Is the 787 a failure ?

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.

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:

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.

  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.


You're on the banned list?

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.

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

When?
| ...
| "Stopping production is not going to happen," said Carter
| Leake, an aerospace analyst with BB&T Capital Markets. A
| halt in production or even a slow down would risk crucial
| suppliers going out of business. "They need to keep the
| lines running to support the supply chain. They can't do
| that to suppliers that barely survived the three year delay
| in producing the first plane."
| ...
http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/25/news/companies/boeing-dreamliner-production/index.html

--bks

Too_Many_Tools writes:

The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.
Not necessarily. They may simply be too big to properly handle modest
fluctuations in heat even under proper charge. That's an even bigger
problem.
--
Who depends on another man's table often dines late.
--John Ray

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 ? :-)

"Mr.B1ack" writes:

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.

"a lot", that would be 100 people, 100 times more people than you, yes,
that's a lot! The fact people buy tickets based on the cheapest online
price and ignore all the baggage fees, etc. shows that people simply do
not know or care what model of airplane they fly.

I think you're a troll for Airbus. Or, one of those wacky right-wing
conspiracy kooks.

[.metalworking?? .unions??]
--
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
-- Mark Twain

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

|
| What, then, is wrong with the Dreamliner?
|
| "I think people had their fingers crossed that it was a
| battery fault," Keith Hayward, head of research at the
| Royal Aeronautical Society, told BBC. "It looks more
| systemic and serious to me. I suspect it could be difficult
| to identify the cause."
| ...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0128/Boeing-787-battery-passes-initial-probe.-What-s-wrong-with-the-Dreamliner

--bks

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.