AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6478 times:
It may not be as much better as they might think. Much of taste is actually linked to the texture which is often poor on airplanes because the food is pre-cooked and re-heated. While the 787 cabin pressure and humidity is higher, most reviews have not shown a night and day difference due to the atmosphere. The pressure is approimately equivalent to 6,000 feet (vs. 8,000 for a conventional aircraft) so it is still quite different than sea level.
Ratypus From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5140 times:
In any event, airline food generally contains more salt/sugar/flavouring than "terrestrial" food, precisely to compensate for the diminished sense of taste in the cabin environment. If the 787's cabin environment does, in fact, diminish that sense of taste less....you can probably expect your meal to taste more salty/sweet than you're used to!
sturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4622 times:
Off topic perhaps, but I was recently at a business meeting at DXB premises, and the refreshments served were from EK catering. I could've sworn it tasted better on the ground than on the flights I took into and out of DXB.
U2380 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4538 times:
Quoting western727 (Reply 10): I thought the 380 does NOT have a composite fuselage...and thus has similar cruise pressure/humidity levels as, say, a 330 or 777?
Approximately 25% of the A380 is made from composite materials. GLARE is used in the upper fuselage and CFRP in the rear pressure bulkhead, centre wing box and wing ribs among other area. In fact, I think I'm right in saying that the A380 uses more composite materials (by measure of sheer weight) than the 787.
However, the point in hand. The A380 does have similar pressure/humidity levels to the 787. Increased corrosion is the main issue when you decrease the cabin humidity (due to the higher level of moisture in the air). CFRP is more resistant to corrosion when compared to aluminium. This enables the 787, with its increased use of composites, to utilise a higher cabin humidity.
I presume the A380 uses extra corrosion protection when compared to previous aircraft to achieve the desired corrosion resistance. I'm not entirely sure on the specifics though (I think it may be achieved using humidifiers).
One last point I would make, however, is that 50% of the 787 is not built using composite materials. Those areas of the aircraft are vulnerable to the increased corrosion so I'm sure similar methods of protection are also used on the 787.