If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
On Jan 27, 2:19Â*am, "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. Â*Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too. Â* Â*Irrevelant. Â* Â*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. Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one. And I think you'll find a lot of other people with the same sentiment. Boeing should have spent another six months to a year debugging the thing ... but they were already behind schedule and afraid to wait any longer. Bad move. Understandable from the business POV, but still bad. Now it'll be even worse from the business POV. The engineers oughtta decide when a big plane is "ready" ... not the pointy-haired executives. If one of these things catches fire and nosedives into a city, thousands could die. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
"Mr.B1ack" wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote: On Jan 27, 2:19Â am, "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. Â Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too. Â Â Irrevelant. Â Â 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. Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one. You're on the banned list? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote: 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. Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one. I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787 until it had been in service for a year or so. This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll overcome it. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
Delvin Benet ýt wrote:
... This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll overcome it. When? | ... | "Stopping production is not going to happen," said Carter | Leake, an aerospace analyst with BB&T Capital Markets. A | halt in production or even a slow down would risk crucial | suppliers going out of business. "They need to keep the | lines running to support the supply chain. They can't do | that to suppliers that barely survived the three year delay | in producing the first plane." | ... http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/25/news/companies/boeing-dreamliner-production/index.html --bks |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
Too_Many_Tools writes:
The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem. Not necessarily. They may simply be too big to properly handle modest fluctuations in heat even under proper charge. That's an even bigger problem. -- Who depends on another man's table often dines late. --John Ray |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:31 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote: 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. Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one. I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787 until it had been in service for a year or so. This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll overcome it. They'll overcome it - technically - but will that help in terms of public *perception* ? If the public thinks it's a deathtrap then why would airlines buy any ? Switch to Airbus instead. Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ? The *name* 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they had to change it to "Jet-Blue". I don't think Boeing can try that trick. Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead. Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will *seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787, but *perception* is what's gonna count. BTW ... it wasn't actually the batteries. Something in the charge/charge-regulatation electronics. If someone else made it, Boeing can blame 'em. If not then it's a black mark against Boeing. Given the volume of problems in such a short time, hey, didn't Boeing TEST the damned planes ? Short answer - no ... not enough. They were behind in delivery and decided to test 'em with live human guinea-pigs. Ya didn't see the CEO or board members flying on the things, did ya ? :-) |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
"Mr.B1ack" writes:
Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one. And I think you'll find a lot of other people with the same sentiment. "a lot", that would be 100 people, 100 times more people than you, yes, that's a lot! The fact people buy tickets based on the cheapest online price and ignore all the baggage fees, etc. shows that people simply do not know or care what model of airplane they fly. I think you're a troll for Airbus. Or, one of those wacky right-wing conspiracy kooks. [.metalworking?? .unions??] -- Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. -- Mark Twain |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
Mr.B1ack wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:31 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote: On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote: 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. Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one. I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787 until it had been in service for a year or so. This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll overcome it. They'll overcome it - technically - but will that help in terms of public *perception* ? If the public thinks it's a deathtrap then why would airlines buy any ? Switch to Airbus instead. Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ? The *name* 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they had to change it to "Jet-Blue". I don't think Boeing can try that trick. erm Valujet did not change to JetBlue thats a quite different airline Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead. Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will *seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787, but *perception* is what's gonna count. Says the man who perceived Jetblue as the reincarnation of Valujet. The reality is that MANY new aircraft have suffered minor engineering issues that caused them to be grounded for a while including the new Airbus 380 Keith |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
|
| What, then, is wrong with the Dreamliner? | | "I think people had their fingers crossed that it was a | battery fault," Keith Hayward, head of research at the | Royal Aeronautical Society, told BBC. "It looks more | systemic and serious to me. I suspect it could be difficult | to identify the cause." | ... http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0128/Boeing-787-battery-passes-initial-probe.-What-s-wrong-with-the-Dreamliner --bks |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:57:11 +0000, Keith W wrote:
Mr.B1ack wrote: On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:31 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote: On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote: 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. Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one. I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787 until it had been in service for a year or so. This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll overcome it. They'll overcome it - technically - but will that help in terms of public *perception* ? If the public thinks it's a deathtrap then why would airlines buy any ? Switch to Airbus instead. Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ? The *name* 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they had to change it to "Jet-Blue". I don't think Boeing can try that trick. erm Valujet did not change to JetBlue thats a quite different airline You're right ... "ValueJet" became "AirTran" to escape its stigma. Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead. Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will *seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787, but *perception* is what's gonna count. Says the man who perceived Jetblue as the reincarnation of Valujet. Pick another nit. The reality is that MANY new aircraft have suffered minor engineering issues that caused them to be grounded for a while including the new Airbus 380 I'll say it ONCE more ... 'reality' doesn't MATTER. Public PERCEPTION matters. That perception is immune to reason, to evidence, to statistics. It's a emotion thing. And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming deathtrap. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATC failure in Memphis | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 77 | October 11th 07 03:50 PM |
The Failure of FAA Diversity | FAA Civil Rights | Piloting | 35 | October 9th 07 06:32 PM |
The FAA Failure | FAA Civil Rights | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 8th 07 05:57 PM |
Failure #10 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 7 | April 13th 05 02:49 AM |
Another Bush Failure | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 8 | July 3rd 04 02:23 AM |