Which aircraft would you say are overrated and underrated? I’d say the following (in no particular order):
Underrated:
CRJ-700/-900/-1000
747-300
A319
MD80. I think it’s well-liked on this site, but hated elsewhere.
777-200
727
DC-2
A340-500
A330
717
Overrated:
737 MAX

Also, I define “underrated” as something you like that, from your experience, is not well-liked. Viceversa for overrated.

Underrated:
A340
Overrated:
B777

Underated:
747-8 I know everyone likes it for the looks but from a pax standpoint it was very quiet and a smooth ride. My favorite hands down.

Overrated:
Emb 170/175 Nice little planes but very loud, IMO.

Underrated - DC10
Overrated - 787

Overrated 787

Underrated- DC-1/2, MD-11, 717, 727, 767-400ER

Overrated- All generic twinjets like the A350, 787, and 777 (though they are still nice planes, just boring to spot)

Underrated - 747-8, 757-300, 737MAX

Overrated - A380, CRJ

N1120A wrote:

Underrated - 747-8, 757-300, 737MAX

Overrated - A380, CRJ

I feel the a380 lived up to the hype after getting on top at both QR and EY

Underrated - B757, B767 (economy at least)
Overrated - everything else

Overrated - A220 and B787. On my most recent trip, I flew A359-A319-A223-A223-A359. The A350 was exceptionally quiet, quite impressive in fact. The A220, I found to be closer to older aircraft. In fact, I found it to as loud or even louder than the A319 that I flew, which I don’t quite understand. I also remember being surprised on my first 787 flight, and not in a great way.

Underrated - B739ER. Super efficient, decently capable, and the BSI is quite nice. Plus, the proportions are nice too.

Hard to pick for overrated. I think the 767-200 and A310 were underrated.

Underrated:
E135/140/145 - they board and deplane quickly. Plus the solo seat side is nice.
E190, B787-8 - have been used to "develop" new, thin routes that weren't flown prior. Set the stage for some routes to grow into larger aircraft.
B737-900ER - gets the job done. BSI is great. I appreciate United putting a lavatory between economy and first class.

Overrated:
Can't think of any

N626AA wrote:

I think the 767-200 and A310 were underrated.

True. I like their short, stubby looks.

Austin787 wrote:

Underrated:
E135/140/145 - they board and deplane quickly. Plus the solo seat side is nice.
E190, B787-8 - have been used to "develop" new, thin routes that weren't flown prior. Set the stage for some routes to grow into larger aircraft.
B737-900ER - gets the job done. BSI is great. I appreciate United putting a lavatory between economy and first class.

Overrated:
Can't think of any

I agree on the E135, E190, and 787. Also, while I'm not a huge fan of the 739, I feel like it's not mentioned enough.

A320 as overrated, based on comments here you'd think the A320 was was huge and spacious compared to the 737, but I've never been able to feel any difference between the two.

I'd go against the grain and say the 787 is underrated, on paper it should be cramped with 9ab, but even on full long hauls I was always able to get comfortable in the 787 unlike the 10ab 777 or 9ab 330.

Over-rated: 777. The ones I have been on made all manner of strange noises on climb-out, are loud, and seem rattly no matter which airline, which cabin, or interior design. I don't like them.

Underrated 717 764

Overrated A340

Underrated- CRJ-550. 50 seats in an aircraft that normally seats 70. Sporty takeoff performance, quiet ride up front

EightyFour wrote:

A320 as overrated, based on comments here you'd think the A320 was was huge and spacious compared to the 737, but I've never been able to feel any difference between the two.

I'd go against the grain and say the 787 is underrated, on paper it should be cramped with 9ab, but even on full long hauls I was always able to get comfortable in the 787 unlike the 10ab 777 or 9ab 330.

About the A320, I only noted a difference on my last flights on the 737 and A320. I flew on a 737 BOS-DFW and then an A319 to MSY. The A319 felt slightly more spacious.
Totally agree on the 787. Even at 9ab, it still felt very spacious and airy compared to a 10ab 777, which felt overcrowded.

stlgph wrote:

While many would moan going "oh, not an ERJ-135/140/145" - I always enjoyed them...quick on/off, single seat, nice window. Worked for me.

I’m also a huge fan of them. It feels like a Private Jet, even on the “2” side. Also, I think the ERJ’s are the only aircraft to feature a single seat side in Economy.

WesternDC6B wrote:

Over-rated: 777. The ones I have been on made all manner of strange noises on climb-out, are loud, and seem rattly no matter which airline, which cabin, or interior design. I don't like them.

I don’t remember any strange noises on both of my 777 flights, but I agree, it’s a loud plane.

tjwgrr wrote:

Underrated- CRJ-550. 50 seats in an aircraft that normally seats 70. Sporty takeoff performance, quiet ride up front

From what I’ve heard, the 550 is quite a nice ride.
Re: takeoff performance the semi-vertical CRJ takeoffs are great. It feels like a rocket, which is pretty cool.
Re: quiet ride up front. I’d argue that at the front, the CRJ is the quietest aircraft built.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Underrated 717 764

Agreed.The 717 is the last remaining descendant of the DC9, and the 764 introduced raked wingtips. Both are very good-looking.

TWA772LR wrote:

Underated:
747-8 I know everyone likes it for the looks but from a pax standpoint it was very quiet and a smooth ride. My favorite hands down.

Overrated:
Emb 170/175 Nice little planes but very loud, IMO.

I prefer the looks of the 744, but yeah, from what I’ve heard the -8 is very comfortable.
About the E175, it is quite loud, but only on takeoff and landing. The rest of the time it’s pretty quiet from my experience.

The Lockheed L-188 Electra was a favorite of mine, at least after the wing problem that caused 3 fatal crashes was fixed. It had tremendous short field and hot and high capabilities, and rode like a dream.

Boeing757100 wrote:

Underrated- DC-1/2, MD-11, 717, 727, 767-400ER

Overrated- All generic twinjets like the A350, 787, and 777 (though they are still nice planes, just boring to spot)

Agreed. The DC-1/-2 and MD-11 were overshadowed, 717 and 764 didn't sell well (and the 717 was kinda forgotten). As for the 727, I don't think it's too underrated, or at least not as much as the others.
Agreed on the A350, 777, and 787. Looking at airports then and now, today's planes blend in more with each other, although as you say, they're nice planes.

BoeingERJ1000 wrote:

As for the 727, I don't think it's too underrated, or at least not as much as the others.

As a train buff I should hate the 727, as it more than any other airliner sounded the death knell for passenger train service due to its unprecedented (for a jetliner) short-field capabilities and pioneering built-in airstair and APU while providing passenger comfort and speed indistinguishable from the 707. But I love 'em. As far as I'm concerned there's no better-looking jetliner in the skies. It filled essentially the same role in opening up the jet age as the DC-3 had in opening up the air age some 30 years before. And a helluva service life, too. When I worked at HOU in 1997-1999 Delta and Northwest were still routinely operating three-holers...try finding a DC-3 at a major's gates in 1968!

bfitzflyer wrote:

Overrated - 787

Kno wrote:

Overrated 787

Personally, I found it more comfortable than what other people have said, but if you meant overrated as in over-hyped by Boeing, then yeah, it kind of is IMO.

Underrated: A310, B734, B748, B762, DC10, MD90
Overrated: A350, B777, B787

Underrated….
L-1011. Wonderful ride…smooth, quiet, and comfortable.
TU-154M…same. Quiet, smooth flyer, impressive takeoff
FH-227….for an older turboprop, it rode like a Lincoln Town Car. Nice views from big windows

Overrated….
MD-80. I always felt cramped in them.
ERJ-145…even more cramped

This is fun...from a purely passenger POV...

The perspectives in this thread are extensive enough to base my ratings from this alone, with a bit of artistic license.

Underrated:
1) Airbus A220 - Loud and uncomfortable? I don't know what aircraft you were on. I have ridden Delta's A220's in all 3 classes, and they were all great experiences. The entertainment system is wonderful, and the seats were standard for class of service. Overhead bins that can take standard roller bags wheels or handles first are GREAT! The large windows and slightly larger cabin width make a difference. A220 was incredibly quiet as a passenger, even beside the engines. I was taken by surprise while sitting in first class. The only sounds you hear are the whale noises, which do make you take notice, but no more-so than a cabin chime or anything else. And it's usually during engine start, taxi, and take-off when you are aren't doing anything comfortable anyways. True, the aircraft side-walls will make the aircraft feel small while you are seated in the window seat, it doesn't matter. This aircraft feels better than the MD80 and the 717.

2) MD80/717/DC-9 Sitting in front is very quiet. Middle is mediocre, and sitting in the back is noisy. Sitting between the engines is torture on the MD80, 717, and DC-9, or any rear engine aircraft. So, MD80, for front half of the aircraft, up until maybe 2010. Tough to rate these positively now that airlines aren't updating interiors. For their time though, they were great. Even the MD80 was supposed to replace the 727, and it did that. 737 and A320 just did it better.

3) CRJ7/9: CRJ7/9 are really quiet up front like the MD80's. For short flights, they aren't bad. Longer flights towards the front aren't bad either. A long flight in economy, especially towards the back, no thanks. Otherwise, it's not bad. Actually comfy and quiet towards the front. CRJ-200 is just terrible no matter what though. They need to go. CRJ7/9 is a different experience.

4) 757/A321NEO on long flights: Economy or better, doesn't matter. I don't understand the demand for a widebody on flights that narrowbodies are capable of flying. I think it's a psychological thing for some people. Really, what's the difference between a 737 on CLT-LAS and a 757 from JFK-DUB? Or an A321NEO from JFK-LAX vs and A321NEO from JFK-LHR? Nothing, except for preferences. Now, what's the difference between a 777-300 on JFK-LHR? You will probably just de-plane more quickly from the A321 after spending your time in a tiny little seat staring at a screen after eating microwaved food. Make the A321 faster, and I'd take it over the 777. Also, nothing beats a short customs/immigrations line if you arrive certain between heavy flights.

Neutral: 777/787: they are airliners. 787 was over-hyped. It's the same, just depends on the airline and class of service. So in that way, 787 is overrated. I won't place the 787 in that category here since it seems to be overrated already. I think the 787 is just over-hyped, not overrated.

I actually love the A350-900. It's a nice plane to ride.


Overrated: 2-1 economy seating (like ERJ-145, Brasilia, and other turboprops). I am about average height, and it was fun and novel to sit in on the single seat side on an ERJ the first couple of times. But after that, I realized that I couldn't lean my head up against the side to sleep, and I no longer appreciated it. Then, I realized that I was uncomfortable sleeping against the side, and then the galley cart was slamming into my sides during cabin service, and I am not heavy either. The ERJ is just small. It's not a nice plane to ride for hours.

2) Aircraft that are too long (777-300/A350-1000): I have not ridden A350-1000, but the 777-300 is too long sitting in back. I felt like I was walking between neighborhoods to de-plane on Cathay Pacific.

3) A380: Nothing special as a passenger, and lower deck economy is uncomfortable. Sure it's quiet, but that doesn't matter as much to me as service and comfort, which were lacking on the A380 I rode.

I was most unimpressed with my A380 and 787 rides, both in economy. 787 was with a world renowned airline with great service, but the 787 was just bland. A380 ride was on another airline, and the service lacked, as did the aircraft. I was happy to fly on both for my first time, but neither met my expectations. A350 was equally as bland, but maybe my expectations were lower.

4) 757: It isn't the rocket ship that everybody here claims, but it's a nice ride, and distinctly different from other narrowbodies. It does give a sense of occasion wherever it goes. It's overrated, but not disappointing.

ElpinDAB wrote:

4) 757: It isn't the rocket ship that everybody here claims, but it's a nice ride, and distinctly different from other narrowbodies. It does give a sense of occasion wherever it goes. It's overrated, but not disappointing.

The 757 most certainly is, or can be, the rocket ship that people claim. Presumably you've largely experienced derated takeoffs. Most pilots, ATC, and certainly other passengers would agree that its performance is stellar. While this is an airshow takeoff:

https://youtu.be/-noxRH3l75I?t=21

...as a passenger, I've experienced similarly short takeoff runs and steep climbs. After one such flight, I asked the pilot what our initial climb rate was; they said the VSI was maxed at 6,000 FPM. And that was a revenue flight.

Underrated A340 all models

Overrated B787 B77W B747-400

ElpinDAB wrote:

This is fun...from a purely passenger POV...

The perspectives in this thread are extensive enough to base my ratings from this alone, with a bit of artistic license.

Underrated:
1) Airbus A220 - Loud and uncomfortable? I don't know what aircraft you were on. I have ridden Delta's A220's in all 3 classes, and they were all great experiences. The entertainment system is wonderful, and the seats were standard for class of service. Overhead bins that can take standard roller bags wheels or handles first are GREAT! The large windows and slightly larger cabin width make a difference. A220 was incredibly quiet as a passenger, even beside the engines. I was taken by surprise while sitting in first class. The only sounds you hear are the whale noises, which do make you take notice, but no more-so than a cabin chime or anything else. And it's usually during engine start, taxi, and take-off when you are aren't doing anything comfortable anyways. True, the aircraft side-walls will make the aircraft feel small while you are seated in the window seat, it doesn't matter. This aircraft feels better than the MD80 and the 717.

2) MD80/717/DC-9 Sitting in front is very quiet. Middle is mediocre, and sitting in the back is noisy. Sitting between the engines is torture on the MD80, 717, and DC-9, or any rear engine aircraft. So, MD80, for front half of the aircraft, up until maybe 2010. Tough to rate these positively now that airlines aren't updating interiors. For their time though, they were great. Even the MD80 was supposed to replace the 727, and it did that. 737 and A320 just did it better.

3) CRJ7/9: CRJ7/9 are really quiet up front like the MD80's. For short flights, they aren't bad. Longer flights towards the front aren't bad either. A long flight in economy, especially towards the back, no thanks. Otherwise, it's not bad. Actually comfy and quiet towards the front. CRJ-200 is just terrible no matter what though. They need to go. CRJ7/9 is a different experience.

4) 757/A321NEO on long flights: Economy or better, doesn't matter. I don't understand the demand for a widebody on flights that narrowbodies are capable of flying. I think it's a psychological thing for some people. Really, what's the difference between a 737 on CLT-LAS and a 757 from JFK-DUB? Or an A321NEO from JFK-LAX vs and A321NEO from JFK-LHR? Nothing, except for preferences. Now, what's the difference between a 777-300 on JFK-LHR? You will probably just de-plane more quickly from the A321 after spending your time in a tiny little seat staring at a screen after eating microwaved food. Make the A321 faster, and I'd take it over the 777. Also, nothing beats a short customs/immigrations line if you arrive certain between heavy flights.

You made some good points. Although who has called the A220 loud and uncomfortable? From what I've seem (never flown in one yet), it's an excellent aircraft.
It's amazing how quiet the DC-9/MD-80/717 are up front, but I also like sitting at the back to hear and see the engines. Not between the engines though. That looks like torture.
CRJ-700/-900, I actually found them more comfortable than an A320 or 737 with larger windows and 2-2 seating. Yes, the cabin was narrower, but it didn't feel as cramped. I'm not sure how bearable a longer flight at the back would be, though. The same remarks as what I said about the DC-9 apply.
Great point about the 757 and A321NEO. To be honest, the only advantage a widebody has is a wider cabin, although a lot of them feel pretty dense (especially when airlines add an extra seat)

ElpinDAB wrote:

Neutral: 777/787: they are airliners. 787 was over-hyped. It's the same, just depends on the airline and class of service. So in that way, 787 is overrated. I won't place the 787 in that category here since it seems to be overrated already. I think the 787 is just over-hyped, not overrated.

I actually love the A350-900. It's a nice plane to ride.

In some ways, I definitely agree that the 787 was over-hyped (for example, the Gust Supression system & humidity. I did feel slightly less jetlagged after my first 787 flight though).

I have yet to try the A359.

ElpinDAB wrote:

Overrated: 2-1 economy seating (like ERJ-145, Brasilia, and other turboprops). I am about average height, and it was fun and novel to sit in on the single seat side on an ERJ the first couple of times. But after that, I realized that I couldn't lean my head up against the side to sleep, and I no longer appreciated it. Then, I realized that I was uncomfortable sleeping against the side, and then the galley cart was slamming into my sides during cabin service, and I am not heavy either. The ERJ is just small. It's not a nice plane to ride for hours.

2) Aircraft that are too long (777-300/A350-1000): I have not ridden A350-1000, but the 777-300 is too long sitting in back. I felt like I was walking between neighborhoods to de-plane on Cathay Pacific.

3) A380: Nothing special as a passenger, and lower deck economy is uncomfortable. Sure it's quiet, but that doesn't matter as much to me as service and comfort, which were lacking on the A380 I rode.

I was most unimpressed with my A380 and 787 rides, both in economy. 787 was with a world renowned airline with great service, but the 787 was just bland. A380 ride was on another airline, and the service lacked, as did the aircraft. I was happy to fly on both for my first time, but neither met my expectations. A350 was equally as bland, but maybe my expectations were lower.

4) 757: It isn't the rocket ship that everybody here claims, but it's a nice ride, and distinctly different from other narrowbodies. It does give a sense of occasion wherever it goes. It's overrated, but not disappointing.

1) I like 2-1 seating, but the cabin is definitely pretty narrow on those aircraft.
2) Yes, totally agreed.
3) What about the lower deck did you not like? I haven't been on an A380, but the lower deck seems really cavernous. Was it the 3-4-3 config?
Interesting remark about the 787/A350/A380 being bland. I suppose it does depend on the airline as well as expectations, as you say.
4) See what rjsampson said below.

Underrated: Hawker-Siddeley Trident. One of the fastest (if not THE fastest) sub-sonic commercial airliner. Operating in the foggy British Isles, it was the first airliner to employ auto-land technology, which made a huge difference when compared to other airplanes that couldn’t get in.

The 3B model needed more power, but there wasn’t the money or the time to fund new powerplant technology, so they just threw a smaller “booster” engine in the tail above the #2 engine. Brilliant!

Because of all its huge computers under the cockpit, they couldn’t fit the nose landing gear squarely centered under the nose, so it’s offset to the left to sit behind the captain.

The Trident is a goofy-looking jet but the engineering inside is magnificent.

Honorable mentions: L1011, BAe-146, 757, A320.

Overrated: 767.

SFOThinker wrote:

The Lockheed L-188 Electra was a favorite of mine, at least after the wing problem that caused 3 fatal crashes was fixed. It had tremendous short field and hot and high capabilities, and rode like a dream.

Mine as well. I always liked her looks and I have heard pilots say she is so nimble, you can fly her like a fighter.

MLIAA wrote:

Underrated: Hawker-Siddeley Trident. One of the fastest (if not THE fastest) sub-sonic commercial airliner. Operating in the foggy British Isles, it was the first airliner to employ auto-land technology, which made a huge difference when compared to other airplanes that couldn’t get in.

The 3B model needed more power, but there wasn’t the money or the time to fund new powerplant technology, so they just threw a smaller “booster” engine in the tail above the #2 engine. Brilliant!

Because of all its huge computers under the cockpit, they couldn’t fit the nose landing gear squarely centered under the nose, so it’s offset to the left to sit behind the captain.

The Trident is a goofy-looking jet but the engineering inside is magnificent.

Wow, the Trident is a really impressive aircraft.

TWA772LR wrote:

Underated:
747-8 I know everyone likes it for the looks but from a pax standpoint it was very quiet and a smooth ride. My favorite hands down.

Overrated:
Emb 170/175 Nice little planes but very loud, IMO.

Oh yes! They’re no MD80 but for some reason they always sound louder than your 737 and a320. Maybe it’s the bypass ratio?

Overrated: 747-400. Yes, it's such an iconic aircraft and looks gorgeous on the outside. But even before the mass retirements of the last decade or so, the interior was way behind other large aircraft like the 777. Small overhead bins, no IFEs (usually still small TVs bolted to the ceiling in the aisles), etc. Yes, this isn't strictly the aircraft's fault, since it's the airlines that chose to keep outdated interiors. But even in the 90s and early 2000s, boarding a 747-400 felt like stepping into an 80's era cabin.

787. This is with a caveat: I think it deserves high ratings for its impressive technology (composite frame, bleedless systems, etc) that allowed it to accomplish something impressive: better fuel economy, with longer range, in a smaller plane than its competitors. That's a win-win for fleet planners. But as far as passenger experience goes, I'd give it a thumbs down. It's narrow. It's like Boeing figured out the absolute minimum width possible to cram 9 seats into without the passengers mutinying. And then cut that by another 2 inches. And with all the hoopla about lower altitude and higher humidity, I haven't really noticed feeling any better coming off a 787 vs a 777 or 767 even for the same flight times.

Correctly rated: A350. It's rated highly, and deserves its rating. It's wider than a 787 and even the extra few inches are enough to make economy seating notably better. It's quiet, smooth, comfortable, and overall a great aircraft to fly in.

Underrated: 767. The widebody with the widest economy class seats, plus the 2-3-2 arrangement means very few middle seats.

As you can tell, I place passenger comfort as the highest part of any rating, and seat width as the biggest part of comfort. Everything else is just marginal, or more dependent on the airline rather than the aircraft itself.

muralir wrote:

Overrated: 747-400. Yes, it's such an iconic aircraft and looks gorgeous on the outside. But even before the mass retirements of the last decade or so, the interior was way behind other large aircraft like the 777. Small overhead bins, no IFEs (usually still small TVs bolted to the ceiling in the aisles), etc. Yes, this isn't strictly the aircraft's fault, since it's the airlines that chose to keep outdated interiors. But even in the 90s and early 2000s, boarding a 747-400 felt like stepping into an 80's era cabin.

Yeah, it's a shame most airlines didn't update their 744 interiors.

muralir wrote:

787. This is with a caveat: I think it deserves high ratings for its impressive technology (composite frame, bleedless systems, etc) that allowed it to accomplish something impressive: better fuel economy, with longer range, in a smaller plane than its competitors. That's a win-win for fleet planners. But as far as passenger experience goes, I'd give it a thumbs down. It's narrow. It's like Boeing figured out the absolute minimum width possible to cram 9 seats into without the passengers mutinying. And then cut that by another 2 inches. And with all the hoopla about lower altitude and higher humidity, I haven't really noticed feeling any better coming off a 787 vs a 777 or 767 even for the same flight times.

Yes, technologically the 787 is pretty impressive.
And yes, Boeing should have made it a few inches narrower so that 3-3-3 is only used by the bottom-feeder airlines. Now you've got top airlines (QR, TG, TK, SQ) operating it in a 3-3-3 configuration, which is too narrow for most. Only JL has a proper config (2-4-2).
Regarding humidity/lower altitude, I felt less tired afer my first flight on a 787, but not on the second one.
I will say that the larger windows and quieter engines (I know that there's quieter aircraft, but this one is pretty quiet as well) do help.

muralir wrote:

Correctly rated: A350. It's rated highly, and deserves its rating. It's wider than a 787 and even the extra few inches are enough to make economy seating notably better. It's quiet, smooth, comfortable, and overall a great aircraft to fly in.

I've heard great things about the A350. Hopefully I can try it soon.

muralir wrote:

Underrated: 767. The widebody with the widest economy class seats, plus the 2-3-2 arrangement means very few middle seats.

2-3-2 with wide seats sounds great.

muralir wrote:

As you can tell, I place passenger comfort as the highest part of any rating, and seat width as the biggest part of comfort. Everything else is just marginal, or more dependent on the airline rather than the aircraft itself.

Seat width is definitely an important part of comfort, although it depends on both the airframe and airline.

Underrated: 767
Overrated: A321 (a.net seems to think they’re the greatest thing since sliced bread)

flyinggoat wrote:

Underrated: 767
Overrated: A321 (a.net seems to think they’re the greatest thing since sliced bread)

While the A321 is a flexible aircraft, I agree that it isn't all that amazing. The cabin, with a 3-3 configuration and small windows, feels very cramped and dense (though the full-sized exits do make it seem more "broken up into sections" and less cramped), and it's really only a 757 replacement because there's nothing else out there. From what I've heard, it doesn't match the beastly performance of the 757, especially in Hot and High conditions. Admittedly, I don't know as much as others out there, so feel free to correct me.

stlgph wrote:

While many would moan going "oh, not an ERJ-135/140/145" - I always enjoyed them...quick on/off, single seat, nice window. Worked for me.

You are right! strongly agree

ACDC8 wrote:

Underrated:
A340
Overrated:
B777

For the A340, I feel like the A345/A346 are well-rated, but the "hairdryer" A342 and A343 were quite underrated.
The 777, well, I like it, but I'm not a huge fan of 3-4-3 Y.
You've also described the 777 as generic elsewhere in other threads. Personally, I like the looks of the 773, 77W and 77L, but the 772, especially with RR or PW engines, is a bit generic. Although I find the 763 (non-WL) to have a lot less character IMO.

For couples traveling long haul, there's nothing better than the 767 and its 2-3-2 seating. No stranger sitting next to you for 9 hours.

IFlyVeryLittle wrote:

For couples traveling long haul, there's nothing better than the 767 and its 2-3-2 seating. No stranger sitting next to you for 9 hours.

A330 2-4-2 seems just as good (and a better aircraft unless wingspan causes gate issues)

Underrated:
Fokker 100
A350-900
A330 (a godsent among the 737s which otherwise dominate PER-SYD, a route I fly several times a year
B717

Overrated:
B787

angusjt wrote:

Underrated:
Fokker 100
A350-900
A330 (a godsent among the 737s which otherwise dominate PER-SYD, a route I fly several times a year
B717

Agreed on the F-100 and 717, and yes, an A330 is definitely an upgrade over a cramped 737. Really, any widebody is.

angusjt wrote:

Overrated:
B787

It was probably over-hyped by Boeing, but still, I quite like flying on it.

Overrated: 747-400 loud upfront as well as in the back and especially in the hump and ugly looking.
Underrated: A340 (well apart from the -200 I never flew) all variants, quiet and comfy