> I'm surprised to hear you say that, since I find the two very different. 747s are much noisier (unless you're up top) and have less humidity & cabin pressure, making them materially less comfortable on long flights.

IMO even on the lower deck the A380 is the quietest jetliner I've been on. The last 747 I was on (United) still had the old, comfy, interior. The 787 may have the benefits of a quieter, more humid cabin but the slimline seats and tighter seat pitch made it a much less pleasant experience for me (United was among the worst of the bunch).

I have stopped flying United for this reason.

~14 long haul flights (13+ hours) per year I used to buy from them, gone - because they screwed up the seats.

Idiots.

Seat pitch and width is largely up to the airlines. Korean Air 787s aren't bad at all in economy.

United is always amongst the worst of the bunch.

I guess I’m too busy trying to cope with squeezing into the seats and finding something to stave off boredom to notice humidity.

How does increased cabin pressure make for increased comfort? Once your ears equalize, the only difference should be less oxygen available, which I’d think would make you feel better (albeit stupider).

Not really your main point, but I find it interesting that you mention staving of boredom, while for me it's hard to imagine getting bored on a plane. For me, being on a plane is one of the few moments where I essentially have unconditional free time. I use it to listen to music, read, watch videos, even play videogames, or do any of various other things on my laptop. (And that's not counting the moments where I'm interested about the plane and flying in general, but I put that in parenthesis, as there would still be plenty to do without that, and there have been flights where the airplane was uninteresting to me.)

I cherish those hours very much, and often look forward to them.

What about air travel prevents you from entertaining yourself?

> What about air travel prevents you from entertaining yourself?

Discomfort and being surrounded by total strangers.

Okay, I can see that. Being on the shorter side, I rarely feel discomfort in airplanes. And total strangers are only a problem if we're not completely ignoring each other, which thankfully was the case most times I flew.

Well, not everybody travels business. Me its for adventures, backpacking etc. No way I am carrying a laptop with me, even tablet is an overkill (rather I'll take heavier full frame camera for pics you simply can't take with phones).

So that leaves me with phone on which I want to preserve battery because adventures don't usually happen in concrete jungles of the cities, quite in contrary in fact. And usually crappy entertainment system, with really bad provided headphones (they don't block the engine noise very well so movies are sometimes hard to follow... I wish optional EN subtitles would be standard everywhere). I can handle it, I don't get bored with myself easily and usually carry a book on travels (migrating to kindle soon). But fun? Nah, that really ain't the word I would use.

It seems there are quite a few uber-rich people here that don't mind shelling out 500-2000$ on top of basic ticket for some additional comfort for 10-15 hours. I am not one of those, and neither is most of the population. I mean, I traveled in India for months, in buses where seat spacing caused me to be in embryonal position for 12+ hours, without possibility to stand up or stretch. So I can very easily handle one trip in plane. Unless it would be my minute income or less, I would rather put those money into improving the life of somebody poor but smart & hard working (plenty of those folks out there). You just need to find them and give it to them directly, no greedy middle-men.

Agreed, and even on 12+ hour flights I never manage to even begin all the books, magazines, movies, newspapers I’ve brought (let alone finish them).

Wild guess here, are you under six feet tall?

I totally get what you’re saying, but unfortunately it just doesn’t work so well for me. I don’t have enough room to comfortably use a laptop. I have to play T-Rex to use the keyboard.

Movies and TV shows can be good for a while. I usually watch a few hours on a flight, but that only works for so long. Imagine spending an entire day in a movie theater, except the chair is sized for kids and the screen is tiny and you have to hold it up.

Reading is similar. It would be great, but the general discomfort makes it hard to focus long enough.

Were I flying in business or first class, I imagine it would be totally different.

This is the cause of my fear of wifi becoming standard on flights.

Increased cabin pressure increases humidity, which in turn results in (for me at least) a reduction in issues like dry eyes, dry skin, and sinus problems. In addition, the increased oxygen is extremely noticeable - when you get off the plane you feel more like a human being, even if you've only got 4 hours sleep.

Note that my experience in comparing the A380 to the 787 is on USA - AUS flights, so your mileage may vary on shorter flights, but on longer flights it's a godsend.

E: I also have way fewer issues with my stomach/gut on the 787.

/second all of that the 787. It's the least jetlag-inducing plane for long flights.

You don’t experience hypoxic euphoria until you’re really struggling. Before that you feel sluggish, some people will experience headaches, and most people will feel a general sort of low-grade malaise. All told, not fun. More critically it also increases the risk of stroke.

Thanks for explaining. I guess my struggles with space and entertainment overshadow these things as well, and thankfully I haven’t had a stroke yet.

Personally I feel the same way as you. I’d rather be a bit low on O2 and not have to chew on my own knees for 8 hours, than enjoy deep breaths in a tiny tin can.

I guess it’s a lot cheaper to increase pressurization than to give every passenger a reasonably sized chair.

787 can have a higher pressure because of what it is made of. Air frame life is directly effected by the pressure in the cabin.

787 is still to small for some routes. The flights to APAC from the west cost moved to 787 and with in a year where back to 777 because of number of seats. I like the 787 better, windows, cabin pressure and humility all make for a more plesent flight. That being said, I have a much better chance of getting an upgrade on the 777.

This is heavily dependent on fuel prices. At lower fuel prices, the decreased overheads of the larger planes (landing fees, staffing, etc) make them worth it. The CEO of Qantas is on record that it doesn't take much of an increase in fuel price for it to be better for them to run two of the (much more efficient) 787s than 1 A380. I assume the 777s are similar.

Those were likely just improper uses of the 787, because it naturally makes new routes viable by fitting into a different size class which is great for making air travel more convenient. More non-tops seem to pop up every week on a 787 or A350.

The flights aren't so long in the 747 though, because it is faster.

Not so: while the 747 is notionally faster in terms of maximum speed, most modern large jets all cruise at March 0.85.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/which-passe...

Of course one can fly slower. The 747 is still capable of 0.92 for most variants and 0.9 for the 747-8. Other passenger jets can't do that.