Much like AA's 767, then.

As long as they continue to have a long life as a freighter, I'll be happy, because however unpleasant they may be on the inside (though I haven't seen it for myself), they are still my favourite one to watch.

747s are from an age where it wasn't cost prohibitive to operative 4 engined aircraft - now (as Airbus are finding) the viable markets for VL aircraft is very very small.

Personally I have always found the 747 ugly for some reason, I dont know why. Im a tri-jet fan myself. The MD11 is a personal fave.

The world's most uncomfortable long-haul craft. No leg room, narrow seat width, short seat cushion (front to back) so if you have long legs your circulation gets cut off half way up the back of your thigh, and thin seat cushions making for a hard ride and circulation restriction during a long flight. I hate them.

Bring on the 777s from Chicago to the UK.

If you go on the later of the two BA flights to London, you get the 777. The last time we went, we got to the gate while the 747 was filling for the earlier flight, though. I've never flown between London and Chicago on anything but a 777, on BA or AA.

The 747 is a great aircraft. The leg room has nothing to do with the aircraft. It's how the airline choose to configure it. I found Virgin's 340-600'far worse than the BA 74's I've been on. I agree about riding in the bubble too. I can't think of a better way to fly. Spacious, exclusive and quiet. There's plenty of life in the plane yet. Whilst BA are getting rid of some of their fleet, they are about to upgrade the cabins of their remaining 74's to match their 380's and dreamliners. The aircraft definitely deserves its tag Queen Of The Skies as far as I'm concerned.

If I ever were to fly on a 747, it'd probably be on BA, so maybe I would have a good experience as well. Leg room usually doesn't bother me because I'm only 5'9, but AA really does cram the seats in on their 767s. I had more room flying a 737 with Southwest.

I still think, for the planes I have actually been in, you would need to go a long way to beat the BA 777. By far the best legroom in economy I've experienced and at least as of 18 months ago, the best IFE as well. Just a lovely flight all round.

I've been flying AA to Heathrow, they all seem to be 767s. Once I booked on a 777 but the flight was switched to a 767 anyway. Maybe I missed something. I've avoided BA owing to have to pay extra to select seats in advance but I may have to bite the bullet to avoid a thrombosis

Queen of the Skies - pah!

Give me one of those beautiful sleek Concorde any day of the week, twice on a weekend and 100 times a month!

The 777 cabins are newer than the 747 cabins on BA, so I would agree the 777 is a better experience in cattle (that might change with the new upgraded cabins). Some of the 747's do look a little tired inside. The best seats to try and grab are the 2 rows of 2 at the back. They tend to offer just a little more room. I flew AA once and found their leg room good. It was not after they took out a row of seats to offer more leg room. Maybe they've put them back in LOL. Virgin were the worst for me. I expected the 340-600 to have to new of room as the thing is huge. Nope LOL.

Usually we're on AA to Dublin on 767s. The times I flew to Heathrow last time were all last minute flights so I took what was the cheapest. One was AA, the other was BA but they were both 777s.

The 767 seems to have been seen by AA as nothing more than a widebodied 757, and I think they never intended it to be intercontinental, so they are all set up as if you were going to fly JFK-LAX on them, rather than to Europe.

Even when I flew BA back in 2004, on the older cabins, perhaps even two cabins earlier than 2014, it was lovely and comfortable on the 777. That was my first even international flight (at the age of 25, how sad is that?) and it was a hell of an introduction to it.

Lantern swinging time

When I were a lad, in t'RAF we flew Hercules everywhere, god awful things

You needed earplugs for the noise

A sleeping bag to sleep and try to keep warm, no poncy seats, just canvas straps, no wonder paras jumped out of them

Flew back from Saudi once, we had to refuel in Cyprus and Paris, we were so heavy, don't talk to me about legroom!!

Not too sure why I did a mock northern accent at the beginning of this rant, hey ho

AA 767's seat pitch is 31" in coach average.

BA 744 31" average in coach

Am I missing something as to why the 767 is so bad leg room wise?


But you can indeed possibly get more legroom on a Southwest 737 then either of the 2 above, depending on aircraft type as much as 33" is possible on Southwest.

I've never been on a 747, I was comparing it to the 777 that BA uses. Even AA's 777 seemed to have an inch or two over the 767. Like I said, I'm not particularly tall, I don't have longer than average legs, but I always feel squished in the 767.

When we flew Southwest it was the 737-700, if that has any bearing. Nice plane and it at least felt roomier than the 767.

The 700's used to have 32" average, with the new interiors they have reduced it to 31, the 800's still offer 32-33, 300's evolve interior 32-33 and normal 733's have the same.

I am tall, so except in first class which never happens anymore, none of the planes have leg room and it's now near impossible to get emergency exit if not a frequent flier on Alaska our primary airline, so cramped is the norm, I just try for an aisle as its a bit better for the legs.

747-400 maybe, but 747-8s will be around (in their limited numbers) for many years yet.