Heathrow shut after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2013 4:46 PM GMT
    I'm beginning to wonder if the Boeing Dreamliner isn't going to turn out be the biggest turkey since the De Havilland Comet 1.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2013 7:31 PM GMT
    Only because you've consistently lacked historical context on most issues.

    http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2013/02/04/130204ta_talk_surowiecki

    In a different time, none of this might have mattered much. As plenty of people have pointed out, “teething problems” have, historically, been common in new planes. The 747’s engines were notoriously temperamental, the DC-10’s cargo doors were a major safety issue, and a number of Lockheed L-188s had wings shear off in flight. By those standards, you might think the Dreamliner’s battery issues are minor. The problem for Boeing is that those standards don’t apply anymore. The expectations of both customers and regulators are much higher, because, these days, so many products work well from the start. Automobiles, major appliances, televisions: a quality revolution in the past few decades has made products more reliable and durable than ever before. So our tolerance for failure is lower.

    The same is true when it comes to airline safety. In the past, the F.A.A. was remarkably hesitant to take planes out of service. The problems with the DC-10 were well known to regulators for years before a 1979 crash forced them to ground the plane. But, again, those standards no longer apply. In the nineteen-seventies, after all, airplane crashes occurred with disturbing regularity. Today, they are extraordinarily rare; there hasn’t been a fatal airliner crash in the United States in almost four years. The safer we get, the safer we expect to be, so the performance bar keeps rising. And this, ultimately, is why the decision to give other companies responsibility for the Dreamliner now looks misguided. Boeing is in a business where the margin of error is small. It shouldn’t have chosen a business model where the chance of making a serious mistake was so large.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2013 8:40 PM GMT
    The historical context of this particular aircraft is that it has been plagued with technical problems.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21060541
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2013 9:10 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidThe historical context of this particular aircraft is that it has been plagued with technical problems.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21060541


    Again, not compared to other new planes. That's what "context" is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2013 9:27 PM GMT
    Regardless of causes of the latest incidents, Boeing is going to struggle to make this aircraft viable and is going to have to work very hard to keep future orders. Crews, passengers and airlines will seriously doubt its safety.

    Also today:

    Boeing Dreamliner 787 'forced to return' to Manchester
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-23296073

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2013 9:32 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidRegardless of causes of the latest incidents, Boeing is going to struggle to make this aircraft viable and is going to have to work very hard to keep future orders. Crews, passengers and airlines will seriously doubt its safety.

    Also today:

    Boeing Dreamliner 787 'forced to return' to Manchester
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-23296073



    Heh hardly. It may be a short term setback - but longer term, the benefits significantly outweigh the risks for the operating cost efficiencies.

    This is *why* context matters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2013 9:47 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Heh hardly. It may be a short term setback - but longer term, the benefits significantly outweigh the risks for the operating cost efficiencies.


    If people are not prepared to set foot on it and the airlines start cancelling their orders, the benefits of this aircraft will never be realized. We shall see.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2013 9:54 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    riddler78 said
    Heh hardly. It may be a short term setback - but longer term, the benefits significantly outweigh the risks for the operating cost efficiencies.


    If people are not prepared to set foot on it and the airlines start cancelling their orders, the benefits of this aircraft will never be realized. We shall see.


    Yeah that's a huge "if" without the slightest ounce of historical context or even understanding of the aviation markets. *We* don't really need to see - but I suppose you can, but you'd be wrong again.

    Your rather dismal outlook on the plane notwithstanding, the backlog on the 787 actually ROSE during FAA grounding over the batteries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2013 8:42 PM GMT
    Heathrow fire on Boeing Dreamliner 'started in battery component'
    Investigators say crew would have struggled to contain blaze once plane was in mid-air

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/18/heathrow-fire-boeing-dreamliner-battery

    Different battery this time. I hope they sort out the Dreamliner's glitches. I'd like to fly on one.