Waiting for the Dreamliner? Dream On!

[Guest fountainhall]

Boeing's revolutionary new aircraft, the 787 Dreamliner, has already notched up delays of more than 2 years. Now another has been announced. Delivery of the first aircraft to launch customer All Nippon Airlines has been put back from "late 2010" to "early 2011".

 

It appears this new delay is a result of problems with the Rolls Royce engine test programme. This according to the BBC -

 

On 2 August a Rolls Trent 1000, which will power the 787, failed during testing. The company's spokesman declined to give specific details of the incident. But the Bloomberg news agency reported at the time that a turbine blew up and the test facility was closed temporarily.

Rolls Royce deny this is the reason for the delay -

 

A spokesman for Rolls-Royce said: "We have been informed by Boeing that the currently planned dates for Trent 1000 engine deliveries will now not support their latest flight test programme requirements . . . Rolls-Royce confirms that the engine availability issue is unrelated to the test bed event which occurred earlier this month."

Oh! Really?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11106378

[Guest GaySacGuy]

I sure hope they get their act together and come out with a good product. The US economy needs lots of help, and major orders for airliners can sure give it a boost!

[Guest MonkeySee]

I sure hope they get their act together and come out with a good product. The US economy needs lots of help, and major orders for airliners can sure give it a boost!

I too, hope this is a home run for Boeing. Many Seattle area workers are hoping, as well. I thought Boeing had quite a few orders before the economy tanked and problems with bringing the plane to market on time.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

I have a friend who is an engineer for Boeing. He was laid off and then a few months later they called him back to work for another year on a contract. That sounds like promising news. We can hope.

[Bob]

Presuming the engineering is sound and works (i.e., the floppy wings don't fall off), the 787 will be a huge leap forward for passenger jets. Not only with a much better interior and air filtration system, but more importantly it allegedly will produce a 20-25% fuel savings. If that projected fuel savings comes to fruition, the 787 will likely become the most successful passenger airplane ever built.

[Guest MonkeySee]

Presuming the engineering is sound and works (i.e., the floppy wings don't fall off), the 787 will be a huge leap forward for passenger jets. Not only with a much better interior and air filtration system, but more importantly it allegedly will produce a 20-25% fuel savings. If that projected fuel savings comes to fruition, the 787 will likely become the most successful passenger airplane ever built.

I hope you are right. Not only for the Boeing employees and stock holders but a 20-25% fuel savings might result in cheaper fares for the consumer. Am I dreaming about the dreamliner?

[Guest fountainhall]

Presuming the engineering is sound and works (i.e., the floppy wings don't fall off), the 787 will be a huge leap forward for passenger jets. Not only with a much better interior and air filtration system, but more importantly it allegedly will produce a 20-25% fuel savings. If that projected fuel savings comes to fruition, the 787 will likely become the most successful passenger airplane ever built.

Nice thought, but I think unlikely, given that it is a long-haul jet. Orders for long haul aircraft rarely come close to those for the much more frequently utilised short hauls - e.g. the Boeing 737 and A320. The 737's sales now number more than 8,000 with another 1,600+ on order. Interestingly, a 737 takes off somewhere in the world every 5 seconds!!

 

New airlines rarely meet their deadlines. The A380 was another case in point. The Dreamliner had a lot of advance orders, but the constant delays have led to quite a few cancellations. Plus Airbus is now catching up fast with its comparable A350. That is now starting to rake in orders when most people had earlier felt it had really missed the boat!

 

One point I have noticed recently is that the Boeing 744 is gradually being replaced on a number of long haul routes by the B777. Cathay Pacific has announced that the 777 is to be its long haul choice for the future. I also read that the proposed changes to the B747 for the -800 series may never get off the drawing board. Twin engine jets seem to the future for long haul (the A 380 excepted).

[Guest]

I hope you are right. Not only for the Boeing employees and stock holders but a 20-25% fuel savings might result in cheaper fares for the consumer. Am I dreaming about the dreamliner?

 

Exactly. Either we get cheaper fares, or at least it partially offsets oil price increases.

Just ensure it gets few years market experience before flying one yourself.

[Guest fountainhall]

Just ensure it gets few years market experience before flying one yourself.

It's such a revolutionary plane in so any ways that that will be my watchword. I said I'd never fly the A380 till it had a few years under its belt. Now I'm ready to try!

[Guest GaySacGuy]

Exactly. Either we get cheaper fares, or at least it partially offsets oil price increases.

Just ensure it gets few years market experience before flying one yourself.

 

I am ready to fly on one as soon as they hit the market. The testing that goes into aircraft of today both real and computerized makes it pretty safe to fly. Also, there are old planes flying that they still find problems with and some they still haven't solved for sure (Ex: Boeing 737 lack of rudder control leading to uncontrolled flight)

[Bob]

I am ready to fly on one as soon as they hit the market. The testing that goes into aircraft of today both real and computerized makes it pretty safe to fly.

 

"Pretty safe" isn't exactly how I'd want to label any airplane that I would use! "Damn safe" might be a notion I'd feel more comfortable with.

 

All in all, based on their history, I'd think (and hope) that Boeing is producing a winner (safety-wise and profits-wise). Time will tell (we probably won't know for sure until 5-10 years after it enters service next year).

[Guest]

I am ready to fly on one as soon as they hit the market. The testing that goes into aircraft of today both real and computerized makes it pretty safe to fly. Also, there are old planes flying that they still find problems with and some they still haven't solved for sure (Ex: Boeing 737 lack of rudder control leading to uncontrolled flight)

 

I know some Engineers working in the Aero industry who prefer to leave it a few years before flying a new plane.

 

However, I do agree a new plane should have fewer fundamental problems than a flawed old design, so after the new plane's been in service for 3~4 years I'm quite happy to fly it.

[Guest MonkeySee]

so after the new plane's been in service for 3~4 years I'm quite happy to fly it.

 

I am more daring....or maybe stupid. I would like to fly it immediately.

[Guest aot87]

I have read in a uk newspaper that cathy pacifice have cancelled their order for 787 due to the long delay and have gone over to the new airbus 350 again with rolls royce engines

[Guest beachlover]

New aircraft seem to be better designed and less prone to serious design flaws these days but some things you never know until...

 

Many of the most common airliners today had a spate of tragic accidents when they were first introduced. The venerable 747 had a LOT of design flaw-caused accidents and thousands of deaths in its first few years of service... many flaws were corrected from this.

 

Thank goodness no major 380 crashes yet...

[KhorTose]

Thank goodness no major 380 crashes yet...

 

Yes, but engines shutting down, tires blown etc. If you have a fear of flying DO NOT go to this URl, but if you want facts try this web site. You will find that the a320 has had a lot of problems, and airbus (all) in general does worse then Boeing.

 

 

http://aircrashobser...380&t=news&r=20

[Bob]

Thank goodness no major 380 crashes yet...

 

Yep, and hopefully there won't be any.

 

A couple of years ago, I missed seeing the 380 upclose on its visit to Chiangmai (this was when the company was flying the 380 all over the world so people could get a look at it). What happened is that the flight was delayed from Bangkok after a pilot, following the taxi markings on the ground for planes with smaller wingspans, actually clipped one of the hangers with a wing. Rather embarrassing (and apparently not a lot of damage as the plane did make it to Chiangmai the next day) but at least the driver didn't run away in the confusion as happens all too often with bus crashes and the like here in Thailand! My guess and trust is that the pilot is now employed elsewhere.

[Moses]

Yesterday 787 had emergency landing in Seattle during testing flight coz of failure of GE engines...

 

in 2010:

Boeing got orders for 288 airplanes and 78 cancellation of orders

Airbus got orders for 328 airplanes and 51 cancellation of orders

[Guest paulg]

The A380 is a beautiful plane to fly in and so quiet you are not sure you are flying.

I flew Australia to LA last year and plan to fly to the UK before Xmas. it is extremely hard to get a seat from Qantas due to the demand. I might have to fly Singapore this time.

 

Friends that flown the 777 are not as impressed as they were with the A380

[Guest beachlover]

Yes, but engines shutting down, tires blown etc. If you have a fear of flying DO NOT go to this URl, but if you want facts try this web site. You will find that the a320 has had a lot of problems, and airbus (all) in general does worse then Boeing.

 

True, in the short time I've been flying them I've had two flights delayed on the ground due to mechanical issues, replacing the air conditioning unit or faulty fuel pumps etc.

 

But with the way aircraft are designed it usually takes multiple failings to cause a serious accident (e.g. multiple mechanical failures, or design flaw combined with pilot error).

[PeterRS]

Interesting discussion. I

[Guest beachlover]

Well, maybe I've watched too many Air Crash Investigation episodes... God I love em... so many different ways an aircraft can crash LOL. I definitely don't keep a close track of it all so your insight is interesting.

 

That is just not true. There have been 28 officially recorded fatal accidents involving the B747. See the site below. You can easily see that 4 were bomb related, 2 were hijack related, 3 were related to severe weather conditions, 2 to faulty repairs and 1 because the Soviets shot it down. The worst air crash in history invokved 2 747s on the island of Teneriffe when a KLM jet crashed into a Pan Am jet still on the runway in 1977. 583 were killed. The cause of this was partly weather, partly pilot error and party traffic contol error. Nothing to do with design flaws. Several more, like the Singapore Airlines crash at Taipei, were pilot error.

 

Apart from those listed, less than 500 were killed on 747s in the first 15 years of operation. The total number of accidents due to design flaws can be counted on one hand.

 

Actually you're right. I was taken by surprise to hear how the 747 did have some serious design flaws when first released, considering how reliable it is considered today. But compared to other aircraft it didn't have many design flaws at all. The worst I remembered was the design of a cargo door locking mechanism, which caused it to fly open mid flight... pretty sure that was a fatal incident.

 

This may be treu in general (I don

[PeterRS]

The worst I remembered was the design of a cargo door locking mechanism, which caused it to fly open mid flight... pretty sure that was a fatal incident.

 

It sure was a fatal crash. Outside Paris in the mid 1970s. But it was the McDonnell Douglas DC10, not a Boeing!

 

The DC10 did not have a very distinguished record. In early 1979 an engine flew off an American AIrlines flight on take off at Chicago's O'Hare airport. The aircraft banked steeply and crashed with all passengers killed. All DC10s were then grounded for a while. In the same year, though, another flew into an iceberg off New Zealand. Its successor, the MD11, corrected a lot of the design faults, but it always seemed tainted by its association with the DC10.

[Guest beachlover]

Well, you are probably more knowledgeable about airliners than me! But I think we're talking about different incidents.

 

I looked it up - This is the 747 incident I was talking about:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811

 

United Airlines Flight 811 experienced a cargo door failure in flight on Friday, February 24, 1989, after its stopover at Honolulu International Airport, Hawaii. The resulting decompression blew out several rows of seats, killing 9 passengers.

 

------

 

Are you a fan of that Air Crash Investigation documentary as well? I love that show LOL. Love how they reenact the flights/crashes with realistic graphics and dramatic moment by moment narration.

[PeterRS]

Yes, there was a 747 forward cargo door failure as you point out. Most people tend to associate such a failure with the DC10 Paris crash because it resulted in 345 deaths and was definitely a design fault in the aft cargo door. I believe it also featured in that Air Crash programme, which I do watch when I can.