I prefer to fly in airplanes with wings and tires and engines and seats. Didnt like the spruce goose as shown in the aviator - thought howard was throwing money down the drain with that sucky machine.

I'd be happy to go to Australia in a DC3 if the F/J prices were good enough.
In premium classes, it's pointless to compare aircraft as cabin designs are very different from one airline to another. OTOH, with few exceptions like MH, Y configuration on all aircraft by all airlines is dreadful for long flights (an exit row window seat in a 2-4-2 or 2-5-2 config doesn't sound too bad though), so there is not much to choose from...
If stuck in WHY, I'd want to avoid something like the 747 or 380 because of more middle seats and a bit more difficulty in locating an FA to get a water/drink from (without hitting the call button which I don't want to do).

Pilot error, but another issue to bring up with this incident when looking at the twin vs 3 or 4 engines, is, was this 737 ETOPS certified? I am going to take a guess that it wasn't.

When looking at long haul flight with twin engine (767, 777, A330) vs three (DC-10, MD-11, L1011 - if any TriStars are still around) or four (747, A340), it's important that we look at ETOPS certified twin engine aircraft vs a three or four engine aircraft.

I believe a few 737s (the 737-700 specifically) are ETOPS certified and ETOPS equipped such as the 737-700's which AQ uses in the west coast to HNL markets. I believe the -800 may have ETOPS certification for some CO Micronesia flights.

Regardless, when trying to compare twin engine vs others for long-haul, trans-Oceanic flights, lets compare ETOPS certified & equipped twins such as the B767-300ER, B777-varients, and A330-200/300 vs three or four engine aircraft.

SDF_Traveler

There have been twins that have lost both engines for reasons other than fuel exhaustion. Southern flight 242 (DC-9) (4/4/1977) lost both engines after heavy rainwater ingestion. More recently, there was Pinnacle Airlines/Northwest Airlink flight 3701 (repositioning, no pax) CRJ200 that lost both engines (10/14/2004). Although the investigation is ongoing, it appears the pilots took it outside its flight envelope and then didn't manage the engine restarts properly (insufficient speed).

In both cases, it's possible that all engines would have failed on a tri or quad jet as well.

That's pretty weak. There's no commercial pilot on earth who, when flying a four engine aircraft and told that one engine was on fire, would shut down three engines simultaneously. He might, in a rare instance, mistakenly shut down one good engine (like the British Midlands pilot), but all three at once, never.

Um, they're fundamentally the same aircraft with the same-sized fuselage, built on the same assembly line in Long Beach with much the same tooling !

If we assume 180 (or 207) minute ETOPS there are very few routes that the 777 cannot do. If you look at page 10 of this Boeing ETOPS presentation:

http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/...enroutealt.pdf

you'll notice that routes between South America and Aus/NZ & Asia are the only (sane) ones that cannot be done under ETOPS 180 rules (assuming that all diversion airports are open for business). It's interesting to note that HI to the lower 48 US requires 180 minute (not 120) ETOPS.

As to the topic at hand, I find that airline configs are more important than the individual aircraft.

The coolest aircraft are those that I have not yet been on (IL-62, IL-86/96, DC-3, etc.) The problem with the 777 is the dearth of emergency exit seats in Y (I lucked out on my last 777 flight; I snagged 31B on NGO-ORG on AA despite being non-status!).

Indeed. There have been many posts on this "what's the best aircraft" topic, but please realise that what Boeing and Airbus provide as manufacturers is essentially an empty aluminium tube. It's up to the customer, the airline, how they fit it out, and the interior spec is still done individually for each airline, and there are a range of interior and seat manufacturers.

As time has gone on specs have got more spartan, which may go some way to explain why slightly older types like the 747 are often preferred over newer ones like the A340. Once airlines decide on a spec they normally stick to it for a long time even if they have changed things elsewhere on newer types, as there is an advantage in having a whole fleet to one spec so they don't get interchangeability problems. It's quite expensive to refit internally which gives problems if an airline starts picking up secondhand units.

It always surprises me for example going from the UK to Australia on Cathay Pacific how the B744 has been fitted in Y with seats that feel much better than the same airline's A340s, which are employed on comparable length routes. One trip I had a good explore round both (it's a long flight, nothing lse to do !) and found the Boeing's seats (manufacturer unknown) just seemed better done than the Sigma (a Spanish leading seat manufacturer) product in the A340, although the latter looked lighter and certainly cheaper.

Because I like a window seat the 767 (2 seats in 7) is better than the 777 (2 seats in 9) and both better than the 747 (2 seats in 10).

For narrow-body aircraft Airbus have a definite advantage over Boeing as their cabin interior is 6 inches wider, giving an extra inch per seat, which is quite noticeable. Boeing has stuck with the same size since the 707 in the 1950s; in that time the average size of people in the Western World has increased quite a bit !

For fun, try the old Soviet Ilyushins and Tupolevs. Plenty of legroom there !

So does JAL - with a 3x3 configuration. Try sitting in that window seat for a long haul, and you will get scoliosis.

I'm a pilot and I've flown twin engined planes before.

That being said, who in god's name "accidently" shuts down an engine? There's only two engines there, it's pretty difficult to get confused. Especially when one of said engines is incinerating itself. If you're such an expert, why would someone shutdown a perfectly good engine when the other one was on fire? "Accidently" shutting down one engine is just as improbable as shutting down three engines because both cases are nearly impossible.

I still don't get why you consider twin engines planes less safe because of this one incident. That's an ignorant thing to say.

I like the CRJ's from Cincinnati to smaller airports such as PNS and MYR. They are small and its great when there are only a few people on the flight, so I can stretch out across the seats. The service is also better on the smaller planes.

Well, I do all of my long-haul flying on AA. My personal choice, given the length of my trips, is the 763. I am never in F, but always find a way to get a J seat on these flights, most of which are to somewhere in Western Europe. I find the service the best on this aircraft in business class, when compared to the other AA planes. Also, unlike the 777, there is no middle seat anywhere in business. And, despite its somewhat awkward nature, I like the DVD player a lot more than the 777 IFE.

Also, when one is in Y, the 763 is the only AA plane that will not require anyone to be more than two seats deep. The A300 does this as well, but there are far fewer good seats, the Y seats are older, and two people will have to be two deep in the middle section (as that plane is 2x4x2), unlike only one person has to be in the middle on the 763 (2x3x2).

If you're not familiar with it, the report into the British Midland 737-400 accident at Kegworth is here

1.I didn't say "accidentally", I said "mistakenly". It wasn't like he was setting down a cup of coffee during normal flight and "accidentally" shut down an engine. It was an emergency situation, he thought he was shutting down the engine that was on fire and mistakenly shut down the good one.

2.I never said that I was an expert.

3.I don't consider twin engine aircraft unsafe. I just said that I feel more comfortable with three or four engines (Thread title: "Aircraft preferences") and offered the British Midlands incident as an example where, in my opinion, the flight probably would not have crashed had it been a four engine aircraft. I even stated in my post "I would agree that this is an extremely rare case..."

4.I think that posting "That's an ignorant thing to say" was uncalled for.

Maybe it hasn't been mentioned becasue they are almost 100% gone from the air now, but the L-1011 has to be at the top of my list. I saw an ATA L-1011 in the old ATA livery at LAX a couple of weeks ago and it brought back strong memories of how nice and quiet the cabin was and just what a great looking bird it was compared to the DC-10.