Hacker News Reader

You're absolutely correct that passenger experience on these large planes are fairly inferior to modern, smaller ones today (for everyone not in first class) but it's the 747's historical impact that stirs up the nostalgia.

When it first entered service in the 70s, the 747 was the aircraft that democratized travel in its time. Its massive capacity cut ticket prices in half while its range enabled new direct flights.

It's also this engineering marvel. The 747 dwarfed its next closest competitor in size and was not only the first double decker, but also the first widebody plane ever introduced. Engineers in the 60s created it with their pre-CAD tools and modern aircraft are built on their work.

Even though the economics of the plane were terrible, many airlines still flew it because it was such a massive leap forward in progress. Even today, it stands out at airports as a truly iconic design among the other fairly homogenous planes.

While the 747 no longer really fits into today's economic environment, it's still fondly remembered for its role in getting us here.

> Engineers in the 60s created it with their pre-CAD tools and modern aircraft are built on their work.

Something my dad told be about that plane: "If you took all the drawings required to design the 747, and put them in a 747, it would never get off the ground."

He worked at Boeing in the early 60s, and had a lot of cool stories about how the place ran. Traffic signals synced to the shift changes (on 7-minute intervals) for all employees at the plant. The insane process efficiency required to use a pencil and paper to design a project that complex. Etc.

To experience them at their best, you have to fly international first class. I've had the fortune of doing this a number of times on the 747. I've sat upstairs (which is typically business class) and at the very front, which is usually first class. It's fantastic. You have room to stretch and you're treated very well.

Here are a few photos from my Lufthansa first class experience.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B00TFMcHA4a/?igshid=caikqjatjldk

The photos are:

- the famous rubber duckies from the Lufthansa First Class lounge in Frankfurt. They have private bathrooms with full baths that you can use.

- the obligatory outside-by-the-jet photo that you can take when they pick you up in a luxury car on the tarmac (not that white one)

- Seat 1K on a LH 747-800

- The Porsche that they pick you up in when you're changing flights or going to the lounge.

Ooh, how nice for <0.1% of humanity.

I think you overestimate the high end of that bound.

International first class is accessible to anyone with a decent US credit history, a somewhat flexible schedule, & an interest in figuring out semi-complex systems. I flew Cathay Pacific first class Toronto => Hong Kong as a recent college grad on a teacher's salary.

Any tips for these systems? I'm imagine you are navigating deals and points systems but I dont have much travel expirance yet.

so... what percentage of humanity are you purporting your description there covers ;p

Let's say about 7 million people

I flew business class with BA five years ago as it was cheaper than economy on my usual airline at the time (EK) - mainly as it was a last minute booking. I flew two intercontinental legs (Middle East -> Europe -> North America) and both aircraft were on old 747s that looked like they hadn't been cleaned for a week or more. The infotainment system felt just as old, with a choice of maybe 20 movies on the 8" display where the touch screen barely functioned. The lie flat bed wasn't bad (they had an interesting layout where one seat faces foward and the next faces backward), and the food was just regular reheated meals with slightly nicer silverware than economy.

Now I understand some other airlines have better offerings than BA, and if you fly first class (I think for the same flight it was roughly 8x more) it's going to be a different story, but at the end of the day you are still just flying A to B.

The best part was probably the lounge where I had the connection, but I only had 1 1/2 hours so didn't get to experience it much. However it wasn't really much more than a 4* hotel buffet.

If I could afford to drop $20k to fly first class whenever I feel like it, would I? Probably. Do I feel like I'm missing out on anything by not doing that? Nope.

How much more is it to fly in a private jet? I feel that would be a different story, given you can schedule it so it picks you up whenever is convenient for you.

>How much more is it to fly in a private jet? I feel that would be a different story, given you can schedule it so it picks you up whenever is convenient for you.

In a recent hn thread about private jets, someone was saying that unless you go all out on a private jet, the experience is almost certainly going to be worse than flying commercial. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23732841

This, definitely. I've flown Emirates A380 first class a few times and done the onboard shower thing. You're drinking $1500/bottle booze and taking a shower on a plane. You're not going to do that on a private jet unless you're the cofounder of Google or an oligarch or a head of (a large) state.

...but, for about $3000-5000, you can experience this on a transatlantic flight. Where else can someone in the upper middle class save their pennies and get to live like royalty for a day? It's a pretty amazing thing.

Well, it _was_ an amazing thing. It's possible that the era of showers and A380s and maybe even international first class as we knew it is gone forever.

Here's what you could get for $3000 if you are ready to be flexible on travel dates and have a knack for obsessive pouring-over of schedules:

https://flickr.com/photos/69697531@N00/sets/7215770666398705...

Wait, transatlantic first class is only $3000? I paid that for my last (allegedly “premium”) economy ticket on virgin to heathrow.

I’m missing out.

LHR to JFK is $3k to $20k. Usually you'll be lucky to get a $3k flight, but they do exist.

First class is on the way out on many international routes since all the demand and money is in biz class. Ya, you can get your own private cabin with big screen tv and full sized bed (on a Singapore 380 if they still fly those), but most aren’t going to pay for it and are flying on an upgrade (business class is full, bump someone to first!).

Business class is nice because you can sleep on a lie flat, which is the only thing I care about on an 11 hour flight.

With Qatar you now can get your own suite in business.

Personally I hope I'll never have to fly across planet in economy, but also wouldn't mind flying in bunk bed either. It's sitting up for 26-30 hours or so that kills me.

I used to take hard sleepers across China with that theory, but two and a half days between Urumqi and Shanghai is still a struggle. I imagine kiwis and Australians have to suffer this much more than us northern hemisphere folk, I hardly ever have to suffer a flight that is longer than 11-12 hours for one leg, and business class is expensive if I’m paying myself.

I’m looking forward to configurations where you can book a coffin to sleep in for 6 hours on your flight once at altitude.

Air NZ announced theirs right at the start of the pandemic.

6 bunks are not going to be enough for 300-400 passengers tho.

I haven't flown BA long haul (in any class) but unfortunately from what I hear they are generally not very well regarded for any of their products (especially premium) and haven't been for quite some time.

Man that Lufthansa pod look cheap. You should try Emirates

I remain unimpressed by such 'first class' gimmicks.

A full bath? Wow, English public housing units commonly include a full bath (and 'private bathroom').

Ride in a Porsche? Truly not a big deal.

Air travel should be treated with a Spartan mindset in my opinion. Forget all the fake trappings of luxury which are much better supplied (and enjoyed) on the ground. Forget the fake 'fine dining' which again is easily surpassed in any half decent restaurant on the ground. Easy to go that length of time without needing to eat. The only focus you should have with air travel is safety, environmental comfort (quality of air supply, air pressure, noise) and non-crowdedness. All the rest is, frankly, performance art to distract the easily distracted.

Meh it depends how much you fly. Until covid hit I was flying longhaul about twice a month for work, it's very nice to be pampered a bit when you've got to start your week at 5.30am, leave your family for 3 days, and hit the ground running when you arrive

Exactly. I have no illusions that the food is better than something on the ground but it's really not bad at all. Flying first class on ANA, it's actually fantastic. However, that's not why you fly first. You fly first because it's completely stress-free from the moment they pick you up at your house until the moment they drop you off at your hotel halfway around the globe. You arrive rested, clean, fed, and relaxed. All problems get magically taken care of.

That Porsche that picked me up? I landed late and was about to miss my connection to Italy. No problem. The driver told me he could hold the flight or reschedule me for later and bring me to the First Class lounge to pass the time. He picked up his phone and everything was handled. Zero stress.

Clearing EU immigration was a cinch. When I flew biz class into Lisbon the previous summer, I waited 4 hours in line in a sweltering terminal to clear. With Lufthansa First, the Porsche driver drove me to what looked like a security kiosk. We got out of the car, a woman stamped my passport, and we were back in the car in seconds. That's what you pay for, not the champagne and caviar.

Somewhat related to your points, I found that a lie-flat bed is highly beneficial for long haul flights, such as US <-> Asia, especially as you get older and your body can't take the punishment of sitting in economy for 13 hours. I would lose a day upon landing when flying economy from being too exhausted and needing to crash, which was greatly mitigated by getting a good sleep lying down. Lie-flat beds are available in business class, so it's much less cost prohibitive.

Yes, lie-flat beds make great sense. And bunks in economy class would make sense too. I'm not talking about giving customers space and real comfort. I'm talking about the 'luxury' pantomime.

Since nobody's mentioned it yet: I find they feel very stable in turbulence. I used to do the SFO-Europe route 10-12 times a year and whenever we were on an A330 and encountered even mild turbulence the food would end up on our face and neighbor's coffee on my lap.

I'm not an aeronautic engineer so I can't explain why but the ride was always smooth on 747s even in otherwise non-ideal conditions. I've flown the 787 since then and I don't even think it handles as well, but not enough data. I will miss it.

It's the wing loading (max takeoff weight / sqft of the wing). The 747-400's is something like 155 lb/sqft vs. 124 for the 787-8. In general, the higher the wing loading the better the ride.

In general yes, but the 777 and 787 have a system to automatically move the inboard aileron to reduce the impact of turbulence.

I concede this is ridiculously pedantic, but the system you're talking about is called "gust supression", and uses the flaperons (not the ailerons) in coordination with the elevators. The ailerons are only used for turning and are so far out that trying to use them for altitude control would probably just move (and stress) the wings.

It's a very cool system though!

Well, in the ridiculously pedantic sense, flaperons are combined flaps and ailerons so they cover the function of inboard ailerons on the 787. The outboard ones are only used at low speed.

You could be right. Actually I have no idea about the aileron's use in turning at high speed - i would have thought they were, just more subtly? That's the limit of my knowledge :P

I do know however that they are used symmetrically as part of Boeing's "cruise flaps system", which dynamically adjusts all of the control surfaces to optimize wing camber for weight, speed, altitude etc at cruise. Not sure if it's standard equipment.

I don't have a 777/787 type rating but nearly all large fly by wire jets have a system that automatically manages aileron movement inboard vs outboard and things like roll spoilers depending on airspeed. The generic concept is part of ATPL training, the airplane specifics are part of the type rating training.

That's also the difference between calling them inboard ailerons (generic theory) and specifically knowing they're flaperons (787 systems knowledge)

I flew bi weekly across eu and to asia and US for years and have a very different experience, 747s (must add that these were generally from BA) were noisy and the turbulence flights horrible (including with people crying because it is so noisy which adds to the experience in heavy turbulence); 330/350 (mostly finnair) were silent and nice. I started to pay attention after a few flights and 747s always seem to be more noisy to me so I started to avoid Boeings. Every time when I am in one (usually across eu where I cannot always pick), it is a shitshow: old & noisy and reminding me of a prop plane ride I took over Guatemala where the pilot was drunk and there were animals in back. Good riddance.

Which routes "across EU" use 747s?

Pre-covid, some of the BA flights from London to Madrid were using heavy jets due to freight loads

I had one even from London to NL because that one was flying on to Indonesia I think and picked up people in Amsterdam.

There used to be a widebody on Madrid to Frankfurt(?) on a South American airline too. Such routes are relatively rare in Europe but do happen. It would be quite a long time since there were any 747s flying Amsterdam to Jakarta though, I think? Before they retired them I think KLM's last 747s were operating on transatlantic routes only.

Edit: realised it was probably Garuda, but if it was recent it's still not a 747 - they don't have any anymore - it would be a 777.

Yes, but they were 777s, not 747s. Iberia also regularly used widebodies between Madrid and London (A330 and A350) before the pandemic, and has actually recently resumed them - one return trip per day I believe.

Most economy seats on a 747 are 3-4-3. It’s really similar to a 777, it’s only the person in a window seat who had to climb over two people, while overhead is similar from either seat since it also goes down the middle. Wide bodies rarely run out of convenient overhead space, especially on international trips that they are mostly used for.

Really all the planes are similar and kind of boring unless you fly an old Russian one.

I did international first in the 747. Def not ‘cattle car’. The front windows are angled so you can see forward more than usual - it’s surprisingly quiet in the top front and the views were beautiful- you felt like you were floating. I slept well too which is rare (wine may have helped) and fun to think of the engineering that went into these big birds. Only negative is that it is all so over the top - wife and I more comfortable in biz or e+

i’m sorry, did you just sincerely talk about your experience in international first-class as a retort to the cattle car conditions that 95%+ of the passengers on the very same flight as you would’ve experienced?

Not the OP, but I think they mean the first time they flew internationally, it was in a 747?

that was my thought until:

“Only negative is that it is all so over the top - wife and I more comfortable in biz or e+”

Right, they meant that the trappings of first class are so over the top that it makes them uncomfortable.

Odd thing is I thought the 747 was usually configured with biz class upstairs (I got a biz upgrade on a SIN->DPS flight many years ago and flew upstairs) and first class in the front of the main level, so maybe they weren't talking about first class. Or perhaps some airlines have/had 747s with first upstairs.

The reference to angled windows with forward view puts them at the lower deck, I think.

100% my error - main deck for sure. We also boarded using wrong jetway - I guess there was a first entrance somewhere maybe that was different?

No, I'm pretty sure they mean international first class, especially since they also mention 'it's surprisingly quiet in the top front', which is where first class is.

Given the average salary on HN seems to be around $500k, why would you fly anywhere else?

As I mentioned in a different thread, I love it because it's so stable. There's no constant shaking or rocking, and you don't get woken up every 5 minutes by random minor turbulence - it just powers through it like the beast that it is.

> wife and I more comfortable in biz or e+

I can relate. Flew A380 in biz with family London to Singapore, 4 seats across the middle, 9 mo old on the outside, then wife, then 3 yr, then me. Great flight

A month later we flew onto Sydney, but there were no Business seats left, instead we had to fly in First. My seat was dirty, during turbulence the pursar woke us and told us we had to remove our sleeping child from his nice safe airline approved car seat (which he'd flown in from London to Singapore) and put him our our lap.

Haven't flown BA F since, or flown them with family, and only taken 18 BA flights in 4 years since then. The 4 years before then I'd taken 243.

Amazing how one bad experience and the inability to get a simple apology can shift your buying habits.

On the 747, wouldn’t “top front” be the cockpit? Angled windows for passengers would be bottom front.

Boeing 747 made intercontinental flights a possibility, thanks to its huge size. Especially trans-pacific flights. Before the 747 you had to do many stops along the way, the 747 brought direct flights. It was truly a game changer, anything that came after was just improvements. There were no direct New-York - Tokyo flights before the 747. And that's not happening on a 737 any time soon.

This is due to simple laws of physics, really: fuel consumption grows with the exposed surface of the plane (roughly growing with the square of its size), while the size of the fuel tanks grows according to the volume (roughly the cube of the plane size). Hence small planes for short trips, big planes for long trips, and very big planes for very long trips. Of course advances in efficiency allows for smaller planes to go further, hence why the A380 failed, the 777X is failing, and even the A350-1000 is having a hard time.

Personaly I find flying on 737 or A320 a pretty horrid experience: 6 seats for one aisle, versus 9 seats (787 or A350) for two aisles in a wide-body. I like walking around, and don't care for windows though, so I guess it's a matter of taste.

There is a visceral pleasure in the "bigness" of it. The roar of 4 engines, how it stood far above all the smaller jets, like you are in a semi truck in the middle of the road surrounded by compact sedans. More economical planes are awesome and clearly the way forward, but it does not have the same sensual feel as something bigger or faster or louder. It is too abstract.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing the point. They're obsolete, yeah, but so is the Commodore 64, the Chevy Stingray, the Saturn V, the Nokia 3310...

It was the symbol of an era. The current era is objectively better -- you're not wrong -- but while nostalgia isn't necessarily rational, it's not irrational either.

Some airlines fitted the upstairs as a special business class (British, United, the old Northwest). The cabin up there had almost a private jet feel.

It was the only plane with an upstairs. I never got to go upstairs. :(

A380s have upstairs. They are being phased out too, but there are still a bunch flying, mostly on international carriers.

Always loved flying a380s

I’ve only ever flown on a 380 for a domestic route (Guangzhou to Beijing), couldn’t really tell anything special about it, it was just lots of economy class.

While the A380 has an upstairs, you board directly to it, not really the same feeling.

It wasn't the first, the clipper had an upstairs. It's the one we got democratisation on: it helped make cheap worldwide long haul.

I used upstairs a lot. It was nice. Side bins, and quieter.

Upstairs on a 380 is different. The nearest comparator is the Emirates lounge bar up the back.

at least you can still go upstairs on those red, double decker buses :)

When I was in London I did, every single time. :)

Shame never put a windscreen there.

Radar and other instruments need to go at the front.

Also, glass windscreens are a liability - I imagine damage caused by FOD impact kicked-up on the runway during takeoff to a glass nose would be far more expensive than whatever material they use today is.

Even a fake, electronic window fed from an outdoor camera would be pretty cool.

Tu-104 had a glass nose (for the navigator).

> I want point-to-point air service at a convenient time

Just on this point, there are plenty of people who live near the gigantic airports (like LHR), who experience the big aircraft without connections.

Are manufacturers still building giant planes these days? I don't follow the industry.

I agree with the middle seat part, after being stuck on an overseas Air India flight with babies on both sides. I just assumed it was bigger because they want to pack more in for long flights.

Smaller plane = better. At least for less close contact, which will be valued more with recent events.

Currently they are only making a few freighters and the new Air Force One. Passenger production ended already.

Isn’t the Dreamliner big?

Yes, it has 3-3-3 seating. Apparently it accounts for 10% of Boeing's sales.

I don't know what 747s have been used for on average, but I associate them with a once-in-a-lifetime trip across the Atlantic. So talking about the merits of smaller planes or not liking "gateway airports" seems irrelevant in the context of that being how you got across an ocean.

> I don't understand the nostalgia for these planes. I see a big plane and I think "cattle car."

Perhaps. But flying business class in the upper deck is definitely not cattle car material.

The BA 747's in particular are ghastly by current standards. Glad I won't be stuck in one anymore.

Yes, once you remove the rose tinted glasses you realise just how poor they are (and indeed how poor BA is outside the very newest planes. That said last BA flight I did I got upgraded from permium economy to Business, then moved to First, on a new 4 class A350. Couldn't complain too much.

The 747 is aviation’s Taj Mahal — revered not only for its history but its sheer beauty, which in all the years since its introduction has not even come close to being matched.

I suspect the nostalgia is the same old story: it was big when Baby Boomers were young.