From the same article and referencing the FAA: "The authority added that it had alerted the international aviation community of its airworthiness directive, so that other authorities could take parallel action to cover the fleets operating in their countries."

The quote you pasted was from an air industry writer. I think he meant "have to" in the sense that they didn't have any choice from a prudence/PR perspective. Not that the FAA had some sort of legal authority.

i told my french wife what you say and she laugh at you

I'm booked on a United 787 flight on 3 February. I paid a bit more so I could go on a 787. Now it looks like it may be replaced with another plane. Any suggestions?

Put it down to experience and maybe a stroke of fortune. Without the grounding order, you could have been on the one that a battery explosion finally brought down ;)

The 787's being given an hour on NPR's "On Point" talk show (now and then to be available as a podcast).

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/24/boeing

...with guest representatives Richard Aboulafia of "The Teal Group", Matthew Wald of the New York Times, and Dominic Gates of the Seattle Times.

They mention that 50 of the planes were built before it was put into service, and that there was "a lightning strike problem" (since solved).

this guy is a real hitter, and knows a lot about batteries:

Dr. Olaf Wollersheim:

Quote:
»Im Moment bin ich mir nicht sicher, ob die Lithium-Kobalt-Dioxid-Technik für Flugzeuge überhaupt geeignet ist. Ich würde derzeit nicht in ein Flugzeug einsteigen, in dem solche Batterien arbeiten.«
»Den Schaden zu beheben, könnte lange dauern« – elektroniknet

Basicly he is saying, he is not sure if Li-Cobalt batteries are appropiate for airplanes and (up to now) he wouldn't enter an airplane with this kind of batteries.

these guys are real pilots and tech guys in big airplanes.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...unds-787s.html

I would not get in one until they sort out the problem with the batteries.

What time is it going to be aired?

I'm sorry if I didn't communicate well. It was on at that time this morning, and is now available as a podcast via the On Point link. It'll air again this evening in Boston, but it's probably more effective to chase it down on the web.

By the way, ensuing news reports suggest that this is going to be weeks, rather than days.

It took two issues - the hydraulics and the cockpit wiring - to sink the MD-11. And its era was before Boeing got the regulators to end the requirement for > two engines to cross the ponds. Which rather upped the safety ante.

To this thread title's question, can the "Gamechanger" stand a second problem, and still have the regulators - and us - comfortable to cross the ponds?

the first thread in this series worried me. this one creates question as to "what is boeing doing"

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/50569...-chargers.html

at the moment, as far as i am concerned, the 787 is unsafe at any speed. i do not think the fix is really major, but boeing will have to really explain their repairs.

Dreamliner Update: NTSB Finds Short-Circuiting in Boeing Dreamliner Battery, Probe Co
 

I've been following the Dreamliner probe closely (for many reasons including my previous 787 trips and my cancelled LOT launch flight a week ago). (I've also been driving my news writers nuts in terms of our coverage of the issues for that matter.)

It looks as if the investigation will take far longer than expected.

NTSB Finds Short-Circuiting in Boeing Dreamliner Battery, Probe Could Be Lengthy

Amazing
 

Amazing that a great company like Boeing could not get this right. Beyond belied.

Innovation is a tough nut to crack.

And Boeing introduced innovations on multiple fronts, which some consider a big no-no, just for this very reason.

I think I'll sit back a bit, myself. But then again, the problems could be over-hyped...

In the days of 24-hour news networks, everything can be blown out of proportion.