Everything Else

maxleg wrote: In fact, in general the Airbus family suck. The A340s used on the Munich => SFO root are horrible.

I haven't personally noted an issue with the A340 (Liked premium economy on Thai), but a colleague hates the 340 compared to the 747 for long haul flights simply because the cruising speed is so much slower, the flights are often an hour longer. Not sure about the 777.

maxleg wrote: Worst flights have be internal flights in Russia and Vietnam....I'm sure glad that I only have to go to US and Japan now

I'm not sure I could bring myself to set foot on a Russian airliner - I'm not "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going", but those are at another level.

I was once worried about taking a domestic Thai airways flight, Chiang Mai to Bangkok. What kind of plane would they have for a 1:10 minute flight? Needn't have worried - they used a 747. Took off and climbed to altitude almost vertically, enough cruising time for meal service. That's efficiency!

I actually really love flying Dash-8/similar small aircraft, if I can get a window. The view is spectacular by comparison, and if it's not, likely the weather is making things an interesting roller coaster of a flight.

dc_v01 wrote: I'm not sure I could bring myself to set foot on a Russian airliner - I'm not "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going", but those are at another level.

Why is that?

Russian stuff is actually very reliable. Maybe not the best looking, or the most comfortable but they work regardless of weather or other conditions. Take Russian ejection seat as an example, it works and has actually saved many lives.

And more important Russians made the best ZX Spectrums in the world, that has to be worth something.

theinonen wrote: Take Russian ejection seat as an example, it works and has actually saved many lives.

A fact that's always nice to know. Is Aeroflot equipping the entire fleet?

the airport in saint peterburg is horri-bibble. otherwise i would visit my employee's there :(

dc_v01 wrote:

maxleg wrote: In fact, in general the Airbus family suck. The A340s used on the Munich => SFO root are horrible.

I haven't personally noted an issue with the A340 (Liked premium economy on Thai), but a colleague hates the 340 compared to the 747 for long haul flights simply because the cruising speed is so much slower, the flights are often an hour longer. Not sure about the 777.

I have flown both the 340 and 747-400s plenty of times in similar routes and I honestly did not notice much flight time differences in the same leg of the trip. Given that both planes have fairly close cruising speeds (the 747 is faster by 0.2 mach at best) maybe it is a placebo effect more than anything?

As some people pointed out, the difference in comfort simply comes down to airline configuration and their staff. To me there is far more difference between airlines, than the planes themselves. I tend to avoid American carriers for international flights as much as possible.

I have also noted a clear correlation between amount of booze I can get during the flight and the positive performance of the plane

R-ten-K wrote: I have flown both the 340 and 747-400s plenty of times in similar routes and I honestly did not notice much flight time differences in the same leg of the trip. Given that both planes have fairly close cruising speeds (the 747 is faster by 0.2 mach at best) maybe it is a placebo effect more than anything?

Yep. It's not so much what the airplane will do, but rather what the company (for fuel savings reasons) or ATC wants. I'm not an airline pilot, but I see it too. My bird will happily do .92, but I spend 95% of my time doing far less. When mixed in with the airliners, it's usually .78 or .80.

R-ten-K wrote: I have flown both the 340 and 747-400s plenty of times in similar routes and I honestly did not notice much flight time differences in the same leg of the trip. Given that both planes have fairly close cruising speeds (the 747 is faster by 0.2 mach at best) maybe it is a placebo effect more than anything?

Quite possibly, but the person is question is an aeronautical engineer who I think tends to be quite pendantic about this stuff. My own little google search right now suggests it may be closer to .03 Mach (.85 vs .82) which over the last A340 flight I took (17 Hours) I could imagine shaving an hour off of, but maybe not on much shorter routes. As BigD noted, a lot comes down to the airlines, and I would think climbing performance may have as great an effect.

R-ten-K wrote: As some people pointed out, the difference in comfort simply comes down to airline configuration and their staff. To me there is far more difference between airlines, than the planes themselves. I tend to avoid American carriers for international flights as much as possible.

American carriers operate on the seniority system, and long international flights are the most desirable work. So you will have the most senior flight attendants on those flights. If you like the service of the PYT on Singapore Air, you will never find them on American international flights - more likely a pudddle jumper. OTOH, there are some other issues at stake...

R-ten-K wrote: I have also noted a clear correlation between amount of booze I can get during the flight and the positive performance of the plane

Ha! I actually can't stay awake on a flight anymore to save my life, assuming I can get a seat with enough space to get comfortable (at least a premium economy seat). The droning of the engines just puts me to sleep. Haven't seen a movie on a plane in years.

theinonen wrote:

dc_v01 wrote: I'm not sure I could bring myself to set foot on a Russian airliner - I'm not "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going", but those are at another level.

Why is that?

Russian stuff is actually very reliable. Maybe not the best looking, or the most comfortable but they work regardless of weather or other conditions.

I think in general the Russian design approaches are often better than those in the "west". But anecdotally (what I see on the news), Tupolevs seem to crash at a disturbing rate (especially since I believe Boeing and Airbus have far larger worldwide market share - I don't think TUs were sold much outside of former Soviet bloc countries). Many/Most airline tragedies are due more to human error, not the plane, and Malcolm Gladwell has an interesting section on this in his book Outliers - "The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes". Your worst case scenario is to be on a plane where the captain is in control and the staff has a particular cultural background. My impression has been that some of TU accidents are more hardware based, and they may be combined with cultures that aren't helpful for safety in this respect.

dc_v01 wrote: Ha! I actually can't stay awake on a flight anymore to save my life, assuming I can get a seat with enough space to get comfortable (at least a premium economy seat).

I envy you. I have been on several overnight flights to/from Chile and the U.S. I got some sleep, but not a nights worth. Of course, I was in economy; I have never had an above economy flight.

WolvesOfTheNight wrote:

dc_v01 wrote: Ha! I actually can't stay awake on a flight anymore to save my life, assuming I can get a seat with enough space to get comfortable (at least a premium economy seat).

I envy you. I have been on several overnight flights to/from Chile and the U.S. I got some sleep, but not a nights worth. Of course, I was in economy; I have never had an above economy flight.

I'll fly economy to Europe, which isn't that much farther than CA from the east coast. Otherwise, several non-US carriers offer a premium economy class, which often gives you 80% of business class for a 40% price premium (instead of a 400% price premium). My preferred approach is to upgrade a full-fare economy ticket to business with miles - this is the best use of miles IMO. You get the miles for the economy ticket, which offsets the milelage cost of the upgrade by a lot for me - my flights are usually 20,000+ miles round trip to Asia. Combined with my domestic economy travel, I keep miles in the bank. Unfortunately, over the last few years the airlines are becoming very stingy with the seats they allow as upgrades from economy, at least for advanced booking. If I'm planning less than 6 months ahead, I usually have to resort to a premium economy ticket. Although I've done it in the past, I'm not sure I can survive a 17-24 hour flight (depending on route) anymore in economy.

It all depends on the airline. Long haul I'll only really fly Emirates or Singapore. Their 777s, A340s and A380s are all nice and new, well configured, quiet and the service is excellent.

Short haul I couldn't give a rats ass.