Hacker News Reader

Comment by philjohn | Hacker News Reader

I recently travelled on one of BA's "refurbished" 747's and I hated every minute of it. Noisy, cramped facilities, find the A380, 777 and 787 far more comfortable for a long haul flight.

The 747 was amazing, when it was introduced, but it has now reached an age where it needs to retire gracefully, and point to point with twin engines is seeing to that.

View on HN

I travelled on both the A380 (Emirates) and the 787 (Oman Air) in the last year and they are really a big step forward. I would put them above the 777, maybe it's the specific configuration used by Qatar Airways (777-300ER) but they simply weren't as good as the other too.

Also flown a A350-900 with Qatar Airways and it was really close to the A380, seat were very pleasant.

As for the noise in planes: if you travel a lot by planes, buy active noise reduction headphones. Bose QuietComfort 35 or 25 work very very well. Try them out first if possible, a small amount of people dislike the feeling they give with noise reduction active, but for me it was a world changer as I take about 2 planes a month, my 35 were one of the best purchase I ever made.

I very recently got a pair of QC35s. The noise cancelling was neat, but didn't seem that useful in every day situations. Then I took a flight with them, and they still didn't seem that interesting. Until I took them off for the first time after take off. I was amazed at how loud the plane suddenly become. Now I'm very impressed with how much of a difference they make, and will definitely be bringing with me on every flight.

It is very helpful in office too. Just turning the noise cancellation on without any music. It cuts out the ever present noises like the hum from the HVAC, which I didn't even know was there.

and very quiet music is enough to even drown out conversations, when combined with the noise canceling. It's almost like magic.

I use them:

In car for long drives

In office

In bed when someone snores next to me

In bed when street outside is loud

On a boat when motoring

On every flight

Don't use them in cars. That's incredibly irresponsible both to yourself/others in your car and those driving alongside you, not to mention illegal in a lot of places. You use audio cues far more often than you realize while driving.

They said when they're in a car - not when they're driving a car.

I once wondered what states have laws against headphones/earbuds and was astonished not only by how many places don't have laws, but how many that do have laws that specifically say its okay (or okay with one ear uncovered). Going in I expected to find near universal laws against it.

Yeah I think it's because most of the laws were written a few years ago, where in-car Bluetooth wasn't common but one-ear headsets were. Lawmakers probably didn't want to outright exclude phone use in the car, and figured having one ear in use was "good enough".

Most modern distraction laws (the ones actually written nowadays) are very thorough. WA just passed one last year where you essentially can't touch your phone while driving. BC has had one for a few years now which includes any non-fixed electronic device while the car is running.

There aren't that much of cues when you are the only car in a highway (I use them as a passenger too, but mostly when I drive alone for a long distance, usually somewhere remote, listening a podcast).

As for cues, the vibration from road surface is still there and plenty of cars come with ANC built-in. These headphones don't block noise completely, things like police alarms, honks or speech are still very easy to hear. I can even hear the wind from AC vents (if it blows directly into ANC's mic's).

I doubt the claim of "plenty" of cars coming with ANC built in, but even if all cars came with it, that form of noise cancellation is to national safety standards, specifically for the use of being in a car while on the road. The ANC in Bose headphones are for an entirely different purpose so it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Furthermore, Bose, and basically all other ANC headphones work at isolating and cancelling off the low frequencies you'd typically find in plane engines, which are also most of the time the kinds of frequencies that are also used on a boring road trip where you're the only one on a long stretch of highway (your exact use case). Speech and honks and police alarms aren't things you'd expect to find in this scenario, but early warnings of your car breaking down, or things happening outside of your car that would affect your car do.

Seriously, stop using your headphones while driving. It's illegal in many places for a reason, and you're missing out on far more auditory cues than you realize because your brain is good at moving sensory information into the background when it doesn't deem it as important. Let your brain do its job, it's not that hard to listen to the podcast over your car's BT/AUX connection.

I assume he meant as a passenger.

In the car sounds like it might cause problems. There is important information in sound and when you wear noise canceling headphones you are actively making yourself deaf, which classes as a disability that would normally require some extra training before you'd get your license, and that is with a person who is already trained to be more aware of other cues.

They don't block 100% of sounds, far from it. They block rhythmical noises. So if a piece of metal would come off and scrape the road surface - I wouldn't hear it. But police sirens would be audible.

There are luxury cars than come with Bose's ANC built-in. They'd have the same problem if there was one.

Finally, I never use it in a city, just out on a long drives, where road surface is more ruff and listening a podcast via car system is more difficult than useful.

Deaf people don't need extra training before getting their license in most countries.

This also applies to the radio. I typically have my radio cranked up. Any time I turn it off, I'm astonished at the noises my car is making. It always occurs to me that I would probably notice mechanical problems earlier if I was used to just listening to the car so I could detect changes in what it sounds like. Then I say, "screw that" and crank the tunes back up.

This sounds like the beginning of a Dr Seuss

sleeping with them - I broke 5 pairs sleeping with them (well, QC20). I now use $5 earbuds from the local dollar store which are much less of a headache to replace.

Yeah I can't sleep on my sides with them.

Well, I sort of can if I find this odd position where I push them into pillow, but the foam pads did get permanently compressed a bit. Easy to change tho.

How did they fail for you? I had one QC25 fail just a month after warranty expired, but Bose replaced them for free - quite a common case of one side getting quieter/crackling when rotating them. QC35 seem to be build even more seriously (thicker band).

the earbud split along the seam. the moment there's a hairline fracture, the air comes whooshing in and there's an ear-splitting whistle. (again, QC20)

787’s pressure and air quality is what makes huge difference from every other aircraft out there.

Also, I can’t imagine flying without QC’s anymore ;)

Though in economy, I still find the 380 more pleasant, as it's so spacious and calm.

(Yeah, QC's are a must :)

QC25s are great at reducing noise, but it’s not just noise that’s the issue! I find that older planes have more more vibration in cabin and that’s not something that noise cancelling headphones can help with.

I found the Bose headphones mediocre in most regards, so I switched back to my Shure 315's. The foam earbud is enough to keep the airplane noise out, and the sound quality is awesome.

Anything on BA is unpleasant though.

First class on the United 747 was a fairly pleasant experience. You could tell it was an old plane, but the seat comfort was amazing and the view (in rows 1/2) was even better. And also the quietest flight I've experienced (except for takeoff/landing since you're right over the nosewheel). Slightly small toilets for first class, but other than that an overall great experience.

The 787 and 777 suffer from airlines using terrible seats in economy, which the A330/340/350/380 generally don't suffer from, but if you're flying premium economy or better the A350/787 are equally good, and the other aircraft aren't far behind.

I've flown on 737s for years & recently flew on a couple 10 hour flights on a 787, and mostly I like those planes well enough. My most miserable flying experience was on a couple 14 hour flights on a 747. I think short haul flights on a 737 never bother because they are short. The 787 flights were nice because the plane was new, and the person in front of me didn't recline their seat into my space. Maybe I just don't like long haul flights on old & crowded planes, which the 747 most certainly was.

Fly on one of the new 747-8i planes (I think only Lufthansa and Korean fly them). They are incredible. Quiet, comfortable, modern. It's a shame that nobody is buying them.

Came here to say the same thing. I have travelled on BA 747s and didn't enjoy the experience (which was a disappointment to me, as I had fond memories of flying on the 747 as an early teen). The Lufthansa 747-8 stood in stark contrast, and was a lovely plane to fly on.

The noise is partly determined by the airframe but the size and design of the lavatories is not. And for most people, the size and shape of the seats are overwhelmingly the most important factor affecting comfort. And like the lavatories, seat design is set by the airlines, not the airplane model.

The BA Club World (business class) upstairs in the 747 is pretty decent though. It’s not “luxurious“ compared to the standards of the Middle Eastern carriers, but it’s a fairly quite and intimate space, traveling there makes crossing the Atlantic an almost relaxing experience.

A380 sales are also way down. Airlines just don't want giant planes anymore.

I agree. When I fly Qantas A380 to LAX and then their 747 on to JFK, the difference is striking. The engine noise and cabin pressure alone were painful and more uncomfortable on that 4.5 hour flight than my 13 hour flight on the A380.

Is the cabin pressure different from A380 to 747? I wouldn't expect so.

Yes, the A380 has the same ~6,000 ft equivalent cabin pressure as the 787, compared to older jetliners that maintain ~8,000 ft.

interestingly the A380 dont seams to be flying with any american airline either(according to airbus http://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a380-famil...).

And looking at the published customer lists for the 777 and 787 the list is dominated by non US based airlines. Particularly Asia seams to be emerging as the dominant market for air travel.

The A380 is hardly flown by anyone, never mind US carriers. Airbus is likely going to end production if they can't land another large order in the next year or two. It's an amazing aircraft that just doesn't fit the modern market. Airbus read the preexisting market trends correctly when deciding to build the A380, hub airports were becoming incredibly crowded and increasing the passengers per plane seemed to be the obvious solution at the time. However, they didn't foresee the market reacting to overcrowding by paying a premium to fly out of smaller, more local airports.

My local airport is a perfect example of this. It has gone from hosting just single digit numbers of regularly scheduled flights a day, with all of them being ~20-30 minute connector flights to nearby hubs on regional jets, to hosting well over a dozen 737-sized flights each day. All of that has happened in just ~15 years and it's partially down to the growth of my area but also how dissatisfied passengers were with driving 90-120 minutes to the 2 nearby, overcrowded, oft delayed hubs. I held off from committing to using my local airport up until this year as the price difference was $200 or more, but demand has risen to the point that the difference has fallen to around $100. The convenience alone is a winner but the savings in parking alone make up a third of the difference even if I park at the airport instead of taking an uber.

Article: https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/01/15/the-airbus-a380-is...

I found the 787 a horrible experience. I’m not a broad person, but I found the seats uncomfortably narrow.

Typically, seating is outfitted by the airline not the plane.

This is technically true, but in practice planes are designed for or or two seating configurations. For example you're always going to have wider seats in an A320 than a 737 because no airline is going to configure their 737s 5-across.

To the best of my knowledge, no airline has configured 787 economy anything other that 9 across. There's not actually a direct comparison to Airbus, the A330 is slightly narrower but is usually configured 8 across, whereas the A350 is slightly wider and is also usually configured 9 across.

So as a general rule, and subject to exceptions such as the proposed 11-across A380, Airbuses will have wider seats in economy than Boeings.

But the seat width is determined by the seating configuration and the plane is designed so that one or two particular seating configurations will work well. (Although it matters less for widebodies where there's enough wiggle room to say "this plane will fit 8 reasonable economy seats or 9 ridiculously narrow ones".)

Nope, airlines decide on the width too. The entire internal layout is up to the airline including the lavatory design.

747 has both 9 and 10 seat wide configuration.

That's why I made an exception for widebodies, although I accept that "making an exception for widebodies" more or less undermines my point.

But I claim that, for example, you can't realistically have a 737 layout that isn't 6 seats wide in coach — and that means the width of your coach seats will be whatever width fits 6 seats plus one gangway.

You can and they did.

Air India and KLM operated 737s with 5 seat config in economy (flew in them) up till last decade.

Have you been on BA’s 777? I find it little better than the 747. IMO, BA’s entire transan fleet is cramped and uncomfortable. AA’s (business) seats are a league ahead.

What (if anything) is the price difference between the two?

Absolutely agreed. BA's 777s are quite unpleasant, especially the older ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com