Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights

Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - Seat Width Comparison Between Airbus A350 and Boeing 787

When it comes to seat width, both the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 typically feature a 3-3-3 seating configuration in economy, offering a similar experience in terms of personal space. Seat widths generally fall within a narrow range of 17 to 17.5 inches. While the cabin layouts are comparable, the A350-900's slightly larger overall dimensions might offer a subtle difference in the feeling of space. The A350's design, particularly its wider wingspan and larger fuel capacity, might contribute to a perception of a more spacious cabin environment, which could be a deciding factor for those prioritizing comfort on lengthy journeys. In the end, both planes offer comparable features like in-flight entertainment, but the subtle distinctions in design and capability could lead some travelers to prefer one over the other. It boils down to individual preferences when choosing between these two popular aircraft for a long-haul adventure.

When comparing the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787, one aspect that can influence passenger experience is seat width. Both aircraft often feature a 3-3-3 configuration in economy class. However, the A350 generally provides a slightly wider standard economy seat, around 18 inches, compared to the 787's typical 17.5 inches. This can impact comfort, particularly on extended journeys.

While the A350 often maintains this wider standard, some airlines utilize configurations that push the limits further, offering seats up to 18.5 inches wide, especially in high-density layouts. In contrast, the 787 often sticks to a more consistent 17 to 17.5-inch range, limiting the flexibility to cater to different comfort preferences.


It's important to consider that the distance between rows, also known as seat pitch, can influence the perceived seat width. On some A350 aircraft, airlines have opted for tighter seat pitch, leading to a more constricted feeling, in comparison to standard 787 arrangements. This shows that even with a slightly wider seat, the overall experience is not solely determined by seat width.


Beyond just the seat width itself, the cabin design plays a role. The A350 tends to have a sense of openness, thanks to its design that incorporates larger windows, potentially making the available space feel less confined. The 787, on the other hand, has a more standard cabin design, where the sense of space is primarily determined by seat dimensions.

Cabin layout can impact the overall spaciousness perception. The A350 frequently employs a 3-3-3 configuration across economy class, while certain 787 models use a variety of layouts, including 3-3-3 or 2-4-2, leading to distinct variations in the feel of the cabin and its crowding.

While both offer a range of cabin classes, it's worth noting that some airlines opt to include wider seats within premium economy on the A350. This offers a more defined distinction between economy and premium economy. In comparison, the 787 has traditionally kept a stronger divide between these cabins with a less pronounced widening of seats within premium economy.


Furthermore, the materials used in the A350's cabin design, such as advanced soundproofing, have a role in the perceived passenger experience. While noise reduction can make even a slightly narrower seat feel more comfortable, it is also dependent on individual tolerance and whether other factors are also present in the aircraft or airline configuration.



In comparison, some Boeing 787 models offer seats with built-in features that aim to improve a sense of privacy and personal space, such as increased recline or larger footrests, creating a perception of increased comfort even with a narrower physical seat. It's a reminder that comfort isn't exclusively defined by measurable elements like seat width.


Looking at higher class seating, the A350 is often fitted with wider business class seats, offering a more spacious and luxurious feel for passengers in these higher class cabins compared to some airline's 787 variants.


Finally, even factors like cabin pressure and humidity can impact comfort. The A350 usually maintains a lower cabin altitude compared to the 787, which contributes to a potentially better travel experience for many. Although seemingly unrelated to seat width, this contributes to the overall comfort, particularly on longer routes where cabin air quality can be a factor in fatigue or passenger comfort levels.

What else is in this post?

1. Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - Seat Width Comparison Between Airbus A350 and Boeing 787
2. Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - Cabin Pressurization Systems Airbus A330neo vs Boeing 777X
3. Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - In-flight Entertainment Options A380 vs 747-8
4. Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - Noise Levels Inside the Cabin A321XLR vs 737 MAX
5. Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - Overhead Bin Space A320 Family vs 737 Family
6. Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - Lavatory Designs and Accessibility A220 vs E2 Jets

Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - Cabin Pressurization Systems Airbus A330neo vs Boeing 777X

The Airbus A330neo and Boeing 777X both strive to offer a comfortable cabin environment for long-haul flights, but they approach it with differing strategies. The A330neo utilizes innovations like its SmartLav design and ambient lighting to create a more visually stimulating and potentially less fatiguing cabin atmosphere. In contrast, the Boeing 777X, with its larger cabin and expansive windows, prioritizes enhanced air circulation and cabin pressurization, which is a key element of comfort, especially on extended flights. Boeing's emphasis on passenger comfort also extends to easier movement with wider aisles and a cabin layout that can accommodate 10 passengers abreast in economy, impacting the overall sense of spaciousness and travel experience. While both aircraft offer modern features to optimize passenger well-being, the distinct approaches to cabin design and pressurization could influence which aircraft a traveler might find more appealing for a long journey.

Examining the cabin pressurization systems of the Airbus A330neo and Boeing 777X reveals intriguing differences that could subtly affect passenger comfort, particularly on lengthy flights.

The Boeing 777X, with its lower typical cabin altitude around 6,500 feet, potentially leads to reduced passenger fatigue compared to the A330neo's 7,500 feet. This difference in altitude could be a factor in how passengers feel after long journeys. However, the Airbus A330neo counters with a focus on higher cabin humidity, around 30%, mitigating dry skin and overall discomfort. The Boeing 777X on the other hand generally operates at lower humidity levels. This potentially creates a more favorable environment for some individuals, but also raises questions about whether dryness could impact longer journeys.

Noise levels are another key consideration. The A330neo incorporates a sophisticated approach to sound reduction, featuring quieter engines and optimized insulation. This translates to a noticeably quieter cabin experience. The 777X, in contrast, may not offer the same level of noise reduction. This potentially could be a comfort factor for passengers on long-haul routes.


Interestingly, the air circulation systems of the two aircraft also differ. Airbus's air distribution in the A330neo is tailored for more efficient and refreshing air circulation. This potentially minimizes the feeling of stale air on lengthy journeys, potentially offering a better experience for passengers. The 777X, meanwhile, does not seem to be quite as refined in this regard.


The methods used to control cabin pressure are also distinct. While the A330neo employs a fully automatic system, responding swiftly to changes in altitude and reducing discomfort, the 777X relies on a more conventional approach. This difference might become perceptible during rapid changes in altitude.


When it comes to seat and cabin layout, the A330neo is often configured by airlines with wider aisles and more room between seats. This reflects a priority placed on passenger space and mobility. However, some 777X versions prioritize passenger capacity, which might mean that passengers are more closely packed, particularly in economy class. This could significantly change the passenger comfort perception of the layout.

Another subtle difference lies in the environmental control systems. The A330neo's sophisticated technology offers more consistent temperature regulation, reducing bothersome drafts and enhancing the overall passenger environment. In contrast, the 777X, with its more conventional systems, can display some variation in temperature management.

Additionally, fluctuations in cabin pressure, as may occur in the 777X, have the potential to contribute to discomfort and even some physical stress for sensitive individuals. The A330neo's emphasis on stability aims to minimize these effects, potentially leading to a smoother and more comfortable flight.

Furthermore, the A330neo boasts reportedly more stable temperature control during flight, making a positive impact on comfort. In comparison, the 777X's temperature might fluctuate, based on the airline and installed systems used.


While both planes strive to offer a comfortable environment, research suggests that balanced pressure and humidity enhance respiratory health. The A330neo's seemingly better humidity management could reduce the prevalence of dry throat and discomfort during flights, which might become noticeable during longer flights on the 777X.


These detailed differences highlight that while both aircraft are capable of long-haul flights, subtle variations in cabin pressurization systems and other factors could ultimately affect passenger comfort and travel experience. There are certainly pros and cons in both designs. It is an area that continues to evolve and develop.

Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - In-flight Entertainment Options A380 vs 747-8

When assessing the in-flight entertainment offered on the Airbus A380 and Boeing 747-8, both planes provide a range of options designed for long journeys. However, their approaches differ. The A380, with its greater interior volume, often allows airlines to install more advanced and updated entertainment systems. This can translate to larger screens and a broader selection of movies, music, and games. On the other hand, the Boeing 747-8's entertainment systems can show a wider disparity between airlines due to greater customization options. This means that the quality and variety of entertainment might be less consistent across different carriers operating the 747-8.

Airlines across the industry are continuously refining their entertainment offerings, and this pressure impacts both the A380 and the 747-8. The focus on innovation aims to enhance the overall passenger experience, particularly given the growing number of competing aircraft and travel options. But ultimately, how passengers judge the in-flight entertainment experience depends not only on the technical capabilities of the systems but also on how effectively airlines choose and provide content. This includes individualizing the experience for each passenger. It's about much more than simply putting screens in the planes, it's about what the traveler sees and interacts with during their trip.

When comparing the in-flight entertainment (IFE) experience between the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 747-8, a few key distinctions emerge. Notably, the A380 often boasts larger personal screens across all classes, with economy class screens sometimes exceeding 12 inches, versus the slightly smaller screens commonly found on the 747-8. This difference in screen size can significantly impact the overall viewing experience, especially during longer flights.

Airlines operating the A380 tend to offer a wider array of IFE content, likely due to the higher passenger demand on the larger aircraft. In contrast, some airlines operating the 747-8 might have a more limited selection, which could affect the overall passenger satisfaction. This difference highlights the impact of passenger volume on the diversity of content offered.


The availability of wireless connectivity for IFE also varies. The A380 commonly features more advanced options that allow passengers to stream content directly to their devices. However, some 747-8 configurations might only support traditional, pre-loaded content, limiting passenger flexibility in choosing entertainment options.

Another aspect is the cabin noise environment. The A380 incorporates sophisticated noise reduction technology, which creates a quieter cabin, enhancing the enjoyment of the IFE system. The 747-8, due to its construction and layout differences, may not provide the same level of acoustic comfort. This might negatively impact the perceived quality of the in-flight entertainment.

Furthermore, power outlets at each seat are more prevalent on A380s, facilitating the use of personal devices during the flight. In comparison, power options on some 747-8 configurations are sometimes limited, especially in certain rows, which could restrict passengers' ability to enjoy the IFE for extended durations.


The A380's IFE systems often include interactive features, such as games and social media access, boosting engagement on long flights. These features might be less prevalent or less sophisticated on the 747-8, creating a less engaging experience. The A380 frequently includes touch-screen remote controls, which offer a more intuitive way to navigate IFE menus. The 747-8, on the other hand, may utilize more traditional button controls, potentially making it less user-friendly.


Additionally, live television services, like real-time sports or news broadcasts, are more frequently found on A380s as part of their IFE. In comparison, 747-8s generally have less frequent availability of live television. This difference directly impacts the breadth of entertainment choices during a flight.

The user interface design of the A380's IFE is generally perceived as more modern and responsive compared to that of the 747-8. This difference in the user experience can influence how easily passengers can discover and enjoy the content.


Finally, the ongoing operations of a larger number of A380s means airlines can update IFE systems more regularly. This ensures passengers have access to newer movies and shows. The 747-8, with its dwindling operational numbers, might see delays in these updates, which could diminish the overall entertainment value for passengers.

These observations show that while both aircraft offer in-flight entertainment, the A380's design and typical operational practices often provide a more modern, feature-rich, and ultimately more engaging experience. While the 747-8 still offers viable options, there are notable differences in the overall experience.

Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - Noise Levels Inside the Cabin A321XLR vs 737 MAX

When comparing the noise levels inside the cabins of the Airbus A321XLR and the Boeing 737 MAX, it becomes apparent that Airbus has prioritized a quieter passenger experience with the A321XLR. While both planes feature modern engine technology that aims to reduce noise, the A321XLR's design emphasizes cabin comfort and soundproofing. This suggests a potentially more peaceful environment for passengers on longer flights.

The 737 MAX, on the other hand, with its higher passenger capacity in a standard layout, hasn't yet developed a strong reputation for quietness. This could be a deciding factor for travelers who are particularly sensitive to noise levels during air travel. For those prioritizing a calmer flight, the A321XLR might be the more appealing option.

It's worth noting that the cabin's acoustic environment is a often-overlooked but essential part of a comfortable travel experience. Even subtle differences in noise can impact the enjoyment of a flight, especially during longer trips.

### Noise Levels Inside the Cabin: A321XLR vs 737 MAX

While both the Airbus A321XLR and Boeing 737 MAX strive for quiet cabins, some subtle design differences appear to affect the passenger experience. Initial testing suggests that the A321XLR might provide a quieter environment, likely due to its engine placement and soundproofing strategies.

The A321XLR's engines are located a bit further forward compared to the 737 MAX. This might contribute to less noise transfer into the cabin, offering a calmer environment during flight. This engine placement is likely not the sole factor, but it could be a noticeable one, as there's a considerable difference in how sound waves are managed.

Both planes rely on modern soundproofing materials to lessen engine and airflow sounds. However, the A321XLR utilizes unique composite materials for noise reduction. These potentially provide better sound absorption and damping, leading to a quieter passenger experience compared to the 737 MAX. How effective these materials are in the long run can only be assessed over time with a larger sample of flights under a wide array of operational scenarios.

Looking beyond materials, the interior design of the A321XLR might play a role in noise reduction. The larger cabin size and specific ceiling curvature seem to be designed for improved sound diffusion and absorption. It's an interesting detail, as the ceiling design isn't always the first thing one considers when thinking about noise. This small tweak to the overall design might create a more comfortable environment for passengers on longer flights.

Furthermore, seat configuration can also contribute to noise perception. While it might seem trivial, airlines typically opt for a 3-3 layout in the A321XLR's economy cabin. This contrasts with the denser seating often found in the 737 MAX. A less-crowded cabin might lead to a reduction in noise caused by passenger movements and conversations. This is likely due to lower levels of vibration or sound that travel through the cabin structure itself.

Airflow patterns can influence noise perception as well. The A321XLR's air distribution system is designed to be precise and mitigate drafts. The 737 MAX also boasts an efficient airflow system, yet it may not counteract unwanted noises with the same level of finesse as the A321XLR. This might lead to a less comfortable or a more distracting soundscape inside the 737 MAX.

Cabin pressure can impact the human perception of noise. The A321XLR's cruise altitude is lower at around 6,500 feet, which can reduce how outside sounds are amplified inside the cabin. In comparison, the 737 MAX tends to operate at slightly higher altitudes, potentially making external noise seem more prominent within the cabin.

It's not all about materials and structure, either. The A321XLR incorporates advanced noise-cancelling systems in premium cabins. These systems are common in many newer aircraft models but might not be used across all classes or models of the 737 MAX. This suggests a different approach to comfort levels in the cabin by airlines or manufacturers.

The operational role of each plane is noteworthy, too. The A321XLR typically operates on long-haul flights, and noise reduction was likely a priority in its design. In contrast, the 737 MAX is versatile, often flying shorter routes where noise control might not be as high of a design priority, possibly resulting in a different noise profile in comparison to the A321XLR.

Passenger feedback suggests that individuals on board the A321XLR experience greater comfort in relation to noise compared to those in the 737 MAX. As the aircraft models evolve, this feedback is influencing the design choices of the manufacturers, driving ongoing efforts to enhance passenger comfort and noise reduction.

In the realm of long-haul flight comfort, noise levels can be a significant factor. While both the A321XLR and the 737 MAX feature noise-reducing elements, the design decisions and approaches used by Airbus and Boeing seem to result in a clearer distinction between the two models with regards to noise reduction. It will be interesting to see how the future development of both aircraft will evolve and address the ever-growing demand for quieter and more pleasant air travel.

Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - Overhead Bin Space A320 Family vs 737 Family

When it comes to storing carry-on luggage, both the Airbus A320 family and the Boeing 737 family have made strides in recent years to accommodate more passenger belongings. The A320, often favoring a modern approach, generally offers larger overhead bins that are more accommodating to carry-on bags, especially on longer routes where travelers tend to have more items with them. On the other hand, Boeing has introduced its Space Bins on the 737, which try to match the A320's improvements, but on certain models, the 737's overhead bins still feel a bit cramped, leading to some potential frustration with luggage storage.

These design choices, in terms of the emphasis placed on overhead bins, represent a broader design philosophy. It shows that aircraft manufacturers are trying to create cabins that cater to different kinds of passenger needs. What might matter most to one person – like a wide seat – may be secondary to another, who might be primarily focused on storage space. It's a fascinating example of how airlines are striving to create aircraft that best suit their passenger base. If your travel style involves bringing many bags onboard, the A320's designs could provide a smoother and less stressful experience compared to certain 737 models, though this difference is not uniform across the whole range of both aircraft families.

### Overhead Bin Space: A320 Family vs 737 Family

1. **Cabin Width and Bin Size**: The Airbus A320 family's wider cabin, about 7 inches wider than the Boeing 737, allows for larger overhead bins. This increased volume can make a substantial difference in how much carry-on luggage passengers can fit, significantly impacting the travel experience, particularly for those accustomed to larger or more numerous items.

2. **Boarding and Deplaning**: The A320's wider bins, which accommodate larger bags more readily, often speed up the boarding and disembarkation process. This can be a critical advantage, especially on flights with tight turnarounds or during peak travel periods where every minute counts.

3. **Aircraft Balance**: The location and design of overhead bins influence an aircraft's weight distribution. The A320 family utilizes robust materials that contribute to a more stable weight balance, which may translate to improved fuel efficiency during flights and potentially more consistent flight patterns.

4. **Bin Design**: The A320's wider fuselage allows for full-width overhead bins, maximizing the usable storage space. In contrast, the narrower 737 typically features more vertically oriented bins, which can impose restrictions on bag dimensions and increase the competition for space among passengers. This can lead to frustration if a particular flight is full or many passengers have larger bags.

5. **Passenger Load Factor**: Airlines that favor the A320 family often experience higher passenger load factors, likely because the generous overhead bin space encourages passengers to check fewer bags. This translates to more efficient utilization of both passenger and baggage capacity, potentially increasing revenue.

6. **Ease of Access**: The A320 family's overhead bin doors are typically designed for smoother access, allowing passengers to quickly and efficiently stow their belongings. This can be especially advantageous for those with physical limitations or difficulty lifting heavy bags overhead. The 737's design, while not inherently bad, appears slightly less intuitive.

7. **Evolution of Bin Designs**: Over the years, both families have seen improvements to their overhead bin designs. Newer A320 models often feature pivoting bins for easier access. While the 737 family has also been updated, some older models still use designs that lack this modern ease of use, potentially leading to occasional frustration.

8. **Boarding Time**: Research suggests that the larger, more accessible overhead bins of the A320 family can shave 10-15% off boarding time. This can translate to improved on-time departure rates and higher overall efficiency metrics for airlines operating these aircraft. Boarding time can be one of the key chokepoints during airport operations and many airports are trying to improve efficiency as much as possible.

9. **Passenger Behavior**: The way passengers use overhead bins appears to differ between the aircraft families. Passengers on A320 flights tend to be more efficient in stowing their carry-ons, resulting in fewer items obstructing aisles or emergency exits compared to 737 flights. This can improve safety and create a more orderly cabin during the flight.

10. **Airline Customization**: Airlines have the option to tailor their overhead bin configurations for both families. This can add another layer of complexity to the comparison, as one airline's A320 may offer a noticeably different experience compared to another airline's 737 fleet. Some airlines may choose to enhance the experience in one plane type over the other, leading to inconsistencies that the individual passenger should be aware of.

Airbus vs Boeing Passenger Comfort Comparison on Long-Haul Flights - Lavatory Designs and Accessibility A220 vs E2 Jets

When evaluating the lavatories on Airbus A220 and Embraer E2 jets, we find notable distinctions in both design and accessibility, especially for those with mobility issues. The Airbus A220 features larger lavatories specifically designed to accommodate passengers using wheelchairs, which represents a significant advantage in terms of inclusion and comfort. The Embraer E2, while optimized for shorter routes and often boasting lower operational costs, appears to lack the same emphasis on enhanced accessibility within its lavatory design. This disparity becomes increasingly important for passengers with mobility challenges who need a more spacious and convenient bathroom experience, particularly on potentially longer flights.

Airbus has gained favor in the market for prioritizing passenger comfort with features such as increased legroom and comfortable cabin features. The A220, with its thoughtful lavatory design, furthers this commitment to comfort. The emphasis on accessibility and spaciousness within the lavatory makes it a potentially more attractive option for airlines looking to create a satisfying experience for passengers. It is a telling detail of how different manufacturers and airlines prioritize passenger comfort and well-being. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that both aircraft serve different purposes, with the E2 being ideally suited for shorter, regional connections. It is important to remember that when choosing an airline, evaluating the route and desired amenities is as critical as any particular aircraft model.

### Lavatory Designs and Accessibility: A220 vs E2 Jets

The Airbus A220 and Embraer E2 jets, while both vying for a share of the regional jet market, present interesting contrasts in their lavatory designs and accessibility features. The A220, known for its focus on maximizing passenger comfort and capacity, has opted for a remarkably compact lavatory design. Through clever use of space-saving features, the A220 manages to provide essential amenities in a small area, a necessity for its generally smaller overall cabin size. This emphasis on space utilization is a design trend that is likely to continue within this sector.


The Embraer E2, on the other hand, emphasizes accessibility. Its lavatories are engineered to conform with modern accessibility guidelines, featuring wider doors and more internal room to improve the travel experience for passengers with mobility challenges. While this is a good development and clearly beneficial to passengers who require these accommodations, one potential drawback is the need to add space inside a cabin which already faces capacity challenges. This is especially true in the short and medium-haul aircraft market where airlines need to optimize passenger numbers to be profitable.


Another notable difference lies in the layout. The A220 utilizes a staggered lavatory design, aiming for a more streamlined experience with less queuing. This differs from the more traditional single-door lavatory configuration of the E2, which could potentially lead to bottlenecks and delays during high-traffic times. This is especially evident on fully loaded flights when there is limited time to use facilities between takeoff and landing.


Material choices within lavatories also differ. The A220, for instance, incorporates antimicrobial materials and is equipped with self-cleaning lavatory systems which is increasingly becoming a focus point in lavatory design in recent years. This addresses various concerns related to hygiene and cleanliness for passengers. However, it remains to be seen how effective these features are over the long-term use and whether they'll become a standard feature in the future.


While both the A220 and E2 emphasize water conservation, the A220 employs vacuum toilets. These toilets reduce water consumption, which can be particularly relevant for aircraft like the A220 where a lower operational weight has a more tangible impact on efficiency. This design choice may be seen as either more ecologically beneficial or as another way to save on operating costs.


The Embraer E2 boasts sophisticated sound insulation within its lavatories, reducing the noise from flushing mechanisms and helping to minimize the disruption of the overall cabin environment. This is clearly an effort to improve the overall passenger experience and may become a common feature on future planes.


Safety features are also a part of the comparison. E2 jets link lavatory emergency alarms to the cockpit, a crucial safety enhancement that allows for faster reactions to unforeseen events in the lavatories. This suggests that even seemingly small details within the design of the plane can have significant safety consequences and it highlights a growing focus on safety standards within aircraft design.


The use of lighting within lavatories is a noteworthy design detail. Both A220 and E2 aircraft utilize LED technology, but the A220's design often integrates mood lighting to provide a potentially more relaxing atmosphere. The overall lighting effect inside the lavatory can impact how passengers perceive the quality and the experience.


Moreover, the A220 implements HEPA air filtration systems within its lavatories, which further reduces airborne pathogens. This is a growing area of focus within aircraft design and suggests an evolution in the industry's commitment to passenger health and well-being, extending beyond mere comfort to the air quality within the lavatories.


Finally, the Embraer E2 has prioritized ergonomics within its lavatory designs. Features like elevated toilet seats and strategic positioning of grab bars contribute towards a more user-friendly and accessible experience. These are examples of how manufacturers are trying to make flying a better experience for a wider variety of individuals.


These aspects demonstrate the competitive landscape in the regional jet market, showcasing how lavatories and accessibility considerations are integral to improving the overall passenger experience. As these planes continue to be refined over time, we're likely to see new innovations and technological developments that impact every aspect of the passenger experience. This includes lavatories, which are a crucial aspect of longer flights, particularly for passengers who spend a significant portion of the journey in those facilities.