![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:57:11 -0000, "Keith W"
wrote: Mr.B1ack wrote: 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. erm Valujet did not change to JetBlue thats a quite different airline 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. Says the man who perceived Jetblue as the reincarnation of Valujet. The reality is that MANY new aircraft have suffered minor engineering issues that caused them to be grounded for a while including the new Airbus 380 Keith http://articles.businessinsider.com/...cal-stabilizer Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s IRRC Gunner The methodology of the left has always been: 1. Lie 2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible 3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible 4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie 5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw 6. Then everyone must conform to the lie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATC failure in Memphis | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 77 | October 11th 07 03:50 PM |
The Failure of FAA Diversity | FAA Civil Rights | Piloting | 35 | October 9th 07 06:32 PM |
The FAA Failure | FAA Civil Rights | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 8th 07 05:57 PM |
Failure #10 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 7 | April 13th 05 02:49 AM |
Another Bush Failure | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 8 | July 3rd 04 02:23 AM |