PTS Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Everything I've read and seen about the 787 has been great so far. The plane was designed with passenger and crew comfort in mind. Operating costs will be lower for airlines with 20% less fuel consumption and emissions. http://blog.seattlepi.com/airlinereporter/...ives/188415.asp A bunch of major airlines have placed orders. Some will be getting them first quarter 2010 but most a few years down the line.
kegtapr Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 First quarter 2010? Eveything I've read lately said 2011 at the earliest. Didn't it just start test flights yesterday?
MattyT Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 I read that the first customer is scheduled to take delivery 9 mos from now.
plenzmd1 Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 First quarter 2010? Eveything I've read lately said 2011 at the earliest. Didn't it just start test flights yesterday? Sure as chit hope its later than 1st qtr 2010. I no like to fly as it is, no way I'm getting on one of those till it has riden out some storms, snow, ice, wind etc. I don't care if logic dictates otherwise, all i know is they ended the first test flight eraly yesterday cause o the weather!!!
PromoTheRobot Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Sure as chit hope its later than 1st qtr 2010. I no like to fly as it is, no way I'm getting on one of those till it has riden out some storms, snow, ice, wind etc. I don't care if logic dictates otherwise, all i know is they ended the first test flight eraly yesterday cause o the weather!!! Well if you are a test pilot on a plane's very first test flight, are you gonna test your luck in bad weather? Don't read too much into that. They just wanted to be sure that can could fly before doing the harder stuff. PTR
Marv's Neighbor Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Unfortunately, it's not any faster than any other Passenger Plane. It's more fuel efficient because the extensive use of composite material makes it a lot lighter. The first 6 planes built will be used in future tests. When all the Flight Tests ar complete, all the "test" planes will be "zero'd out" to new condition and sold to the Airlines who already have delivery positions. I don't see any deliveries before late 2011. They're going to be built in S Carolina to avoid all the Washington State union problems. It's a step towards fuel efficiency but until somebody offers a realistic supersonic alternative, it's a just like a light weight 777.
Acantha Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Unfortunately, it's not any faster than any other Passenger Plane. It's more fuel efficient because the extensive use of composite material makes it a lot lighter. The first 6 planes built will be used in future tests. When all the Flight Tests ar complete, all the "test" planes will be "zero'd out" to new condition and sold to the Airlines who already have delivery positions. I don't see any deliveries before late 2011. They're going to be built in S Carolina to avoid all the Washington State union problems. It's a step towards fuel efficiency but until somebody offers a realistic supersonic alternative, it's a just like a light weight 777. I haven't read much about it lately, but about 5 years ago I did a paper on the difference between the business plans of boeing and airbus. In addition to the fuel efficiency, there are supposedly new upgrades that are supposed to make flight much more comfortable, including cabin pressurization and air recycling. Boeing tried to put a lot of attention into making air travel less stressful on the body. I haven't looked into any of it since back then, but if they were successful in those areas, it would be a big step forward imo.
WWVaBeach Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I haven't read much about it lately, but about 5 years ago I did a paper on the difference between the business plans of boeing and airbus. In addition to the fuel efficiency, there are supposedly new upgrades that are supposed to make flight much more comfortable, including cabin pressurization and air recycling. Boeing tried to put a lot of attention into making air travel less stressful on the body. I haven't looked into any of it since back then, but if they were successful in those areas, it would be a big step forward imo. I'm all for that! I make the flight from Atlanta->Honolulu & back a few times a year and it is stressful on the body.
Dan Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I haven't read much about it lately, but about 5 years ago I did a paper on the difference between the business plans of boeing and airbus. In addition to the fuel efficiency, there are supposedly new upgrades that are supposed to make flight much more comfortable, including cabin pressurization and air recycling. Boeing tried to put a lot of attention into making air travel less stressful on the body. I haven't looked into any of it since back then, but if they were successful in those areas, it would be a big step forward imo. Why don't they just give you enough room to acutally breath and stretch out a little. It's not the air that's cutting the circulation in my legs that can't move an inch or the crink in my neck because the back seat is horrible uncomfortable, all while I'm packed into some seat and can't even move my arms pasts my shoulder width for 3-4 hours. Yeah probably too some friggin genious years to realize better air circulation is what we need on a plane.
Acantha Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Why don't they just give you enough room to acutally breath and stretch out a little. It's not the air that's cutting the circulation in my legs that can't move an inch or the crink in my neck because the back seat is horrible uncomfortable, all while I'm packed into some seat and can't even move my arms pasts my shoulder width for 3-4 hours. Yeah probably too some friggin genious years to realize better air circulation is what we need on a plane. While your post is basically just a big B word session, I'll still point out that the designers of the airframe have absolutely nothing to do with how much leg room you have. Airlines configure the planes how they want them. If they want less seats to offer more room for their passengers, that's how they will configure. Most airlines are trying to maximize profits. I doubt it would happen, but better fuel efficiency gives the airlines the option to offer more room (and make less money on seats). With all that said, it's still pretty short sighted to crap on the improvements that are being made just because it doesn't fix the problems you want.
Dan Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 While your post is basically just a big B word session, I'll still point out that the designers of the airframe have absolutely nothing to do with how much leg room you have. Airlines configure the planes how they want them. If they want less seats to offer more room for their passengers, that's how they will configure. Most airlines are trying to maximize profits. I doubt it would happen, but better fuel efficiency gives the airlines the option to offer more room (and make less money on seats). With all that said, it's still pretty short sighted to crap on the improvements that are being made just because it doesn't fix the problems you want. What good are all these improvements though, if you still cram too many people in too small a space, and give them some horribly uncomfortable seats to boot? It's kinda like developing Super HD TV, but making us all watch it on a 12inch tv. What's the point? So, until some of that fuel efficiency tanslates to cheaper tickets or the interior improvements translates to more comfortable seeting arrangements, it's all talk, IMO.
Acantha Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 What good are all these improvements though, if you still cram too many people in too small a space, and give them some horribly uncomfortable seats to boot? It's kinda like developing Super HD TV, but making us all watch it on a 12inch tv. What's the point? So, until some of that fuel efficiency tanslates to cheaper tickets or the interior improvements translates to more comfortable seeting arrangements, it's all talk, IMO. I guess I just don't follow your line of thinking. Do I wish they had more comfortable and spacious seats? Yes (and of course they are available for a price). But this is like saying why give me a raise when my job still sucks. If your going to be crammed into a tight, uncomfortable seat anyway, isn't it better to have other improvements around you? And if those improvements aren't enough, as they obviously aren't for you, then you don't fly. But saying the improvements aren't worth it just because the seats are uncomfortable just doesn't make sense to me. If I can have a quieter, less exhausting, less dehydrating flight, I'm not going to turn it down.
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I guess I just don't follow your line of thinking. Do I wish they had more comfortable and spacious seats? Yes (and of course they are available for a price). But this is like saying why give me a raise when my job still sucks. If your going to be crammed into a tight, uncomfortable seat anyway, isn't it better to have other improvements around you? And if those improvements aren't enough, as they obviously aren't for you, then you don't fly. But saying the improvements aren't worth it just because the seats are uncomfortable just doesn't make sense to me. If I can have a quieter, less exhausting, less dehydrating flight, I'm not going to turn it down. What the hell you flying on? They making you peddle?
Acantha Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 What the hell you flying on? They making you peddle? I'm assuming you're joking, but just in case.... Between the air recycling and the altitude, the air on a plane is very dry which causes dehydration. I can't remember the details, but the 787 was supposed to have something in the air handlers that helped with that.
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I'm assuming you're joking, but just in case.... Between the air recycling and the altitude, the air on a plane is very dry which causes dehydration. I can't remember the details, but the 787 was supposed to have something in the air handlers that helped with that. You do realize the cabin is pressurized right? To a 8000 ft pressure level? You'd make a hell of a mountain climber. Bring some water and give me leg room.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 You do realize the cabin is pressurized right? To a 8000 ft pressure level? You'd make a hell of a mountain climber.Bring some water and give me leg room. I never knew that! That seems kinda of high?? I have none some people to start developing altitude sickness at not much more than that!
dib Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Saw a picture of the seats, they look like the seats in the Rocket from the movie "When Worlds Collide"
Dan Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I guess I just don't follow your line of thinking. Do I wish they had more comfortable and spacious seats? Yes (and of course they are available for a price). But this is like saying why give me a raise when my job still sucks. If your going to be crammed into a tight, uncomfortable seat anyway, isn't it better to have other improvements around you? And if those improvements aren't enough, as they obviously aren't for you, then you don't fly. But saying the improvements aren't worth it just because the seats are uncomfortable just doesn't make sense to me. If I can have a quieter, less exhausting, less dehydrating flight, I'm not going to turn it down. I'm sorry but I think your analogy is inaccurate. My low pay is one of the primary reasons my job sucks. So, a raise addresses some of my dissatisfaction. On a plan, however, the number one complaint of the majority of passengers is being cramped into tight, uncomfortable seats. So, yes, it's nice that they can improve the air circulation, but it does little to make my flight more comfortable. And, the "if you don't like it, don't fly" response doesn't work so well when you fly for business and have little choice. For me, personally, it could be decades before I ever see this plane. Most of my travels are within the US to small citites and I'm stuck on CRJs and 757's (the most uncomfortable plane of them all). I agree, it's nice to see improvements. I can appreciate that. My beef, however, is I don't see those improvements addressing the primary problem with air travel. Maybe the airlines will give up a row of seats to make them more comfortable; I'll hold my breath.
Recommended Posts