Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by danpalmer 901 days ago
The 787 is nice, but the competing A350 and A380 both have similar pressurisation and I haven't noticed humidity issues on either. I think the 787 was a significant step up on the 777, but compared to modern alternatives I think it probably is slightly less comfortable.
2 comments
ddalex 901 days ago
Quick Google search suggests that humidity is better on A350 (20%) compared to B787(15%)
link
Grimburger 901 days ago
> Park praised three aircraft types in particular: the Airbus A380, the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350.

> The 787 and A350 nudge the humidity up to approximately 25% — an incremental upgrade, to be sure, but an upgrade nonetheless. That's because their composite-materials fuselages won't rust like metal ones would under increased humidity.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/the-healthiest-planes-in-the-a...

Haven't been on an A350 but definitely enjoyed the other two for long-haul. There's a noticeable difference when you spend enough time in that tube, Sydney to London is 24hr's straight with a short time off the plane halfway in the middle of the night. Long-haul is the default for Australians travelling internationally.

link
danpalmer 898 days ago
Yeah I live in London and my partner lives in Melbourne. Been doing 3x a year since covid.

Something that's fascinating to me though, and which puts a lot of online aviation discourse (that mostly comes from US domestic flights) into perspective, is that the short hops we sometimes do like Melbourne -> Hobart, is that they are immediately noticeable as far less comfortable. Apart from sleep effects, 1 hour of domestic flying leaves me feeling worse than 14 hours of long haul, and I think it's just seats and leg room. Economy (and cheap!) long haul flights are not actually that bad, at least for me as a 6' tall guy.

link