class387
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,525
I personally far prefer the A350 due to it being more spacious and having window shades (don't like the dimming windows).
What do you prefer?
What do you prefer?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Airbus A350 or Boeing 787?
- Thread starter class387
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Techniquest
Veteran Member
Only just found this thread, as I hardly ever visit this part of the forum.
Never had an A350 so I can't comment on them but what I've seen online does look nice. I love the 787s though, awesome craft to fly on.
Never had an A350 so I can't comment on them but what I've seen online does look nice. I love the 787s though, awesome craft to fly on.
ian959
Member
Give me an A350 every time. There is nothing much I like about the 787 in the 3+3+3 seating configuration. Maybe I would enjoy flying the JAL 787 with the 2+4+2 configuration it was designed for. Just think the 787 is mostly hype.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I've not used a 350, but one of the reasons I think the 787 is a great aircraft is the LCD cabin shades. I like to be able to look out of the window throughout the flight and do not like to sleep on day flights (and can't sleep on night flights). The new 787 shades allow me to do this without flooding the cabin with light and annoying people. A brilliant idea.
The 787's higher humidity and lower cabin altitude are also superb, though I don't know if the 350 matches these?
OK, some airlines have made them a bit rubbish with a slightly tight seating layout (but even as a very big person it's not *that* bad), but the aircraft is a good product, definitely a big step in travelling environment.
class387
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,525
The A350 seems to be better than the 787 in terms of humidity and air quality to me.
The dimming windows are nice, but seem unreliable and slow to operate. A traditional window shade on top of them would be great.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
No, it wouldn't, because it would cause me to have to have the blind shut during a day flight when I wish to look out just so some people can sleep during the day, which is only forced on people to make things easier for the cabin crew - when flying west, the best thing to do is take a long day and go to bed about 8pm on arrival, and you'll reset to the new timezone (ready to get up bright and early and enjoy your day) in one go. If you sleep during a westbound day flight you will find it much harder to reset.
That people can't stop me looking out of the window makes the 787 better for me than every other aircraft available - I would choose it for any long-haul day flight without question even with the slightly tight seat layout.
Why does it being slow matter? You put it on a setting and leave it there, mostly.
class387
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,525
Why? Surely the rule would still be to have it on the darkest setting, as it seems to be on most 787s now?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
On the darkest setting you can still see out on a day flight. With a blind down you can't.
That's why they are so good. They allow me to see out without the cabin being so bright that people who wish to sleep can't. They are therefore, absent splitting the cabin into a "dark" and "light" zone (something I think would be a very good idea), near enough to being a perfect compromise.
Techniquest
Veteran Member
Glad it's not just me who can't sleep on night flights!
JAL 787s are 2-4-2? Interesting, I'm booked on one from Frankfurt to Tokyo in November, such a seating layout is good news for me!
JAL 787s are 2-4-2? Interesting, I'm booked on one from Frankfurt to Tokyo in November, such a seating layout is good news for me!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I can't sleep if it's not dark, horizontal and silent, unless the previous night it was not dark, horizontal and silent (and so I didn't sleep). So the old adage of "the only way to sleep on a night train is to have been on a night train the night before" works for me
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Something people seem to have missed about the 787 is that the cabin crew can forcibly lock the window shades to the darkest setting. You can’t see anything really on the darkest setting, really.
Royston Vasey
Established Member
All but one have chosen 3-3-3 in an aircraft designed for 2-4-2. The Dreamliner is a horrific backstep in passenger comfort. The A350 is superior and most importantly, wider.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You can if it's light, I had it on the lowest setting for a while and could still see out. But that's no different to cabin crew coming round and shouting at you if you open the blinds, as they seem to do on most airlines - and in that case you can't see out.
Have you actually been on one? I genuinely didn't find it that bad, and I am really not a small person.
Royston Vasey
Established Member
Have I actually been on one? I've been on tens of Dreamliner flights, more than I care to remember of which in economy, mainly on BA and Virgin, two in the last two weeks and not by choice. No shoulder and elbow room, seat in face, equipment box cramping foot space. Very hard to sleep and get off drained and aching. Great in premium economy and above. Awful in economy, both width and pitch. It didn't have to be like this, but the airlines have chosen dense configurations.
Usually seek out A330 or 767 if I have the choice transatlantic these days, Cathay A350 to Asia.
I've not flown on an A350 so can't comment on that
But the better half and I thought the 787 was a let down. Cramped, uncomfortable and hot on both journeys and other than the dimming windows just seemed like a bog standard plane. Far preferred the A330 we used a few months later
Oh and also our return flight was delayed by 25 hours due to the brakes not knowing if they were on or not (though I get a fault could have happened on any plane, at least we got a refund!)
But the better half and I thought the 787 was a let down. Cramped, uncomfortable and hot on both journeys and other than the dimming windows just seemed like a bog standard plane. Far preferred the A330 we used a few months later
Oh and also our return flight was delayed by 25 hours due to the brakes not knowing if they were on or not (though I get a fault could have happened on any plane, at least we got a refund!)
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 6,850
I suspect Boeing knew that just about all operators would go for 9Y instead of 8Y, even if the early publicity was all about the extra comfort of 2-4-2...
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
In the end Boeing will do what airlines want, as if they don't they won't sell any planes.
Techniquest
Veteran Member
Indeed, and 3-3-3 is not *that* bad. It could always be worse! If JAL does indeed do 2-4-2 on their 787s it'll be interesting to compare it with Norwegian, BA and Etihad who all use 3-3-3. I'll find out for sure in November, less than 6 months until the Tokyo trip!
Which has randomly reminded me, I haven't organised my mini Euro trip for September yet. My list of finalists for the trip needs to be ready for Friday afternoon when I intend to book the flights!
- Status