I don't have any data on passenger cost per seat mile, I was merely pointing out that upfront capital costs may have something to do with the difference in sales volumes. The difference in year of first introduction into service (2011 vs 2015) also makes a difference, but I left that out of my comment, since I thought that was obvious to all concerned. Any chart that starts from zero, with a different base-date, will have dips and peaks in growth.

I quoted exactly what the original comment read, since the forum does not copy multiple quoted text:
If you chose to selectively quote only part of that original comment, to advance a narrow argument, and ignored the rest of the context, then you are playing with semantics, and missing the point entirely in your response to me, and to the original poster. I stand behind my comment. Its fine for you to disagree...

I've noticed exactly the same thing, for a modern aircraft, they are certainly very noisy in the cabin....

tdracer. Airbus has in excess of 927 orders for the A350 with 38 gained during March 19. Keeping in mind the B787 is being produced on 2 production lines and sold cheaper than the A350 I have no doubt the B787 will win the sales race.

You could try doing it the other way round - spend 0p on project managers, call the resulting chaos "agile", and see how much you deliver on spec, on time and on budget!

(Answer: actually you don't fail to do these things, because there wasn't any spec and there wasn't any plan.)

Or no one believed in the plan and fanciful ideas of the clueless management in the first place

and according to FAA and Boeing, it can still be a CAT C!

I see Japan Airlines has just taken delivery of their first A350 which also happens to be their first ever Airbus. If it were not for the problems Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airlines experienced with the early B787 deliveries I have no doubt Japan Airlines would have remained a loyal Boeing customer.

Absolutely agree with every point. Especially the VNAV. What an absolute joke. I'm completely certain they slapped the B777 software in and called it done. Very dicey when starting descent from above FL40, will quite happily take you into excessive rates right into Mmo. You can compensate with lower speeds or earlier descent. So why exactly is it even there? Then the speedbrake message comes out, because apparently after multiple years in service it's just too hard to tweak the software to operate correctly to account for the need for drag. It's to the point where I just fly it in manual modes with the calculated path as a rough guide. No problem, but again, how is this proffered by Boeing engineers in 2019 with a straight face? But then when you ask most line engineers what some fault means, they just shrug. They have no idea either. Do a reset, sign the tech log, kick it out the door. "Solved".

I would also add to your list the cursor-driven FMC. Slower and more fiddly than what it replaces yet considered progress. And plasticky, cheap-feeling finish to...everything. Cockpit sunshades same as they give away as promotions at Tesco, says it all.

Incredible really that this is what a couple hundred million buys and is sold as state of the art. Feels more like cheap, gimmicky ****. Complete with water-cooled electronics, like some kid's overclocked gaming computer.

But hey, you can auto-program SLOP in now. So there's that. And the HUD is...cool I guess?

The ultimate example of when a magnificent brand is destroyed by corporatism. Never thought I'd live long enough to see a Boeing product referred to by colleagues as a flying trash can.

I found the 32-year-veteran Boeing aeronautical engineer declaring that SHE had been avoiding the 787 pretty thought-provoking.

Dunno. If you have a bunch of drug-addled employees installing fasteners any old way and this going unregarded owing to deadline pressure, does it have to have immediate consequences? Would it be noticed on a D-Check? Could it be that one fine day the Charleston-built ones start falling from the sky?

When was the last time JAL purchased a non-American aircraft?

You must have some pretty crap lineys then. The second part of your statement sounds exactly like the 787 fim. Do the system test, if it passes it was an intermittent fault. Return to service. Some tests even tell you to run the test more than once if it fails :rolleyes:

Agree with most of the sentiments though. The cabins are dreadfully built. Windscreens are made of cheese and those sun visors need burning. I have to disagree on the noise though having done recent flights on 744 346 773 the 787 is leagues quieter. Although not at quiet as the 388.

Nope, not taxing but you serve my point well - it's just too hard to account for the wing's characteristics in the software? Don't seem to hear many of my AB colleagues with similar complaints, much as it pains me to admit. I didn't even mention the bizarro logic of reducing thrust and pitching down when already far below profile and the addition of thrust when high and fast.

Line techs were (still are, I left) Boeing GoldCare. Freely admitted that many of the obscure fault messages were a mystery to them. To be fair, some of those have since been solved with software updates.

Like the Max, Boeing sells this thing as catering to the lowest common denominator pilot but some of the most basic functions of VNAV are crude at best, just plain wrong at worst. Not an issue for those who understand energy management but in the hands of the many magenta line children out there it's a recipe for tears eventually.

The Normalisation of Deviance.

Dianne Vaughan explains how systemic failure saw NASA launch an orbiter it knew was not safe on that day. The result the Challenger loss.

These changes occur an increment at a time.
Nobody thinks their particular corner cut makes the difference.

It begins with endless focus on reduction of cost. Drilled into them at the business school, out they flow with economic orthodoxy. They continue the relentless cost reduction, bonus culture and eventually that permeates everywhere.
Customers of the aircraft, consumers of airline product, managers, pilots and even engineers all hearing the same beat of the drum.

Bit by bit margins are reduced.

Boeing has far bigger systemic problems than the share price.

VNAV PTH descent:Probably "cut and pasted" from 777 FMC software algorisms, so that explains the lack of understanding (software program) of the "wing design" on the 787 and the differences VNAV has on wing efficiency, betwixt 777 and 787 (both wing designs are super brilliant).The same applies to the 747-8 (over speeds on VNAV PTH descent) leading to VNAV SPD and the impending VMO/MMO!

https://www.theguardian.com/business...7-safety-fears
...so, in an aircraft with a history of fires, having a faulty fire suppression system isn't a grounding issue?

Boeing "put passenger safety first" - doesn't sound like it so far this year.

It's by far the worst commercial aircraft currently flying for radio faults that I've noticed at least. Screeching/howling blocking the pilots transmissions or at least making it very difficult to read them, radios getting jammed on one frequency, radios giving up entirely so alternate needs to be used.