Upper deck in a 747 without doubt,, given the option of BA flights between LHR and JFK, I deliberately pick the flights which use 747s.

Twin engine birds are every bit as safe as quads and tri-jets. No twin engined aircraft has ever crashed due to the failure of both engines EXCEPT in the few instances of fuel starvation, but that's irrelevant because the same outcome would happen to a tri or quad jet.

I know I'm in the minority here, but seeing as I always fly cattle-class, I much prefer the 767 to anything else. Give me a window seat and I'll only have one person to climb over, and the Y cabins on 767s don't feel nearly as packed as larger widebodies do. Even if you're stuck in the middle seat of a 767, assuming 2-3-2, you'll only have one person to climb over and you can vary which person you climb over each time so as not to anger anyone.

My best experience (b/c really, I have no other type ) was on a JAL 747. Why you ask? B/c at that time (don't know about now), the upstairs was configured as Y! It was great... smaller cabin space, less people, yet with its own galley and lavs. And Row 65 was an exit row... on one leg I just spread out a blanket and slept on the floor, there was so much room.

Funny picture on airliners.net showing the difference of interior space between A330/340 and B777.

A 747, no contest!... especially 'cattle class'..

Why?...because they have bigger windows of course!!

Maybe so, but I still feel more comfortable with 3 or 4 engines. Consider the British Midlands 737 accident of January 1989: There was a fire in the left engine and the pilot mistakenly shut down the right engine. Since this was a 2 engine bird, they were left with NO engines. 47 people died.

It seems the OP has now written his/her story

Not to start another fight but if i have a choice it will be either Boeing or Airbus and for sure NOT a Russian plane.

B747
B777
AB340
AB330
B 737/400and up
AB 320/319

B767 only if i have to,same for B757

Old time favorite the VC10 and of course Concorde

717-Excellent aircraft, too bad airlines don't see a use for these, one of the most quiet (inside and outside noise) Great for smaller loads hope they don't go bye bye.
727-My first trip on PSA was in this aircraft. The one and only time I was on 727.
737-Good ride, but a bit small. Been on this one more than any other.
747-I've only taken 1 trip back in 1985 to London on this aircraft. I don't remember much, but it seemed BIG.
757-I remember when HP got their new ones back in '87, that was the first time for me, and in general I do enjoy this over 737.
767-Lots of room, and have taken about 10 trips on this one. Still one of my preferences, though not very common on domestics.
777-Another one I've taken only once ORD-DFW, lucked out and got the J cabin on my Y fare. Would be ideal to go Trans-Atlantic once on one!
787-Still a Dream-Liner at this stage, but I wish they all the best on this, I'm looking forward to it!!

DC9-Yeah, I remember these and how they rattle around during taxi and take off. Way too narrow and made me feel the lack of space.
DC10-Had a few experiences on these, last time was on HA just before they changed out. Lots of space and pretty solid, sorry to see them go.
MD80-A "bit" better than DC9, still felt the lack of space and hope they retire them soon on AS and AA.
MD83-Well they are pretty much the same as MD80 and DC9, but I remember Reno Air having new ones and they were nice and quiet. They now assimilate with the AA MD 80s

320-Not a big fan, I didn't like the way they handle in choppy/turbulant etc.
Seemed very loose and noisy, many strange noises that seemed odd.No experience with any other AI aircraft, might be nice to take a 340 to??
All eyes are on the 380, I suppose "everybody wants some"

Dash-8 Well it is fun riding in a smaller plane, once you're over the space issue. Definately NOT FUN to be in turbulance and having pockets of air causing what seemed like huge drops up and down. Seems like they're on a whole different level of transportation.

Thats it...no other prop planes or CRJs.

For true, long haul travel, I like the 777 and I have done flights in excess of 14 1/2 hours on the Boeing 777. I have flown in all cabins on the 777 from F / J / Y.

While cabins are setup differently depending on the airline, I like the spaciousness the Boeing 777 provides.

The 747-400 is a great aircraft too for true long-haul likewise and I have done flights in excess of 14 1/2 hours on the 747-400, including in Y. The upstairs cabin on the 747-400 has some benefits, i.e. a smaller, private cabin -- but overall, I prefer to sit in the nose section if in a premium class. Again, different airlines have their aircraft configured differently. I've been on some 747-400s where the upstairs cabin is economy with F/J on the lower deck.

If given a choice, between the two, I would opt for the Boeing 777, even if flying in economy. I understand there are some routes where a 777 may not be possible because of ETOPS; in those cases then definately the 747-400.

Will be interesting to see the 787 when that comes into service.

Last but not least, for a medium haul such as US-Europe, I like the Boeing 767-300ER and Airbus A330-300/200. The premium cabins on these aircraft are tend to be smaller and more private, but if in economy on the B767-300ER, you have the 2 x 3 x 2 layout; similar with the A330 with the 2 x 4 x 2 layout. However, this applies to markets when a 777, let alone a 747-400, is not feasible (i.e. too many seats) - but I will gladly take (and have taken) both the 777 and 747 across the Atlantic to/from Europe.

SDF_Traveler

Korean has some 747-400's with the upstairs configured as Y.

SDF_Traveler

Since I was little, I have always just loved the look of the 747. I have not ever flown on a 777.

The last time I flew to India, I flew in Air India's business class (got a good deal) and was in the upper deck of a 747. It was an old plane with nowhere near the ameinities in current business class, but I loved being upstairs.

My brother enjoyed upstairs economy on BA when he took it a few years back.

My trip to South Africa last summer was on an SAA A340. I found the seats rather uncomfortable and felt like the pitch was quite low.

I am looking forward to seeing the 787. I do not think I would like to be on an A380, though. I guess I have a bit of a Boeing bias! I have not been as fortunate as some of you to fly in premium classes much, but perhaps in the future I will.

That's pilot error, not the fault of the aircraft. If twin engine planes were inherently less safe than quads and tris, no one would be flying them. But I digress.

Well, of course it was pilot error. You seem to be missing my point that had it been a 4 engine aircraft they would have still had 2 functioning engines. I would agree that this is an extremely rare case, but on occasion those extra engines could actually make the difference between life and death.

Ok so you admit it was pilot error, so why does that make you deem twin engine planes less safe than tris or quads? That's like saying all guns aren't safe because someone went out a killed someone with one. Don't fault the machine because of the operator. The pilot just as well could have shut down the other three engines if he had been flying a quad.

Maybe thirty years ago multi engine jets were much safer, but with the advent of ETOPs, engines that are technologically light years ahead of where they were even 15 years ago, and enhanced crew training, it's an antiquated line of thought. That's why all the newest designs are twin engined. The 380 is the exception because there aren't powerful enough engines out there that would allow it to fly twin engined.