Avoiding the Qantas 787

[Economy_Gold]

While I have not yet flown the QF 787 (like any paying passenger), I will avoid flying it, including in J. I think the seat in J is fine and in line with the competition, but I think the extremly low toilet ration on the plane is an embarrisment for a premium airline.

 

[Pleb Status]

I would have thought the level of comfort in Y comes down to more than just the plane itself, surely the hard product accounts for something as well?

This is Particularly the case as no paying passengers have yet set foot on QF’s B787, and yet experienced both the hard & soft product.

On the hard product side, the aircraft (789), airline (QF), two of the three announced routes (BNE/MEL-LAX) and the J seat (QF A330) are not new or 'revolutionary'. You can experience all of these today in some form if you wanted to (and a lot of FF here have done so).

Although the exact Y and W seating may be 'new' (to QF at least), the critical dimensions provided by QF are in line with other carriers operating the 787. It is therefore a reasonable assumption that the QF experience should be similar to other 787 operators in these cabins. QF have not magically created 300mm of additional width for their 789 over every other carrier.

On the soft product side, there has been no mention (that I am aware) of any change in service from what is currently provided on BNE/MEL-LAX (PER-LHR may be different). It is therefore a reasonable assumption that what you get now is what you will get on the 789. The only surprises may be negative, as some 'deletions' may have been made to reduce the weight of the aircraft for the long PER-LHR sector.

QF have actually made it very easy to 'imagine' quite accurately what the 789 experience will be like, as they would have struggled to come up with a more 'mainstream' fitout that could be any closer to what they offer now...

 

[DavidFlynn]

While I have not yet flown the QF 787 (like any paying passenger), I will avoid flying it, including in J. I think the seat in J is fine and in line with the competition, but I think the extremly low toilet ration on the plane is an embarrisment for a premium airline.

That's certainly an issue of concern for many savvy frequent flyers, and to those who claim "Oh, AusBT only writes positive things about Qantas because of junkets and wining and dining etc", note that we were the ones who first 'broke' the story on pax:lav ratio in QF789 business class (based on info from QF product manager during the QF789 premium economy pre-brief) and apart from Plane Talking we're the only ones to have highlighted this [Why you'll queue for the business class loo on Qantas' Boeing 787]

 

[Pleb Status]

To be accurate, the QF war against toilets is one being waged against all of their medium/long haul customers, not just those on the 789.

You need to avoid QF completely to win that one...

 

[trippin_the_rift]

I've traveled on a ton of 787s with various airlines, and while the aircraft is certainly nothing new - it is new for QF. That makes it special for people who work at the airline. Quite frankly as a pax, whether it's a330 or 787 - the difference is almost nil. In economy, you're still cramped and hating life for the entire flight duration.

For business class travelers who favour QF; the 787 will have INCREASED cabin noise as you are closer to the engines than on A380 upper deck. Less bathroom to pax ratio is a real issue on QF because of pajamas, which means at certain times of the flight, bathroom availability is a real problem. This is why other airlines can get away with similar ratios - they don't have the PJ problem.

So while I'd take 787 over 737 any day of the week - I'm not sure it's worth trading 787 for A380 as a pax.

 

[levelnine]

+1, I agree entirely.

Some very sad, depressing & pessimistic subjective opinions being sprayed in this thread.

This is Particularly the case as no paying passengers have yet set foot on QF’s B787, and yet experienced both the hard & soft product.

Can you not handle disagreement? Do you always deride the views of others by calling them 'sad, depressing & pessimistic' when they are not in line with yours?

As for your last sentence, there is ample basis on which to criticise the Qantas product. For example, it adopts the same 3-3-3 seating as adopted in other airlines that fly the B787 in a 3-3-3 format. Qantas has not magically increased the width of the aircraft or decreased the width of the aisles.

Indeed, the first looks by real world users are showing just how tight the configuration is: Chasing the Qantas 787

 

[Cool Cat Phil]

Can you not handle disagreement? Do you always deride the views of others by calling them 'sad, depressing & pessimistic' when they are not in line with yours?

Oh dear! I Apologise if I’ve upset you.

Although, I don’t apologise for pointing out that some of those contributors in this thread that have provided commentary have not set foot on board a QF B787 aircraft and can provide real life examples to back up their claims.

Sure, once you’ve been onboard the aircraft and experienced the product in person, go for your life, no issues with criticism that is backed up with personal experience.

As for your last sentence, there is ample basis on which to criticise the Qantas product. For example, it adopts the same 3-3-3 seating as adopted in other airlines that fly the B787 in a 3-3-3 format. Qantas has not magically increased the width of the aircraft or decreased the width of the aisles.

I, along with just about everyone would have loved if Qantas went with a 2-4-2 seating configuration on the B787, but all carriers other than JAL have unfortunately gone the way of 3-3-3 in Y, as a result of increasing aircraft economics.
I acknowledge that the A350 is slightly wider than the B787, although with my real life experience flying in the extra legroom seats of AY’s A350, the seat was incredibly uncomfortable which is thinly constructed with little padding for back support.

Sure, not all airlines use the same thin seats as used by AY on the A350, but IMO the seat comfort, particularly back support is incredibly important. I did find AY’s seat pitch even in the first 5 extra legroom seats very minimal and seat width incredibly tight ( I suspect, most of the extra width of AY’s A350 is given to wider aisles and the window seats, although happy to be corrected).
I did find AY’s, roomy & spacious toilets a real winner though, not something I was thinking they would have invested in.

I’m Looking forward to travelling on more airlines on both the A350 & the B787 to gain a better understanding of which airlines invest in a good quality onboard product.

Indeed, the first looks by real world users are showing just how tight the configuration is: Chasing the Qantas 787

Excellent, love that contribution by pjm99au - real life examples with great pictures, that is very factual.
I too, can see the point made when PE seats that are fully reclined, could make for a tight squeeze to get out of the seat. That’s going to make for some awkward wiggling to negate out of.

 

[andyhui01]

+1, I agree entirely.

Some very sad, depressing & pessimistic subjective opinions being sprayed in this thread.

This is Particularly the case as no paying passengers have yet set foot on QF’s B787, and yet experienced both the hard & soft product.

All the above discussions are based on specs available from Qantas and experiences from other airlines in a similar configuration. Y hard product is probably the only one that is brand new and I am hoping for a fair review once it starts revenue service.

I am still disappointed that not a single media has talked about cramping people in a seat that is essentially the same width and seating configuration as a 738 (3 per group) but for 18 hours. I am not tall but have broad shoulders which is why width is more important. Sitting 3 across in a 738 often means that if I am next to a male, our shoulders do touch in certain positions

I know QF is Australia's darling but a well researched article on the realities of this 18 hour flight with real world comparisons on both width/pitch of the 789 with other legacy carriers and other seats in the QF fleet would earn my respect instead of pulling sentences from QF PR.

I always thought the media loved a QF bashing. I am guessing it's not right after QF has flown them halfway across the world as guests.

 

[justinbrett]

Is this thread a Qantas-bashing thread or a B787-9 bashing thread? Could you all please pick one?

The argument is that every airline in the world already flies this aircraft, it`s nothing new. Qantas choses a config which, with the exception of JAL, every one of those airlines already has.

So, we've established it's a popular aircraft type, every airline is flying them - presumably people are paying for tickets and the airlines are making money. So - the sky hasn't fallen in. It's universally acknowledged most passengers don't know or care what aircraft they're in - just want the price was.

The days of the A380 are numbered (the first few SQ aircraft may be scrapped for parts) - this is the new normal. I don't enjoy flying Y in B747 or A380 - you're just arguing about the least worst option, which really - it's 0.3 of an inch. Get a grip - if you want cheap airfares, this is how they continue.

Personally, why I'm excited about the QF 787 is what Qantas can do with it. Until now, other than Jetstar, it's only been foreign aircraft flying them into Aus - and for the most part these just replaced larger services. The only exception to this is UA with the planned SYD-IAH route starting next year. When we start seeing routes such as ORD, CDG and CPT being discussed by QF Execs, this is the real benefit and excitement of Qantas taking deliveries of their 787-9s.

By all means - avoid the B787 while you can. Maybe just avoid the B787 threads as well.

 

[Berlin]

First off all, I love this thread and it's title- had to giggle quite a bit at first

What the plane itself is concerned, it is a new plane type for Qantas so that's exciting in itself. However, I agree that the PR spin is of course totally over the top (that's the nature of a PR spin though) and of course this plane has been around for ages now.

From previous experience, I don't like the longhaul A330is Qantas uses but the seat itself is alright in my eyes (though definitely not the most comfortable J product out there). My trips on 787s with other airlines have all been distinctly "meh" -I prefer the type over the 777 but would chose an A380 over it any time but that's personal preference. The A350 is actually well superior to the 787 from a passenger perspective, at least that has been my experience both times I've flown on one.

 

[andyhui01]

By all means - avoid the B787 while you can. Maybe just avoid the B787 threads as well.

This thread is about avoiding the QF 787. So I think us "avoiders" are in the right place.

 

[RichardMEL]

I could be wrong here, but every 787 I have flown on has had small lav's. I think the trend in the industry is to ever smaller spaces (and let's not forget the QF F lavs on the 380 are hardly spacious. NZ 77W and 789's in J are horridly small (and that includes the piped muzak!) and the less said about UA the better (and don't get me started on their new half space 739 micro lavs.

As an industry the push is ever more seats and less amenity, and this includes lavs. QF is sadly immune. I'd also note the EK J lavs on the 380 down the back are pretty tight too... so while things like lavs are a airline customer choice, I wonder just how many options there are to choose from (and remembering this is the bean counters too pushing the revenue hit of like a larger disabled size lav in a cabin vs. more seats or whatever.

This brings me to the 787-9 as an aircraft (or the 787 family as a whole) offering from Boeing vs customer config (3-3-3 in Y vs 8 across, or a J suite vs reclinet, or whatever).

I find the 787 claims re cabin pressure and humidity to be generally fair on longer hauls. I did not notice it much flying AKL-PER (around 6-7 hours flying time) but definitely 14ish hours MEL-LAX I could feel the difference. The A350 has similar features, and the 380 seems to do an OK job too.

My main "problem" with the 787 as a Boring product are the windows. Not the size (brilliant) but the electronic "shades" which as oft discussed do not go fully dark, and you wind up with a "green" glow through them when flying in direct sunlight which can be quite distracting. I think the idea is neat and it'sa bit of a novelty, but it's failed in that respect and kind of glad Airbus did not follow suit and continued with old fashioned blinds in the A350.

I've been lucky enough to fly up front on every 787 I've flown on, and feel noise to be around on par with the A350, but not having flown behind the wing fully agree this could be a different story in Y so really can't comment on that.

As for QF's configuration. As nice as the J suite is, I wonder seriously how it will hold up to 17+ hours of flying, but let's face it most F products would hav eyou wanting off the tube at those kinds of times. I know I've felt that way doing LAX-MEL in F. I shudder at Y on any airline on these ultra long haul flights and just can't imagine the experience but I don't think the difference to what QF is offering vs an EK or EY or SQ is going to be that different that QF is offering a truly substandard product. I wouldn't want to fly Y on ANY of these carriers on such missions. Of course I'm no longer in my early 20's where being crammed in the middle of Y down the back to go around the world was a (the only) option. Luckily I can do better. I don't intend to fly PER-LHR in J either though as I'd want a stop. That's just me. others just want to get there and get it over with, and I can understand that point of view too.

At the end of the day the customer will vote either by buying on price and schedule, or buying AWAY from the product.

I do think it's important to recognise what aspects of the 787 experience are customer (airline customer, like BA or QF) selected vs those that are standard as part of the model from Boeing (such as the window designs, panels, air systems and so on.

I'm not going to weigh in on the sub thread of the media because I find it a bit distasteful. I've only met David briefly and the one time, but having read items over the years I have no reason to think he personally is compromised. Some out there clearly are. Some of the infamous web blogs out there are clearly biased and make no bones about it. Some are better. There are some out there though, who do have ethics (shocking right?!) and go with a professional attitude and do their best.

 

[Denali]

Ive only flown in a LAN 787 in J and it was fine, although the windows didnt live up to the expectation but I thought the lighting was good. Otherwise I dont notice any difference to a 777 or a A380. Plane, seat, fly, get me there - preferably with luggage.

I guess this is like when a co worker gets a new corolla. Now you might not like corollas but you can still be happy for the person that feels good about their new purchase.

Personally Ive never flown in a 747. Shes old, shes the caddy of the air and has been replaced by many but I still want to.

 

[offshore171]

The argument is that every airline in the world already flies this aircraft, it`s nothing new. Qantas choses a config which, with the exception of JAL, every one of those airlines already has.

I guess a key difference with the Qantas case is that they are using this configuration exclusively for ultra long haul.

The seat width thing doesn't bother me, i find the pitch more important.

But the toilet situation - for ultra long haul... This needs a rethink. There will be some horror stories. It's not unheard of for one or even two loos to go out of commission during a flight, either due to a tech problem, foreign objects, or a PAX with a severe medical issue (ie: violent norovirus).

This could lead to 50+ pax per loo, and 12 hours of flight time remaining.

Also, as someone else pointed out, QF toilet lines are already much longer at busy times due to the PJ's.

 

[Basalt]

I am glad that QF will be flying the A380 via Singapore to London.

A big tick of agreement here too - based in MEL, we have no desire to ever go to Europe via PER-LHR. I've got some J trips booked in 2018 on CX A350 and am very much looking forward to those......

 

[Berlin]

Ive only flown in a LAN 787 in J and it was fine, although the windows didnt live up to the expectation but I thought the lighting was good.

LAN have one of the best J seat configs on the 787 in my opinion (admittedly unless you're traveling by yourself and there's a rather unpleasant stranger next to you). Agree that the window tinting instead of a traditional shade is a gimmick which is meh at best and highly annoying at worst.

 

[RichardMEL]

LAN have one of the best J seat configs on the 787 in my opinion (admittedly unless you're traveling by yourself and there's a rather unpleasant stranger next to you). Agree that the window tinting instead of a traditional shade is a gimmick which is meh at best and highly annoying at worst.

and you've provied in one post exactly why the whole thing is subjective. I almost always fly solo so that LAN config (and the current 2-2-2 UA J config suck totally for me.. and I prefer the QF J suites (or new UA suites) but couples hate them because it's harder to be couples in these configs (you know what I mean!).

experiences will be highly subjective... just like if you're stuck in a full Y cabin or get a row of 3 to yourself.... a good crew vs a poor crew etc.

 

[Berlin]

and you've provied in one post exactly why the whole thing is subjective.

I couldn't agree more with you! But we love discussing subjective opinions on here, don't we

 

[Must...Fly!]

I agree and will avoid the 787 as much as possible. I am glad that QF will be flying the A380 via Singapore to London.

Am I missing something here because the A380 will not be flying on to LHR...?

Edit: Just realised what I was missing, excuse my lack of sleep...

 

[Pleb Status]

A quote from the Ausbt review of the QF 789 J seat published today (fair use excerpt) -


Review: Qantas Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner business class seat

At least they were a little less bullish than QF -



Assuming that the 789 J seat is the same as the A330 seat (but with a sliding partition), I cannot see how any reasonable 'independent' person could make that assessment.

I would argue the wording 'one of the best' would have been pushing the truth. I hope the QF cash was worth it...