> It's bad enough when someone opens the tiny windows we have right now.

I really like looking out of the plane, especially when flying over amazing places like the arctic tundra, the Sahara, chains of islands and the like. I feel that air travel, and the sense of wonder than many people still manage to feel from it, would be greatly diminished if there were no windows. Have you tried a quality third-party eye mask? I bought a good quality one, and find it much more comfortable than the free airline one.

Of course, I have never been able to fall asleep on an aeroplane (even on > 15 hour flights), so I don't have much sympathy for your plight.

> Increase the air humidity so my throat and eyes don't dry out. Boeing claim the 787 will be much more comfortable because of raised humidity.

> Get rid of the ridiculously loud engine drone. Have you been on an A380? Amazingly quiet, especially compared to old MD80-era planes.

> Free internet and power outlet in coach. This would be excellent, except for the very important guy having a very important business conversation (with his mom) in a loud voice to try impress the ladies.

> Make the seats/legroom bigger. Not really legroom, but people over 6'4" can actually stand up in the washrooms on the A380 (unlike the 777). I hate going 12 hours without being able to stand up.

How can you list 7 things you want in a futuristic airplane and miss:

0) Get to my destination faster.

Where are all those hypersonic planes we were promised?

I think the idea of supersonic, let alone hypersonic airliners went away when everyone realized the price of oil isn't going to go down anytime soon.

And the noise they caused during the transision to supersonic speed made their use limited to use over oceans or unpopulated land.

It's never a problem for military aircraft somehow. They do supersonic over populated areas all the time.

Military aircraft that are capable of supersonic are quite small in comparison to airliners. The boom is considerably less. But it still generates noise complaints; the military only does it with impunity in war zones or hotly contested borders (Golan Heights).

The noise complaints and subsequent laws were one of the things that killed Concorde. It wasn't allowed to fly supersonic over populated areas, so it ended up only flying trans-Atlantic routes (didn't have the range to cross the Pacific.)

The other thing that killed Concorde was the fuel usage. For the same amount of fuel as a 100-passenger Concorde ocean crossing, you can fly a 400-passenger 747 round trip. As fuel costs have continued to climb, the economics have made less and less sense for the never-profitable Concorde.

It doesn't help that they had that bad crash outside of Paris, grounded the fleet, and then finally started them flying again on the morning of September 11, 2001 -- thereby immediately facing the worst market for air travel, and the highest oil prices, in decades.

(I don't have sources readily available. This is all stuff I learned from fellow museum staff working with G-BOAG at http://www.museumofflight.org/concorde )

Well, Concorde wasn't allowed supersonic over the populated areas of the USA, to be exact. Was never a problem elsewhere, and some of the contemporary subsonic airliners were actually louder than the Concorde.

As you say, catastrophes didn't help either, although they occur regularly with vanilla airplanes as well. Fuel efficiency is indeed a problem; however there was no further R&D put into the programme since the 1970s, so no wonder. A modern 747 is certainly way more fuel efficient than the original mid-1960s project.

No one tells the military "no".

Any idea on what the noise is really like? Compared to something like natural thunder.

"2) Get rid of the ridiculously loud engine drone."

Wear active sound cancelling headphones - I find they work really well for cutting out engine noise.

>6) Make it OK to use wireless & electronic devices during all times of the flight (even takeoff/landing).

some electronics that transmit I can understand why they don't want them in use during the two most dangerous portions of the flight (straight and level is easy, with generally pretty wide error margins; interacting withnhe ground is considerably harder). Is there any way to certify electronics as safe to use in those situations, though? I can't imagine an eInk reader (for instance) is going to affect avionics any more than, say, cosmic rays.

Why don't you wear a sleeping mask to cover your eyes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sleep_mask.jpg

> 1) Make it so my ears don't pop.

Learn to open your eustachian tube or yawn on demand at that problem goes away! Unfortunately, I'm not sure this can be taught.

Yes but no... If you have a bad condition like me you can do everything yet it will hurt like hell...

Two things work. Nose spray (unblocks nose and the whole canals). And sinutab an hour before landing...

I'm no reseller of those I'm just sharing for the ones who've been in horrendous pain like me...

What do you mean it will hurt like hell? If you open your eustachian tubes, the pressure is equalized, so you don't feel any discomfort at all.

If you suffer from sinus inflammation, either from an temporary infection or a chronic condition, they do not open.

If you have problems in your ear, such as a perforated eardrum or an inflammation; you may still be able to equalise pressure, but it can be painful to do so.

Other genetic or congenital conditions exist that can prevent or hinder pressure equalisation.

Ah, I see... Hmm, I imagine air travel would be quite painful in that case. Why doesn't the cabin pressure perfectly equal ground pressure? Doesn't it make sense that an airtight cabin will keep the pressure it's sealed at?

It's not that easy. The pressure difference between the inside and outside puts a great amount of strain on the fuselage. I think what they do is just reduce the rate at which the pressure changes.

I see, thank you.

The pressure difference between the interior and exterior of the aircraft causes considerable stress on the aluminum. One of the advantages with composite fuselages is their greater durability. This will allow for pressurization to an equivalent 6000ft altitude, as opposed to the current standard of 8000ft. This will help with numerous things, including but not limited to: air quality, ear popping, humidity, etc.

Ah, I had no idea it wasn't pressurized at sea/airport level, thank you.

Given a perfectly rigid container, you would be correct.

Planes can't even get close to being perfectly rigid, because they'd be too heavy to get off the ground.

swallowing usually helps too

Yep, that also opens the tubes. It doesn't help when the pressure differential is too high, though, as that takes concentrated effort. I can voluntarily do it and even I have to try hard at getting them to open when the pressure differential is high, which is why I take care to do it regularly while ascending.

Maybe I'm weird, but I would hate if the engines weren't loud.

I find the sound soothing, and the white noise is way better than listening to unpolite people talking loudly or babies crying.

It would be impossible for me to sleep on a plane.

Perhaps we need two types of airliners one for the old and whiney, kind of like a retirement home in the sky... and the other for people with a sense of wanderlust...

The irritations of travel can affect even the young, I've found, though when young I encountered a lot of them on Greyhound buses. And in middle age I find the airliners a lot more pleasant than the airports.

I think some of those concerns will be addressed by the 2050 model ;).

The "zones" could translate into a sky-light zone and a sleeper zone.