Back to Squawk list
  • 41

Air NZ’s 787 Dreamliners may be better suited to hobbits than people

Airlines that fly Boeing 787s have a real problem to deal with. It’s inferior in seating space in some important respects to Boeing 777s and Airbus A380s and A350s. ( Más...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Will never waste my time reading another Ben Sandilands generated article. Much to do about nothing.
The airline buying the aircraft specifies the seating, not Boeing. The seating arrangement is airline vs airline, not Boeing vs Airbus.
John Thurston 1
Air New Zealand must have hired the same guy who configured some of the charter 757's. His motto would have been "If it can lift it, we'll pack it full."
Amano Naomi 1
I fully agree what Walter wrote. If comments on 787 / NOT seating, 4 flights between Denver and Narita: 2*12hrs + 2*10.5hrs 3: bus / 1 eco+, 12hrs. delete all seat related, 3 aspects, 787 is better than any equipments: A) Cabin numidity: Not much dry out, very good, B) Cabin air presure: little better, but little uncomfortable because if keep cabin presure colser to ground level, means more structural stress to body frame. Is this good enough when equipment get aged??? C) Cabin noise: Less noiser than 777 or 747, I fly offten. Fall into sleep every time easier than other eq flights. D) Cabin lighting: Little over exotic, and not used at first time, but later, started easier w no surprise when lighting got light blue/red/green etc. E) Best part is window size: I can see outside even no window seated. Larger windows gives enjoyable to see ouside @ take off or landing. Hope structural design is good enough to support such larger windows without problem. F) Plus centralized window darkness cntrol: This is great.
These are what I felt 787. Bottom: Good designed. Hope airlines could optimize confort and profit so air travel leave good memory to passengers.
Evan Harrel 5
The linked articles are woefully lacking in any quantified details. As best I can tell, the big miss on the Dreamliner is that you don't have room to put your toiletry kit by your shoulder while sleeping. The "Hobbit" headline is particularly misleading.
boughbw 4
Wait a minute -- someone is complaining about not having enough room on an airplane? This is news indeed.

First World Problem: Not enough room in First Class seating. Life is rough.
Chester Zaba 3
Ben Sandilands never allows any detail about what is specifically wrong with NZ accommodations. He simply offers that seating is "cruel and unusual", inferior and on and on. The man also suggests that the average Kiwi is overweight. No dimensions are referenced. "Air NZ’s 787 Dreamliners may be better suited to hobbits than people" is a stupid article that sounds more like a poison pen letter, or a petulant rant than an informative aritcle.
Bob Hackney 3
The author of this article must be getting paid by the # of words that are written. As noted below the entire article has absolutely NO substance nor evidence to support the spurious contents!!!
Dave Nosek 3
As much as I would love to take a trip to New Zealand and Australia it's not going to happen until I can afford at least business class. All of the airlines seem to go out of there way to make economy class as uncomfortable as possible, and on a trip of that length it's just not going to be worth it for me.

Sometimes think they need to bring back some of the older single aisle aircraft e.g. 707/DC8's. There 6 abreast was tight but seemed much more comfortable than anything flying today.
john smith 2
I flew on a 777-300er from Yvr - Lhr. Window seat economy class and a big gal sat next to me. So my back was half on window and backrest. The flight itself was smooth but if you dropped your pen filling out the customs form it's gone. Reminded me of Air Transat and the A330. I was thinking why would they call it wide body plane when the toilet seat is bigger than yer seat.
Came to Canada in '86 in a Nationair DC 8 or 9. from Gatwick. That was scary.
John Pelchat 2
The issue is NOT first class where there is more than enough room. The issue is in economy where the working stiffs who fly for their work get stuffed into unreasonable seats
Terry McKinney 2
Air Canada has not done the Dreamliner any favour with the seating on the only flight my wife and have had in one. Give me a 777 or 767 any day> (at least the way ACA has configured them). Pitch and width were too tight.
David Maczka 2
Most comfortable plane 787 Dreamliner is by far the nicest plane
Steve Johnson 2
Typical Ben Sandilands crap, the heading might be catchy but the article itself is a rambling slab of nonsense.
Gregg Bender 0
At least one factual error in this blog post. Boeing did not design the 787 to compete with the A380 or their own 777. The 787 is a narrowbody aircraft. Comparing the 787 to the A380 or B777 is an 'apples to oranges" comparison. Different missions. If ANZ is flying them on long, thin routes in competition with those aircraft, then it's on them (not Boeing) to figure out how to make the design work for the passenger.

Alfred Tsiang 3
Narrowbody would be 737, 757, A320's. No way 787 is a narrowbody, certainly narrower than a 777 but by no means a narrowbody.
Robert Bailey 2
The 787 is NOT a narrowbody aircraft: it is a twin-aisle widebody, like the 777 albeit with a narrower fuselage. The 787 typically has one fewer seat per row than the 777: 8 or 9 per row on a 787, compared with 9 or 10 per row on a 777.


¿No tienes cuenta? ¡Regístrate ahora (gratis) para acceder a prestaciones personalizadas, alertas de vuelos y mucho más!
Este sitio web utiliza cookies. Al usar y seguir navegando por este sitio, estás aceptando su uso.
¿Sabías que el rastreo de vuelos de FlightAware se sostiene gracias a los anuncios?
Puedes ayudarnos a que FlightAware siga siendo gratuito permitiendo que aparezcan los anuncios de Trabajamos arduamente para que nuestros anuncios sean discretos y de interés para el rubro a fin de crear una experiencia positiva. Es rápido y fácil whitelist ads en FlightAware o por favor considera acceder a nuestras cuentas premium.