Originally Posted by opus99

I’ve heard that too. That the 787 is not as robust as the 777 and 747. Definitely has a higher propensity to need more TLC.

I don’t know why the 787s in general are built so badly. I do enjoy flying on the -10.

Why was Boeings proposal rejected to put the crew bunks? Most airlines that have the -10 have crew bunks on them already. Or is it with respect to BA specifically ?

Originally Posted by 13901

Part of me hopes that the 350 gets more order, even with this idiotic galley setup it's a joy to fly on in my experience (many flights in all cabins). Part of me is doubtful, though. A lot of the surrounding infrastructure (sims, ground equipment, engineering equipment) is tailored around a fleet of just 18 frames, and more "kit" would need to be bought. In the example of the 787s, additional resilience was built in to enable the fleet to grow, and movements were happening already ahead of the announcement of the 6 extra birds. On the 350 front it's all quiet. I might be getting it wrong, or pointing my ears in the wrong direction, which I hope to, but so far..nothing. I just can't wrap my head around the reason why this is the case. One of the reasons perhaps is that in the US the 350 is seen as a bit of a question mark by handlers, but there's got to be more than that.



I should caveat that I have no official stats, and a lot of this is either hearsay, anecdotal or otherwise non-scientific. It's efficient, sure, a bit like its little brothers. Two-figures improvement versus a similarly-specced 77E on a similar mission. Hard to compare it with the 350, obviously, though the 350 I hear has a lower burn per equivalent seat compared to a 787-9 in certain situations.

What is emerging, though, is that the 787-10 is just badly built. Things keep on going wrong when they shouldn't, it just doesn't feel as "rugged" as the 747 and 777s were. I've been on one of the latest to arrive in the fleet where the insulating foam between the two layers in the windows was applied so badly that it was swerving all over the edges. That's not a quality input. I've been sworn to secrecy, but some stories I heard from pilots and engineers involved in the delivery are, well, remarkable and not in a good sense. I'm glad that the BA colleagues go to Charleston with a view of not trusting the company at all and take all the time it takes. I just don't see those birds being as long-lived as some other Boeing products, frankly. A senior pilot said that the Jumbo was a Land Cruiser, and the -10 is a 1980s Lancia.

Crew loathe them, but that's another matter, and has to do more with the layout than the plane itself. Cramped, ill-thought through. The so-called "high comfort seat" at the back is particularly a joke. My OH, whenever she flies on one, has to complete some report to raise the fact that one of her crew has been bumped/hit/bothered by the traffic by the seat. Basically it's normal to be bumped by passengers or other crews. The new ones will have cabin crew bunks, though I hear that Boeing's proposal has been rejected.

Originally Posted by 13901

They're built badly because Boeing's bad at building them, that's basically it. The fact that they have a badly-implemented safety management system, or that it's not linked with its QA system, says a lot. Allowing personalised tools is shocking example. The insight into missing paperwork on the door plug, or the fact that they bypassed inspections on the 787 line. But I'd like to quote a colleague who did delivery flights, though not directly. He said that Airbus' assembly lines are like an operating theatre: gleaming, immaculate, precise. He then said that once he went to Boeing at Charleston and saw a mechanic hammering some bolts in by using the blunt bit of a power drill. Kinda says it all.

The bunks thing regards the cabin crew bunks (flight crew have them), but I'm not sure as to what the issue is. I think in the end they might just go with a 787-9 style bunks. Why this isn't the default, I don't know. We shall see.

Originally Posted by opus99

I don’t know why the 787s in general are built so badly. I do enjoy flying on the -10.

Originally Posted by zaphod424

I agree, I do wish that BA had bought more into the A350 program instead of the 787, with both the A350-900 and -1000, and given the build quality issues, delays and fact that as you say the 787s are unlikely to last as long as other types, I'm betting that BA management are kicking themselves over that as well.

The 787 is also awkwardly sized, it's too wide for 8 abreast economy, but too narrow for 9, so airlines queeze in 9 seats resulting in a very narrow and uncomfortable seat. So much so that it's often advisable to completely avoid the 787 wherever possible if flying in Y. The A350 on the other hand is the right width for 9 abreast seating, and so is great to fly in in all cabins.

But what's done is done, and BA invested in more of the 787s. Even so, would still like to see them ordering more 350s going forward.

Originally Posted by opus99

I don’t blame them for investing more in the 787. you look at it from a bottom line perspective it has everything going for it.

Add that to the fact that almost every airline on the planet has one now. In terms of popularity it’s like the 321neo of widebodies

it’s now the best selling widebody of all time. The airlines are addicted to it.

I understand it but I also don’t because it has caused them so many problems too. From delays to operational issues, but they keep going bac

Originally Posted by zaphod424

Oh I fully understand why BA went for the 787 at the time, and BA were always going to order both, it was just the quantities of each that was in question, and they chose to order more 787s. I'm just saying that it's a shame they didn't order more A350s and make that the backbone of their fleet like SQ, CX, QR etc, but alas hindsight is 20/20.

Originally Posted by BearX220

When my son was learning to fly at PAE (Everett) circa 2009-12 he would taxi his Cessna 152 out to the runway past a disconsolate, moldering lineup of unwanted, engineless early 787s -- the "terrible teens," they were called, because they were production #'s 10-20, painted for carriers like Royal Air Maroc, but were so intrinsically flawed their customers had refused delivery and Boeing didn't know what to do about them. So they squatted in the Seattle rain, literally gathering moss and mildew, mostly concealed from public vantage points. Some, I understand, were quietly sold to less discriminating new buyers, maybe third-world cargo operators, at outrageous, fire-sale discounts. Such was the state of the 787 program in those days. It is difficult to believe those examples were so atrocious they were unsellable, but subsequent planes, delivered not too much later to BA and other customers, were suddenly perfect.

Originally Posted by World Traveller Fuss

Are the 18 options still alive for the A350?

Originally Posted by opus99

I don’t blame them for investing more in the 787. you look at it from a bottom line perspective it has everything going for it.

Add that to the fact that almost every airline on the planet has one now. In terms of popularity it’s like the 321neo of widebodies

it’s now the best selling widebody of all time. The airlines are addicted to it.

I understand it but I also don’t because it has caused them so many problems too. From delays to operational issues, but they keep going bac