bse118

Unless I misunderstand you, I'm not sure how UA can run a 787 NRT-LAX tomorrow unless the grounding is lifted.

The FAA AD specifically bans any "further flights" of any US registered 787s until its proven the batteries on individual aircraft are safe.

alanh

The 787 uses lithium ion batteries, rather than the nicads used in older aircraft, and yes, battery fires were a consideration when the aircraft was up for certification. Boeing said that it wasn't a problem, but obviously that's being revisited.

Most of the other issues in the news lately (oil leak, fuel spill, etc.) are pretty minor, but the battery issue is not. Lithium battery fires is why the FAA has banned loose batteries in checked luggage and as cargo on passenger flights.

They're going to have to run down whether it's a fault in the battery construction, or the aircraft wiring that's causing them to burn up. I did see a report that UA found improper wiring on 1/8, but I can't find any details about what it entailed.

Paella747

Welcome to FlyerTalk!!!!
Hoping that they don't cancel on you.... They should be able to sub in a different aircraft...

gengar

The mere fact that we're comparing the 787 to the A380 or Boeing to Airbus in this regard is already a failure for Boeing, IMO.

bse118

Interesting counterexample.

My only point in bringing this up, was to say that saving face plays more role in Japanese culture than in American. Any, yeah, further discussion of Japanese culture on my part certainly could not claim to be expert (and would be OT).

EWR764

The operator isn't necessarily the one who is best positioned to make this determination, however. The regulatory bodies and the manufacturer have access to more information through which they can make the most informed decision. The fact that the FAA grounded the type after two carriers did so first means nothing as to determining a standard of care for the other operators.

As much as your conclusion may appear to be a logical certainty, it's still speculative.

That's a straw man if I've ever seen one.

northsideguy

So far the flight is on schedule to depart at 2155 hrs.
The WAW-ORD had not landed yet, so I guess time will tell.

cfischer

no press release from UA yet? Did they really not see this coming?

craz

If they let the 32 continue onto NRT and not divert it to say ANC and send a replacement plane to ANC,then the FAA will have to give CO permission to fly the 787 back to the US. The FAA can let that happen but maybe w/o any passengers and only the cockpit crew and thusly CO will have to CX tomorrows NRT-LAX flight. Divert to ANC , send a replacement the 32 arrives late but the 33 can fly tomorrow as well and the 787 is out of the air.

My gut tells me the 32 will continue onto NRT and tomorrows flight back to LAX will be CXed. What hapens with the 787 in NRT unknown, parked somewhere I guess till the FAA lifts its Ban. But CO on its own should have subed in another ac for the 32 today and they wouldnt have been in this me$$

ACVBear

look I like to hate on Smisek just as much as the next guy but I don't think this is bad press for UA. Who is to say UA did their own internal inspections, didn't find anything at risk with the batteries with whatever knowledge they have (maybe there is a fault in the system that doesn't exist in UA planes? no one knows for sure at the moment). Meanwhile FAA learns some new info and grounds the planes. Or FAA is overreacting in which case good for them because this is what you want from a government agency in this case.

It's all speculative of course, but this time around I'm not sure we can pin this on Smisek like $ over lives.

CaptainMiles

So where is the fleet now?

3901 is airborne as UA1426 LAX-IAH, will be grounded upon landing at IAH
3902 flew UA1180 DEN-IAH today, and should be staying at IAH
3903 flew UA33 NRT-LAX yesterday, and appears to still be at LAX
3904 is airborne as UA32 LAX-NRT
3905 flew UA1510 ORD-IAH, and should be staying at IAH
3906 is probably at IAH

So other than the inaugural 3904, it seems that all will be at home. Do you think they would ferry 3904 to the US, or keep it in Japan undefinitely while this issue is worked out?

Red_Rob

I have flown UA's 787s a few times. I just booked a flight for my wife & I on 1/26 (domestically) for her to fly the 787 and even used some RPUs (even though as a GS I normally wouldn't waste them for IAH-->DEN). I even used a goodwill cert for her ticket so it wont be easy to change the flights. I guess ill keep an eye on it.

bse118

Gotcha. I did misunderstand.

RunningWithScissors

Wouldn't the 'face saving' thing to do be to deny the problem, admit no fault, hope it gets fixed by some magic the public never hears about *cough, radiation levels, cough*? Grounding your aircraft seems to be 'admitting' your planes are 'defective' in some way. I'm not sure I consider that to be saving face at all.

Dragging this back on topic (barely), I hope they get it fixed soon so I can find a way to ride in one. That's a lot of really expensive composite sitting on the ground all over the world collecting dust now...

76Patriots

(1)This is a brand new generation of plane. (2) It has been in commercial service for a brief time. (3) 'Issues' with new generation of large commercial aircraft are not uncommon. (4) Not one single person has been injured by any issue on the 787. (5) The media is unreliable in terms of their reporting accuracy. (6) The track record of a government agency making a decision based on sound logic is iffy at best. (7) Anyone who thought the 787 would take off and be a perfect machine from its beginning suffers from pie in the sky thinking.
Relax, few outside of Boeing and the specific airlines knows how significant the issue(s) is. Sure, it could require a significant reengineering......yet likely this is a semi routine breaking in issue that will be resolved promptly. Again, not one person has been injured and my best guess is no one was ever in danger.