would YOU get on a 787?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would YOU get on a 787?
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Paxing All Over The World
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.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lanzarote/Butuan/Southern Yorkshire
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK EAST COAST
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
A fire that can't be put out, at 40,000 ft halfway over the Pacific?
No, this needs to be sorted, now.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK, sometimes USA
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC BBC News - Boeing 787: Dreamliner's lithium ion batteries probed :
Problems with Lithium batteries caused the crash of UPS 6 and is suspected in a number of other incidents. Lithium batteries may no longer be carried as freight on passenger aircraft.
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.
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.
Last edited by ExXB; 18th Jan 2013 at 10:05.
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
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
