Actually, it's the lack of innovation that's kind of striking. Airliners are such a mature technology these days that seems like the only improvements possible are these kinds of minor efficiency and cabin comfort tweaks. It's about as exciting as seeing the design changes on a modern city bus.
If you asked me as a kid what kind of plane I thought I would be flying in 2010, the 787 not what I would have drawn you. The future is here, and it kind of sucks.
I worked on the 787 (or, more precisely, on some networking simulation tools that were used in development). They've got some reasonably innovative technology in the cockpit, at least as far as innovation in avionics goes. The industry doesn't tend to race ahead very quickly, as a whole lot goes into certifying not only the avionics themselves, but even the tools used to develop them.
I was working on a project a couple of years ago, using an 8-year-old version of GCC, not being allowed to update because it would cost so much money to certify another C compiler.
But really, compared to a lot of current jet avionics, there's some pretty cool stuff on the 787.
I don't even mean to be so down on the 787. For what it is, it seems like a cool step forward. I'm more upset about it being 2010 and there being no Mars bases, floating robot cities, etc. There were some pretty clear promises made about the future when we were kids that have really fizzled.
What really disappoints me is that 40 years ago humans could cross the ocean at mach 2.5 and fly to the Moon. Not only we retired our only supersonic passenger fleet, we cannot even build a moon-rocket.
Ground effect planes are appealing for cargo, but would be far too slow to compete with airliners as passenger aircraft. Speeds for most designs I've seen top out at about half the cruise speed of a regular airliner, which makes sense if you consider that the thing is by definition flying around at sea level.
You could pack a bunch more people into it, but then it would take more gate time and space to load them all, and the on-board pilots and staff are there for twice as a long, too.
My expectation that it would be less an ultra-budget option, and more of a luxury thing—like, it takes twice as long to get there, but it's a smoother ride, you get a little cabin, and there's a hot tub and restaurant and stuff.
I'm surprised that there aren't more corporate jets built on the sonic cruiser plan. The ability to get there 20% faster, combined with an "unprecedented ability to work in the air" would make a compelling marketing message. The plane could be portrayed as faster, sleeker, and sexier than all other corporate jets.
For this and other reasons, SeatGuru.com should be your best friend when doing online check-in. I've just done an intercontinental trip to visit some family, and spending five minutes on there got me an extra three inches of seat pitch - which is definitely noticeable.
I'm also not sure about the benefits of the new fancy LED lighting system. The (very recently-overhauled) 767 I flew had such a system, and it was kinda...weird. Some of it was nice, like the gradual dimming and raising for the sleep phase of the flight (although it didn't get as dark as the old lighting). In the two hours before the meal, however, it seemed like the crew had it set on disco mode or something - over the course of ten minutes or so, the cabin color rotated through blue-red-yellow-green-white.
Ugh. I'm 6'3", and I only squeeze so far when surrounded by a couple of overweight people who don't know how to tuck their elbows in. Losing 1" of width doesn't sound like much, but it will make those awkward flights a little more common and a little more awkward.
I'm 5'4" and I hate people who don't tuck their elbows in. But even worse: fatties who want the arm-rest up so that you can subsidize their air travel. (They want to be able to leak over into your seat.) Yes, I fly a lot, and yes, this happens.
I've experienced the request to raise the arm rest. So far I've been able to say no and make it stick.
In theory people who take up more than one seat are supposed to get charged for more than one seat. However this rule is not that well enforced because of how much outrage people have over being told to pay extra because of their weight. (A condition which most people have little control over. Read The End of Overeating for the biochemistry behind how the modern food industry induces overeating.)
Personally I would be in favour of a surcharge on anyone who significantly inconveniences their seatmate, with a fraction of said surcharge paid directly to the inconvenienced fellow passenger. I think that this would increase politeness, and where it doesn't, the financial bonus would reduce my frustration level.
You know the Israeli day care center study, where parents who were fined for picking their kids up later were more inclined to be late, because they perceived the fine as a fee-for-service? I think that formalizing the overweight-versus-space-donor relationship would lead to even more antagonism, on the same theory: "What are you looking it? You're getting paid good money to be sat on, shut up, I don't need to cooperate with you."
I do know that study. The problem that study found is that the price they put on being late was below the social stigma.
The solution is to make the price above the social stigma.
I think a reasonable rate would be $100 fines, to be handed out no more often than once every 10 minutes, half of which goes to the afflicted seatmate. If you are in the space of seatmates on both sides, you pay the fine once per afflicted seat mate. If you need to move to avoid continued paying of the fine, then you owe the airline for a second seat.
This is on top of the social stigma of having had people come, and explain how you're breaking the rules in front of the rest of the plane.
At that rate, a person who can't fit in a normal seat will see buying 2 seats for their cross-country flight as the cheap option. And one who isn't comfortable sitting in one may think extra hard about remaining uncomfortable rather than inconveniencing someone else.
One of the interesting things is that due to the strength of the composites used in construction, the air cabin can be pressurized to 6,000 ft instead of 8,000 ft.
Most seat mockups are pretty worthless anyways - if you want to know what the cabin will look like on (for example) AA's new planes, look at the seating in their existing planes and change the backdrop.
Seating is often manufactured by third-party companies and installed "aftermarket", and is designed to either harmonize with a company's existing livery, or be outstanding enough that it becomes a marketing feature for the airline.
The last really innovative design I can remember is the scrapped 2001 Sonic Cruiser - ugly as sin, but at least kind of cool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser
If you asked me as a kid what kind of plane I thought I would be flying in 2010, the 787 not what I would have drawn you. The future is here, and it kind of sucks.