British Airways Dreamliners
Discussion
fadeaway said:
are you sure they don't and then those customers think...mmmm, I reckon we could squeeze a few more in there...
Sure - that makes sense on seat pitch, but going from 9 to 10 across is a big difference.If airlines are going to want to put 10 across then why not size the planes to accommodate that?
Sheepshanks said:
fadeaway said:
are you sure they don't and then those customers think...mmmm, I reckon we could squeeze a few more in there...
Sure - that makes sense on seat pitch, but going from 9 to 10 across is a big difference.If airlines are going to want to put 10 across then why not size the planes to accommodate that?
B787s are either 3 3 3 or 2 4 2 in economy, It's up to the airline what they go for.
If someone wants to put 10 across, they won't buy a B787 they'd buy a B777 or B747 or an A380.
el stovey said:
Aircraft are sized to accommodate different passenger numbers.
B787s are either 3 3 3 or 2 4 2 in economy, It's up to the airline what they go for.
The 787 is sized for a humane (and probably actually pretty comfortable) 8 abreast, and a miserable, cramped 9 abreast that is just big enough to be acceptable as an economy product. Boeing would have known full well that most airlines were going to choose 9 abreast (obviously more economical for them), but kept on selling the 8 abreast "dream" to the public until the 9 abreast ones started appearing in volume and they couldn't pretend anymore. B787s are either 3 3 3 or 2 4 2 in economy, It's up to the airline what they go for.
I'll be avoiding it at all costs in future.
The best long haul flight I ever had was on a Dreamliner although I paid not to sit in economy. Well, apart from the plebs coming through the curtain and using OUR toilet 
I've booked the same for next years family holiday. Much more enjoyable than my last flight on an Emirtates A380 but I was in with the common people and had an argument with the very rude cabin manager or whatever they call themselves.
I've booked the same for next years family holiday. Much more enjoyable than my last flight on an Emirtates A380 but I was in with the common people and had an argument with the very rude cabin manager or whatever they call themselves.
uncinqsix said:
The 787 is sized for a humane (and probably actually pretty comfortable) 8 abreast, and a miserable, cramped 9 abreast that is just big enough to be acceptable as an economy product. Boeing would have known full well that most airlines were going to choose 9 abreast (obviously more economical for them), but kept on selling the 8 abreast "dream" to the public until the 9 abreast ones started appearing in volume and they couldn't pretend anymore.
I'll be avoiding it at all costs in future.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. Surely if the aircraft was wider, the same airlines would then try to make it 10 across? You're complaining that they've made an aircraft wide enough to sit 9 or 8 abreast. Most wide body aircraft have the same variety of seating configurations with different airlines. I'll be avoiding it at all costs in future.
We flew a charter Dreamliner (Jetair) which you'd expect to be wildly over-stuffed with seats...
We loved it.
Jetair had specced theirs with several rows with more leg room in economy (asking only a tiny premium to the passenger), and even with 9 across, it was a very relaxing pleasant place to be. The large auto-tinting windows just added to the sense of space.
So it's sad to hear that other "premium" airlines are wasting the Dreamliner's potential as a nice place to be...
We loved it.
Jetair had specced theirs with several rows with more leg room in economy (asking only a tiny premium to the passenger), and even with 9 across, it was a very relaxing pleasant place to be. The large auto-tinting windows just added to the sense of space.
So it's sad to hear that other "premium" airlines are wasting the Dreamliner's potential as a nice place to be...
el stovey said:
I'm not sure I understand your logic. Surely if the aircraft was wider, the same airlines would then try to make it 10 across? You're complaining that they've made an aircraft wide enough to sit 9 or 8 abreast. Most wide body aircraft have the same variety of seating configurations with different airlines.
I would actually prefer it to be slightly narrower if anything. In an ideal world, the thing would be wide enough to fit 8 reasonably comfortable seats, but not wide enough for the airlines to be tempted to cram another one in. Kind of what Airbus are trying to do with the A350, which can take 9 decent seats, but 10 abreast doesn't really fit unless you really push it into low cost carrier territory. The difference with the 787 is that "proper" airlines are all going for the dense configuration, which is probably the absolute minimum they can get away with. I feel the same way about the 10 abreast 777. Can't really blame Boeing for giving the airlines what they want, but they did make a lot of noise about how much more comfortable this shiny new plane was going to be, and that just hasn't eventuated.
Ayahuasca said:
Higher more comfortable pressure, Shirley?
When he says "lower" he's referring to the cabin altitude rather than the actual psi number. Traditionally its around 8000ft. The 787 runs a lower cabin altitude of around 6000ft, as well as higher humidity because of the composite airframe's greater corrosion resistance. Obviously the absolute cabin pressure psi is higher in the 787.The a380 apparently runs at 4500ft.
dvs_dave said:
Ayahuasca said:
Higher more comfortable pressure, Shirley?
When he says "lower" he's referring to the cabin altitude rather than the actual psi number. Traditionally its around 8000ft. The 787 runs a lower cabin altitude of around 6000ft, as well as higher humidity because of the composite airframe's greater corrosion resistance. Obviously the absolute cabin pressure psi is higher in the 787.The a380 apparently runs at 4500ft.
Flew on a Norwegian Dreamliner to Florida in May - was really impressed with it. The whole experience was very good. Very decent space, and I'm 6ft2. The idea that you order everything from your seat via a screen worked really well. Bigger windows were nice to. The 3,3,3 set up worked fine.
Ayahuasca said:
Higher more comfortable pressure, Shirley?
When he says "lower" he's referring to the cabin altitude rather than the actual psi number. Traditionally its around 8000ft. The 787 runs a lower cabin altitude of around 6000ft, as well as higher humidity because of the composite airframe's greater corrosion resistance. Obviously the absolute cabin pressure psi is higher in the 787.The a380 apparently runs at 4500ft.
dvs_dave said:
When he says "lower" he's referring to the cabin altitude rather than the actual psi number. Traditionally its around 8000ft. The 787 runs a lower cabin altitude of around 6000ft, as well as higher humidity because of the composite airframe's greater corrosion resistance. Obviously the absolute cabin pressure psi is higher in the 787.
The a380 apparently runs at 4500ft.
Re-A380 cabin pressure The a380 apparently runs at 4500ft.
Maximum nominal operational differential pressure:
605 hPa / 8.78 psi
Cabin altitude:
7 500 ft at FL430 in normal operation
Maximum flight level:
FL430
So at maximum flight level A380 cabin is equivalent to 7500'
flying lower would therefore also decrease cabin altitude.
However, the sheer volume of air that is changed every minute makes the cabin a very fresh one indeed!
Edited by Mojocvh on Sunday 20th September 16:11
Countdown said:
ukaskew said:
I've only really seen Thomson selling the Dreamliner as an experience in itself in the UK, so if nothing else it's good to hear that they seem to be sticking to the original concept.
I've flown with them. It's very nice 
Far better than their sha99ed out 737-200s
Munter said:
Flew the Thompson 787 to Mexico a few weeks ago. It's the most comfortable flight I've had over that kind of distance. Comparing with cattle class in BA 767, 747, 777, and an American 777.
Did you fly Economy or Premium?Colleague is using it in a couple of weeks - I'm going too, but flying indirect as a I only need to be there a couple of days and the Thomson flight is weekly.
Bummer for me is the only flight in my sequence that doesn't have extra-legroom is the overnight American 777 back across the Atlantic. They've switched planes - they did use 77W with a brilliant separate little cabin for a tiny amount extra.
Sheepshanks said:
Munter said:
Economy everywhere for me 
Is that for work? That's a bit harsh - bearing in mind the Thomson Premium includes baggage etc that you'd have to pay for with Economy, the extra cost is neither here nor there.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff