Would you fly on a 787?
Ask yourself this... Boeing 737s, Airbus A320s, A330s etc all perform air turn backs several times a day, many experience significant faults (engine shut downs, electrical issues, smoke or fumes on board) on a regular basis, but does it stop you flying on one? The fact that the new aircraft of the day is reported on in the press is what makes threads like this. No-one will remember the problems in 10 years.
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?!
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?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
)
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
)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 151 Likes
on
94 Posts
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.
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.
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.
So yes I would fly with no hesitation and given some people would avoid that would increase my chance to get upgraded.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
N4790P
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.
So yes I would fly with no hesitation and given some people would avoid that would increase my chance to get upgraded.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where did we get the idea that the CC would be controlling the window dimming at their whim.
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.
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.