Interesting 787 Experience
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,677
Likes: 3,335
From: Everett, WA
Interesting 787 Experience
Flew back from Jakarta to Seattle earlier this week. EVA, 787-9 from Jakarta to Taipei, 787-10 on to Seattle. I sprung for Business class - very nice on EVA (unfortunately I still couldn't get any meaningful sleep even with the lie-flat seats 
), although I have a slight preference for the Delta One that I flew on the way over (Seattle/Incheon)(A350) - better IFE selections and a better selection of 'Western' meal options (the food in both cases was surprisingly good for 'airline food'.
I had a very interesting experience while deplaning in Taipei. I'm 70 years old, so aches and pains are part of everyday life. Add to that nasty arthritis in my left ankle - the aftereffects of a nasty racing accident 37 years ago - and I had my right knee replaced 2 years ago. Ever since the racing accident, deboarding an airplane after a long flight has been unpleasant as the prolonged sitting and pressure/temperature changes cause the arthritis to flare up and I usually depart the aircraft with a pronounced limp.
But as I walked up the jetway in Taipei, something was very different - a actually took me a few seconds to realize what it was. I DIDN'T HURT!!! In particular, my left ankle felt as good as it has in years, and my right knee wasn't stiff!. In short, this was as good as my lower extremities have felt after a long flight in decades! Now, I've flown the 787 before, as well as the A350, but longer flights - this was ~5.5 hours while the others have been between 9 and 18 hours, so I'm sure that made a difference (deplaning in Seattle after the ~11 hour flight to Seattle I was a little stiff and sore (although not nearly as bad as I'd normally expect) - more like getting out of bed in the morning.
To be fair, there well have been similar improvement when I flew A350s, but with the longer flights it wasn't so dramatic that it got my attention like the flight to Taipei (I probably wouldn't have noticed the improvement deplaning in Seattle if I wasn't already expecting it).
So, I guess what I'm saying is, based on my experience, I'm thinking there may well be an unexpected benefit to the higher cabin pressures on the 787 and A350.
), although I have a slight preference for the Delta One that I flew on the way over (Seattle/Incheon)(A350) - better IFE selections and a better selection of 'Western' meal options (the food in both cases was surprisingly good for 'airline food'.I had a very interesting experience while deplaning in Taipei. I'm 70 years old, so aches and pains are part of everyday life. Add to that nasty arthritis in my left ankle - the aftereffects of a nasty racing accident 37 years ago - and I had my right knee replaced 2 years ago. Ever since the racing accident, deboarding an airplane after a long flight has been unpleasant as the prolonged sitting and pressure/temperature changes cause the arthritis to flare up and I usually depart the aircraft with a pronounced limp.
But as I walked up the jetway in Taipei, something was very different - a actually took me a few seconds to realize what it was. I DIDN'T HURT!!! In particular, my left ankle felt as good as it has in years, and my right knee wasn't stiff!. In short, this was as good as my lower extremities have felt after a long flight in decades! Now, I've flown the 787 before, as well as the A350, but longer flights - this was ~5.5 hours while the others have been between 9 and 18 hours, so I'm sure that made a difference (deplaning in Seattle after the ~11 hour flight to Seattle I was a little stiff and sore (although not nearly as bad as I'd normally expect) - more like getting out of bed in the morning.
To be fair, there well have been similar improvement when I flew A350s, but with the longer flights it wasn't so dramatic that it got my attention like the flight to Taipei (I probably wouldn't have noticed the improvement deplaning in Seattle if I wasn't already expecting it).
So, I guess what I'm saying is, based on my experience, I'm thinking there may well be an unexpected benefit to the higher cabin pressures on the 787 and A350.
Joined: Feb 2015
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,760
Likes: 358
From: Cincinnati, Ohio
tdracer: I'm 76, so you're preaching to the choir when speaking about aches and pains. I wonder if hyperbaric pure O2 therapy would yield beneficial results? Off topic, do you still watch Battlebots? Bride Christine and I stopped following the show two years ago when the advertising to actual programming ratio reached 3::1! Keep on feelin' good, Sir!
- Ed
(If you search for hyperbaric oxygen therapy for rheumatoid arthritis you'll get a number of hits.)
- Ed
(If you search for hyperbaric oxygen therapy for rheumatoid arthritis you'll get a number of hits.)
Last edited by cavuman1; 27th September 2025 at 01:43. Reason: Add text.
Joined: Jan 2000
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 312
From: UK and Italy
Hyperbaric pure O2 therapy? I don't have any aches and pains but I only have one lung. Oxygen is a necessity to me. BTW, oxygen is cheaper than beer, it's really not expensive.
Joined: Jun 2007
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,883
Likes: 500
From: Beyond the Blue Horizon
tdracer
May I report back in January as I have 2nr approx 15hr flights nonstop and 2nr 5.5 hrs on 787 with two different carriers, and will report how refreshed I feel, if I may, after my return.
Cheers
Mr Mac
May I report back in January as I have 2nr approx 15hr flights nonstop and 2nr 5.5 hrs on 787 with two different carriers, and will report how refreshed I feel, if I may, after my return.
Cheers
Mr Mac
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 511
Likes: 63
From: down under
Hi TD, like you I prefer the cabin pressure in a 787 to that in older jets, but it's hard to see how it could have helped your knee. After all even in a 787 it's still less than sea level. Maybe that ultra-hot curry you had in Jakarta? Or just the satisfaction of business class?
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,842
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
I've not yet been on the 350. My 3x round trips LHR-JNB-LHR with VS 789s left me with zero impression of any difference.
Of course, it could be that my blood pressure was so high after not being able to see out of the window...
Of course, it could be that my blood pressure was so high after not being able to see out of the window...
Joined: Jul 2012
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 189
Likes: 29
From: Aus
The impact may be from the humidity rather than the cabin altitude. While the 787 and A350 can sustain a higher differential pressure and therefore a lower cabin altitude at a given flight level, you’ll find the actual cabin altitude experienced on a long haul 777 flight is probably similar or even lower as particularly on a long sector on the -300ER the cruise level for the bulk of the flight will be significantly lower than that of a 787/350.
Joined: Nov 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 538
Likes: 182
From: Between a rock & a hard place.
I suppose it depends on what pressure the company operating B787s sets. I passengered on a company B787 when they first arrived and I was keen to experience the much adverised effects of lower cabin pressure. I didn't. The flightcrew had the aircraft pressurised at 8000 ft much the same as my old Jumbo. The reason, fuel efficiency. There may be an ability to seriously reduce cabin pressure but doing so burns more fuel.
Edit to add apparently. I've never been type rated on a B787 so can only report as told.
Edit to add apparently. I've never been type rated on a B787 so can only report as told.
Joined: Jun 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 7,176
Likes: 295
From: Nanaimo (CAC8)
I’ve flown multiple 787 flights across the Pacific with Air Canada and I am always noticeably less tired and get over my jet lag quicker, when compared to flights in a 777 or A330.
I’ve discussed this with AC cabin crew a few times and they are in agreement with me, they much prefer the 787.
I’ve also had a flight on an A350 with similar experience.
The only thing I don’t like about the 787 is the crew’s ability to override my setting of the polarized window blind!
I’ve discussed this with AC cabin crew a few times and they are in agreement with me, they much prefer the 787.
I’ve also had a flight on an A350 with similar experience.
The only thing I don’t like about the 787 is the crew’s ability to override my setting of the polarized window blind!
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,489
Likes: 32
From: Blighty
Am operating the 787 currently, you cannot select the cabin altitude, and I believe the company cannot change the way the pressurisation operates. The ONLY time you will get 8000" cabin altitude, is a prefilght defect with one of the CACs(cabin air compressors), or an en route failure, which has happened to me. 787s are far superior compared with 777s for jet lag, feeling good/bad after a flight. I have !0k+_ hours on 777s and 1600hrs on 787s. 
Joined: Jan 2000
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 312
From: UK and Italy
Am operating the 787 currently, you cannot select the cabin altitude, and I believe the company cannot change the way the pressurisation operates. The ONLY time you will get 8000" cabin altitude, is a prefilght defect with one of the CACs(cabin air compressors), or an en route failure, which has happened to me. 787s are far superior compared with 777s for jet lag, feeling good/bad after a flight. I have !0k+_ hours on 777s and 1600hrs on 787s.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 15
From: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Triple: 8,000’
787: 6,000’ *
*: Normally. As EGGW says, the cabin altitude will creep higher with an unserviceable cabin air compressor.
And having flown both, (9 years and counting on the 787) air quality on the Dreamliner is in a different league to the Triple.
787: 6,000’ *
*: Normally. As EGGW says, the cabin altitude will creep higher with an unserviceable cabin air compressor.
And having flown both, (9 years and counting on the 787) air quality on the Dreamliner is in a different league to the Triple.
Joined: Jul 2012
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 189
Likes: 29
From: Aus
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,699
Likes: 2,041
From: Reading, UK
Joined: Jan 2000
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 312
From: UK and Italy
). At 6000' I begin to experience respiratory distress, at 8000' I need oxygen. Which means paperwork, and hassles at security. I will actively seek out aircraft that are pressurised to a lower level. I don't mind carrying the oxygen, I do mind the hassles taking it on board. I don't think I'm alone. Nottingham Hospital takes out several lungs a day.Still, I bought a car with the compensation for the surgeon having screwed up the operation to remove half a lung, which left the other half inoperative. You can buy a lot of oxygen with that.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,699
Likes: 2,041
From: Reading, UK
I can vouch for the fact that trying to make a cup of coffee at FL150 in an unpressurised aircraft is an interesting exercise.
Especially when the CP up front (who acted like he was paying for the fuel out of his own pocket, hence the altitude) refused to put the heating on as well ...
Especially when the CP up front (who acted like he was paying for the fuel out of his own pocket, hence the altitude) refused to put the heating on as well ...
