|
Originally Posted by prncssjenn
(Post 20060983)
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! :D (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. Go back in history and you see similar patterns on 747, 380 all the way back to DC 10 (cant remember beyond that). First/heaviest users get problems first. |
Qatar grounded too: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/18062449.cms
Apparently yesterday QR076 (A7-BCK) cancellation (LHR-DOH) was not related to the grounding of the fleet but due to hydraulic system issue... Booked for end of March :-( Would be more comfortable flying 787 than old a330/a340... C on the 787 is comparable to F on the a330/a340. If I'm lucky I get transferred on a 777. GS Yuasa (the battery manufacturer) estimated that grounding might be months long: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ery-probe.html |
Originally Posted by KurtVH
(Post 20063937)
Domestic carriers (UA). They don't have authority elsewhere.
|
I only hope that Qatar who have grounded all their 787 dreamliners dont put them back in service before I fly back from PER - LHR at the beginning of March, as I am booked on the 787 for both legs of my journey.
I am more than nervous to fly on one. |
Originally Posted by prncssjenn
(Post 20060983)
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! :D (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. 1. I believe that UA only had one diversion, Flight 1146. 2. The Japanese airlines have the most 787s and have been flying them longer than UA. That they have experienced more problems is totally logical and predictable...it's not peculiar or funny. 3. "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." These sentences are almost incomprehensible. Do you mean that, because Chicago is close to Chicago (both Boeing and UA are headquartered in Chicago), a UA 787 has less chance of catching fire than a JAL or LOT 787? That makes no sense whatsoever. 4. Could you explain why you would fly a 787 domestically (by implication not internationally)? Does being over US airspace mitigate the risks of an incident? Is a 787 less likely to catch fire when flying from Houston to LA than from Houston to Toronto? |
Originally Posted by gill2610
(Post 20065527)
I only hope that Qatar who have grounded all their 787 dreamliners dont put them back in service before I fly back from PER - LHR at the beginning of March, as I am booked on the 787 for both legs of my journey.
I am more than nervous to fly on one. |
ET grounded about 30 minutes ago. All 787s worldwide in airline service are now grounded.
|
There are very few who seem to have been aware that the 787 had installed Lithium-ion batteries on the aircraft, and in particular leading-edge high power ones, given that when shipped even as freight they have to be sent categorised as dangerous goods - this after multiple in-flight uncontrollable fires, and in particular the loss of the UPS 747 freighter at Dubai.
|
Originally Posted by WHBM
(Post 20066616)
There are very few who seem to have been aware that the 787 had installed Lithium-ion batteries on the aircraft, and in particular leading-edge high power ones, given that when shipped even as freight they have to be sent categorised as dangerous goods - this after multiple in-flight uncontrollable fires, and in particular the loss of the UPS 747 freighter at Dubai.
I'm more surprised that we're seeing these sorts of issues with the batteries precisely because of that - I would have thought that risk management at Boeing would have wanted to test those battery units much more heavily than other systems on the plane because of the novelty and prior incidents when transported as cargo. |
Originally Posted by WHBM
(Post 20066616)
There are very few who seem to have been aware that the 787 had installed Lithium-ion batteries on the aircraft, and in particular leading-edge high power ones, given that when shipped even as freight they have to be sent categorised as dangerous goods - this after multiple in-flight uncontrollable fires, and in particular the loss of the UPS 747 freighter at Dubai.
|
Originally Posted by Flubber2012
(Post 20065592)
4. Could you explain why you would fly a 787 domestically (by implication not internationally)? Does being over US airspace mitigate the risks of an incident? Is a 787 less likely to catch fire when flying from Houston to LA than from Houston to Toronto?
|
Originally Posted by aster
(Post 20067283)
That UPS plane went down due to a fire started by batteries it was carrying as cargo?
http://avherald.com/h?article=431f0863&opt=0 |
Originally Posted by pinniped
(Post 20067309)
No, the chances of a fire are equally likely, but in the U.S. the flight could easily divert to Meigs Field so somebody at Boeing HQ could put out the fire. :p
|
|
Originally Posted by aster
(Post 20068081)
It mentiones that a fire in the cockpit caused the crash, but was this caused by a massive fire that spread from the cargohold area and engulfed the entire plane?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:32 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.