Originally Posted by
24left
I can guarantee all of you that even if Airbus and Boeing specs say that there is higher humidity and therefore pax will feel less fatigue, drying etc on the 350 and 787 series of aircraft, I have now spent more than 2 years flying over 50 flights on AC's 788s and 789s almost all TPAC, a few TATL and about 20+ transcons, and I do not notice any difference between those and AC's 777 fleet.
In conversations with crew, it seems just as many say the don't feel any difference as those who say there is one.
I think that even if the design should make thing more comfortable onboard in-flight, not everyone responds to different atmospheric conditions the same way. If they did, then there wouldn't be a vocal number who say there is no difference.
I would offer that some of the comfort on these aircraft may also involve the cabin temperature. If exceedingly hot or cold, pax will be too uncomfortable either way to notice better humidity.
just saying......
I do remember chatting with one of the flight crews on a 788 and they were quite adamant that pressurizing to 6000ft ASL and the higher humidity made a huge difference.
I agree that not everyone responds the same to the different atmospheric conditions which could be why there are a large number of people who say there is no difference. I suspect some of it is psychological with some of the recency effect and probably some priming. I don't doubt what Boeing and Airbus say about what the cabin comforts are but even at 5000 or 6000 ft ASL that's still not sea level so there will still be discomfort.
My biggest gripe about the 787 though isn't the cabin comfort but the "innovative" window shades. They don't block out 100% of light so on a TPAC or TATL flight, it's like trying to sleep with dark sunglasses on rather than black out blinds. I'm glad they went with the traditional window shades on the A350. Having said that, I still like playing with the windows on the 787
