4 ms·
I respectfully vehemently disagree. I like EK and their A380s, but give me a 787, even on a budget carrier like Norwegian. Lower atmospheric pressure and higher
by InTheArena 8y ago
I respectfully vehemently disagree. I like EK and their A380s, but give me a 787, even on a budget carrier like Norwegian. Lower atmospheric pressure and higher humidity, plus a non-stop makes all the difference in the world.I'm fine, even on a old 777 from the US to Asia, but US to Europe wrecks me on anything but a 787.
I haven't flown a A350 yet, but my understanding is that the humidity is lower (due to the fact it's not a true composite frame) so I am more likely to get jet-lag.
- koyote 8y agoI don't think you can really compare EK A380 with any 787, especially in Economy. The problem with the 787 is that pretty much every operator has decided to cram as many seats in as possible. It's probably the worst plane to fly long haul in currently. The A380 is by far the quietest and smoothest plane operating at the moment. EK's A380 in particular have ample legroom and seat width. I've flown on numerous 787, A350 and A380 flights on various operators and although I can definitely tell the difference between an A330/777/747 flight and the planes above in terms of jet-lagginess after a flight, I can not tell the difference between these newer planes. All three of them are much more comfortable and have better air.
- sitepodmatt 8y agoAgree. A380 economy is much better than any recent densified 777 (Eva air exception still 9 across), or 787 where airlines threw the Boeing design guidelines of 2/4/2 out the window and went for 3/3/3 (JAL exception).
- lostlogin 8y ago> but US to Europe wrecks me on anything but a 787. That gave me a pained laugh. I’m doing a 17 hour flight next week and expect to be feeling pretty bad.
- Scoundreller 8y ago> US to Europe wrecks me on anything but a 787. The from/to really matters here. NYC-London is about 7 hours. LA-Rome is about 12 hours.