Farewell to the Queen of the Skies

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I am going to be flying home to the States in a month or two and I will probably go out of my way to take a Lufthansa flight back to NY, just so I can ride in a 747-8. I flew in an EVA Air combi back in 1995 or 1998 and by some fluke I was seated in 2A or 3A. So I could actually see down the runway as the aircraft was lifting off. That was very cool.
I do not know if I can afford to pay for the seat I got upgraded to 25 years ago, but if I can, I will.
 
Ziv said:
I am going to be flying home to the States in a month or two and I will probably go out of my way to take a Lufthansa flight back to NY, just so I can ride in a 747-8. I flew in an EVA Air combi back in 1995 or 1998 and by some fluke I was seated in 2A or 3A. So I could actually see down the runway as the aircraft was lifting off. That was very cool.
I do not know if I can afford to pay for the seat I got upgraded to 25 years ago, but if I can, I will.
Click to expand...
I did purposely go out of my way to take Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Chicago while on a return trip from India, just to get on a 747-8. From Delhi to Frankfurt was an A380, upstairs in Business Class.
 
flitcraft said:
Loved the 747, am decidedly meh about the so-called Dreamliner. Of course, that is mainly hypothetical post-retirement; my long haul flying has shrunk considerably!
Click to expand...
The 787 is definitely a quieter plane, more so compared to the 747-400 and earlier than the 747-8. 787s are also more pleasant on longer flights due to their higher cabin pressure and higher humidity, This from someone who has literally flown well over a hundred hours on both types of plane.
 
Does the four-engined 747 have direct route advantages over ETOPS twins on any long haul routes?
 
jis said:
The 787 is definitely a quieter plane, more so compared to the 747-400 and earlier than the 747-8. 787s are also more pleasant on longer flights due to their higher cabin pressure and higher humidity, This from someone who has literally flown well over a hundred hours on both types of plane.
Click to expand...
I was very impressed with the quietness of the Dreamliner when I flew it last year - so much more pleasant than the other planes I've flown. It reminded me of my dad telling me about his first jet ride, probably circa 1960 and his being impressed at how quiet it was compared to older plans of that era.
 
jis said:
I did purposely go out of my way to take Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Chicago while on a return trip from India, just to get on a 747-8. From Delhi to Frankfurt was an A380, upstairs in Business Class.
Click to expand...
That would be very cool! I wish United still flew the 747. I would have a chance for an upgrade with them. I guess Lufthansa is Star Alliance so I still have a shot. I sat last night and tried to figure out what it was worth to me to fly Polaris again, this time on a trans-Atlantic 747. I came up with $500 extra is worth it for an experience I may never get to try again. It really busts my budget a bit, but ...
Polaris on a trans-Atlantic flight with United usually costs a lot more than that, though. A lot more.
 
jis said:
The 787 is definitely a quieter plane, more so compared to the 747-400 and earlier than the 747-8. 787s are also more pleasant on longer flights due to their higher cabin pressure and higher humidity, This from someone who has literally flown well over a hundred hours on both types of plane.
Click to expand...
How would you compare the A380 to the 787 on the amount of noise? I flew Qatar Air on an A380 and it was about the same as a 787, maybe a bit quieter. Especially on takeoff the A380 was a subdued but powerful ride. I like the 787 better than most widebody jets for its comfort level, but the A380 is just a step better than a 787, it seems, and two steps better than the rest. Or so it seems to me in my limited experience. Most of my flight miles are on A320's and 737's.
But when I took the A380, I specifically booked it because I had never flown on one, but after the first 20 minutes at cruising altitude I forgot I was on a Jumbo jet. LOL! So much for an experiential trip. I was oblivious to the wonder of it. But I slept fairly well and the food was pretty good, too.
 
jiml said:
Other than the awesome sense of security if an engine were to fail? ;)
Click to expand...
Yes…I believe that even ETOPS twins are limited to their distance from a landing site, and may not be able to take the most direct route. But there aren’t many routes where that would be a factor.
 
Ziv said:
How would you compare the A380 to the 787 on the amount of noise? I flew Qatar Air on an A380 and it was about the same as a 787, maybe a bit quieter. Especially on takeoff the A380 was a subdued but powerful ride. I like the 787 better than most widebody jets for its comfort level, but the A380 is just a step better than a 787, it seems, and two steps better than the rest. Or so it seems to me in my limited experience. Most of my flight miles are on A320's and 737's.
But when I took the A380, I specifically booked it because I had never flown on one, but after the first 20 minutes at cruising altitude I forgot I was on a Jumbo jet. LOL! So much for an experiential trip. I was oblivious to the wonder of it. But I slept fairly well and the food was pretty good, too.
Click to expand...
A380 upstairs is absolutely the quietest anything that you can fly in the sky other than a glider I suppose.
 
railiner said:
Yes…I believe that even ETOPS twins are limited to their distance from a landing site, and may not be able to take the most direct route. But there aren’t many routes where that would be a factor.
Click to expand...
With ETOPS 330 and 370, there is basically nowhere on earth that you can't fly with a twin. The one exception being flights to Antarctica:

https://simpleflying.com/etops-banned-areas/
I've been working on the 747 program for the past 15 years, and it was definitely bittersweet going through production on that final airplane. I'm glad that we were able to keep it going for so long, and I'm hoping I get an opportunity to fly on one with Lufthansa or Korean Air at some point.
 
Chris I said:
With ETOPS 330 and 370, there is basically nowhere on earth that you can't fly with a twin. The one exception being flights to Antarctica:

https://simpleflying.com/etops-banned-areas/
I've been working on the 747 program for the past 15 years, and it was definitely bittersweet going through production on that final airplane. I'm glad that we were able to keep it going for so long, and I'm hoping I get an opportunity to fly on one with Lufthansa or Korean Air at some point.
Click to expand...
As mentioned before I have now flown on a -8i twice, both Lufthansa and both times in Business Class. It certainly had a much more 787-ish feel to it. I enjoyed both flights.
 
Last edited:
Chris I said:
With ETOPS 330 and 370, there is basically nowhere on earth that you can't fly with a twin. The one exception being flights to Antarctica:
Click to expand...
Interestingly, there is one place that no commercial flight that is not landing there is allowed to overfly, and that is the Tibetan Plateau. That is because it is so large in geographical extent that if a plane has an unplanned cabin depressurization situation over it, there is no way for it to reduce altitude following the regulation in a timely manner to the prescribed altitude, because that would place you underground. Only commercial flights landing at or taking off from Lhasa or another Tibetan airport is allowed to overfly the plateau, while transiting flights, no matter how many engines they have, are required to fly around it.

I have flown from Lhasa Gongar International Airport to Kathmandu across Mt. Everest, on a China Southern 757. It is kind of strange when they pressurize the plane after shutting the door to the standard 7,000' altitude, which is 4,000' lower than the altitude of the airport.

To bring it all back to 747, when was the first time you flew on a 747?

My first was in 1976. Air India Delhi Palam to Bombay Santa Cruz.

Second time was Sabena Brussels National Zaventem to New York JFK in September 1977.
 
Last edited:
I flew on a 747 some time in the mid/late 70's Chicago to Denver (or vice versa), probably on Continental. Just remember the stairs and not much of the flight.
 
Ziv said:
I am going to be flying home to the States in a month or two and I will probably go out of my way to take a Lufthansa flight back to NY, just so I can ride in a 747-8....
Click to expand...

I flew one a few years ago and would recommend avoiding the back of the aircraft. Ours had a yaw instability, that was quite noticeable during the initial climb. It later threw me out of the rear lavatory when the pilots got too close to a plane in front of us.
 
Last edited:
When I was about 25 years old, I was in a data processing job where I had to fly from San Francisco to LAX to check the work of a contractor once a month. Got used to the PSA shuttle. One time I returned to the airport and found my flight was cancelled. I called corporate travel (on a payphone, of course) and they said I'd been transferred to a Pan Am flight that had just come in from somewhere in the Pacific but was hopping up to SFO. Much to my surprise, my ticket was first class. It was upstairs in those days, and I was surrounded by B-list celebrities. I can't remember how many free gin and tonics I drank.
 
jis said:
Interestingly, there is one place that no commercial flight that is not landing there is allowed to overfly, and that is the Tibetan Plateau. That is because it is so large in geographical extent that if a plane has an unplanned cabin depressurization situation over it, there is no way for it to reduce altitude following the regulation in a timely manner to the prescribed altitude, because that would place you underground. Only commercial flights landing at or taking off from Lhasa or another Tibetan airport is allowed to overfly the plateau, while transiting flights, no matter how many engines they have, are required to fly around it.

I have flown from Lhasa Gongar International Airport to Kathmandu across Mt. Everest, on a China Southern 757. It is kind of strange when they pressurize the plane after shutting the door to the standard 7,000' altitude, which is 4,000' lower than the altitude of the airport.

To bring it all back to 747, when was the first time you flew on a 747?

My first was in 1976. Air India Delhi Palam to Bombay Santa Cruz.

Second time was Sabena Brussels National Zaventem to New York JFK in September 1977.
Click to expand...
I do not believe she ever flew on a Boeing 747, but my Aunt Judi worked for Boeing's HR department from 1965 to around 1972. She had the extreme good fortune to be in a position to give a couple thousand people notice that they were being fired when the Boeing gamble on the 747 was still not making Boeing any money and Seattle had the "Would the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights!" sign up.
And my family STILL works for Boeing, oddly enough.
On edit: The "good fortune" part is way past sarcastic into a foul black humor sort of territory. She hated her job for a couple years. Unfortunately, she left Boeing before it came back so spectacularly.

https://www.historylink.org/File/1287
 
My first flight on a 747 was Honolulu to Boston in June, 1973, on United Airlines. The plane had a coach lounge in the front of the coach section before first class. There was a scheduled stop in San Francisco, and we ended up changing planes (to another 747) there due to an engine reverser problem. Boston was fogged in when we arrived, and we attempted at least two landings before diverting to New York.
 
Agree that the 787 is quieter and has a more comfortable atmosphere than the old 747. My attachment to the 747 is partly nostalgic; it was the last plane designed by Boeing back when engineering innovation and safety were the twin watchwords. My 'meh' rating for the 787 is a function of my husband's frustration with all the chippy cost-cutting done in its design. It pushed him to retire before he had planned, since he just didn't feel good about the company anymore. And I can't say more without veering into a 'no politics' redline.
 
flitcraft said:
Agree that the 787 is quieter and has a more comfortable atmosphere than the old 747. My attachment to the 747 is partly nostalgic; it was the last plane designed by Boeing back when engineering innovation and safety were the twin watchwords. My 'meh' rating for the 787 is a function of my husband's frustration with all the chippy cost-cutting done in its design. It pushed him to retire before he had planned, since he just didn't feel good about the company anymore. And I can't say more without veering into a 'no politics' redline.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of engineering innovation in the 787. It has though undoubtedly been managed very poorly. Actually the whole Carbon Fiber thing in and of itself is a very remarkable innovation, and in spite of all the weird management they somehow managed to screw that up, something that was fragrant with possibilities of screwup as it involves clean room operations during fabrication.
 
I disagree on the admiration of the 787. It was the most uncomfortable, hot, cramped, airless ride I have ever had on a commercial aircraft. In the economy section, the 17.3" of width in 3-3-3 economy seating pretty much made it so I had to interlock shoulders with my wife and daughter. I don't remember the pitch being too bad though? 🤔 The air vents above seemed to supply a very minimal blast of air as compared to others (usually smaller regionals) I have rode on commercially (I prefer enough air to have my hair blowing). The temperature was ungodly hot. I asked the stewardess to turn the heat down a bit, and it is my nature to never complain or ask for special requests like that. I spent part of the ride sitting in the back open area on the floor with my forehead pressed on a cold door latch downing cold drinks from the nearby refreshment area.

Wiki:
"The 787's nine-abreast seating for economy provides passengers less space, particularly across the hips and shoulders, than any other jet airliner. Some observers recommended passengers avoid flying 787s with nine-abreast seating,"

I will only fly in one again in non-economy or ones with 2-4-2 seating.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top