Why not to choose Boeing Dreamliner for your next flight

“New rule: never fly on a 787.” That’s what I found myself recommending some non-aviation market buddies who were preparing a vacation this week, even with all the rewards of the latest creation of blend airliners — lower cottage elevation, larger ms windows, power and USB electrical sockets, on-demand enjoyment, larger containers.

I would love to suggest the Dreamliner. I genuinely consider that it, and the Airbus A350, are massive design and production explodes onward. Even after the flame concerns it has had, I believe the 787 is a safe airplane. I know it is starting up long and thin routes that allow unlimited or fewer-stop services between cities. I know its per-kilometre costs are lower, which is good for airlines, good for ticket prices and good for the environment.

But I wouldn’t suggest that anybody sit in economy on one — and economy is where almost all of us sit when we’re paying the fare.

The nine-abreast 787 economy seating on an aircraft frequently used for long-haul and ultra-long-haul flights gives passengers less space than any other jet — even the previous lead standard of a 10-abreast 777. Nine-abreast on a Dreamliner means a seat width of 17” or below, slimmer even than a short-haul 737, an aircraft for which the six-abreast cabin dimension dates back to the 1950s’ Boeing 707.

Stillthe 777 brand isn’t as poisonous in economy as the 787 is, not while there are still some 777s with respectable nine-abreast designs, despite the fact that their number is diminishing as carriers refit or retire older models and add new 10-abreast aircraft to their fleets. With the 777 it’s possible to be more nuanced — fly British Airways, Delta or United instead than Air Canada or American.

Not so with the 787.

As active operators add more Dreamliners to their fleet, and new airlines take delivery, they’ve chosen the nine-abreast design solely.

The one exception to this rule is Japan Airlines, which offers considerably better 18”+ seats in a 2-4-2 layout on its 787s, which includes the newer Sky Wider version, with 33” pitch. Local rival ANA has one of four layouts with eight-abreast, however the writing is on the wall for this configuration, and I wouldn’t suggest anybody chance getting it while ANA is in the process of removing it from service.

As always, the story is absolutely distinct in international premium economy — not extra-legroom economy, which has the same nine-abreast seats with a few inches more legroom — where a 2-3-2 layout and ample seats are a real sweet spot for passengers who care about #PaxEx and have the cash to spend on it. But premium economy comes at a premium price, normally in the area of 35-45% over economy.

In business class, too, the Dreamliner is great. But my friends — a family of four with teen kids traveling the Atlantic — are probably going to spend less on their whole vacation than they’d spend sending even half of the family in business class.

Boeing — and its 787 flyers — have a problem. There desires to be a product at a price point attractive to flyers for whom a sub-17” seat is a deal breaker yet an 18”+ seat is completely appropriate, but for whom a 35%+ price jump for premium economy isn’t attainable.

The other option? The 787 becomes known as an aircraft nobody wants to fly.

Source: runwaygirlnetwork.com