Would you fly on a 787?
 

On several of the threads about the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and its problems, there are passengers stating their opinions about whether they would fly on one. Since the posts aren't always on topic, they tend to vanish quickly, hence this thread.

So, the question is, as a passenger, would you fly on a 787 Dreamliner given the current number of problems? What are your reasons for your opinion?

I would have posted a poll as well, but I can't see the button the FAQs refer to.

I look forward to your replies.

I would personally be waiting for at least six months of relatively incident free operations. I totally accept that there are daily problems with many airlines and or airframes, but as a percentage, how many problems are we seeing compared to the total number in use? I also accept that it's a new type and that there can be glitches but these seem more than that to me.

I have some personal flying experience (only a PPL) and accept that there will always be risks. For me, for now, the odds aren't favouring the 787.

Yes I would. All new airliners have teething problems, undoubtedly the electrical problems were serious, action was taken and no lives were lost. The other problems we are reading about now are minor. Once the press have become alerted they pick up on every tiny issue and make mountains out of molehills.

People have very short memories, think back on all the engine shut downs suffered by early 747s, the DC10 crashes, deep stalls on the early T-tailed aircraft. Aircraft are much safer now.

When choosing to fly I am far more concerned about the standards of engineering and flight operations of the airline than by whether or not it is a 787.

No way would I pax on the 787...(1) Boeing have to date never identified the cause of the battery 'over heat'.

(2) How many a/c parked up after a number of hours start to burn?

I'll let the braver pax use the 787 Technology to soon, something is not right in the build.

Daz

Not if I have any choice in the matter. These may just be 'teething problems', but there are plenty of airliners which don't have those problems that I could be flying on instead.

Bergerie1 correctly reminds us of teething problems with the DC10 and early T-tailers which were subsequently fixed. However many people died in these early accidents, so no, I will refuse to fly it until it has a blotch free incident record for spontaneous combustion and computer freak outs for a couple of years

Yup, actually I have, quite a bit* and would again.

I should declare an interest I guess, although not a Boeing employee, I lived and breathed this airplane from 2005 to 2011. Along the way I've met and worked with a lot of the folk who designed it and a lot of the folk who build it. Almost without exception they were great people and there was not one who was unaware that one day their family members would fly on it.

Sure it has issues, and don't get me started on the 'MBAs running engineering' thing, but I suspect do most new airplanes do. So until I hear some facts as opposed to speculation on these last two events, (and please, what is so unusual about an air turn-back?) then I would happily scamper on board a 787 tomorrow.

*a while back, so the interior finish wasn't quite so good as now - although it was a tasteful shade of green, the seats were wider with neat full-harness belts and they provided loads of instruments for great in-flight entertainment!

I would avoid the 787 and the A380, merely because of the number of pax causing even worse delays at immigration.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Would you fly on a 787?
 

No. No. No.

Well I have already flown on a ANA 787 before they were grounded from Japan to Hong Kong. Flight ok but that was before the well documented issues started. Would I fly one currently not if I had a choice as others have said. That said I do get to choose so no.
However I have been doing this flying bit for a number of years and have flown in any number of A/C and indeed airlines which had questionable records but I think the levels of safety have improved as have the a/c so the risk has lowered in my humble opinion. A/C that I have flown which had questionable records would be Electras - fires, DC-8 - Ground spoiler issues, DC-10 -stalls, a number of T tailed a/c before the stalls were under stood, the list could go on, however as I said they have improved.

Radeng
 

A330/340, 777 and 747 are all larger than 787, do you avoid them too?

Comfort is paramount in my decision

safety is last in decision making, since what's allowed under the regs out there is good enough for me.

Of course your mileage may vary and that's fine with me as I can spread out more :)

I do of course take note of disruptions (delays, cancelations) on the same level as comfort but I can never remember who's good or bad when I buy a ticket.

Definitely NO at the moment. Too many serious "unknowns". I fully accept that new types will have "teething" troubles, but I don't classify serious electrical fires as "teething" problems. I classify them more as a potential disaster waiting to happen somewhere over a large ocean. I'll give the 787 a miss for the time being.

history favors early operations over teething problems
 

Yes, I would ride a 787 today if it came up as an option--with interest in the novelty, and no greater fear than normal.

While I have neither read nor made a remotely statistical analysis, it seems to me that there has been a pattern of major new aircraft types having quite good early operational safety records despite well-publicized faults for decades now. The 747 and 777, to cite two post-Comet examples, took a long while before first hull loss with fatalities.

My simplistic assessment is that, especially for the bigger aircraft, early operators tend to be major airlines flying into major airports, and that everyone involved is highly aware that a new type brings new risk so are less inclined to cut corners (in every area, from operations, to maintenance, to crew selection, to various pilot choices I won't pretend to articulate) than on average. In the modern time, this "extra cushion" seems to have been more than enough to compensate for the excess safety risk posed by the teething problems, on average. ("modern time" here may be taken to begin after the Comet and Electra fatal teething problems)

For the record, I am much more comfortable with the fire-proof box plus vent portion of the fix for the 787 battery than I would have been had someone triumphantly declared they had found a manufacturing fault "which we will assure will not recur", or even a electrical environmental challenge "which we have engineered out of the system" and then gone on to fly with the demonstrated inadequate containment as before. Perhaps those who decry the lack of a root-cause solution have not really thought through what that would practically have meant on the ground (well, in the air in this case). Just suppose the battery subsequently found a new reason to fail--not in the manner "root-caused". I'll take the box and vent, thank you, and would not mind if you installed them for your big NiCd batteries as well (you do know those can fail violently--right?)

No, I am no completely comfortable--but I'd expect myself far more likely to be killed by hitting wrong after bouncing off the overhead when not strapped down in a sudden CAT episode, or inflight Loss of Control, or CFIT, or over-run, or another high item on the pareto of ways to get killed in a passenger aircraft than by one of Boeing's teething problems on this aircraft.

I could be all wrong, but that is how I see it.

I don't believe there is any "type" of aircraft I wouldn't fly on. However I prefer to fly Boeing over Airbus, and I prefer smaller aircraft over larger ones.

I would be more concerned with the airline and the capability of its pilots than the type of aircraft it operates.

So, yes, I would fly on a 787. In fact I'd look forward to it.

Yep.........just send along the ticket !!!!

Planemike

Archae 86
Sorry to disappoint but 787 is an ali tube at 38,000ft with slightly bigger windows and a little smaller than 777 and a tad less loud. Not much to write home about in the scheme of things. Range and economics which go with this make it interesting to the airlines maybe not so much for PAX. Always prefer 777,747, 380 as PAX long haul now although have a soft spot for 340 as it looks like 707 , DC8 which I flew many miles in as a young man / child. Worst flight ever was in 707 AF May 74 LA - Paris would fly 707 no problem, but my last AF flight to date, will say no more:oh:.

Freudian slip? It's a carbon fibre tube which is the whole point, but I'll give you the credit.

In answer to the OP, I have flown it, and would again. All new aircraft have problems, in this age they're so much more under the media microscope than ever before, in my airline we were approached last Friday with frenzied enquries about our battery fires etc even though we've had no problems... they're actively looking for stories now.
Many industry people will remember that the A380 was the nightmare de jour in the press a few years back. While these aircraft are flying lots and lots of sectors with very few hiccups and no hull losses I see no reason why I'd avoid them.

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.

Jeez, there are some wimps around. There isn't a scheduled operation anywhere that I wouldn't use, although I hope the day doesn't arrive when I am obliged to fly domestic in Nigeria, Nepal or the Congo.

Odds of a million to one are five times worse than five million to one, but they're still pretty good odds.

I'd say that a main battery fire is a major problem, much worse than any of the above.

Wherever possible. Which is definitely the case for the next 10 months.

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?!

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 :\)

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.

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.

:) 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.

Totally concur - I for one will avoid this aircraft wherever possible for this reason alone.

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.

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, 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?

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.

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.

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! ;)

This writer has no burning ambition to fly the 787 !

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.

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.

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.