3 ms·
So much quieter than the comparable Boeing aircraft. Flying trans-Pacific on the 757 is like mowing the lawn for a day and a half.
by ipnon 6y ago
So much quieter than the comparable Boeing aircraft. Flying trans-Pacific on the 757 is like mowing the lawn for a day and a half.
- nickff 6y agoYou're comparing a 1982 narrow-body to a 2006 super wide-body aircraft; a better comparison would be between the A380 and 747-8i (which are both supposed to be very comfortable).
- giantrobot 6y agoIt sounds like they're comparing planes they've actually flown on. I've never flown on a 747, so if I fly on a 787 I'm not going to make comments about how much better the 787 is than the 747.
- nickff 6y agoI think you're right that they're comparing planes they've flown on, but they're trying to compare very different designs from very different eras.
- knz 6y ago> comparing planes they've flown on The airline matters too - some have larger seats with more amenities and more space between rows. Those extra inches really matter on long haul flights for those of us who are tall!
- arcticfox 6y agoYou'd have a point if they didn't say "the comparable Boeing aircraft". There is nothing "comparable" about the two given Boeing's other offerings, they're not in the same class or generation.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jhayward 6y agoWhy would you say the comparable aircraft is a 757, and not the 777 or 787? The 757 is a 40-year-old narrowbody design, not a modern widebody.
- fhsm 6y agoIsn’t that roughly a 15000 km ocean and 7000 km range?