I've had conversations with FD crew from 3 other major international airlines. They all told me that the issue with photos is that people have posted them to social media. Some companies have policies against this in general, but the situation was made worse when people had photos taken of themselves and crew and then posted those on FB etc - without the permission of the crews and the airline. The crews were not happy about that.

Depending on privacy legislation by country and by airline, there may be some flexibility.

When airlines did public showings of their new aircraft, obviously the media and the public took some photos, but onboard pre-or post-flight may fall under different rules.

Yeah they mentioned the social media thing. To be honest I didn't really think to take a picture of them :p I've done most of my flying with North American carriers and it seems most of them are pretty nonchalant about photos (of the flight deck, not of them). I guess I'll have to try my luck with AA when they get the 350.

AA was one of the airlines where I spoke with crew.

In fact, sometime last year, IIRC, there was a thread or new story about AA cabin crew being rather upset with people taking photos in the cabin. Someone told me they were told by crew they can't take photos.

Well, I took plenty - food, seat, snacks, wing, engine......no one on my AA flights said anything.

Also, this problem is related to the narcissistic behaviour shown by many of those on social media. For some, it seems to be a full time job instagram-ing themselves. :D

Finally had my first trip in J on an A350 from HKG-MEL after a few in PEY.

My J seat was fully functional and no manufacturing or quality problems were evident. It is quite a nice upgrade over J in an A330. Much more storage, the sleeping area is wider and of course the IFE is much more up to date.

I did manage to squash my fingers when fiddling with the small cushion that flips up at the side to give more sleeping area. It isn't obvious that the cushion flips up until it does, so it's easy to get your hand caught in the hinge. I'm sure I won't be the last to do that.

Comments and photos from friend who flew CX 855 YVR-HKG

POST 1 of 2


"Look at that wingspan!"

"Now that's decent storage"

"Quick thoughts on CX A350J - loved it, nicely appointed cabin and the service was good (not ANA standard but I’m pretty easy-going on that. Superior to my limited AC experiences anyway) - better than the (CX) 777 I took back (tired cabin, hotter, no WiFi and worse service - could be that the plane was full to the gills so not as personalized as with the flight to HKG). Also, though I think I already mentioned this, the CX lounge in YVR is really nice. "

"As for CX itself? I liked them overall but I won’t travel TPAC unless I can get the A350 which restricts me to travel on Tue., Thu. and Sat. - sucks it’s not more frequent. Way better bird and also a decent timing (leave here 09:30, arrive 13:50)"


"Yeah, I was very happy with the fruit on CX, both from YVR and HKG. Just right, not unripe or too ripe. Bet AC or any of the US3 won’t manage that. :-D"

.

Comments and photos from friend who flew CX 855 YVR-HKG

POST 2 of 2

"The stir fried noodles with beef was excellent, crisp vegetables, tasty"

He also said the Grilled Beef Tenderloin was excellent.

.

It's real nice that the A350 can fly at an altitude of 35-37000 feet initially to avoid most of the weather below. The 777 for longhaul goes as high as 33000 feet initially depending of course on load and weather.

Has anyone tried the 777 and the A350 on the same sector to destinations such as Rome, Dusseldorf, Paris, or any longhual flight lasting 12+ hours? I'm really curious to know if it has any effects on the human body such as jetlag, fatigue and dry skin, lips, etc.

I've done 772, 77W, 744, A380 and now A350 between London.

The A350 is the same as the A380. You're not going to completely beat jetlag with any of them but its a lot better than previous generation aircraft, much quieter and more comfortable. The 744 literally gives me nosebleeds for a day or two afterwards and the 777 is somewhere in between.

I do find that the higher pressure and humidity in the cabin for the A350 and 787 does help with jetlag and fatigue. My last TPAC on a 787 though was very drying which I was surprised about, I suspect the humidifier was broken.

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 :D

Well, they do on all of my AC flights.

When they first took delivery in 2014 and I flew my first one to HND, I was on the "A" side and it only went to a dark green but that sun was beating on us for almost the entire trip. It didn't bother me as much as I was too excited to be on that bird and also, AC's first 787 fin. Most of us spent the 13.5 hours walking around touching everything, especially the window shade button.

There were a lot of complaints so AC had the shading darkened and I can tell you that it's great now.

But hey, for every person who wants a darker cabin, there are an equal number who want to work their way across the Pacific. That's why we have eye-shades. :D

P.S. Seriously cool colors and views when one is bored over the Aleutians. LOL

.

I was on an AC 788 in 2014 and I do remember the green. The other times I've been on a 787 were JAL in 2015 and UA last year. I still remember sitting at the windows with some visible sunlight but not pitch black like how you mentioned. It is quite interesting how the windows are completely adjustable. I assume that they can go pitch black but it is very cool that they leave it up to the airline to adjust to whatever the maximum darkness is.

Seems it's been operating on CX712/713 SIN-BKK-HKG as well.

I was checking for the November schedule for the LGW - HKG route earlier. Interestingly, 3 flights each week take about an hour longer than usual to HKG.

CX344 LGW11:35 - HKG06:55+1 (1,5)
CX344 LGW11:35 - HKG07:05+1 (3,7)
CX344 LGW11:35 - HKG07:55+1 (2,4,6)