LAX-Dublin on Ethiopian 787 review.

[AdamFrisch]

Pretty new line, just been open less than a month. It's their intermediate stop on the way to Addis Ababa. Stumbled upon it by accident. I fly a lot to Europe from LAX, mainly through London or Munich, but this time I needed to be in Cardiff (of all places), so connecting through Dublin made a lot of sense rather than slugging it out at some giant hub and flying backwards. This is a great addition to the Atlantic routes. Not only does it connect Dublin to the westcoast for the first time in decades since Are Lingus gave it up, but it also adds two great features:

1. It's the last departure to Europe and it's also the earliest coming back. This is great for us who sometimes might have to work a full day and yet still be able to depart for Europe. With a 11.45pm departure from LAX, that's completely doable - full days of work without having to leave early, then jump on the plane. Or if you just get a last minute assignment and need to get to Europe, no matter what. As a freelancer, this happens to me a lot. Late departures are a godsend in those circumstances.

2. Same thing going the other way - early 6.30 departure from Dublin gets you into LAX around 9.30 in the morning - plenty of time to put in at least a half days work or be able to do a lunch meeting upon arrival. Very valuable.

As for flight, Ethiopian's 787 is as new as they come. Plane was only half full when we departed so got pretty good attention from crew. The entertainment system is good and the seats are decent. Charging ports standard, blankets, tooth brush, socks, sleeping mask etc - what you'd expect from decent airline on this route. Food wasn't quite up to Air New Zealand or Virgin standards, but not far off. Only annoying thing is the gate at LAX is off ramp, so have to get bussed out. For some reason that always seems to add delays and a level of uncomfortableness. Hopefully they'll be allowed to move to a real stand soon.

All in all - a good experience and I can recommend it. This was my first time on the Dreamliner and it didn't disappoint. Comfortable and quiet ride.

[alserire]

Just to point out that EI restored SFO last year and is running daily in the summer and four times a week in winter so Ireland does have a connection to the west coast.

And even then it wasn't "decades" since EI flew to LAX and SFO. Slight hyperbole there.

[MrSnuggles]

AdamFrisch

When the 787 works, I've heard it is a great plane for pax. Please do tell about the cabin humidity, did you notice any difference from other aircraft? How was the non bleed air system? Noise levels?

However, as Norwegian Air customers have experienced time and time again, last one just a few days ago actually, it is not such a pleasant ride when it is a no-show due to technical problems. More than once Norwegian had to emergency reroute or rent another aircraft to get pax home at all...

[nebpor]

I was mildy disappointed that I couldn't notice the more humid cabin, in comparison to say an A380 or even A330

Noise levels were nice.

[ExXB]

Thanks for the report ...

[Ancient Mariner]

Qatar B787 DOH - OSLO last week. First ride on the Screamliner. Nothing special except the large windows and flimsy toilets. Same noise level as preceeding flight on A340.
Could not feel any difference in air humidity/pressure.
Hate the 3-3-3 seating and Qatar's wooden seats, A330/340 anytime.
Per

[Selfloading]

I flew Melbourne to London and return and then back to London earlier this year on the 787, I thought it was an improvement on older gen airliners, and while I didn't notice any difference in humidity I must admit to feeling much fresher than usual afterwards, my only complaint was the seat cushion was hard and was digging into my legs after a few hours, mind you we were lucky to have 3 seats between 2 of us all he way round.

[Andy_S]

Originally Posted by Selfloading

......while I didn't notice any difference in humidity I must admit to feeling much fresher than usual afterwards.....

That was my experience as well. I've said this before, but things like the toilets and the seating are selected by the airline. I do think some people have got it in for the 787.....

[surely not]

Whilst the seats, toilets, galleys etc are chosen by the airline, they are all from a selection of Boeing approved designs for their aircraft. The seat manufacturers, toilet makers etc all work closely with the manufacturer in finalizing their designs, so Boeing cannot be off the hook completely.

For me the B777 seats on EK and their neighbours down the Shk Zayed Road are much better than those on the A330's I have flown on with the same airlines. This suggests it isn't just airline choice that makes the difference, what is on offer to be chosen is also a factor.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by surely not

For me the B777 seats on EK and their neighbours down the Shk Zayed Road are much better than those on the A330's I have flown on with the same airlines. This suggests it isn't just airline choice that makes the difference, what is on offer to be chosen is also a factor.

I think you will find that each seat manufacturer has a range of products, dependent on your pocket at the time, and that aspects like seat pitch, probably the No 1 item noted, can of course be varied by the airline. Getting the seat against the back bulkhead or ahead of the emergency exit which has the recline just disabled (although you pay the same fare) is another of many variables.

The ME carriers all run to two different configurations within a single aircraft type, one (in theory) used for medium-distance runs to India etc, and one with notably less capacity, F cabins, etc, on long-haul, although they do get a bit mixed up in practice. I suspect they may be by different seat manufacturers, or at least a different spec, as well.

[Metro man]

I've just returned from a trip involving a B787 flight and the aircraft is now on my avoid list, along with the B777 in ten across configuration due to the narrow seating. Unfortunately most airlines ruined the concept by cramming passengers in nine across when the aircraft was designed for eight.

We were lucky as the flight was very empty and I switched to a spare row and left the wife with the whole row to herself. With the middle seat empty it was okay but the seat was very narrow and a long flight with all seats occupied would have been a nightmare. It felt like a low cost narrow body.

Returning on the A350 in nine across on an almost full flight was an absolute pleasure, shoulder room was plentiful and I didn't feel boxed in at all.

I'll take the A330 in 2/4/2 over a B777 in 3/3/3 as we enjoy the couples seat next to the window with none else in the row.

[OverRun]

I have flown the 787 a few times now. Generally on flights to/from Australia to Europe with a Middle East stop. All company paid-for flights sitting in business class. The 787 does the ME-EU legs, which are 6-7 hours, and the long haul from Doha to Australia is usually a 777 for 10-11 hours.

I initially couldn’t notice a difference in cabin humidity with the 787 either and sat back thinking this was a bit of a marketing story. Then I realized that I when got off the 787 leg, I felt as if I hadn’t yet been flying. Odd thing to say and feel. So the next time I flew with a 787 it was from Germany to Doha and I observed more closely; when I got off in Doha it really was as if I was still waiting to start flying. I felt pretty good. Absolutely fresher. The subsequent 777 leg to Australia made me realise that non-787 aircraft DO make me feel like I am flying !!

Then just after that, I had a flight where the EU-Middle East leg was flown with a 777 and not a 787. And oh boy, when I got off in Doha I could feel it. So I do think that there is a difference with the 787 in terms of feeling much fresher. Ok, I was lucky enough to be at the front and I can’t comment on the Y class experience yet.

A good thread though - I will take a look at Ethiopian next time I fly that way.