Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

Are you comfortable flying the 787?

Are you comfortable flying the 787?

Old Jan 16, 13, 12:06 pm
  #31  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 32,726
Originally Posted by mtndave47 View Post
I wonder if its really the battery due to the faulty electrical power panel which caught on fire in the test flight and wiring issues, that can cause irregular voltage to the batteries. Originally, I was hesitant to fly this bird then booked an award NH flight SEA-NRT in June but these incidents are making me nervous.
Good point, the problem may be faulty electrical that trashes the batteries. I still wouldn't hesitate to fly the plane.
chollie is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 12:09 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: MediHealthInsight
Programs: Delta Silver Medallion, United Gold, US Airways silver
Posts: 1,605
Increased chances for an upgrade?

Wife is nervous and wants me to re-book, but I am ok. Hoping for light booking on UA 58 on 3/17 so I will get an upgrade to BF - on the waiting list (as usual...). Last few times, the upgrade has not cleared.
remedy is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 12:12 pm
  #33  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 32,726
Originally Posted by DC777Fan View Post
Ah, OK, so you meant outsourcing in general--as in the components of the plane. I thought that by saying that they should've kept all manufacturing in Seattle that you were saying opening a new plant in SC was to blame. Apologies.
I can never keep track of the new versions of an existing model, but Boeing did make a decision a while back to reverse course.

The 787 was deliberately planned as a distributed, global effort - part of a larger move to reduce the US Boeing footprint to engineers and assembly plants (large component assembly - fuselage, wings, etc.) This was expected to result in significant savings (qualified, experience machinists, for example, are expensive, and Boeing hoped to get out of manufacturing entirely and focus on design and final assembly).

A lot more work is being brought back to the US/in house for the new models of existing planes as a result of the problems with the 787 that caused so many of the delays and rework.
chollie is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 1:23 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 135


Heres what went where. I have no idea where they outsourced the electronic components.
NFeldberg is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 2:55 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Programs: Airpoints, Aeroplan
Posts: 48
I think it is funny that the Japanese air carriers are reporting most of the issues and had the most incidents while United only had about 2 diversions.
But taking with a grain of salt, most of the United 787s are domestic routes as well as United's distance from Boeing headquarters, which moved to Chicago and not too far from manufacturing in Washington State. So issues can be easily fixed because of proximity.
I would fly domestically on a 787, but since when do I even fly domestically? I haven't been on a domestic flight since my sophomore year of high school (and I am currently a junior in college!), but not so much international. I do only fly to Sydney, AU and currently no 787 is operated on any Sydney routes in the United States.
NFeldburg- great diagram, now I don't have to get my operations management textbook to talk about the components! (Saw it in there while reading my book.)
I forgot the engine issues in the Rolls Royce during the A380 hoo-ha. And yes, every plane will have major issues that will be ironed out.
prncssjenn is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 3:40 pm
  #36  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 48,877
I flew a JAL 787 a couple months ago and was terribly uncomfortable. They could make the plane out of solid gold, but a seat with 31" pitch is still a seat with 31" pitch.

Safety concerns? No. None of these minors issues bothers me. As someone else upthread suggests, I might have a minor concern about swaps or delays on any new airframe.

One of these days, I'd love to fly the plane in J and be comfortable enough to actually enjoy the larger windows, newest IFE offerings, probably better food, etc.
pinniped is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 3:58 pm
  #37  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 33,379
Originally Posted by pinniped View Post
I flew a JAL 787 a couple months ago and was terribly uncomfortable. They could make the plane out of solid gold, but a seat with 31" pitch is still a seat with 31" pitch.

Safety concerns? No. None of these minors issues bothers me. As someone else upthread suggests, I might have a minor concern about swaps or delays on any new airframe.

One of these days, I'd love to fly the plane in J and be comfortable enough to actually enjoy the larger windows, newest IFE offerings, probably better food, etc.
I flew it in J (NRT-BOS), and it still wasn't all that comfortable (angled seats).
moondog is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 7:37 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AA DULtArer
Posts: 5,525
FAA grounded all 787s this evening.
LaserSailor is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 10:42 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Programs: United 1K, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by LaserSailor View Post
FAA grounded all 787s this evening.
Domestic carriers (UA). They don't have authority elsewhere.
KurtVH is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 10:56 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ATL/LAX
Posts: 4,875
Originally Posted by KurtVH View Post
Domestic carriers (UA). They don't have authority elsewhere.
I thought they also have jurisdiction over foreign carriers flying routes that touch the US ...? Or am I thinking of other aviation regulatory bodies?
amolkold is offline  
Old Jan 16, 13, 11:21 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Programs: United 1K, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by amolkold View Post
I thought they also have jurisdiction over foreign carriers flying routes that touch the US ...? Or am I thinking of other aviation regulatory bodies?
I don't think so but don't know for sure. However, I think many/most/maybe all foreign carriers do/will follow the FAAs lead, so it's probably moot anyway.

Last edited by KurtVH; Jan 20, 13 at 9:54 am
KurtVH is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 12:03 am
  #42  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: PER
Programs: BA Gold, IC Plat Ambassador, HH Diamond
Posts: 775
I just booked JAL SIN-NRT-ORD in J, I honestly thought it was a 767 on the SIN-NRT route as it had been for a long time but noticed it's a 787 after I booked.

Not worried enough to make me change my flight; I guess I'm more interested to fly on a 787 at the moment, assuming the JAL 787s are back in the air by March when I'm due to fly.
jozdemir is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 12:29 am
  #43  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, AA Advantage
Posts: 5,983
I wouldn't hesitate to fly a 787. My only worry is a potential equipment sub.
CubsFanJohn is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 1:17 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YVR, HNL
Programs: AS MVPG, UA peon, BA Bronze, Marriott Gold, HH Diamond, Fairmont Plat (RIP)
Posts: 6,097
Originally Posted by KurtVH View Post
Domestic carriers (UA). They don't have authority elsewhere.
It was expanded tonight to include Europe, Japan and India as well. From Reuters:

"(Reuters) - Europe, Japan and India joined the United States in grounding Boeing Co's 787, a day after a second incident involving battery failure caused one of the Dreamliner passenger jets to make an emergency landing.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said on Wednesday it would temporarily ground Boeing's newest commercial airliner and insisted airlines would have to demonstrate the lithium ion batteries were safe before they could resume flying. It gave no details on when that might happen."
Finkface is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 1:44 am
  #45  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,024
Originally Posted by KurtVH View Post
Domestic carriers (UA). They don't have authority elsewhere.
It would appear they do.

"When the FAA issues an airworthiness directive civil aviation and airlines around the world have to follow the FAA airworthiness directive, particularly in regards to the 787 because it a US-designed and developed aircraft," he told the BBC
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21054089
ft101 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: