5 ms·

Boeing’s 787 Is as Innovative Inside as Outside

28 points by edw519 17y ago

jws 17y ago
I think the only innovation I care about is that the seats are 1 inch narrower than a 737.
- btilly 17y ago
  Ugh. I'm 6'3", and I only squeeze so far when surrounded by a couple of overweight people who don't know how to tuck their elbows in. Losing 1" of width doesn't sound like much, but it will make those awkward flights a little more common and a little more awkward.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    I'm 5'4" and I hate people who don't tuck their elbows in. But even worse: fatties who want the arm-rest up so that you can subsidize their air travel. (They want to be able to leak over into your seat.) Yes, I fly a lot, and yes, this happens.
    - btilly 17y ago
      I've experienced the request to raise the arm rest. So far I've been able to say no and make it stick. In theory people who take up more than one seat are supposed to get charged for more than one seat. However this rule is not that well enforced because of how much outrage people have over being told to pay extra because of their weight. (A condition which most people have little control over. Read The End of Overeating for the biochemistry behind how the modern food industry induces overeating.) Personally I would be in favour of a surcharge on anyone who significantly inconveniences their seatmate, with a fraction of said surcharge paid directly to the inconvenienced fellow passenger. I think that this would increase politeness, and where it doesn't, the financial bonus would reduce my frustration level.
      - patio11 17y ago
        You know the Israeli day care center study, where parents who were fined for picking their kids up later were more inclined to be late, because they perceived the fine as a fee-for-service? I think that formalizing the overweight-versus-space-donor relationship would lead to even more antagonism, on the same theory: "What are you looking it? You're getting paid good money to be sat on, shut up, I don't need to cooperate with you."
        btilly 17y ago
        I do know that study. The problem that study found is that the price they put on being late was below the social stigma. The solution is to make the price above the social stigma. I think a reasonable rate would be $100 fines, to be handed out no more often than once every 10 minutes, half of which goes to the afflicted seatmate. If you are in the space of seatmates on both sides, you pay the fine once per afflicted seat mate. If you need to move to avoid continued paying of the fine, then you owe the airline for a second seat. This is on top of the social stigma of having had people come, and explain how you're breaking the rules in front of the rest of the plane. At that rate, a person who can't fit in a normal seat will see buying 2 seats for their cross-country flight as the cheap option. And one who isn't comfortable sitting in one may think extra hard about remaining uncomfortable rather than inconveniencing someone else.
    - trominos 17y ago
      Worst comment I've ever seen at +7 on HN.
- JimmyL 17y ago
  For this and other reasons, SeatGuru.com should be your best friend when doing online check-in. I've just done an intercontinental trip to visit some family, and spending five minutes on there got me an extra three inches of seat pitch - which is definitely noticeable. I'm also not sure about the benefits of the new fancy LED lighting system. The (very recently-overhauled) 767 I flew had such a system, and it was kinda...weird. Some of it was nice, like the gradual dimming and raising for the sleep phase of the flight (although it didn't get as dark as the old lighting). In the two hours before the meal, however, it seemed like the crew had it set on disco mode or something - over the course of ten minutes or so, the cabin color rotated through blue-red-yellow-green-white.
- DavidSJ 17y ago
  1 inch narrower than a 737, or 1 inch narrower than a 737's seats?
joezydeco 17y ago
You know it's just going to look like every other airliner on the inside when the carriers are done with them. I'd be more impressed if they brought back the Tiger Lounge. RRRRooooowwwww..... http://www.flickr.com/photos/molly/223191766/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/molly/223191766/
idlewords 17y ago
Actually, it's the lack of innovation that's kind of striking. Airliners are such a mature technology these days that seems like the only improvements possible are these kinds of minor efficiency and cabin comfort tweaks. It's about as exciting as seeing the design changes on a modern city bus. The last really innovative design I can remember is the scrapped 2001 Sonic Cruiser - ugly as sin, but at least kind of cool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser If you asked me as a kid what kind of plane I thought I would be flying in 2010, the 787 not what I would have drawn you. The future is here, and it kind of sucks.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  I'm surprised that there aren't more corporate jets built on the sonic cruiser plan. The ability to get there 20% faster, combined with an "unprecedented ability to work in the air" would make a compelling marketing message. The plane could be portrayed as faster, sleeker, and sexier than all other corporate jets.
- staunch 17y ago
  I'd be more excited about something like the Boeing Pelican http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/ground-effect/pelican01.jpg http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/ground-eff... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pelican http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pelican 1) It flies close to the ground, which I think would comfort a lot of people that don't like flying (even if it's not actually safer). 2) It's so damn big and efficient every seat could be like first class.
  - idlewords 17y ago
    Ground effect planes are appealing for cargo, but would be far too slow to compete with airliners as passenger aircraft. Speeds for most designs I've seen top out at about half the cruise speed of a regular airliner, which makes sense if you consider that the thing is by definition flying around at sea level.
    - 17y ago
dimarco 17y ago
Looks great for first class at least. I like how they shy away from coach.
- JimmyL 17y ago
  Most seat mockups are pretty worthless anyways - if you want to know what the cabin will look like on (for example) AA's new planes, look at the seating in their existing planes and change the backdrop. Seating is often manufactured by third-party companies and installed "aftermarket", and is designed to either harmonize with a company's existing livery, or be outstanding enough that it becomes a marketing feature for the airline.
protomyth 17y ago
One of the interesting things is that due to the strength of the composites used in construction, the air cabin can be pressurized to 6,000 ft instead of 8,000 ft. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/3493516.html http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/34...

28 points by edw519 17y ago

jws 17y ago

I think the only innovation I care about is that the seats are 1 inch narrower than a 737.

btilly 17y ago
Ugh. I'm 6'3", and I only squeeze so far when surrounded by a couple of overweight people who don't know how to tuck their elbows in. Losing 1" of width doesn't sound like much, but it will make those awkward flights a little more common and a little more awkward.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  I'm 5'4" and I hate people who don't tuck their elbows in. But even worse: fatties who want the arm-rest up so that you can subsidize their air travel. (They want to be able to leak over into your seat.) Yes, I fly a lot, and yes, this happens.
  - btilly 17y ago
    I've experienced the request to raise the arm rest. So far I've been able to say no and make it stick. In theory people who take up more than one seat are supposed to get charged for more than one seat. However this rule is not that well enforced because of how much outrage people have over being told to pay extra because of their weight. (A condition which most people have little control over. Read The End of Overeating for the biochemistry behind how the modern food industry induces overeating.) Personally I would be in favour of a surcharge on anyone who significantly inconveniences their seatmate, with a fraction of said surcharge paid directly to the inconvenienced fellow passenger. I think that this would increase politeness, and where it doesn't, the financial bonus would reduce my frustration level.
    - patio11 17y ago
      You know the Israeli day care center study, where parents who were fined for picking their kids up later were more inclined to be late, because they perceived the fine as a fee-for-service? I think that formalizing the overweight-versus-space-donor relationship would lead to even more antagonism, on the same theory: "What are you looking it? You're getting paid good money to be sat on, shut up, I don't need to cooperate with you."
      - btilly 17y ago
        I do know that study. The problem that study found is that the price they put on being late was below the social stigma. The solution is to make the price above the social stigma. I think a reasonable rate would be $100 fines, to be handed out no more often than once every 10 minutes, half of which goes to the afflicted seatmate. If you are in the space of seatmates on both sides, you pay the fine once per afflicted seat mate. If you need to move to avoid continued paying of the fine, then you owe the airline for a second seat. This is on top of the social stigma of having had people come, and explain how you're breaking the rules in front of the rest of the plane. At that rate, a person who can't fit in a normal seat will see buying 2 seats for their cross-country flight as the cheap option. And one who isn't comfortable sitting in one may think extra hard about remaining uncomfortable rather than inconveniencing someone else.
  - trominos 17y ago
    Worst comment I've ever seen at +7 on HN.
JimmyL 17y ago
For this and other reasons, SeatGuru.com should be your best friend when doing online check-in. I've just done an intercontinental trip to visit some family, and spending five minutes on there got me an extra three inches of seat pitch - which is definitely noticeable. I'm also not sure about the benefits of the new fancy LED lighting system. The (very recently-overhauled) 767 I flew had such a system, and it was kinda...weird. Some of it was nice, like the gradual dimming and raising for the sleep phase of the flight (although it didn't get as dark as the old lighting). In the two hours before the meal, however, it seemed like the crew had it set on disco mode or something - over the course of ten minutes or so, the cabin color rotated through blue-red-yellow-green-white.
DavidSJ 17y ago
1 inch narrower than a 737, or 1 inch narrower than a 737's seats?

joezydeco 17y ago

You know it's just going to look like every other airliner on the inside when the carriers are done with them. I'd be more impressed if they brought back the Tiger Lounge. RRRRooooowwwww..... http://www.flickr.com/photos/molly/223191766/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/molly/223191766/

idlewords 17y ago

Actually, it's the lack of innovation that's kind of striking. Airliners are such a mature technology these days that seems like the only improvements possible are these kinds of minor efficiency and cabin comfort tweaks. It's about as exciting as seeing the design changes on a modern city bus. The last really innovative design I can remember is the scrapped 2001 Sonic Cruiser - ugly as sin, but at least kind of cool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser If you asked me as a kid what kind of plane I thought I would be flying in 2010, the 787 not what I would have drawn you. The future is here, and it kind of sucks.

stcredzero 17y ago
I'm surprised that there aren't more corporate jets built on the sonic cruiser plan. The ability to get there 20% faster, combined with an "unprecedented ability to work in the air" would make a compelling marketing message. The plane could be portrayed as faster, sleeker, and sexier than all other corporate jets.
staunch 17y ago
I'd be more excited about something like the Boeing Pelican http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/ground-effect/pelican01.jpg http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/ground-eff... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pelican http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pelican 1) It flies close to the ground, which I think would comfort a lot of people that don't like flying (even if it's not actually safer). 2) It's so damn big and efficient every seat could be like first class.
- idlewords 17y ago
  Ground effect planes are appealing for cargo, but would be far too slow to compete with airliners as passenger aircraft. Speeds for most designs I've seen top out at about half the cruise speed of a regular airliner, which makes sense if you consider that the thing is by definition flying around at sea level.
  - 17y ago

dimarco 17y ago

Looks great for first class at least. I like how they shy away from coach.

JimmyL 17y ago
Most seat mockups are pretty worthless anyways - if you want to know what the cabin will look like on (for example) AA's new planes, look at the seating in their existing planes and change the backdrop. Seating is often manufactured by third-party companies and installed "aftermarket", and is designed to either harmonize with a company's existing livery, or be outstanding enough that it becomes a marketing feature for the airline.

protomyth 17y ago

One of the interesting things is that due to the strength of the composites used in construction, the air cabin can be pressurized to 6,000 ft instead of 8,000 ft. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/3493516.html http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/34...