Dreamliner set to land at American Airlines

Discussion in 'American Airlines | AAdvantage' started by MX, May 27, 2014.  |  Print Topic

  1. MX

    MX Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    4,805
    Status Points:
    2,545
    American will take delivery of its first B787 in November. Passenger flights will begin in early 2015.
    details here
     
    jbcarioca, uggboy, Max M and 2 others like this.
  2. gregm

    gregm Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,508
    Likes Received:
    2,161
    Status Points:
    1,200
    jbcarioca, uggboy, MX and 2 others like this.
  3. blackjack-21

    blackjack-21 Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    3,000
    Status Points:
    1,910
    I just bought a replacement lithium-ion battery as a spare for my cellphone to use on longer trips if needed. Thought I'd read that you can carry a spare battery (not sure if it's in your flightbag or checked suitcase) as long as it's in the original packaging, so I kept the plastic covered cardboard sleeve it came in to use when traveling, and I can store it there at home. Hope that's sufficient to let me take it along on flights.
     
    jbcarioca, uggboy and MX like this.
  4. davef139

    davef139 Gold Member

    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    4,958
    Status Points:
    3,120
    I carry no less then 3 cell batteries, I think the ruling is you can't have them plugged in in checked luggage, if you remove the battery you are good. they aren't going to spontaneously combust, although attached to the electronic that is a potential problem. I have flown the 787 quite a few times. I didn't find it to be anything special.
     
  5. Pizzaman
    Original Member

    Pizzaman Co-founder

    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    8,755
    Status Points:
    7,270
    I've flown it a few times as well and would disagree. For my two long-haul flights to/from Asia I was noticeably more well-rested and hydrated when I landed. Lot less jet lag.
     
  6. blackjack-21

    blackjack-21 Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    3,000
    Status Points:
    1,910
    I'm also a fan of Boeing ("If it ain't Boeing, ...etc., etc."), but not yet of it's B787. One of the first routes for BA's B787 was YYZ-LHR and that flight was often delayed by MX, sometimes leading to cancellations. There's still one B787 offered on some days out of YYZ, but I'll opt for the older, grungier interiored, but still more reliable two other B747 daily flights when they're offered.

    Besides, if I wanted a plastic model plane, I'd head to my local hobby shop. Which may or may not imply that I'm not entirely confident about the reliabilty of the B787 until after it gets to about 14,325 cycles. After that time, I'll think of something else to examine....closely!
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
    jbcarioca likes this.
  7. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Like it or not, the lower cabin altitude and higher humidity of B787 does unquestionably translate to less fatigue on very long flights. Frankly I prefer the A380 when I can get it, but the B787 is leagues ahead of any other currently produced aircraft other than the A380 in terms of the combination of cabin altitude and humidity.
    In terms of seat comfort that is an airline choice and the typical configurations being ordered are indeed nothing special. For short and medium range flights I agree. However, Pizzaman describes the B787 sweet spot, and I defy anybody to not like the aforementioned reduced cabin altitude and higher humidity of the B787 and A380.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2014
    Flyer1976, zphelj, Garp74 and 2 others like this.
  8. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    An additional note:
    The A380, B787 and A350 all use the same supplier and same systems to manage cabin humidity and air purity. They all use CTT Systems product called Cair. Using that technology, depending on air carrier selection it is possible to have relative humidity up to 35%. In practice most B787 operators seem to be using around 15%, while A380 operators vary. Lufthansa, for example uses 16% in FC and crew rest areas, but did not disclose what the settings are for the remainder of the cabin (the same maybe? But they did not disclose). Although the system is not readily adaptive to old technology aircraft such as B747-8 it probably, I surmise, can be implemented for the new derivatives of B777, but that does depend on the materials being used for fuselage since the higher humidity levels can cause corrosion problems with some materials. OTOH, the lower pressurisation and cabin air filtration systems will certainly be features of virtually all newly certified airliners, IMHO.

    In the meantime the higher pressurisation also helps with lower cabin noise levels. Nobody yet matches the A380 in that respect but I surmise new B787 and B777 derivatives as well as A350 will have similar cabin noise levels.

    Not yet mentioned is smoothness of flight in turbulence. Generally FBW (fly by wire) aircraft are much smoother than are non- FBW aircraft. So, the B777 is normally smoother than any B747 and the A320 is smoother than a B737, among others. However, in the newest generations military FBW technologies are introducing what Boeing calls "Active Gust Attenuation" which they adapted from B2 bomber systems. These systems are used primarily to allow wings to be less stressed, thus permit lighter and more aerodynamic airfoil structures to be used than would conventionally be required. A side benefit is a better ride. Oddly, as these systems develop it is quite likely that the biggest beneficiaries will be smaller aircraft, but for now the B787 is most advanced with A380 and now A350 using logically similar approaches . However, the Airbus side did not have the ability to take the B2 experiences and technologies. The did have some other sources, so it will remain to be seen how much difference all this will make form a passenger perspective. In the meantime the B787 is surely more stable in turbulence than any other Boeing, and maybe even than the A380, but I know of no honest comparisons on that point. Anecdotally, I know prejudice is probably a huge factor in perception. I've done enough blind A/B comparisons to know it affects me just as it does everyone else.:oops:

    Finally, it's remarkable how many opinions on these subject are based on prejudices of various kinds. One need not deal in prejudice when the facts are published. If all the unequivocal Boeing and/or Airbus fans who can be objective and look carefully at who supplier what equipment to each airframe for which aircraft they'll find it very, very difficult to maintain prejudice when the suppliers are so often the same companies. Some Boeing and Airbus companies are suppliers to each other also.
     
    Flyer1976, zphelj, Garp74 and 4 others like this.
  9. Betty Boop

    Betty Boop Gold Member

    Messages:
    7,791
    Likes Received:
    37,867
    Status Points:
    13,975
    Thank you for posting this information. I find it very interesting and will now pay closer attention to which aircraft I am flying. Still learning but this adds another step on learning curve.

    Sent from my iPhone using milepoint
     
    jbcarioca, DCtrAAveler and MX like this.
  10. Pizzaman
    Original Member

    Pizzaman Co-founder

    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    8,755
    Status Points:
    7,270
    I agree it's easy to have a bias towards one company or the other. I happen to be a big Boeing fan. But the upper deck of the A380 is definitely quieter than the 787. I've only had one experience on the 747-8i but I'd say it's comparable to the A380.
     
    jbcarioca, MX and Garp74 like this.
  11. Garp74

    Garp74 Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,330
    Likes Received:
    9,623
    Status Points:
    7,525
    I have yet to fly a 787, but the upper deck of the A380 is heaven.
     
    ande777emt, jbcarioca and MX like this.
  12. davef139

    davef139 Gold Member

    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    4,958
    Status Points:
    3,120
    I agree that lower altitude and higher humidity is great, the longest flight I have done on the 87 so far i only about 4hours. I do have a problem with it that my ears consistently pop when flying the 787, presumably from the lower humidity.
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  13. ballardFlyer

    ballardFlyer Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Status Points:
    1,120
    Humidity is higher on the 787 right? Do you mean the altitude? It is the one that is effectively "lower" at cruising level on this plane.
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  14. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    No, it is humidity. The relative humidity in flight on a B747-8, say, is about 4-5%, as it is on nearly all aircraft not newly designed from ground up. Humans tend to become dehydrated rapidly at anything much less than roughly 10% or so, and sense dryness below 40% or so. YMMV! The B787 and A380 both have newly developed humidity control systems provided by CTT systems, as I posted above, that increase the relative humitiry at altitude to 15-16%.

    Cabin altitude is another matter entirely and also is an important comfort issue. All currently produced airliners are probably technically capable of providing lower cabin altitudes than they do, but doing so tends to generate high maintenance and operating costs and deterioration of the pressure vessel (i.e. cabin). Thus only the newest aircraft have newer technologies that allow lower cabin altitude without the higher costs. Those are the B787, A380 and, soon, A350. Other derivatives such as B747-8, A320NEO, B737MAX do not have lower cabin altitudes nor do they have humidity enhancements IIRC.

    A third major issue is cabin air purification. A side issue of higher pressurization is less fresh air circulation. In addition ozone content is also higher at altitude. Partly due to regulation, but mostly to improve life for passengers and crew nearly all current production aircraft now have air scrubbers that remove impurities and ozone. They all abbe HEPA filtration also. That makes a big difference in feeling also, even though few people actually sense the difference directly, they just feel less uncomfortable.
     
  15. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    That surprises me because as a general rule pressure differences are much lower in the B787/A380 than in older designs, partly due to lower cabin altitude and partly due to more consistent pressurisation controls. I have not heard such a thing before. I wonder if it is directly B787 related or possibly other coincidental factors, though I've no idea what those might be.
     
  16. zphelj

    zphelj Gold Member

    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,805
    Status Points:
    1,020
    Really good information, thanks. Random: When I first read this I thought, "Wow, so if the active system fails under really high load the lighter construction wing .. fails too?" :) No chance I'd think however it gave me pause for a minute there!
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  17. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    From what I have been reading the "fail-safe" decisions and other optimisations are generating continuing serious investigation and debate. In early test wings did fail and that was part of the experimentation. Actually FWIW, airframe structures in pre-certification tests are often tested to point of failure, although it is not really uncommon now to have the test equipment fail before the wings do. Actually with active control surfaces the stresses on the airfoils are seriously reduced and as a result, Turbulent Air Penetration Speed (all certified aircraft have lower speeds maximum in turbulent air than in clear air)with active control surfaces will typically be higher than with normal airfoils. We'll see lots more of these technologies in coming years because they reduce weight, allow reduced drag in airfoils and allow optimisation for reduced fuel consumption. On the last point, the new autopilots and active control surfaces combine with FBW to allow loading aft which reduces drag but reduces stability. These topics are covered in fair detail in industry press, with the most understandable explanations often coming from Aviation Week, if you're curious to know more.
     

Share This Page