I rode the 787 this week, first as a passenger in coach, and second as a jumpseater. Since Boeing and United are touting the airplane as a “game-changer,” I thought I would post my impressions.

Boarding the airplane, it would be difficult to tell if you were on a 767-400, 777, or 787. Seats and baggage bins look like any other modern-interior twin-aisle. The “dial-a-color” LED lighting isn’t really noticeable, although it is more consistent and even. They use a light-blue in the unoccupied lavs; I thought it was too dark.

One thing I noticed: the sturdiness of the floor. Usually you can feel it “spring” a little when you walk on it, or when someone walks by your seat. Not so---the composite floor beams must be very stiff. It reminded me of the deck-plates on a C-130 or C-5.

The seats seem a little wider, maybe 1 to 1.5 inch, compared to the 767 or 777. United had a pretty nice entertainment system with movies, TV, audio, map display, and games.

Pushback, start, taxi, takeoff: no different than others. You can still smell jet exhaust during taxi, so the new pressurization scheme doesn’t change that.

Climbout to level off was about as noisy as any other twin when sitting near the last row. We went to 40,000 for IAH-SFO. We were late off the gate, and the Capt pushed it up to 0.86. I was surprised at both the altitude and speed.

In cruise: It is QUIET. I would say this was the biggest change. Even in the aft galley, I could converse with the FAs in a normal tone of voice.

The humidified cabin seems to work. I didn’t feel dried-out after landing, although I had to clear my ears a lot more than usual….that didn’t make much sense.

In turbulence, the fuselage exhibits that same stiffness as the floor. It doesn’t seem to flex much, so you don’t hear creaking overhead bins as the tube flexes.

Descent: slightly quieter than others. Landings could be any airliner.

Return leg, on the jumpseat: the cockpit isn’t radically different, just progressively. Lots of dispay screens; almost wall-to-wall on the main panel. The FMS keypad is different….tall and narrow. No display on the keypad; it’s on the glass now.

There was a (color) moving map of the airfield diagram for taxiing, which I thought was nice. Also, a profile view (“Vertical Situation Display”) which showed obstacles and current flight-path. Nice.

The side windows don’t open, so the cockpit has an escape hatch, like the 747.
Start is electric, not electric bleed-air. Both engines can be started at once. Taxi/takeoff seems pretty average.

Climbout is quiet. We went to FL410….I’d never been that high in an airliner before. Fully-packed, it was burning about 10,000 lb an hour (total) in cruise.

In cruise, the loudest thing is the air vents. Two jumpseats; both very comfortable.

Overall: I don’t think I would call it a game-changer, but a game-improver. For passengers, frequent flyers might notice the differences. Cruise is quiet everywhere; climbout is quiet forward of the wing. For the front-office guys, the cockpit is not radically different. It is quiet, and you will fly high, and sip daintily at fuel.

Not sure if the gamma-radiation guys will worry about the altitude, since they no longer have a shield of aluminum over their heads.

Nice review... I've been wondering about the new 87s. Sounds just like you said. Not a game-changer but definitely a game-improver.

But so shiny!

Aluminum isn't a particularly great gamma shield. The glue in the composite matrix might be about as good (hydrocarbons work as shielding).

I'll do the math and get back to you.

I thought this was an outstanding OP. Well done and many thanks!


The smell of victory!

I'm starting to think the same thing!!

The Comet and the DC-10 were heralded as game-changers with cutting-edge technology, too. The Comet disasters are well-known, but (as far as I have read) De Havilland had no knowledge that there was a design flaw until the investigation proved it.

On the other hand, McDonnell knew for a while there was a problem with latching the cargo doors on the DC-10. One aircraft (American) was recovered (barely), and the other was a disaster. It wasn't until after the Turkish crash that the previous problems were publicly revealed.

Airbus knew that some A-330 pitot-static units could be iced-up in severe conditions, but I don't think it was widely disemminated. (Although there was an AD to replace them; it gave a long time-span to comply). Otherwise, the AF 447 crew might have known of the possibility, and how to deal with it.

The question of hardover rudder in the 737 cast serious doubt on the fleet ten years ago, but a certain operator (who only flies 737s) convinced the FAA the fleet didn't need to be grounded (because they would have lost money and//or gone out of business). The time to replace all the rudder actuators is on the order of 10 years, if I remember correctly.

The FAA, NTSB, airlines, and electronics manufacturers know that Lithium-Ion batteries can overheat and creat a sustainable fire that will not extinguish with current aircraft fire-suppresion systems. But no one has mandated that Li-I batteries be shipped only via surface transport, in fire-proof aircraft shipping containers. That would add weight, and would cost more money.

And now, Boeing is banking on the 787 to make them profitable well into the future (and indirectly, US business, since Boeing is one of our biggest foreign-sales industries). At least four inflight fires; one on its delivery flight!

My point: the recent fires suggest radical action is needed, on the order of what Britain did to the Comet: it lost its certificate until the investigation was complete.

But dollar$ seem to be more important than putting a few hundred lives at risk.

219 seats?, sounds like a 757-300.
FL400 & 410? Sounds like 737.
Vertical profile on the display?, sounds like a 737.
Entertainment system?, 737 has direct TV.
Boeing sky interior lighting? Sounds like a 737.

I've rode on it too when it wasn't broken and replaced by a working Boeing model. I sat in coach and it's the same as any coach seat pitch/width.

The 787 has problems and I hope they can work it out. For now, I'm staying on the most popular airliner in history (737).

Thanks for the information, T-38 Phyler. From a passenger perspective, it sounds great. From a safety prospective, there are a LOT of concerns with the electrical system; specifically, the batteries.

It seems that Boeing may have really shot themselves in the foot with the "save weight at all costs" design philosophy. The decision to change from from the proven, but heavier, nickel-cadmium batteries to lithium-ion may have been a very expensive one. The Korean Air aircraft fire on the ground in BOS is probably the tip of the iceberg and one can only imagine what may have happened had that aircraft been in flight.

The problem with any lithium based battery is that if there is a faulty charging system or an overheat condition serious enough to start a fire, it cannot be extinguished, no matter how good the containment box may be. For my two cents, I think Boeing is going to have to go back to the drawing board and re-design the electrical system and possibly go back to ni-cad batteries for safety sake. How many on this forum would want to be in a 787 at 30 degrees West and have a battery fire. That is a formula for a disaster.

G'Luck Mates and be safe out there

Well every plane has its "teething" pains..But this a/c has a whole new redesign. There is no bleed system the 787 is reliant on very heavy electrical to do all the work.. Very nice plane but will take some time to work through the bugs..

I would agree with your comment to a point. Lithium batteries, whether they be lithium-ion or the older lithium-polymer have advantages. They are lighter, can be re-charged to a "full charge" status quicker and can be designed to carry a much large electrical load; all pluses for the 787. The drawback with any lithium battery is that on the off chance an overheat or fault condition occurs which results in a fire, extinguishing that fire is difficult if not impossible. Think about burning magnesium as the chemical qualities are very similar.

With the "Dreamliner", a containment box has been designed into the aircraft however, an reliable extinguishing agent is still not, to my knowledge, available. That may prove to be the "Achilles heel" until the issue is safely resolved. In my opinion, that's not a "teething pain", it's a serious safety issue. Otherwise, why would the FAA and the Korean government grounded the aircraft ?

G'Luck Mates