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?

Eactly Bealzebub. Which is what I indicated in my OP (the :sad: was meant to indicate that I knew the answer!) and am under no illusions. I have no doubt of the outcome whatsoever, I just thought it an interesting topic.

It was also certified the first time around for public transport operations, but this turned out to be misplaced trust. The fact that Boeing couldn't find the cause of the problems and went for a 'catch-all' patch-up approach doesn't really inspire much confidence to be honest.

While I trust Thomson as a quality airline, I have less regard for Boeing and the regulators about the 787 problems. You only have to see what United are having to deal with to see that introducing the 787 into service is a difficult and frustrating task when there are such a wide array of problems to identify and bed down. I presume BA are aware of this and that's why they decided to introduce the A380 into service first.

Hopefully, in the fullness of time, the 787 will live up to its promises and I truly look forward to that moment.

I expect the 787 will settle down - just like the 380 is now doing. We all know that EVERY manufacturer of ANY item now needs to rush the product to market as fast as possible. The development cycle is greatly reduced and competition acute - in the middle of the 2nd Great Depression, the more so.

Dream BusterIndeed, and I'm sure that this will be good to have. I am doubtfull that it will do much for jet-lag as Boeing claim. We are authoritatively informed that jet-lay is to do with light, not air, but the air and higher pressure will help many. I am also aware that the cabin has significant lighting design but a crate load of humans are all going to respond differently.
That's the way humans work, if they all developed at the same time it might be industrial espionage. :suspect:

But equally, when it comes to composites in the airframe: Boeing catching up.....slowly. ;)

A general comment.
 

The simple fact is that you have no idea of how safe or unsafe it is. If I asked you to quantify how safe or unsafe it was/is before and after the battery mod and you came up with a number it would just be something you pulled out of an old hat. This 'I won't fly on it until after at least a couple of years' is an emotional response poorly disguised as a rational one by dressing in up in references to technical issues that you understand even less.

Well yes of course One Outsider. I can board an aircraft type I consider safe on an airline I consider safe - and still end up a statistic. I think that it's just a case of reducing the odds, at least psychologically.

One Outsider Absolutely correct! I don't think I've stated anything else. :)

I am simply one customer taking decisions on my own behalf and with those who might travel with me. Sometimes I purchase items that I think are of lower quality but it suits me at that time. Whether I choose to purchase a ticket on any aircraft with any carrier is my choice. I was simply discussing the variables of life in this thread.

We all know that any of us can die at any time without warning - ask the family of Jams Gandolfini. I am far more likely to die of a heart attack, stroke or cancer than I am in an aircraft prang. I work in the field of bereavement so I do know a thing or two about how people die.

I'd hazard a guess that only the handful of people directly working on the testing and "fix" truly know that. The rest of us are basing our decision on safety on varying degrees of technical knowledge. I claim some inside/technical knowledge but way less than experts (as stated previously).

Of course it is. Isn't that blindingly obvious from past comments! If you're an engineer and your shiny brand new car is recalled and fixed, you'd do the same thing. Try and understand it and judge if it's fixed and safe on the best knowledge you can obtain. No different to users of aircraft.

I apply the same logic to other a/c types that have had problems and certain airlines that have attracted the wrong sort of comments in the aerospace world.

Not quite inaugural but close enough - AF296??

An aviation-related disaster was Gulf Air's inaugural flight programme to celebrate the arrival of its - only - BAC 1-11, back in the early 70's.

We decided that it would be a good wheeze to give lots of VIPs a good day out, take them to another State, host a festive lunch party in each State, then take them all back home again.

So, starting from Bahrain in the morning , we flew 70+ VIPs to Doha, where we picked up 70+ Qatar VIPs whom we took to Abu Dhabi, where we picked up 70+ Abu Dhabi VIPs and took them to Dubai, where we picked up 70+ VIPs who went to Muscat, where we picked up 70+ VIPs whom we took to Kuwait, where, guess what, we picked up 70+ VIPs to go to Bahrain.

The idea, of course, was to unravel the whole thing after lunch by going round the opposite way to take everyone home again. Simple, well-planned, a PR triumph.

420 of the Gulf region's most important movers and shakers, Rulers, Sheikhs and business leaders, military brass, a few bankers even, well-entertained and happy, in an orgy of intra-Gulf friendship and mutual co-operation.

The morning flights went like clockwork, BAC 1-11 much admired. At the lunches, the orange juice flowed like wine, many lambs gave their all, perhaps even a baby camel or two was sacrificed to the Great God of PR.

After lunch, everyone settled down to wait to be taken back home...........

...............................and waited...............

The BAC 1-11 had gone irretrievably u/s in Bahrain.

In those days telephone calls were booked hours in advance; the airline teleprinter network (what was it called?) was the main/only form of communication between Gulf States.

It took nearly 2 days to sort out the mess and get everyone back to where they started, many in a DC3. And hotel rooms were quite a scarce commodity in those days.

Excellent tale Mr old.

That headline blaming speed for a plane running off the runway reminds me of the one I saw on the Dow Jones newswire many moons back.

"Crashed plane was flying too close to ground" :ugh:

A few years back when flying with Swiss (BAe146) BHX/ZRH we boarded thru an airbridge and I took my seat ready for departure. Minutes later, looking out of the window, I observed that the wing was below me and without any engine(s) attached to it, "WTF" I thought and only upon checking the emergency card did I realise I was actually on board a Helvetic F100.

Another day I was supposedly travelling BHX/CDG on an AF/Cityjet BAe146, upon checking the emergency card I found myself on board a Blueline MD80 series.

Then, two years ago, booked on CX HKG/CEB on an A340, "great" I thought, nothing like 4 engines across water, upon taking my seat I took a look out of the window to count engines only to realise it was actually an A330.

But ... for my return trip CEB/HKG last year, which was actually supposed to be an A330, I was ready for them ... or so I thought, took a look out of the window and this, supposed, A330 had two engines on each wing. :)

The moral is that half the time the travelling public have no idea what they're flying on and tell them it's a B707 or a B787, many will just stare with a blank expression because it's merely numbers and all the same to them.

It seems one or two people conveniently missed the point, which was the pretense that is so often is present here and in other forums.

Statistics
 

i just thought id throw in some statistics here, just for the sake of it like -

B737. As of April 2012, 159 hull losses, a total of 4236 fatalities, 106 hijackings out of 10,700 hulls delivered, 3,138 on order. This includes all variants.

B767. 14 hull losses, a total of 569 fatalities. 1052 hulls delivered of which 838 remain in service.

B757. 8 hull losses, a total of 575 fatalities. 1049 hulls delivered of which 860 remain in service.

B747. 49 hull losses, a total of 2,852 fatalities. 1464 hulls delivered.

A320. 23 hull losses, a total of 789 fatalities. 9649 hulls delivered.

UK Roads 2012. 23,039 reported serious accidents, a total of 1754 fatalities.

B787. 0 hull losses, a total of 0 fatalities. 930 hulls orders, 66 delivered.

A little perspective?

Thanks Leftofcentre2009 for half the story. Now we need route miles flown for all the hulls and distance travelled for all the cars.

Yes, I know the car will still be the greater killer - but if we are going to quote stats they need to be full.

Yes, I know the 787 is going to prove reliable but I don't use the first release of PC software either and for that I'm sitting on the ground!

Simple example, when the A346 started, they had reports of the long fuselage 'wagging' and some calling it a Dutch Roll. they tweaked the software and pax stopped feeling sick.

I'd avoid these big things when possible because customs/immigration in most places aren't able to handle the influx in a reasonable time. Especially LHR T5. The chaos at ORD when you get 3 744s and pair of 777s arriving at about the same time - 55 minutes in line for immigration, and that is not too bad there.

@ leftofcentre2009

Statistically useful with the addition of minor factors such as average number of cycles per type or total operatinal hours per type?

It is in no way irrational to prefer a plane with an established track record over a new one, or to prefer (on safety grounds at least) an airline like Ryanair over (say) Air France or Korean Airlines.

Whether it is irrational to refuse to fly on a new plane (or with a particular airline) is a harder call, because statistically the chance of dying on a flight are vanishingly small.

Anyone who has doubts about Boeings design ethos should look at the pictures of BA038 and the Asiana plane in San Francisco. That the fuselages of both stayed substantially intact is a huge tribute to the designers.

Route miles and cycles? We could go on and on..... And i'm too busy LIVING my life to go into so much research over what i believe to be rather irrational thoughts. No offence meant to anybody in my saying that of course.

Indeed i used to have a real phobia of flight myself and am well rehearsed in that feeling of proper fear when one is tossed around in the sky like a cork in the ocean during turbulence and what not. I overcome my fears though by going down the rather expensive route of gaining my PPL. When one is in a little aircraft, a few bumps in an airliner feels rather trivial. So i may have spent a fortune (to me) to allay my fears, but on the upside, i now get to enjoy travelling without being a nervous wreck on fear of death but actually enjoying life a bit more than before. Anyway, i digress.

I would never refuse to travel on a Western Airline over their choice of vehicle. A lot of airlines use 3rd party facilities for maintenance anyway so the name printed on the side of the aircraft likely has little bearing on the standards of mechanical reliability. I'd like to think certain airlines are more reliable and have newer and better maintained airframes than others. That said it all means nothing when they forget to fasten the engine cowls though does it :O

If you want more statistics -
B737 Next Generation. Since 2005, 9 hull losses, 527 fatals in less than 10 years.

I still think it shows a bit of perspective and that the media for some reason latched onto the 787 issues.


Just to contradict what i said above hahaha - ive just remembered a trip i had with my family aboard a Package Airline last year when heading for the Caribbean.

We were waiting by the gate in T2 at Manchester when this aircraft gets towed up G-OOBK. So showing a bit of interest in aviation i then proceed to input the reg into google.

To my horror, i discovered that this aircraft, a Boeing 767-300 had in fact been involved in a hard landing and suffered creases and tearing to the fuselage crown whilst landing in Bristol 2010. Further more, the same airframe had had a hard landing in its previous life with Vietnam Airlines during 2000 and had been repaired.

Needless to say my family and i were NOT impressed. Repaired twice!?

Could hardly refuse boarding though could we?! But ah look, here i am alive and kicking writing this post. That same airframe has probably flown to the Caribbean and back 2 or 3 times a week since we returned from hols. Not crashed though has it.

I dont know how to post images so do a search on google for G-OOBK and click Images on the top tool bar.

I sympathise with you Leftofcentre2009 on discovering you were about to travel on G-OOBK. A couple of months ago, I friend of mine was on Air Transat, LGW~YYZ. Flight Radar 24 showed the flight progress and there was something familiar about it's reg: C-GITS. Yes it was AT236 that glided into the Azores in 2001. Obviously all went well as the machine has been plying it's trade all the while. I didn't bother to tell her afterwards!

slight thread divergence
Leftofcentre2009I think it's because Boeing made such a successful publicity launch. They were so keen to make a splash because the A380 took lots of limelight and got dubbed 'Super Jumbo' by the press. 'Jumbo' had been a Boeing 'word'.

To fight back on the corporate front, they created the name 'Dreamliner' to differentiate and started pushing the computer image of the machine aloft in the Boeing 'wavy line' paint job to make it look interesting. Actually, it's just another large twin, but with some different technology some of which may make a more pleasant flight but it's waaaay too early to tell.

The Boeing press office people pushed out every little detail during manufacture, they ensured that documentaries got made and stuffed things down Your Tube (or UP the tube as you wish ;)) and made sure that everyone knew that Boeing were doing something different to the A380.

Then they had problems and the wide publicity came back and bit them on the butt because everyone KNEW about the B787. Airbus were lucky in that the nature of the 380 gave them publicity on a plate, Boeing had to make it. My guess is that neither Boeing nor Airbus will hype a new machine in this way ever again.

Not least because - 99% of pax don't know what the machine is and don't care. It was corporate PR eating itself - nothing new there. In my opinion, they should have said nothing at all. they wasted their money because anyone who wanted to know about the machine - would know. But corporates get a real buzz from seeing their name up in lights.

And of course there's the UK Package company that has used the 787 as a huge marketing machine because they are the first British company to operate it.

In fact on that flight previously mentioned on G-OOBK, they (the airline) were constantly showing videos of how much better it would be on their new Dreamliner. Its plastered all over their website and all over their brochures and all over the inflight magazine.

I also believe they charge a supplement of £40 per passenger for the privilege too. WHY? Madness.

So when all this negative hype came to light, one could say it urinated on their fire so to speak :uhoh: