First on BA's 787-9 to MEX - some comments
Apr 11, 2018, 10:50 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2018
Programs: BA GGL/CCR/GFL
Posts: 103
First on BA's 787-9 to MEX - some comments
I wanted to post a couple of thoughts on the BA 787-9 based on a recent return trip to MEX I took*.
For those who haven’t flown on the 787 yet (let’s face it, BA don’t have many), it is a bit of a mixed bag. As a means of transport, I think the 787 trumps all BA’s other aircraft for one simple reason - cabin pressure. The 2000 feet lower equivalent altitude makes a huge difference for me. It makes me feel optimistic about the general future of air travel, despite the specific direction of BA.
Everyone is different, but when I get off a 747 or 777 I never feel particularly great, regardless of whether alcohol is consumed, or which class I fly. I’ve tried everything and except for not flying at all, I haven’t found a solution. I remember years ago flying to Cape Town in F on a 747 thinking that I’d be fine on arrival due to no jet lag, but the reality is simply being on a plane for hours takes its toll.
Flying the 787 separates the feeling of jet-lag from the toll of altitude/flying on the body, and for this simple reason I am willing to overlook the bad points of the plane. I get 1 or 2 proper holidays a year, so it’s a big benefit to have a quicker recovery time post-flight.
I noticed the crews simply do not like working on the 787 (in both of my recent flights). I can see why. It is cramped, and there's only one toilet in First which is poor, despite there only being 8 First seats. Passengers and crew constantly struggle to pass each other. There is an ever present sense that the crew are battling with the working environment.
Crew on the outbound LHR leg were quite ok, and excellent on the return - very attentive and keen to look after everyone’s needs. 2009 Chateau Lynch-Moussas flowed at an appropriate pace on both flights!
The seats themselves in F are excellent but showing signs of wear already after just a few years of use. The leather surrounding the table was worn, and the reading light fell out of its socket! The seat position buttons were worn. There are lots more pockets to store (and potentially lose!) belongings.
2E/F are perfect for a couple (or row one of the same). I wouldn’t fly as a couple in 1A/2A unless one needed a break from one’s significant other for some reason :-) But this does tell you privacy is up to par.
The F cabin itself is slightly too cramped if being critical, but fine when in your (comfy) seat. CW (which I have flown before some time ago on the 787-9 I think) looked particularly cramped when I had a brief nose in there. I dread to think what it looks like in Y.
It feels like they should have gone for one less row of seats in CW, but obviously financially that wouldn’t work for them.
The result is that BA’s ageing CW product looks a bit overpriced - almost more so on the 787 than the older fleet to me. I am personally still happy to fly it however - mainly as I’m targeting lifetime GGL, and enjoy the jokers that come with GGL and fairly regular J to F OP-UPs on busy flights.
That said, I think it’s hard to justify making these compromises if you are not a long term victim of the BA Exec club! Another reason why “budget Alex” Cruz needs to be careful with the coming possible “enhancements”.
Every year it seems to become harder to be loyal to BA with all the other offerings coming to market (why would a non exec club member bother with BA?), and BA’s steady transformation into becoming Vueling plus plus.
Some pictures of the food on the way back from MEX:
Catering wasn’t great, with a classic piece of dry BA beef. It was always going to be a little more of a lottery on the return journey from MEX, but I’ve had medium rare steaks on QF in J, so I’m not sure why BA insist on grey beef? The secret with BA beef is to only order it if you see the word “braised”, in my experience.
In conclusion, in terms of layout and “special” feeling, I prefer the 747 in 1A/K, or even 62/64 A/K in CW on the upper deck. As the CSD on our outbound flight put it - the 787 feels “generic”. The 747 is still the queen of the skies, even if some of the BA fleet are looking very tired indeed. I left the 787 thinking how spacious the upper deck of a 747 is by comparison. It really is quite shocking how cramped CW looks on the 787.
For my needs, however, I would always prioritise health/comfort on arrival. When needing to work straight after the flight, even more so, so I will actively seek out 787 routes for my travel in future (and A350 perhaps too - I have some CX and AY travel coming up on their A350s).
My prediction is that BA will abandon F in future and fit a slight more generous CW seat to these planes. Despite the current compromises, it would be sad to see F be removed from routes.
*disclaimer - it's always a privilege to get to fly any premium cabin, so please take my criticisms in good taste! First Class problems after all
For those who haven’t flown on the 787 yet (let’s face it, BA don’t have many), it is a bit of a mixed bag. As a means of transport, I think the 787 trumps all BA’s other aircraft for one simple reason - cabin pressure. The 2000 feet lower equivalent altitude makes a huge difference for me. It makes me feel optimistic about the general future of air travel, despite the specific direction of BA.
Everyone is different, but when I get off a 747 or 777 I never feel particularly great, regardless of whether alcohol is consumed, or which class I fly. I’ve tried everything and except for not flying at all, I haven’t found a solution. I remember years ago flying to Cape Town in F on a 747 thinking that I’d be fine on arrival due to no jet lag, but the reality is simply being on a plane for hours takes its toll.
Flying the 787 separates the feeling of jet-lag from the toll of altitude/flying on the body, and for this simple reason I am willing to overlook the bad points of the plane. I get 1 or 2 proper holidays a year, so it’s a big benefit to have a quicker recovery time post-flight.
I noticed the crews simply do not like working on the 787 (in both of my recent flights). I can see why. It is cramped, and there's only one toilet in First which is poor, despite there only being 8 First seats. Passengers and crew constantly struggle to pass each other. There is an ever present sense that the crew are battling with the working environment.
Crew on the outbound LHR leg were quite ok, and excellent on the return - very attentive and keen to look after everyone’s needs. 2009 Chateau Lynch-Moussas flowed at an appropriate pace on both flights!
The seats themselves in F are excellent but showing signs of wear already after just a few years of use. The leather surrounding the table was worn, and the reading light fell out of its socket! The seat position buttons were worn. There are lots more pockets to store (and potentially lose!) belongings.
2E/F are perfect for a couple (or row one of the same). I wouldn’t fly as a couple in 1A/2A unless one needed a break from one’s significant other for some reason :-) But this does tell you privacy is up to par.
The F cabin itself is slightly too cramped if being critical, but fine when in your (comfy) seat. CW (which I have flown before some time ago on the 787-9 I think) looked particularly cramped when I had a brief nose in there. I dread to think what it looks like in Y.
It feels like they should have gone for one less row of seats in CW, but obviously financially that wouldn’t work for them.
The result is that BA’s ageing CW product looks a bit overpriced - almost more so on the 787 than the older fleet to me. I am personally still happy to fly it however - mainly as I’m targeting lifetime GGL, and enjoy the jokers that come with GGL and fairly regular J to F OP-UPs on busy flights.
That said, I think it’s hard to justify making these compromises if you are not a long term victim of the BA Exec club! Another reason why “budget Alex” Cruz needs to be careful with the coming possible “enhancements”.
Every year it seems to become harder to be loyal to BA with all the other offerings coming to market (why would a non exec club member bother with BA?), and BA’s steady transformation into becoming Vueling plus plus.
Some pictures of the food on the way back from MEX:
Catering wasn’t great, with a classic piece of dry BA beef. It was always going to be a little more of a lottery on the return journey from MEX, but I’ve had medium rare steaks on QF in J, so I’m not sure why BA insist on grey beef? The secret with BA beef is to only order it if you see the word “braised”, in my experience.
In conclusion, in terms of layout and “special” feeling, I prefer the 747 in 1A/K, or even 62/64 A/K in CW on the upper deck. As the CSD on our outbound flight put it - the 787 feels “generic”. The 747 is still the queen of the skies, even if some of the BA fleet are looking very tired indeed. I left the 787 thinking how spacious the upper deck of a 747 is by comparison. It really is quite shocking how cramped CW looks on the 787.
For my needs, however, I would always prioritise health/comfort on arrival. When needing to work straight after the flight, even more so, so I will actively seek out 787 routes for my travel in future (and A350 perhaps too - I have some CX and AY travel coming up on their A350s).
My prediction is that BA will abandon F in future and fit a slight more generous CW seat to these planes. Despite the current compromises, it would be sad to see F be removed from routes.
*disclaimer - it's always a privilege to get to fly any premium cabin, so please take my criticisms in good taste! First Class problems after all
Last edited by SuperstarDJ; Apr 11, 2018 at 10:57 am
Apr 11, 2018, 11:07 am
#2
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: London
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 573
Agreed on the air pressure. Since I only fly for pleasure I tend to pick routes run by the 787 by choice. The A350 is also nice.
I personally prefer the small planes. I know BA don’t have an A350 yet but comparing the QR 787 to the A350, if I may, the 787 feels a lot more personal because of the smaller cabin.
I personally prefer the small planes. I know BA don’t have an A350 yet but comparing the QR 787 to the A350, if I may, the 787 feels a lot more personal because of the smaller cabin.
Apr 11, 2018, 11:46 am
#3
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: Some
Posts: 5,252
A fair review. I like the fact there are less seats in 787 F than on other BA aircraft and that the seat is more private. I also like the 787 itself as an aircraft to fly on. In almost all other respects it feels like a large step backwards from A380 F to me, but I'd still personally take it over 747 / 777 F.
The cabins have, sadly, had bits falling off / not working almost since they were brought into service.
The cabins have, sadly, had bits falling off / not working almost since they were brought into service.
Apr 11, 2018, 11:54 am
#4
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Edi
Posts: 2,203
Apr 11, 2018, 12:06 pm
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2018
Programs: BA GGL/CCR/GFL
Posts: 103
Agreed on the air pressure. Since I only fly for pleasure I tend to pick routes run by the 787 by choice. The A350 is also nice.
I personally prefer the small planes. I know BA don’t have an A350 yet but comparing the QR 787 to the A350, if I may, the 787 feels a lot more personal because of the smaller cabin.
I personally prefer the small planes. I know BA don’t have an A350 yet but comparing the QR 787 to the A350, if I may, the 787 feels a lot more personal because of the smaller cabin.
A fair review. I like the fact there are less seats in 787 F than on other BA aircraft and that the seat is more private. I also like the 787 itself as an aircraft to fly on. In almost all other respects it feels like a large step backwards from A380 F to me, but I'd still personally take it over 747 / 777 F.
The cabins have, sadly, had bits falling off / not working almost since they were brought into service.
The cabins have, sadly, had bits falling off / not working almost since they were brought into service.
I agree - I would still take the 787 over the older planes, but for me largely for the cabin pressure. I like the A380 for its relative silence (compared to 777/747), but I don't think there is any air/cabin pressure benefit? Was recently in CW on the A380 and the seats by the galley were ridiculously noisy (plates clanging etc!).
I couldn't agree with this more, I've been in F on the 789 quite a bit and the F cabin seems to wear and tear at a uncanny rate. I was on one last summer, it was the most recently delivered one (around 6/7 months old at the time) and from my eyes, aside from the IFE, I would of said the cabin was 2/3/4 years old. I couldn't believe it when it turned out to be the newest in the fleet.
Is 28 not enough for you?
Is 28 not enough for you?
Apr 11, 2018, 12:41 pm
#6
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Glasgow, UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 629
I noticed the crews simply do not like working on the 787 (in both of my recent flights). I can see why. It is cramped, and there's only one toilet in First which is poor, despite there only being 8 First seats. Passengers and crew constantly struggle to pass each other. There is an ever present sense that the crew are battling with the working environment.
I noticed this too on a recent IAD-LHR flight. The crew were quite vocal in their distaste for the aircraft. As far as I could gather, the aisles were too small to work in comfortably and the galley was too small making it difficult to set up and get things for service. As I was in WT, I took this to be an issue with that specific cabin, so interesting to hear crew in other cabins on the same aircraft are similarly unimpresssed.
In fairness, that isn’t a BA-specific complaint. Most airlines have gone with 9-abreast seating on the 787.
Apr 11, 2018, 1:09 pm
#7
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, Diamond Status & on the Supreme Council des Conseillers, BA Ag, Bonvoy GFL/Plat, xVS Au
Posts: 833
I agree - I would still take the 787 over the older planes, but for me largely for the cabin pressure. I like the A380 for its relative silence (compared to 777/747), but I don't think there is any air/cabin pressure benefit? Was recently in CW on the A380 and the seats by the galley were ridiculously noisy (plates clanging etc!).
Apr 11, 2018, 1:20 pm
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2018
Programs: BA GGL/CCR/GFL
Posts: 103
In this regard, what is the worst plane to fly currently with BA. 767?
Apr 11, 2018, 2:08 pm
#9
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 36
Upper deck side storage bins on the A380 give it the nod in a 789/380 discussion. However, volume of passengers on A380 and the attendant problems that come with such numbers mean the A380 never seems to get away on time.
Apr 11, 2018, 2:38 pm
#10
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, Diamond Status & on the Supreme Council des Conseillers, BA Ag, Bonvoy GFL/Plat, xVS Au
Posts: 833
No problem. All the older generation aircraft has pretty much the same cabin pressure so it essentially comes down to engine/airflow noise in the cabin. I would say the 777 is the nosiest. 747 less bad having having 4 engines (reduced power needed) and the option of nose/upper deck. Never foun the 767 too bad but only flown it on a few occasions. A350 and A380 are exceptionally quiet, better than the 787 IMO.
Apr 11, 2018, 2:52 pm
#11
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Programs: BA VS
Posts: 107
I have only done two sectors on the 789 (VS LHR-JNB) and could detect no changes with the cabin pressure. It is a route I know extremely well (across 50 years!) and found no benefit for me. On the other hand, the windows? They could not be electronically 'opened' and remained dark when I wanted to peek out. In the morning, they were automatically tinted blue!!! I like to see the world as it is, which is why I always have a window seat.
Apr 11, 2018, 3:06 pm
#12
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: London
Programs: HH Diamond, Marriott Titanium, BAEC Gold
Posts: 283
I wouldn't imagine abandoning F in the near future is on their agenda, especially with the amount of money they pumped into the F Wing and the improvements at JFK. If they knew it was soon to be obsolete those investments would not make sense.
It's a little more complex than that made out. Aircraft constantly adjust pressure to keep it within a structural limitation (Cabin pressure - Ambient pressure), as such on shorter legs with lower cruising altitudes allowing aircraft to maintain as lower cabin altitude as possible.
It's a little more complex than that made out. Aircraft constantly adjust pressure to keep it within a structural limitation (Cabin pressure - Ambient pressure), as such on shorter legs with lower cruising altitudes allowing aircraft to maintain as lower cabin altitude as possible.
Last edited by All She Wrote; Apr 11, 2018 at 3:33 pm
Apr 12, 2018, 2:12 am
#13
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2018
Programs: BA GGL/CCR/GFL
Posts: 103
True, but I seem to remember Cruz hinting before now that while it’s staying overall, it might be reduced / removed in places.
Apr 12, 2018, 4:13 am
#15
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA GGL, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 910
I've done 1K on the 747 the last couple of weekends, first time on the 747 in a while and I was amazed at how quiet the front of F was, and how the noise increased as I walked to the back of F and then to the toilets at 1L.
Love the BA 787 and look forward to the A350 arriving.