channa

Isn't this somewhat contradictory? If you claim the government is slow, then perhaps they should have grounded the plane sooner had they been more efficient. Much like JL and NH did.

Either way, the situation proves the government is very necessary, and the FAA's role is further validated in a situation such as this, because it is clear that UA did not self-regulate itself to do the right thing, and in this case, UA only took the necessary precautions when its hand was forced.

buckeyefanflyer

I have never seen a negative type story in their press releases. This one surely deserves one, especially a statement from Jeff.

channa

While I agree, we may not see it. It's not in CO's culture to talk about negative things. They wouldn't know how to do it.

Every negative item CO has gone through turned out to be a PR issue. The Denver 737 fireball was pitched as an "airplane exiting the runway," which was later determined to have been caused by pilot error.

The COEX stranding in Minnesota was quickly disclaimed by CO saying it was COEX, not them, which ultimately resulted in CO being held partly liable and was a main contributor in the tarmac delay legislation we have on the books today.

They have no clue how to handle anything that's not hyping themselves up. If anything, they'll probably make it worse.

buckeyefanflyer

When is the last time the FAA grounded a large commercial jet and what type was it. I only remember the DC-10 after the Chicago accident and that was in 1979.

mickeydfly13

MD 80's were after Alaska Air went down in Pacific with stripped jack screw in the elevator.

aluminumdriver

It happens. They did it for a short time with the 737 after one crashed in Co Springs. After the Alaska crash off the coast of CA, the FAA grounded the entire MD-80/88/90 and DC 9 fleets to inspect their jack screws and replace them. It's what the FAA is supposed to do when things like this pop up. New jets have problems they have to work through, has always been that way. Airbus was a big pain when it first came out.

The big issue with the 787 is it was designed to be an electric jet, ie a bleed-less jet and thus reduce a lot of weight with bleed air components and siphoning air off the engines, thus making it more efficient and travel farther. The lithium battery was able to power the jet, if they end up going to a bunch of normal Ni-cad batteries, there goes the weight advantage probably.

AD

zigzagg900

I booked an award trip in Dec on the 787 and never got on it despite changing my itinerary three times. Back then I called it the "Nightmareliner" and was immediately rebuked by a fellow Flyertalker in Houston. Wonder what he thinks now?

A Boeing spokesman appeared on Bloomberg yesterday regurgitating the same "It's 100% safe to fly" line.

Wasn't the UPS crash in Dubai in 2010 blamed on lithium ion batteries in the cargo hold?

swm61230

Wasn't it the FAA who grounded part of southwest's fleet for the explosive decompressions that were happening? Or did southwest voluntarily do it. I think the FAA mandated it which just goes to show that the airlines are more about $$$ then safety!

SFO_Runner

Ah yes, the "Death Cruiser". Followed up by the MD-11 (aka "More Death II").

motytrah

There's a big difference between cargo that may have been improperly stored versus batteries connected to a charging and regulation system. All you need for a fire is some shorted out battery terminals. Which is why the FAA directives on cabin batteries specifically address spare batteries not connected to equipment.

I would expect right now the Japanese battery maker and the American electronics makers are working together/pointing fingers at each other about what's going wrong.

flyinbob

On this one sir, you and I are in 100,000% agreement! ^

UA-NYC

Still not a single word about it on the site. Even clicking the important-looking red "Important Notices" text just gives you weather updates.

warreng24

Not sure if this has been reported.... but it looks like UA is ferrying a 772 from VCV to LAX on 18 January. Nose #2887 (which is ironically N787UA).

N787UA will be operating as UA1760 LAX-NRT on 18 January to replace UA32.


Also, UA has loaded UA1756 NRT-LAX on 18 Jan to replace UA33. Doesn't look like an aircraft has been assigned though...


[EDIT] -
For 19 Jan, UA has loaded UA1761 NRT-LAX to replace UA33. Aircraft is assigned as N787UA.

craz

Sounds much like how PMCO did things, no spare wide-bodys. Whats funny was how PMCO said with the merger how with all of PMUAs widebodys that will mean having spares lying around in case a swamp is needed, I didnt think VCV was where they meant theyd put the spares, and it taking 2 days to get it as a replacement

ralfp

Mrs. ralfp is ticketed to fly LAX-IAH-xxx (domestic) on the 787 next week. I used a 2012 GPU (extended to Jan. 31, 2013) to upgrade her. If the aircraft is swapped, what would happen to the GPU?

I'm wondering what to do here. I want to make sure that she's in F; a plane swap would put that at risk. Has anyone been able to get rerouted for flights next week?