Hi, I am booking flights soon for my trip to Europe and would like to know if there is actually a real difference in experience between the A380 and 777? I've read that the air pressure is less and it is generally quieter but how much of a difference has this made to anyone's flight experience?
Thanks!
Is there a cost difference?
An aircraft cabin that is pressurized at, say, 7,500 feet above sea level will have somewhat lower air pressure than a cabin pressurized at 6,500 feet above sea level. Not an expert, but I'd say that, in theory, a cabin pressurized at a lower altitude might be slightly more comfortable, but I wonder whether the average person could detect the difference?
Personally I've not noticed a difference in air pressure in different aircraft, except in obvious situations like flying in one-engine aircraft, e.g. a Cessna 150, where there is no cabin pressurization.
I have read that the biggest factor in ear comfort is not at cruising altitude, it's in the descent (and to a lesser extent in the ascent) where some people (babies, for example, because of differences in infants' inner ear anatomy) may have some ear discomfort and cry. This is because the air pressurization in the cabin is changing at descent and ascent. But I would not expect air pressurization in the cabin to change significantly once the aircraft is at the cruise altitude, and in a flight to Europe the aircraft is probably at the cruise altitude about 90 of the time.
Regarding quieter, I think (but have no hard data to base this on) that the ambient noise level (from the aircraft, as opposed to from the non-stop talkers around you) depends on where you sit in relation to the major noise-maker on an aircraft, which is the engines. Farther away from the engines may make a difference in noise, for example, 1st class well forward of the engines versus sitting right next to the engines.
Of course, you can deal with the noise factor by using noise-canceling headphones or some other audio device.
I've flown both many times, but I didn't notice any difference in air pressure. Also not sure about noise. If there was a difference it was certainly not enough for me to notice and remember.
Is that information that you actually use before you purchase a ticket?
The type of aircraft is the last thing I care for. Price and convenience of flight times and layovers is what I care for.
Also be aware that the type of plane might change before you fly. After you purchase your tickets you should get in the habit of checking at least every 2 weeks to see if there is a time or equipment change. If there is an equipment change it can affect your seats if you picked them when you purchased. Time changes can be small, sometimes a minute or 2 either way or can be something that will affect you and any connecting flights you have. Don't count on the airline to notify you. It is beyond me how I can get bombarded with ads several times a week from my FF airline, but no notification (even tho it is checked) on something important.
Sorry, I know you did not in any way ask for that information, but thought it was important to add.
I've flown both aircraft, though not frequently, and noticed no difference. But I wasn't really thinking about it either. I'd choose based on cost, schedule, which airline, and maybe what seat(s) you can get. The first two factors would trump anything else.
The quietest seats would be in first or business class, in front of the engines. If I could afford that, I wouldn't care about anything else! :-)
IME the A380 engines are quieter, they were designed to be so.
The class you fly in and the airline you fly with will be a much bigger determinant of comfort than whether you are in an A380 or B777.
The Residence on Etihad will beat anything in the sky. Sadly it is a little out of my price range.
http://planes.findthebest.com/compare/242-292/Airbus-A380-800-vs-Boeing-777-300ER
Note that the operator has the say in cabin configuration and amenities within evacuation constraints.
http://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_economy.php
We flew both planes recently on a trip to New Zealand. Different classes of service and different airlines,* so really difficult to compare, but both were very comfortable.
That said, I would rather have four engines than two over water on a long-haul flight.
To address a point brought up by Ron, the A380 has four doors for boarding and deplaning: two on the top deck and two below. Getting off is quick.
When I'm flying Air France out of a city that has a choice of craft between the A380 and a jumbo, I always try for the A380, unless it's much more expensive. It's very quiet and smooth, even in economy. I don't remember about pressure, as I always chew gum on the way down. One caveat: the seat foam in economy is thinner than on the older planes, in case anyone has a tender tush.
I've flown trans-atlantic on both. They are both good, both comfortable. The air quality on the A380 is much better though. Also windows are larger and seats are a bit wider. By the way seats on A320s are also about an inch wider than on B737s (Economy class that is). Also on an A380 it's easier to walk around, there is more space and there is the stairs between the upper and lower deck economy classes in the aft which you can use - I never thought I'd love to just spend time going up and down stairs...
Theoretically any four-engines plane is a bit safer than any twin-engine. So if given the choice between the two I'd always go for the A380...
Re: Theoretically any four-engines plane is a bit safer than any twin-engine.
Do a search on "4 engine vs 2 engine aircraft". You'll get a number of opinions including:
Twin-engine planes operating on ETOPS routes are required by
regulations to operate at a higher standard and reliability than
four-engine ones. As a result, ETOPS rules have been increased to more
than three hours today.Records have also shown that twin-engine planes are more efficient,
economical and more reliable than four-engine ones
Thanks Edgar. Yes, they are definitely more economical. However, think of the British Midland 737-400 crash in the UK in the early 1990s. Had that aircraft had just one more engine it would not have gone down...
Thank you everyone for your help! I will definelty take this into consideration when booking flights
Hello jen,
I do not wish to be a passenger in a very large airplane that has two floors (a main floor, and an upper floor). I read : the Airbus A-380 airplane can contain 853 human passengers. Or 525 human passengers, in a 3-class configuration. I think that is too many people in one airplane. The Boeing 777-200 airplane can contain 305 human passengers, in a 3-class configuration. The Boeing 777-200ER airplane can contain 301 human passengers, in a 3-class configuration. And the Airbus A-380 airplane has a very heavy weight. Heavy weight of an airplane causes increased danger when the airplane lands. The A-380 airplane can have a weight of 560 tonnes at take-off, and 386 tonnes at landing (for typical passenger load).
... an airplane that has a slender body is likely to give a smoother ride. An Airbus A-380 airplane does not have a slender body. The body (fuselage) of an Airbus A-380 airplane has a width of 7.14 Meters. The body (fuselage) of a Boeing 777 airplane has a width of 6.20 Meters.
The Boeing 777 airplane is the global flagship of the world's elite airlines. The Boeing 777 has unrivaled performance in the air. The Boeing 777 is the most popular and most reliable twin aisle airplane. And it has high aspect ratio wing for great aerodynamic efficiency.
(quote) "Heavy weight of an airplane causes increased danger when the airplane lands. [...] ... an airplane that has a slender body is easier to control, and it is likely to give a smoother ride." (end quote)
Um ... sources, please? I have been a licensed pilot for 47 years, and those statements just do not make sense.
As long as the runway is stressed for the weight of something like an A380, there is no problem. A well-trained crew knows exactly how long a runway is needed, and the speeds to be flown, calculated for every takeoff and landing. The laws of aerodynamics work for an A380 the same as for a B-737, or a Douglas DC-3.
And while a smaller, lighter airplane is usually more maneuverable, it does not follow that it results in a "smoother ride". In fact, the reverse can be true. Generally, the higher the wing loading (aircraft weight divided by wing area), the smoother the ride in turbulence. For illustration, a sparrow has a higher wing loading than a seagull. Wing loading for an A380 is 143 lb./sq.ft; for the Boeing 777-200ER it's 142, Boeing 737-900 is 140; and a DC-3 is only 25.5. One way to mitigate the discomfort of turbulence in any airplane is to be sitting over the wing root, putting you close to the airplane's center of gravity, or balance point. Any motion in pitch or yaw will be least noticeable there, and amplified at the extreme front and rear of the cabin.
Fuselage width has nothing to do with an airplane being "easy to control." Pilots praise the B-747 and B-777 for being delightful to fly. Some smaller airplanes fly like dump trucks in comparison -- it depends on design features unrelated to fuselage width.
A narrower fuselage can mean less drag and better speed. The Convair 880 and 990 of the 1960s were among the fastest subsonic airliners ever, but their five-across seating was an economic disadvantage to the wider, slower, Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 with six-across seating.
This is not to defend the A380 -- generally I prefer smaller airplanes, but it has nothing to do with safety. All modern transports, operated by experienced, well-trained crews, are amazingly safe and I have no qualms at all about traveling on modern two-engine aircraft for long-haul over-water flights. But few airport terminals are designed to accommodate the crowds getting on and off a sold-out A380. The resulting mob scene is just not a pleasant way to travel. And I like riding in airplanes, not flying auditoriums (but that's just me). If the seat is reasonably comfortable, the food is edible, toilets work, the passenger in the next seat has bathed recently, and there are no colicky babies around, I'm happy as a clam.
And as to the British Midland accident Andreas cited above ... that one was eerily similar to last week's TransAsia accident in Taiwan. The British Midland pilots "had been used to the older version of the aircraft and did not realise that this aircraft was different. The smoke in the cabin led them to assume the fault was in the right engine. The pilots throttled back the working right engine instead of the malfunctioning left engine." When training, procedures and CRM break down that badly, it's hard to imagine more engines resulting in a different outcome.
I too would choose a smaller (fewer passenger ) two-aisle aircraft over a bigger (more passengers) two-aisle aircraft all other things equal because of the quicker on-off time and amount of baggage being unloaded (carry-on ski boxes not invented).
That said, it may be worthwhile to reiterate the difference is often the operator and what that operator specifies in terms of cabin configuration and seating. I for one, found some of the "thin" seats quite comfortable with the benefit (with some operators) of more space for the same seat pitch.
Given that seat pitch and seat width are quantifications of comfort (more is better, again all things equal), examining seat statistics may contribute to the confusion of this topic. Looking at seatgaru data, Emirate operates both 380-800s and 777-200ERs. Emirate's 380 Economy seat width is 18.0 inches while Emirate's 777-200ER Economy seat width is 17.0 inches, a whole inch narrower. http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Emirates_Airlines/Emirates_Airlines_Airbus_A380.php
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Emirates_Airlines/Emirates_Airlines_Boeing_777-200_3class.php
However, in comparing airlines, while Emirate's 777 economy seat width is 17.0 inches, Delta's 777-200ER's seat width is reported to be 18.5 inches.
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Delta_Airlines/Delta_Airlines_Boeing_777-200ER.php
The conclusion could be, for wide bodies, an Emirate A380 is better than an Emirate 777, but a Delta 777 is better than and emirate A380.
Hello Jeff. I deleted the words "easier to control" that were in my reply here dated 2/10/15 at 9:49 A.M. I decided to not participate in debate on that issue. Other than that, my statements do make sense. The subject of this discussion thread is Airbus A-380 versus Boeing 777. Jen did not ask for comments about the Cessna 150, or the Piper Cub.
Wing loading is not the only factor affecting a smooth ride of an airplane.
The gist of my comments in my two replies in this discussion thread is : bigger and heavier is not always better. And yes, heavy weight of an air craft can be a factor causing a higher potential for dangerous landings. An Airbus A-380 airplane can have a total weight of more than one million pounds when it takes off.
My thinking is the same as the thinking by Jeff : when I travel through the air, I want to be in an airplane, not an auditorium or a big hotel.
So some of you actually make decisions on which ticket to purchase based on whether it's a B777 or A380?
To each his own. I couldn't care less.
Probably not which ticket to purchase, Roberto, but in cities with multiple flights by the same airline flying many different types of planes, people do have a choice of craft. For example, New York and Newark have hourly Air France flights, a situation which allows passengers to choose based on type of craft, seat availability, seat configuration, etc.
For "quiet" purchase noise cancelling headphones. It will not be the air pressure or engine noise you ears will need to seek relief, it will most likely be from the sounds your fellow passengers create.
Jeff said "One way to mitigate the discomfort of turbulence in any airplane is to be sitting over the wing root, putting you close to the airplane's center of gravity, or balance point. Any motion in pitch or yaw will be least noticeable there, and amplified at the extreme front and rear of the cabin". When I was a passenger in a very large wide - body airplane (2 aisles) of an airline, flying from Los Angeles International Airport to the airport of Seoul in South Korea (the flight was interrupted by landings at Honolulu airport and Tokyo airport), persons seated over that airplane's wing root (between the wings) experienced a very bumpy ride (discomfort) during turbulence in the air. I was at a seat located in front of the wings. I experienced a smooth ride (not bumpy, no discomfort, I was not aware of the airplane's motion or movement). In an other flight of a very large wide - body airplane (2 aisle) of an airline, flying above the Pacific Ocean from San Francisco, during part of the flight I was in the extreme front of the airplane. There I was not aware of any motion or movement of the airplane during turbulence of the outside air when the airplane was at flight altitude.
Twin engine vs. four engine. If one loses an engine, it's down to half it's power while the other is at 3/4. In that sense the four engine is a little better.
Back in my Air Force days we were flying a B-52 over the Pacific for training with the Navy. We had a couple A-6's with us to simulate Harpoon missiles. They were flying under our wings. One of the Navy pilots said, "Watch this," separated from us a little and did a barrel roll. My pilot, a grizzled Viet Nam vet, said, "Watch this." The navy pilot didn't see anything and asked, "What?" My pilot said, "I just shut down two engines."
This question would be best answered by going to seatguru.com. All else being equal you can opt for a particular aircraft but I would also consider actual seat selection. A seat near the bathroom on a superior aircraft is still a crappy seat.
