timpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 293 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23842 times:
I am headed to japan in a couple of weeks and looked into a jaunt on the 787. It cost more to fly that short domestic leg than it did to fly transpac rt! Will have to wait until its available at normal fares. Almost 800 USD for the rt on the dreamliner and cost south of 700 rt for LAX-HND on the ordinary A332. Oh well, at, say 250 rt, ANA would have my $$. If they are getting those fares even booking a month out, then they are happy with the 787.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, RR: 37 Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 23250 times:
I flew on the 787 last month for about 120 euro one way (HND-Hiroshima HIJ). If you travel on a Star Alliance itenerary to Japan (so not even necessairy ANA but for instance on UAL or LH) you can request a Japan Air Pass for about 100 euro plus tax per coupon. The Star Alliance website has a search engine, pretty much all ANA flights are available. Then you have to call or get called by the airline who ticketed your international Star flight. I used that one also to try a 744D and 767-300.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
travelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1380 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 23214 times:
Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 2): I flew on the 787 last month for about 120 euro one way (HND-Hiroshima HIJ). If you travel on a Star Alliance itenerary to Japan (so not even necessairy ANA but for instance on UAL or LH) you can request a Japan Air Pass for about 100 euro plus tax per coupon. The Star Alliance website has a search engine, pretty much all ANA flights are available. Then you have to call or get called by the airline who ticketed your international Star flight. I used that one also to try a 744D and 767-300.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, RR: 37 Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 23198 times:
Oh and about the experience on 21 november (HND-HIJ) ; the 8 abreast cabin felt roomy although the seat's adjustable headrests were unusually low and small, I couldn't make them comfortable for me (6ft4). Didn't really notice the different air inside but it was only a 80 minute flight. The big windows and dimmers were a nice novelty. I was happy that even when dimmed you can still look outside well. I was afraid F/A's on a powertrip would be able to just cancel my view indefinetely on future long 787 flights.
The engines were quiet but I heared unusually much sounds like airco and some high pitch peep noise. Also the flight was bumpy but you need way more flights to be able to statistically verify if it's better or worse in turbulence compared to others.
The thin but long and upwards pointing wings were really noticable too. For the rest it was a nice airplane with the typical new smell. A bit bigger then I expected from the outside, almost as roomy as a 777. But I am not sure yet if it's a game changer, superficially there wasn't that much difference from an A-330.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
hal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 22576 times:
Quoting timpdx (Reply 1): It cost more to fly that short domestic leg than it did to fly transpac rt! Will have to wait until its available at normal fares. Almost 800 USD for the rt on the dreamliner and cost south of 700 rt for LAX-HND on the ordinary A332.
Domestic japanese fares are always pretty expensive. You really should have looked out for a combined ticket from the US. The "tag-on" to an international fare often is close to 0 $.
Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4): the 8 abreast cabin felt roomy although the seat's adjustable headrests were unusually low and small
Cmon, its the Japanese domestic version, you can say they perfectly outfitted it for the mission
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 21733 times:
Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4): superficially there wasn't that much difference from an A-330.
Just changing the cabin altitude from 8,000' on the A-330 (and most other airliners) to 6,000' on the B-787 is a huge change.
That along with more humidity in the B-787 (compared to the drier air in the A-330 and other airliners) will make the passengers much more comfortable and less tired upon reaching their destination. These two facts alone are a huge difference. The bigger hi-tech windows are not much more than 'window dressing' (pun intended).
777jaah From Colombia, joined Jan 2006, 1401 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 21430 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Just changing the cabin altitude from 8,000' on the A-330 (and most other airliners) to 6,000' on the B-787 is a huge change.
For us folks living in Bogota, BOG, at 8.500ft more or less, there is not going to be much of a difference.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): That along with more humidity in the B-787 (compared to the drier air in the A-330 and other airliners)
Personally, I will look forward into this. I really suffer from "dry" nose in a long flight and hopefully this could help a little.
Next flights: AV BOG-ADZ-BOG, AV-UA BOG-IAD-ORD-IAD-BOG, BOG-FLL-BOG, LA BOG-MIA-BOG J
Eagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1616 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 20774 times:
Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4): Didn't really notice the different air inside but it was only a 80 minute flight.
Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4): But I am not sure yet if it's a game changer, superficially there wasn't that much difference from an A-330.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Just changing the cabin altitude from 8,000' on the A-330 (and most other airliners) to 6,000' on the B-787 is a huge change.
He did say 'superficially'. And I think this taps into one of the points about the B787. While aviation enthusiasts will want to travel on it will the normal pax notice the difference between A330/B777/B787/A350? A lot of the immediate and obvious differences are down to airline config.
Pax may feel better after a 10 hour B787 flight but will they actually know it is due to the higher cabin pressure?
Personally I think the cabin pressure point will make a huge difference in long haul flying, but lets wait till next year when we see a few more long haul B787 in operation.
timpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 293 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20593 times:
My Japan trip is on DL so need a Skyteam partner, which ANA is not. Otherwise I would have done a leg on the 787 as a tag on. But I will get my chance soon enough, can't wait to fly one.
flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 502 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20396 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Just changing the cabin altitude from 8,000' on the A-330 (and most other airliners) to 6,000' on the B-787 is a huge change.
That along with more humidity in the B-787 (compared to the drier air in the A-330 and other airliners) will make the passengers much more comfortable and less tired upon reaching their destination. These two facts alone are a huge difference. The bigger hi-tech windows are not much more than 'window dressing' (pun intended).
As he was using a domestic flight, its probably not so noticable. However on a 10h flight you may clearly notice, especially the 'dry nose' types.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3591 posts, RR: 36 Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20358 times:
Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 8): Pax may feel better after a 10 hour B787 flight but will they actually know it is due to the higher cabin pressure?
Personally I think the cabin pressure point will make a huge difference in long haul flying, but lets wait till next year when we see a few more long haul B787 in operation.
Having flown on the A380 from LHR to SYD, with only a very short lay-over in SIN (40 min), I can tell you that you will notice the difference on these (very) long flights. Of course the A380 also enjoys the higher cabin pressure and humidity levels. Actually, she was the first to have these features. .
Since the B787 is so new, and not flying very long distances with any customer yet, and also only a handful have been delivered, we have to await the passenger reactions to it. And then some time later we will know if ANA are happy with the B787.I am quite confident they all will be (very) positive. But I also fear that the general public hardly will care about what type of plane they are on and surely will not care what kind of modern features it will have (or not) compared to the ones they might have previously flown on.
cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7702 posts, RR: 55 Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20121 times:
I flew two legs on Day Seven of ops. I would say it's a pretty cool plane, you see new stuff everywhere you look. First of all, the windows are gigantic. Didn't get it with the dimmer, it does change opacity but very gradually so it's a bit, "Is it working?" "How about now?" "Wait, did it just change?" etc. And it will probably break a lot! There are no "non smoking" signs, just the seat belt sign, that was a surprise - we don't live in a non-smoking world anymore, we live in a post-smoking world (I gave up 178 days ago after a quarter century of dedicating puffing!). Wings are very beautiful. Ailerons lift up symmetrically on both sides with landing flap, interesting. Amazing sci fi light show during boarding, you may have seen photos. Interior oise levels feel the same as any other modern jet. Maybe a bit quieter than a 777 but no quieter than an Airbus. Probably noisier than an A380. Cabin air feels the same as any other liner, but as said above, who can tell on a short flight. On a long flight, it might make a difference but punters may not ascribe their well-being to the hardware, and just congratulate themselves on drinking enough water or getting enough rest the night before the trip etc.
In summary I loved my two flights and she's definitely a sci fi super babe; but not a game-changing evolution like the Comet / 707, 747, or long haul twin (let's give that one to the 767), or the A380.
As for ANA, well, they are nothing if not cautious with their new birds - one does a r/t in the morning to Okoyama then sits for 21 hours at Haneda, the other does an evening r/t to Hiroshima. And that's it. The world is watching and they're not going to break one!
Btw the 777 common typerating seems to be less and less likely, BA have decided they will not recruit 787 drivers from the 777 pool and will treat the type as a totally separate fleet. I think ANA have gone the same way.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, RR: 37 Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 17916 times:
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 12): one does a r/t in the morning to Okoyama then sits for 21 hours at Haneda, the other does an evening r/t to Hiroshima.
They rather seem to switch one aircraft two another every few days. At the 21st of november when I did my flight, the 802 came back from Okoyama and also did my Hiroshima flight. Studying photos and flightmemory it seems indeed that the 801 does both commercial roundtrips a few days in a row and then the 802 etc. I had rather had the 801 but well... at least I got the newest one flying.
I forgot to mention the missing smoking lights, but there are no smoking stickers here and there, I think even on the seatbacks. Weren't there no use of electronics lights instead?
Good btw that you managed to stop smoking. I remember you were always talking about 'taking a fag' and I had a wrong idea with what you actually meant.
Servaas
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
ghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 755 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 16055 times:
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1591 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 15735 times:
Quoting ghifty (Reply 14): So.. For people living at high altitudes, the cabin experience has been degraded? Haha! Interesting thought.
No, they would just feel like they can run a marathon without running out of breath.
Loran From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 436 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13354 times:
I flew on JA801A on December 3rd HIJ-HND. Fully agree with MEA-707 & cedarjet, its far less spectacular as one would think. If you pay attention to the details you can spot the differences which were already mentioned. Only thing I forgot to actively pay attention was the cabin altitude and humidity, but I didnt pick it up either that it was different from other flights. It probably helps a lot more on long-haul.
Since I flew at night I noticed a couple of other things:
- The lighting system is completely different and based on LEDs (inside and outside). The beacons are no more flashing for a split second, but come on for sth like 3/10 of a second or so, which is singificantly longer compared to current models. Same for the wingtip strobes. So the 787 will be easily recongisable when flying overhead at night.
- When we boarded, the cabin was illuminated in rainbow colors, with the whole spectrum across the economy cabin.
- I sat in the front in row 7, so can't tell how noisy it was in the back. In the front it was quiet similar to the A380 noise levels. The RR power plant still produced the characteristic rumble noise which was great to hear.
- When looking outside, I noticed the engine is relatively big in its diameter... it obviously fits into the natural evolution of Turbofan engines by increasing massflow at lower fan speeds.
- The seats don't recline any more into the face of the person behind you, the back is fixed. The base of the seat rather slides forward, which doesn't work for people like me (6' 2" tall). There is a very small indicator on each seat shell which is green or red depending if your seat is upright or reclined. The crew checks each indicator when preparing the cabin for landing to make sure all seats are upright.
- As a last point, I observed JA801A two days later from the HND observation deck in the afternoon sun. You can exacltly see where the fuselage sections were joined, it still looks like the diameters of the early production models are not fully aligned. I recall the first prototype had massive differences between the individual fuselage sections.
As for the operational pattern, both days I was in HND (3rd and 5th of Dec), JA802A was parked at the remote stand to the North. I thought it was not in service yet and I was happy to have flown on JA801A (line number 7), however there is a photo in the database of JA802A on the 3rd of Dec showing it operating an afternoon service.
chuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 700 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12894 times:
Quoting flyglobal (Reply 10): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Just changing the cabin altitude from 8,000' on the A-330 (and most other airliners) to 6,000' on the B-787 is a huge change.
That along with more humidity in the B-787 (compared to the drier air in the A-330 and other airliners) will make the passengers much more comfortable and less tired upon reaching their destination. These two facts alone are a huge difference. The bigger hi-tech windows are not much more than 'window dressing' (pun intended).
As he was using a domestic flight, its probably not so noticable. However on a 10h flight you may clearly notice, especially the 'dry nose' types.
It's strange that we always refer to that cabin pressure differential as a "game changer".
Whilst I think it is important, it is only a 2000ft cabin altitude difference at the maximum operating ceiling, and a fully loaded aircraft isn't anywhere near that... so in actual fact the pressure differential will be less than 2000ft in most cases.
Humidity level is going to be a lot more noticeable in terms of comfort for sure.
This said, both changes are well worthwhile, particularly for the crews who will fly the aircraft day in, day out (my opinion!)
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11311 times:
Sea level atomshereic pressure, as we all know is about 101kPa at sealevel (standard pressure, standard temp of 15C, no storms, 0% humidity). At 2000m (6000') that pressure is about 81 kPa, at about 2675m (8000') the pressure is about 72 kPa.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, RR: 65 Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10814 times:
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 12): As for ANA, well, they are nothing if not cautious with their new birds - one does a r/t in the morning to Okoyama then sits for 21 hours at Haneda, the other does an evening r/t to Hiroshima.
No longer! There are now two 787 rotations a day in and out of Hiroshima and Okayama = 8 flights. Since 10th December, I believe.
PHLwok From United States of America, joined May 2007, 375 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9242 times:
For those with access to wsj.com, they have an article up at the moment on this. The quick version is that NH is happy with it and after about 200 revenue flights from two frames, dispatch reliability is nearly 100% and better than that of the 777 introduction so far. While not very statistically significant, it's a good start.
flood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1052 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8790 times:
Quoting PHLwok (Reply 20): dispatch reliability is nearly 100%
Yet in the following sentence a Boeing spokesman went on to claim a DR of "above 95%". While this obviously doesn't exclude 99%, it certainly doesn't suggest such
PHLwok From United States of America, joined May 2007, 375 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7350 times:
Quoting flood (Reply 21): Yet in the following sentence a Boeing spokesman went on to claim a DR of "above 95%". While this obviously doesn't exclude 99%, it certainly doesn't suggest such
Yeah, I noticed that, but I took it to mean Boeing was being more conservative in its claims given the low number of revenue flights thus far and therefore having too little data on just two frames to project what early model DR will really be. Even if both are correct, NH of course won't want anyone to book away from the 787 thinking it's more likely to have a maintenance delay or cancel and may be touting early good DR that may not hold up over time or with more deliveries - but for now it's good PR.
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2025 posts, RR: 56 Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6589 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18): Sea level atomshereic pressure, as we all know is about 101kPa at sealevel (standard pressure, standard temp of 15C, no storms, 0% humidity). At 2000m (6000') that pressure is about 81 kPa, at about 2675m (8000') the pressure is about 72 kPa.
Cabin altitude is specified at service ceiling altitude and is only a proxy for what really matters: the maximum pressure differential between outside and inside the airplane. In crude terms, how much air can you stuff in the balloon before the effects of material fatigue increase over the lifetime of the airframe.
Most missions never reach that high (over 40000 ft), which explains why you will often see no more than 6000 ft cabin altitude (or less...) in an airplane that is supposedly rated at 8000. The difference only kicks in at uncommonly high flight levels. I can't blame you for having been confused by this; you wouldn't be the first.
Nutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 319 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6574 times:
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 12): There are no "non smoking" signs, just the seat belt sign, that was a surprise
I noticed that too the other day but it was on a brand spanking new A321.
US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
25 Eagleboy: Personally I am lazy so use the term cabin atmosphere/pressure to sort of include the increased humidity levels too. (Increased humidity is already o
26 AngMoh: I don't think they are happy with Boeing - the plane is a different story... ANA postpones the launch of the 787 on Tokyo - Beijing route due to delay
27 KrisFlyerGold: Getting production ramped up, fixing out of synch aircraft, and squeezing contractual efficiency gains out of the 787 still requires a ton of work by
28 NYC777: JA801A is L/N 8 not L/N 7. L/N 7 is still in Everett.
29 carpethead: Couldn't agree more. Looks like the HND-FRA will be launched as planned but the delay in delivery of the second int'l 788 will mean some of the fligh
30 PM: Three more ANA domestic routes for the 787. "ANA announced Tuesday it plans Dreamliner services on Tokyo Haneda (HND)-Itami (Osaka) and HND-Yamaguchi
31 817Dreamliiner: Whats the current status of LN 7? I thought it was gonna be delivered first. Why is still there??
32 Stitch: As the first production airframe, it should have the most change incorporation work to be done so it will likely be some time before it is delivered
33 817Dreamliiner: Ok, would have thought it would have finished rework by now, thanks
Sponsor Message: 
From Brazil, joined Mar 2005, 959 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 293 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Jan 2006, 1401 posts, 
From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1616 posts, 
. 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7702 posts, 
From France, joined Sep 2006, 700 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
