On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:

On Jan 27, 2:19Â*am, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:54Â*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. Â*Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.

Â* Â*Irrevelant.

Â* Â*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.

And I think you'll find a lot of other
people with the same sentiment.

Boeing should have spent another six months
to a year debugging the thing ... but they
were already behind schedule and afraid to
wait any longer. Bad move. Understandable
from the business POV, but still bad. Now
it'll be even worse from the business POV.

The engineers oughtta decide when a big plane
is "ready" ... not the pointy-haired executives.
If one of these things catches fire and nosedives
into a city, thousands could die.