Is the 787 a failure ?

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


You're right ... "ValueJet" became "AirTran" to
escape its stigma.


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.

Pick another nit.

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

I'll say it ONCE more ... 'reality' doesn't MATTER.
Public PERCEPTION matters. That perception is immune
to reason, to evidence, to statistics. It's a emotion
thing.

And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
deathtrap.

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:

And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
deathtrap.


Who has died aboard a 787?

On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:

And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
deathtrap.


Who has died aboard a 787?

No one.

How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
been ordered out of service?

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:28:36 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:

And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
deathtrap.


Who has died aboard a 787?

No one.

How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
been ordered out of service?


More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
aircraft accidents in 50 years.
Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every
day.

On 1/28/2013 8:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:28:36 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:

And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
deathtrap.


Who has died aboard a 787?

No one.

How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
been ordered out of service?


More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
aircraft accidents in 50 years.
Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every
day.

Sure, but considering only safety, would you rather drive a Nissan 350Z
with 143 driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years, or a
BMW 7 series with only 11 fatalities per million?
http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver...-by-auto-make/

The point is, within any *given* mode of transportation, people don't
want to use dangerous vehicles if they have a choice, /ceteris paribus/.
If the 787 is dangerous and a 777 isn't, people will want to fly on
the 777.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:58:11 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:

On 1/28/2013 8:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:28:36 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:

And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the perception of
the 787 becoming that of a flaming deathtrap.


Who has died aboard a 787?

No one.

How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
been ordered out of service?


More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
aircraft accidents in 50 years.
Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every day.

Sure, but considering only safety, would you rather drive a Nissan 350Z
with 143 driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years, or a
BMW 7 series with only 11 fatalities per million?
http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver...-by-auto-make/

Is the problem the CAR ... or the kind of people
who buy it and how they DRIVE it ? :-)

I can put a conservative old fart on a kick-ass
Ninja rice-rocket and he can ride it a million
miles without so much as a ticket or dent. Hand
the same bike to some testosterone-overdosed
punk and he'd be lucky to make it to the corner
store without leaving a deep imprint in the
side of an SUV.

I'm such a person. I drive under the speed limit, most of
the time, and prefer to arrive safely. If I had a kick ass
Ninja rice burning crotch rocket, I'd probably not get it
past about 35 MPH on the Thruway.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Mr.B1ack" wrote in message
m...


Sure, but considering only safety, would you rather drive a Nissan 350Z
with 143 driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years, or a
BMW 7 series with only 11 fatalities per million?
http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver...-by-auto-make/

Is the problem the CAR ... or the kind of people
who buy it and how they DRIVE it ? :-)

I can put a conservative old fart on a kick-ass
Ninja rice-rocket and he can ride it a million
miles without so much as a ticket or dent. Hand
the same bike to some testosterone-overdosed
punk and he'd be lucky to make it to the corner
store without leaving a deep imprint in the
side of an SUV.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:58:11 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 1/28/2013 8:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:28:36 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:

And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
deathtrap.


Who has died aboard a 787?

No one.

How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
been ordered out of service?


More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
aircraft accidents in 50 years.
Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every
day.

Sure, but considering only safety, would you rather drive a Nissan 350Z
with 143 driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years, or a
BMW 7 series with only 11 fatalities per million?
http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver...-by-auto-make/

The point is, within any *given* mode of transportation, people don't
want to use dangerous vehicles if they have a choice, /ceteris paribus/.
If the 787 is dangerous and a 777 isn't, people will want to fly on
the 777.


The most dangerous part on a 350Z is generally the nut holding the
wheel.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
deathtrap.

Who has died aboard a 787?

Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
jsw

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
deathtrap.

Who has died aboard a 787?

Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
jsw


Not that I know of. The newest plane I've flown on was a 727. The
other was a DC10. I flew to Alaska & back from Ohio in the '70s and
have never needed to go anywhere by plane since.