A bit more on ANA's 787 choices.

[mannej]

I would feel uncomfortable on one engine for any longer than necessary on a twin. Is an ETOPS of 330/350/360 minutes necessary, or playing with fire?

 

[docjames]

I would feel uncomfortable on one engine for any longer than necessary on a twin. Is an ETOPS of 330/350/360 minutes necessary, or playing with fire?

I guess that depends on definition of "necessary". Mostly "necessary" means a viable air route, where a large diversion is required if needing beyone 180min ETOPS (my definition I guess).

Trans-pac? Not necessary as the diversions required are small.

The real gain is in Sth America-Australia and East Coast Aus-Sth Africa. This SYD-JNB, and AKL-SCL and SYD-EZE etc. Ther'es probably a similar benefit on other long haul, over water routes, plus ISTR it would cut a few corners off main routes Asia-EU and potentially PER-LHR (currently beyond viable load range for any pax a/c).

There'd be other segments where it shaves some time but there's toomany to know/name all off the top of my head. Have a play with the great circle mapper and you'll get an idea of the differing "no-go" zones for twins based on ETOPS of varying durations (it has a new acronym now which I cant recall just now but is still called ETOPS by many).

The other factor here is that "ETOPS" will potentiall become a requirement for all pax aircraft,not just those with twin engines.

 

[Nigelinoz]

it has a new acronym now which I cant recall just now but is still called ETOPS by many)

I think Airbus proposed that the name of the standard be changed to LROPS which I believe stands for Long Range Operations Performance Standards,
but you are right that many people still call it ETOP'S even Boeing is still calling it that,but that maybe because they don't like using an acronym that
their competitor came up with :!:
Cheers
N'oz

 

[codash1099]

Apologies. Just checked and my reference earlier to ETOPS 360 was incorrect.

As suggested, it is 330.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

1-1-1
1-2-1

The 1-1-1 seems ...odd..

 

[anat0l]

I think Airbus proposed that the name of the standard be changed to LROPS which I believe stands for Long Range Operations Performance Standards, but you are right that many people still call it ETOP'S even Boeing is still calling it that,but that maybe because they don't like using an acronym that their competitor came up with :!:

Perhaps it's harder to make a bad acronym from LROPS.

ETOPS = Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim

 

[Nigelinoz]

Perhaps it's harder to make a bad acronym from LROPS.

ETOPS = Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim

I suppose it could be 'lectrics run or passengers swim :mrgreen::mrgreen:
Cheers
N'oz

 

[anat0l]

I suppose it could be 'lectrics run or passengers swim :mrgreen::mrgreen:

Yeah but that doesn't seem as 'ffective.


As for the new seating arrangement, if the 787 is going to be used for domestic ops, then you know it's going to be fairly high-density configuration. Just look at the current configs used for domestic Japanese operations now (i.e. from both NH and JL). Besides, a flight from HND to ITM is so short it's a case about volume, not comfort.

 

[mannej]

1-1-1
1-2-1

The 1-1-1 seems ...odd..

Isn't the CX Herringbone A330 1-1-1?

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Isn't the CX Herringbone A330 1-1-1?

Maybe l should be a little bit clearer in my post.

The 1-1-1 on ANA looks weird.

The 1-2-1 looks normal, while the 1-1-1 has an extra bed, but no seat.

View attachment 2810

 

[medhead]

Maybe l should be a little bit clearer in my post.The 1-1-1 on ANA looks weird. The 1-2-1 looks normal, while the 1-1-1 has an extra bed, but no seat.View attachment 2810

Do you mean an extra bench, as the seat appears to be the bed.
I realise they jammed in the "cubicles" as close as possible, almost interlocking, and that requires the alternation between 2 and 1 in the middle. But it seems to me, roughly judging the spacing, that they could have dropped one row in the middle and had all rows as 2 seats in the middle. That might get them more seats overall.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Do you mean an extra bench, as the seat appears to be the bed.

Yes. It looks odd.

 

[anat0l]

Yes. It looks odd.

I think I remember seeing a similar thing either on old (what I flew) and / or new (haven't flown, only pictures) LX aircraft in J. Some seats were singles with two tables on either side (or table space, anyway). Some had two seats with a single table in the middle of them.

Odd or not, it wouldn't be bad to get the single seat and truly spread out.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Odd or not, it wouldn't be bad to get the single seat and truly spread out.

Yep, and this is where status might come into play...

 

[Simsy85]

I guess you need to consider that a larger percentage of their PAX are Asian or of Asian decent, so the closeness or the tight space isn't a real issue. Dont get me wrong, i'm not being racist or anything but I don't think they'd have as many 6 foot + PAX as a Western Carrier - think cars like a Skyline or a Toyota Soarer - small seats and even smaller backseats - why? they weren't designed with 6ft ppl in mind.

*sits back and waits for the hatemail* :/

 

[flychrisfly]

On the plus side, the sterile look works well for the bathrooms. Loving the washlet functions too

 

[Justchecking]

I guess you need to consider that a larger percentage of their PAX are Asian or of Asian decent, so the closeness or the tight space isn't a real issue. Dont get me wrong, i'm not being racist or anything but I don't think they'd have as many 6 foot + PAX as a Western Carrier - think cars like a Skyline or a Toyota Soarer - small seats and even smaller backseats - why? they weren't designed with 6ft ppl in mind.*sits back and waits for the hatemail* :/

I'm guessing you havent travelled much in Asia recently. Asian males arent all tiny or short of stature, many are just as tall as your average caucasian. Its not unusual to see 6ft Japanese in Japan these days and Koreans tend to be just as tall and broad as anyone else. The small rear seats in a soarer have less to do with the size of the occupants and more to do with the expectation that they are more likely to be used for hat stowage than people. Its really only token space not a serious effort at passenger comfort. They put seatbelts there for marketing purposes because 4 seater cars sell better than 2 seaters. But I do agree that many Asian cultures are tolerant of small spaces owing to high population density.

 

[Justchecking]

Ironic then that Asian carriers are usually more generous with legroom in economy. Malaysia offers 34" while our great aussie carriers are nipping it back to 30", so anyone over 5ft 5" cannot physically fit into the seat. Where they imagine the rest of population are going to sit I have no idea.

 

[Bundy Bear]

Youtube link of the 787 on its flight to Japan.

An exclusive look on board a Boeing 787 Dreamliner flight as a Boeing team flies the jetliner's maiden flight to Japan for a visit with ANA, the first airline that will fly the 787

YouTube - ‪Flying on 787's first flight to Japan‬‏

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Cheers Bundy Bear!