[eichin]

I had a round trip BOS↔LHR that was 747 eastbound, 777 westbound; I ended up on the upper deck of the 747, which was fascinating as an otherwise casual flyer. One especially memorable bit was landing - you're basically three stories up and suddenly the wheels are on the ground, and you're still three stories up :-)

(I'm still happy to have traded that for planes with a much higher cabin pressure-altitude - and would trade even further for business-class transatlantic non-cruise ships. But it was definitely fun to have had the experience.)

[microgpt]

A higher pressure-altitude or a higher pressure? Can't imagine what's good about a higher pressure-altitude. Less creaking making you less worried the plane will explode?

[eichin]

Higher cabin pressure, but it is marketed in pressure-corresponding-to-altitude; Norwegian Airlines for example keeps their cabins at 6000ft, ie. equivalent atmospheric pressure to being at 6000ft. (Looks like "equivalent effective cabin altitude" or just "cabin altitude" is the more accurate term.) So yeah, I worded that backwards, higher pressure, lower altitude, is more comfortable for passengers (me) especially on longer flights.