beckoa

Wirelessly posted (beckoa's BB: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9810; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.11+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.1.0.694 Mobile Safari/534.11+)

Sad to see Boeing miss out- but glad to hear they have a strong demand.

TWA Fan 1

While it is certainly true that the computer essentially always flies the plane in the Airbus design, I don't think the investigations for the above two incidents (both of which occurred in France) concluded that the basic design of the computer controlling flight commands was at fault.

1. Air Inter 148. This occurred in 1992 and the BEA (the French government agency charged with investigating aircraft incidents) concluded that the pilots misunderstood the layout of the autopilot display, leaving it in vertical speed mode instead of flight path angle mode.

While this design sounds likely to cause an erroneous input, this wasn't so much a computer malfunction as much as a confusing design that led to pilot error.

The layout of the autopilot was subsequently redesigned.

2. XL Airways Germany 888. This occurred during a routine test flight as this a/c belonged to Air New Zealand and was about to be leased by XL Airways Germany.

The primary cause for this accident, as concluded by the BEA, was malfunctioning pitot tubes (similar to what is believed to have happened to AF 447 and Aeroperu 663). The BEA's report states that incorrect maintenance procedures allowed water to remain in the pitot tubes which then froze at altitude and then resulted in improper data transmitted to the flight deck.

And yes, in this case, I think it would be fair to say that the computer was the one which crashed the plane. But the fact of the matter is that in a Boeing flight deck, it is not clear, with vastly incorrect flight data, that human pilots would have done any differently.

Indelaware

While Washington accounts for a whopping 48% of Boeing employees and there is not much in Illinois, we should remember that California and Missouri have significantly more Boeing employees than does South Carolina.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/aboutus...ent_table.page


While there are indeed many on FT who like J, the vast majority of the flying public consider the entire F/J cabins a waste of space - we laugh at those willing to "waste" $$ or miles simply to have a bigger seat and fancier food; what ego.

benmacd

Interesting how you only answer 1 out of the 2 questions I asked. Let me ask the 2nd one again in case you missed it:

How many planes have crashed due to pilot error? (Hint: it's more than 2)

Dieuwer

Three-aisle access? 1-2-2-1?
Or you could do mix-and-match:

1-2-1
2-2-2
1-2-1
2-2-2
...

Orcair

This may have already been answered but like the 777s (which are nearly 1ft wider) 1-2-1 is definitely possible. Passengers get extra length as the seats can be wider, as they extend further into the aisle (reverse herringbone), which makes for a longer seat.

readywhenyouare

Did I really need to answer that? Hell, Pan Am pilots alone killed hundreds of not thousands of passengers. Humans make mistakes, that will never change. That doesn't mean I'll be getting on a plane with no pilots. Computers are only as good as their operators and designers.

mdb

Hahaha - sorry for you sitting in the back....

N830MH

I think they will have 1-2-1.

sch7458

I profoundly doubt his qualification for eligible comments. Those are only enough for smalltalks, since they're not objective at all. It based solely on opinion and is therefore misleading, especially for aerospace engineers & aviation professionals.

DL2SXM

At first I thought that due to the extra wide fuselage of the 350, that Delta might consider squeezing in an extra seat or two in J and go with 2-2-2 but now that I think about it, as mentioned above, the 777 has 1 foot over other delta wide body jets and they have a 1-2-1 config. I seriously doubt that Delta will eliminate direct aisle access. Its a significant marketing tool that has probably helped them garner all that extra corporate and travel business.

Dawgfan6291

While planes use plastic no plane (or no commercial plane) has used a composite fuselage like the 787 and A350. That is a much bigger step than Li-Ion battery.

and Also I don't believe the Li-Ion bats are replacing the roll of the IDG or APU. the bats are used to start the APU that starts the engine. Just like in your car, one the engine is running the battery is basically just there. It electrical power is coming from the generator(Alternator)
I understand you like Boeing and I'm not saying you are wrong for doing so. I prefer flying in a Boeing myself.

but some of your reason why to like Boeing over Airbus have been false. That is all I am pointing out.
the 787 isn't the only plane to use Li-Ion bats. Some small types also use them, but as I said Airbus will be using them in the A350 also. The first few frames will come with NiCad but will be switched to Li-Ion in 2016. All the Delta jets will come from the factory with Li-Ion
Nothing Boeing can do here. Delta wanted 787s in 2016/2017....Boeing couldn't do it. Airbus could. Thats just how it happens sometimes.

No one at Boeing is going to be pissed about the 787 being sold out......
For the most part it came down to when can they get it. With the 744s on the way out Delta needed something in 2017. All Boeing could offer was 777s.....So Delta went A350.

and For what its worth Delta wanted the 789.

TWA Fan 1

Clearly, the 787 project is the first large commercial airliner to used a preponderance of composites in the fuselage and wing, but it's a technology that goes back to the 70's.

What's innovative about the electrical system is not that APU or generator are replaced, but namely that the role of electric power is much greater, versus hydraulic or bleed-air control. Electric power controls virtually every system in the a/c, which is one of main reasons it has six generators.

This is a radical departure from previous a/c design and one that is primarily intended to save weight.

As far as the batteries, even when the 787 was being designed there were newer, safer, more reliable Li-ion batteries available, but Boeing chose to go with the GS Yuasa model.

To my knowledge Boeing has never provided a conclusive official reason for this choice, but allegations have been made that the Japanese manufacturer provided some deep incentives (let's not forget that the project was very delayed and significantly over budget).

Also, it is believed that a Japanese company was selected as the battery vendor in recognition of the fact that Japanese carriers were highly loyal to Boeing (until very recently, in fact, JAL had never ordered an Airbus product).

While Boeing could have gone with clearly safer Ni-Cad batteries, these would have been heavier and thus reduced the Boeing's operational cost advantages.

The A-350 has a much more conventional electrical system and uses a pneumatic system.

DL2SXM

I don't know about you all, but I am excited to soon be flying on a brand new wide body jet and not some refurbished, old rickety 767,777,747. I would have preferred Boeing myself but hey, at the end of the day, this is exiting times for Delta and the FF community.

BearX220

I don't "laugh" at those who sit up front because they choose to buy themselves some more comfort with money or miles. I feel a little differently about those delicate orchids who claim they "must" fly J or better because economy class will damage or kill them.

That's not very gracious. Others have been nice to you.