Lets talk about the 787 windows

[dajop]

I've heard its an issue on the LHR-PER 787 where you fly mostly during daylight.

Not really "mostly" during daylight, its' about 50/50. First 3.5-4 hrs in daylight, next 7-8 in twilight/darkness, then last 3.5-4 in daylight again (depending on time of year)

Contrast this to something like SQ 308 or MH 4 flights to LHR or SQ326 (SIN-FRA) which are entirely conducted in daylight (admittedly not on 787s). Or even AF181 SIN-CDG which is often operated by a 787 - which is in daylight the whole trip during summer and even winter for all but last hour or two.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No - the instruction / request only has to be reasonable.

The problem with that, is that reasonable in the circumstances can be a very grey area. Some things are clearly reasonable (especially if safety related) like bring your seatback upright for take off, and all baggage for people in the emergency exit rows must go in overhead lockers.

Some potential instructions would be clearly unreasonable - a demand to hand over all your cash, for example.

Then comes the grey areas in between, with all sorts of nuances. A instruction to move seats because a family wants to sit together, an instruction to move seats because you are male and there is an unaccompanied minor beside you, an instruction to move to economy from business because the airline wants the seat for tech crew they want to move for commercial reasons, an instruction to move to economy from business because a mate of the CSM is flying for leisure purposes, and they feel like upgrading them. Some of these requests are more reasonable than others.

The problem is interpretation, and the place to debate it is not onboard at the time - but there should be consequences arising from unreasonable requests. In the end (if you choose to push it), it is not the you or the airline that will determine whether the request was reasonable - it will be a judge after you actually follow through on your conviction and take the matter to court.

I think 99% of the ‘grey’ area is resolved by linking instructions and directions with safety.

There might be some ‘outliers’ like requiring a male passenger sitting next to a minor to move. It’s unlikely to be a genuine safety issue.

To argue *any and every* reasonable request = a direction enforceable by law and the AFP leads to too much uncertainty, as you indicate. Not sure the courts would appreciate a claim by an airline that they genuinely had to divert because a claustrophobic passenger, who paid for a window seat, said they’d rather keep the shades open.

You might think it’s not worth standing up for your rights… Dr Dao did. Why should a passenger, after boarding and being seated, be asked to deplane to accommodate a commercial need?

 

[equus]

Why should a passenger, after boarding and being seated, be asked to deplane to accommodate a commercial need?

They shouldn't - and there is nothing actually in the conditions of carriage that actually permits Qantas to do that.

The applicable section regarding this in Section 5.6 - Seating selection and allocation states:

(b) We may need to change your seat at any time, even after you have boarded the aircraft, for operational, safety or security reasons.

Once seated, in theory, unless the reason is operational, safety related or for security they should not be forcing a seat allocation change.
Unfortunately, the conditions also include:

12.1 Obey Directions​

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;

This is where the grey comes - and the need to be reasonable. The problem with the idea that people should stand up for their rights is that everybody has a different idea of what is reasonable - or what is safety related. You may very well be in the right, but another passenger may think that it is not really an issue if they take their cabin baggage with them in an emergency evacuation.

I can see why Captains decide to just off load people who are being uncooperative (even if they are just standing up for their legitimate rights) as they are demonstrating that they cannot be relied on to follow crew directions, and are a potential safety risk.

Really up to you how far you want to push it.

 

[jb747]

There's a lot to be said for flying freight.

 

[Mr H]

There's a lot to be said for flying freight.

I disagree - freight planes don't have windows.

 

[RichardMEL]

They do in the front office.

 

[Eastwick20]

I feel like the people in this thread who are demanding that the shades be lowered/dimmed on day flights are people who never choose/select to sit in a window seat but want to control what is happening over at that seat.

Surely the solution is to book a window seat yourself and then you can decide what happens, problem solved?

 

[justinbrett]

I feel like the people in this thread who are demanding that the shades be lowered/dimmed on day flights are people who never choose/select to sit in a window seat but want to control what is happening over at that seat.

Surely the solution is to book a window seat yourself and then you can decide what happens, problem solved?

Light travels further than two seats.

 

[jb747]

I disagree - freight planes don't have windows.

See, the positives continue.

 

[RichardMEL]

I feel like the people in this thread who are demanding that the shades be lowered/dimmed on day flights are people who never choose/select to sit in a window seat but want to control what is happening over at that seat.

Surely the solution is to book a window seat yourself and then you can decide what happens, problem solved?

I disagree.

I am a window seat guy. I do try to be considerate of others around me though.

In a darkened cabin, one open window some rows away can affect the entire cabin area. Anyone who has been in such a situation knows this. And if I am at a window, I have no control over someone in another row do I? Yes, the further away one is from the light source, the less the disruption, but even so light streaming in from one window can reflect off the cabin surfaces, people, even things like watches etc and spread light further than just the immediate area of the window.

So the "problem" is not solved if I personally sit at a window - unless I am the ine opening the shade of course.

Not everyone will see this as a problem either of course. Everyone's mileage varies. I wouldn't arc up, but find ways to deal with it myself depending on level of personal disruption.

Edited to add that of course tge outside world us not the only potential source of light polution in a cabin. Also reading lights, screens etc.

 

[tdimdad]

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.

This! The most disruptive to me are the screens nearby. I can doze off in steady light, even brighter ones, but the continuous flickering of the light from the screens in a dark cabin is a real annoyance. A decent eye mask blocks 95% of it but not all if your seat neighbour decides to binge action movies all night. If the lighting of the cabin needs to be controlled to give people better opportunity to sleep, the screens should be turned off first.

What I find bizarre in long-haul is the timing of the dimness. I'm cool with it overlapping with the destination night time but why dim a daytime cabin? E.g. on an afternoon / evening LHR-SIN departure, dimness for the first six hours and daylight for the remaining six would make a lot more sense. In the opposite direction, SIN-LHR, daylight for the first half of the flight and then sleep for the second half when the UK is sleeping.

Though, that's me, enjoying natural light when possible - and this makes me feel uncomfortable and gradually crankier if the cabin is forced dim for extended periods when the world around us is bathing in sunlight.

 

[dajop]

E.g. on an afternoon / evening LHR-SIN departure, dimness for the first six hours and daylight for the remaining six would make a lot more sense. In the opposite direction, SIN-LHR, daylight for the first half of the flight and then sleep for the second half when the UK is sleeping.

See this is where it gets difficult.

There are no SIN-LHR flights where “for the second half the UK is sleeping” and the first half is in daylight. These flights are conducted entirely in darkness. At the other end of the clock, flights conducted almost entirely in daylight, UK is sleeping for first half of the flight, but not the second half, but many passengers have just woken up after a sound nights sleep so wouldn’t be interested in sleeping (unless they’ve travelled overnight from AU).

Impossible to cater to every personal preference.

 

[jb747]

The most disappointing thing in all of this, is that we didn't have these dimming windows in the coughpit. I'd have kept them at full dark all of the time!

 

[RichardMEL]

The most disappointing thing in all of this, is that we didn't have these dimming windows in the coughpit. I'd have kept them at full dark all of the time!

Is this where we insert that old joke about the pilot with the seeing eye dog?

 

[RichardMEL]

Re windows, I do not endorse any of the behaviours from this piece. Very fine people.

Airline Passenger Takes Revenge On Middle Seat Karen Who Reaches Across To Close His Shade

A passenger reports being in a window seat while the woman seated beside him in the middle seat kept reaching across him to close the window shade. “She never asked me,” he said, and he would “immediately reopen it” and then every few minutes “she would reach in front of [him] again to close it.”

viewfromthewing.com

 

[RooFlyer]

from the article

1. Shades up for takeoff and landing.That’s so everyone’s eyes are well-adjusted to the light, in order to facilitate evacuation in an emergency.

this is US article of course but I don’t think that’s the reason they give in Australia is it? I think the reason given is that passengers can see out side to see any problem on the ground or at least before it's too late.

 

[RichardMEL]

from the article

1. Shades up for takeoff and landing.That’s so everyone’s eyes are well-adjusted to the light, in order to facilitate evacuation in an emergency.

this is US article of course but I don’t think that’s the reason they give in Australia is it? I think the reason given is that passengers can see out side to see any problem on the ground or at least before it's too late.

Pretty much the same thing to me.

 

[justinbrett]

from the article

1. Shades up for takeoff and landing.That’s so everyone’s eyes are well-adjusted to the light, in order to facilitate evacuation in an emergency.

this is US article of course but I don’t think that’s the reason they give in Australia is it? I think the reason given is that passengers can see out side to see any problem on the ground or at least before it's too late.

It’s that as well. They dim cabin lights for this reason (so your eyes adjust).

 

[jb747]

Given that the lights are generally on in the cabin, I doubt that your eyes will be adjusted to anything. It does help with cabin crew assessing if there is fire outside, and it also lets the fire crew look in. Beyond that though, I think any contribution is pretty marginal at best.

 

[Mr H]

Given that the lights are generally on in the cabin, I doubt that your eyes will be adjusted to anything. It does help with cabin crew assessing if there is fire outside, and it also lets the fire crew look in. Beyond that though, I think any contribution is pretty marginal at best.

Normally the cabin lights are dimmed for take off and landing during the hours of darkness. Although in the event of an emergency, low level lighting will guide you to your nearest exit.