The Dreamliner's Continuing Woes

[Guest anonone]

Boeing achieved a major milestone on Tuesday as the Federal Aviation Administration approved its plan to test fixes for the battery problems that have grounded its 787 jets since mid-January.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/business/faa-backs-boeing-plan-for-battery-test.html?_r=0

 

The long-awaited announcement by the F.A.A. helped propel Boeing’s stock on Tuesday to $84.16, a five-year high. The confidence of investors was also buoyed by earlier reports of a $15 billion order by Ryanair for 170 single-aisle 737s and Boeing’s decision to move forward with a new version of its best-selling twin-aisle 777.

 

 

 

**working on iPad today, and can't figure out how to embed the web link and show quote **

[Guest fountainhall]

An expert on one of the news channels today reckoned Boeing will lose at least US$1 billion as a result of the Dreamliner problems - and that assumes that the FAA is happy with the proposed fix.

[Guest anonone]

Federal Aviation Administration officials flew aboard a Boeing 787 for a test of the airliner’s new battery system that included “normal and non-normal flight conditions” and went off without a hitch.

 

The “non-normal” flight conditions included “simulating failed engines, generators, pumps and other equipment on the airplane,” Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel said. The rigorous 1 hour, 51 minute flight up and down the Oregon and Washington coast was meant to show the FAA that Boeing has solved a battery problem that led to “thermal runaway” aboard aboard 787 Dreamliners in Boston and Japan. All 50 Dreamliners in service worldwide have been grounded since January 16 because of the problem.

 

There is no timetable for when the analysis will be completed by the FAA, or if more testing will needed. A best case scenario would likely include FAA approval this month and then several weeks for to retrofit the grounded aircraft.

 

United has indicated it plans on flying the 787 again by May 31, and world-wide service is expected by June.

 

Boeing is about to run out of parking space outside its factory in Everett, Washington where the 787 along with the 747, 767 and 777 are also built. The company is renting space all around Paine Field, including an unused runway that currently has several partially finished Dreamliners parked nose to tail towering over the smaller, general aviation aircraft at the airport.

 

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/04/boeing-787-final-battery-flight-test/

[Guest fountainhall]

Federal Aviation Administration officials flew aboard a Boeing 787 for a test of the airliner’s new battery system that included “normal and non-normal flight conditions” and went off without a hitch . . . The rigorous 1 hour, 51 minute flight up and down the Oregon and Washington coast was meant to show the FAA that Boeing has solved a battery problem

 

If I recall correctly, many thousands of flights with the old battery set up had also gone without a hitch. For anyone to suggest that all is now hunky dory with the batteries after just one flight seems pretty disingenuous!!

[firecat69]

Just get it solved so I don't have to ride in UA disgusting Business Class in old configurations.  I had great staggered seating with ANA and keep getting replaced with UA.  Not even a close comparison!

[Guest anonone]

If I recall correctly, many thousands of flights with the old battery set up had also gone without a hitch.

 

I really do not know enough about the testing and certificiations to comment intellegently...(but I guess I will comment anyway  LOL)

 

I am sure there was rigourous "testing" on the ground, well before any test flights were considered.  Of bigger concern to me...I am hearing that when operation resumes, there may not be any ETOPS restrictions put into place.  From a layman's perspective, it seems daft to allow the 787 to fly routes where there is no emergency landing airport within a couple of hours.  Amazing if it happens.

 

UA disgusting Business Class in old configurations

 

If you are talking about the config with recliners instead of lie-flat, there are only 2 777s left in the UA fleet to update.  They are trying to use these only on a couple of routes (SEA-NRT, HNL-NRT, etc), so it will be rare to end up on one now. 

 

I will refrain from commenting further comparing service levels on UA to Asian airlines.  Mom always said, if you don't have anything nice to say.....

[firecat69]

It was the NRT_SEA route I was on yesterday and it was like being back 12 years ago .  I don't pay BC fares and expect to get ancient seats, configuration and entertainment. I certainly don't expect the airplane on the BKK-NRT route to be superior to the one on the NRT-SEA route.

 

I already had worked up in my head the email I would send to UA when I landed.  Lo and behold when I got to my room and checked email there was an apology email from UA  for the equipment used along with a $350 certificate.

 

I still sent an email because I had some other complaints but I was impressed with their attempt to blunt the bad feelings.

[Guest anonone]

Standard tactic for UA to send the e-cert after a flight on the old config for BC and FC passengers. I believe they hoped to have all planes updated by now, but am sure the 787 grounding meant some of these 777 updates were delayed.

 

You may end up with new config on the NRT-BKK leg. I think UA sends the old config to HNL ( or maybe Guam) from NRT. Probable will use the new config 777 fom the ORD or IAD route for the BKK flight. Good luck.

[kokopelli]

I will refrain from commenting further comparing service levels on UA to Asian airlines.  Mom always said, if you don't have anything nice to say.....

A friend who is a frequent flyer from BKK to LAX recently switched from Asian airlines to Delta as he was able to get an excellent price in Business Class. His reaction was very positve regarding his flight,service, seating etc. I also have flown with Delta in the new seating arrangements and loved it; food is not the best but who eats food when there is wine? Just a joke!

[Guest anonone]

I have heard some good things about Delta service lately.  Their frequent flyer program is less benefical than some others (including UA), so I don't fly Delta much. 

[firecat69]

I am Platinum with DL for 3 years but they get less and less of my business because their SkyMiles are worthless.  Getting a Business Class Ticket to Asia is next to impossible and their search engine for awards must have been designed by a 2 year old.

 

The certificates they give you are next to worthless because the fare you have to pay to use them for an upgrade , I can get normally discounted with no need for miles or certs.

 

And when I send comments to them, I never get a reply.  Bye Bye DL

[TotallyOz]

Unlike Firecat, I like Delta. But, I also always prefer to buy full fare tickets and then upgrade to business. I have been lucky on my last 2 International Delta flights. One from Bangkok to USA and the other from USA to Brazil. Both tickets were full coach fares and less than I have paid for either leg in many years! I was very happy to see such reasonable fares and this is the first time in many years I have been able to upgrade on the Brazil flight as in years past it was NEVER available. So, either they have seen the error of their ways, or like Firecat, others have said bye bye and opened up more seats for me.

[firecat69]

Sorry Michael.  That was a one time thing and only to Brazil  Try to get it to BKK .  No chance . The full Y fare will be the same as I can buy the discounted Business fare anytime and the same for Europe.   

 

Like you said this was the first time in a long time and probably the last!!!

[Guest fountainhall]

With many of the airlines serving Asia, the addition of Premium Economy now means you have to pay more than just the Y class economy fare to upgrade to Business because, as far as I am aware, you cannot use miles to skip a class. I'm not sure if the US carriers have taken the Premium Economy route yet with a separate cabin and larger seats than economy, but it will come.

 

I see on seatguru that Delta has Economy Comfort Class. That, though, seems only to give a slight increase in seat pitch with no reduction in the number of seats per row - 9 on the 777s, same as economy. Airlines like BA, CX and Qantas have 8 across instead of 10 across in their 744s. On the slightly narrower planes like the A340 and 777, they drop one seat per row compared to economy.

 

As has been said before, using miles to upgrade to business is already far more expensive than it was just 4 years ago and I reckon the trend will continue. All we can do is keep checking for special deals.

[Guest fountainhall]

Of bigger concern to me...I am hearing that when operation resumes, there may not be any ETOPS restrictions put into place.  From a layman's perspective, it seems daft to allow the 787 to fly routes where there is no emergency landing airport within a couple of hours.  Amazing if it happens.

 

Looks like it's not going to happen any time soon. Seemingly lost in the recent PR about the latest test flight with the new battery modifications was this -

 

 

(Federal Aviation Administration chief Michael Huerta, testifying to a congressional committee on air safety) also told the committee the FAA was considering separately whether to certify Boeing's 787 for extended-range operations, known as ETOPS. The plane was approved for flights over remote areas of up to 180 minutes when it was grounded for two battery meltdowns in January.

 

Before the grounding, Boeing had requested an upgrade to 330 minutes, but Huerta told reporters the agency was "not considering any expansion beyond that (180) at this time."

 

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/faa-chief-says-boeing-787-battery-decision-likely-003513063--finance.html#ozqNqXh

 

Which of course will have most of the plane's buyers concerned, since, as stated in an earlier post, Boeing was relying on extending the ETOPs range in its sales pitch. And surely no extension will have an effect on the routes the aircraft can serve and the possibility of it requiring additional fuel.

 

Meanwhile Boeing's share price is now up to $86.26, having been as high as $89.46 prior to the present NYSE pull back!

[ceejay]

Well, the Dreamliner is back in the air. It'll be interesting to see what passenger confidence is like as the 50 or so that have already been delivered go "online".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22315317

[Guest fountainhall]

Dreamliners are landing safely - yet Boeing's stock price is now going down! Who'd be an investor!

[ceejay]

Dreamliners are landing safely - yet Boeing's stock price is now going down! Who'd be an investor!

Paradoxically, that sometimes happens when a company publishes good news. The process could have been something like this. First, the initial Dreamliner problems cause a fall in the price. Second, buyers who recognised the underlying strength of Boeing identified this as a buying opportunity and their purchases cause a rise in the stock. Finally, the good news of Dreamliner flights resuming pushes the stock up beyond a trigger point where selling orders are placed to crystallise profits and these selling orders cause the fall. The price will probably stabilise over the next few weeks.

[Guest fountainhall]

Following the DC-10 withdrawal of service in 1979 and the modifications made to that aircraft, I avoided flying it for several years. When I finally started again, I found I liked it a lot, as I did its successor, the MD-11.

 

I will still avoid the Dreamliner for a few years. What about other readers? Would you fly a United, ANA or JAL Dreamliner to the US as soon as they are back in service?

[Bob]

I will still avoid the Dreamliner for a few years. What about other readers? Would you fly a United, ANA or JAL Dreamliner to the US as soon as they are back in service?

 

I won't wait that long but probably wouldn't fly it for the rest of this year if I had the choice.  But my attitude about that would be the same with any new plane by any manufacturer. 

[firecat69]

I will fly it as soon as I can get on it. I had reservations in B/C  with staggered seating for all of this year on ANA and when they went out of service got stuck on UA  2-3-2  seating which is pretty sad B/C.

 

Not worried in the least .  I figure this airplane will have more safety checks then any airplane flying . Frankly I am a little bit of a Fatalist.  If its your time to go then it won't make any difference what airplane you are on.  LOL

[Guest anonone]

I am with FH on this one.  I will wait until it has some serious mileage / landing cycles completed before I will be comfortable on it.  It has a LOT of new technology and material on this bird.  Lets see how it pans out.....

[firecat69]

Can't argue with anyone who feels safer by waiting.  However if everyone felt that way then just about every new plane in the last 30 years would have bankrupted the airlines due to lack of passengers.

 

I remember all the same arguments on the 747, DC10, Airbus, A380, L1011.  All of them had certain advances at their time and some of them were equally revolutionary.   

[Guest fountainhall]

And yet the Airbus A330 and A340 series seemed not to generate such concerns. Nor did arguably the best airliner of the last 20 years, the Boeing 777. Its certification was rushed through as airlines were desperate for a less fuel guzzling twin-engine long-distance aircraft than the 767. You might have thought that passengers used to 4 engines on long trans-oceanic flights would be somewhat nervous of the 777, but that did not appear to be the case at all.

 

The McDonnell Douglas DC10 and Lockheed L1011 were wide-bodied answers to the 747. Decades ago I recall an extensive series of articles in the New Yorker magazine about how each cancelled the other out and effectively killed their companies as going concerns. The DC10's problems are well known. Cathay Pacific pilots whom I know both said the L1011 was one of the best aircraft ever made. Yet that aircraft actually killed off Rolls Royce! Lockheed had decided on exclusive use of an upgraded RB211 engine to be developed by Rolls Royce. Not only did RR get their development sums way out (more than 100% over budget), they would have ended up losing cash on each engine sold. RR went into receivership and had to be taken over by the British government in order to avoid a huge scandal.

 

Note: I see the New Yorker article is still available in their on-line archives, but only to subscribers. I don't know what the subscription cost is, but this series of articles alone is worth it!

 

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1982/06/28/1982_06_28_045_TNY_CARDS_000336527

[Guest]

I will still avoid the Dreamliner for a few years. What about other readers? Would you fly a United, ANA or JAL Dreamliner to the US as soon as they are back in service?

I gather an aircraft has to be in service for 5 years before the US president is permitted to fly on it. 

That tells me all I need to know. So I adopt the same policy.   The battery issue hasn't changed my views at all. 

I shall still make all reasonable efforts not to fly on a Dreamliner for 5 years. Maybe longer if they have more major incidents.

 

Looks like the A380 has been in service for over 5 years, so I might just consider A380 flights now.