747-8 Intercontinental Interior Video

[bits44]

An Interior tour.

http://video.boeing.com:8080/asx_extern ... h_22mb.asx

[fokker_f27]

This looks very promicing. It even looks better then the A380!

[regi]

just some computer pictures. Reality will be that it will be a 747 with cramped seats , as all 747-400. The only time I had decent space on a 747 was with the older KLM planes. Or an upgrade to business with China Airlines.
Without exagerating, I had more space on an Embraer, Fokker, all the Airbusses, B-737 even with Ryanair.
I don't believe in it. What do I care if it is a 747-400 or -800 with rich people sleeping above my head in 3,000 US suites?
I have little hope that it will be better in the A380's. Probably quite claustrophobic with lower ceilings.
And after the experience of the utlra narrow seats with Emirates on the 777's and 330 , I just long for a A340 with 2-4-2 seating.
That is the view of a poor economy traveller. A customer who pays for those aircrafts.
But yes, the movie was okay.

[CXRules]

Quite frankly, I have the opposite experience that you had. The A340 is the most uncomfortable plane I've ever flown. The B747-400's leg room is much better than the A340, plus the head room, huge difference. I flew them both on long-haul and on the same airline.

[Avro]

The inside looks nice, however I have a few remarks to make.

First of all I wonder how many airlines will build a fitness room, a loft, a "cybercafé" etc.. and how many will opt for standard passenger seats.

I think I know the answer. It's the same as all new planes. Airbus and Boeing try to make a nice interior to make the plane attractive, but in the end it's the number of pax which is interesting for the airline.....

And my second and last remark is concerning the business class. It looks nice but are there no windows planned ?? I mean having to lie on a bed to watch TV, and being in an artificial lighted space for 15 hours isn't really what I'm looking for.

Chris

[bits44]

First of all I wonder how many airlines will build a fitness room, a loft, a "cybercafé" etc.. and how many will opt for standard passenger seats.

I agree with you, but there will always be a market for upscale travellers, and I'm sure there will be a few carriers, probably one the Gulf area airlines that will operate equipment with some of those interior features.

Much like Airbus when they introduced the A380 with swimming pools, bowling alleys, water falls etc. etc. etc. nobody ever believed that any of that would ever occur, but there will be a few with some new and different features.

On the other hand there will be many more that will use them as cattle cars and pack them with as many body's as the regulators will allow.


Hopefully we never have to travel on them!

KT

[JDarby]

I agree that A340 is a peace of junk

[liebensd]

I think I would like more to fly the A380 rather than the ne B747 especially in premium class. There are no windows in on the second level of the B747!


Greetz,

Dave

[burner737]

When the 747-8 is with Cargolux ... I'll be heading to Findell to catch those BEAUTIES !!!

No matter what the 747 is still the Queen of the skies !!!

Regards Tim

[ehamspotter]

Hello;

WAAAAW, those suites are f :censored: crazy!!!

rgds:Jeroen

[teach]

The B747-400's leg room is much better than the A340

The legroom has absolutely nothing to do with the type of aircraft. That is entirely up to the airline. They, and only they, tell Airbus how much legroom there should be on their A340s.

I agree that A340 is a peace of junk

Before making dumb-ass posts, maybe you should learn how to spell your own language?

[UltraSonic]

I agree that A340 is a peace of junk

I agree that you know absolutely nothing about aircrafts. From a pilots point of view the A340 is one dream of an aircraft, although i never had the honor (and probably never will) to take the controls of that beauty i have talked to many who have been and some still are at the steering wheel of that babe.

Apart from that the A340 is a good aircraft for the airliner itself, alot of configuration options, not a very large time consumer when it comes to technical department and a very "friendly" aircraft for most airports when it comes to noise/pollution.

For such big bird it's still a very profitable aircraft.

[UltraSonic]

Stunning interior! I like the idea of the "economy suite".

It seems aircraft designers are more and more letting the aircraft being the start of the vacation for most people and not just the transportation to it

[chornedsnorkack]

The B747-400's leg room is much better than the A340

The legroom has absolutely nothing to do with the type of aircraft. That is entirely up to the airline. They, and only they, tell Airbus how much legroom there should be on their A340s.

No, it has something to do with manufacturer as well.

Boeing 747-400 is supposedly allowed to carry 660 people. Cannot see how.

Boeing does show how 747-400 can carry 624 people. 539 on main deck, 85 on upper deck.

No airline does so. I think the maximum is something like 587, with Corsair.

Now, Boeing 747-800 is stretched by 200 cm upper deck, 350 cm lower deck.

200 cm upper deck would allow 2 rows of economy 6 each, so 97 upper deck seats. Or perhaps there is some squeezeroom in those 85 seats, so actually 3 rows could be inserted... bringing the seatcount to 103. Still less than 110 supposed to be allowed.

But 350 cm on lower deck would amount to 4 economy rows comfortably - 5 rows if there is some squeezeroom in those 539. And at 10 columns, 40 extra seats would mean 579 main deck seats.

But Boeing 747-400 is only allowed to carry 550 seats on main deck.

Is Boeing 747-800 supposed to have extra doors so as to be allowed to have over 550 main deck seats?

Or is the door number unchanged? If so, then a Boeing 747-800 with 550 seats on main deck necessarily has more legroom than a 747-800 with 539 seats on main deck... airlines cannot add more seats even if they want!

[UltraSonic]

The B747-400's leg room is much better than the A340

The legroom has absolutely nothing to do with the type of aircraft. That is entirely up to the airline. They, and only they, tell Airbus how much legroom there should be on their A340s.

No, it has something to do with manufacturer as well.

Boeing 747-400 is supposedly allowed to carry 660 people. Cannot see how.

Boeing does show how 747-400 can carry 624 people. 539 on main deck, 85 on upper deck.

No airline does so. I think the maximum is something like 587, with Corsair.

Now, Boeing 747-800 is stretched by 200 cm upper deck, 350 cm lower deck.

200 cm upper deck would allow 2 rows of economy 6 each, so 97 upper deck seats. Or perhaps there is some squeezeroom in those 85 seats, so actually 3 rows could be inserted... bringing the seatcount to 103. Still less than 110 supposed to be allowed.

But 350 cm on lower deck would amount to 4 economy rows comfortably - 5 rows if there is some squeezeroom in those 539. And at 10 columns, 40 extra seats would mean 579 main deck seats.

But Boeing 747-400 is only allowed to carry 550 seats on main deck.

Is Boeing 747-800 supposed to have extra doors so as to be allowed to have over 550 main deck seats?

Or is the door number unchanged? If so, then a Boeing 747-800 with 550 seats on main deck necessarily has more legroom than a 747-800 with 539 seats on main deck... airlines cannot add more seats even if they want!

You are both right

Aircraft manufacturers have certain standard configurations wich can be installed, mostly they are not installed by the manufacturers themselves though, an outside contractor does that.

Apart from the standard configurations airliners can choose any configuration they want aslong as it complies to the aircrafts maximum, not set by the aircraft designer or the airliner but by the proper authorities

[earthman]

Perhaps the EU should introduce a regulation which defines minimum aircraft seat sizes and seat pitches. The EU is good at imposing such rules. Perhaps a tax depending on the number of passengers per square meter of floor space.

And yes the airlines will yell murder, but they do that all the time anyway.

[UltraSonic]

Perhaps the EU should introduce a regulation which defines minimum aircraft seat sizes and seat pitches. The EU is good at imposing such rules. Perhaps a tax depending on the number of passengers per square meter of floor space.

And yes the airlines will yell murder, but they do that all the time anyway.

Actually there are "guidelines" for the pax seats. Has something todo with tromboses if i'm correct.

[teach]

No, it has something to do with manufacturer as well.

In the case of CXrules, the manufacturers had nothing to do with it: neither of those planes are even close to their certified number of seats. No long-haulers, barring charters, ever are BTW. With normal scheduled carriers, the numbers of seats, and thus the pitch, depends solely on the airlines themselves.

Manufacturers simply give a maximum number of seats. And if enough airlines want to cram in more seats than the plane is certified for, then the manufacturer will change the design so they CAN. (e.g. A319, 737-900ER)

[chornedsnorkack]

Perhaps the EU should introduce a regulation which defines minimum aircraft seat sizes and seat pitches. The EU is good at imposing such rules. Perhaps a tax depending on the number of passengers per square meter of floor space.

And yes the airlines will yell murder, but they do that all the time anyway.

Actually there are "guidelines" for the pax seats. Has something todo with tromboses if i'm correct.

Well, what I can remember...

Channel Airways Trident used to have 7 abreast - 3 on one side, 4 on other. Trident is about as wide as Boeing 727, so 7 abreast on Airbus 320 might be more comfortable. Or you might easily have a Boeing 767 with a single aisle and 4 seats on either side. I have seen a picture of a widebody having one aisle and 5 seats on either side - but it was Lockheed Galaxy.

Both FARs and JARs, though, seem to have a rule saying maximum 3 seats from aisle in case of a single-aisle craft. Nothing said about aircraft having more than one aisle.

There really are airlines that have 10 abreast on Tristar, or 9 abreast on Airbus 300, or 8 abreast on Boeing 767.

I wonder... is it feasible to squeeze 10 abreast on Boeing 787? It is yet narrower than Tristar, but supposed to be roomy compared to Airbus 300? And is it allowed?

Or... Boeing 747 is about 53 cm wider than Tristar (Tristar - 597 cm, B747 - 650 cm). About the width of one seat... and there actually are 10 abreast Tristars... will anyone try 11 abreast B747?

As for pitch, I think the UK rule, do not know whether it is thrombosis-related or passenger evacuation related, requires 26 inches legroom. The pitch going with it depends on the thickness of seatbacks, but is about 28-29 inches. And there are plenty of airlines that have 29 inches pitch.

Not sure how far they fly... but Virgin definitely has 30 inches pitch on longhaul Economy.

I have heard that once upon time there was a rule of minimum 34 inches pitch on all scheduled lines. Airlines protested against it, and finally got the right to fly with 29 inches pitch! Can anyone tell the tale of that?

[fleabyte]

Marvelous craft:

Slower to climb than a 777

Slower to fly than a 777

50,000 lbs heavier with less capacity

sucks down far more fuel

has an extra center landing bogey - poor design?

But very nice to fly, as you can tell from all the bookings it received in 2005.