10 ms·

I did the 17 hour Sydney to Houston (and 17 hours back again) flight on a United 787 last year. I normally hate long haul flights, being 6 foot and all, as wel

I did the 17 hour Sydney to Houston (and 17 hours back again) flight on a United 787 last year. I normally hate long haul flights, being 6 foot and all, as well as routinely suffering from bad neck and back problems from long periods of sitting. But I actually managed to enjoy both flights. On the trip over, I scored a seat near the galley exit. Meaning no seats in front of me where the overwing exit door was. I could stretch my legs right out, and every hour or so, I could just unbuckle my seatbelt and stand up and do a series of stretches and sit back down again without bothering any other passengers or crew. On the way back, the plane was nearly empty, so United allocated a full row of 3 seats to everyone in economy. Being able to lie flat was a massive bonus and I slept most of the 17 hours lying down and didn't feel it. The 787 itself is a big factor in my comfort. The strength of the carbon fibre fuselage means that the cabin altitude is set to 5000 feet instead of the normal 8000 feet in other aircraft, and the air is recirculated more often I believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems. The aircraft also cruises higher than most other earlier era jets, so we were usually well above most weather patterns for a very smooth ride. The new cabin lighting also helped to set the mood for sleep and awake cycles while on board. Kudos to Boeing engineers for the design work that went into this.

mason55 7y ago
Yeah, this happened to me when I did the 16-hour DWF-SYD route. I was on Qantas and ended up with a row of four or five seats to myself both ways. I also managed to time my sleep so that I slept for the middle 8 hours of the flight, which broke it into two separate four-hour flights. But, I don't know, I feel like handling long flights is a skill you can develop (as is adjusting to jet lag quickly). I used to fly economy NY to Europe on a weekly basis for work and after doing that a bunch I just don't really get fazed by long flights. I did a Chicago to HK leg in economy without the benefit of getting a whole row and didn't really mind the 12 hours at all.
- yibg 7y ago
  It’s the other way around for me. I fly internationally for business quite a bit, usually in business class. At first it was cool and the time passed pretty quickly. As time went on though I started hating the flight more and more.
  - ksec 7y ago
    >As time went on though I started hating the flight more and more. Same here, I wonder if anyone could explain this. I used to think it is cool and fun. Now I hated it so much it is almost depressing. The experience is pretty much the same, but for reason I cant understand flying is very tiring, even though I as just sitting on the flight most of the time.
    - cyberferret 7y ago
      I find it is the other facets of flying which really get me down and stop me from doing it more. The whole 'security theatre' at the airport, dealing with the nickel and diming of low cost airlines, being treated like a criminal at passport control etc. that turns me off. I still love the magic of being in a tube miles above the earth, and being able to have breakfast on one continent and then lunch in another a magical thing.
      - grogenaut 7y ago
        I enjoy the totally messed up experiences as well. Few months back I dropped a rhd SUV off at 6pm Friday at Brisbane airport, 16 hours later it was 11am (same day) in Hilo and I was driving a lhd mustang convertible. Got the wipers many times.
    - ojilles 7y ago
      For me it developed into the other direction. It used to be a drag but now I look forward to cocooning for the duration with no one able to interrupt (so no WiFi for me, that’s a feature). Get to focus on finishing up that movie edit or code a small project. To abstract away from the above, I find that the mindset going into the flight determines the experience.
  - vidarh 7y ago
    I did London to SF every 6 weeks or so for over a year, and didn't quite get to hating it but did spend an irrational amount of time trying to optimize everything at the end to make it less annoying.
ravenstine 7y ago
I discovered that exit row thing for the first time a few weeks ago on my way back from Boston to Los Angeles. I know it's only a 6 hour flight, but having that room to stretch my legs, even with somewhat reduced chair reclining, made so much of a difference. That and today's in-flight wifi, which is outstanding. It blows my mind that I can watch YouTube and read HN during my flight with little to no interruption. Makes a flight blow by like it's nothing. What would also help with comfort on flights is lumbar support. I don't really understand why airline seats have virtually no lumbar support, but I guess it gives them room to squeeze in some more chairs if they do that. IDK But sometimes it drives me nuts being on a long flight and getting a sore lower back. Sure, I can squeeze a pillow back there if I've got one, but still. By the way, I discovered that you can get free wifi on a lot of these flights if you use the T-mobile free hour and, once the hour is up, spoof your MAC address and rotate to another T-mobile number. :)
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  With regards to the seats: it's as if they were designed to be maximally uncomfortable. They're impossible unless you put them in the reclining position, but then you're bothering the person behind you.
anyfoo 7y ago
I'm rather short, so I prefer to actually not have the galley/emergency exit seat (mostly because I feel it's "less cozy" and weird to have that open space in front of me, but also because the tables+entertainment are usually much worse). But as for entire rows, I also was once lucky enough to be on a flight (long trip from Europe to Tokyo) where everyone in our cabin at least got an entire rope for themselves. Lying down horizontally across seats was indeed an enormous difference, and I managed to sleep for almost the entire flight as well.
- cyberferret 7y ago
  The downside to sitting at the galley exit is that other passengers are constantly walking up to this space to do their stretches or wait for their turn in the toilets. But the 787 has do much room that it wasn't really an issue for me. I also found the armrest table and entertainment screen a little better. I liked that I could tilt the screen away from me or turn it for better privacy from my neighbour. I also liked that the pop out table could be 'halved' if I just wanted a drink on it or to rest my phone or ipad on it while charging. I still had room beside it to have a pillow or magazine in my lap.
  - anyfoo 7y ago
    Ah, ok. I only have one experience with such a flight, and there it was much different, but that was also many years ago. They might well have improved it. Nevertheless, I still felt "exposed", and there were indeed people walking in front of me a lot. So given that I don't need the leg room, it's only fair that someone who prefers having it should get that row...
    - cyberferret 7y ago
      And as someone who likes the room, I thank you for your kind consideration. My wife is quite short, and she can comfortably sit in the most cramped economy seats for hours without issue. She sometimes even crosses her legs on the seat! But for me, most of those seats are pure torture.
userbinator 7y ago
and the air is recirculated more often I believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems I think you mean less often, as in more fresh air? Recirculation increases CO2 concentration, which causes fatigue.
- cyberferret 7y ago
  Oops - I used the wrong word. I should have said replenished or replaced (as part of the pressurisation system's method of pumping new air into the cabin and bleeding off stale air).
  - solids 7y ago
    One of the features of the 787 is that it not depends on bleed air from first phases of engine compressors. While bleed air is considered safe, there are studies claiming that it can have a small degree of contamination.
    - jfim 7y ago
      There's actually a debate about whether bleed air is safe in certain failure scenarios. In fume events, some of the compounds are alleged to be neurotoxic, leading to the term "aerotoxic syndrome." I do not know whether or not such information is accurate, but there is concern about it on the internet.
      - goatinaboat 7y ago
        Sounds like https://www.businessinsider.com/british-airways-flight-smoke-passengers-breathing-problems-2-months-later-2019-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/british-airways-flight-smoke...
- graeme 7y ago
  I had a monitor with me on an international flight recently. Once with hit our cruising altitude, co2 was only 800 ppm. Higher than you might want, but lower than a lot of office buildings. Humidity, however, was 10%, and the cabin pressure would also have been lower than at ground level.
Scoundreller 7y ago
> The 787 itself is a big factor in my comfort. The strength of the carbon fibre fuselage means that the cabin altitude is set to 5000 feet instead of the normal 8000 feet in other aircraft, and the air is recirculated more often I believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems. Also, the 787 doesn't use bleed air from a compression stage to pressurize (risking the intake of various fluids). It just pressurizes fresh high-altitude air electrically.
- simonebrunozzi 7y ago
  And if I'm not mistaken the humidity in the air is also higher than in other planes, increasing the comfort of passengers.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    More pressure = more molecules per cubic foot, including water.
    - cardiffspaceman 7y ago
      They tell me they don't have to worry about humidity causing rust because carbon fiber doesn't rust. [They == people who once worked in aerospace]
- jcims 7y ago
  Whoa i didn't realize planes did that. Kind of makes sense, 30k HP compressor hanging off the wing and all, but still seems crazy. Edit: Also explains why the cabin fills with jeta fumes when they start the engines while passengers are on board.
dboreham 7y ago
+1 I flew Calgary to Narita on a 787. It felt like a 3h domestic flight.
- Bahamut 7y ago
  For another data point, I just completed a flight on a United 787 from SFO to Seoul (12-13 hours) - that was a rough flight, almost as bad as my flights from SFO to Haneda (I puked on or from both flights to Haneda), and I had a wicked headache after landing. I wonder if I have some pressure sensitivity that affects me on these long haul flights, as I haven’t felt it on domestic flights or flights from SFO to Heathrow (or back). In addition, I know I am susceptible to altitude sickness.
  - vidarh 7y ago
    Sinus issues that may be small enough not to be noticeable normally can become very noticeable with the pressure difference. Aftermath (or the start of) a cold that you don't notice can be enough. Nausea can be affected by anything that impacts the inner ear, so sinus pressure etc. can have an effect.
woutr_be 7y ago
I know this might sound privileged, but I fly at least long haul once a year, and for the past few years I decided to upgrade to premium economy, and it has been a massive improvement. I can actually get some sleep, can stretch my legs, and find a comfortable position. Being taller, and a bit bigger, seats in economy just don't allow me to do so. I think the new A350-900 made the flight better as well, the cabin lighting is much better, and the air quality also feels better. It's still a lot of money, but I personally think it's well spend.
- cyberferret 7y ago
  I am at the stage of my life where I weigh up the extra cost of a good seat vs my health. A bad seat can see me out of action with a bad neck and severe headaches for up to two days. I now often upgrade to Premium whenever I can, and take a full service airline over a budget one. It is well worth the lost days on either end if my health is impacted. On my last trip to the US, I did the Qantas 'upgrade roulette' thing (they send an email to passengers a couple of days before the flight asking them to bid points and/or dollars to upgrade their seats). I bid the minimum points of 10,000 and the minimum dollar value of I think around $400. The system told me I had a 1% chance of getting the upgrade so I forgot about it. On the morning of the flight, I got an email from them saying I had been upgraded to Business class - worth normally $4000! Having a lie-flat business class seat for the 14 hour SYD-LAX leg on the A380 was so good, I am considering only doing transatlantic flights in Premium or Business from now on.
  - Ayesh 7y ago
    The bid thing is awesome I have received upgrades too. The airline would of course tell you your odds are 1% for $$$ reasons, buy for some routes, the minimum bid is all it takes. I fly CMB-DOH-AMS a lot, and the CMB route is pretty much guaranteed to get upgraded at minimum bid (~$100 that's well worth it).
  - woutr_be 7y ago
    I've only done business class on shorter flights, and if you have the money, I would definitely recommend it. To me, the extra space in premium as well worth it, and it's not as steep of a price increase versus business. I agree with you on the full service airlines versus a budget one, to me, travel has always been a privilege and something I save up for. So I've never considered traveling on a budget to save costs.
uutiyures 7y ago
In the past, it was so tiring when I visited China in economy seats. I then joined a new company that flies us first class when it’s over 8 hours. It was the first time I actually felt the flight was too short. I can’t believe what a difference in experiences. I arrived completely refreshed.
ksec 7y ago
Which basically sums up as, it is not the long hours flying that is the problem, it is the long hour being stuck in uncomfortable, small, non moving position economy seats that is causing problem. On one hand we need to cramp as many people as possible to make it cost effective, on the hand passengers are basically torturing themselves. Especially if you are 6 foot plus tall.
- philjohn 7y ago
  This. I regularly travel both business class and premium economy, and especially on an overnight flight I feel fresh after business and sore after premium economy.
- ergocoder 7y ago
  Pretty much. I flew once on a business class in a 10+ hour flight. I slept so well. The food was great. It was so relaxing. I bet first class would have been even better. I wouldn't mind flying for 20 hours in a business class.
- cyberferret 7y ago
  Absolutely. I guess the point of my post above is that sometimes you can put a little effort in to engineer the best outcome (or just have lady luck smile upon you) in order to make the difference between hours of torture or hours of bliss. Just picking an airline which uses the 787 instead of an older model is huge. I hope that airlines like Qantas etc. realise that on these extra long flights, people like myself are more than willing to pay a little extra for small comforts like plenty of leg room or space to get up and walk/stretch at regular intervals.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    I have found any airline flight using a 787 to be significantly more expensive.
    - cyberferret 7y ago
      I am assuming that is because most 787 operators are 'full service' airlines rather than budget carriers, who generally run cheaper or second hand 737s or A320s. Then again, I just came back from Europe in a Scoot 787. Scoot are the 'budget' arm of Singapore Airlines, but I guess with the wealth of Singapore, their budget carrier is the equivalent of most other full service carriers.
manojlds 7y ago
Basically describes a best case scenario for the flight.
- cyberferret 7y ago
  Correct. But that you can engineer if you put a little effort in. My last flight from Athens to Singapore a couple of weeks back (a 12 hour flight), the plane was relatively full, but because I was polite to the checkin agent and asked for a paid upgrade to premium (which wasn't available), she booked out the entire row in the centre section for me so I could lie down and sleep.
lathiat 7y ago
Its worth noting that the A380 (which is not carbon composite) also has a ~6000 foot cabin pressure, as does the A350 - they also humidify the air to a higher degree because the components are designed to handle it compared to most older plane designs. Both which help with comfort as you mentioned.
- donkeyd 7y ago
  Had a 12 hour A380 flight last year. Lufthansa has some slightly more expensive economy seats on the upper deck in the tail section. Those seats were amazing. I've never had a flight as comfortable as that one and the flight crew was great too.
  - jcims 7y ago
    I don't know if the opposite is true but it stands to reason that miserable customers = miserable crew.
- jwr 7y ago
  Thanks for pointing this out — I was about to write that I found the A380 to be the most comfortable airplane for long-haul trips. I also found it to be quieter than the 787, but haven't actually measured if that's actually the case.
  - FabHK 7y ago
    Yes, 380 has great pax comfort. Pity it's being discontinued.
xxpor 7y ago
>The 787 itself is a big factor in my comfort. The strength of the carbon fibre fuselage means that the cabin altitude is set to 5000 feet instead of the normal 8000 feet in other aircraft, and the air is recirculated more often I believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems. It's also more humid. Since the body isn't aluminum, they dont have to worry about it degrading so much from humid air.
- dvdkhlng 7y ago
  I think it's not so much a question of material degradation due to humidity. The problem is low outside air temperature (-50 deg celsius?) leading to low inside surface temperature leading to condensation which is also a problem WRT cables routed through cabin walls. Maybe inside surface temperature on carbon fibre is higher (better insulation), allowing for higher dew point [1], thus higher humidity levels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point
  - xxpor 7y ago
    What was explained to me was that the moisture would lead to (more) oxidation in the aluminium.
noir_lord 7y ago
The 787 is a marvel. Because of a mechanical issue we flew on a 787 out and a 767 back and the difference was night and day.

mason55 7y ago

Yeah, this happened to me when I did the 16-hour DWF-SYD route. I was on Qantas and ended up with a row of four or five seats to myself both ways. I also managed to time my sleep so that I slept for the middle 8 hours of the flight, which broke it into two separate four-hour flights. But, I don't know, I feel like handling long flights is a skill you can develop (as is adjusting to jet lag quickly). I used to fly economy NY to Europe on a weekly basis for work and after doing that a bunch I just don't really get fazed by long flights. I did a Chicago to HK leg in economy without the benefit of getting a whole row and didn't really mind the 12 hours at all.

yibg 7y ago
It’s the other way around for me. I fly internationally for business quite a bit, usually in business class. At first it was cool and the time passed pretty quickly. As time went on though I started hating the flight more and more.
- ksec 7y ago
  >As time went on though I started hating the flight more and more. Same here, I wonder if anyone could explain this. I used to think it is cool and fun. Now I hated it so much it is almost depressing. The experience is pretty much the same, but for reason I cant understand flying is very tiring, even though I as just sitting on the flight most of the time.
  - cyberferret 7y ago
    I find it is the other facets of flying which really get me down and stop me from doing it more. The whole 'security theatre' at the airport, dealing with the nickel and diming of low cost airlines, being treated like a criminal at passport control etc. that turns me off. I still love the magic of being in a tube miles above the earth, and being able to have breakfast on one continent and then lunch in another a magical thing.
    - grogenaut 7y ago
      I enjoy the totally messed up experiences as well. Few months back I dropped a rhd SUV off at 6pm Friday at Brisbane airport, 16 hours later it was 11am (same day) in Hilo and I was driving a lhd mustang convertible. Got the wipers many times.
  - ojilles 7y ago
    For me it developed into the other direction. It used to be a drag but now I look forward to cocooning for the duration with no one able to interrupt (so no WiFi for me, that’s a feature). Get to focus on finishing up that movie edit or code a small project. To abstract away from the above, I find that the mindset going into the flight determines the experience.
- vidarh 7y ago
  I did London to SF every 6 weeks or so for over a year, and didn't quite get to hating it but did spend an irrational amount of time trying to optimize everything at the end to make it less annoying.

ravenstine 7y ago

I discovered that exit row thing for the first time a few weeks ago on my way back from Boston to Los Angeles. I know it's only a 6 hour flight, but having that room to stretch my legs, even with somewhat reduced chair reclining, made so much of a difference. That and today's in-flight wifi, which is outstanding. It blows my mind that I can watch YouTube and read HN during my flight with little to no interruption. Makes a flight blow by like it's nothing. What would also help with comfort on flights is lumbar support. I don't really understand why airline seats have virtually no lumbar support, but I guess it gives them room to squeeze in some more chairs if they do that. IDK But sometimes it drives me nuts being on a long flight and getting a sore lower back. Sure, I can squeeze a pillow back there if I've got one, but still. By the way, I discovered that you can get free wifi on a lot of these flights if you use the T-mobile free hour and, once the hour is up, spoof your MAC address and rotate to another T-mobile number. :)

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
With regards to the seats: it's as if they were designed to be maximally uncomfortable. They're impossible unless you put them in the reclining position, but then you're bothering the person behind you.

anyfoo 7y ago

I'm rather short, so I prefer to actually not have the galley/emergency exit seat (mostly because I feel it's "less cozy" and weird to have that open space in front of me, but also because the tables+entertainment are usually much worse). But as for entire rows, I also was once lucky enough to be on a flight (long trip from Europe to Tokyo) where everyone in our cabin at least got an entire rope for themselves. Lying down horizontally across seats was indeed an enormous difference, and I managed to sleep for almost the entire flight as well.

cyberferret 7y ago
The downside to sitting at the galley exit is that other passengers are constantly walking up to this space to do their stretches or wait for their turn in the toilets. But the 787 has do much room that it wasn't really an issue for me. I also found the armrest table and entertainment screen a little better. I liked that I could tilt the screen away from me or turn it for better privacy from my neighbour. I also liked that the pop out table could be 'halved' if I just wanted a drink on it or to rest my phone or ipad on it while charging. I still had room beside it to have a pillow or magazine in my lap.
- anyfoo 7y ago
  Ah, ok. I only have one experience with such a flight, and there it was much different, but that was also many years ago. They might well have improved it. Nevertheless, I still felt "exposed", and there were indeed people walking in front of me a lot. So given that I don't need the leg room, it's only fair that someone who prefers having it should get that row...
  - cyberferret 7y ago
    And as someone who likes the room, I thank you for your kind consideration. My wife is quite short, and she can comfortably sit in the most cramped economy seats for hours without issue. She sometimes even crosses her legs on the seat! But for me, most of those seats are pure torture.

userbinator 7y ago

and the air is recirculated more often I believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems I think you mean less often, as in more fresh air? Recirculation increases CO2 concentration, which causes fatigue.

cyberferret 7y ago
Oops - I used the wrong word. I should have said replenished or replaced (as part of the pressurisation system's method of pumping new air into the cabin and bleeding off stale air).
- solids 7y ago
  One of the features of the 787 is that it not depends on bleed air from first phases of engine compressors. While bleed air is considered safe, there are studies claiming that it can have a small degree of contamination.
  - jfim 7y ago
    There's actually a debate about whether bleed air is safe in certain failure scenarios. In fume events, some of the compounds are alleged to be neurotoxic, leading to the term "aerotoxic syndrome." I do not know whether or not such information is accurate, but there is concern about it on the internet.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      Sounds like https://www.businessinsider.com/british-airways-flight-smoke-passengers-breathing-problems-2-months-later-2019-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/british-airways-flight-smoke...
graeme 7y ago
I had a monitor with me on an international flight recently. Once with hit our cruising altitude, co2 was only 800 ppm. Higher than you might want, but lower than a lot of office buildings. Humidity, however, was 10%, and the cabin pressure would also have been lower than at ground level.

Scoundreller 7y ago

> The 787 itself is a big factor in my comfort. The strength of the carbon fibre fuselage means that the cabin altitude is set to 5000 feet instead of the normal 8000 feet in other aircraft, and the air is recirculated more often I believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems. Also, the 787 doesn't use bleed air from a compression stage to pressurize (risking the intake of various fluids). It just pressurizes fresh high-altitude air electrically.

simonebrunozzi 7y ago
And if I'm not mistaken the humidity in the air is also higher than in other planes, increasing the comfort of passengers.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  More pressure = more molecules per cubic foot, including water.
  - cardiffspaceman 7y ago
    They tell me they don't have to worry about humidity causing rust because carbon fiber doesn't rust. [They == people who once worked in aerospace]
jcims 7y ago
Whoa i didn't realize planes did that. Kind of makes sense, 30k HP compressor hanging off the wing and all, but still seems crazy. Edit: Also explains why the cabin fills with jeta fumes when they start the engines while passengers are on board.

dboreham 7y ago

+1 I flew Calgary to Narita on a 787. It felt like a 3h domestic flight.

Bahamut 7y ago
For another data point, I just completed a flight on a United 787 from SFO to Seoul (12-13 hours) - that was a rough flight, almost as bad as my flights from SFO to Haneda (I puked on or from both flights to Haneda), and I had a wicked headache after landing. I wonder if I have some pressure sensitivity that affects me on these long haul flights, as I haven’t felt it on domestic flights or flights from SFO to Heathrow (or back). In addition, I know I am susceptible to altitude sickness.
- vidarh 7y ago
  Sinus issues that may be small enough not to be noticeable normally can become very noticeable with the pressure difference. Aftermath (or the start of) a cold that you don't notice can be enough. Nausea can be affected by anything that impacts the inner ear, so sinus pressure etc. can have an effect.

woutr_be 7y ago

I know this might sound privileged, but I fly at least long haul once a year, and for the past few years I decided to upgrade to premium economy, and it has been a massive improvement. I can actually get some sleep, can stretch my legs, and find a comfortable position. Being taller, and a bit bigger, seats in economy just don't allow me to do so. I think the new A350-900 made the flight better as well, the cabin lighting is much better, and the air quality also feels better. It's still a lot of money, but I personally think it's well spend.

cyberferret 7y ago
I am at the stage of my life where I weigh up the extra cost of a good seat vs my health. A bad seat can see me out of action with a bad neck and severe headaches for up to two days. I now often upgrade to Premium whenever I can, and take a full service airline over a budget one. It is well worth the lost days on either end if my health is impacted. On my last trip to the US, I did the Qantas 'upgrade roulette' thing (they send an email to passengers a couple of days before the flight asking them to bid points and/or dollars to upgrade their seats). I bid the minimum points of 10,000 and the minimum dollar value of I think around $400. The system told me I had a 1% chance of getting the upgrade so I forgot about it. On the morning of the flight, I got an email from them saying I had been upgraded to Business class - worth normally $4000! Having a lie-flat business class seat for the 14 hour SYD-LAX leg on the A380 was so good, I am considering only doing transatlantic flights in Premium or Business from now on.
- Ayesh 7y ago
  The bid thing is awesome I have received upgrades too. The airline would of course tell you your odds are 1% for $$$ reasons, buy for some routes, the minimum bid is all it takes. I fly CMB-DOH-AMS a lot, and the CMB route is pretty much guaranteed to get upgraded at minimum bid (~$100 that's well worth it).
- woutr_be 7y ago
  I've only done business class on shorter flights, and if you have the money, I would definitely recommend it. To me, the extra space in premium as well worth it, and it's not as steep of a price increase versus business. I agree with you on the full service airlines versus a budget one, to me, travel has always been a privilege and something I save up for. So I've never considered traveling on a budget to save costs.

uutiyures 7y ago

In the past, it was so tiring when I visited China in economy seats. I then joined a new company that flies us first class when it’s over 8 hours. It was the first time I actually felt the flight was too short. I can’t believe what a difference in experiences. I arrived completely refreshed.

ksec 7y ago

Which basically sums up as, it is not the long hours flying that is the problem, it is the long hour being stuck in uncomfortable, small, non moving position economy seats that is causing problem. On one hand we need to cramp as many people as possible to make it cost effective, on the hand passengers are basically torturing themselves. Especially if you are 6 foot plus tall.

philjohn 7y ago
This. I regularly travel both business class and premium economy, and especially on an overnight flight I feel fresh after business and sore after premium economy.
ergocoder 7y ago
Pretty much. I flew once on a business class in a 10+ hour flight. I slept so well. The food was great. It was so relaxing. I bet first class would have been even better. I wouldn't mind flying for 20 hours in a business class.
cyberferret 7y ago
Absolutely. I guess the point of my post above is that sometimes you can put a little effort in to engineer the best outcome (or just have lady luck smile upon you) in order to make the difference between hours of torture or hours of bliss. Just picking an airline which uses the 787 instead of an older model is huge. I hope that airlines like Qantas etc. realise that on these extra long flights, people like myself are more than willing to pay a little extra for small comforts like plenty of leg room or space to get up and walk/stretch at regular intervals.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  I have found any airline flight using a 787 to be significantly more expensive.
  - cyberferret 7y ago
    I am assuming that is because most 787 operators are 'full service' airlines rather than budget carriers, who generally run cheaper or second hand 737s or A320s. Then again, I just came back from Europe in a Scoot 787. Scoot are the 'budget' arm of Singapore Airlines, but I guess with the wealth of Singapore, their budget carrier is the equivalent of most other full service carriers.

manojlds 7y ago

Basically describes a best case scenario for the flight.

cyberferret 7y ago
Correct. But that you can engineer if you put a little effort in. My last flight from Athens to Singapore a couple of weeks back (a 12 hour flight), the plane was relatively full, but because I was polite to the checkin agent and asked for a paid upgrade to premium (which wasn't available), she booked out the entire row in the centre section for me so I could lie down and sleep.

lathiat 7y ago

Its worth noting that the A380 (which is not carbon composite) also has a ~6000 foot cabin pressure, as does the A350 - they also humidify the air to a higher degree because the components are designed to handle it compared to most older plane designs. Both which help with comfort as you mentioned.

donkeyd 7y ago
Had a 12 hour A380 flight last year. Lufthansa has some slightly more expensive economy seats on the upper deck in the tail section. Those seats were amazing. I've never had a flight as comfortable as that one and the flight crew was great too.
- jcims 7y ago
  I don't know if the opposite is true but it stands to reason that miserable customers = miserable crew.
jwr 7y ago
Thanks for pointing this out — I was about to write that I found the A380 to be the most comfortable airplane for long-haul trips. I also found it to be quieter than the 787, but haven't actually measured if that's actually the case.
- FabHK 7y ago
  Yes, 380 has great pax comfort. Pity it's being discontinued.

xxpor 7y ago

>The 787 itself is a big factor in my comfort. The strength of the carbon fibre fuselage means that the cabin altitude is set to 5000 feet instead of the normal 8000 feet in other aircraft, and the air is recirculated more often I believe, which leads to less fatigue and high altitude problems. It's also more humid. Since the body isn't aluminum, they dont have to worry about it degrading so much from humid air.

dvdkhlng 7y ago
I think it's not so much a question of material degradation due to humidity. The problem is low outside air temperature (-50 deg celsius?) leading to low inside surface temperature leading to condensation which is also a problem WRT cables routed through cabin walls. Maybe inside surface temperature on carbon fibre is higher (better insulation), allowing for higher dew point [1], thus higher humidity levels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point
- xxpor 7y ago
  What was explained to me was that the moisture would lead to (more) oxidation in the aluminium.

noir_lord 7y ago

The 787 is a marvel. Because of a mechanical issue we flew on a 787 out and a 767 back and the difference was night and day.