Avoiding the Qantas 787

[Flying Fox]

And if the Dreamliner is a game changer for QF why did JQ get first bite?

To be fair, at the time QF "gave" JQ the 787-8 orders to fly their asia (and HNL) missions.

I thought that the 787-8 were given to JQ to improve their margins due to lower operating costs better matching JQ's lower revenues.

 

[downgraded]

Something else which may be of interest or worthy of note: the seat cushions in Y+ and Y turned out to be the exact same width, 49cm from edge to edge, which goes to show how armrests play into perceptions – indeed, realities – of "how wide is my seat?"

In Y+ you have wider armrests so there's room for your elbows to rest upon plus the cut-out space built into the arm-rests; in Y there are those thin tapered armrests that are just big enough for the point of your elbow as long as you snare that real estate ahead of your seatmate! Of course, if you've scored a shadow you swing the armrest up – it completely disappears into the gap between the seats.

However, the Y bulkhead and exit row seats with their fixed armrests (which contain swing-up IFE screen and meal table) proved to be just just 43cm from cushion edge-to-edge... combine a narrower seat with immoveable armrests and there's a clear trade-off for enjoying the extra legroom of the front row (so they could be best choice for a passenger who's long and lean).

That's why the width including the allotted armrest width is more important than the arbitrary quoted "seat widths" with no defined basis. The broader posterier can be contained to some extent by the armrests, but broader shoulders need the seat width to provide passenger separation.

A lack of pitch creates its own discomfort, but seat pitch can never offset narrow personal space, whatever the aircraft type.

 

[Danger]

At the current time, Qantas has only ONE Dreamliner. Singular possessive.

Yeah fair point. I jumped the gun there. Apologies to Fairfax.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I thought that the 787-8 were given to JQ to improve their margins due to lower operating costs better matching JQ's lower revenues.

Either way, probably a combination of all the reasons here. 788 better suited to JQ, QF in no position to take new aircraft or new routes at the time, all has probably worked out for the best.

 

[RichardMEL]

And yes, I'd forgotten about the 767's (Sorry Poochie!) as a factor too.

Definitely economics and where QFi was at then.

JQ jamming 335 poor souls into a 788 would have massive yield (given the lower costs) advantage over a QF "premium" or legacy config of probably 100+ fewer seats (yikes!) and with a higher cosgt base yields would be terrible (an dmuch much higher fuel prices at the time too)

 

[Simo]

I haven't looked at the seat pitch and seating configuration but I am not a fan of the fact the windows can be controlled by the FA mid flight.

Yes don't have a issue when coming into land and people won't put up the window shade or put it up and as soon as they walk past they put it back down...

 

[Pleb Status]

I haven't looked at the seat pitch and seating configuration but I am not a fan of the fact the windows can be controlled by the FA mid flight.

Yes don't have a issue when coming into land and people won't put up the window shade or put it up and as soon as they walk past they put it back down...

This is something you should not worry about.

One positive thing about the 789 experience is how pathetic the window dimming system actually is. Even with the system at maximum darkness, you can still clearly see out the window at all times (even when it is dark outside).

If you are someone who likes to look out the window mid flight on a long haul service, this is actually the aircraft for you. If you prefer a dark cabin to sleep then look elsewhere...

 

[justinbrett]

This is something you should not worry about.

One positive thing about the 789 experience is how pathetic the window dimming system actually is. Even with the system at maximum darkness, you can still clearly see out the window at all times (even when it is dark outside).

If you are someone who likes to look out the window mid flight on a long haul service, this is actually the aircraft for you. If you prefer a dark cabin to sleep then look elsewhere...

It's dark when it's dark outside! Just travel West and fly overnight, you'll be set.

 

[Pleb Status]

It's dark when it's dark outside! Just travel West and fly overnight, you'll be set.

That is a 'revolutionary' concept...

Fitting window shades, like every other commercial jet aircraft in the world, is another option however.

 

[davidj]

Even with the system at maximum darkness, you can still clearly see out the window at all times (even when it is dark outside).

Its annoying when the flight crew mandate maximum darkness, for pax that actually want to look outside. However I can appreciate some pax want darkness to sleep etc.

 

[RichardMEL]

Agree that it is a bit nanny state. I've had NZ "take control" like this a couple of times, and UA too.. yet amusingly sometimes on UA they have not enforced the "shades open"(I have no idea what you call it for the 787.. maybe windows clear?) setting during takeoff and landing.. so I've had a window seat pax in J next to me dim the window on the ground and the crew have let it go during taxi and take off. very odd. Some airlines don't worry so much about the idea of the outside being viewable during these times.

 

[justinbrett]

Agree that it is a bit nanny state. I've had NZ "take control" like this a couple of times, and UA too.. yet amusingly sometimes on UA they have not enforced the "shades open"(I have no idea what you call it for the 787.. maybe windows clear?) setting during takeoff and landing.. so I've had a window seat pax in J next to me dim the window on the ground and the crew have let it go during taxi and take off. very odd. Some airlines don't worry so much about the idea of the outside being viewable during these times.

Not every country has this regulation. CASA to do so all Australian airlines enforce it, but is not the case everywhere overseas.

 

[Pleb Status]

Agree that it is a bit nanny state. I've had NZ "take control" like this a couple of times, and UA too.. yet amusingly sometimes on UA they have not enforced the "shades open"(I have no idea what you call it for the 787.. maybe windows clear?) setting during takeoff and landing.. so I've had a window seat pax in J next to me dim the window on the ground and the crew have let it go during taxi and take off. very odd. Some airlines don't worry so much about the idea of the outside being viewable during these times.

There is no need to have the window 'shades' open for take off and landing on US registered aircraft...

 

[RichardMEL]

There is no need to have the window 'shades' open for take off and landing on US registered aircraft...

True, but I have been on some UA flights where they have "auto opened" the "shades" on the 787 (geez, we really need better languaged for this! )

anyway I get that. NZ is definitely a country with regs similar to us though. I believe most of the asian countries like Thailand, Singapore etc have similar regs.

Anyway it's not a big deal, but the notion that crews CAN go take control of them all are a little annoying.

 

[coriander]

Some airlines don't worry so much about the idea of the outside being viewable during these times.

I thought shades up was for outsiders to look in in the event of an emergency.

 

[Berlin]

If you are someone who likes to look out the window mid flight on a long haul service, this is actually the aircraft for you. If you prefer a dark cabin to sleep then look elsewhere...

Very true. At first I was scared that crew can override the settings and feared I might be damned to sit in darkness even though I could be watching the beauty out of my airplane window instead. Luckily, the tinting on the 787 is rather bad so that you can still watch out. Perfect for me, forced 'night time' while it's light outside is a pet hate of mine.

 

[Ansett]

That is correct RichardMEL

 

[Pleb Status]

True, but I have been on some UA flights where they have "auto opened" the "shades" on the 787 (geez, we really need better languaged for this! )

anyway I get that. NZ is definitely a country with regs similar to us though. I believe most of the asian countries like Thailand, Singapore etc have similar regs.

Anyway it's not a big deal, but the notion that crews CAN go take control of them all are a little annoying.

It leads to the saying - There is the right way to do something and then there is the American way....

One difference in rules which I thought was quite disturbing is US carriers do not provide infant seat belts (according to AA) and parents are just meant to hold their child unrestrained.

 

[RichardMEL]

I thought shades up was for outsiders to look in in the event of an emergency.

That could be part of it (and probably is). The reasoning I had always heard was that you needed to a) be able to see conditions outside(eg: fire, water, etc) and b) be acustomed to the outside conditions (ie: daylight, nighttime etc) to be better orienttated to potentially evacuate the aircraft.

Yeah it's not a requirement in the US (and I realise this is OT to the thread now ) but a few months ago flying EWR-LAX and I was not in the window and EVERYONE had the shades down, even during taxi and take off (and landing!) I get that it is no common to have shades lowered while at the gate during summer to keep the plane cool(er) but I really HATED not being able to see the taxi or takeoff roll (or know when we're about to land). It was really quite disconcerting tbh.

 

[Tom/PER]

Will the QF Dreamliners operate with that feature which reduces cabin humidity?

I believe JQ's don't fly with this feature enabled as it requires additional uplift of water thus increasing take off weights and costs.