Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

Would you fly on a 787?

Old 17th Jul 2013, 09:50
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 72
Posts: 1,243
Wherever possible. Which is definitely the case for the next 10 months.
radeng is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 10:26
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,040
I'm in a quandary. I accept the arguement that all aircraft have teething problems. I'm also one of those people who will argue with people who claim air travel is unsafe; it is incredibly safe on every measure.

But I do have my own, internal, risk assessment. I've said before there are airlines I would avoid if possible. But the problem comes when I'm in the home country of an airline I want to avoid and the choice is between flying with them or going by road. Given the level of road accidents in most countries I'll fly. When TWA started 767s over the Atlantic I was invited to Kansas City and they suggested using the 767 and I declined; we went via Chicago on 747s. Nowadays I don't think twice about EROPs on twins.

So, the 787. I think I'll avoid it when booking, if I can, for the time being. If a schedule change puts me on a 787 that's fine. I do have some (laymans) reservations about the battery fix. Somehow the idea of accepting a fire might occur and containing it rather than stopping the cause worries me. But then fires do occur in the cargo hold despite all the precautions and banned items the solution is to try and put it out - contain it, in effect. Daft eh?!
Hartington is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 13:51
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Scotland
Age: 57
Posts: 9
Thanks for so many responses so quickly!

I am very much in the same quandary as Hartington above. I know air travel is very safe, andI know that it is more down to the operator than the aircraft, and under almost every other situation I would be telling anyone stating that they would not fly on <insert aircraft name> not to be silly. I also wonder if there is some anti-Boeing press going on in Europe for whatever reason.

However, there seem to be a lot of unknowns: what caused the battery problems? Why did an airframe on the ground suddenly have a fire that burned through the skin? The turn-back of the Thomson flight may well have been "just one of those things", but what was it? Reading some of the pilot forums here, there is one experienced chap (amicus) who is convinced that the composite skin will catch fire at (relatively) low temperatures, producing toxic fumes very quickly, and tending to burn more in the air-stream (as far as I can make out, a bit like blowing on a cigarette). This, to me puts the risk into a different category than engine-failure - which is usually survivable due to having backups.

I'm more than a bit concerned that the problems have too many unknowns that could lead to a Comet scenario, of problems that people think they have a handle on, but there is something so new that they don't know how to check for it (and who, these days, would do the equivalent of the water-tank test?).

On balance, I'd prefer to avoid a 787, at least for a while. However, the thing that would make me most reluctant to fly on one is that the cabin-crew have control of the window-dimmers. I don't want to fly on a plane that I can't look out of the window occasionally (minor claustrophobia issues )
Legacy Driver is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 17:18
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 59
Posts: 682
Laarbruch 72
Freudian slip no, perhaps more Tonic with the Bombay !. Do agree with other poster re window blind control although have also had this on a new EK 777 in May so perhaps the days of watching the world go past unimpeded are coming to an end, Nanny knows best and all that, a sad day if it comes to pass.
SSK
Nigeria / Congo were home for some time, lived in Victoria in Lagos so I am well aware of the Dark Continent and the airlines within, and their some time questionable service and a/c. That said I was younger then, and perhaps as you get older you decide to limit controllable risks and currently with me the Boeing 787 is a risk I do not need to have. Will no doubt have to fly them more as they become more widespread but to be really honest as a PAX I did not find it so much of a game changer as the 747 & 380 were, and have been during my shortish flight.
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 18:12
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,117
I understand that if safety is expensive try having an accident. I am sure that if the airlines believed the 787 were unsafe they would have been grounded; the aircraft not the airlines. And the airlines would have seek compensation from B.

So yes I would fly with no hesitation and given some people would avoid that would increase my chance to get upgraded.
Rwy in Sight is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 19:40
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,425
So yes I would fly with no hesitation and given some people would avoid that would increase my chance to get upgraded.
You'll be lucky

Mixed bag of views about the 787, but that's life. I fly quite a lot and I'm not a nervous flyer. Nevertheless I feel uneasy about certain airlines and certain types (not many) so I simply avoid them.

I certainly don't like the window dimmer control by the crew, unless it's ONLY to make sure they are fully open for take-off and landing. I wouldn't like the idea of being forced-dimmed on say a westbound daytime oceanic crossing.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2013, 00:20
  #27 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 69
Posts: 1,935
I certainly don't like the window dimmer control by the crew, unless it's ONLY to make sure they are fully open for take-off and landing. I wouldn't like the idea of being forced-dimmed on say a westbound daytime oceanic crossing.
Totally concur - I for one will avoid this aircraft wherever possible for this reason alone.
ZFT is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2013, 00:40
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,040
So yes I would fly with no hesitation and given some people would avoid that would increase my chance to get upgraded.
Actually, if lot's of people decide to avoid 787s that will possibly DECREASE your chance of an upgrade.

Why, well it depends on the upgrade, but upgrading someone because the class they are booked in is overbooked and the one above has space won't happen if the planes are empty.
Hartington is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2013, 02:12
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: N Ireland
Posts: 260
I would fly on it.
Where did we get the idea that the CC would be controlling the window dimming at their whim.
I understood that they have overall control as pointed out for T/O and LDG but surely most of the time you have control.
Solar is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2013, 09:24
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,425
Solar, the worry arises from an already existing frequent wish by many CC to close the shades after the meal service and the lights have been dimmed. Arguably, this is perhaps OK on a night flight, but not necessarily during the day. If I'm on a mid morning departure from Europe to say the USA, I prefer to have some daylight filtering through. At present I may close my window shade by 75% but I prefer to remain in control of my immediate environment. If others want to sleep they can use their eye shades. So, if overzealous cabin managers want their children (i.e. us pax) to go sleepies they may impose fully dimmed windows against our will. Of course, until one has actual experience, it may be that even in the fully dimmed configuration one can still see out. Anyone on here flown the 787 who could enlighten us?

Last edited by Hotel Tango; 18th Jul 2013 at 09:26.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2013, 12:09
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,594
After my sister in law flew over from Texas to the UK, and back again in one of these, I have been mulling this over.

I would prefer it if every member of Congress and Senate had flown it first.

However, when BA introduced the 747-400 plane to long haul to Asia, they had lots and lots of "electrical" problems. PPRuNe was not available for me to consult then. And I flew lots and lots of times on BA's new 747-400.s. - I ended up in Athens, Amsterdam, and overnight in Singapore due to these "electrical " problems.
........was that just because PPRuNe was not around to scare me?

So I suspect the Dreamburner will turn out OK, eventually.
Anyway, the pilots are not all Daft, - so if they will fly it, I guess I can be a customer in it.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2013, 20:36
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 127
No, not yet.

I'll have more confidence in the 787 when the NTSB have found their answers re. the battery failures and Boeing see fit to get rid of the Heath Robinson/Rube Goldberg workaround they have somehow gotten past the regulator.

I'm no engineer, just pax. I admit I could be worrying about nothing. If so, I'd suggest that Boeing 'extract digit' and spend generously of time & dollars, in showing the public that the 787 is no more risky than any other contemporary new design.
John Marsh is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2013, 12:07
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Moon
Posts: 7
Of course!

I can't wait to fly the 787 (and the 747-8 for that matter) the problem is just that I don't regularly fly any routes that are done by the 787.
DXBWannabe is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2013, 16:32
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Maidenhead berkshire
Age: 78
Posts: 77
I'd rather fly any Boeing than Airbus any day
Dave Barnshaw is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2013, 17:13
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,425
Well Dave, I'd like to fly a Douglas DC3/4/6/7 or Lockheed Constellation any day instead of either Boeing or Airbus, BUT AIRBUS v BOEING IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT!

Last edited by Hotel Tango; 19th Jul 2013 at 17:15.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2013, 17:41
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Here and there,and bach again
Posts: 24
This writer has no burning ambition to fly the 787 !
Offenbach is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2013, 01:00
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Where did we get the idea that the CC would be controlling the window dimming at their whim.
I usually am one of a handful with the blinds up when most have them turned down by the cabin crew, even on daylight flights. They no longer need to ask you 4-5 times to put them down, they can just throw a switch.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2013, 07:51
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 32
I guess there are two parts to this. Firstly, with all that has been going on the 787 is probably getting the 'kid gloves' treatment from airlines. Any sign of a problem and it's back to base or the aircraft goes tech.

This is likely to cause pax delays and I'd prefer to avoid that so I won't be flying 787s in the near future.

Secondly - and looking at the bigger picture - I do have serious reservations about the issues found so far with the aircraft and the concern that there is potentially something more systemic wrong with the aircraft. This will likely only emerge over time or perhaps after some major incident. I think I'd prefer to avoid being involved in any of that.

So it's a 'no' from me. Pity, as I would love to fly such an interesting airplane.

Last edited by dufc; 20th Jul 2013 at 07:53.
dufc is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2013, 08:37
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,950
Probably, if the route has a number of diversion airports within a short flying time. Trans-Atlantic definately not until the aircraft has proved its reliability.
TSR2 is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2013, 08:39
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 64
Posts: 2,847
Yes, but. The ELTs in question, and their batteries are not unique to the B787. From the NYT:
In its report on Thursday, Britainís Air Accidents Investigation Branch said that about 6,000 of the transmitters had been produced by Honeywell Aerospace since 2005. The transmitters are used in a wide range of aircraft, including Airbus planes. Honeywell and other manufacturers also make similar devices for thousands of other commercial and business jets.
Coincidence, or is there something unique about the B787? Humidity, possibly. Higher skin temperatures when sitting in the sun, possibly.

Personally I feel comfortable deferring to the captain's view. Might mean more delays and cancellations though, and if I really have to be somewhere on time that could affect my choices.

Without doubt every incident from engine pump failures to broken locks on the lav's dire will be reported in the press, and repeated at PPRuNe.
ExXB is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.