Status of United's 787 Fleet
#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.....
Preparing for the FAA green light? Hmmmm.....
#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.
#963
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 15,024
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
#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
#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
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
#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.
#967
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near FRA
Programs: UA 1K 2MM (*G)
Posts: 1,459
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.
F.R.
#968
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TUS and any place close to a lav
Programs: UA 1.6MM
Posts: 5,423
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.
#969
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
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.
#970
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Western NY
Programs: MANY
Posts: 244
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
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
#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
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
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
Glad I was able to cancel my DEN-NRT without penalty.
#973
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1P-1MM, Marriott LT Titanium
Posts: 3,930
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.
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.
#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/
But see: http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/05/b...ttery-testing/