Last year on Aerlingus regional ATR…WOULD RATHER TAKE THE FERRY ACROSS IN A GALE.

Bandeirante, noisy and drafty sitting at the back.

I didn't have any type I actively disliked until I experienced a BA 787 overnight transatlantic eastbound. I suppose it started with being told by the office travel organiser that they had, with such professional expertise, got me in an exit row seat. The first thing that struck me as I walked down through the PE cabin to the division was how much narrower the regular Y seats were than even PE. Then, if you think about it, the sort of people who try hard to go for these seats are those of greater stature, and I'm on the window, seatmate in the middle turns out to be 6'6". The exit row seats don't have drop down trays or screens in front but they come out of the armrest, which are thus thicker and so reduce the seat width even more, and with all this hardware inside is fixed. In a way fortunate because seatmate tries to lift it, presumably to impinge on my space even more but can't. Meanwhile, on the other side the size of the door surround means it's a window seat without a window, but also this curves inwards right into my space on that side such that you can't even sit upright, have to be squashed at an angle. Good start to a 4,000 mile overnighter. I bet Boeing never showed the inward curvature of the door surround on the cabin seat charts.

Worst aircraft I ever flew on was a CN-235 from Jakarta to Bandung. Designed by CASA, built under license by IPTN in Indonesia - basically a small twin engine military cargo aircraft, crudely converted for civilian use.
Horrible, horrible aircraft - maybe the only time I've been actually scared while flying. Not nervous - scared!!! The only redeeming feature was that it was a short flight...

BTW WHBM - you do know that Boeing isn't responsible for the interior layout - that's done purely by the operator. It's not a 787 issue, it's an issue with the interior layout that BA elected to use to cram in as many seats as possible.

Completely agree bp - my last year with wastospace was spent at 'sunny' Warton - we flew up from Farnborough monday morning on a company a/c, we were handing over the Harriers after the Dunsfold closure.
If we were lucky we got a company 146,if not quite so lucky we got a Skoda (ATP/80p) - if we were really unlucky we got a hired in ATR from Titan.
I hated the ATR :eek: -
Most of 'the lads' loved the ATR though because it invariably had very young and attractive Hosties on board :).
It was a good deal while it lasted - up on monday morning - back home thursday night,guaranteed overtime payment - but eventually I took the money and ran back to a nicer part of the country :)

My wife tore her ACL trying to get into one of those seats. No sympathy from Aerlingus.

That's easy, the A330-200 and A330-300, bloody hate them. The B767 was a far nicer. My fav was by far the B757

Thank you TD, though I do have something of an awareness of carrier's cabin fitout procurement that maybe slightly exceeds the tabloid press. I'm also aware of manufacturers 'typical' cabin layouts, of their keenness to quote minimal seat-mile costs which thus depend on maximum seating, and would be pretty sure this layout was in the original design drawing suggestions for the 787 Y cabin, and is replicated by most carriers. Given that seats themselves have to be certificated there is only a limited range for carriers to choose from. I can imagine that other carriers will do the same, for if you are going to do 3-3-3 in the first cabin row there's little else in a 787 that could be done.

Hated flying on the Lockheed L-188 Electra. The props never seemed to be synched and there was always a harmonic vibration that went from annoying to uncomfortable. By comparison, the Vickers Viscount was a bed of roses, and I loved flying on the Boeing 727, even in the rear near the engines.

Before and during the Balkan Wars I was working in that part of the World and did a fair amount of flying on ex Soviet equipment. Aircraft with nicotine dripping off roof fittings and missing seatbelts were not uncommon!

I'm not sure if I disliked it, was terrified by it or treated it as a scary fairground ride but the An 2 took the biscuit. I had over 20 flights in it - mostly charter - ang got to know the crews who were totally mad flying into impossible little strips and under cloud through the mountains. On one occasion the co-pilot didn't turn up (probably drunk) and the captain asked if I would sit in the right hand seat! Always an experience.

Interesting aircraft to maintain and fly in. It could be a bumpy ride at low level in equatorial African conditions. I read in the manual that the recommended technique for landing after an engine failure at night or in bad weather conditions was to pull the yoke fully aft and let the flaps and leading edge slats take care of the rest.

Glad that a few people share my dislike of the Triple , but another post reminded me what an awful experience KHR to KL on a BA787 was, my first and I hope last trip on one. Club was awful , ridiculous narrow seat and i am not very big and the assorted recline positions were awkward and uncomfortable -a huge disappointment . Of course the airline makes a difference but the 78 seems to be a 767 semi widebody without the good bits of the old 76 . A300 at least in business is much nice. I ahvent yet flows an an A350 but nowadays nothign can touch the 380 and I have to say J class n Qatar airways 380 was excllent in every respect

In 1997 LHR to JFK and return a week later on a tired, aging Kuwait Airways 747, there and back on the same aircraft, in the same economy bulkhead-facing seats, with the same broken armrest media centre both ways. We hadn't appreciated that crew rest seats were in the bulkhead facing us so overnight on the way back we had a series of dozing cabin crew opposite, no entertainment and, because it was a 'dry' airline, no soothing drink to aid sleep. In the less than comfortable centre seat I didn't sleep at all and was a very grumpy soul on arrival. A memorably dreadful flight.

The 767 was designed for 7 abreast seating - provision for 8. The 777 was designed for 9 abreast seating - provisioned for 10, and the 787 was designed for 8 abreast, provisioned for 9.
Sadly, with the average customer putting price well above value when buying tickets, in order to minimize ticket prices most operators have gone to 10 abreast in the 777 and 9 abreast in the 787. One reason why the 767 was a passenger favorite was that very few aircraft were fitted with the 8 abreast in coach (long ago, I flew a flight test on a 767 with 8 abreast in coach - I could barely fit in the seat and I'm far from a large person (and I weighed about 50 pounds less then than I do now) - it was horrid).
Eight abreast on a 787 is just fine - as is nine on a 777 - sadly few airlines actually do that unless you spring for 'premium' economy...

Kuwait Airways is still dry. It has prime-time tv advertising but still has poor loading factors because people would rather have a drink on board than support their national airline.

We'd asked the travel agent for the cheapest flight to JFK and knew Kuwait would be dry but really regretted deciding to go 'cheap' on that dreadful return journey.

This is one I mentioned when starting this thread. By the time I went on this, I was fairly well travelled and knew this was a cheap old crate. Naturally it was reliable but zero fun.

I scanned this from a very old photo that I took as we walked out to it on the apron at JNB in March 1972, going to WDH.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....56c9cd17e6.jpg

B787, hate the bloody things, imo, too small for long haul. Flew in a T-154M once, on internal flight in China. that was interesting.

Agreed. Flew B787 non-stop Oz-UK. Not pleasant. A380 return. Chalk & cheese.

Swaziland! So, when I went to live there, in '75 with my parents, we arrived in JNB, and I remember a small ac flying us to what was at the time, the main airport Matsapha. I don't remember what type of ac it was though.