As a casual plane nerd I always checked which plane type I am on and have even made ticket decisions based on it (and have been disappointed when the airline changes the plane type last-minute!).

That being said, in my experience, airlines very rarely advertise which 'sub-type' of narrow-body you'll be flying on (at least until you've bought the ticket). Finding a flight which is definitely on an A320-neo (as opposed to ceo) for example is very difficult. I would assume that especially now airlines will do their best to hide the fact that they are flying a 737 Max.

Boeing has also changed the name of the 737 MAX to the 737-8, at the request of airlines, since people know the former name but not the latter yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-....

On the other hand, if this is important to you, it is generally quite practical to choose airlines that do not fly 737s. For example, JetBlue and not SouthWest.

That really depends on the airport. Portland, for example. If you try to avoid 737s then you just cut yourself out of 75-80% of all available flights.

Also, the 737NG is arguably the safest airliner ever produced (by statistics, not speculation), so why would I want to avoid it?

FlightRadar seems to have airplane model numbers for all airlines plying the skies.

Those are generally for flights in the past or a day or two in advance though. You can get some idea of which plane has flown it before, but airlines can and do mix it up

I always do because I despise exit seats on A320s, at least on Alaska.

If you tell the flight crew that you don't want to be seated there, they will reseat you.

It's more an issue, in the case of Alaska, that they treat exit row seats as a premium selection, so it's more of a "If 737 then my life is slightly better for a few dollars, if A320, it's slightly worse, so check beforehand."

A380 is a great plane, very fun to fly on. Too bad they're being grounded on most airlines for the foreseeable future due to their economics.

So much quieter than the comparable Boeing aircraft. Flying trans-Pacific on the 757 is like mowing the lawn for a day and a half.

You're comparing a 1982 narrow-body to a 2006 super wide-body aircraft; a better comparison would be between the A380 and 747-8i (which are both supposed to be very comfortable).

It sounds like they're comparing planes they've actually flown on. I've never flown on a 747, so if I fly on a 787 I'm not going to make comments about how much better the 787 is than the 747.

You'd have a point if they didn't say "the comparable Boeing aircraft". There is nothing "comparable" about the two given Boeing's other offerings, they're not in the same class or generation.

> comparing planes they've flown on

The airline matters too - some have larger seats with more amenities and more space between rows. Those extra inches really matter on long haul flights for those of us who are tall!

I think you're right that they're comparing planes they've flown on, but they're trying to compare very different designs from very different eras.

Why would you say the comparable aircraft is a 757, and not the 777 or 787? The 757 is a 40-year-old narrowbody design, not a modern widebody.

Isn’t that roughly a 15000 km ocean and 7000 km range?

I seriously enjoyed flying on the Boeing 787 myself (two roundtrips to Japan, one round trip to Germany). So much quieter compared to the 777s and 737s I'm used to flying on. Never been on an A380.

787's are super cool. I happened to fly back from Japan on one before their (first?) grounding and it was quite enjoyable. The additional cabin pressure for a "lower altitude feeling" and lower noise do really help reduce fatigue.

Ohhh they have additional cabin pressure? I could swear the air quality was MUCH better after spending about 10 hours in the plane and not feeling any fatigue.

I thought the air was less dry too, but didn't really have means to measure that.

It is less dry. The 787 can be held to a higher RH% because of its carbon fuselage. No worries about rust. Furthermore, it's not pressurized with engine bleed air which is very hot and dry.

787 is indeed comfortable but during landing every single time I thought the plane is going to burst into pieces - the loud rattling noise and visible bending of the interior was just crazy. But other than that really cool.

Aluminum planes also bend visibly if you're sitting in a rear aisle.

Eh, I have a different experience. The A380 porpoises on autopilot cruise, alternating between lifting you slightly, and settling slightly. The regular drop induces a startle reflex that makes it really hard to sleep.

My favorite plane for long distance is the 787. The mechanical bits are pretty noisy on climb out, but when cruising it's a really comfortable ride.

> The regular drop induces a startle reflex that makes it really hard to sleep.

I like that actually; makes me sleep better. But the 787 is nice too.

Crossed the Pacific on 777, 747, and A380. A380 is the only one that wound up dumping grey water from the upper deck on our seats for the entire flight and forcing my wife to stand in the aisle for the entire flight.

There are always some number of reserved seats on a large, long haul flight. If your wife wasn’t found an alternative seat, that’s on the airline or it’s staff.

Also it’s unlikely to have been upper deck gray water. More likely it was condensate.

A350 as well, it's probably the best plane in the skies atm for passengers on long haul flights.

> outside of the flights on the Airbus A380

What do you mean by this part?

Guessing: he wanted to fly on the A380, because it's an awesome experience if you're above average interested in planes. Opposite sign of the attention given to the 737max, in other words.

I would imagine so as well.

I'm in the same position. Before the 737 Max fiasco, the only plane I would really look out for, and woudl change tickets for, was the A380. For long distance flights it's way more comfortable especially in economy. The seats tend to be more comfortable, and it's significantly quieter, than competing planes on long distance routes.

Ditto. That, and the A350. It doesn't look as spectacular as the A380, but it definitely is the most comfortable cattle class plane experience I've ever had (next to the A380).

When I fly I usually fly with emirates so I'm quite often on the A380, they really are wonderful planes.

Yes, exactly this. Also, I have only flown these on Emirates and they are great with a kid.

I'm guessing he means he'd prefer to fly on the A380.

He probably wanted to fly on that aircraft so he specifically looked for a flight with that plane?

The A380 has not had a single incident.

Oh, it's had incidents. Just not any fatal ones.

The early Quantas Flight 32 engine failure [1] was quite severe and the plane was lucky to continue to fly, for instance.

"a turbine disc in the aircraft's number-two engine (on the port side nearest the fuselage) was found to have disintegrated, causing extensive damage to the nacelle, wing, fuel system, landing gear, flight controls, and engine controls, and a fire in a fuel tank "

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32

IIRC they were unable to shut down the outboard engine after landing, and had to get the fire department to shoot water into the engine. They did not have control over the engine the entire flight, nor did they have full control over the ailerons. Few people can really appreciate how hard it is to land an airplane with partial controls.

Yes, it could have gone bad very rapidly. It helps that they had a 35-year captain in command, and 5 pilots in the cockpit - including 2 check pilots. All accounts are that the decision making of the crew was top-notch.

And their instruments were telling them the truth.

Nobody had "omitted" documenting flight-altering automation in the training required to dodge certification requirements...

This is one of those comments that just does the perfect job of bringing the thread back into the context of the original topic.

Indeed it's astonishing to think that one of the tasks that lead to safety and victory for an aircraft which is simple (as opposed to the many which are complex) is the single point of this particular failure.

I always finding myself adding in a U in Qantas, but it's an acronym: "Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services"

Didn't know that either!

It breaks the most consistent rule in the English language, so no surprise that it trips people up.

Thanks, I didn’t even notice I had done that.

TIL!

> the plane was lucky to continue to fly, for instance.

It seems that the better a plane is designed, the "luckier" it gets! Strange how that works.

I'd say I'm in general biased in favor of Airbus, but what you say just isn't true.

It was the first time I looked at my prior tickets to determine if I had ever flown on one. But nope, all Boeing Dreamliners which are phenomenal and fantastic!