In terms of comfort I'm primarily interested in the cabin (pressure) altitude change. And I think that because so much is riding on this for one of only two majors on the entire planet, it must be sorted out one way or other.

From the engineers or test pilots’ perspective when anything goes wrong in the early service of any new aircraft and nobody is hurt every such incident represents invaluable knowledge which will allow them to refine the design or procedures associated with it.

Such incidents are therefore to be welcomed not wailed about on the internet.

It may be hard on the commercial and PR folk but it leads in the long term to a really well sorted aircraft.

@cockney steve: Thanks for replying, though my post seems to have been removed [I'm still trying to work out what attracts the mods' delete key!] "... yet they had a vast team of highly qualified engineers , working day and night on.........A tin box with a vent-pipe" [sorry, still can't work out how to quote properly on here]. Yes, I've been following the developments on one of the other threads. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Like many others, I want to see the 787 work, but I just feel it is almost a the point of no return. I know there will be the folk who say "this is entirely normal for a new type - it is just the reporting that has increased" (and I really don't know whether that is true or not). However, the point is that the 787 is developing the sort of reputation that gets into the group mind, and so every incident gets reported. Eventually, unless Boeing have truly excellent PR (which doesn't seem to be the case) the whole thing will end up being so toxic that it will have to be binned, along with a lot of the potentially good developments.

The bathrooms are certainly of interest. They are not gravity flow, and do rely on the electrical system to flush.

Also of interest in the Heathrow fire which started at the back at the bathroom location.
It appears they are looking at the airconditioning unit, but, they stated at ALL power had been shut down for 8 hours.

El Bunto:

You're worrying about .6 of an inch in width, seriously?
The economy pax will have 34 inch seat pitch which is better than pretty much anyone, the space is very noticeable and I've sat in those economy seats.

Cabin crew permit it constantly, only disabling the system when safety dictates. That's standard for this aircraft.

Reports on SSN last night that a hundred or so Thomson customers had contacted the company querying whether their planned future flight was to be on a 787.

Thomson declined to comment, but the inference was pretty obvious in the news report.

I wonder if the passengers were aware of the Heathrow 787 fire. If I had been on board I certainly would have been worried even though I like flying.

Any definitive news about whether or not the Thomson 787 galleys were also affected by the technical problem?

Please explain "when cabin crew permit viewing". Do they somehow have control of window access? How? When? Why?

'Magic' windows
 

How The Magical Windows in Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Work




nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

So why did the jettison fail to work?

Electrically operated pumps and valves?

G-TUIC has just returned from Cancun, tracking the east coast of USA, was due to land in Manchester, circled a few times and then diverted to Gatwick where it's just landed. Are there any problems in Manchester this morning or is this a case of needing to get the aircraft back to base?

MarcJF, there is fog at Manchester this morning, I assume that is the reason for the divert.

Perhaps Tom don't have clearance yet for CAT IIIB as it's such a new type to them? Otherwise ......?

So has it been established as fact that the crew lost the ability to dump fuel and had reduced braking?

If so then what if they had a birdstrike when flying back over Ireland? Or the battery caught fire like it has previously and the crew needed to land immediately and couldn't make it to a nice long runway like Shannon or Manchester? Landing heavy with reduced braking on possibly a short runway? Lovely :uhoh:

Agree C Farley
 

Having flown about 12,000 DC10 I agree with Mr Farley. It will be sorted eventually or sooner.

I spoke to some passengers on this mornings 787 from Cancun when it landed at Manchester early afternoon.. They were told the diversion to Gatwick was due to fog at Manchester. I know of at least one other aircraft which diverted to Liverpool for the same reason.

Hmm...not CATIII or no fuel?

Hmm. Electrical aeroplane. How about electrics? What if, say, a busbar failed on a new twin engined aircraft, leading to all sorts of issues?

Thomson hasn't got 787 CAT III approval yet. It's imminent though.