Juliet has it right.
180 minute ETOPS will get you pretty much anywhere in the world (at least that has a reasonable airport :E), but the routing may not be optimal. 330 minute ETOPS allows optimal routing for all but a handful of potential south pole Antarctic routes.

No, nothing changed as far as granting ETOPS.

Okay so how is the average airline to advance along the ETOPS diversion time?

Are any of the technical problems for the 787 been addressed in this exercise so far?

ETOPS 330 without a airworthy RAT?

Nothing can go wrong there..

Don't need no stinkin' RAT. All the layers of primary and backup electrical....they are...well ..... They are all first rate on the jet, no worries mate.:)

Boeing 787-9 gets cert
 

FAA/EASA + 330 min ETOPS too.

I wonder about this as well.
Still, the real aviation guys live at the FAA.
The NTSB folks are more like enthusiastic amatuers, and this shows in many of their recommendations as well as their findings of probable cause.
Between the two, I'd go with the aviation guys over the plane/truck/train/bus/ship folks.
More expertise relevant to the mode of transport.

The real aviation guys at the FAA followed the even more real aviation guys in Boeing Ops and development and engineering for years re the B737,
"Our rudder does not have a deadly problem"

It has been suggested that with the 330 ETOPS, Qantas could run 787/900s on the Sydney Johannesburg Sydney and Sydney Santiago Sydney routes!!
Halfway into those flights, if the batteries caused a problem, given they still really dont know the cause of the fires,thats a lot of water and a long way to go to reach land!!

As pointed out earlier in the thread, B787 primary and etcetera electrics are sooooo good, they don't need to rely on the lightweight, charge fast, high peak power, heavy armor encapsulated lithium-ion...... "We really don't understand them, but trust us, batteries."

SKS777FLYER - can you contribute anything of substance instead on wasting bandwidth with nonsensical posts?

So my posts are more non-sensical than the goofy Li-ion not-quite-understood batteries in the heavy armor on the 787, and more so even than deadly Boeing 737 rudder pacs for so many years?
Love the designers and engineers who made the beasts that supported most of my career in Boeings, just sad for the folks affected by the sometimes experimental sub-systems

Enthusiastic amateurs?
 

Still, the real aviation guys live at the FAA.
The NTSB folks are more like enthusiastic amatuers, and this shows in many of their recommendations as well as their findings of probable cause.

I think you got it backwards. The NTSB are the real professionals.

Can we get back to the 787 and ETOPS rather than clan wars between the FAA and NTSB? :ugh: