Does anyone have an opinion regarding the saftey trade-offs of a newer 767 (2 engine) vs. a 30 year old 747 (4 engines)for travel from the U.S. to Europe?

Frank: I lived in Germany from '83 to '86 and flew back and forth on 747's, L1011's and DC10's. They were OK, but too big and too crowded. Within the past year, we've taken two trips to Europe on 767's and I liked that plane a lot more than the others. It's more comfortable, not as noisy and not as crowded. I've worked in aerospace and I wouldn't be concerned about two engines vs. four engines since the 767 can fly with only one engine if necessary. Let's hope that none of us ever put that one to test. Have a good trip.

Lee: good point; besides, most people die in ded - don't they?

Hi Frank, I'm a pilot for USAirways and fly 727s. I would any day rather fly in a 777, 767, or 757 than a 747, L1011, or DC10/MD11. The new generation 2 engine aircraft are much safer, much more comfortable, and more effiecient than the old generation. They can take off at max gross weight on ONE engine in New York and still land in Paris.

I LOVE 767's. They're much more comfortable than 747's (seating in 767's are 2-3-2, 747's are 3-4-3. 747's just seem too crowded. But if I had a choice, I'd take the new 777 (2-5-2) and try for the "2" seating. The reason? EACH seat has it's own private video-screen (located on seatback in front of you. You get 6-TV-channels and 10 or so music channels).