Boeing 787 – A New Era in Air Travel

Originally Posted by pintnight

I didn't realized it was Airbus or Boeing was responsible for running a airline company or airport.

No, but flying sucks and is getting worse and worse. In the last ten years I've flown over 500k miles, mostly in coach since my company doesn't pay for first class. New planes are nice for the airlines, but as a passenger its just another tube that we'll be crammed into. What's next, cell phone service while in the air? Please, let me hang myself now.

So far this year, 1 in 4 flights have been delayed or late.

Originally Posted by cwsqbm

No, but flying sucks and is getting worse and worse. In the last ten years I've flown over 500k miles, mostly in coach since my company doesn't pay for first class. New planes are nice for the airlines, but as a passenger its just another tube that we'll be crammed into. What's next, cell phone service while in the air? Please, let me hang myself now.

It's still not Boeing and Airbus issue of how the plane is configured. It's airline company that configured the planes to not have any space and other accessories for cell phone, etc.

Originally Posted by pintnight

It's still not Boeing and Airbus issue of how the plane is configured. It's airline company that configured the planes to not have any space and other accessories for cell phone, etc.

Exactly.

We do airframes, not interiors.

Boeing 787 Rollout Videos

http://www.king5.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=157302

http://www.king5.com/video/index.html?nvid=157291&shu=1

http://www.king5.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=157297

http://www.king5.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=157289

Originally Posted by Paul Christian

WOW..that is cool and are they replacing the 777 and 747s??

The 787 replaces the 767 & some Airbus models.

I missed the unveiling on the internet today....does anyone have a link to the replay? Can't find anything on Boeing dot com.

Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't try. You saved me a lot of typing.

Originally Posted by Z4luvr

I do not work in the airline or aerospace industry but I can appreciate the advancements of this plane and what it means for consumers - it will help keep fares lower than if less efficient aircraft were utilized. Your beef appears to be with the FAA, the airlines and everyone else you seem to think isn't doing a better job to provide you a free headset, snack and pillow. What would you do to improve the process?

I don't understand how one can say that the state of air traffic today is "absolutely horrible". The system is congested and theres not a lot you can do about that unless you want to spend hundreds of billions on new airports and advanced control systems. The problem with doing that is that the airlines aren't making enough money to pay for that infrastructure and they can't pass it along in higher fares. Would you favor additional taxes added to tickets to finance this? or higher income tax rates? I wouldn't.

Perhaps a small economics lesson is in order. Do you recall what it cost to fly before deregulation? What is the "real" (inflation adjusted) cost of flying for consumers today versus 20 to 30 years ago? (WAY lower now) Even though there are fewer airlines, competition for passengers remains very aggressive with lower fares and frequent flier perks. There is increasing pressure to reduce fares for the airlines' most profitable customers, last minute business travelers. That would put even more pressure on consumer fares.

Without more efficient planes, fares would not be as low as they are today. If the dominant plane was the still the 707, fuel costs would be higher, noise and emissions would also be excessive. What "wow" factor is left? Regulations will not allow supersonic flight over the US (unless you want sonic booms to be a part of everyday life) so planes can't fly much faster unless there is some sort of ramjet advancement (expensive and impractical on short to medium haul flights). The Concorde was an economic disaster that never made money. As we can see with the Airbus A380, sometimes bigger isn't always better, as it requires airport improvements, additional spacing with other planes and the ingress egress issues it creates.

Airlines have discovered that the vast majority of passengers are fare driven and are not willing to pay a higher fare for a snack, pillow and a second bag of peanuts. As for the airlines, there are two distinct groups - high cost, leagacy carriers (like American, United, Delta and Northwest) with union problems and lower cost carriers like Jet Blue, AirTran and Southwest. The legacy carriers have to cut cost everywhere they can to be competitive.

Originally Posted by pintnight

It's still not Boeing and Airbus issue of how the plane is configured. It's airline company that configured the planes to not have any space and other accessories for cell phone, etc.

Agreed. I think it's hilarious when the hype comes out and new planes are shown with hot tubs, lounge seating etc... The reality for the plane's final configuration (which is the manner in which it's designed) is to cram as man y seats into the plane as possible while maintaining some modicum of comfort and meeting all the FAA mandated safety regulations,

Just make 'em safe...I can deal with lost luggage, delayed flights, and minimal legroom as long as I get there in one piece!

Originally Posted by hockeynut

Just make 'em safe...I can deal with lost luggage, delayed flights, and minimal legroom as long as I get there in one piece!

Couldn't agree more...






OK, not the legroom part...

Regardless of the seating configuration chosen by various airlines, the 787 will still offer 2 distinct benefits for passengers: The composite fuselage allows a higher pressurization differential (PSI) yielding a lower cabin altitude at cruise. Current jetliners offer an environment ranging from 7000' to 8000' at cruise while the 787 will be about 5000'. Secondly, the cabin windows are significantly larger than its peers, allowing magnificent sightseeing for those appropriately seated.

Originally Posted by A320 Scott

Regardless of the seating configuration chosen by various airlines, the 787 will still offer 2 distinct benefits for passengers: The composite fuselage allows a higher pressurization differential (PSI) yielding a lower cabin altitude at cruise. Current jetliners offer an environment ranging from 7000' to 8000' at cruise while the 787 will be about 5000'. Secondly, the cabin windows are significantly larger than its peers, allowing magnificent sightseeing for those appropriately seated.

When I fly, those things are not important. I don't get nose bleed at either apparent altitudes.
1. I want to get there in one piece and on time.
2. Maybe a bit more room in coach, but Boeing doesn't dictate that.
3. Fat people, sit to the rear and don't violate my self declared air space.

Yeah, just like the iPhone, I'll wait a few months before riding so that they can work out all the 'bugs'

Originally Posted by Dave 330i

When I fly, those things are not important. I don't get nose bleed at either apparent altitudes.
1. I want to get there in one piece and on time.
2. Maybe a bit more room in coach, but Boeing doesn't dictate that.
3. Fat people, sit in the cargo area and don't violate my self declared air space.

Fixed

Originally Posted by A320 Scott

The composite fuselage allows a higher pressurization differential (PSI) yielding a lower cabin altitude at cruise. Current jetliners offer an environment ranging from 7000' to 8000' at cruise while the 787 will be about 5000'.

That should make the ear popping ritual a little less of a hassle. An article I read indicated that the composite materials will also permit more humidity in the cabin air.

Dear lord, ear popping is so eaisly avoided with simply yawning...thats all it takes.

When I was in flight training, I had to spin a Archer from 8000' all the way down to 3500.

Yawn and you'll be fine. Being 5'8 I find plenty of room on most coach flights, although my company always springs for business class.

Originally Posted by Dave 330i

When I fly, those things are not important. I don't get nose bleed at either apparent altitudes.
1. I want to get there in one piece and on time.

Well, they are important to the vast majority of travellers. Sustained exposure to high altitude and extremely low humidity is quite unhealthy.

As for notion #1, that's a given.

Boeing 787 Rollout pics

http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...ne_version=6.0

Originally Posted by ___lk___

Anticpated airport check-in line time savings

Anticipated lost baggage claim reductions

wake me up when anything ... reduces the misery of flying.

That’s what business airplanes are for.

http://www.avantair.com/

Boeing 787 Presentation

http://www.aseisocal.org/convention/...Technology.pdf

Boeing 787 Rollout Video (complete version)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-premiere.html

Originally Posted by Z4luvr

I do not work in the airline or aerospace industry but I can appreciate the advancements of this plane and what it means for consumers - it will help keep fares lower than if less efficient aircraft were utilized. Your beef appears to be with the FAA, the airlines and everyone else you seem to think isn't doing a better job to provide you a free headset, snack and pillow. What would you do to improve the process?

I don't understand how one can say that the state of air traffic today is "absolutely horrible". The system is congested and theres not a lot you can do about that unless you want to spend hundreds of billions on new airports and advanced control systems. The problem with doing that is that the airlines aren't making enough money to pay for that infrastructure and they can't pass it along in higher fares. Would you favor additional taxes added to tickets to finance this? or higher income tax rates? I wouldn't.

Perhaps a small economics lesson is in order. Do you recall what it cost to fly before deregulation? What is the "real" (inflation adjusted) cost of flying for consumers today versus 20 to 30 years ago? (WAY lower now) Even though there are fewer airlines, competition for passengers remains very aggressive with lower fares and frequent flier perks. There is increasing pressure to reduce fares for the airlines' most profitable customers, last minute business travelers. That would put even more pressure on consumer fares.

Without more efficient planes, fares would not be as low as they are today. If the dominant plane was the still the 707, fuel costs would be higher, noise and emissions would also be excessive. What "wow" factor is left? Regulations will not allow supersonic flight over the US (unless you want sonic booms to be a part of everyday life) so planes can't fly much faster unless there is some sort of ramjet advancement (expensive and impractical on short to medium haul flights). The Concorde was an economic disaster that never made money. As we can see with the Airbus A380, sometimes bigger isn't always better, as it requires airport improvements, additional spacing with other planes and the ingress egress issues it creates.

Airlines have discovered that the vast majority of passengers are fare driven and are not willing to pay a higher fare for a snack, pillow and a second bag of peanuts. As for the airlines, there are two distinct groups - high cost, leagacy carriers (like American, United, Delta and Northwest) with union problems and lower cost carriers like Jet Blue, AirTran and Southwest. The legacy carriers have to cut cost everywhere they can to be competitive.

I find it amusing that you want to give me an economics lesson. Who the He!! do you think you are. I own a business (not that it matters because it really does not). I would bet that, based on your post, (lemonade stands don't count) that you have never owned a business, so save the economics lessons and condascending attitude for someone who needs that crap.

Without a doubt, the product most airlines are delivering today is sub-standard, or as I stated earlier, horrible. Airline employee morale is terrible, listen to the news, and deal with flight attendants that could give a zhit (most but not all). Customer satisfaction is at an all time low. How can you say with a straight face that you do not understand how someone can say that the state of air travel is horrible? Their costs, while high and not sustainable, are no excuse for the poor service they are delivering. Forget the snack, pillow and peanuts (you completely missed that point), I'll settle for reasonable and decent treatment. Is it more costly to respect the customer and care a little? Manage the business and deliver a reasonable product, but I will never buy into the notion that because costs are high they're entitled to deliver a bad product, that spells the end of any business. If there were another alternative (read monopoly), they would quickly be out of business, and that is very definition of a poorly managed business, high costs or not.

I see poor management every time I fly, the simplest of things are not being attended to, it's really quite amazing. It's time for the airlines to get back to the fundamentals of business, deliver a good product under the prevailing economic circumstances. Currently, a vast majority of airline companies are not doing that.

Boeing 787 Rollout pics

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/

Originally Posted by MaxTimeOff

I find it amusing that you want to give me an economics lesson. Who the He!! do you think you are. I own a business (not that it matters because it really does not). I would bet that, based on your post, (lemonade stands don't count) that you have never owned a business, so save the economics lessons and condascending attitude for someone who needs that crap.

Without a doubt, the product most airlines are delivering today is sub-standard, or as I stated earlier, horrible. Airline employee morale is terrible, listen to the news, and deal with flight attendants that could give a zhit (most but not all). Customer satisfaction is at an all time low. How can you say with a straight face that you do not understand how someone can say that the state of air travel is horrible? Their costs, while high and not sustainable, are no excuse for the poor service they are delivering. Forget the snack, pillow and peanuts (you completely missed that point), I'll settle for reasonable and decent treatment. Is it more costly to respect the customer and care a little? Manage the business and deliver a reasonable product, but I will never buy into the notion that because costs are high they're entitled to deliver a bad product, that spells the end of any business. If there were another alternative (read monopoly), they would quickly be out of business, and that is very definition of a poorly managed business, high costs or not.

I see poor management every time I fly, the simplest of things are not being attended to, it's really quite amazing. It's time for the airlines to get back to the fundamentals of business, deliver a good product under the prevailing economic circumstances. Currently, a vast majority of airline companies are not doing that.

So, vote with your money then. Provide an economic incentive for airlines to have better service. If no one flew economy, chose the airlines with the best service record, and only flew business class or better, any airline with poor service would be quickly cut out.

But, the fact is that most people are not willing to pay for better service, and prefer to pay a little as possible as long as they get to the destination. The airlines have tried to cater to that as best as possible, and cut out everything but the bare minimums. As sad as it is, people are still too willing to pay for poor service.

Same with food in the US too. A lot of people will put up with really crappy fast food instead of supporting more expensive (even slightly more) quality restaurants. However in a place like Hong Kong where there is a high demand for good food, crappy restaurants are weeded out very fast.