Question: to what extent do designers think about aesthetics when building planes? One would assume that every square inch would be designed for maximum efficiency and safety instead? Not that I'm complaining, but I can just imagine some engineers sitting around after their plane blew up on takeoff: "dammit, Jim, if you hadn't made those tailfins so g-ddamn svelte, they wouldn't have broken off."

I've flown several times between Tokyo and Osaka on a 747 with 569 seats. As someone who is 6 feet tall I have to say that I was very comfortable. I've found the seat pitch on most North American carriers to be worse.

In fact I was surprised when I asked the crew how many seats were on board. How could something that comfortable have so many seats crammed in. Now I wouldn't want to do a long haul flight on it, but it wasn't that bad.

I'm always amused by the time we were sitting in the lounge waiting for the flight to be called. Departure was in 8 minutes and no boarding call. I asked the counterperson how much we'd be delayed. "No delay, we'll depart on schedule".

And we did. They boarded that sucker with 569 people, closed the door and powered up in 8 - count 'em - 8 minutes.

The 747 series (with the exception of the SP) fuselages are all 231 feet long...

Thanks for an enjoyable read. I agree that there's life in the old girl yet, and that Boeing should have done this 10 years ago.

I would be interested to know if they are going to 'offshore' wing production, however...a disturbing trend for our country.

Your column touched on an interesting theme for a future column -- manufacturer aesthetics -- or what makes the Boeing "look." I first came across this notion years ago, when friends at Grumman told me that one reason the company hated the F-111 was that it did not have the Grumman "look." This look had been sustained from the F3F biplane fighter, through the WWII Wildcats and Hellcats, the Panther and Couger jet fighters, and the Intruder bomber, all the way up to the F-14.

The F-111, designed with (and mostly by) General Dynamics was clearly not a Grumman plane.

The Douglas airliners, from the DC-3 through the jet powered DC-8, also had a certain company look. Even without seeing the three tail fins, no one would mistake a Constellation for a DC-6. Once the Boeing planes got into the jet era (the first major Boeing airliners were derived from the B-17 and B-29 airframes and don't really count), they seem to have adopted a Boeing look as well.

This airplane came on line, I believe, during the Nixon years. The first one I saw had it's nose right up to the glassed waiting room at the Indianapolis airport. My first reaction, looking right at its nose, was "Why, that's John Mitchell." I can't get past that impression; go take another look at it straight on and up close.

Nyal Williams

(Glider Guy)

Patrick - Nice article. Since you have listed the major 747 carriers in Asia, perhaps you could do a four-column table (tabs) that would show:

1. Carrier Name

2. Current # of 747's

3. A380 Commitment (may also need "firm" + "potential")

4. 747-8 Potential

This would give us a view of those carriers Boeing expects to target for recapturing sales from Airbus (or sell against if uncommitted either way). And will this cause any of the "soft" A380 orders to get switched to the 747-8?

I certainly agree that the A380 would have been better served with an 747 command deck layout (on the "upper" deck), but I would think that the current layout is to encourage reuse of existing engineering layouts for controls from the rest of the fleet. But I could be wrong; with a "fly by wire" aircraft, it should be easier to move the controls. Could you therefore please speculate as to why Airbus has adopted this particular configuration? What is the case for other similar Jumbo sized planes like the C5A, C17, and Russian Antonov 125? If all these use the 747-style upper cabin, why would Airbus have gone the other way? (certainly a mystery to me)

I also have a nick-name for the A380 - "Baby Huey Beluga" - because most planes will be white, and the front of the plane looks more like the Beluga Whale to me than a porpoise.

I continue to enjoy reading your column.

Another very interesting essay about air travel from Patrick Smith. The 747 has always seemed to be an awesome machine from the runway, although I did not expect to see such fine "airplane pornogaphy" shots celebrating its beauty. Also, I never thought I'd find a column about such a seemingly banal subject this interesting until I joined Salon and started reading Smith's essays. I'd gladly take a bunch more of his well-written insights into something ordinary over Paglia's amature musicology.

chashamilton writes:

"If all these use the 747-style upper cabin, why would Airbus have gone the other way?"

The A380 doesn't just have an upper cabin, it has an entire upper floor. There are two passenger decks, plus the cargo transport deck below the lower passenger deck.

"I also have a nick-name for the A380 - 'Baby Huey Beluga' - because most planes will be white, and the front of the plane looks more like the Beluga Whale to me than a porpoise."

There is actually a special type of Airbus plane officially nicknamed the Beluga -- the "A300-600ST Beluga Super Transporter", designed for ferrying Airbus parts around Europe from one plant to another. It can also be rented for other special transport jobs. Google for a picture of it, and you'll see the the aptness of the name.

As for the looks of the Boeing 747 vs. the A380, I agree, but I think this point is being driven into the ground by Patrick; this must be at least the fourth time he mentions this. But in any case, a it's generally a good column.

It's good to hear that Boeing think that the old gal still has some life in her, she's truly a class act. Some of my best memories of flying commercially come from reclining in a business-class seat on the upper deck of a 747.

I've been up front, I've been in the back, nothing beats a seat upstairs.

The ugly vs. non-ugly thing seems to come down to the nose.

Boeing planes tend to be curved, rounded, and mostly symmetrical.

Airbuses are asymmetrical and dented or pushed-in.

A pug might be cute, but it's certainly not beautiful.