For me the 787 beats the others because of the fresh cabin air it takes directly from outside, rather than through the engines. This fresh air has higher humidity, which, along with the higher oxygen levels in a cabin at 6,000ft pressure (as also on A350 and 380) is the key to my feeling refreshed rather than dehydrated and fatigued, when I disembark.
You do know that the bleed air from the engines on an A350/A380 comes from exactly the same atmosphere as the air pumped in on a B787? The only difference is the pumping method - the compressors on an engine (before the fuel is added, obviously) on an Airbus as opposed to electric pumps on a 787. Unless moisture is extracted from or added to the air in the process, the humidity of the interior at the same temperature and pressure should be exactly the same. The only way to increase the humidity beyond the natural background level is to use active humidifiers - and whether it be an A350, an A380 or a B787, the only active humidifiers installed by the manufacturers as standard are for the flight crew and crew rest areas. So... your claim that the 787 has higher humidity because it uses electric air compressors rather than the engine compressors doesn't really add up.
The A350 vs B787 everybody has their own opinion say for instance when you walk into the cabin the airline decides how much legroom they want to give you are how much headspace they want to give you if airline ( X ) Fly A350 and B787 they can give you more headroom and legroom in one aircraft and give you less in the other that is not a fair comparison fewer way apples with apples if both aircraft are configured the same way the 787 is a better playing and from the cockpit say for instance you on take off avoiding system sounds off and you have to make a sharp maneuver all Airbus Flight envelope won't allow you to make sharp maneuvers Boeing you can make a maneuver and recover and another thought the air You Breathe is more fresh on 787 it has a different air system and you breathe in air that makes you feel like you're at a lower altitude so next time you're fly on one of the two airplanes if cabin configuration is not the same this really not a good comparison because one plane might put 20 extra seats it not the same of course you had no legroom or headroom to get a fair comparison talk to the flight crew the pilots of the airline that flies both of them and they can give you a fair evaluation
For me the 787 beats the others because of the fresh cabin air it takes directly from outside, rather than through the engines. This fresh air has higher humidity, which, along with the higher oxygen levels in a cabin at 6,000ft pressure (as also on A350 and 380) is the key to my feeling refreshed rather than dehydrated and fatigued, when I disembark.
You do know that the bleed air from the engines on an A350/A380 comes from exactly the same atmosphere as the air pumped in on a B787? The only difference is the pumping method - the compressors on an engine (before the fuel is added, obviously) on an Airbus as opposed to electric pumps on a 787. Unless moisture is extracted from or added to the air in the process, the humidity of the interior at the same temperature and pressure should be exactly the same. The only way to increase the humidity beyond the natural background level is to use active humidifiers - and whether it be an A350, an A380 or a B787, the only active humidifiers installed by the manufacturers as standard are for the flight crew and crew rest areas. So... your claim that the 787 has higher humidity because it uses electric air compressors rather than the engine compressors doesn't really add up.
Pointyendmark is correct. The B787 takes the air directly by bypassing the engines. In essence it is not using 'bleed air'. I have flown both A380 and B787 and I have found the air better on a B787 than the A380.
Agree, the A350 is a nicer passenger experience on a number of levels. The cabin of the A350 has the feeling of space and it is also quieter than the B787. But for me, nothing beats the A380.
A380 every time. Not just because of room and atmosphere but ride comfort. I have flown mostly on A380s for a long time - a recent flight on the 787 showed a noticeable difference in ride comfort e.g. during turbulence, ascent and descent.
The A350 vs B787 everybody has their own opinion say for instance when you walk into the cabin the airline decides how much legroom they want to give you are how much headspace they want to give you if airline ( X ) Fly A350 and B787 they can give you more headroom and legroom in one aircraft and give you less in the other that is not a fair comparison fewer way apples with apples if both aircraft are configured the same way the 787 is a better playing and from the cockpit say for instance you on take off avoiding system sounds off and you have to make a sharp maneuver all Airbus Flight envelope won't allow you to make sharp maneuvers Boeing you can make a maneuver and recover and another thought the air You Breathe is more fresh on 787 it has a different air system and you breathe in air that makes you feel like you're at a lower altitude so next time you're fly on one of the two airplanes if cabin configuration is not the same this really not a good comparison because one plane might put 20 extra seats it not the same of course you had no legroom or headroom to get a fair comparison talk to the flight crew the pilots of the airline that flies both of them and they can give you a fair evaluation
Jeez have you ever heard of using full stops??? Also the air pressure on the A350 and 787 are both set to 6000ft so saying that the 787 is pressurised to a lower altitude is incorrect (this is about the A350 vs 787 after all). Also many pilots tend to be biased towards either Boeing or Airbus depending on their preferred flying style (kinda like manual vs auto in a car) so asking a pilot is not always going to get a fair answer. I've have tried out a couple of flight sims at a QF and EK training centres (A330, 737, 777, A380) and i personally find the airbus system easier and less demanding due to the increased levels of automation.
I rarely can afford to fly anything more than a discounted economy ticket. I hate flying long-haul these days, as the airlines provide very little leg room for passengers, and no matter if it is a Boeing or Airbus aircraft, they all feel cramped these days. Mostly now, I just opt for short to medium haul destinations for my vacation, as I hate being squeezed in like a sardine in a can. I used to fly long-haul a lot, and now I have cut that down considerably. The most spacious flight I have had recently (in regular economy) was on a regional pacific route inside a 737. That was OK for 3 or 4 hours, but I could not tolerate 14 hour flights like before, as airlines seem so cramped these days.... or is it my imagination....?
I've flown both several times, the A350 wins hands down. Quiter more spacious feeling better windows plus better air. Hate the 787, has Cramped feeling really inconvenient window arrangement.
The flight crew experience probably reflects a more general Airbus v Boeing thing. It could be just a familiarity thing or maybe, as a flight attendant commented to me, that Airbus galleys are like French cars, i.e. a tad idiosyncratic.
For me the 787 beats the others because of the fresh cabin air it takes directly from outside, rather than through the engines. This fresh air has higher humidity, which, along with the higher oxygen levels in a cabin at 6,000ft pressure (as also on A350 and 380) is the key to my feeling refreshed rather than dehydrated and fatigued, when I disembark.
You do know that the bleed air from the engines on an A350/A380 comes from exactly the same atmosphere as the air pumped in on a B787? The only difference is the pumping method - the compressors on an engine (before the fuel is added, obviously) on an Airbus as opposed to electric pumps on a 787. Unless moisture is extracted from or added to the air in the process, the humidity of the interior at the same temperature and pressure should be exactly the same. The only way to increase the humidity beyond the natural background level is to use active humidifiers - and whether it be an A350, an A380 or a B787, the only active humidifiers installed by the manufacturers as standard are for the flight crew and crew rest areas. So... your claim that the 787 has higher humidity because it uses electric air compressors rather than the engine compressors doesn't really add up.
Pointyendmark is correct. The B787 takes the air directly by bypassing the engines. In essence it is not using 'bleed air'. I have flown both A380 and B787 and I have found the air better on a B787 than the A380.
I think (with respect) you are missing the point as well. Bleed air is just atmospheric air at high pressure where that pressure is created by the compressors in the engine. The air pumped in by a 787 is atmospheric air at high pressure where that pressure is created by an electric pump. There is no qualitative difference in the air.
There seems to be a misconception here that bleed air is different, but in reality the only meaningful difference is that bleed air is at higher pressure (and temperature) because of the nature of the compressors in the engine. There is nothing inherently bad about bleed air. In fact you could make the argument - if you want to take the whole issue holistically - that it is better, since in a non-bleed-air scenario power is siphoned off from the engine to create electrical power to run an electric pump; whereas in a bleed-air engine you do not suffer the power losses from the inefficiencies of the energy-siphoning processes and the electric pump. Less wasted energy = less fuel = lower emissions = better atmosphere (from which BOTH aircraft take their air).
The A380, A350 are hands down better passenger aircraft(in that order) all things being equal. The air (pressure humidity etc) is the same in all three however airbus wins hands down because they are better sound proofed hence much quieter. In fact when the A380 was first released pilots complained it was too quiet! The 787 is tolerable with with Genex engines as they are a little quieter that those 787's with the problematic rolls Royce engines. It's a definite third in this race.
I flew several airlines B787s (JQ, VS, EY, QR) before flying
an A350 (SQ) and although both aircraft feel much more modern than B777s and
A330s, the A350 didn’t impress me as much as the 787 I guess because I was ‘used’
to the advancements after flying the 787 so many times. I don’t think the A350
has any noticeable improvements over the 787. I have also heard in several
places that the A350 has such limited galley space that it affects the crews
ability to provide adequate service. This is a much bigger issue for me than how
the window shades work.
Every aircraft I have flown has been noisy when trying to sleep.
Ian_from_HKG
Ian_from_HKG
CX
Member since 05 Jun 2012
Total posts 61
You do know that the bleed air from the engines on an A350/A380 comes from exactly the same atmosphere as the air pumped in on a B787? The only difference is the pumping method - the compressors on an engine (before the fuel is added, obviously) on an Airbus as opposed to electric pumps on a 787. Unless moisture is extracted from or added to the air in the process, the humidity of the interior at the same temperature and pressure should be exactly the same. The only way to increase the humidity beyond the natural background level is to use active humidifiers - and whether it be an A350, an A380 or a B787, the only active humidifiers installed by the manufacturers as standard are for the flight crew and crew rest areas. So... your claim that the 787 has higher humidity because it uses electric air compressors rather than the engine compressors doesn't really add up.
Boeing777
Boeing777
Member since 04 Dec 2017
Total posts 1
The A350 vs B787 everybody has their own opinion
say for instance when you walk into the cabin the airline decides how much legroom they want to give you are how much headspace they want to give you if airline ( X ) Fly A350 and B787 they can give you more headroom and legroom in one aircraft and give you less in the other that is not a fair comparison fewer way apples with apples if both aircraft are configured the same way the 787 is a better playing and from the cockpit say for instance you on take off avoiding system sounds off and you have to make a sharp maneuver all Airbus Flight envelope won't allow you to make sharp maneuvers Boeing you can make a maneuver and recover and another thought the air You Breathe is more fresh on 787 it has a different air system and you breathe in air that makes you feel like you're at a lower altitude so next time you're fly on one of the two airplanes if cabin configuration is not the same this really not a good comparison because one plane might put 20 extra seats it not the same of course you had no legroom or headroom to get a fair comparison talk to the flight crew the pilots of the airline that flies both of them and they can give you a fair evaluation
krisdude
krisdude
Air New Zealand - Airpoints
Member since 21 Jan 2016
Total posts 28
You do know that the bleed air from the engines on an A350/A380 comes from exactly the same atmosphere as the air pumped in on a B787? The only difference is the pumping method - the compressors on an engine (before the fuel is added, obviously) on an Airbus as opposed to electric pumps on a 787. Unless moisture is extracted from or added to the air in the process, the humidity of the interior at the same temperature and pressure should be exactly the same. The only way to increase the humidity beyond the natural background level is to use active humidifiers - and whether it be an A350, an A380 or a B787, the only active humidifiers installed by the manufacturers as standard are for the flight crew and crew rest areas. So... your claim that the 787 has higher humidity because it uses electric air compressors rather than the engine compressors doesn't really add up.
Pointyendmark is correct. The B787 takes the air directly by bypassing the engines. In essence it is not using 'bleed air'. I have flown both A380 and B787 and I have found the air better on a B787 than the A380.
Mightyreds
Mightyreds
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 09 Feb 2015
Total posts 69
Agree, the A350 is a nicer passenger experience on a number of levels. The cabin of the A350 has the feeling of space and it is also quieter than the B787. But for me, nothing beats the A380.
ajstubbs
ajstubbs
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 15 Mar 2016
Total posts 117
A380 every time. Not just because of room and atmosphere but ride comfort. I have flown mostly on A380s for a long time - a recent flight on the 787 showed a noticeable difference in ride comfort e.g. during turbulence, ascent and descent.
elchriss0
elchriss0
Virgin Australia - Velocity Rewards
Member since 13 Jan 2015
Total posts 80
But the A350 is wider on paper...
elchriss0
elchriss0
Virgin Australia - Velocity Rewards
Member since 13 Jan 2015
Total posts 80
say for instance when you walk into the cabin the airline decides how much legroom they want to give you are how much headspace they want to give you if airline ( X ) Fly A350 and B787 they can give you more headroom and legroom in one aircraft and give you less in the other that is not a fair comparison fewer way apples with apples if both aircraft are configured the same way the 787 is a better playing and from the cockpit say for instance you on take off avoiding system sounds off and you have to make a sharp maneuver all Airbus Flight envelope won't allow you to make sharp maneuvers Boeing you can make a maneuver and recover and another thought the air You Breathe is more fresh on 787 it has a different air system and you breathe in air that makes you feel like you're at a lower altitude so next time you're fly on one of the two airplanes if cabin configuration is not the same this really not a good comparison because one plane might put 20 extra seats it not the same of course you had no legroom or headroom to get a fair comparison talk to the flight crew the pilots of the airline that flies both of them and they can give you a fair evaluation
Jeez have you ever heard of using full stops??? Also the air pressure on the A350 and 787 are both set to 6000ft so saying that the 787 is pressurised to a lower altitude is incorrect (this is about the A350 vs 787 after all). Also many pilots tend to be biased towards either Boeing or Airbus depending on their preferred flying style (kinda like manual vs auto in a car) so asking a pilot is not always going to get a fair answer. I've have tried out a couple of flight sims at a QF and EK training centres (A330, 737, 777, A380) and i personally find the airbus system easier and less demanding due to the increased levels of automation.
Felipe
Felipe
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 18 May 2017
Total posts 2
I rarely can afford to fly anything more than a discounted economy ticket. I hate flying long-haul these days, as the airlines provide very little leg room for passengers, and no matter if it is a Boeing or Airbus aircraft, they all feel cramped these days. Mostly now, I just opt for short to medium haul destinations for my vacation, as I hate being squeezed in like a sardine in a can. I used to fly long-haul a lot, and now I have cut that down considerably. The most spacious flight I have had recently (in regular economy) was on a regional pacific route inside a 737. That was OK for 3 or 4 hours, but I could not tolerate 14 hour flights like before, as airlines seem so cramped these days.... or is it my imagination....?
Toptravel
Toptravel
Emirates Airlines - Skywards
Member since 19 Jul 2014
Total posts 7
I've flown both several times, the A350 wins hands down. Quiter more spacious feeling better windows plus better air. Hate the 787, has Cramped feeling really inconvenient window arrangement.
J-sh
J-sh
Member since 29 Oct 2016
Total posts 3
The flight crew experience probably reflects a more general Airbus v Boeing thing. It could be just a familiarity thing or maybe, as a flight attendant commented to me, that Airbus galleys are like French cars, i.e. a tad idiosyncratic.
Ian_from_HKG
Ian_from_HKG
CX
Member since 05 Jun 2012
Total posts 61
You do know that the bleed air from the engines on an A350/A380 comes from exactly the same atmosphere as the air pumped in on a B787? The only difference is the pumping method - the compressors on an engine (before the fuel is added, obviously) on an Airbus as opposed to electric pumps on a 787. Unless moisture is extracted from or added to the air in the process, the humidity of the interior at the same temperature and pressure should be exactly the same. The only way to increase the humidity beyond the natural background level is to use active humidifiers - and whether it be an A350, an A380 or a B787, the only active humidifiers installed by the manufacturers as standard are for the flight crew and crew rest areas. So... your claim that the 787 has higher humidity because it uses electric air compressors rather than the engine compressors doesn't really add up.
Pointyendmark is correct. The B787 takes the air directly by bypassing the engines. In essence it is not using 'bleed air'. I have flown both A380 and B787 and I have found the air better on a B787 than the A380.
I think (with respect) you are missing the point as well. Bleed air is just atmospheric air at high pressure where that pressure is created by the compressors in the engine. The air pumped in by a 787 is atmospheric air at high pressure where that pressure is created by an electric pump. There is no qualitative difference in the air.
Joe
Joe
Member since 03 May 2013
Total posts 181
The A380, A350 are hands down better passenger aircraft(in that order) all things being equal. The air (pressure humidity etc) is the same in all three however airbus wins hands down because they are better sound proofed hence much quieter. In fact when the A380 was first released pilots complained it was too quiet! The 787 is tolerable with with Genex engines as they are a little quieter that those 787's with the problematic rolls Royce engines. It's a definite third in this race.
smit0847
smit0847
Member since 30 Aug 2013
Total posts 148
I flew several airlines B787s (JQ, VS, EY, QR) before flying an A350 (SQ) and although both aircraft feel much more modern than B777s and A330s, the A350 didn’t impress me as much as the 787 I guess because I was ‘used’ to the advancements after flying the 787 so many times. I don’t think the A350 has any noticeable improvements over the 787. I have also heard in several places that the A350 has such limited galley space that it affects the crews ability to provide adequate service. This is a much bigger issue for me than how the window shades work.
Every aircraft I have flown has been noisy when trying to sleep.