On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:31 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:

On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:

On Jan 27, 2:19 am, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues
haven't caused any fatalities.

But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.

Irrevelant.

It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.

And the A320 didn't?

That's all-important.

That's all that counts.

The 787 is *done*.

I *way* doubt that.


Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.

I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no
matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787 until it
had been in service for a year or so.

This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll overcome
it.

They'll overcome it - technically - but will that
help in terms of public *perception* ? If the public
thinks it's a deathtrap then why would airlines buy
any ? Switch to Airbus instead.

Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ?
The *name* 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they
had to change it to "Jet-Blue".

I don't think Boeing can try that trick.

Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging
them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead.
Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will
*seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will
be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787,
but *perception* is what's gonna count.

BTW ... it wasn't actually the batteries. Something
in the charge/charge-regulatation electronics. If
someone else made it, Boeing can blame 'em. If not
then it's a black mark against Boeing.

Given the volume of problems in such a short time,
hey, didn't Boeing TEST the damned planes ? Short
answer - no ... not enough. They were behind in
delivery and decided to test 'em with live human
guinea-pigs.

Ya didn't see the CEO or board members flying on
the things, did ya ? :-)