would YOU get on a 787?

[CafeClub]

As this is the SLF arena, and without hordes of pax flocking to buy seats there would be few airlines... and given the story of the day is the 787 grounding...

Would you get on a 787 tomorrow?

Just curious how pax are reacting to this, not interested in starting some boeing-bash.

So. Consumers... do you trust the product?

[GLuis103]

Simple answer, I would :)

[Hotel Tango]

My son recently had the option to make a reservation with the 1st leg on a 787 but, because of all the tech problems, opted out. It wasn't so much from a safety fear but more to do with the chance of a seriously delayed or cancelled flight, and a possible missed connection.

[PAXboy]

I worked in IT and telecomms for 27 years. So I tend not to drive/ride the first edition of ANYTHING. Plenty of time for te folks to work through the teething troubles.

[Sunnyjohn]

Yes. Do we really need another thread on this?

[Tableview]

It wouldn't worry me at all, specially now that the risk appears to have been identified and presumably limited.

[Cymmon]

No, sorry. Not for me.

I couldn't live with myself as I saw the happy smiling faces of the kids in the school yard as we ploughed into it, or the thought of all the hospital patients that died as we smashed into the hospital.....:{

[1DC]

If booking a flight i would avoid it because i have had an expensive bad experience with being the first to use a new synthetic material, and declared when the 787 was announced that i would try and avoid it for a couple of years until it had got over any teething troubles. Having said that if i turned up to fly and found that the aircraft was a 787 I would get on it.
I would not fly on any aircraft, 787 or otherwise, that did not belong to my personal approved list of airlines, to me that is a much more important criteria.

[ExXB]

The reports on the Li-Io batteries scare the xxxx out of me.

A fire that can't be put out, at 40,000 ft halfway over the Pacific?

No, this needs to be sorted, now.

[Lantern10]

Not for at least another year or two.

[paulc]

Already have - Qatar Airways from Dubai to Doha in December 2012.
I actually changed flights to get a ride on a 787. Impressed with the aircraft especially the larger windows. However not sure that the window dimming is better than the old shade method as it does not go completely dark.

[airsmiles]

It's a no from me, but I'd happily review that if I could read some sensible technical information that reassures me. There are so few 787's around at the moment, it's quite straightforward to opt for an alternative, proven aircraft.

[DeepDene]

Having seen pictures of the burnt out battery from one of the JAL 787's - absolutely no way ! When the FAA lifts the grounding order I will re-consider.

[Capot]

It's not clear to me why the airframe manufacturer is being blamed for a component failure, ie the battery.

Is the installation the reason for the failure(s)? Or is the component faulty?

Either way, I cannot believe that a permanent fix is not relatively simple.

It reminds me of the problems with Ni-Cad batteries, back in the mists of time.

[ExXB]

From the BBC BBC News - Boeing 787: Dreamliner's lithium ion batteries probed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21059605) :

This type of battery has an unusually high energy density, which means the units can be smaller and thus lighter for a given amount of power than traditional batteries.

All planes have batteries, but the Dreamliner needs especially powerful ones because its control systems are driven entirely by electrical signals in place of the hydraulic controls seen on earlier generations of jet. ...

During the design phase, regulators expressed concerns and insisted on a new specially drawn-up set of regulations to ensure battery safety.

Lithium ion units were already known to have a number of potentially serious safety drawbacks. They need more careful management than other types of battery. ...

Unless carefully managed, Lithium ion batteries can be prone to what is referred to as "thermal runaway" due to the nature of its chemistry. Once the battery reaches a certain temperature, it can start self-heating with potentially disastrous results. The units are also seen as especially vulnerable to problems and leaks of battery fluid. Once the problems start, the fluid is prone to ignite. ...

Experts say the problems with the batteries are unlikely to be of a fundamental nature that requires the plane to be redesigned or the batteries entirely replaced. The chances are it is a manufacturing issue or a failing in how the battery packs are looked after.

Problems with Lithium batteries caused the crash of UPS 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6) and is suspected in a number of other incidents. Lithium batteries may no longer be carried as freight on passenger aircraft.

[Tableview]

Some 'expert' on the Beeb last night said : "These batteries don't actually fly the aircraft ......."

So that's fine! We can all breath again.

[pwalhx]

Due to fly on the Thomson ones in May and have no issue with it at all, would I fly n one tomorrow, yes.

[pax britanica]

Aside from my usual concern that brand new aircraft tend to have a lot more 'snags' and go tech more than their older siblings I think this is one chance i would not take.

I do have concerns about Lithium based batteries because there seems no definitive answer about them. Some sayas safe as houses and others that theyare an 9incendiary) device just waiting to kill you. So for me the 78 gets no for another 12 months I think.
I am always surprised on these threads when peopel say well its no boeings fault they didnt make the batetries. No but they specced them and as project integrator they are initially reposnsible for every single piece of it and if the batteries set the plane alight at FL410 somewhere between 30 and 40W then its Boeing my surviving relatives will sue because I surely won't be around to.
PB

[Andy_S]

I couldn't live with myself as I saw the happy smiling faces of the kids in the school yard as we ploughed into it, or the thought of all the hospital patients that died as we smashed into the hospital.....

Since, presumably, you wouldn't live, why should this be a problem.......:E

[Jarvy]

Really, if the pilots are willing to fly it I'm in it, simple!

[TFlyguy]

To all those people who wont fly on it I hope you have got rid of your mobile phones and lap tops.

I have done my 787 conversion course and can't wait for the first aircraft to arrive

[pax britanica]

I think in some airlines and some parts of the world Pilots willing to fly it and pilots wanting to fly it might not be quite the same thing

[Pontius Navigator]

Nice exit slides, better than having to wait for the step :)

[Pontius Navigator]

I couldn't live with myself as I saw the happy smiling faces of the kids in the school yard as we ploughed into it, or the thought of all the hospital patients that died as we smashed into the hospital.....:{

Hospitals maybe but schools no, the pilot always wrestles with the controls to miss the school, even if the have to move the school to get it near the crash site.

[airsmiles]

I hope you have got rid of your mobile phones and lap tops

If you're a pilot and make a statement like that there's no way I'd fly with you!

How many smoke/fire incidents to passenger flights have been caused by laptops and phones? How many of these have been in passenger aircraft for the last decade even? Millions.

The B787 has suffered too many incidents over a little more than year in service and a relatively small number of in-service aircraft.

What you're suggesting isn't a valid comparison at all.

[Mr Mac]

Flew on ANA last year down to HK and frankly was not that impressed. Liked larger windows and disliked dimmer, as has been posted, but other than that it was just another Boeing. Few "modern" jets to me seem that diffrent with exception of A380. Would prefer up stairs on 380 or 747 to 787, and if had to be on one level then 777 does it for me as long as with my preferred carriers.;)

[DaveReidUK]

Due to fly on the Thomson ones in MayI hope you get your wish, but I suspect it may depend on how long Boeing take to come up with an FAA-approved redesign and what effect that might have on the production schedule.

[Local Variation]

A colleagues wife works in speciality materials including composites and she has warned against flying on any aircraft made in this way.

Time will tell.

[Sober Lark]

Would you get on a 787 tomorrow?

Easy. The decision has been made for you. Others have identified the risks and are managing them hence you can't fly (tomorrow).

[DaveReidUK]

A colleagues wife works in speciality materials including composites and she has warned against flying on any aircraft made in this way.Pretty well every commercial airliner flying today has at least some of its structure made from composite.

I assume she goes to Torquay and not Torremolinos for her holidays.

[Wannabe Flyer]

Seems to be a component issue vs an overall design (composite airframe) issue. I don't see a serious structural fault and in my opinion every new technology comes with issues.

Better these cropped up now then at a later date when it might have been hushed up as there would have been too many 787's flying and grounding the fleet would have meant serious ramifications.

HAving asked that here is another question

Would you get onto a 330 considering the continuing issue and incidents coming out of the freezing of it's tubes?

[Mr Mac]

Boeing now suspending delv according to BBC until battery issues resolved so looks like 787 will continue to be a relativly rair "bird" for a while. Maybe Boeing just pushed the design a little too far in one leap or maybe bean counters enforced a "cut corner" as these are after all commercial aircraft. I am not saying they would delibratly make it unsafe / dangerouse but perhaps design was pushed to achiev commercial / marketing gain before technology was up to it, only time will tell but I am sure Boeing will resolve issue but a what cost to them, and their reputation, I for one do not know.

[A2QFI]

Because the designer, maker and seller of the complete aircraft chose to fit this item?
I might fly in one but I would not pay extra for the dubious privilege of being in the Thompson cattle truck version!

[TFlyguy]

No P in Thomson

And more legroom in economy than on BA or VS.

[A2QFI]

Thank you the information re seat pitch! I am amazed; it goes a long way towards justifying the surcharge for flying on the aircraft.

[Hotel Tango]

And more legroom in economy than on BA or VS

For the moment.......

[Load Toad]

If the authorities in the EU, USA & Japan don't want it flying at the moment & Boeing are suspending deliveries - no I wouldn't fly on one right now.

Get it fixed &b get it flying; I haven't flown on one yet & was up until now rather looking forward to.

[JustOccurred2Me]

Of course I will fly in a 787, given the chance.

It's all about managed risk; at the end of the day, any flight is basically a journey in a pressurised tube several miles above the ground powered by exploding chemicals. Decades of research and development - and, yes, lessons learned from accidents - ensure that planes don't generally fall out of the sky.

Plus, I'm always reassured that pilots are utterly professional humans. No crew I've ever met would knowingly fly something that they didn't believe was absolutely safe.

That said, Li-Ion and lithium polymer batteries worry me. We deal with thousands at work (IT industry) and we've had some nasty close shaves. It feels like the dark ages having to have buckets of sand next to every workstation ready to smother a battery that won't stop getting hotter and hotter.

They will sort it though; it's very new technology and all new technology needs to have the wrinkles ironed out. I'm sure early turbojets and turbofans had major issues; look at them now.

My biggest concern is that the media just lurve a good disaster, and if we're not careful they could absolutely destroy the reputation of a fine airplane. Ill-informed commentary is the last thing the industry needs in the middle of a recession.

[Contacttower]

A colleagues wife works in speciality materials including composites and she has warned against flying on any aircraft made in this way.

That sounds like a rather spurious assertion. Does she actually know anything about aviation?

Composite materials have been used in aircraft for years. In the world of private flying almost 100% composite aircraft have been produced for a long time with few issues. In terms of the 787 the FAA demanded more stringent certification tests to ensure that its (for a large aircraft) unprecedented level of composite materials did not pose any issues.

There are no doubt challenges though; for example composites require more precise manufacturing tolerances particularly when it comes to the use of bonding adhesives which require the correct temperature and humidity to set properly.

The issue though that has been raised the most is that of damage and repair. After significant stress to a composite material it can be harder to determine whether it has experienced a loss of strength and particularly with larger pieces when repaired whether it has repaired back to the original standard or not. Neither of these have proved insurmountable.

In terms of would I get on a 787, I might at this point avoid a flight on one simply due to the risk of a technical delay. However if presented with a serviceable one and told to get on it I would have no problem with that, nothing that has happened to it so far suggests there is a real risk of one crashing.

[FlyingGoggles]

Disclaimer: I'm SLF of the nervous variety. At the moment, no I wouldn't get on a 787. When they've got everything sorted, then yes, I would.

However, to prove it's not just the fact I'm a nervous pax, I don't ride new rollercoasters at my local theme park until they've had time to bed in and work out the inevitable teething problems.

[RevMan2]

After close to 3m km...
Not.A.Chance

[gdiphil]

Who on earth thought of using these batteries? I thought we couldn't check them in our hold luggage, something about them being too dangerous. And I thought they have brought down a couple of cargo 747's, although I could have that wrong and would happily be corrected. What is more, why are the airlines so happy to take an aircraft with them in the first place? It is all very well blaming Boeing and the FAA as some are in some threads and in the media but surely airlines are aware of the dangers in these batteries. They should have said no to the aircraft. I certainly will until this is sorted.

[GrahamO]

Who on earth thought of using these batteries?

They are the only ones with the level of energy density available. Don't be fooled into thinking this is a few Duracell Lithium batteries tied together. The electrical requirements of the 787 are HUGE compared with other aircraft. There is currently no other solution.

I thought we couldn't check them in our hold luggage, something about them being too dangerous.

You couldn't check them in any luggage as they are not publicly available, are not on any aircraft and are made of materials not available even in hybrid cars. There are reports that they contain Lithium when in fact this is only in minute quantities and they are in fact, cobalt oxide batteries.

And I thought they have brought down a couple of cargo 747's, although I could have that wrong and would happily be corrected.

Don't think so as these batteries are only on the 787.

What is more, why are the airlines so happy to take an aircraft with them in the first place?

Because they thought they were safe and they had no option. Next time you go and buy a car, try telling the showroom that you are not satisfied with its safety record and you'd like them to change a few bits of the braking mechanism, - they will tell you to buy something else.

It is all very well blaming Boeing and the FAA as some are in some threads and in the media but surely airlines are aware of the dangers in these batteries.

Do you imagine the airlines design aircraft and decide on the choice of every component and check every engineering decision ? Do you do the same when you get in your car and drive off ? Do you know every component safety situation in your car ?

They should have said no to the aircraft. I certainly will until this is sorted.

Bah humbug attitude with a touch of self-importance ..... there are many many more things that can go wrong with an aircraft but it is as they say, entirely your choice. However, if you drive to your destination, you are statistically even lesss likely to arrive safely.

Travel safely.

[CafeClub]

Grahamo, there are a squillion threads on pprune alone where you can spout your "expertise" on all things technical / cutting edge / statistical on the 787.

The point of this thread was a simple one: would you fly in this aircraft?

You never said.

[ampclamp]

I would not fly in one right now (if not already grounded). For something that was supposed to be next to impossible, 2 similar incidents in quick succession is a concern.

This from the Boeing PR on the battery.....

GS Yuasa’s Li-ion technology offers some key advantages over the existing nickel-cadmium solution used in commercial jetliners. With 100% greater energy storage capacity, lithium-ion
offers two times of energy from the same dimension nickel-cadmium battery. The battery can charge from 0 to 90% in only 75 minutes and comes with battery management electronics which guarantees multiple levels of safety features. The rugged prismatic sealed battery design is
capable of withstanding extreme operating conditions far greater than those normally seen in commercial aircraft operation and requires absolutely no maintenance.

“Thales is determined to create the safest, most advanced, efficient and reliable power system possible for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. We are partnering with GS Yuasa because we are
delighted with their battery technology. Since it is maintenance-free and has longer service life comparing to current nickel-cadmium batteries, it makes for lower operating costs and increased safety for airline companies,” said Steve Grinham, General Manager of the electrical activity of Thales.
So far so good....:hmm:

[JustOccurred2Me]

Not sure where GrahamO gets his info - they are Lithium Cobalt Oxide batteries in the Dreamliner, commonly referred to as Lithium Ion. LiCoO2 batteries are much the same as in your laptop.

And yes, Duracell do make Lithium Cobalt Oxide cells.

[YorkshireTyke]

I couldn't live with myself as I saw the happy smiling faces of the kids in the school yard as we ploughed into it, or the thought of all the hospital patients that died as we smashed into the hospital....

Don't worry - the headline will say ..... Heroic pilot avoided school and hospital.

They always do -- the heroic pilots I mean.

You'll be just as dead of course.

[A2QFI]

The older newspaper reports used to include the phrase "Wrestled with controls of crippled jet" ISTR?

[DaveReidUK]

The electrical requirements of the 787 are HUGE compared with other aircraft. There is currently no other solution.That's tantamount to saying that the 787 is never going to fly again, because it clearly isn't going to do so with Li-ion batteries in a timeframe that would allow Boeing to get the 787 programme back on track. Li-ion is not the only solution to the 787's electrical needs, it's just the option that results in the lowest weight and space requirement.

"I thought they have brought down a couple of cargo 747's"

Don't think so as these batteries are only on the 787.The reference to 747s being brought down is correct. The clue is in the word "cargo" - the batteries were part of the payload, not fitted to the aircraft.

Next time you go and buy a car, try telling the showroom that you are not satisfied with its safety record and you'd like them to change a few bits of the braking mechanism, - they will tell you to buy something else.That's a ridiculous analogy. The BMW dealer won't care a hoot if you walk out the showroom and buy a Volvo instead, but if Boeing (or Airbus) think they are about to lose a 50-aircraft order they will bend over backwards to offer all sorts of concessions, and those often include engineering ones.

Airlines have a huge amount of influence over manufacturers in determining the spec of the aircraft that they buy.

[dpsilverba]

Yes I have!!!!!!. Had a fantastic flight BRU/WAW with LO in 'First' before these scares. Would I do it again..ET/LA/BA oooooooooohhhhhyes:D

[DeepDene]

..." Plus, I'm always reassured that pilots are utterly professional humans. No crew I've ever met would knowingly fly something that they didn't believe was absolutely safe."....

I'm sure that's true, but how many pilots know every single design compromise made in the development of a new aircraft and are brave enough to take an individual stand when things do start to go wrong? Isn't that the role of the Pilots unions?

[MPN11]

Would I fly on a 787? If there was no choice, then I expect I would, albeit with some nervousness. If there was a choice, I'd rather not at this stage.

However, the entire battery issue makes interesting reading, as I've recently purchased a Peugeot iOn all-electric car. Fortunately it appears to have lithium manganese-oxide batteries, and is thus less likely to burst into flames. Probably ;)