BRU: B787 versus A350

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
DannyVDB
Posts: 840
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 00:00

BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by DannyVDB » 19 Nov 2017, 11:17

Hi all,

Long time ago, BRU long haul was mainly A330 or B767 (and also B777).

With the new types coming in (of course A330 will stay for a long time because of SN) we see more and more B787 and A350 ...

B787:
Tokyo ANA B787-800
Addis Ababa ET B787-800
Shanghai HU B787-900 (?)

A350:
Doha QR A350-900
Bangkok TG A350-900
Hong Kong CX A350-900

Well-balanced or did I miss something?

Question is: which other routes could see the B787 or A350 (DL; HU Beijing; ...). Secondly: might we see the A350-1000 or more B787-900?

Danny

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 35791
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by sn26567 » 19 Nov 2017, 11:22

You forgot our national TUIfly 787 OO-JDL to the Caribbean!
André
ex Sabena #26567

Bralo20
Posts: 1432
Joined: 12 Aug 2008, 13:48

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by Bralo20 » 19 Nov 2017, 12:16

From a passenger point of view I hope for more A350's, those are more comfortable in economy compared to the B787 where Boeing sees the need to cramp people in 17" wide seats while Airbus gives you a nice comfy 18" wide seat. But I don't mind an A330 or an older (non-cattle) 777 also ;)

User avatar
KriVa
Posts: 1350
Joined: 31 Mar 2010, 20:15
Contact:

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by KriVa » 19 Nov 2017, 13:31

As far as I can see, that’s not up to Boeing or Airbus to decide, though. Customers dictate what they want the cabin to look like, and how many seats they want.
Thomas

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 35791
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by sn26567 » 19 Nov 2017, 16:46

KriVa wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 13:31
Customers dictate what they want the cabin to look like, and how many seats they want.
In this case, the "customers" are the airlines. The real customers, i.e. the passengers have little to say in such decisions :(
André
ex Sabena #26567

sean1982
Posts: 3171
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by sean1982 » 19 Nov 2017, 17:39

sn26567 wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 16:46
KriVa wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 13:31
Customers dictate what they want the cabin to look like, and how many seats they want.
In this case, the "customers" are the airlines. The real customers, i.e. the passengers have little to say in such decisions :(
Not true, market economics lead to seating density. As long are people are only prepared to pay next to nothing for a flight, airlines have to follow. Profit margins for airlines are notoriously small as it is. Only way to change this is if everyone collectively pays more for a premium airline and things like premium economy to persuade airlines to change their configs. I expect it to get worsz even in the future as that aint gonna happen

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 35791
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by sn26567 » 19 Nov 2017, 18:19

sean1982 wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 17:39
I expect it to get worse even in the future as that ain't gonna happen
Until there is an accident where too many people cannot evacuate fast enough due to the high seating density. And then the legislator will intervene and set rules.

Do we really need deaths before there is a reaction?
André
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
luchtzak
Posts: 11350
Joined: 18 Sep 2002, 00:00
Location: Hofstade, Zemst - Belgium
Contact:

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by luchtzak » 19 Nov 2017, 18:48

sn26567 wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 18:19
sean1982 wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 17:39
I expect it to get worse even in the future as that ain't gonna happen
Until there is an accident where too many people cannot evacuate fast enough due to the high seating density. And then the legislator will intervene and set rules.

Do we really need deaths before there is a reaction?
That aircraft has been certified to be able to evacuate all passengers in 90 seconds with only half of the exits available.

Bralo20
Posts: 1432
Joined: 12 Aug 2008, 13:48

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by Bralo20 » 19 Nov 2017, 18:56

luchtzak wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 18:48

That aircraft has been certified to be able to evacuate all passengers in 90 seconds with only half of the exits available.
Unfortunately those evacuation tests/certifications don't picture an image how things would proceed in a real event. It's one thing to evacuate x amount of people with x amount of exits in less then 90 seconds but it's a whole other deal when that plane has gone through a severe crash or crashlanding where the interior is compromised and where you need to add a certain stressfactor that is going through the people's mind, a stressfactor that can even be increased when there's a fire after the crash and where people are potentially injured and thus slowing down the evacuation.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 35791
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by sn26567 » 19 Nov 2017, 18:59

luchtzak wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 18:48
sn26567 wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 18:19
sean1982 wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 17:39
I expect it to get worse even in the future as that ain't gonna happen
Until there is an accident where too many people cannot evacuate fast enough due to the high seating density. And then the legislator will intervene and set rules.

Do we really need deaths before there is a reaction?
That aircraft has been certified to be able to evacuate all passengers in 90 seconds with only half of the exits available.
I know, but how realistic are those tests? Older people and children in a panic situation don't react exactly like well-drilled volunteers. And then even healthy adults want to take their personal belongings before leaving the aircraft, as seen in almost all of the recent incidents.
André
ex Sabena #26567

Sabena320
Posts: 544
Joined: 13 Jun 2004, 00:00
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by Sabena320 » 19 Nov 2017, 19:02

AC is B788 as well ;)

convair
Posts: 1789
Joined: 18 Nov 2011, 00:02

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by convair » 19 Nov 2017, 20:40

Sabena320 wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 19:02
AC is B788 as well ;)
Meaning???

DannyVDB
Posts: 840
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 00:00

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by DannyVDB » 20 Nov 2017, 08:03

Well, it was not in my list ;)
Danny

sean1982
Posts: 3171
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by sean1982 » 20 Nov 2017, 08:06

sn26567 wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 18:59
luchtzak wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 18:48
sn26567 wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 18:19

Until there is an accident where too many people cannot evacuate fast enough due to the high seating density. And then the legislator will intervene and set rules.

Do we really need deaths before there is a reaction?
That aircraft has been certified to be able to evacuate all passengers in 90 seconds with only half of the exits available.
I know, but how realistic are those tests? Older people and children in a panic situation don't react exactly like well-drilled volunteers. And then even healthy adults want to take their personal belongings before leaving the aircraft, as seen in almost all of the recent incidents.
These tests have never meant to be a true representation of a real crash land scenario but sort of a benchmark. There are so many variables in crash landing that it is impossible to foresee them all. The statistics of evacuations in the last 10 year are VERY good btw, in almost all cases cabin crew succeed in evacuating the aircraft without people who are able being left in the aircraft. Emirates in dxb, Air France in Toronto, asiana in sfo to name a few. I’m afraid your argument isn’t valid ;)

DannyVDB
Posts: 840
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 00:00

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by DannyVDB » 20 Nov 2017, 08:11

So the current list of operations should look like:

B787:
Tokyo ANA B787-800
Addis Ababa ET B787-800
Shanghai HU B787-900 (?)
Montreal AC B787-800
Various destinations in Caribbean TB B787-800

A350:
Doha QR A350-900
Bangkok TG A350-900
Hong Kong CX A350-900

So for the time being B787 is in the lead ...

I think Asiana might start operations once they have enough A350 too. Hope also to see the DL ones.
Any chance ANA will use the B787-900 (I know they already used it a few times) on a more permanent basis?

I am looking forward to my flights on Thai to Auckland: first A359, then B789, both in business class :D

Danny

DannyVDB
Posts: 840
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 00:00

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by DannyVDB » 20 Nov 2017, 08:12

Can everyone stick to the topic please, thanks

OO-ITR
Posts: 688
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 18:29

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by OO-ITR » 20 Nov 2017, 16:43

DannyVDB wrote:
19 Nov 2017, 11:17
Hi all,

Long time ago, BRU long haul was mainly A330 or B767 (and also B777).

With the new types coming in (of course A330 will stay for a long time because of SN) we see more and more B787 and A350 ...

B787:
Tokyo ANA B787-800
Addis Ababa ET B787-800
Shanghai HU B787-900 (?)

A350:
Doha QR A350-900
Bangkok TG A350-900
Hong Kong CX A350-900

Well-balanced or did I miss something?

Question is: which other routes could see the B787 or A350 (DL; HU Beijing; ...). Secondly: might we see the A350-1000 or more B787-900?

Danny
And Air Canada is also flying a B787 (at the moment...?)

edit : was already mentioned...sorry for the double post

User avatar
babolat-blast
Posts: 65
Joined: 27 Jul 2006, 11:38

Re: BRU: B787 versus A350

Post by babolat-blast » 20 Nov 2017, 20:04

I guess Etihad might use their 787 to BRU in the future.

Post Reply