Does the B787 (Dreamliner) operate with higher cabin pressure?

Philippe Leybaert
  • Does the B787 (Dreamliner) operate with higher cabin pressure? Philippe Leybaert

    The Boeing 787 Dreamliner's fuselage is almost completely made of composite carbon fibre material, which is not susceptible to metal fatigue.

    The main reason why the cabin pressure in a pressurized aircraft is kept as low as possible is to reduce the expansion and shrinking of the fuselage due to changes in pressure differences, reducing metal fatigue in the long run.

    Does the 787 use higher cabin pressures than other commercial aircraft? Boeing touted this as one of the revolutionary new features of the aircraft back in 2006, but does it actually use higher cabin pressure now that the plane is in use by airlines?

  • The aircraft does use a lower equivalent altitude in the cabin, while usually operating at an altitude higher than most other aircraft. Since it's designed for it, and I don't think it makes a difference it fuel consumption hence there's no reason to opt out. It's highly appreciated by crew and passengers alike since it leaves them feeling more rested and less jetlagged. It's around 6000 feet rather than the usual 7500-8000 feet.

    What also contributes substantially to passenger comfort is the fact that the air is considerably more humid, since corrosion is less of a concern, also leaving passengers and crew dehydrated.

    I've never flown on one, but it seems to be holding:

    "As for the cabin pressure and moisture, it's all true: I arrived both times feeling well-hydrated and without the parched skin that would result from flying in any other airplane." Source

    and a little more on the workings of this system:

    "Cabin – Pressurization differential pressure maximum is 9.4 psid, so the cabin altitude is only 6000 feet when at the max cruising altitude of 43,000 feet. There is a cockpit humidifier switch, and cabin air humidification is fully automatic." Source

    and here's an article from 2011:

    Most conventional passenger jets set the cabin pressure at an equivalent of around 7,500 to 8,000 feet above sea level, which Boeing claims is the primary cause of a range of in-flight ills. “There are many passengers problems associated with altitude – headaches, muscle aches, fatigue and even nausea” Craver says. The difference between external air pressure when an aircraft cruises at 40,000 feet and an internal pressure that’s one-fifth of that stresses the plane’s fuselage – and the greater the difference, the more the stress. That’s been the limiting factor in increasing cabin pressure, Craver explains: the metal body of current aircraft wouldn’t safely be able to handle the fatigue induced by maintaining this pressure at high altitudes. That changes due to the use of carbon-fibre composite materials on the 787’s fuselage. Carbon-fibre doesn’t suffer from metal fatigue and in turn allows for lower 'cabin altitude' levels. The 787’s cabin pressure is set to 6,000 feet, a figure arrived upon by Boeing modifying a pressure chamber to look like an airplane cabin which could hold 12 people at a time. “We cycled over 500 people through the chamber, and they stayed there for up to 20 hours of simulated flying time” Craver recalls, and they found that 6,000 feet was the ‘sweet spot’. “Between sea level and 6,000 feet there was almost no difference in the reported symptoms” Craver says, “so we can alleviate or mitigate a lot of symptoms you get at a cabin altitude of 8,000 feet” Boeing claims that one in four travellers experience some form of ‘respiratory distress’ after flying 12 hours in a conventional aircraft with a cabin pressure of 8,000 feet, but this plummets to 5-6 per cent at 6,000 feet. Source

  • According to this document by Boeing:

    Altitude: How High Is Just Right?

    Today's airplanes are pressurized to a typical cabin altitude of 6,500 to 7,000 feet (1,981 – 2,133 m), with a maximum certification altitude of 8,000 feet (2,438 m). Because the advanced composite materials that make up the 787’s fuselage do not fatigue, the 787 can be pressurized more, which allows for lower cabin altitude levels.

    Studies at Oklahoma State University explored the effect of altitude on passengers to determine optimum levels. After testing at various altitudes, it became clear that lowering the cabin altitude to 6,000 feet (1,830 m) provided meaningful improvements. Lowering the cabin altitude further, however, provided almost no additional benefit. Based on that knowledge, Boeing designed the 787 to be pressurized to a maximum cabin altitude of 6,000 feet.

    So if we assume a constant altitude of 43,000 (the 787's service ceiling1), we would get a maximum differential of:

    • 6,000 ft Cabin Altitude = 9.06 psi
    • 8,000 ft Cabin Altitude = 8.11 psi

    This would indeed be a higher cabin pressure than what Boeing considers "typical" at maximum altitudes.


    1 It is probably actually an even bigger difference since the ceiling of a lot of airplanes isn't this high so the max differential would be even lower.

  • It may surprise you to know that the 6000 feet cabin pressure wasn't even a new feature when the Boeing 787 released! The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde, the world's first and last profitable supersonic airliner maintained its cabin pressure at 6000 feet ASML.

    From Wikipedia:

    Airliner cabins were usually maintained at a pressure equivalent to 6,000–8,000 feet (1,800–2,400 m) elevation. Concorde’s pressurisation was set to an altitude at the lower end of this range, 6,000 feet (1,800 m).[98] Concorde’s maximum cruising altitude was 60,000 feet (18,000 m); subsonic airliners typically cruise below 40,000 feet (12,000 m).

    The Concorde's airframe had to deal with several factors that most subsonic aircraft aren't even designed for, including thermal expansion of the fuselage, stress due to contraction when returning to subsonic flight, and the pressure difference at 60000 feet AMSL.

    Based on several 787 trip reports, the pax do report that they felt comparatively much better in the 787 after an ultra long haul flight, compared to other contemporary airliners. This is due to the higher cabin pressure and higher artificial humidity maintained in the cabin. The revolutionary feature of the 787 is the bleedless engines (i.e., air for cabin pressurisation is not compressed by the engines, unlike in almost every airliner).

Related questions and answers
  • The Boeing 787 Dreamliner's fuselage is almost completely made of composite carbon fibre material, which is not susceptible to metal fatigue. The main reason why the cabin pressure in a pressurized aircraft is kept as low as possible is to reduce the expansion and shrinking of the fuselage due to changes in pressure differences, reducing metal fatigue in the long run. Does the 787 use higher cabin pressures than other commercial aircraft? Boeing touted this as one of the revolutionary new features of the aircraft back in 2006, but does it actually use higher cabin pressure now

  • I recently came across this picture of the Boeing 787 series aircraft's incredible wingflex: I suppose this is a consequence of using very light CFRP wings, but how does the wingflex itself improve the 787's flight performance? Do the benefits/drawbacks also apply to the 747-8 (which IIRC also uses CFRP wings)?

  • With the new Boeing 787 where Boeing has provided the capability to swap engine types if the aircraft goes to a new operator quite quickly, I'm wondering if there are any interchangeable flightdecks? Say that you might have a legacy 737 for southwest, but an entirely different cockpit layout (containing the same capabilities) for a company which operates Boeing 787s as well, since... projects. But I'm wondering if there are any aircraft which have this possibility and if not, why not? I'd see it as an opportunity to Boeing to have a 787 flightdeck shared with say the 777.

  • When aircraft is at high altitude, atmospheric pressure will be too low but inside aircraft pressure is maintained such that it is comfortable for crew and passengers. But how is it maintained? As I understand that at higher altitude pressure difference can be too large which can deform the plane than how this is handled.

  • There are various services that use world-wide Boeing Winds for forecast wind data which can be used to calculate an approximate flight time between two locations. They usually have best case, worst case, and average case for each location, altitude, and date in the future. I have searched and searched Google to no avail. Where can this wind data be found, and how can it be used in a commercial product? For those of you who don't know what the Boeing winds are, I found this description of their software product on am informal message board (not related to Boeing): PC WindTemp

  • technology for maintenance data (and I think I recall hearing Boeing does too), I was wondering if either Airbus, Boeing, or the FAA, plan to facilitate or mandate that the CVR and FDR record to the cloud or a remote location either in lieu of or in addition to the physical devices installed in commercial aircraft. I would think this would be an accident investigator's dream come true...Another enthusiast question. I watch a lot of the National Geographic Channel's "Air Crash Investigation", for better or worse, and it seems accident investigators make tremendous use of the Cockpit

  • I read once that the speed of sound decreases as altitude increases. I wonder if that's true and, if so, are the pressure waves made at high altitude lesser than the ones at low altitude because of the difference in air pressure? And, lastly, does that mean that lower speeds at higher altitudes will be subject to the problems one encounters when approaching mach speed?

  • a depressurization than surviving flames. Does a mechanism exist to depressurize the aircraft in case of uncontrolled fire in the cabin? If so, under what circumstances would it be used? ...Uncontrolled cabin fires only need a few minutes to spread throughout the cabin of an aircraft, killing everyone onboard and destroying the airframe. Now, we all know that depressurization and fire do not combine; the lack of oxygen will eliminate one of the elements necessary to keep the fire alive. So if an aircraft had a way to depressurize the cabin and eliminate oxygen in the event

  • translate to a deflection of the surfaces, mimicking the "old" mechanical control setup. It is my understanding that this is the design choice of Boeing in its new aircrafts. I do not wish to discuss... or Airbus/Boeing certified pilots or even pure civil/(former) military pilots. Does any of you have any reference? ...Provided an aircraft with a fly-by-wire system, there are basically two possible choices when it comes deciding how to let the pilots interface with it: rate control / attitude hold: a deflection

  • I think i've read that the B787 has a common type rating with the B767 and B777. But I also think I've read that pilots are only allowed to fly two types of aircraft at a time... So when they go to fly the 787, do they have to give up one of the their ratings if say they were previously allowed to fly the 767 and 777? Would the same still apply for say a B757 and B767 which have very similar flightdecks? EASA and FAA perspectives would be appreciated :)

Data information