Lets talk about the 787 windows

[justinbrett]

But the point is, unlike older technology (window shades) that IME one or two passengers adjusting the setting of the 787 windows by one or two notches hardly has an impact on the overall cabin brightness, no more than (and perhaps even less than), someone turning on an individual reading lamp. Most people seem to have some common sense about them not to put the setting onto full brightness. They just want to see some of scenery of the outback, the Himalayas, the Alps, Iran or wherever the plane happens to passing over. This is course different to the even smaller number who do want full brightness on daytime flights.

TBH, I think the sleeping argument is a straw man's argument. The real reason is to avoid glare on the monitors. Most who want to sleep either can - because they are so tired, or use eyeshades/earplugs and/or both. Or they can't unless they are so dog tired that they could sleep standing up on a train (I'm in the latter category, I can't sleep on planes as a general rule, and if I can, it doesn't matter whether it's dark or light ..)

If crew can lock the windows to a minimum dim setting then great, but unless and until, I think this thread has confirmed pax can’t be trusted.

 

[Mr H]

If crew can lock the windows to a minimum dim setting then great, but unless and until, I think this thread has confirmed pax can’t be trusted.

It's nothing to do with trust - it is about personal preference and whether or not passengers are willing to sacrifice their own personal preferences for someone else's preference. As you acknowledge earlier.

with the crew having made the decision to make the cabin dark, whether individual pax should be allowed to overrule this to suit their own preferences, and therefore lighting up the entire cabin zone.

And I would contend that the cabin crew have no locus to make that decision or to give a direction since it is nothing to do with safety.

 

[SYD]

If crew can lock the windows to a minimum dim setting then great, but unless and until, I think this thread has confirmed pax can’t be trusted.

It’s an interesting hypothesis. How long before we see seat belts and tray tables that don’t unlock unless the signs off? Or seats can’t recline for that matter? Auto upright seats during meal service? Many would applaud those - others might refuse to fly on that make/model aircraft.

 

[justinbrett]

It’s an interesting hypothesis. How long before we see seat belts and tray tables that don’t unlock unless the signs off? Or seats can’t recline for that matter? Auto upright seats during meal service? Many would applaud those - others might refuse to fly on that make/model aircraft.

Many airlines have indications that J pax aren’t in the right seating position / seat belt fastened for landing.

It's nothing to do with trust - it is about personal preference and whether or not passengers are willing to sacrifice their own personal preferences for someone else's preference. As you acknowledge earlier.



And I would contend that the cabin crew have no locus to make that decision or to give a direction since it is nothing to do with safety.

I completely get your POV and thank you for sharing it, lest others think this is just a matter of ”a notch or two” so you can see the view.

Frankly I’m pro windows being locked for pax like you.

 

[jb747]

Conditions of carriage:
To maximise Passenger comfort, safety and security, you must comply with the following requirements, and all other reasonable directions of any crew member on your flight with us, when on board:
(a) comply with any reasonable directions issued by the crew;

 

[RichardMEL]

Conditions of carriage:
To maximise Passenger comfort, safety and security, you must comply with the following requirements, and all other reasonable directions of any crew member on your flight with us, when on board:
(a) comply with any reasonable directions issued by the crew;

Guess some don't consider a request to close a window shade "reasonable."

I would, if the rest of the cabin is dark. That's reasonable. I guess for some though, it's a point of "rights" (as opposed to bundle of...) to do as they please, even if it makes others potentially uncomfortable.

Having said that, I also reckon it would be an UN-reasonable power trip for a crew member to pull the "not complying with crewmember instructions" card over something like this.

 

[Quickstatus]

Also airplane glass blocks UV radiation.

That is the least of any passenger's worries.
Use this rule of thumb: 1mRem (0.1mSv) per 1000 miles flying. More at higher latitudes

Average ANNUAL daily radiation exposure 300mRem (3mSv). Lets round it to 1mRem (0.01mSv) per day roughly.

7800nm PER-LHR. Lets normalise the distance to 7000nm equivalent cruising altitude. 7mRem and 14mRem for the return.
1 chest xray approx 10mRem (0.1mSv) So very approximately 1.5 chest Xrays per return trip additional radiation. Google will give slightly varying numbers

I also suspect the carbon laminate material of the 787 tube lets in more cosmic radiation than an old fashioned aluminium tube.....So adjust the numbers up?

Need more than eye masks - maybe a protective lead gown that the radiographer use?

350s with the same option

But they now apparently have "UltraDark" setting

feature of the seat

Overidden by a feature of a commercial aircraft and also paid for by the passenger - cabin crew, pilots

just pay for a window seat and you can control the blind

Or pay for an ATP license and 10,000 hours and then you can ALL 236 passengers with a flick of a switch. Hey, its a feature of the aircraft.

How do you manage to survive in a regular office,

My regular office does not have windows, so that variable is not a factor

One preferred the blind open, the other preferred it closed

Which leads me to the much bigger issue - Temperature. Hot cold.....

TBH, I think the sleeping argument is a straw man's argument. The real reason is

To feed the chooks and turn the lights off. The problem with the 787 is the lights are not completely off, so we still get the cackle of the chooks..

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Conditions of carriage:
To maximise Passenger comfort, safety and security, you must comply with the following requirements, and all other reasonable directions of any crew member on your flight with us, when on board:
(a) comply with any reasonable directions issued by the crew;

Two different issues at play.

There's the contract of carriage. But there are also criminal offences, under legislation, for failing to comply with crew member instructions.

Not wanting to close a window shade, by itself, is not going to get you met by the AFP and hauled up for gaol time.

 

[RichardMEL]

Writing generally, some crews may be sensitive regarding a pax who might get argumentative about something like a window for that to potentially escalate into something more serious. Given air rage incidents can start from relatively trivial things you just never know sadly.

 

[Quickstatus]

Not wanting to close a window shade, by itself, is not going to get you met by the AFP and hauled up for gaol time.

So, maybe to avoid any disagreement or argument between anyone in a carbon fibre tube, just give the controls to one person?
Just because its not JQ37/39 does not mean it would not happen..

 

[RooFlyer]

But they now apparently have "UltraDark" setting

so still not “blackout“?

 

[Quickstatus]

so still not “blackout“?

IDK but apparently blocks 99% of visible light. Transition between light and dark also quicker
Also has some degree of IR rejection.
As usual the marketing hype should be assumed to be an embellishment of reality as electronic dimming cannot reject 100% light.

BTW: LH is not putting electronic dimmers on their A350.

 

[RooFlyer]

I went looking to see if I could find the reason why Boeing introduced the electronic dimming windows feature. Cost? Weight saving? Passenger amenity? Demand from Airlines?

Didn’t find that but did find this, which is not a bad read

Why The Boeing 787 Has Dimmable Windows

simpleflying.com

it says, in part:

The advantage is that passengers can still see outside despite the sun's sometimes oppressive glare. Even the darkest setting still has a degree of transparency, allowing for compromise. Furthermore, as cabin crew can remotely control them, this is a quick and easy way to ensure all windows are darkened for overnight cruises, as is sometimes requested.

 

[downtheback]

Ah but it should. The window seat should be able to control the window. And I’ve never understood the people who want to sleep on daytime flights. What do they do at night?

Take flying EU to Australia as an example (via Dubai)

DXB take off at 10am, MEL/SYD/BNE/ADL land at 6am. I am sleeping the first half of that flight whilst it's in daytime. Otherwise I land at 6am and my sleep schedule is out of whack. Is that not reasonable?

Counter argument is you can always put on an eye mask. Then everyone wins.

Yes but imagine forcing everyone to wear an eye mask because you're the one person in the cabin with their window open. It's just rude.

 

[RichardMEL]

Yes but imagine forcing everyone to wear an eye mask because you're the one person in the cabin with their window open. It's just rude.

i imagine that one person would say they're not being "forced" to wear an eye mask....

i suppose there's also a factor of other light sources in a cabin - screens, pax lights etc, which can still disrupt depending on proximity.

 

[jb747]

Two different issues at play.

There's the contract of carriage. But there are also criminal offences, under legislation, for failing to comply with crew member instructions.

Not wanting to close a window shade, by itself, is not going to get you met by the AFP and hauled up for gaol time.

Quite true. But the next thing that will happen is that a more senior cabin crew member will come along, and direct you to close. When you refuse, you are well and truly into the "refusing crew member's instructions" regime. How it plays from there will be up to the crew on the day (and I dare say, some of the passengers nearby). But, if you are planning on playing this particular game, just make sure you don't have any further bookings with that airline.

 

[Mr H]

When you refuse, you are well and truly into the "refusing crew member's instructions" regime. How it plays from there will be up to the crew on the day

Only if the crew members deem it to be a direction. My experience was that when asked directly, crew members decided it wasn’t actually a direction. Presumably because it was nothing to do with safety and would therefore not be deemed a reasonable instruction.

 

[dajop]

Maybe there's an opportunity here for airlines to generate extra ancillary revenue from economy passengers.

Charge extra for seats in a "night zone" in economy, in front of the wing, with ... guaranteed darkness.

 

[Quickstatus]

safety

It becomes a safety issue if a passenger refuses to follow a cabin crew instruction.

 

[Mr H]

It becomes a safety issue if a passenger refuses to follow a cabin crew instruction.

No it doesn’t