Originally Posted by
zrs70
Wow!! Just flew the 787 NRT-LAX. Arrived this morning, Jan 16. As I posted in another thread, our flight went back to gate after push back because of "electrical issues." We left 2 hours late, but we left.
So was I. I was in 4E. Where were you?
Originally Posted by
channa
Perfect example of government regulators stepping in as appropriate.
While some companies managed to self-regulate and work to address the problem without government intervention (JL, NH), other companies chose to continue operating the plane until required by authorities to cease (UA).
Get real. Government
anything is incompetent, slow, and overly expensive. It is inexcusable that JL and NH grounded their fleets before the FAA did anything.
Originally Posted by
EWR764
United can only determine compliance with FAA standards, and until the FAA's decision to issue an emergency AD an hour ago, United's 787s were. Keep in mind that NH and JL 787s have each been involved in a serious battery-related event within the last week or so. There's far more egg on their faces, and perhaps to get ahead of a passenger uproar, they decided to preemptively ground their fleet until further notice. United, on the other hand, continued to safely operate their FAA-certificated 787s until the AD required them to stand down.
UA must comply with FAA regulations, but those are a
minimum standard. UA can certainly go beyond those standards if it chooses to do so. It just chose not to.
Originally Posted by
76Patriots
(1)This is a brand new generation of plane. (2) It has been in commercial service for a brief time. (3) 'Issues' with new generation of large commercial aircraft are not uncommon. (4) Not one single person has been injured by any issue on the 787. (5) The media is unreliable in terms of their reporting accuracy. (6) The track record of a government agency making a decision based on sound logic is iffy at best. (7) Anyone who thought the 787 would take off and be a perfect machine from its beginning suffers from pie in the sky thinking.
Relax, few outside of Boeing and the specific airlines knows how significant the issue(s) is. Sure, it could require a significant reengineering......yet likely this is a semi routine breaking in issue that will be resolved promptly. Again, not one person has been injured and my best guess is no one was ever in danger.
Perhaps pure luck no one has been injured (other than in an NH evacuation).
My biggest issue is granting ETOPS approval to an aircraft based on computer simulations and primary test data.
That is foolhardy government action at its finest (no doubt prompted by Boeing lobbyists).
Originally Posted by
dgdevil
More to the point: You arrived!
And if we hadn't? This is not supposed to be a game of chance.
We arrived at LAX two hours late, my connecting flight to San Diego had already departed, and there was not another empty seat to SAN until the next day. I was therefore able to enjoy a shared ride-van down to San Diego, courtesy of UA.
On a paid business class ticket, I was not impressed (although how UA handles irrops is a topic for another thread).
Originally Posted by
bse118
As the one that originally brought up the saving face issue, I think I ought to respond to this. At the news conference following the latest ANA incident, ANA's VP "bowed deeply in apology" according to multiple news reports. I can't see SMI. J doing something like that. There's clearly rationale in JAL/ANA's actions that is not as prevalent in UA's. That's all I was saying.
Smisek and United are not Japanese. I would not expect them to comport with cultural norms in Japan.
Doubt you would want to discuss the sincerity of that "apology" by the NH VP . . .
Apologies are very easy to obtain in Japan, and worth as much.
Originally Posted by
craz
NRT-LAX ANA uses its 777-300ER, did they use the 787 to any US city?
No.
Originally Posted by
craz
I dont know of a single crew member from the cabin or cockpit that would take any bird up that they knew wasnt so called safe. I also expect that they rely on others who tell them its AOK to take the bird up.
Issue is that safety is not a black or white question. It is shades of gray. In my experience, crews are far too willing to take aircraft up simply because ground personnel tell them is ok.
Easiest example is the BA 744 that blew an engine on take-off out of SFO and nevertheless decided to fly to LHR on three engines, at night, because personnel on the ground told them it was ok. Even though they ran short of fuel and had to land in, I believe, Ireland.
Originally Posted by
uastarflyer
And keep all your cramped 787s in Houston.
Independent of the mechanical issues, I was not impressed with the 787 over 777s and 744s. That said, I did not find it cramped.
But, then again, I was in business class.
Originally Posted by
SFflyer123
It's not safe to fly; that's why it was grounded.
I don't know why everybody keeps saying the B787 is safe to fly. The FAA is not stupid. It's a big deal for the FAA to ground an entire type of plane.
The FAA is not stupid? The U.S. FAA?
I do not share your opinion.
Why did the FAA wait so long? Why did the FAA grant ETOPS certification ab initio? I'll give you a choice: 1) They are stupid; 2) They are corrupt; 3) They are both.