Found this article detailing the rather sad decline of the most iconic aircraft commercial aircraft of all times, the Boeing 747, also affectionately referred to as the ‘queen of the skies’. http://qz.com/217727/boeing-747-airp...going-extinct/
It’s interesting, as you have the A380 on one side in a market where most long haul carriers are moving/ have moved to more efficient twin engine long haulers like the B777, 787 & A330. And on the other hand you have the 747 that seats slightly less than the 380, but as data shows burns more fuel & is being slowly phased out

In terms of sheer numbers i guess the A380 offers better economies of scale.
Any thoughts..??

I'm sure that the 747 is not as efficient as a more modern aircraft but nothing flying today looks as distinctive and elegant as a 747. Also, I've never been in a better aircraft cabin than the upper deck on the old NW 747-200s. Nothing flying today compares.

None of the new ones, including the A350 even come close to the 747 in terms of its design and look.

747 hands down. The A380 looks awkward. Nothing pretty or elegant about it. Without wanting to turn this into another Airbus versus Boeing thread, I don't really like the lines of any Airbus airplane, except the A330. No reflection on their comfort or performance. Just the design.

IMO, the 747 is an icon and will always be the Queen of the skies. Queen of the 20th century skies, at least.

I will give a nod to the 787, though. That's an awesome looking bird.

Wouldn't agree.

A lot of the 747's (especially the early ones) look quite odd from many angles IMO. Just as the A380 does. That said, I've seen far more interesting interiors on A380's than I ever have on anything else - all that space simply lends itself to it if the airlines want. I do also like that the 380 is a lot quieter than any 747 I've been on. I'd like to try one of the newer ones to see if they're quieter than the last one I flew on which was a QF 744.

And to me the 787 just somehow looks fragile. I half expect them to have awing come off or something. (I have a feeling (based on a complete lack of knowledge about aircraft design ) that they are going to start "doing a Comet" in ~5-8 years in that they have too much new tech all at once for there not to be problems, ala Comet or DC10.

From an aesthetic standpoint I think the 747 makes the A380 look like an ugly, swollen carbuncle. No contest. The A380 is not a pretty airplane.

From the economic point of view neither aircraft makes much mainstream sense anymore because of the shift to longer-range twin-engine planes that erase the rationale for VLAs (very large aircraft) except between and among 12 to 20 major hub airports worldwide. The A380 economics are better in that narrow use case -- the 747-8 is a last-stage attempt to squeeze one more profit out of a basic planform conceived nearly 50 years ago. Beautiful, but as finished in its way as the Lockheed Constellation was circa 1965.

A lot of it comes down to economics and engine technology. Four engines burn a lot more fuel per passenger than two, and with fuel prices high for the foreseeable future, it seems reasonable that airlines would try to squeeze as much as they can out of two-engined aircraft. Engine technology has gotten better so that regulators and airlines are increasingly comfortable with longer and longer ETOPS times, so you no longer need the four engines for safety reasons on extended over-water routes.

As a side note, I think the 747 v 380 is a bit of a misdirection; it really is 787 v 380. A and B designed the two aircraft based on fundamental differences in viewpoint about the future of the market for aircraft. Airbus saw high future demand for VLAs to operate from slot-controlled or congested airports on high density routes, where airlines would need to squeeze in as many passengers per departure as possible. Thus the 380. Boeing thought that there was a market for that type of aircraft, but not as large of one as Airbus saw. Unwilling to concede the VLA market to Airbus, but not believing the market large enough to warrant the expense of a clean-sheet design. Boeing went with the 747-8. Boeing thought that the future was in long, thin routes and went with the 787. Time will tell which one was correct, and there is the potential that they both were to some extent.

I am technically educated but still find much comfort having four engines versus two. I know statistically they have proven two engines are just as safe. But then I do remember from taking Statistics I was able to skew numbers.

LH has been buying B747-8i aircraft, so these will be around for a while.

Technologically and economically the 747 may well be a dinosaur.

But, having flown 747 F on LH, BA, UA, and KLM, from my generation that was the very definition of classy flying. To get my kids sighing nostalgically, the phrase "upper deck on a 747" will do the trick every time.

Once you're inside, the external looks don't really matter. My 380 flights have been much more enjoyable than those on a 747 (which admittedly was several years earlier).

Sure, I'd rather look at a 747 at the airport, but I'll fly the 380. And it was also "upper deck".

Doesn't mean everything; most of the airlines that bought the MD-11 as passenger aircraft had gotten rid of them or converted them to freighters within ten years. Economics is everything.

I would agree.

Pro 747:
- They are nicer to look at.
- unique and great view almost straight ahead from the front row in the nose
- intimacy of the upper deck cabin (love BA's 64AK!)

Pro A380:
- quieter (by a lot, even compared to the -8 model that I've flown on LH)
- lower cabin altitude and
- higher cabin humidity
- larger windows (I'm a window seat guy who loves to enjoy the view)

The A380 cabin climate and its quietness make for a much improved flight experience that leaves me way less travel-weary and lets me arrive at my destination in better shape after a long haul flight, even when not traveling in a premium cabin. Those decades of progress in engineering just have to manifest themselves somewhere.
And that's why I favor to fly in the admittedly ungainly A380 over a 747. I'd only select a 747 when in F or upper deck J, which unfortunately doesn't happen all that often...

Unfortunately, LH has announced that it is likely to be retiring these much earlier than planned (I think 2024?), to be replaced by a combination of A380s, 777-Xs and A350s. Sad.

There is plenty of moaning on the BA board that the A380 is too quiet. So quiet that pax can hear the chitter chatter of the cabin crew, and the banging around in the galley. They wish for a bit more noise.

I'm divided on the UD/LD on the A380, having done both. I think I prefer first class on the lower deck because the walls are vertical, giving the impression of greater space. In business class I do like the upper deck because it feels less like a dorm.

To be honest, nothing beats the 747 upper deck in business or LH first for me.