Insert the metal fitting into the buckle, then pull on the loose end to tighten. To release, lift the top portion of the buckle. click

Hey hello

+Hugo van spaandonk If they haven't got the movie, you still won't miss it.

😜

W

Hugo van spaandonk you made my night

@Alexandra Meko Who even asked? No one!

But most airlines use the 3-3-3 configuration. It's more popular and convenient.

Marc Liljeqvist pretty soon it is going to be standing room only, recently airline changed the seat distance from 35 inches to 33, people demand low prices and that is how they get it.

+Marc Liljeqvist AA's 787 actually has a 3-3-3 configuration, however the plane is much narrower than the 777, the 787 was designed to accommodate 8 abreast and not 9. Shame on AA for choosing such a narrow seat. 17" width for a long haul seat is Torture, no matter how nice the aircraft itself is.

+André Garcia First of all, the 787 was designed from the ground up to accommodate 9 abreast seating. Second, the 777 was designed from the ground up to accommodate 9 abreast seating. Back when the 777 was designed, seats were a standard 18"-19" wide. As new, slim line, narrow seat designs came about and got selected, aircraft were re-designed for them to improve profitability for the carriers. The airlines make the decisions on how they want their seats to be laid out and what type of seats to use. Currently, the new 777s are coming in mostly with 3-4-3 economy layouts, but some airlines are still using 3-3-3. Almost all 787s are 3-3-3, but the Japanese carriers chose 2-4-2. Current and future 737s and A320 series are available with 17" seats as well. Some carriers are contemplating on ordering the updated A380neo with 3-5-3 seating on the main deck, also possible with 17" seats, but Airbus is for now defending 18" seat minimums. The A350 was designed as 3-3-3 with 18" seats. It isn't wide enough to fit 3-4-3, even with 17" seats.

+harris3693 NOTHING like the MD-80 seating AT ALL. MD-80s were designed for 5 abreast seating at 18" or more width (depending on width of aisle.) They were designed in the 1960s as DC-9.

well...they are touch tone.

"even dough"

lol i love how you mock, i wanna see you do a presentation among multiple national channels and see if you dont stumble a word

LOL

Yo, this is a great feature for the new window.

Krishantha Kumaranatunga I think it's more to make the point that customers who were thinking of switching to United in order to more regularly fly 787s don't need to, because American has them too.

Krishantha Kumaranatunga So what? They are proud of their plane.

stereopolice exactly!

All of our customers planes are custom made to how they want them from Boeing. From the lights, colors, features, electronics, seats, seat configuration, seat material, etc.

+Krishantha Kumaranatunga Not on Delta it isn't.

yes

Stop being jealous

Im not jeolus

I've been on this plane go check it out on my channel

Twitch Sxllxd lmao he’s not talking to you

Same :)

We as passengers benefit from this technological competitiveness

Thats what simulators exist

Ysa

StarSound b

Ago

Baby

Why are you comparing the a350 to the 787?😂

Michael T uhh, what the heck are you talking about??? im 6'5" and I flew on a 787 from DFW-ORD about 2 weeks ago and I still had least 4 inches of leg room left ( in economy, by the way). and you also CLEARLY have never been on a regional jet, because they have absolutely zero leg room. Btw, 226 seats on a 787-8 is not crammed at all. All Nippon Airways puts 335 seats on their 787-8`s, so yeah.

+Elitewarrior007 I fly all over the country every month. I hopped off a Bombardier regional jet from GRB to ORD just 45min before getting on the Dreamliner and I truly had more knee room on the smaller plane. No headroom, no shoulder room ...but more legroom. The S80 and MD80 are also cramped but I truly have more room for my legs than the 787 offers. Perhaps your 6'5 is from the waist up, I haven't seen 4" of legroom in coach since 2005. I like the plane and the tech is unreal but it is what it is.

Michael T Agree, even passengers on Thai, Qatar, Scoot and other Dreamliner operators complain for super cramped seats unless if you're able to fly First or Business Class. Previously My Aunt tried out ANA's 787 economy class from HND to SIN. Later she told me that she couldn't bear any longer flights after enduring 6 hours of sleepless, shoulder pain and numb foot. By the way, she is only 5'8 tall with slim waist and does not have any issue with smaller aircraft other than 787. Personally, the Dreamliner was one of my favorite too but the cabin comfort was a major letdown.

Chris58851

EliteWarrior007 335 seats in ANA 787-8 ? Are you sure you're actually flying? LOL

Much nicer than it dropping so fast it knocks the sense or consciousness out of you.

No, they work like sunglasses, which darken with sunlight.

**not 787 it was a 737

+Beefyerky How is that at all relevant to this video?

Business Class, but okay.

+harris3693 I agree, it needs to be brought back.

+harris3693 The Concorde was useless. It was a great feat of engineering, but the damn thing burned fuel like it was going out of style. The CO2 and noise pollution was also terrible. The cost of operating was very high. These are things airlines and passengers just don't want to deal with. There is a reason airlines and the airline industry are looking for lower CO2 pollution, greater fuel efficiency, less noise, greater ranger, and a lower cost of operating. The Concorde offers none of these things.

+harris3693 When was the Concorde price the same as sonic flight? The BA and AF flights from JFK were always much more expensive. Also, while there was a lot of cache on those flights, there was little luxury on them. The interior cabin was as big as an Embraer 190 series with seats about as big as well and no WiFi or any inflight entertainment. The big luxury was time savings. On the trips from Europe to JFK you actually arrived earlier than you departed, so it was also time travel to a degree.

+harris3693 There's actually a lot of proof. The fuel consumption and regular scheduled maintenance intervals are all much more economic than the 767 and A330 they replace. There are also large savings in on-board diagnostics and the way the systems are set-up modularly. A technician simply has to get a read out of what's faulty, remove it and pack into a FedEx box back to Boeing. Then go to the warehouse and pull out the spare part and plug it back in. This was in part introduced on the C-17 in the military and it's a huge man hour savings and retains aircraft readiness.

+George Lurye Just another way 2 fix the plane. It`s gonna take some1 that noes what hes doing or I don`t care how user friendly the plane is.

Sharvin Nannan Panday It's called electrochromic glass. You can look it up in Wikipedia. Pretty cool stuff. :)

***** Thank you!!! :)

Its the same glass used to watch people getting the death penalty.

I’ve been on 2 Boeing 787-8’s on American Airlines

You're late😂 this plane started traveling last year

Honestly try premium economy no matter what.

Oh stop it airbus fan boy.

+alan jackson Most still fly at ~30,000ft regularly, they are referring to this being capable of sustaining speed at 41,000ft for a 2+ hour trip.

***** Oh.

The longer the aircraft will be in the air the lower it will fly. Doing trans Atlantic flights is usually around 32K feet while a one hour regional flight would go up to 40,000 feet.

+The_Communist_ Texan Wow... you got that completely the opposite. The longer the flight, the higher the altitude. Why? The benefit of high altitude is less air resistance, which allows for better fuel economy and extended range during long flights. The lower the altitude, the more fuel you use to fly. Turbofan engines are most effective at high altitudes. When you don't have far to go, spending time to climb to high altitude and then to descend is useless. It is just faster and simpler to stay at 25k-33k feet. That's efficient enough and makes it easier to get back down. When you're flying long-distance, you may as well climb as high as you can go and burn less fuel, making more profit or enabling the aircraft to fly to a farther destination. I just came back from a round trip flight from New York to Stockholm/Copenhagen on a 787-8 and we cruised at 41,000ft on the way to Stockholm and at 38,000 on the way to New York. The typical 737/A320 flight within the US cruises at 30,000 to 32,000.

Why thank Boeing for hospitality? Isn't that hospitality of Ethiopian Airlines?

It has two buttons below, if you press the white button on the top, the window will become lighter, but if you press the gray button on the bottom half, the window will get darker

+Niklas Enblom You can fly Norwegian meanwhile. I just flew them from New York to Arlanda and then Copenhagen back to New York. They are actually pretty good... by that I mean fairly standard. Not any worse than SAS I think. I did find that the air pressurization in the 787 was better than average though. I have to swallow air 5 or more times during ascent and descent usually and I didn't have to swallow air at all at ascent to 40,000 feet, while just 2 times during descent this time around, so I'm very happy.

+The_Communist_ Texan JAL does 2-4-2 in economy. 2-3-2 is in Premium Economy. Which is a separate class.

thank you....................George

By the way, on a 2-5-2 layout, only a single row of passengers is two seats away from the aisle. With 3-3-3 seating, there are two rows of passengers who are two seats away from the aisle, so in fact, flight attendants reach more in the 787.