|
Trustmeimadoctor
Original Poster
1,439 posts
24 months
|
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 ?
|
|
|
essayer
1,590 posts
63 months
|
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 ?
|
|
|
Trustmeimadoctor
Original Poster
1,439 posts
24 months
|
arnt they supposed to be getting them this year ? or has delivery been pushed back ?
|
|
|
Crafty_
4,531 posts
69 months
|
|
|
pushthebutton
299 posts
51 months
|
Possibly arriving Jan-April 2013 with initial long haul routes of SFB and CUN in Summer '13.
P
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Trustmeimadoctor
Original Poster
1,439 posts
24 months
|
we were looking may 2013 round the 11th to be precise  so its a possibility but no guarantee as we are looking to book in the next few weeks 
|
|
|
Silver993tt
8,100 posts
108 months
|
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.
|
|
|
el stovey
13,475 posts
132 months
|
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.
|
|
|
pushthebutton
299 posts
51 months
|
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.
|
|
|
Trustmeimadoctor
Original Poster
1,439 posts
24 months
|
tbh think we are just going to go virgin gets me more airmiles and land at mco rather than sfb. might just have to try get me extra legroom seats
|
|
|
uuf361
2,271 posts
91 months
|
I'd be paying extra to land at SFB!
No (or minimal) queues at immigration or can rental, well worth the extra few miles.......my record is being in my rental car and driving 25 mins after arriving at the gate......
|
|
|
Trustmeimadoctor
Original Poster
1,439 posts
24 months
|
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.
|
|
|
Ray Luxury-Yacht
6,374 posts
85 months
|
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?
|
|
|
Silver993tt
8,100 posts
108 months
|
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.
|
|
|
Ray Luxury-Yacht
6,374 posts
85 months
|
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. Yeah, yeah - I know all that - forget profits and passengers and internal aesthetics - I'm talking from an external design point of view, with regard to what looks 'right' as a flying machine? 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?
|
|
|
el stovey
13,475 posts
132 months
|
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.
|
|
|
Silver993tt
8,100 posts
108 months
|
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.
|
|
|
ticmon
105 posts
57 months
|
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 guess it all comes down to how we see things. I see the A380 quite often while showing my son the planes at Manchester. I think it's one of the most impressive engineering successes of our age. Granted it can look a little awkward but I think that just enhances my view somehow. The 787 is a magnificent looking bus though.
|
|
|
Paddy_N_Murphy
15,143 posts
53 months
|
The plane is not as important as the Airline - and tendancies for Shoe-Horning.......
|
|
|
Kenty
456 posts
44 months
|
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 guess it all comes down to how we see things. I see the A380 quite often while showing my son the planes at Manchester. I think it's one of the most impressive engineering successes of our age. Granted it can look a little awkward but I think that just enhances my view somehow. The 787 is a magnificent looking bus though. Personally I think both planes are a great achievement but they are like chalk and cheese with regards looks, one carries twice the passengers of the other! I have been on the A380 a few times with different airlines and find it is a world of difference than the old 747, 777, A340, A330's. A pleasurable experience, quiet, comfortable, brilliant ICE. 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.
|
|
