First Flight On BA's New 787 = Awful

in2flying · Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:28 pm

WOW- I just returned from England on Sunday where I flew from LHR to EWR aboard British Airways brandy new 787. I was seated in economy. As I was walking into the plane I was SOOOO excited to be flying on the 787. When I initially booked we were scheduled to fly back on the 777. So here we go. First the positives. Like many new planes, it was gorgeous to look at. Yes the air is remarkably fresher. The windows are bigger. That's all I can say however as you would expect, the service from the BA staff was lovely.

That's all the positive things I can say about the 787. Economy seating is AWFUL. I fortunately had an emergency exit seat so leg room wasn't an issue but the seat pitch, width and actual cushion was downright terrible. I'm a slim guy and would wonder if I had an extra few pounds how I could even fit. I couldn't imagine a more uncomfortable seat to sit in.

Folks, its that bad. We came over on an older 777 and I will go out of my way to avoid the 787 at all costs. I believe just about every airline chose to use the 3 X 3 X 3 seat layout instead of going with the suggested 8 seat layout.

I walked around the cabin and noticed people were downright crammed into their seats. It was bad. I chatted up several FA's and they confirmed reluctantly that many people were not pleased with economy seating.

Well that is it. I have nothing against BA. My flight aboard the 777 was amazing. The only way I would fly the 787 would be premium economy and truth is at a quick glance the seats didn't look that much better.

I'm open to discussing this, hearing others thoughts etc.

Cheers,

14ccKemiskt · Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:32 pm

Sounds horrible.

Which other airlines has the same type of seats on the 787?

in2flying · Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:34 pm

Kem,

I can tell you from everything I read it seems most airlines have adopted the 3 by 3 by 3 seating arrangement. I have nothing against BA, or Boeing. I actually own Boeing stock for my son. It was that uncomfortable. There are quite a few articles on the web speaking to this. I had no choice in flying the 787 however. I will go out of my way never to fly the plane again ( in economy) I would have to check the measurements on premium economy.

jetblue1965 · Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:35 pm

which one is worse ? 787 with 3-3-3 or 77W with 3-4-3 ?

SonomaFlyer · Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:42 pm

All airlines are taking 3-3-3 seating in economy. The a/c is narrower than the 777 so you will notice the difference not just in the seat pan but lack of shoulder width etc. Airlines can and will cram as many seats in as possible so long as folks pay for the privilege of flying cattle class. It won't change until the airlines notice a palpable difference in spending patterns towards airlines that take the chance to reduce crowding in Economy.

Good luck with that.

sunrisevalley · Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:45 pm

I rode in Y+ one way and found the seat cushion uncomfortable because it bottomed onto the underlying base. Not thick enough and the compressive structure of the foam was all wrong in my view. The other direction was in J . The J seat had it all correct except the most inconvenient head to tail layout that is a BA signature.

in2flying · Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:48 pm

Sonoma,

I agree with everything you said. I can tell you this. Unless its a last minute change with the airliner I will never fly a 787 economy flight again. It was that uncomfortable. I'm surprised more people aren't complaining. And Sunrise, the foam that you actually sit on was downright odd too.

travaz · Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:49 pm

You Get what you pay for. I just wonder if the Airlines do that with an eye to make you upgrade if you have the means. If you can't afford the upgrade than you have to suffer.

[Edited 2014-08-05 11:54:14]

usflyer msp · Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:58 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4):
All airlines are taking 3-3-3 seating in economy.

Actually, JL has chosen to maintain the 2-4-2 seating. I think they are the only carrier that has chosen this, however...

sandyb123 · Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:58 pm

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Allan Huse

Looks tight Ok. Never flown on the BA Longhaul Y product but 31 inch seat pitch is tight for long haul.

At least you get 38 inches in WT+ and interestingly another inch width, but the same seating config?

It's the way of the world I'm afraid.

Sandyb123

MSYtristar · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:02 pm

I'm by no means a small person (5'11, 270) and I found the 3+3+3 on the UA 788 in regular Y to be quite comfortable. I had no issues with width or space. To each his/her own I guess. I can't imagine the BA seat is any worse than the UA seat.

karan69 · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:04 pm

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 3):

Having been on both ,The cramped feeling is near identical.. , being recently trapped in a 10 abreast 777 and a380 on the middle seats on my flights, i truly appreciate airbus's 18 inch seat philosophy

Karan

N62NA · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:04 pm

Quoting In2flying (Reply 6):
I'm surprised more people aren't complaining.

Oh, they are:

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Bri...s/British_Airways_Boeing_787-8.php

See "Featured User Comments" in the lower right corner.

sccutler · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:08 pm

Quoting In2flying (Reply 6):
Unless its a last minute change with the airliner I will never fly a 787 economy flight again. It was that uncomfortable.

Tell the airline - they choose the seats and how they are laid out, not Boeing, and Boeing does not make the seats, either.

You may see the same, dastardly seats on a 350 or a 777 one day.

Just silly to blame the airplane; from what you wrote, had the seats been specified by the carrier more to your liking, you'd have been happy.

Like I say - let them know - I promise that, if enough people find the experience to be unpleasant, the airline will (ultimately) make a change, or lose customers.

dtw2hyd · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:11 pm

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 10):
I'm by no means a small person (5'11, 270) and I found the 3+3+3 on the UA 788 in regular Y to be quite comfortable. I had no issues with width or space. To each his/her own I guess. I can't imagine the BA seat is any worse than the UA seat.

I think the issue is with seat cushion thickness. OEMs and airlines keep cutting seat weight and thickness. I suppose they have a scientific way to match with older seats, but humans are more sensitive.

May be 788 operators should suggest pax to bring seat cushion, Scotch double-sided poster tape and 2x2 reflective mylar, to make their journey more comfortable. Stick poster tape and mylar if our e-tint is not good enough for you.

jetblue1965 · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:15 pm

Quoting sccutler (Reply 13):
You may see the same, dastardly seats on a 350 or a 777 one day.

I think Airbus purposely made the 350 width such that 3-3-3 is more comfy than 787, but yet nearly no one other than charter operators would do 3-4-3 config

roseflyer · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:18 pm

Quoting In2flying (Thread starter):

That's all the positive things I can say about the 787. Economy seating is AWFUL. I fortunately had an emergency exit seat so leg room wasn't an issue but the seat pitch, width and actual cushion was downright terrible. I'm a slim guy and would wonder if I had an extra few pounds how I could even fit. I couldn't imagine a more uncomfortable seat to sit in.

Economy seating is rather awful, but I do not think your complaints are very specific to the 787. The 787 in economy at 9 abreast has 17 to 17.5 inch wide seats. This is the same as the 737, 747 and 757.

The 777 (and A380) has the widest economy seats in the industry at 9 abreast. The seats are typically 18.5 inches wide. About half of new 777s are equipped with 10 abreast seating that is 17-17.2 inches wide. I think you notices how great the 777 is. I would consider the 787 about average. It is a little narrower than the 17.5-18.0 width found on the A320, A330 & A340 (at 8 abreast).

As far as I know, British Airways has standardized seat pitch of 31 inches on all of its airplanes. British Airways uses Recaro seats in economy on both the 777 and 787, but the model they choose is a bit different on the 787 since it has different dimensions.

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 3):
which one is worse ? 787 with 3-3-3 or 77W with 3-4-3 ?

The 777 interior is 15 inches wider than the 787. So at 9 abreast on each, you lose about 1.5 inches of seat width on the 787 vs the 777. Conversely, if the 777 is at 10 abreast vs 9 abreast 787, you are losing about 0.2 inches of width per seat on the 777.

Quoting In2flying (Thread starter):
I couldn't imagine a more uncomfortable seat to sit in.

You could always try Monarch, Air Transat or Air Asia X on their A330s which are 9 abreast. The A330 is 8 inches narrower than the 787, so you are looking at 16.5 inch wide seats. Ouch!

737tdi · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:20 pm

Wow, listen/read. This has nothing to do with the 787. It has to do with the company who purchased it and the options they elected. BA chooses the layout and the seats and the interior. Nothing at all to do with Boeing or the 787. Seat pitch, width, comfort is determined by the customer, not the manufacturer. They could put one Lazy Boy in there if you want. This is on BA, not Boeing or the 787.

enilria · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:24 pm

Quoting In2flying (Thread starter):
That's all the positive things I can say about the 787. Economy seating is AWFUL. I fortunately had an emergency exit seat so leg room wasn't an issue but the seat pitch, width and actual cushion was downright terrible. I'm a slim guy and would wonder if I had an extra few pounds how I could even fit. I couldn't imagine a more uncomfortable seat to sit in.

Folks, its that bad. We came over on an older 777 and I will go out of my way to avoid the 787 at all costs. I believe just about every airline chose to use the 3 X 3 X 3 seat layout instead of going with the suggested 8 seat layout.

Quoting In2flying (Thread starter):
I have nothing against BA.

I presume there are many seat vendors like there are for all aircraft. I think I would lay some of the blame with BA.

as739x · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:27 pm

This sounds like a trip report. Wrong Forum

SVA402 · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:29 pm

I wouldn't blame Boeing nor the 787 for this. I rode on an ANA 787 and had a pleasant ride in coach. It's important to remember that BA was the one that ordered the airplane in this configuration of seat pitch, number abreast, etc. I haven't been on UAL 787 but I've been told that's a decent ride in coach as well.

jetblue1965 · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:31 pm

Quoting SVA402 (Reply 20):
I rode on an ANA 787 and had a pleasant ride in coach.

Is it because it was still under the old 2-4-2 config ?

1400mph · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:33 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 5):

BA have the head to tail lay out in Club World because it allows for maximum capacity and provides the airline with the best opportunity to meet demand for the product at LHR.

anstar · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:36 pm

Quoting In2flying (Thread starter):
I chatted up several FA's and they confirmed reluctantly that many people were not pleased with economy seating.

Is anyone ever pleased with economy seating? Not really.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 9):
Never flown on the BA Longhaul Y product but 31 inch seat pitch is tight for long haul.

31" tends to be the industry standard these days.

BlueShamu330s · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:42 pm

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 17):
Wow, listen/read. This has nothing to do with the 787. It has to do with the company who purchased it and the options they elected. BA chooses the layout and the seats and the interior. Nothing at all to do with Boeing or the 787.

Sorry, when Boeing market it as a 9 abreast economy airframe, do you honestly expect airlines around the world like BA to say "Oh no old chap, we'd much rather go 8 across..."

Profitability is based upon bums on seats and the number of bums you can cram in. If Boeing say 9 is optimum for the frame, then 9 it is.

http://www.newairplane.com/787/desig...passenger-experience/calmer-cabin/

Rgds

in2flying · Tue Aug 05, 2014 7:45 pm

It's not the 31 inch pitch ANSTAR, its the 17.5 width and the uncomfortable seating. I didn't have the heart to fully recline because the poor guy behind me would have been more miserable than I was. I was in 30J an emergency exit. And thank you N62 because reading the Seat guru confirmed my original post. Most people loathe the seating on the plane.

RyanairGuru · Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:48 pm

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 3):
which one is worse ? 787 with 3-3-3 or 77W with 3-4-3 ?

It's pretty much a wash

Viscount724 · Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:13 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 16):
I would consider the 787 about average. It is a little narrower than the 17.5-18.0 width found on the A320, A330 & A340 (at 8 abreast).

Even a little makes a big difference when you're jammed into a 17" seat, considering that many people these days are wider than 17".

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 16):
Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 3):
which one is worse ? 787 with 3-3-3 or 77W with 3-4-3 ?

The 777 interior is 15 inches wider than the 787. So at 9 abreast on each, you lose about 1.5 inches of seat width on the 787 vs the 777. Conversely, if the 777 is at 10 abreast vs 9 abreast 787, you are losing about 0.2 inches of width per seat on the 777.

Boeing diagrams also show the 777 aisle one inch narrower (17") at 10-abreast than the 787 aisle (18") at 9-abreast.

That's one reason why the wider 747 fuselage makes the 747 quite acceptable at 10-abreast compared to the 777 as the aisles are 2.5" inches wider (19.5" vs. 17" according to Boeing diagrams).

opethfan · Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:13 am

Even with "outrage" it won't get any better, I fear. For one, the airlines are all doing it, so there's a financial disincentive to go with a more comfortable arrangement. Also, there's the old adage that Y passengers book only on price (which is partially true.) Competition only works if the competition is offering something better / different. If it's 9 and 10 abreast all round, you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

spacecadet · Wed Aug 06, 2014 5:44 am

Quoting Opethfan (Reply 28):
Even with "outrage" it won't get any better, I fear.

Well, it's getting better (and, I suspect, will continue to get better) in one way, which is that many airlines now are offering E+ or PE. There's still a lot of experimenting going on to figure out what the market actually prefers, but on some airlines these cabins are growing quite large.

I think a day will come when we'll all have to accept that modern economy class just isn't the same class as what we used to call "coach" - it's a class below it. E+ or even PE is more of what the coach of old was. Depending on the airline, you *can* still get that same experience - you just have to pay pretty much the same as what you would have paid 30 years ago (adjusted for inflation). I actually don't think that's unreasonable. I don't think you should expect the same service for half the price you used to pay, provided a reasonably priced premium economy upgrade is actually offered.

Personally I have a hard time flying regular economy on *any* airline anymore unless it's a very short (under 1 hour) flight. I'm willing to pay for more space, and I regularly do. If you're not, you can't really blame the airline for that. What you can blame them for is if they don't even offer the option, but BA does and it's not ridiculously priced.

jumpjets · Fri Aug 08, 2014 9:09 am

I am flying MAD-SCL in a little while on LANs 787 in Y - its one hell of a long way if they are as cramped as BA!

Taity · Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:22 pm

Personally I disagree with the original poster.

I flew on a BA 787 last month PHL - LHR, overnight, and found it to be very comfortable. Space was just right, product comfortable and an all round great experience. I'm 6ft 2 as well.

Each to their own.

Baexecutive · Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:54 pm

I think it's pretty much a race to the bottom these days with economy seating, customers in this cabin have expressed cost as the most important factor when choosing a seat therefore more seats = cheaper fares.

Clearly their is minor differences between airlines, an inch here an inch there, menus peanut eat but it still mounts up to the same thing, want more space & comfort pay for it.

WildcatYXU · Sat Aug 09, 2014 9:11 pm

Well, the OP just confirms what I'm saying some time ago - I will never fly a 9 abreast 787 or a 10 abreast 777 long haul. If I won't be able to afford at least a real Y+ ticket or find a flight on normally configured Airbus aircraft, I just won't fly. Period.

Edit: One more remark: I could never believe in all the PR about the reduced jetlag due to higher pressure and humidity aboard the 787. And guess what? It indeed doesn't work for me. I've arrived from Europe Thursday (LO 788 in J) and I'm jetlagged as hell. It's 18:03 right now and I'd really love to go to sleep.

[Edited 2014-08-09 15:04:37]

BoeingGuy · Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:36 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4):
All airlines are taking 3-3-3 seating in economy.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 8):
Actually, JL has chosen to maintain the 2-4-2 seating. I think they are the only carrier that has chosen this, however...

I flew NH 787s last year SJC-NRT and NRT-SEA and it was 2-4-2. It was really nice.

I am doing a CZ 787 YVR-CAN in December in 3-3-3 so now you have me worried.

[Edited 2014-08-11 15:37:31]

RyanairGuru · Tue Aug 12, 2014 2:22 am

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 30):
I am flying MAD-SCL in a little while on LANs 787 in Y - its one hell of a long way if they are as cramped as BA!

...which it is! I've got LAX-MEL coming up, which is another 1275 miles beyond MAD-SCL. That said, having flown MAN-DXB-BNE the entire way in the middle seat on an EK 77W, and not finding it particularly cramped beyond the middle seat aspect, I'm not overly concerned.

WildcatYXU · Tue Aug 12, 2014 12:09 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 35):
...which it is! I've got LAX-MEL coming up, which is another 1275 miles beyond MAD-SCL. That said, having flown MAN-DXB-BNE the entire way in the middle seat on an EK 77W, and not finding it particularly cramped beyond the middle seat aspect, I'm not overly concerned.

Just wait, my friend, just wait. You'll be 50 once too

AT · Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:50 pm

I agree the rant should be about BA, or more specifically the BA 787s-- it has nothing to do with the aircraft per se.

31" legroom isn't good. For very long haul flights, it can be dangerous for your body but LHR-EWR isn't that long a sector. I've been an advocate of having tiered minimum seat pitch requirements in Economy based on sector lengths:
so on flights less than 4 hours say, 31" is the industry minimum
on flights less than 8 hours : 32" minimum;
on flights more than 12 hours, 33" minimum.

The increased presence and popularity of premium economy addresses this requirement partially, but not everyone can afford Y+

sierra3tango · Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:36 pm

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 24):
Sorry, when Boeing market it as a 9 abreast economy airframe, do you honestly expect airlines around the world like BA to say "Oh no old chap, we'd much rather go 8 across..."

Profitability is based upon bums on seats and the number of bums you can cram in. If Boeing say 9 is optimum for the frame, then 9 it is.

Well in early June I did 2 sectors DOH/SIN/DOH (amongst 11 others) outbound was a 77W at 9 across and the return
was a 787 at 9 across and the difference was marked. Give me the 77W anytime at 9 across

BA's 772 (& I think 77W) are at 9 across in Y and EK 77W are definitely 10 across in Y and again the difference is
appreciable. Recent travels have taken me on 777 at 9 across on BA, TK, QR and was it ?AF?

My feeling is that you can travel with more comfort (or less claustrophobia) in Y, just book the airline that gives you a bit
more space with the lower numbers 'across'. Might cost a bit more but not a lot.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net