Jetstar 787 diverts to Guam?
Ok fair enough but I was responding to the Dingowalkabout fellas smart assed comment to me earlier on..... Apparently I make him laugh.......probably not a bad thing I guess!!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a 787 driver I think it's wise to look at the facts.
The 787-8 was the A model which will always have it's issues. However dispatch reliability rate is sitting at 98.5% which is HIGHER than the Airbus A380, that sits at 96.5%.
Kenyan Airways are getting 99.4%.
The 777 has a dispatch rate of 99%
The A330 sits at the same with claims of it exceeding 99%
However both of these are MATURE airframes.
Here is a fantastic link to Jet Blue's experience operating the E190
http://airinsight.com/2013/11/12/the.../#.VIFtYUubDZs
The 787-9 is a more refined airframe with differences that should experience less teething issues and the added benefit of having 3 years of dash 8 operations behind it.
A ULR flight analysis and comparison shows the 787 delivers a more cost efficient platform than the 777. On a 14 hour ULR with a payload of 25 Tonnes the 787 uplifted 20 tonnes less than a 777 and completed the flight in 30 min less. This means every 5th flight is free based on fuel savings and every 50th flight is free based on flight time savings. On paper it is an accountants dream and all operational hiccups and teething issues aside, once it becomes a mature airframe for all involved, Ground ops, Maintenance, Flight ops it will no doubt be a mainstay in the future of civil aviation along with the A350.
I've operated other Boeing airframes that normally run with a PDA of +1.8 to +2.2. The 787 is the first Boeing aircraft I've seen to operate with a PDA of MINUS.
As with any new pioneering airframes there will be issues. Pilots and Engineers are always resistant to change, look at the introduction of the glass cockpit and the argument of the need for a flight engineer. The 787 has one switch called "fuel balance" that sums up the bread and butter of that job. I'm sure that was never envisaged in the past and I'm sure the future will hold things we never imagined. Like drone freight flights or the similar.
The 777 was also pulled from it's EIS due to gear box issues and wasn't allowed to operate ETOPS until it was rectified. The A380 suffered major wing cracks and let's not forget the issues with Airbus and their pioneering fly by wire technology.
I can't comment on how JQ operate the dream machine or their engine options. However the 787-9 and 787-10 will be the main stay on most future fleets along with Airbus NEO's and 350's.
Here are some links to articles.
JUly 2014.
Airlines Singing Praises Of 787 | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
November 2014.
http://nyc787.********.de
The 787-8 was the A model which will always have it's issues. However dispatch reliability rate is sitting at 98.5% which is HIGHER than the Airbus A380, that sits at 96.5%.
Kenyan Airways are getting 99.4%.
The 777 has a dispatch rate of 99%
The A330 sits at the same with claims of it exceeding 99%
However both of these are MATURE airframes.
Here is a fantastic link to Jet Blue's experience operating the E190
http://airinsight.com/2013/11/12/the.../#.VIFtYUubDZs
The 787-9 is a more refined airframe with differences that should experience less teething issues and the added benefit of having 3 years of dash 8 operations behind it.
A ULR flight analysis and comparison shows the 787 delivers a more cost efficient platform than the 777. On a 14 hour ULR with a payload of 25 Tonnes the 787 uplifted 20 tonnes less than a 777 and completed the flight in 30 min less. This means every 5th flight is free based on fuel savings and every 50th flight is free based on flight time savings. On paper it is an accountants dream and all operational hiccups and teething issues aside, once it becomes a mature airframe for all involved, Ground ops, Maintenance, Flight ops it will no doubt be a mainstay in the future of civil aviation along with the A350.
I've operated other Boeing airframes that normally run with a PDA of +1.8 to +2.2. The 787 is the first Boeing aircraft I've seen to operate with a PDA of MINUS.
As with any new pioneering airframes there will be issues. Pilots and Engineers are always resistant to change, look at the introduction of the glass cockpit and the argument of the need for a flight engineer. The 787 has one switch called "fuel balance" that sums up the bread and butter of that job. I'm sure that was never envisaged in the past and I'm sure the future will hold things we never imagined. Like drone freight flights or the similar.
The 777 was also pulled from it's EIS due to gear box issues and wasn't allowed to operate ETOPS until it was rectified. The A380 suffered major wing cracks and let's not forget the issues with Airbus and their pioneering fly by wire technology.
I can't comment on how JQ operate the dream machine or their engine options. However the 787-9 and 787-10 will be the main stay on most future fleets along with Airbus NEO's and 350's.
Here are some links to articles.
JUly 2014.
Airlines Singing Praises Of 787 | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
November 2014.
http://nyc787.********.de
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetX
Are you really saying that all the F/E did was balance fuel? If you are you are totally uninformed. I can tell you for one that when of more than a few times our pitots iced up we didnt fall out of the sky, just flew the attitude and N1s that the FE computed.Did you ever fly with 3 person crew?
That one little comment totally negates anything else that you said on the whole subject.Do you really think that the F/Es were pax from 1945 to the late 90s?
Wunwing
Are you really saying that all the F/E did was balance fuel? If you are you are totally uninformed. I can tell you for one that when of more than a few times our pitots iced up we didnt fall out of the sky, just flew the attitude and N1s that the FE computed.Did you ever fly with 3 person crew?
That one little comment totally negates anything else that you said on the whole subject.Do you really think that the F/Es were pax from 1945 to the late 90s?
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 5th Dec 2014 at 08:24.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just quoting the "exact" comment from a colleague I flew with last week who was an Ex F/E and now a 78 driver…. amazed at how redundant his job had become on these next gen frames.
If it makes you feel better, I'm sure we will be redundant in 20 years as well and will sit in boxes flying drones.
Relax…
If it makes you feel better, I'm sure we will be redundant in 20 years as well and will sit in boxes flying drones.
Relax…
3 delays for the B787 in the last week with JL, including a 27hr 11min delay even with an aircraft change.
In the past 12 months there has been a major delay every 4.5 days with an average fleet of 12 for the period.
In the past 12 months there has been a major delay every 4.5 days with an average fleet of 12 for the period.
Does a 777 really carry newly twice the payload over 14hrs for only 20t more fuel than a 787?
The don
The don
British Airways currently fly the 747/777/767 and 787, and the 787 is the worst boeing they have ever seen in terms of production quality!
Donpizmeov------read his post again, He said the 787 uplifted 20 tonnes less FUEL for the same sector with 25 tonnes payload for both.
20 tonnes LESS FUEL BURN. for the 787 on the same 14 hr sector AND 30 mins faster
Clear as mud?
20 tonnes LESS FUEL BURN. for the 787 on the same 14 hr sector AND 30 mins faster
Clear as mud?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys need to read this article from July. I can't find anything more recent so it may have gone downhill but somehow I doubt it.
Airlines Singing Praises Of 787 | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
Airlines Singing Praises Of 787 | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
Boeing is targeting improvements to the spoiler control units and brakes, which Whittington describes as “the top two delay drivers,”
Those Boeing engineers who were sacked for demanding more testing are being proven right. Only Wall St matters in today's US commercial environment!
ACMS,
If a 777 was to only carry 25t it's owner would go broke. It would have 150 empty seats and no cargo on board. It would be limited to 45t on a 14hr sector. Doing a comparison on such a tiny payload is a waste of time. Why not do the comparison on real world numbers, ie real revenue amount carried, including the extra 100 pax on the 777? You need almost 2 787 flights to carry the 777 load in the example given.
But I get it. Its shiny, it's new, and it's finally got some modern stuff in it. Doesn't seem to like flying close to track much when there is weather around, so lucky it's got that 30min head start.
The don
If a 777 was to only carry 25t it's owner would go broke. It would have 150 empty seats and no cargo on board. It would be limited to 45t on a 14hr sector. Doing a comparison on such a tiny payload is a waste of time. Why not do the comparison on real world numbers, ie real revenue amount carried, including the extra 100 pax on the 777? You need almost 2 787 flights to carry the 777 load in the example given.
But I get it. Its shiny, it's new, and it's finally got some modern stuff in it. Doesn't seem to like flying close to track much when there is weather around, so lucky it's got that 30min head start.
The don
Whatever mate, only clarifying what the guy that actually flies them said. His outfit can directly compare the 77W to the 789 so I'd take his word for it....
Oh and he never said 25 tonnes payload was the maximum either could carry, only that he was comparing them equally with 25 tonnes each.
Why don't you ask him how much payload a 789 can carry over 14 hours, how much fuel it burns compared to the 77W?
Oh and he never said 25 tonnes payload was the maximum either could carry, only that he was comparing them equally with 25 tonnes each.
Why don't you ask him how much payload a 789 can carry over 14 hours, how much fuel it burns compared to the 77W?
As JetX is located downunder on the 789 and his company also operate 77W's I'd have to think he was a Kiwi......
Who would have thought, Kiwi's leading the world!! Good on em.
Who would have thought, Kiwi's leading the world!! Good on em.