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

Are you comfortable flying the 787?

Are you comfortable flying the 787?

Old Jan 17, 13, 2:26 am
  #46  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Moscow / Aylesbury / Leeds
Programs: BA-GGL, SU-G Agean, G,, Hhonours D, Starwood G, IHG G,
Posts: 1,531
Originally Posted by prncssjenn View Post
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.
Why funny? It is pretty obvious why the Japenese 787's face issues UA dont. They were the first ones delivered and have flown many many more miles than UA who only have had a few short months and have only just started use on LH

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.
Behindthecurtain is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 7:00 am
  #47  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5
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
SMabille is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 7:18 am
  #48  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Singapore, Warsaw, Surfers Paradise
Programs: KrisFlyer Gold>>>Silver>>>Blue, Finnair Silver, Royal Caribbean Diamond
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by KurtVH View Post
Domestic carriers (UA). They don't have authority elsewhere.
Funny how just UA has the Dreamliner out of all US carriers. Smart thinking to wait and let others deal with the hassle before things (eventually) get ironed out...
aster is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 7:28 am
  #49  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 26
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.
gill2610 is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 7:41 am
  #50  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by prncssjenn View Post
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.
This post is nonsensical.

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?
Flubber2012 is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 8:47 am
  #51  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,784
Originally Posted by gill2610 View Post
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.
Yeah, they're just falling out of the sky left and right... There have been, what, 500 deaths so far?
brendog is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 9:28 am
  #52  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: LGB/SJC
Programs: UA, B6, SPG, Avis, Hertz
Posts: 88
ET grounded about 30 minutes ago. All 787s worldwide in airline service are now grounded.
Oeste is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 9:47 am
  #53  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London, England.
Programs: BA
Posts: 7,941
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.
WHBM is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 10:16 am
  #54  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: LGB/SJC
Programs: UA, B6, SPG, Avis, Hertz
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
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.
True, but jet fuel would also have to be categorized as dangerous goods if you wanted to air freight it somewhere. It's hard to safely store energy in a totally inert fashion.

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.

Last edited by Oeste; Jan 17, 13 at 10:45 am
Oeste is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 10:56 am
  #55  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Singapore, Warsaw, Surfers Paradise
Programs: KrisFlyer Gold>>>Silver>>>Blue, Finnair Silver, Royal Caribbean Diamond
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
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.
That UPS plane went down due to a fire started by batteries it was carrying as cargo?
aster is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 11:01 am
  #56  
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: 48,939
Originally Posted by Flubber2012 View Post
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?
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.
pinniped is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 11:54 am
  #57  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London, England.
Programs: BA
Posts: 7,941
Originally Posted by aster View Post
That UPS plane went down due to a fire started by batteries it was carrying as cargo?
Yes.

http://avherald.com/h?article=431f0863&opt=0
WHBM is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 12:02 pm
  #58  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by pinniped View Post
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.
Flubber2012 is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 12:17 pm
  #59  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Singapore, Warsaw, Surfers Paradise
Programs: KrisFlyer Gold>>>Silver>>>Blue, Finnair Silver, Royal Caribbean Diamond
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
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?
aster is offline  
Old Jan 17, 13, 4:27 pm
  #60  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London, England.
Programs: BA
Posts: 7,941
Originally Posted by aster View Post
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?
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-n...ai-plane-crash
WHBM is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: