Boeing Dreamliner

[SGWilko]

BBC News - Dreamliner plane review ordered by US regulators (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20988117)

Interesting to see that the FAA have ordered a review of this aircraft. How big a dent on the company is this likely to be, and is it any worse than the cracks that have been found on Airbus's A380 (I think) double decker plane wings?

I know that both aircraft suffered long delays in production, but will this give Airbus an edge in the aircraft market?

Reading the article, it is actually quite scary how many issues the Dreamliner has had. Is this 'normal' in modern day design? Surely the plane would have been tested to the nth degree?

[BDunnell]

Interesting to see that the FAA have ordered a review of this aircraft. How big a dent on the company is this likely to be, and is it any worse than the cracks that have been found on Airbus's A380 (I think) double decker plane wings?

Depends what is discovered. The A380's problems would appear to have been resolved by now.




I know that both aircraft suffered long delays in production, but will this give Airbus an edge in the aircraft market?

The 787 is only one part of Boeing's aircraft range, don't forget. Airbus currently doesn't have a direct competitor until its A350 flies.



Reading the article, it is actually quite scary how many issues the Dreamliner has had. Is this 'normal' in modern day design? Surely the plane would have been tested to the nth degree?

Testing is indeed exhaustive, but day-to-day operation can throw up unexpected problems. I am still somewhat surprised, though, at the type of maladies that have been experienced. They have been both numerous and varied. As for whether this is normal in modern-day design, all new aircraft have their teething troubles. The Spitfire when it entered service couldn't fire its guns without them jamming.

[gloomyDAY]

Interesting to see that the FAA have ordered a review of this aircraft. How big a dent on the company is this likely to be, and is it any worse than the cracks that have been found on Airbus's A380 (I think) double decker plane wings?I don't think this is as big an issue as it's been portrayed in the media. All new aircraft have teething issues and the new 787 is no exception. The 747 came out in 1970, and there were problems with the engines. My point is that Boeing engineers see a problem and fix it immediately. Those engineers will make design changes if necessary and make the next batch of planes more safe.


I know that both aircraft suffered long delays in production, but will this give Airbus an edge in the aircraft market?I highly doubt it. Boeing took a massive risk in the production of the 787, and it will payoff. Higher fuel prices will raise demand for a plane like the 787. Airbus, in my opinion, is now going to play catch-up to produce a plane similar to the 787.


Reading the article, it is actually quite scary how many issues the Dreamliner has had. Is this 'normal' in modern day design? Surely the plane would have been tested to the nth degree?I think what the FAA are doing is more of a CYA gesture to calm the public. I wouldn't be scared to fly in a 787, not in the least.

[driveace]

Is there only Thomsons in the UK who have the New Boing 787 Dreamliner,or have other British airline got then too?
I know aircraft engineers who tell me that when they find cracks in the body of aircraft,they drill a hole at each end of the crack to stop it cracking anymore

[Knock-on]

Is there only Thomsons in the UK who have the New Boing 787 Dreamliner,or have other British airline got then too?
I know aircraft engineers who tell me that when they find cracks in the body of aircraft,they drill a hole at each end of the crack to stop it cracking anymore

Think the Airbus is more popular.

It's no secret but I'm not a fan of this Aircraft and there's no logic to it apart from my concern about composites for this type of vehicle and that I think it's pig ugly. I spend half my life in 747's and 380's with no issue but I have never been in 787 and would be quite happy if it stays that way.

[ioan]

I know aircraft engineers who tell me that when they find cracks in the body of aircraft,they drill a hole at each end of the crack to stop it cracking anymore

A good short term solution as long as the hole is really drilled at the very end of the crack and the crack is really minimal.

[BDunnell]

I think what the FAA are doing is more of a CYA gesture to calm the public.

Well, I would normally think so too, but electrical problems — including an electrical fire, don't forget — do seem surprisingly prevalent given the small numbers of aircraft thus far in service.

[BDunnell]

Think the Airbus is more popular.

Which Airbus?



It's no secret but I'm not a fan of this Aircraft and there's no logic to it apart from my concern about composites for this type of vehicle and that I think it's pig ugly. I spend half my life in 747's and 380's with no issue but I have never been in 787 and would be quite happy if it stays that way.

I, by contrast, would have no such concerns based on the use of composites, and I also think the 787 is a strikingly elegant aeroplane.

[gloomyDAY]

Think the Airbus is more popular.I thought Boeing beat out Airbus in 2011.


It's no secret but I'm not a fan of this Aircraft and there's no logic to it apart from my concern about composites for this type of vehicle and that I think it's pig ugly. I spend half my life in 747's and 380's with no issue but I have never been in 787 and would be quite happy if it stays that way.No logic for a fuel-efficient plane? You may want to re-think that point. You may think it's ugly, but I think it looks sleek (like a killer whale) and pretty cool with the serrated engine nacelles.

Also, how can you have spent half your life in a A380? It's not even a decade old.


Well, I would normally think so too, but electrical problems — including an electrical fire, don't forget — do seem surprisingly prevalent given the small numbers of aircraft thus far in service.The batteries on the 787 are new, nickel-cadmium, and have never been placed on a previous airplane prior. I think it's just another part of the teething problems mentioned prior. I think that if the 747 were to be introduced today that the problems associated with that aircraft would have been blown out of proportion.

[BDunnell]

Is there only Thomsons in the UK who have the New Boing 787 Dreamliner,or have other British airline got then too?

Thomson is yet to take delivery. BA and Virgin have both ordered them too.

[ioan]

Also, how can you have spent half your life in a A380? It's not even a decade old.

Spend vs Spent, grammar is your friend! ;)

[Zico]

A good short term solution as long as the hole is really drilled at the very end of the crack and the crack is really minimal.

They also usually rivet a plate over the affected area to take over the loadings, redistributing them.

Hãng Pantech HÃ*n Qu?c tuy không l?n m?nh hon nhu các hãng di?n tho?i khác HÃ*n Qu?c nhung cung dã chi?m c?m tình m?t s? d?i tu?ng t?i Vi?t Nam v?i di?n tho?i Sky A760





Di?n tho?i Sky A760



Dòng di?n tho?i c?a hãng nÃ*y cho Sky A760 có c?u hình cao chip 1.5GHz Qualcomm Scorpion MSM8260, 2 nhân, Ram 1Gb b? nh? trong 16Gb có khe c?m th? nh? ngoÃ*i micro SD h? tr? th? lên t?i 32Gb mÃ*n hình siêu nét, ch?y Android 4.0 m?i nh?t mÃ* giá quá h?p d?n khi?n cho Sky A760 "b?" các fan công ngh? san lùng tìm ki?m kh?p noi. Tr? thÃ*nh d? tÃ*i nóng hon bao gi? h?t trên nh?ng di?n dÃ*n công ngh? Vi?t Nam, d?ng th?i tr? thÃ*nh hÃ*ng m?c tiêu san lùng c?a các b?n dam mê công ngh?.



Di?u d?c bi?t ? dòng di?n tho?i hÃ*n qu?c c?a hãng Pantech chÃ*nh lÃ* s? trang b? các tÃ*nh nang gi?i trÃ* cao c?p cùng dáng v? thanh m?nh nhung ch?c ch?n c?a sky A760 lôi cu?n m?i fan ngay t? cái nhìn d?u tiên. Dúng theo phong cách thi?t k? c?a hãng: Công ngh? vÃ* th?i trang luôn song hÃ*nh cùng nhau.


LIÊN H? MUA HÀNG T?I:

TRUNG TÂM DI?N THO?I HÀ N?I

Yahoo: dthanoi

Website: dienthoaihanoi.com

D?a ch?: 519 Kim Nguu, Hai BÃ* Trung, HÃ* N?i

Hotline: 046 680 6711

T? khóa: di?n tho?i sky A760, sky a760, dien thoai, di?n tho?i

[schmenke]

I can't remenber the last time I took a trip where I mounted a wide body.

Except for the time I visited MkBilly's missus...

[Knock-on]

Which Airbus?

Sorry, I should have made it more obvious that I was refering to the 380.



I, by contrast, would have no such concerns based on the use of composites, and I also think the 787 is a strikingly elegant aeroplane.

And I, as I have said, think not. Just opinion.

[Dave B]

Thomson is yet to take delivery. BA and Virgin have both ordered them too.
Thompson are going to town using the 787 in their advertising. I find this strange: does anybody really choose a holiday company based on the planes they use? If everything else was equal then maybe I'd prefer to go on an A380 than a knackered old 757, for example, but I'd be more concerned with the destination and value.

[Steve Boyd]

Thompson are going to town using the 787 in their advertising. I find this strange: does anybody really choose a holiday company based on the planes they use?
I doubt that aircraft type is the main factor in choosing a holiday but remember that one of Boeing's main selling points for the 787 is that the cabin pressure is higher than other airliners which is supposed to leave you less tired after a long flight. I suspect that Thompson's marketing people are just leveraging Boeing's marketing in their output.

[ioan]

Thompson are going to town using the 787 in their advertising. I find this strange: does anybody really choose a holiday company based on the planes they use? If everything else was equal then maybe I'd prefer to go on an A380 than a knackered old 757, for example, but I'd be more concerned with the destination and value.

There was a tragic AF flight some time ago where people chose their vacation because they were going to fly with the Concorde.

[BDunnell]

Thompson are going to town using the 787 in their advertising. I find this strange: does anybody really choose a holiday company based on the planes they use? If everything else was equal then maybe I'd prefer to go on an A380 than a knackered old 757, for example, but I'd be more concerned with the destination and value.

Well, it's something to differentiate them from the competition, which is always meant to be a 'good thing'.

[BDunnell]

There was a tragic AF flight some time ago where people chose their vacation because they were going to fly with the Concorde.

Concorde was always rather different, though, in that there were so few of them as to make specific charters based on the experience of flying on Concorde worthwhile commercially.

[Dave B]

Well, it's something to differentiate them from the competition, which is always meant to be a 'good thing'.
I suppose, but when you get there it's still going to be a mass-market hotel full of screaming kids, so any slight advantage you might have from a more comfy flight will be gone in minutes!

[BleAivano]

I thought Boeing beat out Airbus in 2011.




Not in 2011 but they did in 2012.

Competition between Airbus and Boeing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Orders_and_d eliveries)

However in 2012 at least two airlines (American Airlines and Norwegian Air Shuttle) that previoulsy had been
"Boeing exclusive" decided to put in orders for Airbus A32x NEO

While Boeing have a slight advantage in orders when it comes to 787 vs A350.
However Airbus have an advantage in orders when it comes to A320/neo vs. B737/NG/Max an A380 vs. B748i

[gloomyDAY]

All Boeing 787 Dreamliner jets in Japan grounded - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0116-japan-dreamliners-grounded-20130116,0,5608552.story)

[Big Ben]

I was expecting this to develop into a full blown war, mine is bigger than yours type, between boeing and airbus fanboys... but it's been pretty civilized so far...

There's plenty of innovations on this plane so I'm not surprised there are some issues, hopefully none of them will prove to be major problems.

On a different tune, as an aviation enthusiast, I would be willing take a trip if prices were reasonable just to check out this new aircraft. The one thing I really don't like about these new planes is the noise... I hear there's less. The engine roar of an airplane is just music too my ears.

[Mark]

Thompson are going to town using the 787 in their advertising. I find this strange: does anybody really choose a holiday company based on the planes they use? If everything else was equal then maybe I'd prefer to go on an A380 than a knackered old 757, for example, but I'd be more concerned with the destination and value.

Inded I have seen a lot of comments along the lines of "Oh I won't fly this place", "I'll choose to fly this plane", when IME most of the time you have no idea if you'll be on an A380 or a knackered turboprop until you're actually walking onto the thing.

[SGWilko]

noise... I hear there's less.

Less noise = less energy = more efficient.

[BleAivano]

Apparently FAA have grounded all B787 aircrafts in the USA and have recommended other countries to do the same,

since before ANA, JAL and Qatar Airways have grounded their 787's.



As a result of an in-flight, Boeing 787 battery incident earlier today in Japan, the FAA will issue an emergency airworthiness directive (AD)
to address a potential battery fire risk in the 787 and require operators to temporarily cease operations. Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered,
Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe.

The FAA will work with the manufacturer and carriers to develop a corrective action plan to allow
the U.S. 787 fleet to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible.

Press Release (http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14233)



I am not sure what to think of this. is it the batteries or the plane?

Apparently there is a Qatar 787 at LHR with a hydraulics problem.

[Mark]

Apparently there is a Qatar 787 at LHR with a hydraulics problem.

There may well be but we don't know how often planes have hydraulics problems so we can't say if this is related.

[BleAivano]

There may well be but we don't know how often planes have hydraulics problems so we can't say if this is related.

I agree and I don't think the hydraulics problems is related to the electric/battery problems. However I do find it a bit remarkable that a such new aircraft,
the aircraft in Question; A7-BCK (http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b787-38329.htm) is less 2 months old and have been in service for a week and a half, already have hydraulics problem.

[Mark]

Again; I would imagine a brand new aircraft may well have issues when it's only been in service for 2 weeks. These things aren't cars where you buy it and run it for the first year without any maintenance.

[BDunnell]

Again; I would imagine a brand new aircraft may well have issues when it's only been in service for 2 weeks.

This is true, and it's hard to ascertain the extent to which this grounding is born of modern-day caution — in the past, it was easier to keep such problems out of the public gaze, whereas now they are reported immediately and there then exists a need to mollify public opinion. However, a virtually fleet-wide grounding of an aircraft type is not something that's enforced lightly.

[SGWilko]

Again; I would imagine a brand new aircraft may well have issues when it's only been in service for 2 weeks. These things aren't cars where you buy it and run it for the first year without any maintenance.

I see and understand the logic - but a car, with respect, remains on the ground - but a plane carries many people and the chances of surviving a crash due to your electronics burning out because of unproven batteries are a lot worse than chances of surviving a car crash.....

The Dreamliner was already 3 years late, so every component should have been tested to the nth degree. Unless they are going to blame operational issues - as in it was the pilots fault for not turning dial 6, row 7, upper panel, LH bank on the co pilots side at half past the hour - then I'd siggest it is not really quite ready.........

[Mark]

No what I mean is that in general cars are more reliable simply because they are simpler and mass produced. Whereas aircraft are much more complex.

[Knock-on]

This is true, and it's hard to ascertain the extent to which this grounding is born of modern-day caution — in the past, it was easier to keep such problems out of the public gaze, whereas now they are reported immediately and there then exists a need to mollify public opinion.

It's hardly a knee jerk reaction to mollify public opinion. The last time they grounded a fleet was in 1979.




"The AD (airworthiness directive) is prompted by this second incident involving a lithium ion battery."

It said the battery failures resulted in the release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke, and the cause of the failures was under investigation.

"These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment," the FAA said.

When you have planes doing emergency landings with recurring, potentially fatal problems and Boeing incredibly claiming the planes are safe and they have full confidence in them, then I'm not just glad, but overjoyed and assured that the FAA have carpeted them.

Im sure Boeing will get these problem sorted out but their lackadaisical attitude in this matter perhaps explains why there have been so many issues in the first place.

[SGWilko]

Boeing incredibly claiming the planes are safe and they have full confidence in them

In fairness to Boeing, what else can they do - this is going to become a face saving exercise.

Airbus' new Dreamliner rival, which will use the same battery technology, will learn a lot from this no doubt.

[Knock-on]

They can say that there are some initial issues and that they are working hard with the Aviation authorities and clients to ensure they are fixed rather than try and waffle through it.

[BDunnell]

It's hardly a knee jerk reaction to mollify public opinion. The last time they grounded a fleet was in 1979.

You seem totally to have ignored the main thrust of my post. Times have changed since then, not least in terms of fears regarding potential liability. And, if you re-read my (quite brief) comments, you'll see that I added that a fleet-wide grounding of an entire type is not something that's done lightly.



When you have planes doing emergency landings with recurring, potentially fatal problems and Boeing incredibly claiming the planes are safe and they have full confidence in them, then I'm not just glad, but overjoyed and assured that the FAA have carpeted them.

The FAA hasn't 'carpeted them'. Completely the wrong word. There has been no criticism. The FAA investigation has barely started. Why not wait for the findings?



Im sure Boeing will get these problem sorted out but their lackadaisical attitude in this matter perhaps explains why there have been so many issues in the first place.

How do you know their attitude has been 'lackadaisical'? As I said, thus far we know very, very little. The investigations are yet to report.

[Knock-on]

You seem totally to have ignored the main thrust of my post. Times have changed since then, not least in terms of fears regarding potential liability. And, if you re-read my (quite brief) comments, you'll see that I added that a fleet-wide grounding of an entire type is not something that's done lightly.

I must have misunderstood the main thrust of your post because I understood it to say that you considered the FAA's decision to be over reaction to a result of modern day concern over safety and to mollify public opinion. However, the post I quoted suggests that there is a very real safety issue tht could result potentially in a crash.


The FAA hasn't 'carpeted them'. Completely the wrong word. There has been no criticism. The FAA investigation has barely started. Why not wait for the findings?

No, you are right. I used the wrong word by mistake. Please read it as Grounding instead.



How do you know their attitude has been 'lackadaisical'? As I said, thus far we know very, very little. The investigations are yet to report.

By what I have read from Boeing so far. I think their attitude from a Corporate PR perspective to be reckless. Behind the scenes I'm sure they're running about trying to solve these disperate problems but seem to exude a indifference publicly. If you know any different then please enlighten us.

[BDunnell]

I must have misunderstood the main thrust of your post because I understood it to say that you considered the FAA's decision to be over reaction to a result of modern day concern over safety and to mollify public opinion. However, the post I quoted suggests that there is a very real safety issue tht could result potentially in a crash.

I suggested it might be the case that, in the past, problems of a similar magnitude have not resulted in such a reaction on the grounds that, today, there exists a need to be seen to be doing something. It's certainly one perspective.



By what I have read from Boeing so far. I think their attitude from a Corporate PR perspective to be reckless. Behind the scenes I'm sure they're running about trying to solve these disperate problems but seem to exude a indifference publicly. If you know any different then please enlighten us.

What should they have done, then? Their stance to date might, by some, be seen as a sensible one — after all, why pander to those who like a good panic? I would prefer simple honesty, but we don't know what the honest response would be, do we?

In answer to your last point, those one encounters in the world of aviation tend very much to be of the view that safety is at all times utterly paramount. You don't get very far otherwise.

[SGWilko]

In answer to your last point, those one encounters in the world of aviation tend very much to be of the view that safety is at all times utterly paramount. You don't get very far otherwise.

Unless you happen to be the manufacturer of the DC10 and do nothing about unsafe doors, even after being suggested that would be a good idea, until three planes are lost along with everyone onboard that is.........

[BDunnell]

Unless you happen to be the manufacturer of the DC10 and do nothing about unsafe doors, even after being suggested that would be a good idea, until three planes are lost along with everyone onboard that is.........

I'm sure that two DC-10s suffered the cabin door problem, of which only one crashed; the other landed safely with just a few minor injuries. It was a design element that went wrong, certainly, but I believe that any suggestions of negligence, a lackadaisical attitude, or whatever, are unfounded.

And, when discussing aviation accidents, I can't stress too strongly the need to wait for the official report(s). Jumping to conclusions without the benefit of genuine knowledge is pointless.

[SGWilko]

I'm sure that two DC-10s suffered the cabin door problem, of which only one crashed; the other landed safely with just a few minor injuries. It was a design element that went wrong, certainly, but I believe that any suggestions of negligence, a lackadaisical attitude, or whatever, are unfounded.

And, when discussing aviation accidents, I can't stress too strongly the need to wait for the official report(s). Jumping to conclusions without the benefit of genuine knowledge is pointless.

Agreed.

I have no doubt that the hydraulic, brake and fuel issues are minor teething troubles in the grand scheme of things, and the press - as usual - are making them out to be major.

But the batteries issue is clearly not good - smoke in the cockpit, fire in the rear of the plane, and mishapen, leaking batteries are worrying.

With the upward trend in the cost of fuel, one has to applaud the likes of Boeing and Airbus in making lighter, more efficient planes. Lets hope they can sort it out quickly.

[BDunnell]

I have no doubt that the hydraulic, brake and fuel issues are minor teething troubles in the grand scheme of things, and the press - as usual - are making them out to be major.

But the batteries issue is clearly not good - smoke in the cockpit, fire in the rear of the plane, and mishapen, leaking batteries are worrying.

Well, as I think I said during my first post in this thread, there does appear to be a problem with the 787 more systematic than the teething troubles suffered by many new airliners. But I'd say the same of the problems with the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine as used on some operators' A380s, which caused the Qantas Flight 32 incident.

[Roamy]

Think the Airbus is more popular.

It's no secret but I'm not a fan of this Aircraft and there's no logic to it apart from my concern about composites for this type of vehicle and that I think it's pig ugly. I spend half my life in 747's and 380's with no issue but I have never been in 787 and would be quite happy if it stays that way.

Are you a Stewardess?

[Knock-on]

Are you a Stewardess?

Let me check Uncs. No, I haven't had my ass pinched repeatadly by fat Americans so guess I'm not :p

[SGWilko]

Let me check Uncs. No, I haven't had my ass pinched repeatadly by fat Americans so guess I'm not :p

How about a (smooth talking bar) steward then? ;)

[Knock-on]

The only mince I do is in my Chilli mate :D

[Roamy]

:p :
Let me check Uncs. No, I haven't had my ass pinched repeatadly by fat Americans so guess I'm not :p :p :

Ok fair enough so quite riding on the "Fat" airplane. - Delta - Thin is in :p :

[Roamy]

welll any time you have fire it makes the teething issues bad.. I am still suspect of having things built all over the world and then assembled. I am afraid down the road that will bite them in the ass severely. Hope not