Sterndogg

On the twitters from CNBC...

http://twitter.com/CNBC/status/288723085077663746

PHLyer82

Makes me really question why I booked 2 flights on the 787 in the next month. Probably should wait until all these issues are worked out.

CO_Nonrev_elite

Nice comments in the replies to the twitter feed in the original post. ...

avidflyer

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/l...logan-airport/


JAL and leaking fuel.

blueman2

Good gosh!!! The 787's are really hurting! I fly out tomorrow SFO to IAH on 787. Increases chances of it being sub'ed for a 757??

CDKing

I think its just a BOS curse. Two issues, two different planes, two different days on the same route

tuolumne

looks like Continental's decision to be the first to order a highly complex next generation composite airframe, then bank their international wide body lift on said aircraft (not ordering the required 777/767) and being pinched when delivery slipped, wasn't the wisest decision that could've been made. The first couple air frames are even overweight. Another PR disaster for Boeing and this aircraft.

mduell

Had this airframe already been inspected for the fuel tubing AD?

avidflyer

Not sure but Boeing stock is already taking a hit....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing...3Rpb25z;_ylv=3


This new incident wont help.

woodway

United finds improperly installed wiring on one of it's Dreamliners.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

(Sorry, WSJ is a pay site, maybe someone can find the article on a free site)

WineCountryUA

The first year for A380 was just as ugly -- engines spitting parts in flight, fleet groundings, .... (and Boeing making nasty comments -- which they may want to retract)

try http://www.slackpile.com/News/news/u...street-journal

or Google search "U.S. Opens Dreamliner Safety Probe"

EWR764

Only a clairvoyant could have anticipated all these issues in late 2004 when Continental first ordered the 787s. Still, in the meantime, they have ordered and taken delivery of 4 additional 777s. As to ordering more 767s, why take on the tremendous capital expense of buying new 767s that are made obsolete by airplanes already on order? I imagine it would be difficult to make the case for new 767s that are 20% less fuel-efficient than the 787s they would serve alongside for the next 20+ years.

These issues will not continue in perpetuity, and the result will give United an exceptionally modern, fuel-efficient fleet that positions them well vis-a-vis the competition. The obligatory Continental bash may be somewhat deserved in this case, but lest we forget United's static (actually, progressively reduced) widebody fleet from post-9/11 until the merger...

Red_Rob

That's why it's a [insert term here... Gamble, bold move, etc]. The bet could still pay off, and unlike Boeing it's not a bet the company type of risk.

It's not good news but neither is it the end of the world.

star_world

Almost can hear the hands being rubbed together in glee, but to add some facts / reality here:

- new aircraft models are almost always overweight: see this quote from UA in 1995 regarding their first 772s for example: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...t-happy-24291/

- CO didn't "bank their international wide body lift" on this aircraft. They ordered 777s an 767s - they just didn't continue to grow their wide body fleet after those orders. Whether or not that is seen as a problem is not something you have the ability to know. The reality is that the CO subsidiary of UA held one of the youngest fleets in the US. Do you have data that shows they could have added more wide body aircraft while aggressively replacing the shorthaul fleet and operated at responsible profit margins?

- the risk that UA is taking with this aircraft is a competitive advantage on some existing routes, where competitors are operating 767s, and growth into new markets. It's not going to kill them if there are some delays in orders - and any further material delays would appear to be quite unlikely anyway.

tuolumne

Not defending UAL Corp's austerity policies of their bankruptcy years, but ordering the 787 when they did got them a favorable financial arrangement. But they weren't desperately short of wide body frames, and could therefore hold out longer than CO, who clearly mishandled their international fleet situation. Thry expanded in a way that could simply not be supported by their then limited widebody resources. They never ordered enough 777s (less than half of UA/AA), and the result was them pushing 757s onto routes that could clearly support larger equipment, think NY-London.