alone in most cases, although I have been itching to try an A320neo (I've been on the 737 MAX many times). However, I recently flew on an Airbus A321, which was the first time that I had been on an A320 family aircraft in years, and I made an interesting observation.

I found the aircraft to feel quite unsettled throughout the flight; it just felt very 'twitchy' to me. This is, of course, my anecdotal experience as a passenger, but I've been on many 737s over the years, and I felt like the aircraft handled winds/turbulence much more smoothly than what I experienced with that A321. Again, this was based on one A321 flight and many 737 flights, but I simply feel like the Boeing offers a smoother ride, and that makes a bigger difference to me than the seat width, in my opinion. Also, I flew on the A321 in clear conditions from Manila to Singapore, whereas I've flown on the 737 in a variety of weather conditions in North America.

I still wouldn't actively choose a 737 over an A319/A320/A321 for this reason, and honestly, I want to get more time in the Airbus because I've been on way more 737s throughout my life. However, I do think I prefer flying on the 737 as a passenger.

Do you have a personal preference for one type over the other? Would you make a booking decision based on whether the flight is flown by a 737 or an A320?

Live departures and arrivals for Austin Bergstrom International Airport (AUS). Real-time flight status, delays, gates and airlines serving AUS.

Most of my flying has been in the modern era of slimline seats, ten-abreast 777s, and 30 to 31 inches of seat pitch. I therefore can't personally comment on how the experience of flying in economy compares to the past, but I will say that I generally haven't had issues. My longest flight by great circle distance was from New York to Manila with Philippine Airlines on the A350-1000, whereas my longest flight by time was a United flight I took in 2024 from San Francisco to Singapore on the 787-9. That flight was almost 17 hours, whereas my PAL flight was about 16 and a half hours. They were all fine to me, not amazing, but they did the job.

What is the longest flight you've ever taken in economy? Was it uncomfortable for you, or did you find the experience to be serviceable? For me, as long as the seat is reasonably comfortable, there's a screen, and onboard Wi-Fi, I'm a happy camper.

Atlanta and Dallas/Fort Worth are two of the biggest connecting hubs in the US. ATL has more than 54,000 potential connections across 170 destinations, with Delta operating around 80% of flights. DFW has more than 47,000 connections across 195 destinations, with American accounting for roughly 85% of traffic.

Atlanta's biggest advantage is simplicity. Its concourses are arranged in a relatively straightforward sequence and linked by the underground Plane Train, which runs approximately every two minutes. Even when a connection requires traveling from one end of the airport to the other, the layout is generally predictable and every concourse is connected airside.

DFW offers a much larger physical footprint and more domestic destinations, but connections can involve moving between any of five terminals. Its Skylink train also arrives about every two minutes and can make the longest terminal-to-terminal journey in around nine minutes, so the airport's size does not necessarily mean a difficult connection. 

I'm flying through both this week, and have a definite preference for one over the other. But I'm wondering if others do as well. So... 

If the fare and connection time were identical, would you rather connect through Atlanta or Dallas/Fort Worth — and why?

Modern US aviation is dominated by the country's 'big three' legacy carriers: American Airlines from oneworld, Delta Air Lines from SkyTeam, and United Airlines from Star Alliance. These three airlines are similar in many ways and different in many others, and their achievements are often framed in the context of those of their rivals. However, which would you say is best, and why? I personally have very little experience with these carriers.

My flight on a United 747 from London to San Francisco in 2013 was nice, but not a relevant reflection of the airline today, and my only trip on Delta was a transcontinental domestic service from Seattle to DC. I've yet to fly with American in any capacity, but I'd be interested to hear from those of you who've flown with two or even three of these carriers and have a particular favorite. Which is best and why? How many times have you flown with these airlines? Let us know your thoughts and experiences in the comments!

Emirates has a sizeable fleet renewal program underway, but it will have to wait several years for all of its new aircraft to arrive. According to ch-aviation data, the Dubai-based carrier is currently awaiting dozens of A350-900s, HUNDREDS of Boeing 777Xs and around 30 Boeing 787s. Of these three programs, Emirates is currently taking deliveries of the A350-900.

Comfort isn’t just about the seat. Cabin noise, window size, air quality and ceiling height all add up, and some aircraft types simply feel better than others to fly on.

Tell us which aircraft you’d pick and why, then click into some flights on the Simple Flying Flight Tracker and see if you can find one in the air right now.