[IanFromHKG]

And as if these ill-fated aircraft didn’t already have enough problems : “U.S. regulators are poised to order airlines to avoid flying Boeing Co. (BA) 787 Dreamliners and 747-8 jumbo jets with General Electric Co. (GE) engines near thunderstorms after some of the planes experienced ice buildup”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-25/boeing-warns-of-ice-risks-for-ge-powered-787s-in-storms.html

You wouldn’t catch me on one of those things if I could avoid it

BTW, I am reminded of all those posters who have repeatedly stated on these pages that Airbuses have inherent design flaws and Boeings are much safer. Where are they now???

[stevescoots]

A little perspective please lades and gents. To be fair this is not Boeings fault, and we cannot push is all on the 787, as 747’s are affected too.

Its like saying the RR engines that went bang and almost brought down an A380 are the fault of airbus and they should never be flown.

[IanFromHKG]

If you are responding to my post, stevescoots, please bear in mind that I never said it was Boeing’s fault. I did call the aircraft ill-fated, which I think is fair comment, and then made a(n admittedly somewhat snide) comment to the effect that having had endless posts on these pages saying Boeings were safer than Airbuses the posters concerned seem to have become rather silent in the light of numerous recent events. Again, I think, fair comment – and again, I didn’t say that any blame was to be laid at Boeing’s door.

Your response that this new issue doesn’t affect just the 787 (made by Boeing) but also the 747 (made by Boeing), only goes to reinforce the reason I made the remark comparing Airbus (unaffected) and Boeing (affected on two aircraft types).

And on the issue of the perspective which you are asking of us – perspective is, of course, a word which of course bears more than one meaning. I think my remarks were both made in perspective (not overly exaggerating the issues) and represent a valid perspective. Your perspective may be different (smile)

Oh, and just to be clear, I think it was a bit of a leap to compare remarks on here to a suggestion that A380s should never be flown. Now my perspective on that is that you lost perspective. Just saying…

[Goldcardsaplenty]

Am I missing something here? Have a few 787’s crashed with loss of life that I haven’t heard about?

Numerous airlines are now operating this equipment under the strict controls of various Authorities. I do not believe that there are safety issues that cannot be effectively controlled until a permanent solution is applied; aircraft operate regularly with faults that are controlled by additional measures.

My issue with the 787 is that I always feel that my travel plans may be disrupted through tecnical delays, I do not believe that they are going to start dropping out of the sky.

As well as the comments reminding of the 380 problems we should also remember that two 777’s crashed on landing under bizarre circumstances – some industry experts believe that these two incidents have not been fully explained yet.

Will I be using the 787 in the future? Yes, on Friday LHR – DOH.

[stevescoots]

Ian, not your comments in particular, just the general mood of the board

[IanFromHKG]

Ah, it read otherwise, Steve, given your reference to 747s as well, so specifically the icing problem which I raised

Gold…, no, they haven’t, just as the A380 incident Steve mentioned didn’t cause loss of life either. However, the A380 incident put me off trying it for a while. The fact is, though, that the 787 uses a lot of untried technology. That there are so many incidents can only make one wonder if there are more problems yet to be found. Remember that something (whether an object or an action) can be incredibly dangerous despite causing no injuries whatsoever for a period of time, but the lack of injury during that time doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous. Now I am not for a moment suggesting these aircraft are incredibly dangerous (I am only illustrating a point with my example). However, I do regard them as being significantly higher risk than other aircraft with more established technology. Thats all

[NameRemoved-18/12/14]

I have been on the 787 only once. Would I fly on it again? Without hesitation, tho I can understand others’ concerns.

[Goldcardsaplenty]

Ian

Your point is well made and is actually my own viewpoint, I work in an industry where every ‘near miss’ is investigated to the nth degree to ensure we learn from them and prevent reoccurrence. The near misses of today can become the disasters of tomorrow.

I travel in all kinds of aircraft, both fixed and rotary wing, and there is an element of risk in all of these. Where I consider the risk to be excessive I will look for alternatives – for me the 787 does not fit these criteria.

The A380 incident is a great example that modern machinery can suffer extreme damage and survive without causing loss of life. I too looked closely at this incident and I made a conscious decision to continue using the aircraft. This decision was made easier by the (relatively) rapid dissemination of information regarding the incident. Boeing would be well advised to do the same with all incidents regarding the 787.

New technology is always challenging for people to accept and be comfortable with, but it is interesting to note that the latest problem is related to the good old jet engine rather than any new innovation.

I am glad to see that the thread is taking a more discerning viewpoint as it seemed to be getting a bit OTT with comments like ‘flying coffins’ and being operated ‘with no regard for passenger safety’

[AMcWhirter]

There’s still some way to go before B787 reliability improves to acceptable level.

In today’s Aviation Week dated November 25, Boeing’s VP for commercial sales Marty Bentrott is quoted as saying it will be another six months before the B787 reaches the reliability rate of the B777.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_25_2013_p34-638818.xml

[MarcusUK]

Reliability, is the true issue here.
Reputation, is another with so many incidents, hence the tile of this thread. The bad publicity around this aircraft is not good, and the launch was severely delayed.

I do not think it compares to the A380 launch in the same way at all. The vast array of Airlines who have taken the 787 all have had problems and irregularities, but with so many different aspects of the aircraft. ANA’s CEO stated they would Never be the launch Airline for a new Aircraft again!

For me also, the fact that as with the 777, they are now having orders to cram another seat across in this rather small aircraft for long haul anyhow.
Regardless of seat or cabin design, i as many others, do like to be able to walk from the seat to somewhere else during a long flight, stretch your legs, circulation going and all the good anti DVT things.
I actually like the feeling of being able to “Go somewhere else” when on an aircraft, walk to where there is some space etc. I certainly do not just sit in my seat or cabin for long haul.
Larger Aircraft, especially the two floor A380 enable this, and you have that feeling of space, and area to walk around in, the ability to move around.

In this respect, the Dreamliner does not meet this important aspect of flying long haul for me.

As mentioned before, this aircraft is more for the cost reductions and economics of the Airline, than improving the passenger experience or comfort, let alone the reliability issue.

[Cloud-9]

More info on the icing problem:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_08_23_2013_p0-609559.xml

[FormerlyDoS]

This week’s incident.

I went from EWR to LHR on Wednesday night and nothing happened!!!!

[AMcWhirter]

One of LOT Polish Airlines’ B787s has been grounded today in Chicago owing to wind damage on a previous transatlantic flight.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/06/boeing-dreamliner-lot-idUSL5N0JL1RN20131206

[MarcusUK]

So the issues do carry on…

[AMcWhirter]

The B787 in question was stranded at Chicago O’ Hare for almost one day. LOT ferried the empty B787 back to Warsaw today.

It’s a mystery why the problem with the spoilers happened. After all, strong winds are a regular occurrence on transatlantic routes and, seemingly, other planes were unaffected on the day in question.

[Author]

Posts