Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boeing 787 Dreamliner Makes First Passenger Flight

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-cheap-seats-I-bet dept.

Transportation 190

After years of delays in production, technical worries, and technical advances, Zothecula writes with this excerpt that says "The 787 Dreamliner has entered commercial service. The mid-size airliner's first passenger-carrying outing took place earlier today when Boeing's launch customer All Nippon Airways flew 240 passengers on a four and a half hour charter flight from Tokyo to Hong Kong. Two hour-long 'domestic excursion flights' out of Tokyo are planned for October 28 and 29 before regular domestic flights commence on November 1."

cancel ×

190 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And now after the press release. (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856386)

They will replace all the seats with much smaller ones, So the next flight can carry 500 people. They will get rid of the cool colors and go with 1970's beige and bland lighting. And what ever else they can think of to make sure flying isn't enjoyable.

Re:And now after the press release (3, Insightful)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856480)

Very true. However, we are ALL at fault. As long as people shop by price and not quality it will be a race to the bottom for airline service and comfort.

I support better service by using airlines that offer economy plus and pay the extra money. Do you?

Re:And now after the press release (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856594)

Part of the problem is that truth in advertizing went out the window ages ago in this country. The only decision factor that can actually be nailed down as factual is the price, so that's what everyone decides on.

Re:And now after the press release (4, Insightful)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856640)

Have you shopped for an airline ticket recently? I don't think price can be nailed down very easily either...

Re:And now after the press release (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856884)

Have you shopped for an airline ticket recently? I don't think price can be nailed down very easily either...

Indeed. Last time I flew the ticket was around $400 and then there was about a $600 'fuel surcharge'. It's as though I'm supposed to believe I can fly across the Atlantic and back without using any fuel.

Then, of course, there was the $25 for an overweight bag, the $50 for a second bag, etc, etc, etc.

So prices are very difficult to determine without going through the full booking process and checking the small print.

Re:And now after the press release (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37857020)

Have you shopped for an airline ticket recently? I don't think price can be nailed down very easily either...

Then, of course, there was the $25 for an overweight bag...

Get your freak on girl.

Re:And now after the press release (1)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857170)

"$25 for an overweight bag, the $50 for a second bag"

You travel with your wife and your mistress on the same flight???

Re:And now after the press release (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857226)

Complaining because they charged you for bringing a larger bag than they allow is kind of a reach, they obviously have to limit how much people carry on board, and the limits are pretty generous-- I believe 40lbs for carry on and 50 for checked. Additionally, the first bag is free, so they dont charge you a dime for your first 90lbs.

Ive never heard of a fuel surcharge, so possibly you should change your airline-- United has always done OK by me. Theyve bumped me from a flight once or twice, but more than made up for it with free tickets and a better, more direct secondary flight.

Re:And now after the press release (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857554)

Try that again. Last time I flew it was $25 for the bag, period. I had one bag to check, and it was NOT oversized OR overweight.

Re:And now after the press release (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857656)

I just flew over to Asia 1 week ago with 130lbs of luggage on United Air, and the cost was just $50 for the second bag-- the first bag and carryon were gratis. AFAIK this is standard procedure.

If you are flying local, yes, they do charge you for checked baggage, and Im not sure why that is suprising-- I am not aware of that having changed anytime since I have been flying.

Re:And now after the press release (1)

Xiterion (809456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857564)

A slight addendum - most airlines now don't even give you one free checked bag. At checkin, if you say you're checking a bag, be prepared to whip out your credit card.

Re:And now after the press release (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857680)

United air allows 1 40lb carry on, and 1 free 50lb checked bag for basically every international flight (with minor exceptions)-- this is as of 10 days ago. Until recently, I understand it was 2 free checked bags.

Does United not count as a major airline?

Re:And now after the press release (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857980)

It used to be 2 checked bags for free, domestic or international, on pretty much any airline (we're talking past 10 years, not dark ages).

Re:And now after the press release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37857600)

LordLimecat: Pretty much every airline adds a fuel surcharge to their flights. If you're using a non-crappy booking or search engine (Orbitz, Expedia, Kayak, etc) the fuel surcharge is rolled into the price and you never even realize that it was a separate component of the airfare.

A fuel surcharge is just a technical pricing trick that allows airlines to increase their ticket prices without re-filing the fares in the fare clearinghouse databases.

Re:And now after the press release (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857786)

Fair enough, but Im not clear on what it matters if the ticket costs $800, or $400 plus a $400 fee. The price remains the same, and I am equally able to compare the prices by going to united.com and southwest.com etc and comparing the checkout price.

Possibly a minor nuisance, but honestly most of the complaining Im seeing is just whining about non-issues.

Re:And now after the press release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37857846)

Get your freak on girl.

Re:And now after the press release (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856894)

I must say, I have not. I'd be too tempted to give the TSA a snappy Seig Heil.

Re:And now after the press release (2)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857316)

I must say, I have not. I'd be too tempted to give the TSA a snappy Seig Heil.

And you'd be well within your rights under the Constitution to do that very thing.. However in our current bat-shit insane world, you'd be hassled, likely arrested, and prevented from boarding your flight, and put on a "list".. Those of us who see clearly how insanely UNamerican the whole DHS/TSA thing is, seem to be the minority anymore. I hear endless cries of "if you don't want to be inspected, just don't fly".. ummm... no... The Constitution does not say "4th Amendment only applies to non-flying citizens".. Unless those of us who understand clearly whats happening to this country stand up against this b.s, we're gonna get a brandnew name in the very new future.. United Socialist States Of America or perhaps "People's Republic of Amerka".. Anybody thinking I'm being dramatic, get your flippin' head out of the sand and see what's RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES!!!

Re:And now after the press release (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857132)

Airlines are pretty darn explicit in exactly what you will get-- prior to flying on my 777 2 weeks ago I was able to find out exactly what amenities would be available pretty easily. And every time Ive shopped for a ticket, I remember seeing exactly how many inches of legroom I would get.

I think airline seating is, actually, one of the MOST explicit areas when it comes to "what am I getting", Im really not sure where your complaint comes from. And if you want to know the exact conditions of the seat on a specific plane, you can always check www.seatguru.com....

Re:And now after the press release (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856632)

I cannot do that, because as United proves "economy plus" means 2 inches more leg room on a plane too old to have any in flight entertainment, worse than average food and flights that never take off on time.

Re:And now after the press release (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857148)

I cannot do that, because as United proves "economy plus" means 2 inches more leg room on a plane too old to have any in flight entertainment, worse than average food and flights that never take off on time.

It used to mean 5. I think they made up for it by shrinking the regular seats by 3 inches.

I used to be United-only. Then my girlfriend introduced me to Southwest. The boarding process was funny (just A, B and C at the time) and no in-flight entertainment, but they almost always got me in on time and they served Dr. Pepper. In contrast, United's customer service has gotten more elitist and boarding a flight is a fight for over-head space (the last Southwest flight I was on had half-empty overhead bins; free checked bags FTW).

Re:And now after the press release (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857612)

EVERY time I've flown Southwest my baggage went somewhere else, and my sample size is about 5 round-trips scattered over a period of years.

I'll take a 30 minute delay (which BTW, usually has to do with Yokels on the tarmac and less to do with the airline, because I do listen to ramp chatter and ground control while I'm waiting) over a game of "Where In The World Is My Friggin' Luggage?"

Re:And now after the press release (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857260)

Flights taking off on time is, AFAIK, a function more of the airport than of the specific airline-- I might be wrong on this, but delays tend to be stuff like "runway needs to be deiced" or "traffic controller is slacking and the runway is busy", not "united has decided to screw you over today".

Protip: avoid BWI and Ohare as much as possible.

Re:And now after the press release (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857366)

12 hours of delays, 3 broken planes.
No sure how the airport would make the planes broken.

Re:And now after the press release (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857766)

No sure how the airport would make the planes broken.

If it was O'hare, you would be surprised :)

In all seriousness, I cant comment on that as I have never run across it. If it is an issue endemic to United, possibly I have been lucky, but I assume that these things will happen occasionally with any company that has been around long enough. Possibly a run of bad luck?

Re:And now after the press release (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856770)

But who really cares. As long as the flight is safe, most people don't care if they have an uncomfortable seating for a few hours. I wouldn't mind standing up like on the SkyRider [wikipedia.org] if it meant the flight would only cost half as much. Not everyone is looking for a luxury vacation all the time. Sometimes, people just want to get where they are going. If I wanted a nice journey, I wouldn't take a plane to begin with.

Re:And now after the press release (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857008)

I wish it were possible (FAA Regs would be a serious problem) to have the slide in beds like in the Fifth Element for red-eye flights. I can never sleep worth a damn when sitting bolt upright with no head support (and those stupid neck pillows don't work) and it makes the whole flight a chore. If I could lay down for the flight I would be much happier.

Re:And now after the press release (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857254)

Oh you can lay down if you pay enough for that seat and class that allows it. Most of the time flying overseas, business class and higher have fold down seats on most airlines. Domestic? Hahahahahahaha.

Re:And now after the press release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37857016)

I support better service by using airlines that offer economy plus and pay the extra money. Do you?

Hell no!

Unless you're flying on a regular basis, putting up with a few hours of being crammed into a tiny seat instead of paying hundreds of dollars more for a better experience seems like the way to go. Plus, with the environmental impact that air travel has, putting more people on each plane can only help. And for flights longer than 6 hours, I'm taking a valium anyways, so I don't really care whether I'm sleeping in a business class or economy seat.

Basically, air travel will suck no matter how comfortable you try to make it. I'd rather just accept that fact and save my money for enjoying my destination than waste money trying to deny it.

Re:And now after the press release. (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856484)

Easy enough to do, there's a model to all this you know... you get what you pay for. Those seats and lights were probably the 1ST CLASS DEPARTMENT, and as you move towards the back you experience the features you describe.

Re:And now after the press release. (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856862)

Sadly, no. You get 'up to' what you pay for. If paying more necessarily meant getting more, people might try it once in a while.

Re:And now after the press release. (1)

Nick Fel (1320709) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856516)

At eight abreast the seats don't look unusually big to me. As for the lighting, personally I'd rather not fly in some kind of rainbow technicolour dream... oh right, I get the name now.

Re:And now after the press release. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37856520)

They will replace all the seats with much smaller ones, So the next flight can carry 500 people. They will get rid of the cool colors and go with 1970's beige and bland lighting. And what ever else they can think of to make sure flying isn't enjoyable.

But since you (in the US at least) always fly after having gone through a TSA checkpoint, by comparison it still won't seem that bad.

Re:And now after the press release. (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856526)

No, this is a non-US carrier. They tend to be a little better, small seats but nicer lighting, decor, entertainment and food.

Re:And now after the press release. (1)

spooje (582773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856660)

They will get rid of the cool colors and go with 1970's beige and bland lighting. And what ever else they can think of to make sure flying isn't enjoyable.

Nah, the lights will stay. These days most trans-pacific flights have those multi-colored lights. Having blue or red lights instead of the white let people adjust to "night time" conditions, like the red lights on a sub. This helps peoples' circadian rhythm from getting messed up too much.

Re:And now after the press release. (5, Informative)

joggle (594025) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856708)

Customers only have so much flexibility with the 787. No passenger 787 can be bought that does not include the cool lights and darkening windows. They can add more seats, but nothing close to 500 of course. The 787 that could carry the most is the 787-9, at nearly 300.

The 787 is designed as a replacement to the old 767 and carries roughly the same number of passengers. It has a slightly longer range with the main improvements being passenger comfort (lights, windows, reduced cabin noise) and greater efficiency (uses about 20% less fuel than the 767).

Re:And now after the press release. (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37858002)

Ask Continental, I don't know how do they manage to make the seats so uncomfortable to everyone without increasing something else. Sounds like chaos theory.

Re:And now after the press release. (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856778)

You can buy business class and first class tickets. Lots of airlines have an "Economy Plus" or "Economy Premium" or whatever level too - without the huge hike in price from Economy -> Business (and without the business class frills too) but with more legroom and so on.

So do you pay extra for the better ticket? Or just buy whatever orbitz/priceline/travelocity gives as the cheapest option?

Re:And now after the press release. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856856)

That does not help the food situation or the ancient plane problem. Avoiding US airlines generally does.

Re:And now after the press release. (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857022)

That also avoids the cheap ticket "problem" though, so it's a bit of a wash.

Re:And now after the press release. (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857188)

Not really, generally adds a small cost. If you swing it right you can get a "Delta" flight that is actually on Lufthansa planes with Lufthansa crews. Only to Europe of course.

Re:And now after the press release. (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857092)

Having just flown on a Boeing 777, I would suggest that you are overly cynical. The flight was enjoyable even given my freakishly long legs and the realities of economy seating. Per-seat tv screens, a large selection of free music and movies, and a very spacious cabin that did not feel cramped (even as my legs complained).

I would guess due to your cynicism that you mostly fly short hops, and in that case the 787 really isnt for you anyways. And as regards the plane color, would you prefer that they charge you more for a ticket and have a colorful plane, or that they have cheaper tickets and a plane color that you dont notice anyways when youre inside of it?

Re:And now after the press release. (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 2 years ago | (#37858062)

Unfortunately, those kinds of interior detail are chosen by the airline, not Boeing. Although I have to say, the bathrooms on the 777 are quite spacious, for an airplane.

Re:And now after the press release. (1)

DigiTechGuy (1747636) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857106)

I don't care about riding a glorified bus being enjoyable. The point is to get me quickly and cheaply from point A to point B. I'd do standing room only if it was an option and got me a cheaper ticket.

Re:And now after the press release. (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857134)

Sir, I'm showing that we have a window seat, a luggage rack seat, and an unpressurized cargo hold seat available.

Re:And now after the press release. (3, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857658)

...an unpressurized cargo hold seat available.

Ryan Air is getting out of hand.

Article is late, like the plane (2)

fotbr (855184) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856424)

The charter was yesterday, and covered by many more reputable sources including the BBC.

Re:Article is late, like the plane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37856596)

The article is late because it was being held up by the TSA, who wanted to further grope ("investigate") some of the longer words.

(Yes, I know the flight was between Tokyo and Hong Kong and TSA wasn't involved. It's a joke.)

Rainbow lighting interior? (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856456)

That might have been cool back in the 70s, not so much now. How long were those delays?

Re:Rainbow lighting interior? (5, Interesting)

tiberus (258517) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856840)

Based on the segment on the TV news last night, it doesn't appear that the lights are intended to be used as in the photo in the article. I'd guess that display and photo are to showcase the range of colors that can be displayed. The TV news segment alluded to the lighting colors being used to make the passengers calm and comfortable especially on long flights. The lighting would be changed gradually during the course of the flight. The psychological effects of color have been researched for sometime, it's interesting to seem that research put to another practical use.

Re:Rainbow lighting interior? (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856918)

That's...pretty awesome. Thanks for the information!

Slashdot - where nerds get their news - a day late (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856466)

Slashdot - where nerds get their news - a day late

Even TFA says "Oct 26". C'mon, have your coffee already!

Re:Slashdot - where nerds get their news - a day l (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856584)

Wait, people come to this site for news?
That's news to me!

Once again... (1)

binaryhat (2494814) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856730)

Why is it that foreign countries get the good stuff, the 787 Dreamliner made in good ol' USA, while here in we get to fly in mini-penis sized planes? Pathetic.

Re:Once again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37856838)

?!?!

a penis the size of a 767 is pathetic?

grossly disproportionate i'd say.

Re:Once again... (0)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856858)

Because the 787 was a disaster of a project until ANA stepped in and re-engineered most of it. It kind of makes me angry the article just forgot to mention that. Without ANA the 787 would still be delayed and the final product wouldn't be as nice.

Give credit where credit is due.

Re:Once again... (3, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856990)

Hmm, what reality is your post from? ANA is an airline, they have requirements but they do no engineering. Not sure how you think ANA "stepped in" to save the day...

Re:Once again... (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857664)

http://www.ana.co.jp/promotion/b787/en/mwj/ [ana.co.jp]
You could have actually looked up the facts. Had you taken a few minutes to search around I wouldn't have had to do it for you.

Re:Once again... (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857802)

I see Kawasaki, Mitsubishi, Fuji, and Toray listed there.

Not ANA.

ANA is an airline, not a heavy industry manufacturer.

Re:Once again... (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37858110)

Ok, your statement is basically technically correct but I was talking on broader terms. This is basically how things worked out:
1. The 787 was behind schedule due to engineering and manufacturing issues but ANA wanted a realized version of the design.
2. ANA strikes a deal with Boeing - ANA hires out and pays for the remaining portions of the 787 to get it into production.
3. ANA chooses the right companies, the re-engineered and realized parts go beyond even Boeing's designs/specifications.
4. 787's go into production, ANA gets the first batch.

In that sense I consider ANA being responsible for the (re)engineering and production.

Re:Once again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37857820)

You sir, are a complete moron. Why don't you take a look at the link YOU provided and think about your snarky comment. There is no room here for fish-cunts such as yourself.

Re:Once again... (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857984)

Congratulations, you discovered that Boeing gave work parcels to Japan - which was in the plan from day one. As the other poster says, this doesn't support your comment about ANA however. How about *you* look up the facts - I've been following the 787 from before it was publicly announced.

Re:Once again... (1)

icebrain (944107) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857430)

ANA didn't engineer anything, it didn't step in and save the day. ANA was just the first airline to put its money where its mouth was and commit to a purchase.

The entire 787 program is a textbook case of piss-poor program and supply-chain management that shows what happens when the bean-counters and marketing weasels define the schedule and plan production without input from engineering. Nobody stepped in from the outside and saved they day; Boeing had to work it out by itself.

Re:Once again... (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857642)

http://www.ana.co.jp/promotion/b787/en/mwj/ [ana.co.jp]
There's plenty more information out there on the project as well, how about you do some research next time?

Re:Once again... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#37858220)

The link is irrelevant to the assertions made in this thread. Japanese businesses were involved from the beginning in the construction of the 787. Turns out they had the expertise to build the composite sections (as well as some other high tech parts) of the body of the aircraft.

Re:Once again... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857792)

Sounds like SOP for Boeing.

Re:Once again... (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857842)

Because the 787 was a disaster of a project until ANA stepped in and re-engineered most of it. It kind of makes me angry the article just forgot to mention that. Without ANA the 787 would still be delayed and the final product wouldn't be as nice.

Give credit where credit is due.

ANA didn't do any "re-engineering". They were the launch customer, which (as with pretty much every recent airliner project) gave them additional input into the design and development of the aircraft - but not from the engineering perspective. Some airlines might have wanted it a little bit bigger or a little bit smaller - being the launch customer, ANA had a much stronger voice in helping Boeing finalize the size and (interior) layout of the aircraft than others. They also had a voice in designing the usage scenario - things like,"should we trade some range for better high-altitude airport takeoff performance? Should we add 10 seats, or extend the range by 200 NM?" Things where the aircraft design could go either way equally easily, ANA had a voice in making decisions such that the delivered aircraft would best meet their specific planned usage scenarios.

Re:Once again... (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37858214)

I think you need to look up how things went - Boeing fell behind because they couldn't figure out how to produce a lot of the components they designed or the ones they did produce were inferior. ANA didn't want to put up with the delays so they struck a deal and paid for a bunch of companies to engineer and produce those parts - and each part ANA was responsible for was re-engineered and each part exceeded the capabilities of the original Boeing design.

Re:Once again... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857358)

First of all the 787 is replacing the 767 and is about the same size on the outside. On the inside, it is a bit roomier. Second, most US airlines are not swimming in money. Each plane costs about $200M before customizations so all airlines have to weigh purchasing options carefully. United and Continental will get the plane in 2012.

Re:Once again... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857950)

Does the US still have premium international airlines?

It's the larger four/five-star airlines that are going to want the newest, funkiest aircraft. There's a lot more of those not in the US than in the US.

Disappointing. (4, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856750)

Asian airlines are always the first to buy new airplanes. Their fleets are always newer than what you'll find with American airline companies. And having traveled a good bit over the years, I've always found service on Asian airlines light years beyond what's offered by carriers here, at the same price point. American flight attendants tend to be pissy, rude and impatient even on shorter flights. If you happen to sit near the back you're privy to them complaining about work. On the Asian airlines, even on 18 hour flights, the flight attendants have always been courteous and helpful. They're as friendly near the end of the flight as they were at the start.

It's pretty sad that an economy so heavily based on service is so bad at it. Now wonder American airline companies are always struggling to be profitable. But I suppose it's good that a plane built in the US, well at least parts of it, still sells.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856774)

Even the Euro carriers are better than the American ones. I wish we would let foreign carriers compete on flights that have both end points in the USA. Might make them at least consider some customer service.

It does not seem to be a geography problem, Air Canada is fine.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856872)

Union problem?

Re:Disappointing. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856892)

Can't imagine.
Surely the EU carriers are even more union friendly. The Germans are big on their unions for sure, and Lufthansa is a great carrier. I bet the Canadians are all unioned up too.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857014)

Go read up on the problems British Airways has with the Unite union :)

Re:Disappointing. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857080)

Go read up on the problems British Airways has with the Unite union :)

From what I've read BA and Unite seemed able to reach agreements fairly easily, but the BA cabin crew union that's a part of Unite kept voting not to accept it. The end result is that their final agreement seemed to be significantly worse than the terms they were being offered before the strike.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857070)

Even the Euro carriers are better than the American ones. I wish we would let foreign carriers compete on flights that have both end points in the USA. Might make them at least consider some customer service.

It does not seem to be a geography problem, Air Canada is fine.

The good Euro carriers, at least. EasyJet is the worst airline I've every flown, followed by Ryan Air. I guess that the Chinese flight I took a few years back would qualify as the worst I've ever had if I could consider it to be a proper airline instead of a collection of debris hurdling through the sky. On average, though, my experience matches yours. Air France/British/Lufthansa are nicer than Delta/United/American.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857088)

Blah, I meant hurtling, though hurdles might have explained some things about that flight.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857120)

KLM was quite good last time I used it as well.

United is totally bottom of the barrel, I bet Aeroflot looks down on them.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857694)

Interesting. I agree about Ryan Air. I could not imagine a worse airline. I have never flown easy jet and certain never Chinese.

However, I find AA and UAL to be superior to Luthansa. The passengers are on top of each other in Luthansa, and the FAs really were not that nice. AA/UAL international have been enjoyable for me (domestically, they both sux).

Re:Disappointing. (-1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856878)

They neglected to mention the only reason the 787 was completed is because ANA stepped in and did a lot of the engineering - and that's why they get the first batch.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857030)

What utter rubbish, repeated.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857700)

http://www.ana.co.jp/promotion/b787/en/mwj/ [ana.co.jp]
Look up the facts before you just up and make assumptions, repeated.

Re:Disappointing. (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37858038)

As posted (again) further up the page, that link doesn't support your assertion about ANA - all they are doing there is showing off Japans involvement (all of which was in Boeings plan from day one). ANA did nothing more than purchase the aircraft, they never "stepped in" at all - ANA is none of those companies listed.

I suggest that you start looking at your "facts" before embarrassing yourself in the manner that you just did.

Re:Disappointing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37858160)

Go READ what you linked. What they did was NOT major engineering. It was the typical give and take that launch customers (who do take additional risks) get about some engineering tradeoffs.

The 787 debacle was entirely due to YoYoDyne's management [youtube.com] decision to outsource production of state of the art components to every country with a runway.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857210)

I've flown quite a bit and I've generally found the attendants to be quite polite. I don't think I've ever seen an attendant I would describe as rude or pissy. The only time I ever heard one even act the slightest bit tiffed was once when confronted by a very rude passenger. I usually fly Delta, so maybe they're different or something.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

dbc (135354) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857472)

Well, that is the opposite of my experience on Malaysia Airlines. 747 crammed with the maximum number of seats, every seat filled, minimum crew, each "worked" half the flight doing the bare minimum, and got surly if you asked for so much as a glass of water if it forced them to get out of their seats. Totally miserable 13 hour flight.

Re:Disappointing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37857516)

I flew to Seoul in 2001 on NWA *business class* and then in 2008 on Korean Air in *coach* (which is closer to the bottom end of the Asian carriers). Guess which one had more amenities and was the much more pleasant flight? You guessed it.. Korean Air. The seat was slightly bigger on NWA but everything else was far worse than coach was on Korean Air.

American carriers suck. No doubt about it. In ways that wouldn't cost a dime to improve. Seriously.

A couple of thoughts (4, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857628)

American fleets are required to not look at age, etc. In addition, they can no longer insist on the no-marriage, lose job after age 30 or 40, etc. In asia, they have the same old rules that America had back in the 60's. Europe is fairly similar to Asia, but not by design. For example, you will find that in europe, most of the FAs are NOT married. The norm for many nations is that a woman works when single, but quits upon marriage and certainly quits while raising kids. That is why when you fly german Lufthansa, it is male FAs. Once the women are in their late 30s and wanting to return the european airlines will NOT hire them.

As to American fleets, the older housewife FAs fly the short domestic routes, so that they are home at nights. The internationals pay a BIT more, but not enough to entice them. Most of the internationals are junior FAs, OR have no kids(BTW, this is the exact opposite of the cockpit; those guys have SENIORITY). So, you will find that most of the FAs on all international flights are pretty decent, though at the moment, Asian and middle eastern fleets are younger and nicer.

Finally, I have to say that my Dad is retired AA capt. while my sister is working at USAirways. I grew up flying AA but rarely do it anymore for domestic. The same is true for United. I used to prefer Frontier, but now go with SouthWest. The FAs ARE friendlier and happier and it reflects in how ppl are treated. But for going europe, I take United or American 777s. Best plane going with great service.

BTW, skip ryan air. THEY SUX.

Re:Disappointing. (1)

deblau (68023) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857736)

Americans tend to be pissy, rude and impatient

Fixed that for you

Re:Disappointing. (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857974)

I'm guessing you haven't flown Air China...

Based on my last experience I'd say that customer comfort isn't exactly high up in the list. Customer service in the jet was decent, but in the airport it was absurd (3 hours late, nobody could say when our flight would get in, and we were told to go to another gate halfway across the bloody airport 15 minutes before the flight actually departed)/

Just wanted to let you know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37856824)

We're all counting on you Striker.

Re:Just wanted to let you know... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857246)

That Stiker's great, but when it comes to getting down safely with a planeful of kids, you can't beat Captain Oveur

Fact: (1)

theswimmingbird (1746180) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856832)

Everyone involved screamed the entire way.

Delayed three years by Boeing (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856994)

It's not hard to imagine that Boeing actually drove the delays - at least in part - themselves to try to find a way out of their labor contracts. They love to hate the workers up there, but the workers can't do much when the supply line isn't supplying.

Only 240 passengers !!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37857056)

No matter how efficient the 787 is, they're not going to make money flying with that few passengers on board ;=)

There aren't many... (2)

Alioth (221270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857216)

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, but there really are very, very few airliners that are actually beautiful. I think Boeing have finally built a beautiful airliner, and it's the wing that makes the 787 so beautiful, from its graceful curve in-flight, to the tapered winglets and the high aspect ratio that makes the aircraft look very reminiscent of a modern carbon fibre glider, to even things like the flight deck windows which blend into the design.

As I said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but these are probably the only airliners I would actually call "beautiful":

- Lockheed Constellation, with its gracefully curved and tapering fuselage (from an era where everyone else's airliner looked like a sausage with wings).
- Concorde. I don't think I need to explain. (No, the Tu-144 doesn't qualify, although superficially similar to Concorde as in it has delta wings, it's actually pretty ugly - the wing doesn't have Concorde's graceful 3 dimensional shape, the flight deck windows just look awful and those canards...good grief).
- And now the Boeing 787.

Yes, there are probably others that people find beautiful of course, and I've probably missed or forgotten some (I think the last version of the Comet, the Comet 4 strongly qualifies with the engines hidden in the wings) but the three above are the ones I find most aesthetically pleasing.

Re:There aren't many... (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857376)

no DC-3 ??

I worked on that plane (1)

wolfemi1 (765089) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857230)

...and as someone who contributed to the shipping software on it, I'd like to be the first to say THANK GOD FINALLY! It was a long, hard road to completion, but I think the plane's going to do really well.

and I will bet.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857670)

There was a crying baby the whole flight in seat 22C with a mother that is trying to reason with it.

Also the scumbag in 47B hogging the arm rest, I'm stealing your bag of peanuts!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>