thomsons and the dreamliner
Discussion
does anyone have any idea what the thomsons 787's are going to be like ? just wondering if its going to be better flying thomsons or virgin to florida next year. if we went thomsons we could go PE but virgin want circa 5k for PE so its not going to happen.
never flown thomsons before so not really sure what they are like
anyone offer any insight ?
never flown thomsons before so not really sure what they are like
anyone offer any insight ?
Trustmeimadoctor said:
does anyone have any idea what the thomsons 787's are going to be like ? just wondering if its going to be better flying thomsons or virgin to florida next year. if we went thomsons we could go PE but virgin want circa 5k for PE so its not going to happen.
never flown thomsons before so not really sure what they are like
anyone offer any insight ?
I am not sure Thomson will have 787s by that time ?never flown thomsons before so not really sure what they are like
anyone offer any insight ?
The first 787s with the GEnx engines have been delivered to JAL in the last few weeks: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boeing/article/B...
Not sure which engines Thomsons are taking? I expect production will be ramped up now, lots to come from the nx engine too.
Not sure which engines Thomsons are taking? I expect production will be ramped up now, lots to come from the nx engine too.
It will be like any other cheap airline, not much legroom and pretty much the same as any other commercial airliner. It's been designed to benefit the airline by using less fuel, require less maintenance and in the end to make more of a marginn. It'll cost the same to fly from a passenger perspective and you'll get the same service as now.
Silver993tt said:
It will be like any other cheap airline, not much legroom and pretty much the same as any other commercial airliner. It's been designed to benefit the airline by using less fuel, require less maintenance and in the end to make more of a marginn. It'll cost the same to fly from a passenger perspective and you'll get the same service as now.
Thomson certainly have more legroom in economy for Longhaul than BA or Virgin. The advantage to the passenger of flying on a 787 is lower Cabin pressure, faster cruise speed and better cabin air quality. Apparently there is some cool window blind/dimming button also.
Silver993tt said:
It will be like any other cheap airline, not much legroom and pretty much the same as any other commercial airliner. It's been designed to benefit the airline by using less fuel, require less maintenance and in the end to make more of a marginn. It'll cost the same to fly from a passenger perspective and you'll get the same service as now.
In the same way as your average family saloon is the same as every other cheap family saloon?! Although I guess not every family can afford a Phantom. hmm but mco is actually a nice place as far as airports go imho and nice staff when the mrs tried to get through security with 2 litres of beautification products 
they didnt shoot her and got virgin to stick an extra bag in the hold for free.
but i must admit when we landed it was the same time as a flight from mexico and that was quite interesting yes we did que for quite some time and i did keep walking past some rather sweaty people but hey it was all good in the end.
they didnt shoot her and got virgin to stick an extra bag in the hold for free.but i must admit when we landed it was the same time as a flight from mexico and that was quite interesting yes we did que for quite some time and i did keep walking past some rather sweaty people but hey it was all good in the end.
A wee bit O/T, but what do people think of the two new gen. birds?
I think the 787 looks beautiful, perfect in many ways, graceful, fabulously proportioned for a flying machine...and in the words of RJ Mitchell...'if it looks right, it is right.
But the Airbus A380 monstrosity? Looks awkward, heavy, out of proportion and all wrong. I just get this weird feeling that A380's will begin dropping out of the sky sometime soon. (Hope not obviously!)
What do the masses think?
I think the 787 looks beautiful, perfect in many ways, graceful, fabulously proportioned for a flying machine...and in the words of RJ Mitchell...'if it looks right, it is right.
But the Airbus A380 monstrosity? Looks awkward, heavy, out of proportion and all wrong. I just get this weird feeling that A380's will begin dropping out of the sky sometime soon. (Hope not obviously!)
What do the masses think?
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
A wee bit O/T, but what do people think of the two new gen. birds?
I think the 787 looks beautiful, perfect in many ways, graceful, fabulously proportioned for a flying machine...and in the words of RJ Mitchell...'if it looks right, it is right.
But the Airbus A380 monstrosity? Looks awkward, heavy, out of proportion and all wrong. I just get this weird feeling that A380's will begin dropping out of the sky sometime soon. (Hope not obviously!)
What do the masses think?
Both aircraft have been designed to generate maximum profit for any airline that uses them. It's business driven by efficiency. They'll be no more 'attractive' internally than any other aircraft from the perspactive of the passenger. Airlines aren't charities but there to maximis profits.I think the 787 looks beautiful, perfect in many ways, graceful, fabulously proportioned for a flying machine...and in the words of RJ Mitchell...'if it looks right, it is right.
But the Airbus A380 monstrosity? Looks awkward, heavy, out of proportion and all wrong. I just get this weird feeling that A380's will begin dropping out of the sky sometime soon. (Hope not obviously!)
What do the masses think?
Silver993tt said:
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
A wee bit O/T, but what do people think of the two new gen. birds?
I think the 787 looks beautiful, perfect in many ways, graceful, fabulously proportioned for a flying machine...and in the words of RJ Mitchell...'if it looks right, it is right.
But the Airbus A380 monstrosity? Looks awkward, heavy, out of proportion and all wrong. I just get this weird feeling that A380's will begin dropping out of the sky sometime soon. (Hope not obviously!)
What do the masses think?
Both aircraft have been designed to generate maximum profit for any airline that uses them. It's business driven by efficiency. They'll be no more 'attractive' internally than any other aircraft from the perspactive of the passenger. Airlines aren't charities but there to maximis profits.I think the 787 looks beautiful, perfect in many ways, graceful, fabulously proportioned for a flying machine...and in the words of RJ Mitchell...'if it looks right, it is right.
But the Airbus A380 monstrosity? Looks awkward, heavy, out of proportion and all wrong. I just get this weird feeling that A380's will begin dropping out of the sky sometime soon. (Hope not obviously!)
What do the masses think?
For instance - whenever I see a heavy (i.e full fuel and passenger load) 747 clawing it's way into the air, it looks like a weighty old bird yes, but going down the runway with full slats / flaps, still looks like a big but nicely propotioned flying machine that will happily make it's way 'upwards', but just that it might take a bit of time. Kinda like a military Hercules?
The 787 Dreamliner looks almost sleak and anorexic in contrast, and again, always looks like it will majestically float up into the clouds.
The A380 however - I dunno, to me it looks like a brutal exercise in science over design - gives the impression of a seriously overwieght, bloated monster that the engines are forcing into the air against the will of tonnes of airframe?
The 787 is much nicer to fly in than older aircraft. It is quiter and has lower cabin pressure and the composite body enables it to have much larger windows. Airlines aren't charities but they still try to make the passenger experience as good as possible, they want you to come back.
I like the look of the 787 also, shame Boeing didn't stick with the original tail plane design though, that was great looking.
I like the look of the 787 also, shame Boeing didn't stick with the original tail plane design though, that was great looking.
Edited by el stovey on Friday 20th April 16:42
el stovey said:
The 787 is much nicer to fly in than older aircraft. It is quiter and has lower cabin pressure and the composite body enables it to have much larger windows. Airlines aren't charities but they still try to make the passenger experience as good as possible, they want you to come back.
I like the look of the 787 also, shame Boeing didn't stick with the original tail plane design though, that was great looking.
I think most people aren't bothered what the plane looks like from the outside or inside as long as it's relatively clean and (more importantly) it gets to where it's going on time.I like the look of the 787 also, shame Boeing didn't stick with the original tail plane design though, that was great looking.
Edited by el stovey on Friday 20th April 16:42
Silver993tt said:
el stovey said:
The 787 is much nicer to fly in than older aircraft. It is quiter and has lower cabin pressure and the composite body enables it to have much larger windows. Airlines aren't charities but they still try to make the passenger experience as good as possible, they want you to come back.
I like the look of the 787 also, shame Boeing didn't stick with the original tail plane design though, that was great looking.
I think most people aren't bothered what the plane looks like from the outside or inside as long as it's relatively clean and (more importantly) it gets to where it's going on time.I like the look of the 787 also, shame Boeing didn't stick with the original tail plane design though, that was great looking.
Edited by el stovey on Friday 20th April 16:42
The 787 is a magnificent looking bus though.
ticmon said:
Silver993tt said:
el stovey said:
The 787 is much nicer to fly in than older aircraft. It is quiter and has lower cabin pressure and the composite body enables it to have much larger windows. Airlines aren't charities but they still try to make the passenger experience as good as possible, they want you to come back.
I like the look of the 787 also, shame Boeing didn't stick with the original tail plane design though, that was great looking.
I think most people aren't bothered what the plane looks like from the outside or inside as long as it's relatively clean and (more importantly) it gets to where it's going on time.I like the look of the 787 also, shame Boeing didn't stick with the original tail plane design though, that was great looking.
Edited by el stovey on Friday 20th April 16:42
The 787 is a magnificent looking bus though.
I think Airbus have it right, large numbers - hub to hub, I'm not sure Boeing have it right - bigger and lighter seem the way to go for comfort, costs etc.
Gassing Station | Holidays & Travel | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff