Yes, but. The ELTs in question, and their batteries are not unique to the B787. From the NYT: 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.

Yes I've flown it and will continue to do so. The crew looked very relaxed which says something.

After reading the absolute wealth of tech detail and knowledge gleamed from these forums along with my own experience of airframe production it's a resounding NO!

I personally feel that one particular airframer has been playing roulette with quality and thus my safety.

Also in the firing line is the 350, both airframes give me cause for concern over composite re-action in [airborne] fires, I need to research this more before I'm happy in a plastic pig I'm afraid.

I am not sure I follow it. I thought upgrades, are given among other reasons, if there are seats on the higher class are empty and the airline wants to offer a better service to the pax in question.

What do I miss?

If they are oversold in the back somebody will be upgraded. If they aren't they may upgrade but more likely to start with eligible employees. I don't think any airline would regularly upgrade when space is available. Filling the premium cabins is a disservice to those who have paid for it.

RiS, I fly on a couple of routes where it is not unusual for Business Class to be empty. Even if Economy is almost full no one gets upgraded. If Economy is overbooked they will first look to upgrade pax who paid the more expensive Y fares and who are members of their Frequent Flyer program.

I believe SIA never upgrade on spec. May be wrong but I was chatting to cabin staff who confirmed this when I had upgraded with Krisflyer miles.

I would not hesitate and would give it a preferential selection if available. From what I have read much of the flying public feels the same way as 787 passenger loads run higher on comparable routes. Of course I have been wrong in the past. I went out of my way to fly DC-10's before the cargo door fiasco. I got a kick out of watching Air France pilots on an A-320, one reading the manual, then watching as the other punched some buttons, shook his head and the first went back to reading. This went on for like a half hour beyond departure time until there was a VOILA! moment and we departed. That was in the days before locked cockpit doors and by sitting in the first row aisle seat you could get to see what was going on in the cockpit. I read in the pilots forum how one expert says the 787 fuselage is more flammable than gasoline while another says exactly the opposite. That is what is really scary - whom to believe. They also talk about a hull burn through but the people analyzing the structure at Heathrow say there was no burn through. That aluminum is not a problem in a fire - one only needs look at the 777 at SFO to realize that aluminum does not do well in a fire, and that damage was done with fire crews on hand pouring foam on the structure within 2 minutes of the plane coming to rest and before the crew realized there was an engine fire.

Yeah, I've been following that, as a noob here (though not to the 787) and although I'm very much in favor of asking awkward questions and critical review but I am amazed at the aggressive negativity and thus by extension, the implicit assumption that the Airlines, Boeing, FAA, EASA, CAA etc etc are all knowingly in some sort of conspiracy to kill as many of their customers as possible!

Apart from anything else, as business plans go, that ain't a great one?

Anyway I'll be flying on one again as soon as I can - I want to see how it feels now they have a fitted-out cabin!

fenland,
On your list of those trying to kill pax, you forgot to mention the pilots.

As the pilot would have to kill herself to kill me, I guess they can (normally) be trusted.

So, the 787 is presumably safer than a 707, and we flew in those. On the other hand, I'm in New Zealand, so any flight I'm likely to take involves 3 hours or more over water; and I still remember going through all the reasons why ETOPS was just fine, the first time I flew Los Angeles to Auckland on a 777--going through those reasons about once every half an hour, actually. (I'm nervous--so? They're not advertising airline travel as an adventure experience.)

At the moment, if I had a choice, I wouldn't fly 787, because although it doubtless does have some advantages for passengers (especially, in my case, the chance to avoid Los Angeles International Airport and fly straight to somewhere civilised like Chicago), it does not yet have an established safety record, whereas we know how good the 777 and the dear old 747 are.

Yes it's irrational. Especially as I was thinking of flying on a 380 just to experience it, before that aircraft had a much more dangerous in-flight event than anything that has happened to the 787. But a very great part of all human life is irrational. Expressing a preference is not the same as justifying it.