17 
Even in the days of Facetime and Skype, flying is still a big part of our lives – some things are just better “real,” and until everyone’s got 3D 8K being streamed into their living room, there’s nothing quite like being there. So, people continue to suffer through long-haul flights to far-flung beaches and cities; not all’s lost, however – some airlines have got your back in terms of comfort.
The stats make for pretty grim reading – in basic economy on long-haul flights, the industry average amount of legroom has lost about three inches over the past decade, from around 34 inches to 31. Given that Boeing themselves recommend a minimum of 32 inches for passenger comfort, and it seems like we’re all doomed to hours of cramped agony. It’s not all doom and gloom though – modern features like revamped entertainment systems and ergonomically designed seats are starting to pop up, all promising a marginally better flight. Personally, I’m really excited about the advent of in-flight Wi-Fi, since even with the swanky new personal TVs most airlines now offer, the quality of the display is almost universally going to be better on a tablet, and access to iPlayer would make my journey just that little bit better.
All this said, however, not all airlines are created equal, and even within airlines some planes are better to travel on than others. Settle back (and enjoy the comfort of your non-cramped office chair) as we quickly fly through some of the big names in air travel.
The venerable “queen of the skies”, the 747’s been around for well over 40 years now, and until recently held the record for the largest-capacity passenger aircraft. Despite its age, the 747 just keeps getting better and better, with a new and improved version rolled out last spring. For economy class, the comfort levels vary hugely with whichever airline you’re flying on.
The champ here is definitely Asiana airlines, one of the South Korean carriers. Their economy class is top-notch, with 34” legroom, power ports for all and a decent-looking on-demand video service. Plus, the meals all have wines chosen by an on-board sommelier to match the meals, kinda beating the normal mini-bottle handed out from the trolley. Chasing a close second is Air France, with the widest seats (18 whole inches, woop woop), but the lack of power ports knocks them down into second place for me – plus the entertainment system is probably filled with the assorted works of Gerard Depardieu. As a rule, though, the Asian carriers have Western Europe beaten in the long-haul economy game.
It’s the same story in first, too. Generally, the best carriers’ first class section comes with completely private suites, with real beds, workspaces and televisions. The best for techies is probably still Asiana, with each suite getting its own 32” HDTV and the best collection of movies. Poor old BA is left scrabbling, so resorts to giving you electronic blinds and wardrobes to play with.
In terms of the aircraft itself, the 747-8i (the new one) is one of the best aircraft for everyone onboard. It’s marginally faster than the Airbus A380, so you’ll get there sooner (which might be a bad thing if you’re soaking up the awesomeness of first class); it’s also quieter than the older 747, so it should help if you’ve forgotten your noise-cancelling headphones again. Nifty things like LED mood lighting and redesigned windows help make it seem a little bit less like a cattle carrier as well, which is no bad thing. Still, will Boeing’s golden oldie be able to challenge its bigger European rival?
The A380 is the new kid on the block, a bit bigger and a bit quieter than the 747. For economy class, it’s still a toss-up between the various Asian airlines; Singapore is reputed to have the best service and food, though, and in-flight wifi is a big plus as well. Regardless of which airline you’re on, however, the A380 is probably the best plane to travel in today. 20 per cent lighter than a 747, the seats tend to be slightly more spacious (depending on airline, obviously), and given that they’re only a few years old, most have modern features such as a self-service bar at the back of the cabin that can make a tedious journey just that little bit faster.
When it comes to luxury though, the A380 is the undisputed king of the hill. More space gives the airlines more and more room to cram in amenities, resulting in 10-course meals, turning-down services and most impressively, showers. Yeah, that’s right, you can arrive at your destination, in a clean suit (which has been hanging in your wardrobe), fed to the point of bursting, and smelling all clean and minty. Now, whether or not that’s worth over £10,000 is your call, but it’s nice to know that the option’s there if you happen to come into a large sum of money.
The newest of the twin-engine jets, the 787 has good and bad features for economy-class passengers. On the upside, a low plane weight means less powerful engines, which results in a quiet cabin. Higher air pressure is also designed to enhance passenger comfort, leaving you hopefully feeling less drained when you’re standing around trying to find your bags at the other end. Interestingly, it’s one of the few planes designed to be more accessible for disabled passengers, with toilets that can convert from two normal-sized toilets into one larger wheelchair-accessible one.
Sadly, economy class in the 787 is woefully cramped, with LAN Airlines’ 787s getting a pitifully cramped 16.8” wide seat – the minimum width recommended by experts is 18”.
The 767/777 and the A330/340s are the workhorses of the passenger aviation world. Chances are, if you’ve ever flown transatlantic/long-haul on a non-popular route, you were flying in one of these. The 767 and A330 have more cramped layouts in an effort to squeeze passengers in. In general, they’re a less pleasant experience if you’re in coach, though it still depends which airline you’re flying as to how bad it is. The worst offender is Japanese airline ANA, with the horror of tiny, cramped seats (30” by 16”) and shared TVs. Once again, Cathay, Singapore and Qatar airlines make the best of a bad situation, with wider seats and modern in-flight entertainment systems. As a rule, though, the 747 or A380 provide a better long-haul service, at least for the next decade until the 787 (or something even better – who knows?) comes into service.
Image credit: Boeing, Airbus, BA, Etihad, Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa
I still don’t like idea of flying in aircraft with less than 4 engines.
I mean, does 4 engines make an in flight fault twice as likely or give a safety margin twice as big?
4 engines are safer, but these days the safety difference between four and two engines is minimal.
A twin engine plane can still fly on one engine, or at least it can stay in the air. It can’t maintain a high altitude and its range is seriously reduced, but it can land safely and the pilots might have some choice over where it lands.
The chances of both engines failing at the same time are, under normal circumstances, infinitesimally small. Any circumstance that causes both engines to fail would also cause four engines to fail in a four engine jet – things like fuel supply problems, loss of control, etc.
Most twin engine aircraft are still able to ascend on one engine. I do not have access to a link (it will be on youtube somewhere), but a ThomsonFly B757-200 had a birdstrike on one engine immediately after rotating, engine was immediately cut off. The aircraft was able to continue it’s ascent, circle and land under full control.
My father who used to fly Airbus A320/21 had an engine failure over the Mediterranean, proceeded with no descent to nearest airport no problem.
I agree that 4 engines are safer, but two engines are much safer than you would think as well.
Yeah, that was actually what I was trying to say. Just pointing out that you can’t maintain 35,000ft on one engine.
Depends on the engines – all twin engined aircraft have to prove that they have a given level of reliability, either in service or during development before the fleet is granted an ETOPS (Extended range Twin [engine] Operations, or Engines Turn Off: Passengers Swim
) clearance, allowing them to fly trans-oceanic.
The clearance is generally specific to plane variant and the model/brand of engines installed, so each config has to pass.
At one point it was actually touch and go as to whether Boeing would receive ETOPS certification for the 787 before the first delivery, meaning that they’d have to prove it in service, potentially wrecking the plans of their early customers.
“The worst offender is American airline ANA”
Unless there are two of them, ANA is All Nippon Airways so not American.
Whoa there Mr. Intern.
Pretty sure the cabin pressure in a 787 is higher than usual, not lower. The composite fuselage reduces the risk of metal fatigue that’s usually caused when the interior air pressure is high, while the exterior pressure is low. This pressure difference causes the plane to blow up like a balloon, and after a few thousand flights that weakens the fuselage. To mitigate this, the cabin has a lower air pressure than sea level, which roughly approximates 7,000 – 9,000ft altitude. In a 787, it’s more like 6,000ft.
Also, both the 767 and A330 are wide-body jets, with two aisles. The A330 and A340 are practically the same plane, the A340 just has a stretched fuselage, wider wingspan and four engines (some varians even share the A330 fuselage and wings). There also aren’t that many of them, as twin engine jets are becoming larger, cheaper and more versatile, and ETOPS regulations that restrict the range of twin engine jets have been relaxed. I think Virgin and Lufthansa are the largest operators.
Yes, yes and yes!
Have some internets (IPv6) for your trouble
You’ve got me bang to rights there – shows I should proof-read more. Meant pressurised to lower level, not lower air pressure….rookie mistake from the rookie
No worries, we’ve all been there
Engines create drag so more isn’t always better, you only need the amount needed to create lift. I don’t think there has ever been a case where two engines have failed on one aircraft and these planes are designed to fly on one, where as four engine aircraft aren’t. There has been cases where all engines have failed due to ash from volcanoes or wrong fuel loads put in, however more engines wont help in these cases, they’ll hinder if anything because of the drag caused.
Remember planes can glide, it isn’t ideal but as long as you aren’t in the middle of the Ocean, you’ll more than likely be able to find flat land to glide down to.
“Engines create drag so more isn’t always better”
More operating engines is ALWAYS better! – Their very function being to provide more thrust than drag!
In the grand scheme of things, a non-operational engine is an engine that it may be possible to restart, always the more the better!
Two engines has never failed on the same modern day commercial airliner and you only need more engines to produce more lift for the relative weight and size of the aircraft.
Having a non operation engine just adds weight and drag to the plane and slows it down. The slower the aircraft goes, the more chance of a stall and the less chance of starting that engine as you have to be going a certain speed to start from attitude anyways.
So it is really relative, there is no point sticking 4 engines on a smaller aircraft, it’ll just be counter effective. You’ll never see two engines fail for any other reason than something that would cause four engines to all fail.
Considering like 80% of crashes are down to pilot error and lots more are down to human error some where down the line, I’d be more worried for the company you’re flying with and what training they provide.
I’d also be more worried about short flights that get turned around fast as those planes have to deal with the stresses of take off and landing several times a day with little down time for maintenance.
4 engines work rather well on a BAe 146, to the point that for many years it was one of very few aircraft capable of using London City Airport!
However in most cases, for a medium-sized, trans-oceanic passenger jet, there is no need for more than two because of their reliability and the size of the aircraft. You’re correct in that a B747 or A380 won’t fly on a single engine, however an operational engine will massively extend the distance which they can ‘glide’.
The cabins are rated for a given number of pressurisations, the landing gear a given number of cycles, tyres & brakes a given number of full-stop landings plus taxiing distance, etc… As long as all those limitations are correctly observed and maintenance performed at the appropriate intervals, the hot-turnarounds that the budget airlines do are no less of a problem than the ones performed on a much larger aircraft.
The difference is in perception – because it’s only 150 passengers instead of 450, with a similar difference in luggage, supplies and fuel to be transferred from and to the aircraft, the turnaround time is much shorter, however the regulators and manufacturers will let them be no less thorough between the shorter flights than the longer ones.
two engines have never failed on the same aircraft? May I ask you to look up a certain A320 that was seen floating down the Hudson river in New York.
Yes a non-functional engine only provides drag and weight, however the more engines you add, the less each engine needs to work.
Just like car engines, the higher the RPM, the lower the MPG, exponentially. You get much greater MPG running at 45-50MPH compared to flooring it.
I’m heading off on a 777-200ER next year with Air New Zealand. I’m really hoping it is a nice plane so that it at least negates the fact that I have to spend 24hrs sitting in a cramped seat.
I’ve been on a 777 with Emirates, Bangkok to Hong Kong. Sat next to this unusually large Australian bloke in the last seat next to the toilet. It wasn’t particularly pleasant. Seats are not cramped as much and there’s good legroom. But still not as comfortable as the A380.
Thankfully I haven’t been spoilt by going on the A380 yet and my last long-haul was a god-awful 12hr non-stop to Phoenix of a 747 that last looked like it hadn’t been updated since the early ’90s.
Will definitely ensure I’m not near the toilets or large Australians on this one though.
Yeah, Boeing’s ‘complimentary large Australian’ is such a scam. He wasn’t even interesting, but hey, which Australian is!
747/A330 I think are officially the worst planes out there.
I flew out to NZ with Air New Zealand last year on the 777-200ER. They seem to have invested their money well and the aircraft was very clean and comfortable. Extremely nice cabin crew as well!
They just took order of some new 777-300ER’s when we were doing our return trip and they were magical! – Could order drinks using a touchscreen in the seat back, I highly recommend them.
Inflight entertainment was still rubbish on Air NewZealand, I found. Not that the others have anything better.
Thanks for the review, I was slightly dubious having had mixed reviews but hoping it will be good.
Have an internet point in thanks.
Emirates – London to Dubai – Airbus A380. Best flight of my life.
I did London to Kuala Lumpur on an A380 last month with Malaysian Airlines. As far as flights go it wasn’t bad (food and entertainment was great!), but I’m 1.96m tall so economy class will never be pleasant on any airline. I haven’t scored an emergency exit seat for years
My gf thought it was brilliant though
The best flight ever was Singapore to South Africa with Singapore Airlines when they upgraded me to Raffles Class
I was upgraded from Economy to First Class because I was a Silver Skywards member. I didn’t know anyone did direct flights from Singapore to Johannesburg. What’s a Raffles Class? And sadly for you, if you can’t fit in an A380, there’s no hope.
Raffles Class was Singapore airlines version of Business class. Just saw they’ve changed the name back to Business class.
and ya, its looking like I’m going to have to make more money so I can afford business class on a regular basis
Raffles class is by far the smoothest ride in any airline, I absolutely loved it.
Glad to hear it. Doing London-NZ-London next year with 3 young children for a family reunion. Heard from quite a few people that Emirates is the best for kids, happy to know that the 380 is good with them as well
I did the same journey, both ways earlier this year. Absolutely stellar. I highly recommend going online and booking seats at the front of each section. You get a marginally narrower seat as the arms have to accomodate screens and trays, but in return you get ACRES of legroom. When you’re 6’1 it really makes a long flight a pleasure
Nice to see Chris back, certainly a long article to check out after lunch.
seatguru.com has all the details
I flew on the A340-600 in Virgin Atlantic’s Upper Class to Japan last year, it was quite awesome to say the least. Best £1600 I spent on a return flight to date.
It’s a shame the A340-600 has stopped being produced. It is still the longest aircraft that Airbus has to offer (and Boeing too?)
BA ‘new’ First is pretty good. And BA ‘new’ business is moreless as good as the ‘old’ First.
It sounds odd, but sometime’s I’ve found it better to be up on the top deck in Business, rather than downstairs in First, as being upstairs feels a bit more exclusive and it can be quieter sometimes.
“American Airline ANA?”
ANA is a Japanese airline… ANA in economy has reclining chairs where it doesn’t affect the person behind you which can be nice.
BA’s new 777s are pretty comfortable (there are ones that are refurbed inside too) including decent sized screens, USB and AV-in in all classes and AC power in Premium Economy upwards. It can be hit and miss if you get it thought (London Tokyo Narita and London Chicago seem to be sure fire hits)
For one, the A330 is a wide bodied aircraft with 2 aisles. Secondly, you have neglected to mention the A350 which should take first flight early next year. Poor review.
Thanks, I tried my best.
“Which Plane Should You Fly, On Which Airline?” – I’m not allowed to fly any planes on any airline after that incident when I “borrowed” that 747
Incidentally Chris I noticed you added me a on G+ a few days ago, did you want to join the Giz G+ Circle?
Yeah, sure – though it was more out of sheer boredom, I’d hate anyone to think I actually *use* G+…
Well if you don’t use G+ then there’s no point, you can go in the lesser circle like Ms Hannaford and Dr Gibbs.
For one, the A330 is a wide bodied aircraft with 2 aisles. Secondly, you have neglected to mention the A350 which should take first flight early next year. Poor review…
Where are the win8 launch posts?
If you stick your hand up your arse and feel about.. you’ll find them.
I thought it launches tomorrow?
There’s been a smattering of stuff. Giz UK haven’t done their own Surface review yet because MS UK seem to be stingy (so Kat said) but posted the US one which seemed to get ripped to shreds.
Launching as we speak.
I suppose it’s already the 26th in a few countries so I’m technically right!