Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Status of United's 787 Fleet

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 2, 2013, 5:27 pm
  #961  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: LAX IAH AMS
Programs: UA GS 1MM
Posts: 1,267
787 movement at IAH

Noticed that one of the 787's has been moved from the cargo area on the east side to the hangar area just east of terminal D/E.

Preparing for the FAA green light? Hmmmm.....
avi8tir is online now  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 5:34 pm
  #962  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 257
I think UA might be preparing the bird for the installation of the new battery box once the box is approved by FAA so that they can send those birds back up asap.
ben237829624 is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2013, 5:37 pm
  #963  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 15,024
Originally Posted by avi8tir
Noticed that one of the 787's has been moved from the cargo area on the east side to the hangar area just east of terminal D/E.

Preparing for the FAA green light? Hmmmm.....
I'm at the airport 2-4 times a month and pass by the maintenance area each time. I've seen a 787 there frequently. Maybe mechanics are just keeping it in tune. Paid $500 Monday to Ford dealer to replace throttle plate and throttle body that had seized after months of inactivity. Plane repair might be more expensive. No point moving it just in anticipation of approval. Just takes up space. A tow only takes 10 minutes.

Last edited by IAH-OIL-TRASH; Apr 2, 2013 at 6:37 pm
IAH-OIL-TRASH is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 11:55 am
  #964  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
Final battery certification flight is in the air now: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B...800Z/KPAE/KPAE
mduell is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 12:07 pm
  #965  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 24,153
I dont care what these tests show , the FAA/Govt has to be NUTS (Ok they are) to allow these birds to fly ETOPs any time soon where any landing field is more then say an hour away

So a LHR-NRT over land may be OK if landings can be done always within an hour if that.Or say a YYZ-MEX But DEN-NRT is simply asking for trouble.

There are long enough routes they can fly till its more or less proven the fix is really a fix.After the problem was never suppose to be a problem to begin with.Anything less will be putting both the crews and passengers lifes on teh line IMO

Lets not forget the IAH-LAX that had to land at MSY (I believe) , they still have teething problems to work out besides the batteries. And if they approve it Id say let those who do, fly the bird to show the World its safe, doubt youd see that happening till they are 99.99% sure it is
craz is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 12:32 pm
  #966  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: No. California
Programs: UA MP HH LTD
Posts: 2,040
You don't need to fly to test. If the problem was something related to overheating when charging, or overcharging and then overheating, that can be testing on land very easily. In fact, it can be tested far easier on land, just put a charge to it for 24 hours. Or 48 hours, or whatever. A plane can't provide that test. It was mentioned elsewhere ANA was going to test with cargo flights for a month or so. Don't know the length of those flights.
BlueZebra is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 1:01 pm
  #967  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near FRA
Programs: UA 1K 2MM (*G)
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by UAPremExecflyer
UA now says planning for DEN-NRT service to begin June 10th.
Hmmm. I just made a booking for early July on that route. Would UA replace it with another aircraft or just suspend it until the 787 is allowed to fly? Any idea about when the situation should become any clearer?

F.R.
flyin´ruddl is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 1:07 pm
  #968  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TUS and any place close to a lav
Programs: UA 1.6MM
Posts: 5,423
Originally Posted by flyin´ruddl
Hmmm. I just made a booking for early July on that route. Would UA replace it with another aircraft or just suspend it until the 787 is allowed to fly? Any idea about when the situation should become any clearer?

F.R.
I'm booked on DEN-NRT on 04 July. If there are further delays in getting the 787 back in the air, UA will simply suspend the DEN-NRT flight again.

Keep an eye on your flight itinerary. UA has NOT been reaching out to tell people when they are re-booked. If you are re-booked, just call reservations and say that you were originally booked on the 787 flight and they will be VERY flexible/accommodating with re-routings.

The major hurdles for the 787 (in summary) -
1) When will the FAA approve the battery box/compartment fixes
2) How quickly can Boeing get the parts manufactured
3) How quickly can Boeing send their field technicians out to UA (5 of 6 planes in IAH, 1 in NRT) to do the install
4) What will the FAA ruling on the ETOPS for 787 be

I, for one, am FULLY expecting DEN-NRT to be postponed. I anticipate being re-accommodated for my 04 July flight.
warreng24 is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 1:08 pm
  #969  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
Originally Posted by BlueZebra
You don't need to fly to test. If the problem was something related to overheating when charging, or overcharging and then overheating, that can be testing on land very easily. In fact, it can be tested far easier on land, just put a charge to it for 24 hours. Or 48 hours, or whatever. A plane can't provide that test.
There is no evidence the problem is overcharging.
mduell is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 1:56 pm
  #970  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Western NY
Programs: MANY
Posts: 244
Originally Posted by craz
I dont care what these tests show , the FAA/Govt has to be NUTS (Ok they are) to allow these birds to fly ETOPs any time soon where any landing field is more then say an hour away

So a LHR-NRT over land may be OK if landings can be done always within an hour if that.Or say a YYZ-MEX But DEN-NRT is simply asking for trouble.

There are long enough routes they can fly till its more or less proven the fix is really a fix.After the problem was never suppose to be a problem to begin with.Anything less will be putting both the crews and passengers lifes on teh line IMO

Lets not forget the IAH-LAX that had to land at MSY (I believe) , they still have teething problems to work out besides the batteries. And if they approve it Id say let those who do, fly the bird to show the World its safe, doubt youd see that happening till they are 99.99% sure it is
I am currently booked PVG-LAX in early June on a 787. yes, over the big pond. What are my chances of flying in it?
double_black77 is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 2:07 pm
  #971  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York, NY
Programs: United Platinum
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by double_black77
I am currently booked PVG-LAX in early June on a 787. yes, over the big pond. What are my chances of flying in it?
Nobody knows...they may keep testing the 787 domestically to avoid further problems...I personally would say slim but you never know
Devyan1 is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 2:39 pm
  #972  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SFO/JFK/MGA
Programs: UA 1P MM, AA-PP, AS, DL, HH G, SPG Gold, TA nada
Posts: 2,043
Originally Posted by craz
I dont care what these tests show , the FAA/Govt has to be NUTS (Ok they are) to allow these birds to fly ETOPs any time soon where any landing field is more then say an hour away

So a LHR-NRT over land may be OK if landings can be done always within an hour if that.Or say a YYZ-MEX But DEN-NRT is simply asking for trouble.

There are long enough routes they can fly till its more or less proven the fix is really a fix.After the problem was never suppose to be a problem to begin with.Anything less will be putting both the crews and passengers lifes on teh line IMO

Lets not forget the IAH-LAX that had to land at MSY (I believe) , they still have teething problems to work out besides the batteries. And if they approve it Id say let those who do, fly the bird to show the World its safe, doubt youd see that happening till they are 99.99% sure it is
I totally agree with you. What bothers me the most is they do NOT know what caused the problems in the first place and are basically saying we moved some stuff around and put a box around it. Won't find me or any of my loved ones on a 787 anytime soon.
Glad I was able to cancel my DEN-NRT without penalty.
zoegksf is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 3:01 pm
  #973  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1P-1MM, Marriott LT Titanium
Posts: 3,930
Originally Posted by craz
I dont care what these tests show , the FAA/Govt has to be NUTS (Ok they are) to allow these birds to fly ETOPs any time soon where any landing field is more then say an hour away

So a LHR-NRT over land may be OK if landings can be done always within an hour if that.Or say a YYZ-MEX But DEN-NRT is simply asking for trouble.
If you pull up DEN-NRT on the great circle mapper and have it show ETOPS 60, you actually don't have to go much out of the way from the great circle route. I have no idea what the airports that you could land at are, but they apparently exist.
tods27 is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 3:03 pm
  #974  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SEA
Programs: Million Miles achieved | 2017 Delta Platinum, United NADA, Global Entry, PreCheck, NEXUS
Posts: 1,295
787 battery test flight completed today.

Still skeptical that they'll get their scheduled service in time for June commercial flights.

But see: http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/05/b...ttery-testing/
Bear4Asian is offline  
Old Apr 5, 2013, 4:17 pm
  #975  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: No. California
Programs: UA MP HH LTD
Posts: 2,040
Originally Posted by mduell
There is no evidence the problem is overcharging.
Totally missed the point. Many things can be tested quite well on the ground, to greater extents than in flight even. I would assume serious testing was done on the ground before the first new 787 flight.
BlueZebra is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

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.