fpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 916 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 16985 times:
I know it is a bit early to open up this discussion, but the 787 has now been in regular scheduled commercial service with ANA for about a month. Does anyone have an idea on how they are performing for ANA in standard ops? I know that these frames are heavier and do not meet specs, but they still should be performing pretty well, especially on the domestic routes they are used for.
PM From Namibia, joined Feb 2005, 7194 posts, RR: 63
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12893 times:
I can't comment on its performance but I just got off JA802A (HND-HIJ) an hour ago and the flight was reassuringly uneventful. Most of the passengers around me seemed to have not the slightest idea that there was anything special about the plane or the flight.
And that, I suppose, is how it should be.
(Enjoyed playing with my tinted window...!)
And, I have to say, I've just done flights on an A380 and a 787 within three days - and both with RR!
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 11459 times:
Quoting faro (Reply 2): A small chance that ANA's 787 now hold the lowest CASM record in the industry, even better than the A380's?
By far not. The 789 is expected to have the same CASM as the 77W has currently, which would be a real achievement for such a smaller plane. Boeing promises the 789 to be better than the 788 by 10%, and the first 788 I expect to be 10% away from final 788 numbers, this adds up to a CASM 40% higher then the A380.
I always wonder how people expect wonders from a new plane that just is set up to get slightly better then the A332...
PM From Namibia, joined Feb 2005, 7194 posts, RR: 63
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10868 times:
Quoting BD338 (Reply 6):
Cool. Were you in Y and was it really any noticeably different in a 787 from say a 767 or 330?
Yes, in Y with a window seat above the wing and only just behind the engine. The first thing I noticed was that when the baggage bins are down they are low enough for me (@ 5ft 7") to brush my head on them. But when they are up, the impression is one of space. The multicolour LEDs were nice and the windows were noticeably big. It was pretty quiet and I think (!) I noticed the improved humidity in the cabin. (Although in a 75 minute flight, how much can you tell?) All very pleasant but almost anticlimatic.
And, lest anyone accuse me of bias, I felt exactly the same about my first two A380 flights last week: NRT-FRA-NRT.
Quoting U2380 (Reply 8): I'm very jealous!
How did they compare in terms of cabin noise?
For the LH flights I was upstairs in business. Both legs were comfortable and a lot quiter than a 777-300ER. But gob-smackingly quiet? Not really.
So, after testing both the A380 and 787 in just over a week, nice, fun, but - from a passenger's point of view - just incremental improvements on what went before.
col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2190 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10516 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 9): For the LH flights I was upstairs in business. Both legs were comfortable and a lot quiter than a 777-300ER. But gob-smackingly quiet? Not really.
I think a lot depends on what you just got off or on. I have only flown SQ 380's about 11 flights now, and where I have connected onto something else or vv, the 380 is much quieter. Of course the 77W is the worse for PAX noise and terrible when you have just got off a 380, but the best for Airline profits.
Is the 787 on board noise similar to the 380, 330 or anything else with Rollers of course.
aeropiggot From United States of America, joined May 2005, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7220 times:
Quoting col (Reply 10): I think a lot depends on what you just got off or on. I have only flown SQ 380's about 11 flights now, and where I have connected onto something else or vv, the 380 is much quieter. Of course the 77W is the worse for PAX noise and terrible when you have just got off a 380, but the best for Airline profits.
I don't know about you guys, but I love to hear and feel the power of those GE90s, at full throttle during a take off roll. I imagine that must be how the astronauts feel at lift off, you know that you are going somewhere.
A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
I think the figures will be well kept for some time, but the lack of any 'noise' is reassuring.
If the A380 is anything to go by, any minor technical issue with the plane would cause massive media overreaction worldwide...
Then again the landing gear issue they had recently went relatively unnoticed.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
WarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 604 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6729 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 13): Then again the landing gear issue they had recently went relatively unnoticed.
The 787 landing gear glitch? I can confirm that it was reported on-line in the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune and even made it to the news summary on the home page for Yahoo! (at least the one I see). Given this, I'd say it was noticeable given the breadth of circulation of those media outlets. As you rightly suggest, overreaction. Heaven help us if that fancy toilet on the ANA 787 doesn't work .
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21934 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5800 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 16): Nobody is reporting missed or delayed flights, so I assume that means it's high.
It was subbed for with a 767 when the gear had an issue deploying. Was put back into service later in the day, but it did miss 1 dispatch (and if you count the return flight it also missed, that would be 2). But since it didn't force the cancelation of flights and later was used in place of a 767 from what I gather, it may not have even missed any planned cycles. Just flew a different set of flight numbers that day.
Someone else might know more.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.