The inaugural flight came as a surprise to the passengers...
 

Boeing 787 Dreamliner flies first UK passengers to Menorca | Business | The Guardian

1. Let's say I was one of the Thomson pax booked from LGW to Mahon on Friday 21st June.
2. At check in I am told (doubtless with a smile) that we will be travelling on a 787, introduced on SH for crew familiarisation blah publicity blah.
3. I say, (politely) "No thank you. I choose my carriers and aircraft very carefully. I will not travel on that aircraft for at least two years. Please rebook me at no cost to myself."
4. You can guess the responses! :sad:

So, the Bad Dreamliner! What a nightmare that's been so far.

If that was written into the contract you entered into with the airline, you should be fine. If not........
:)

It's an interesting point. While I'm happy to fly the 787 short-haul within Europe, I'm also more than happy to let other pax do some flight testing for me on long-haul over-water trips. I just don't have enough confidence in the 787 yet. I'm sure it will eventually be a fine aircraft but that's not now for me.

I'd be requesting a flight transfer if a 787 was swapped onto my existing non-787 long-haul flight at the moment.

You'll find that in Thomson's terms and conditions, along with most if not all other package holiday companies, there is a clause which gives them the right to change airline and/or aircraft without notice. You have agreed to these terms and conditions when booking and would have no leg to stand on and therefore forfeit your holiday.

joniveson I have no doubt of that, hence my original post!

Thus far, as I understand it, some of the problems are related to how the a/c is handled on the ground as it requires different procedures by the technicians to all other a/c that have gone before.

It must be very comforting as a passenger to possess as such superior knowledge of an airliner's safety that you are gifted with superior judgement to that of the airline operating it. :ugh:

It's probably even more comforting for passengers to make a choice and fly with who they like.

Nice one for all involved.

Two points on that:-

1) It helps if you work in the aerospace industry and have had close links with Boeing and one of the primary suppliers of the relevant troublesome technology.

2) Regardless of the above, anyone who places their faith in a service provider has a right to hold an opinion and act accordingly. I don't necessarily have better knowledge than the manufacturer or the relevant regulators, but my perception is that neither have done enough to reassure me.

I guess a carrier could subcharter a knacked old 737 from some Eastern European carrier running hours late try to play catch up all with broken seats and drop down tables. Wait a minute didn't that happen at BHX last year with Monarch?

I know what I would prefer to fly.....

Speed blamed after plane careers off Birmingham Airport runway « Express & Star

B787 OUTSIDE air not BLEED air
 

The single unique aspect of the B787 Dreamliner which no one has mentioned, but all pilots and Boeing have been waiting for is that this aircraft returns to using compressed OUTSIDE air - not BLEED air, which has been used by all jet aircraft since around 1962.

In this photo you will note 2 nostril type air inlets either side in the wing root - this is where the OUTSIDE air is taken in before being electrically compressed.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...F%3B1600%3B899

Whereas BLEED air travels in the front of the jet engine - is compressed and is then piped unfiltered into the cabin.

Airbus catching up.....slowly.

http://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default...int-062013.pdf

The Best Kept Secret in Aviation.

PaxBoy triggered my curiosity :}
Apart from the Titanic, which inaugural trip went (horribly) wrong?

The Tu-144 had a problem or few!

Safety is relative! Some of us will take risks that others would never contemplate.

When 767s first started crossing the Atlantic non stop I was invited to Kansas City by TWA. The proposed route was via St Louis on the 767. I asked nicely if we could please go via Chicago on the 747 and they kindly said yes; at that point the whole idea of twins over water was far to new for me to accept. Stupid? Possibly. The reason was that, at the time, the whole issue was still being discussed in magazines like Flight International and I wasn't comfortable.

These days I have what I think is a more rounded(?) approach. There are airlines that I will avoid if possible. I will take a non stop over a stop/change if possible (why expose myself to the riskiest parts of a flight more than I have to?). I will fly airlines that I would otherwise avoid if I'm "in country" and the alternative is a bus or car journey where the accident rate is high. I will fly on twins over water. At the moment I would try and avoid booking a 787 because I'm not comfortable that simply containing the batteries is a solution.

(But here is an interesting conundrum I'm currently thinking about going to Madagascar. The tour I've looked at uses Air France to get there. They will sell me the ground arrangements and allow me to book my own flights so Air Madagascar enters the options. Probably not, thank you, even though the tour includes one of their flights internally and I will use that on the basis that it is probably safer than a bus trip. Air France? Not the best safety record in recent years. The other alternative seems to be Kenya Airways and that's probably where I'll go if I decide to take the tour).

So what would I do if presented with a 787 at the gate when I thought I was going to be on something else? I'd like to think that with things like on-line checkin I would actually find out before I go to the airport, at least then I would have time to think about it. But, in the end I think I would board despite my reservations.

Like I said we all have our own ideas of safety and they aren't always rational.

Canadian Pacific's delivery flight of their Comet I went horribly wrong*. Not an inaugural, they had to cancel that.

*1st fatalities on a commercial jet aircraft.

I'd like to think that I'm relatively rational about safety, yet to be honest I'm not ready to fly an oceanic sector on an B787 just yet. And, although I do so regularly, I'm still not entirely comfortable flying oceanic on any twin for that matter.

If I found myself boarding a B787 unexpectedly, I would be reassured by the fact that before it was allowed back into service a great many people who understood such things will have made damn sure that the batteries are now safe.

I would be even more reassured by the fact that it is the first large mass-production passenger aircraft (OK, first equal with A350) to have a fully-effective fuel tank inerting system built into it as part of the original design.

One of my key concerns is not the time in the air but the time on the ground. I can be sure that flight crew have a whole lot more info than they had six months ago - but the ground crew?

Are ground crew at small outstations (not normally expecting to ever see the 787) ready? OK, the a/c is not going to be towed long distances, or at all, on such SH ops. Also the fire crews, in Boston they had been given no information about the nature of the battery they were dealing with! These items are all in the cheese. There are other reasons why I prefer to sit this one out for a while.

I agree with Hartington about early big twins and ETOPS. In fact, I can guess that I will never feel comfortable about it - eventhough I will increasinly have little choice. But that is my generation.

I am well aware that all carriers can substitute the equipment at any time and if I refuse to board that will be my financial risk. In the early days, one might hope that Thomson and other carriers would prefer to let me quietly board another flight and not have a public row about it. They have, of course, to get back to where Boeing promised them they would be, before Boeing made such a Horlicks of the production process, leave alone the battery.

Another example. When the A340 started, I waited a bit and was not happy about the A346 until they had sorted the balancing act. The last time I was on one, it still had a small - but obvious - roll for the duration of the cruise.

They won't have a public row about it. You are free to elect not to travel. They have fulfilled their end of the contract, and you have chosen to abandon it. They will be happy to sell you another contract but it will be on exactly the same terms in this respect.

This airliner is certified for public transport operations. If that doesn't allay your fears or concerns, or you wont travel in months without an "R" in them, or your horoscope doesn't mesh with your interpretation, that is all Ok. The A320 you get on instead, might decompress at 35,000ft. The B757 may have a smoke event. The B737 might need to divert with a sick passenger. Who knows?