A380 - little things.
 

A380s have never figured on routes I've travelled until Tuesday when I came home from San Francisco on a BA example.

In many ways, I felt it was simply a big plane. We got a little turbulence en-route and it dealt with it well but didn't eliminate it (why should it?).

Two things I wasn't prepared for. One was the initial acceleration surge; there was a very noticeable initial push as we began our take off run, more than most aircraft. The second was the front cabin upstairs toilets (either side of the stairs) - by most airlines standards absolutely huge. However, those toilets have a problem for taller (I'm 6'2") men; the curvature of the fuselage and the placement of the toilet bowl against the fuselage meant I had to adopt a knees bent posture to stand and urinate - I seem to remember a complaint about something similar in 146s in California.

Elementary dear Hartington, pee sitting down ;)

We've just flown to/from joberg on BA's A380. Our take off, at both airports, seemed slow and ponderous. I knew we were going to get off the ground sometime, but when! Upstairs toilets very spacious as you say. What I thought was not good was the business class seat positioning in flat bed mode with the strange mini foot stool down to make the flatbed. In this mode passengers in the middle aisle and window seats have to clamber over other passengers footstools to get out to aisle. A truly bizarre arrangement. Give me a 747 any day. Even and comfortable cabin temperature at all times which was nice.

It is just the same on BA's 747s. All the rear-facing seats, except the ones in the back row, have restricted aisle access.

HT - I did on, a subsequent visit. It just seems odd, given the space available, that the bowl is placed where it is. I guess it is something to do with the plumbing under the floor.

Yellow - Joburg is "hot and high" so always a long run (so I'm told, never been there). We went to SFO on the 777 so not sure about A380 take off at LHR but from SFO, after the initial surge it felt very similar to a 747-400 to me. I often time take-off runs but for some reason didn't at SFO but the runway also has distance to go markers and we were off at about 9000ft and the initial climb rate was pretty good. Initial cruise was 35000 with a couple of intermediate climbs as we burned fuel we were at 41000 east of Greenland.

I've been on most of SQ's 380s and the thing that always seems weird compared to other planes I have been (e.g., 747s 777s 320s 310s etc) is how quickly they seem to get into the air. There is what seems to be a gentle trundle to the take off spot, then an equally gentle run up and suddenly it points itself up, up and away.

When we flew Business class on Air NZ 747's we were sat in the pointy end and not only were the flatbeds 'one piece' with no stools to flap down (don't try and sit on them as they will collapse underneath you) but there were only 4 seats abreast if I recall correctly. Each pair were across the aisle and were pointed slightly towards one another. I could join Mrs yt for meals at her table. No clambering over other passengers stools, and there were no rear facing seats that I could see, but, I didn't go to the upper deck (?).

Of course I realise Air NZ don't fly 747's any more.

ANZ 747s were unusual upstairs - the rear was economy (2-3 I think) and the front was Business with the seats you described 1 - 1 in a herringbone pattern. I believe Virgin Atlantic use the same seats. BA patented theirs (I think) so they are the only people with that specific layout. There are a lot of variants out there and some airlines have multiple layouts; I think Air Canada have at least 3 kinds of Business class seats.

Thai seem to have an odd layout for the outside seats, all face forwards but are staggered so one is a true window seat with aisle access and the next one a true aisle seat with its window a full seat width away.
Also they have a three point lap and diagonal safety belt system like a motor car but not an inertia reel type.

After looking at "Seat Guru" I notice the complete layout is off set. Outer rows numbered seats are 12A, 14B, 15A, to 24B and the other side 12K and 14J whilst the centre rows are 11D & G, 12E & F with rows 12 to 23 being half a row behind the outside rows.

While you were busy with the toilet, you may have missed some of the most important differences in the A380. The cabin pressure altitude is much lower, something like 5000 or 6000 ft versus 8000 ft on other planes. And the ventilation system is a lot less drying than other planes. Between the two, I always feel much better after long-haul flights.

A travel agent friend of mine says that her regular clients prefer the A380. If they are booking, or changing a booking they will insist on being on this machine, particulatly those in premium cabins.

Have now managed a dozen long hauls in the 380's of both EK and BA, with another two coming up in next two weeks (to JNB funnily enough)

It is a remarkable beast and its quietness on take off and in the cruise is remarkable

I am not sure it rides turbulence any better than the other big jets

Happiness is EK029...and an empty bar to enjoy all to ones self for 7hrs!!

Hartington you are correct about JNB, which is at 5,000ft and can limit the payload performance of some big twins

At JNB, a 744 will be rolling for some 35/45 seconds longer than at LHR before rotating. Of course many, many factors affect the actual timing on any given day.

...and a foot pedal to open the waste bin in the toilets. So obvious now it's been fitted. (THAI A380, I presume on all A380s)

Not quite so obvious I didn't notice it until after I had disposed of the hand towel in the usual manner and then stepped back from the wash basin.
To make it even less obvious I am not sure I even noticed it on the TG A380, if asked I would have said it was on a Cathay A350! But that's memory in old age!

Mark, I think you are thinking of the B787 (and possibly the A350) not the A380.

Having only flown once - tho' three legs - on the 380 I found it more comfortable in terms of noise, humidity and oxygenation. I had then understood the usual pressurization level to be significantly below the average 8,000' of long haulers. Wikipedia quotes an unnamed survey of eight A380 flights as 6,128' cabin altitude which accords with my earlier understanding. I

TCU
EK017 for me but same place as you. You can only view so many films especially if you are doing a lot of LH as the movies, even on ICE soon run out of the ones you may want to view. As for working on planes, unless an emergency I have to say I pass. Totally agree with all comments on A380 the best way to fly LH in any class in my humble opinion.

Yes, it's become a bit of an urban myth that the A380 has a higher max diff than the other tin Airbuses and Boeings. It doesn't.

The only airliners with a max delta of 9+ psi are the 787 and A350 (and of course Concorde).

I guess if the A380 fanboys board the aircraft truly believing that it’s pressurised to a lower altitude, then it’s going to make them feel better no matter what.