Another Dreamliner problem.

  • kew1

    Posts: 1595

    Jul 12, 2013 5:05 PM GMT
    Ethiopian airlines 787 on fire at Heathrow, shuts the airport.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760

    Already had the battery upgrade, new problem?
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jul 13, 2013 4:19 AM GMT
    A great time to buy Boeing stock - they have 1,000 of these planes on order.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2013 9:28 PM GMT
    On Saturday, the U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch said it didn't appear that the fire was related to the jet's batteries. The branch called for an investigation and invited government air safety divisions from the U.S. and Ethipia to join in.

    So far, it's unclear what caused the fire. ~~http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/12/news/companies/boeing-dreamliner-fire/index.html
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Jul 15, 2013 9:46 PM GMT
    The "Dreamliner" is a complete cluster-f#ck. Death by outsourcing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2013 11:11 PM GMT
    I haven't been following the fire issues too closely, but I believe the battery issues from a few months ago were related to batteries located in the front of the plane, and this fire happened at the rear of the fuselage.

    So, unfortunately, this appears to be a "new" problem. icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2013 8:53 PM GMT
    More Dreamliner woes:

    Japan Airlines (JAL) says it has turned around two of its Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft during flights due to technical problems.

    On one plane one of the two anti-ice systems, which prevent ice building up around the engine, failed. Meanwhile, an electrical glitch made six toilets unusable on another flight. These are the latest technical issues to hit the Dreamliner, which saw the entire fleet being grounded earlier this year following battery problems.

    The issues have hurt Boeing.

    Earlier this week, JAL announced a $9.5bn (£5.9bn) plane deal with rival Airbus. It is the first time that it has agreed to buy Airbus planes, having preferred Boeing for many decades.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24471093

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

    Oct 10, 2013 9:27 PM GMT
    Colbert_Nation saidThe "Dreamliner" is a complete cluster-f#ck. Death by outsourcing.


    It sure is from what this says:

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jan/18/boeing-787-dreamliner-grounded
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2013 1:59 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    Colbert_Nation saidThe "Dreamliner" is a complete cluster-f#ck. Death by outsourcing.


    It sure is from what this says:

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jan/18/boeing-787-dreamliner-grounded


    Not quite. The implementation was not good - but lost in the journalistic malpractice is the fact that a big part of the production strategy was marketing (produced in countries where they intend to sell).

    They do really need to correct the reliability issues, but for new designs particularly one with radical revisions in how it's made and the materials it's made with are not that unusual. And it's not like their customers are all that spooked - they have a backlog of 927 orders with 131 having been won this year.

    This doesn't even include the many sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how things play out.
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-07/airbus-lands-a-punch-on-boeing-with-first-japan-deal
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2013 12:22 AM GMT
    I'll be flying out to Toronto in one in Dec, so I'm hoping it 'plays out' well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 8:53 PM GMT
    Boeing stock soars on earnings beat: LeBeau
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101137175

    After a rocky 2013 that included a grounding of the 787 and a slew of questions about the safety of the plane, Boeing is raising production plans for the Dreamliner. The company, which has delivered 96 Dreamliners to 16 customers, now plans to increase the number of 787s it will build and deliver by 2016 and 2020.

    [...]

    Dreamliner backlog stands at 890 planes, with orders for the new plane starting to pick up after hitting a plateau in recent years. This year, Boeing has booked orders for 131 Dreamliners with just one cancellation.

    In September, Boeing conducted the first flight of the 787-9, a larger Dreamliner which will fly further than the base model. The 787-9 accounts for more than 40 percent of the Dreamliners Boeing plans to build.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 8:55 PM GMT
    Who ever designed, bought, and sold those airplanes sure does have a sick mind. "Dreamliner" are prone to catch fires, sure I'll take 2 dozen of those! OMj, rllY?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 8:58 PM GMT
    _JRQ saidWho ever designed, bought, and sold those airplanes sure does have a sick mind. "Dreamliner" are prone to catch fires, sure I'll take 2 dozen of those! OMj, rllY?


    Obviously they're issues that are being worked out. The trade off of using carbon fibre over aluminum obviously is weight and also speed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 9:01 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    _JRQ saidWho ever designed, bought, and sold those airplanes sure does have a sick mind. "Dreamliner" are prone to catch fires, sure I'll take 2 dozen of those! OMj, rllY?


    Obviously they're issues that are being worked out. The trade off of using carbon fibre over aluminum obviously is weight and also speed.

    They should really find a way to seal the carbon fiber, or treat it so that it isn't prone to fires. Sure money is an issues, but look how much they lose from the stupid fires? They're greedy and dumb, imo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 9:05 PM GMT
    _JRQ said
    riddler78 said
    _JRQ saidWho ever designed, bought, and sold those airplanes sure does have a sick mind. "Dreamliner" are prone to catch fires, sure I'll take 2 dozen of those! OMj, rllY?


    Obviously they're issues that are being worked out. The trade off of using carbon fibre over aluminum obviously is weight and also speed.

    They should really find a way to seal the carbon fiber, or treat it so that it isn't prone to fires. Sure money is an issues, but look how much they lose from the stupid fires? They're greedy and dumb, imo.


    I'm pretty sure that they have. I don't think they've attempted to save money in that way. Given that the real life is different than their simulations they're probably finding out that the placement of equipment, batteries, etc - matter and greater shielding is required in parts, etc. But I am pretty sure these things aren't tinderboxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 9:31 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidblockquote>
    Right. I'll still fly on planes, but this makes me ever so cautious about newfangled sky-ships and their spiffiness. I'm skeptical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 9:41 PM GMT
    _JRQ said
    riddler78 saidblockquote>
    Right. I'll still fly on planes, but this makes me ever so cautious about newfangled sky-ships and their spiffiness. I'm skeptical.


    Whenever new planes get developed there are always growing pains... the battery issue was bad enough to ground the fleet of them - but that's also a good example of how they've worked to ensure that the issues aren't so critical as to be fatal.

    I'm pretty sure they'll work out their problems - just as Airbus had to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 9:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    _JRQ said
    riddler78 saidblockquote>
    Right. I'll still fly on planes, but this makes me ever so cautious about newfangled sky-ships and their spiffiness. I'm skeptical.


    Whenever new planes get developed there are always growing pains... the battery issue was bad enough to ground the fleet of them - but that's also a good example of how they've worked to ensure that the issues aren't so critical as to be fatal.

    I'm pretty sure they'll work out their problems - just as Airbus had to.

    Don't they do a lifetime tests, in real world use, on those like they do on tires and other things? I'd imagine that'd be the definitive way to test for cracks in the design.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 10:02 PM GMT
    _JRQ said
    riddler78 said
    _JRQ said
    riddler78 saidblockquote>
    Right. I'll still fly on planes, but this makes me ever so cautious about newfangled sky-ships and their spiffiness. I'm skeptical.


    Whenever new planes get developed there are always growing pains... the battery issue was bad enough to ground the fleet of them - but that's also a good example of how they've worked to ensure that the issues aren't so critical as to be fatal.

    I'm pretty sure they'll work out their problems - just as Airbus had to.

    Don't they do a lifetime tests, in real world use, on those like they do on tires and other things? I'd imagine that'd be the definitive way to test for cracks in the design.


    Yes - they are required to do testing in terms of # hours flight before certification. They've done them... but when you add actual airlines, how they put in kitchens, the power usage and how it's used by passengers, etc, you get a near infinite amount of complexity.

    Relatively speaking it wasn't that long ago in the span of aviation that airlines eliminated high heels for airline attendants because it was damaging the integrity of the aircraft.

    But another way to think of it is that there's so much more testing that goes into the design of planes than say a car, but it takes a few years after production happens to work out most of the production bugs (which is why as a general rule of thumb you shouldn't buy a car within the first year of a retooling). At the same time there are reasons why you would place orders now (given that most orders won't arrive for a few years yet anyway).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 10:10 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidYes - they are required to do testing in terms of # hours flight before certification. They've done them... but when you add actual airlines, how they put in kitchens, the power usage and how it's used by passengers, etc, you get a near infinite amount of complexity.

    Relatively speaking it wasn't that long ago in the span of aviation that airlines eliminated high heels for airline attendants because it was damaging the integrity of the aircraft.

    But another way to think of it is that there's so much more testing that goes into the design of planes than say a car, but it takes a few years after production happens to work out most of the production bugs (which is why as a general rule of thumb you shouldn't buy a car within the first year of a retooling). At the same time there are reasons why you would place orders now (given that most orders won't arrive for a few years yet anyway).

    Well, I'm starting to think that maybe some of these incidents may be blown out of proportion by the media. Then again, I've always enjoyed asking questions about things in order to know better for myself; instead of having some other outside source dictate what I know and don't know. Silly me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 10:16 PM GMT
    _JRQ said
    riddler78 saidYes - they are required to do testing in terms of # hours flight before certification. They've done them... but when you add actual airlines, how they put in kitchens, the power usage and how it's used by passengers, etc, you get a near infinite amount of complexity.

    Relatively speaking it wasn't that long ago in the span of aviation that airlines eliminated high heels for airline attendants because it was damaging the integrity of the aircraft.

    But another way to think of it is that there's so much more testing that goes into the design of planes than say a car, but it takes a few years after production happens to work out most of the production bugs (which is why as a general rule of thumb you shouldn't buy a car within the first year of a retooling). At the same time there are reasons why you would place orders now (given that most orders won't arrive for a few years yet anyway).

    Well, I'm starting to think that maybe some of these incidents may be blown out of proportion by the media. Then again, I've always enjoyed asking questions about things in order to know better for myself; instead of having some other outside source dictate what I know and don't know. Silly me.


    I just think building things like cars and planes are incredibly complex. It's difficult to point to one mistake as being fatal. I think for instance, they didn't entirely plan their production properly but that they're figuring out and solving their outsourcing issues - and this will ultimately also translate into a lot more sales for them.

    I think a better measure is just to watch what their customers are doing. And in this sense, they're both waiting on both Airbus and Boeing to get their acts together. There are fundamental differences in how each see the market and it'll be interesting to watch how it plays out (Airbus is making plans much bigger while Boeing is focusing on being more efficient and flying further but smaller planes).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 10:19 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidI just think building things like cars and planes are incredibly complex. It's difficult to point to one mistake as being fatal. I think for instance, they didn't entirely plan their production properly but that they're figuring out and solving their outsourcing issues - and this will ultimately also translate into a lot more sales for them.

    I think a better measure is just to watch what their customers are doing. And in this sense, they're both waiting on both Airbus and Boeing to get their acts together. There are fundamental differences in how each see the market and it'll be interesting to watch how it plays out (Airbus is making plans much bigger while Boeing is focusing on being more efficient and flying further but smaller planes).

    Lets hope they square their design issues away, before they come out with planes that fly themselves!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 9:58 PM GMT
    http://world.time.com/2013/11/17/boeing-takes-100-billion-in-orders-from-gulf/

    U.S.-based Boeing Co. dominated on the first day of the Dubai Airshow, netting $100 billion in orders at an event that showcased the spending power and aggressive expansion efforts of the Middle East’s Gulf Arab carriers.

    The 342 orders represented more than twice the value of those seen by European rival Airbus, who said it took 142 orders worth some $40 billion.

    [...] Boeing received orders at the airshow for 150 777X planes from Emirates, 50 from Qatar Airways and 25 from Abu Dhabi’s Etihad Airways, the Chicago-based manufacturer and the airlines announced in separate news conferences. Boeing also inked deals with Etihad for 30 of its 787-10 Dreamliners and one cargo plane, and with budget carrier flydubai for 86 aircraft, most for its single-aisle 737 models.

    The Dreamliner deal is an important nod of support in the Gulf for the troubled aircraft, which has suffered groundings in the past year over battery problems.
  • Manarii2281

    Posts: 148

    Nov 18, 2013 12:55 PM GMT
    that is good news. Those Gulf companies will be the launch airliners for the brand new 777X.

    It was the earlier original version of the 787 that experienced issues, hopefully the newer and larger 787-10 will be free of the issues that plagued the initial 787's. It looks better proportioned as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2013 2:22 PM GMT
    Manarii2281 saidthat is good news. Those Gulf companies will be the launch airliners for the brand new 777X.

    It was the earlier original version of the 787 that experienced issues, hopefully the newer and larger 787-10 will be free of the issues that plagued the initial 787's. It looks better proportioned as well.


    There are generally a few years of production pains for new planes if history is any guide - particularly given this was one that ambitiously has attempted a number of new technologies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2013 7:41 PM GMT
    riddler78 said

    Whenever new planes get developed there are always growing pains... the battery issue was bad enough to ground the fleet of them - but that's also a good example of how they've worked to ensure that the issues aren't so critical as to be fatal.

    I'm pretty sure they'll work out their problems - just as Airbus had to.


    The same could be said of , say, a complex new healthcare system, don't you think?

    I flew on the Dreamliner last week and can't say I was blown away by the experience. That could be down to the BA cabin layout, but I doubt the other major airlines will deviate far from the same configuration. The entertainment system was excellent, with a vast choice of films and TV shows (including 'boxed sets'. The 'larger windows' on the plane aren't all that large.

    I felt pretty unfatigued after an almost 8hr flight, so the much vaunted cabin air replacement system seems to be doing its job well. The seats were reasonably comfortable, however, elbow room while dining is very restricted, more so than on any other flight I can recall (except on RAF transport ac). The seat in front had an annoying metal box intruding into the foot well, which prevents one stetching the left leg comfortably (all the seats seemed to have the same box). All in all, not a bad flying experience, but nothing special.