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.