British Airways 787 vs Others?

Old Aug 17, 19, 8:26 am
  #31  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC, Skywards
Posts: 208
We had high hopes on our flight via KLM from Schiphol to Cairo on the 787. I agree im 192cm tall and the economy experience was horrible.
crisdean is offline  
Old Aug 17, 19, 10:36 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: San Francisco
Programs: IB+ Oro, HHonors Diamond, Hertz PC, National EE, Alaska MVP Gold
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by orbitmic View Post


Id actually even say that they are the best Y around!! the A350 is by far the most comfortable plane in Y in general with outstanding air/noise quality, A380 is equal for noise slightly less good for air but its largely compensated for by the side bins if you get a UD window (id personally refuse an upgrade from UD Y window to W middle seat).
I have refused an upgrade from A350 window (in the first economy row in IB, which also has extra legroom) to a middle seat in Premium Economy (I ended up in J, which I did not refuse...).
orbitmic and EDIwanderer like this.
Yllanes is offline  
Old Aug 17, 19, 11:14 am
  #33  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GfL+CCR, Aclub Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by APUBleed View Post
According to SeatGuru...
This is the point when many of us stopped reading the post. Might as well start quoting Nostradamus for similar effect...
orbitmic is offline  
Old Aug 17, 19, 11:30 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 1,084
What is seat width, that's never properly answered. Do you measure the cushion width, the gap between the arms, or ??? Really you could measure anything you wanted. What doesn't change is the width of the fuselage on a given aircraft type. The perceived seat space is about so much more than width anyway, shoulder space is critical, as is how close to the fuselage is the window seat, and if in an aisle, and the aisles are very narrow because they've squeezed that extra seat in, then aisle has no lean in space, because every trolley and passing person will be bumping you. What I can say is personally the 787, and the 10 across 777 are no goes for me in economy.
dougzz is offline  
Old Aug 17, 19, 2:17 pm
  #35  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 47,332
Originally Posted by orbitmic View Post
This is the point when many of us stopped reading the post. Might as well start quoting Nostradamus for similar effect...
Except that Nostradamus got a few things correct, by dint of being sufficiently vague about inevitable events.
squawk and truncated like this.
corporate-wage-slave is offline  
Old Aug 18, 19, 3:42 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
Except that Nostradamus got a few things correct, by dint of being sufficiently vague about inevitable events.
Ok, well what are the specifications? Give me the numbers.I obviously acknowledged in the post that seatguru can sometimes be inaccurate.

https://www.businesstraveller.com/bu...bus-a350-1000/

According to this article, the Cathay A350 economy is 18 inches wide.

https://thepointsguy.co.uk/2015/11/b...conomy-review/

According to this article, the BA 787 economy is 17.5 inches wide.

Again potentially a difference of now less than 1.5cm.

People make it seem like flying the A350 in economy is like flying first class and 787 economy being on Ryanair.
APUBleed is offline  
Old Aug 18, 19, 3:52 am
  #37  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,246
Originally Posted by APUBleed View Post
...787 economy being on Ryanair.
On FR B738 you get more shoulder level comfort and space than B787.
orbitmic likes this.
FlyerTalker39574 is offline  
Old Aug 18, 19, 4:19 am
  #38  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 47,332
Originally Posted by APUBleed View Post
Ok, well what are the specifications? Give me the numbers.I obviously acknowledged in the post that seatguru can sometimes be inaccurate.
No unfortunately I don't have these numbers, though somewhere towards the end of the long CWS to-do list is to get all the figures, and get them in a consistent manner. I do fly with a mini tape measure. And therein lies the problem: unless one hopefully reliable person does the measurements in a consistent way, you can't compare across airlines or even within an airline. The data is put out there - largely by the airline's own PR departments - is rarely accurate to begin with, and won't be the same basis for other measurements., such as whether to measure width along the base of the seat or at arm rest level. Then you have things like the A350's sliding seat base in WT, which is different from the 787.
squawk and Yllanes like this.
corporate-wage-slave is offline  
Old Aug 18, 19, 4:25 am
  #39  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
If we look at the entire cabin width:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-b...craft#Interior

We have the A350 interior 5 inches wider than the 787 (a number that seems to match Airbus' marketing department), at least at 'eye level'. Across 9 seats (assuming everything scales down) it just doesn't seem to add up to me (nor match my personal experience) that there really are massive differences. I hope someone can indeed get a tape measure out next time they fly on a 787 and A350 because I am curious.
APUBleed is offline  
Old Aug 18, 19, 4:32 am
  #40  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cheltenham
Programs: KLM Plat for Life , BA Gold, Avianca Diamond, HH Silver, (OtherhalfGold), IHG Gold
Posts: 1,939
I do wonder about the build quality of these planes . We recently flew on a BA 787 9 . We were delayed because of faulty landing gear that had to be repaired . We left eventually with only one working business class toilet , only one working oven in the business galley and no in seat power in any of the business seats .
orbitmic likes this.
simonsmith is offline  
Old Aug 18, 19, 8:53 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: A3*G,BA Gold
Posts: 886
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hour-engineers

A very good article regarding 787 and 737 pretty much saying how Boeing decided many years ago to outsource pretty much everything and label them...
Off topic but it explains lots of the problems 787 and 737 are facing.
Also from personal point of view i am a civil servant and the quality of our service has been declining since the goverment decided to outsource many of our departments.
ermis177 is offline  
Old Aug 18, 19, 10:04 am
  #42  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,824
Originally Posted by ermis177 View Post
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hour-engineers

A very good article regarding 787 and 737 pretty much saying how Boeing decided many years ago to outsource pretty much everything and label them...
Off topic but it explains lots of the problems 787 and 737 are facing.
Also from personal point of view i am a civil servant and the quality of our service has been declining since the goverment decided to outsource many of our departments.
I know outsourcing-bashing is a favourite activity on this forum, but we got to be objective here.

The issue with the MAX is not that an Indian paid 9 bucks an hour worked on the MCAS. It's that Boeing's executives decided to take a design made in the 1950s, with a wing and landing gear designed to accommodate an engine with a diameter of 1.5 meters, and thought that one with a diameter of 2.5 could fit nonetheless. And to alleviate the obvious issues it caused they fitted a software without notifying the pilots. And the proof that it isn't the fault of an Indian fella paid 9 bucks is the fact that it's been 5 months and we're still nowhere near the end of the grounding; had it been just sloppy programming, it'd been easy to rectify wouldn't it?

As for the 787, it's also wrong to consider outsourcing as the one and only issue. Firstly we've got to remember that Boeing went for a global supply chain not only to reduce costs, but also to spread the development risk. Boeing outsourced a lot of the headaches deriving from the design of the aircraft to its global partners: the Japanese heavies spent a lot of (Japanese taxpayer's) money trying to get the wingbox not to open up like a multi-layered cake and Alenia also had to spend a lot to design an industrially-scalable system to 'cook' the carbon fiber fuselage and cut out the windows and all the other access panels without weakening the fiber's structure itself. Those were all costs and headaches Boeing didn't have to incur into. A lot of delays that the 787 ran into would've happened regardless, because the plane was - and is - so different from all other planes in commerce. Some would say overengineered but I'm not one (engineer, I mean).

The other issue of the 787, i.e. the poor production quality in Charleston, has zero to do with outsourcing. Charleston employees are Boeing employees and poor quality is strictly a Boeing issue. In all fairness it's always been an issue at Boeing, at Everett as in Charleston. Even BA LHR Engineering has embraced non-personalised tooling; Boeing still hasn't, and they still leave personal tools in the planes. BA's first 787 was meant to be G-ZBJA, but JB arrived because BA's engineers refused to accept BA with so many defect as that bird had. And I remember one of the last 77W to arrive that got here with the wiring for the fire suppression system of the cargo doors mounted the wrong way round...
orbitmic and truncated like this.
13901 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: