Is the 787 a failure ?

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack"
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:

snip
Now from a business point of view however ...
snip

These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
this is no emergency.

That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
with how potential passengers should act or react.

Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
That's ALL it takes to destroy it.

You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek
will likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with
the APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem
occurs when on the ground with the APU running the system.

On Jan 26, 2:42*am, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:


*Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
That's ALL it takes to destroy it.

No, because no one has died in that Boeing 787 plane yet, like with
another Airbus plane.
Another fatal crash landing killed a person or so, I think, here in
this video of an Airbus A319 (which came out only a little before this
incident).

-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fh8-qJqMX4

On 1/25/2013 11:42 PM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:

snip
Now from a business point of view however ...
snip

These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
this is no emergency.

That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
with how potential passengers should act or react.

Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.

No, they are not. You're full of ****. When that plane resumes
commercial service, the vast majority of air passengers will get on it
with little concern.

You don't know what you're talking about.

On 1/25/2013 9:54 PM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
As problems with aircraft CAN be fatal, passengers seem
reluctant to fly on them - envisioning themselves burning
to death as they plummet from the skies.

If enough people won't fly on a 787

Sorry, that's just not reality. Most folks don't know or care what
model plane they are flying in. They walk down a jetway into a cabin,
and that's all they care about.

Further, we could make a pretty impressive list of planes that have had
terrible, well-known, accidents caused by design issues and continued in
popular service for decades.

On Jan 25, 9:54*pm, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure.
Like anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far
these issues haven't caused any fatalities.

But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.

In a year or two, offer a "797" ...

Beoing's 787 didn't have any fatalities. So, I'd say stick with the
current program. (especially, if Airbus weathered and overcame their
mistakes)

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:

On Jan 25, 9:54Â*pm, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like anything
complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues haven't caused
any fatalities.

But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.

Irrevelant.

It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
dangerous.

That's all-important.

That's all that counts.

The 787 is *done*.

On 1/27/2013 2:19 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
Irrevelant.

It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
dangerous.

That's all-important.

And also wrong. The average airline traveler has no clue what model
plane they are flying in.

That's all that counts.

The 787 is*done*.

Nonsense. It's barely entered operation, and it's way too early to make
that kind of judgement. This is a totally new plane working through the
inevitable kinks. If history serves as any guide, we will be flying in
787's and it's follow on models for many decades to come.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mr.B1ack wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:

On Jan 25, 9:54Â*pm, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like anything
complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues haven't caused
any fatalities.

But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.

Irrevelant.

It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
dangerous.

That's all-important.

That's all that counts.

The 787 is *done*.

Utter nonsense;

The average person doesn't have a clue there is any problem as they don't
read those little backpage articles about equipment problems.

Now, if one had burned up in flight killing a couple of hundred people,
then they would have noticed.

The recent in flight engine lightening strike and fire with no casualties
has gotten far more press than 787 battery issues.

snip idioitic crossposts

On Jan 27, 2:19*am, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:54*pm, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like anything
complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues haven't caused
any fatalities.

But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
Airport. *Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.

* *Irrevelant.

* *It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
* *dangerous.

And the A320 didn't?

That's all-important.

That's all that counts.

The 787 is *done*.

I *way* doubt that.

On 1/25/2013 6:00 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
years...

Grocery baggers like you don't do much air travel.