I find it really hard to agree with you. Maybe you flew exclusively in business or first class?

> its not 11 abreast pack-em-in which is what the 787 has done

787 is designed for 8-abreast seating. In reality, carriers almost always went for 9-abreast. 11-abreast is physically impossible. It is possible in an A380 though, and airlines are really considering it.

> ... and its a premium quality experience

How is flying on an A380 premium experience? When you pack more people in the same plane, boarding and deplaning takes longer, food and beverage service takes longer, getting checked luggage takes longer, and the immigration queue gets longer. There's a higher chance a crying baby will be there to ruin your sleep, and I really hate the curvature of the fuselage, which makes it impossible to rest my head against it. Yes, I'd pick a Singapore A380 over a United 787, but it has nothing to do with the type of the plane. It's a soft product problem.

All the “gets longer” reasons you state here are solved by the “add more staff” and “use more exits” options.

I also live in Australia and have flown both the Dreamliner and A380 and if possible will always choose the A380.

Far roomier plane, much quieter and even though it may be just a coincidence every time it seems to suffer far less turbulence.

> it seems to suffer far less turbulence

That's not a coincidence. It makes perfect sense that a large heavy aircraft like the 380 will be harder for wind and air pockets to push it around, just like big ships are far more stable than smaller ones. There's a world of difference between coming into (say) Singapore with its turbulent tropical air on a little a320 and a giant like a 380.

I've been on narrowbody flights where we bounced around like we were inside a washing machine; in a 380 i've barely ever had to even pick up my drink!

The relevant metric (at least in theory) is wing loading, that is supported weight per wing area. Having said that, I find the A380 super smooth (I also take care that I sit near the wing/center of gravity).

> All the “gets longer” reasons you state here are solved by the “add more staff” and “use more exits” options.

No. Longer immigration queues could be solved by the government adding more staff, but they cannot be solved by the airline adding more staff, and the airline is the one buying or otherwise choosing to use the plane.

Automation is the other solution. For example in Helsinki-Vantaa, there are far more automated passport check gates than there are traditional immigration desks: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/3176184017

Even at SFO I've gotten to fill the immigration questionnaire a few times with a self-service machine, greatly reducing the time spent on the process.

They should definitely pressure the airport (to pressure the government) to create a few of those precious New Jobs and add some more people to immigration. It's just ridiculous in many airports, particularly in Europe. And it's been done, it's not like it's some pipe dream.

"Let's do the same amount of work with more people" opens the government up to a certain amount of criticism.

Do I really have to explain to them how to do their job?

You're the one suggesting New Jobs. By hypothesis, larger planes mean that arrivals are more concentrated, leading to longer lines, but not that there are more arrivals.

I have flown the A380 in economy multiple times. It is a premium experience. The plane is so big that you don't feel turbulences as much. And it's relatively new, so it's very silent. On the upper deck, because of cabin curvature, window seats have a large armrest opening and doubling as a generous chest where you can put all your stuff and keep your legs free of clutter.

Certainly when I flew economy with Emirates, it compared with Premium Economy on Virgin, and was much better than any other economy airlines I've flown.

The plane feels more spacious (taller ceiling in the walkway), the seats are bigger and spaced further, at least on Emirates. Added doors on some airports makes the embarkation and disembarkation feel about the same as on any other plane. I prefer aisle so I haven't noticed anything wrong with the curve of the walls.

Not OP but I will go out of my way to select Airbus jets; their NVH is noticeably lower than Boeings jets, which results in a far more comfortable travel, especially long-haul (A380 being up there in terms of comfort).

NVH?

It’s a regular occurrence on HN someone dropping an acronym that is so obscure or specific to the topic at hand, and without explanation, that no amount of googleitsu will find the correct decoding. In this case it was pretty easy,nvh = noise, vibration, harshness.

I had to google it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise,_vibration,_and_harshnes...

Noise/Vibrations/Harshness

Personally I find Boeing seats to be more comfortable than Airbus seats. Maybe it's just my butt but it is noticeable.

Neither one is a seat manufacturer.

Airline seats are independently purchased, and while both Boeing and Airbus have contracts for factory installed seating (and for their demo aircraft), most larger airlines seem to independently source and install their own seats. One seat model could appear on both an Airbus and Boeing aircraft.

See: http://www.airlineupdate.com/content_subscription/interiors/...

Except for the 787. If memory is correct, Boeing dictates what brand / models of seat is used in the 787 (something rather unusual). I can try and find a source if needed, but I’m pretty sure I heard that from a reliable source.

So does that mean the placement of the overhead light/call button is the same in all of them?

I had an economy comfort seat on a KLM 787 recently and the buttons were affixed to the inside of the seat arm at leg level, and not recessed. I kept turning on the overhead light with my leg all through the night. Infuriatingly poor design. A few mm's more recess would likely have made it much harder to accidentally press.

Overall quite a negative first 787 experience...

Norwegian 787s have the light and call buttons as part of the touch screen display in front of you. So different per customer

Ah, I wonder if only the bulkhead seats are different. In those the display isn't always in front of you so the light control has to be available elsewhere.

Next time I'll avoid a bulkhead seat in any case.

Their contract with LIFT by EnCore on a single aircraft type doesn't negate the point I made. Which was that neither aircraft manufacturer is a seat manufacturer, and that most seats aren't aircraft manufacturer exclusives.

Seat manufacturers produce seats for both Boeing and Airbus aircraft and aside from brackets, they're identical. So claiming that one manufacturer is more comfortable than the other is a little odd, given the market realities in the industry.

I didn’t disagree with your core point (in fact, I completely agree with it). I was just clarifying that in the case of the 787, it wasn’t the airline’s choice.

Weird then that the seats they install in Airbus jets are distinct from the ones they install in Boeing jets.

Yes. huge bad on my part, mistaking nine for eleven. In my defence, I cite stupidity, parity error and failed arithmetic in kindy twice.

The eight-vs-nine thing, very quickly becomes the ten-vs-elevn thing in larger widebody jets. Its a double squeeze: both on the functional seat width, and on the consequence of 3 or 4 or 5 abreast seating and the middle seat passenger.

If you live under the London Heathrow flight path then the A380 makes a lot of sense. Despite many airlines operating point to point services rather than hub and spoke there are places like London Heathrow where a lot of people want to get to and there are not enough plane slots for everyone.

I do not believe that Heathrow is uniquely congested. These few airports, even if there are only five or so that have the same problems, are enough to necessitate some level of on-going A380 production. Simply put, without an A380 then you are not going to find it so easy to get the best Heathrow slots or enough of them for your passenger numbers. Ryanair won't be investing in A380s any time soon or planning to operate from Heathrow with other big planes but all of the former 'flag' airlines that go into Heathrow have the best plane for the job in the A380.

Incidentally I am amazed at how many more Airbus planes fly into Heathrow than Boeing. Particularly with the smaller jets, A320 size the equivalent Boeing planes seem relatively rare. Imaginably they are on a different flight path.

I also fully expect that there are public relations companies with vested interests in saying that the A380 is doomed. I am sure there were public relations companies telling the world the plane was going to sell 4x more than it did.

Despite the hubris of the market I am sure that there are some sensible people in Airbus that work to different market expectations than the salesmen and can appreciate the passenger perspective cited by yourself as well as the realities for folk who live in places close to the likes of London Heathrow. The demand is solid if not as big as first advertised and these big planes have a big future. Which is sad if you are green minded and consider the level of travel a bit silly.

> Incidentally I am amazed at how many more Airbus planes fly into Heathrow than Boeing. Particularly with the smaller jets, A320 size the equivalent Boeing planes seem relatively rare. Imaginably they are on a different flight path.

There's a transatlantic divide here: Airbus is a European manufacturer and disproportionately popular in Europe, the converse is true with Boeing in America. The NYT being a US paper and HN being a mostly-American site, you'll see a tendency to favour Boeing here.

Wholeheartedly agree that I prefer the A380, particularly for its comfort, low noise and high stability. BUT, I'd always prefer to fly as directly as possible so I'd pick a direct-to-destination flight any day. And as far as multi-leg-journeys go, for the Asia-Europe route nothing is more infuriating than adding four hours in the air just to detour through Dubai. Granted, it's the smoothest transit experience I've had, but I'd rather save time and run through Schiphol if that is an option.

Wide-body aircrafts with lots of space inside to walk around every few hours in a 12 hour flight are great. For such long trips, I prefer the big B747 or A380 over these ultra long wide-body but still quite claustrophobic narrow low ceiling noisy aircrafts (e.g. B777) that barely have enough restrooms fitted in.

I question anyone who would chose any other plane over the 787 if they had a choice, especially for long haul flights. My sinuses are night and day feeling better after a flight on a 787. That alone makes up for any annoyance with the windows or other minor inconveniences people frequently quote.

> its not 11 abreast pack-em-in which is what the 787 has done

Citation needed! I just checked every airline’s seating config for the 787 and all are either 3-3-3 or more rarely 2-4-2 in economy.

> I question anyone who would chose any other plane over the 787 if they had a choice

Often that choice is also linked with picking a different airline company. For routes I care about I would need to fly United, American or BA and I rank all of those very low on my picks of airlines. I think for my personal comfort the airline matters much more than the difference between a 787, 330, 350 or 380 make.

Most of my flights these days are on ANA 787's and I honestly can't feel any resulting difference in the humidity/pressurization even though I'm told it's there.

Take note of how much fluids you drink and how dry your nose / throat feels after the flights. Maybe you’re lucky and it doesn’t make as much difference to your body, but it does for many (including me).

Certainly it makes more or less of a difference to different people but you said "I question anyone who would chose any other plane over the 787", so I was explaining why some people don't see any pros to the 787.

I think you even cut the quote short...

> In business, its not 11 abreast pack-em-in which is what the 787 has done

“In business” as in business class? Most 787 I’ve been on are 1-2-1 reverse herringbone in business.

Fair point, 11 across seating is complete b/s for business, but it’s being offered by Airbus for economy on the A380 (3-5-3). Funny that he accuses the 787 of doing something lousy the A380 actually offers.

> I just checked every airline’s seating config for the 787 and all are either 3-3-3 or more rarely 2-4-2 in economy.

Is "economy" a more expensive tier? It doesn't seem to make sense that the cheaper tier would give more space per passenger.

Both of those are for economy.

This is true of all the modern fleet, A350, A380, and the 787, in my extensive experience.

The 787 is definitively better than the A380 (spec wise and personal experience wise) for cabin pressurization and humidity, but I’ve not flown on the A350. As it turns out, the A350 specs out better on both air quality measures than the 787 (just looked it up) and professional reviewers agree it’s better.

First class on an A380 is a better experience than a 787, if we're talking economy the economy upper deck on LH flights are truly a bliss to fly in: the first row is highly recommended.

I've had far better experiences as a passenger in Y and C (I rarely fly intl F) on 767, 777, 787, and a340s than on any A380. With some airlines I actively seek out the 767 flights because they pre-date the "maximum density seating" trend, and there are a bunch of airlines where mid-life refit aircraft are better than 3-5 year old newer aircraft.

I'm much more Boeing vs. Airbus as a meaningful distinction, or which generation of a particular airline's seating system (especially in C and F) than a specific-aircraft carer, though.

I'm the same, I fly NZ -> DE often and I will choose my flights to get the A380 over the 777 or 787.

I haven't been on a 380 but I've been on an older 747, and even in the back, in the middle of a row of seats, it was by far the most comfortable experience I've had in a plane. Cushy seats, enough legroom, and a very smooth flight. I agree with you about the noisyness of the 777; crossing the Pacific in one, compared to a 747, is a night-and-day difference, although that was in a much newer 777.

Perhaps it makes some sense, but not enough sense for airlines to buy/lease these airliners. If people demanded them, the airlines would be supplying them.

Perh if Australia or Japan had 300million people and they had lots of business travelers, airlines would see a future in it, but for now, it seems they don't. Budget airlines seem to have seen the biggest growth. A380s aren't quite budget.

It also doesn't make sense domestically within the US. A 5-hour flight from coast to coast is not a particularly efficient use of the A380. The only US domestic route that may be a fit is Honolulu to somewhere in the middle of the mainland (Denver, Dallas, or someplace like that).

It's already used extensively TATL and TPAC.

I completely agree. I actively seek A380 flights out from Australia as they're always far more comfortable. The Dreamliner is ok if you're doing long internal flights (eg. Melb to Perth) but I've never enjoyed a dreamliner flight to Changi as much as I have with an A380.

It sounds like your complaint is about chosen seating arrangements by airlines rather than the planes themselves. The 787 11-wide configuration has little to do with the plane. You can be packed like a sardine on a 380 as well.

I’m also kinda frequent flyer and I can tell you I dont give a s* if I’m flying A330, A380, 767, 777, 787. Once inside, I barely see the difference, just immigration is more annoying if you’re flying A380 and sitting back in coach. I would never spend more money to fly A380. I’m working at a company where certain people hop on a plane every 2.2 days and I don’t even know a single colleague that would share your opinion.

In addition, if you think in Asia the A380 works well, then please tell me why Airbus is making so little money also there.

I've flown to Australia a couple of times now. The first time I specifically tried to book flights on the A380 since I had never flown on one before. The second time I specifically tried to avoid the A380 because the experience wasn't impressive. The only real advantage the A380 had was that the bathrooms were larger.

I'd love to try the 787, but the only real advantage I expect it to have is that they are able to maintain a higher humidity in the cabin.

11 abreast in a 777? No wonder you hate that plane. Who flies that monstrosity? Is that 3-5-3 seating in a 6.2m fuselage? Or is it 6-5? Do you have to turn sideways to fit?

That was exaggeration for effect. Not even in the 747 or 380 do you see 11 abreast. (JAL tried it as a short-lived experiment once, nobody liked it, surprise surprise).

It’s an available option that Airbus sells for the A380 (3-5-3 in economy), but thankfully no airlines currently use it that I know of. To my knowledge, Boeing has never considered it.

And I also like planes with four engines.