Flew the Dreamliner yesterday -- review

I took one of United's 787's from Narita to LA yesterday. I was in coach. Interesting to compare it to other planes.

The flight started a bit strange. The pilot told us that this was the 7th plane they have received and the newest of the fleet.

We taxi onto the runway and the pilot says he's got a problem with "a wing sensor". We have to go back to the gate and let onboard the mechanics. 2 and half hours later (after sitting in our seats the entire time) they fix the problem and we are underway.

The pilot explains the plane is new and they are working out issues with it. Not something you want to hear when you have to spend the next 10 hours over the Pacific.

The plane is a little louder with white noise than I would have figured. I think the 777 is probably the quietest plane in the Boeing fleet with the 747 being the worst. But, the A380 to me was the quietest plane I've ever been on.

I was in a window exit seat. And, they've done a good job in reducing incursion into the foot area from the inside air slide compartment. But, there's a weird padded bolster that pokes the side of your leg the entire time. I'm assuming it's there for safety reasons but it's really annoying.

The electrochromatic windows are a mixed bag. On the negative, they really don't block all the sunlight. And, you can't just lower the screen to block out part of the sun like you can with the older shades. But, as a plus, they act like big sunglasses so you can see out even with the screen on "full block".

The windows are bigger... but not better. The reason is that you can't see below you any better but you can see up into the sky more. So, what's the point? Ok, I can see more blue sky but it's not something to write home about.

I like the overhead storage. It's more like a 747 as being big enough to hold everyone's carry-on. They are taller which lets you stand computer cases upright and saving space for more luggage.

This United flight had a pre-recorded "attendant" to announce to put your seat belts on. The guy they picked sounds EXACTLY like the guy who on Disneyland rides tells you to keep your arms and legs in the car at all times. This is really a step forward? It seems so artificial.

The Lavs are still no way on par with Airbus. Maybe it's a "United thing" but it's simple, functional, and boring. Airbus lav's seem to be better looking inside and more stylish. The toilet seat has little handles to lift them if you want to pee standing up. And, they still look like they would fall down in a turbulence.

But, somethings seem like cost reduction and were disappointing.

The interior walls/panels just seems cheaply made and simple. There's very little detail to like. For example, on the hatch of the 747 is a beautiful machined aluminum handle. On the 787, it looks like someone took a piece of pipe, bent it 90 degrees, and stuck it on at the most logical place. The inside hatch itself is sort of disjointed and not very attractive.

The airvents are another example. They are this rather cheezy screw type rather than the jet nozzles we are used to on Boeing planes. They don't work very well and feel "cheap". But, it's better than Airbus because at least the Dreamliner has them.

United seats came with it's latest entertainment system, which I would say is the best I have seen anywhere. The TFT screens are like Ipad mini's with touch interface and simple to understand controls. It's in wide screen format and the quality of the image was first rate HD. And, a lot of movies (even more than Cathay I would say). But, there's no removeable controller (like a video game console) so you can't video play games on it unless they are touch screen type games.

And then... the Nav is really weak. It's not very detailed. I was watching Cathay's last week and not only is it more informative and much better looking, it's got more information about where you are and where you are going. I think United cut some corners here. This was the worst one I've ever seen on a plane. And, on the Cathy flights, they had 2 outside Video camera's to choose from. United had none.

The seat's width is tighter than other planes IMO. It's really narrow in coach. Aisle space in coach is also pretty darn tight. Seating is 2, 4, 2 but it seems easy enough to get out of.

All in all, a fine plane but not a superstar when it comes to passenger experience. And, I wish the reliability would improve. It was no fun turning an 11 hour flight into nearly a 14 hour flight.

 

That's because once passengers realize they are on a French build plane they fell the urge to spend much more time using the "facilities"

Thanks for the review, as you say I think most of your complaints are a United thing more than pure Boeing..

Cathy have long been regarded for their service, I haven't flown with either for a while but Singapore was hard to beat back in the day also.

Worst LA-London flight I ever took was United.

 

You are correct in your UAL statement. The design teams spend untold hours to configure the best environment for the pax but as soon as the airline customer gets it , the design is turned into a cattle car. Been there, seen that. We worked our butts off to save weight on the 767 then the airlines turned around and added almost one ton of In-Flight Entertainment system equipment.

 

The Airbus 320 has the same fresh air nozzles like a Boeing so I'm assuming the A380 doesn't have them ... otherwise I'm confused by your comments.
Pete

 

Interesting.I'm not crazy about United to begin with so maybe it's just their thing.
My Mother in law just flew back to Warsaw from Chicago on LOT.
She did that route more then 20 times (she lives in Poland) on almost all European airlines and she was ecstatic about the biz class on 787(no First on LOT).
She was less jet lagged and tired then after flying First on Lufthansa or BA,bed was fully flat and comfy,lavatory bigger and spotless,service comparable or better then Singapore (flew that one too).
Food was the best of any airline she's ever tried.

 

Why did you fly coach???

 

And why did you fly United instead of JAL???

 

Answer to both:

1) I have almost 3 million miles on United and this was a package trip to/ from Hong Kong.

2) I've already burned up all my intercontinental upgrade certs this year.

 

May I suggest Cathay Pacific?

 

Just because it's a 787 doesn't mean the airlines are going to suddenly give you wider seats or more legroom. It's all about max passengers to square feet of floor space. I'm pretty sure that pretty much every coach seat is at the minimum required by the FAA. Based on your description it sounds similar to a 737-900.

 

Not sure if this problem will get much press in the US - but these guys are on the goldplan and don't seem to be very happy.
Norwegian Air Shuttle Grounds New 787 Dreamliner | Stuff.co.nz

 

Where were you seated on a 747? In the front of the plane it's actually pretty damn quiet, quieter than many other Boeing planes (incl. the 777) I've been on. Upper deck and anything near or aft of the wings can be somewhat noisy. I believe Joe Sutter (Bob can chime in here) had a favorite seat (like 2A) on the 747 because it was in fact the quietest on any Boeing plane built.

Absolute deafening plane was in the front (or hell, anywhere) of the MD-80 series. White noise x100 hell once at cruise.

Interesting take from Boeing on being "too quiet" inflight.

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2007/08/sound_of_silence.html

And one where the reader measured sound and noted the 787 louder than the 747 and 777

http://www.talkingpointz.com/the-787-dreamliner-parts-5-6

 

I definitely agree that the interior is more United than Boeing. As I'm sure you already know, different airlines interiors in the same model plane vary dramatically. Chalk it up to United's (CO?) desire to charge more for less.

 

I just flew back on a 787-8 (Norwegian) from the UK, and took the 777 (United) on the way out.

I found the 787 to be significantly quieter than the 777 all the way around. Not just from jet noise, or white noise, but the air conditioning/ventilation in the 777 was noisier to me considerably more than the 777. I sat on the upper deck of the A380, so from that specific arrangement, it was quieter than the 787, but the 777 certainly wasn't.

The windows, sizing, the width seems identical to every other aircraft. The height, noticeably taller for sure. The electrochromatic dimming I agree is a mixed bag. I guess the one nice aspect is the flight crew has total control. This prevents someone (during an overnight flight) from opening the window and blinding half the passengers as a result. But it doesn't totally block out the light. I found it more than satisfactory, especially if you're not facing the sun.

Our aircraft was a 3-3-3 arrangement, I found the seat satisfactory. The IFE system had to be rebooted 3 times in flight.

But the one aspect you didn't mention was the cabin altitude pressurization and humidity. I really didn't experience any jet lag after the flight. On the UAL 777 I certainly had it. And for a long haul flight, if there's one reason for me to now seek out the 787, it's that bit. I'm not the first to notice (others had told me the same) but I went in skeptical. Neither my wife or myself experienced any.

I'm now a fan of the 787 from a passenger perspective.

 

Pick your air line by the flight attendants...I'd be happier flying in rack seating for 17 hours with Cathay girls waiting on me hand and foot than 10 hours in business with any US carrier's hags squawking at me for the whole trip!

Ciao!

Hannibal

 

Funny I like the exit row just by the wings or the upper deck if upgraded.

The 787 is definitely quieter than the older 747's that United uses.

 

You should fly IL18 turboprop to see what real noise is.

 

Oh I've been invited to - my wife won't let me go to NK to do it though.

Upper deck??? That's the noisiest part of the 747!!! But if you enjoy it, that's great - I wouldn't turn it down.

 

i remember being beaten up by the noise in the waist window of a B-17 on climb out and somehow expecting it to stop after reaching cruise altitude.

 

I like the 787 for its quietness and lower air pressure. I agree with your comments on the windows - interesting for a few minutes but forgotten thereafter. United stuffs the economy cabin - so it isn't as spacious as a 777.

From my flight experience perspective, I would rate it as follows:

747-8 >> 777 >> 787 >> A380 >> 737-900 >> 767 >> 757 > others

The 747-8 (Lufthansa) was simply the best experience I had - really quiet, comfy, spacious. A380 was a very good experience but the plane was stuffed to the gills in economy. The lavatory in business was pretty cramped.

I do think that the 767 and 757 are fine planes of their own accord but with United they seem to be really outdated from a seating, entertainment perspective.

To me the 747-8, 757 and 787 are the prettiest planes around.

 

I believe you mean higher cabin pressure, which equates to lower equivalent cabin altitude.

 

You are right. I meant lower altitude

 

Looking forward to flying the Dreamliner later this month. I'll be in first on Virgin Atlantic LHR-EWR.

 

Had a chance to fly the Dreamliner last year (Qatar Airways) and I found the coach section refreshingly modern. I liked the large HD entertainment screens, the high tech windows and all but the best part was how spacious it felt compared to the A330 I had just flown and how relaxed and fresh I felt after a 7-hour flight to Germany. I thought this was due to the improved (closer to normal) relative humidity compared to aluminum planes.

 

Good to hear. The humidity improvement is due to a revised Environmental Control System that doesn't extract so much water vapor out of the cabin air. You wouldn't believe how much water is extracted on something like a 767. it's used to cool the heat exchangers that take in air from engine bleed.