787 - most uncomfortable long-haul aircraft ever?
What worried me was the state of all the trim in the toilets. The accessories door under the sink idn't lock, exposing the internals of the aircraft, a number of decals, or buttons were loose or missing. The toilet lid didn't want to stay up. It all felt very flimsy. Makes me wonder what other parts of the aircraft are flimsy. For an aircraft that has only just been introduced in service...
The seats were very comfortable. The IFE system crashed multiple times during the flight, and with other pax as well.
The seats were very comfortable. The IFE system crashed multiple times during the flight, and with other pax as well.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently flew A380s from London to Sydney and back, and I certainly noticed how much quieter it was when compared to a 747 and 777. However, the downside to that was that all the incidental noises, such as cutlery clinking, oven doors and trolleys banging in the galley and passengers moving about were therefore far louder in relative terms. My wife found it more difficult to sleep for some of the trip due to this, than on louder aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing are entirely responsible for nine-abreast in the 787.
1. They reinforced the cabin floor to accept the additional loading, which added a couple of tonnes to the empty weight
2. They provide looms and plumbing for overhead amenities suitable for nine-abreast.
and of course..
3. They performed certification evacuation testing using nine-abreast seating.
This isn't just a case of Boeing plucking a seating-count out of the air and airlines being 'smart' and using nine-abreast to achieve it. The entire aircraft was tailored for it.
I'm never one to defend airlines, but in this case Boeing handed them revenue on a platter and of course they accepted it!
Had Boeing declined in one of those three areas then airlines wouldn't have been able to do so.
1. They reinforced the cabin floor to accept the additional loading, which added a couple of tonnes to the empty weight
2. They provide looms and plumbing for overhead amenities suitable for nine-abreast.
and of course..
3. They performed certification evacuation testing using nine-abreast seating.
This isn't just a case of Boeing plucking a seating-count out of the air and airlines being 'smart' and using nine-abreast to achieve it. The entire aircraft was tailored for it.
I'm never one to defend airlines, but in this case Boeing handed them revenue on a platter and of course they accepted it!
Had Boeing declined in one of those three areas then airlines wouldn't have been able to do so.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,250
Received 142 Likes
on
87 Posts
I have to agree with everyone re the A380, it is noticeably quieter than anything else around at the moment by some distance. The 777 I find a little noisier, but I am lucky to do most of my flying from up stairs or by turning left on long haul (over 5hrs in my company) so it is not as bad as from behind the wing. 330 I generally find to be quieter than its Boeing counterpart, however most of my 330 time has been with EK who's seating even in Business is a little parsimonious shall we say, so not a favourite, and 340 are much the same, although I do like the way they look. As for 787, I flew on an early one Tokyo - HK and apart from the size of the window, it was not a game changer for me, and I have not flown in one since. Mixtures post on the economics I found interesting, and sheds some light on how much say the bean counters have compared, with their clients !
N4790P
During the transient phases of flight, taxi, take-off, climb, descent, landing there are loud high pitched whines that are very uncomfortable to the ear. It feels as if there is hardly any noise insulation (weight saving?)
All in all, just another aircraft - nothing special for the pax - probably great for the operator.
Maybe it is time for regulators to step in on health and safety grounds and mandate minimum seat width snd aisle width. History shows that in Y airlines will cram in as many seats as they can and some-BA comes to mind with its very poor 8 abreast Club, do the same to a degree in premium cabins.
With long haul travel now common lace I think a passenger ought to be assured of a safe comfortable seat of reasonable size and pitch. I do not agree it is purely pressure from pax for cheap fairs that airlines go for the sardine option, I think they want to do that and like to shift the blame a bit , not every passenger buys purely on price otherwise all TATL traffic would go via Iceland .
I don't blame Boeing over the seating but tout the 787 as the 'dreamliner' is a bit of a joke as the aircraft is no game changer from a pax experience viewpoint , certainly not like the 380 which most find vastly more comfortable and a recognisably different experience even for the much (on here) derided Y class.
Sadly the way of the modern world-who cares if its crap its cheapest and people should remember that its accountants who buy airliners and that is their mantra the world over.
With long haul travel now common lace I think a passenger ought to be assured of a safe comfortable seat of reasonable size and pitch. I do not agree it is purely pressure from pax for cheap fairs that airlines go for the sardine option, I think they want to do that and like to shift the blame a bit , not every passenger buys purely on price otherwise all TATL traffic would go via Iceland .
I don't blame Boeing over the seating but tout the 787 as the 'dreamliner' is a bit of a joke as the aircraft is no game changer from a pax experience viewpoint , certainly not like the 380 which most find vastly more comfortable and a recognisably different experience even for the much (on here) derided Y class.
Sadly the way of the modern world-who cares if its crap its cheapest and people should remember that its accountants who buy airliners and that is their mantra the world over.
-BA comes to mind with its very poor 8 abreast Club
Let's make a few corrections here.
Just about all 787 operators are using the aircraft from a hub to a spoke, including some decidedly heavyweight spokes.
It has also replaced some notably larger aircraft on established routes. Plenty of 787 operations have replaced the 777, and Virgin Atlantic are using it to replace the 747-400.
No difference in price has been noticeable on 787 routes compared to say the 747. In fact fares since it was introduced seem to have risen ahead of inflation.
That market went a generation ago. Nowadays the Iceland transatlantic market is a little bit a novel stopover, and more connecting minor points in Europe and the US that could never justify non-stop, without some of the operational downsides of connecting through places like Heathrow or JFK. In other words, we're back to hub-and-spoke.
Not so. If it was, everyone would buy cheap Fiats, and Mercedes would have got nowhere, while decent restaurants would all be gone and everyone would eat at McDonalds. Doesn't happen.
Remember that Y-class is 80% or more of the seating on an aircraft. It's far and away the standard way to go. Business or personal travel, the normal differential between seat prices is way more than I feel can be justified. We are also going the way of de-speccing premium class as well; in the US, First Class now provides notably less in the way of food/drink than economy used to over there a generation ago.
the 9-abreast 787 allow the airlines to do is to operate "long thin" routes profitably instead of having to operate the traditional "hub and spoke" model.
It has also replaced some notably larger aircraft on established routes. Plenty of 787 operations have replaced the 777, and Virgin Atlantic are using it to replace the 747-400.
And because its high density seating, they can sell off the seats at lower prices.
The degree of price sensitivity determines whether or not you fly via Iceland
Sadly the way of the modern world-who cares if its crap its cheapest
Remember that Y-class is 80% or more of the seating on an aircraft. It's far and away the standard way to go. Business or personal travel, the normal differential between seat prices is way more than I feel can be justified. We are also going the way of de-speccing premium class as well; in the US, First Class now provides notably less in the way of food/drink than economy used to over there a generation ago.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The evidence speaks for itself. About 10 (or 15?) years ago, American Airlines introduced "more room in coach"; removed some rows in Y and gave everyone in Y more leg room. I used them and it was significantly more comfortable than BA, etc.
However, this did increase their costs, and they didn't get an real improvements in their load factors, so after a couple of years they went back to "normal". So the evidence is clear; many Y passengers are driven primarily by the price of the ticket, and airlines are pretty much all minimising costs while maximising revenue.
That's today's airline business; if the 787 does reduce costs it will not lead to lower prices per se but to increased profits / reduced losses. And the airlines will (somehow) all continue to charge pretty much the same prices, unless you are prepared to do some fancy routings, where you trade your time against the price of the ticket...
However, this did increase their costs, and they didn't get an real improvements in their load factors, so after a couple of years they went back to "normal". So the evidence is clear; many Y passengers are driven primarily by the price of the ticket, and airlines are pretty much all minimising costs while maximising revenue.
That's today's airline business; if the 787 does reduce costs it will not lead to lower prices per se but to increased profits / reduced losses. And the airlines will (somehow) all continue to charge pretty much the same prices, unless you are prepared to do some fancy routings, where you trade your time against the price of the ticket...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airline pricing is not, and has never been, based on costs. (Well perhaps pre-deregulation domestic in the US, but not really even then.)
The airlines price to get the maximum revenue per passenger km. So fuel costs come down and (some) reduce or remove fuel surcharges, fares go up - total price about the same. They are constantly tweaking their models to give them the perfect price - the one that you are willing to pay.
Want a cheaper price? Take connecting flights. That's about the only magic out there.
Well, try and avoid any airline you are a FF member of. They know they can charge you more than a non-member, and they do.
But remember, in one of their most profitable years ever (2014) the average profit per passenger was just over $8.
The airlines price to get the maximum revenue per passenger km. So fuel costs come down and (some) reduce or remove fuel surcharges, fares go up - total price about the same. They are constantly tweaking their models to give them the perfect price - the one that you are willing to pay.
Want a cheaper price? Take connecting flights. That's about the only magic out there.
Well, try and avoid any airline you are a FF member of. They know they can charge you more than a non-member, and they do.
But remember, in one of their most profitable years ever (2014) the average profit per passenger was just over $8.
The evidence speaks for itself. About 10 (or 15?) years ago, American Airlines introduced "more room in coach"; removed some rows in Y and gave everyone in Y more leg room. I used them and it was significantly more comfortable than BA, etc.
However, this did increase their costs, and they didn't get an real improvements in their load factors, so after a couple of years they went back to "normal". So the evidence is clear; many Y passengers are driven primarily by the price of the ticket, and airlines are pretty much all minimising costs while maximising revenue.
However, this did increase their costs, and they didn't get an real improvements in their load factors, so after a couple of years they went back to "normal". So the evidence is clear; many Y passengers are driven primarily by the price of the ticket, and airlines are pretty much all minimising costs while maximising revenue.
As I recall it reported, there was a significant political fight inside AA headquarters between the "for" and the "against" factions about it, each side presenting selected facts. There is a strong drive to "minimalism" in US airline management (apart from top executive salaries); less legroom, less catering; never free drinks in coach; less extras for premium fare passengers, etc. This was just part of that.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely. Although living in NL I have both BRU and DUS an hour's drive closer to me than AMS. Depending on destination etc., I can save anything between €1000 and €1500 on an already discounted (i.e. early booking) KLM C class ticket simply by departing from BRU/DUS via AMS. Win win situation for me.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What worried me was the state of all the trim in the toilets. The accessories door under the sink didn't lock, exposing the internals of the aircraft, a number of decals, or buttons were loose or missing. The toilet lid didn't want to stay up. It all felt very flimsy.
Surely all of that is common trim and only really the seats are going to be on a per-specified basis?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
