Yes, there is a directive to NOT connect the B787 to ground power due to issues involving the electronics of the airplane. This is an internal company communication and it is intended to hopefully keep the airplane flying. There have been numerous equipment substitutions for the 787's in our ops. When it does land somewhere that it is intended to land it breaks down with technical issues at a very alarming rate. I was one of the early groups of pilots at UA to fly the B777. We did not have near the number of tech issues the 787 is having.

Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5643160/

Topic: United 787 Test Flying
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-12-24 07:25:47 and read 14166 times.

If I am not mistaken UA has 25 787's coming and should have 5 by end of Jan and 10 perhaps within another 12 months (I am not perfectly clear on the delivery schedules, also when the 25 additional sUA 787's arrive. My question is will they keep doing domestic test / training flights for each frame delivered? All 50? So while a handful will be flying long hauls, will the newness of this type require continued training for crews etc for each frame? Or, after XX frames have been used on domestic flying - can United take delivery of a 787 and put it right into international service?

Also, will UA actually retire a 767 soon after a 787 arrives, (one for one) or will some 767s be kept for future growth? Those 767-400's still look awesome, but that's how they look, not how they perform. But I can think of some very good destinations start to open up with the additions of brand new ac or replace some 757 TATL routes.

Thx

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-24 07:43:46 and read 14118 times.

UA is retiring some 752's that were sUA frames. There has been talk that some of the three class 767s will be retired in a few years but there is no firm date that I recall.

Unlike airlines such as BA, UA hasn't stated they are retiring certain a/c 1 for 1 when the 787's arrive. In fact, the routes announced by UA replace 777s aside from the one new route (DEN to NRT).

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-12-24 10:34:56 and read 13748 times.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
can United take delivery of a 787 and put it right into international service?

Yes they can and will. Domestic proving runs are more based on operational needs of the airline than the airplane. The airline is still doing crew familiarization, maintenance training, ease of rebooking etc. Once they put the 787s on international service, I doubt they will keep domestic proving runs much longer. The only domestic hub to hub flights would be for fleet utilization and repositioning.

Upon delivery, there is usually a 3-6 month period when an airplane has less than optimal dispatch reliability. Boeing and Airbus strive to get all the problems fixed that are caused during manufacturing before delivery. However some always get through despite how robust the ground and flight testing is. New airplanes only have a few test flights before delivery, so some problems get through which can cause some delays and cancellations early on due to infant mortality. That is usually fixed within a few months. The initial entry into service problems are always even more significant for new airplanes. Domestic routes mean that UA won't have to worry about operating the 787 to contract maintenance stations or minimally supported maintenance bases. Also when there are delays and cancellations, rebooking is very easy on hub to hub routes. And finally diversions while operating ETOPS flights are bad, and UA wants to get some familiarity before going ETOPS. The last thing UA wants is a diversion to Adak Alaska or worse.

The airplane is ready to go long haul, but it is UA being conservative.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: mcdu
Posted 2012-12-24 12:00:35 and read 13516 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 2):
And finally diversions while operating ETOPS flights are bad, and UA wants to get some familiarity before going ETOPS. The last thing UA wants is a diversion to Adak Alaska or worse

It's not UA that needs to get familiar with the 787. UA operates thousands of etops flights each week. The weak link in the chain is the reliability of the 787. Not only did Boeing fumble delivery they have fumbled execution of the type. This airplane is very unreliable. If I were to book a trip on one I would not put money on it operating or being ontime. It's an albatross. Wish we had ordered more 777's and even 767's. the 787 is going to cost the airline dearly in the long run.

Boeing should be ashamed of themselves for delivering this plastic nightmare.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-24 12:19:25 and read 13436 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 3):
It's not UA that needs to get familiar with the 787. UA operates thousands of etops flights each week. The weak link in the chain is the reliability of the 787. Not only did Boeing fumble delivery they have fumbled execution of the type. This airplane is very unreliable. If I were to book a trip on one I would not put money on it operating or being ontime. It's an albatross. Wish we had ordered more 777's and even 767's. the 787 is going to cost the airline dearly in the long run.

Boeing should be ashamed of themselves for delivering this plastic nightmare.

I don't suppose you have any statistics to back up this broadside? Its true Boeing blew it in how long it took them to get the a/c to their customers but to make a blanket statement saying the a/c is unreliable doesn't add up. ANA has 17 of these aircraft so far and hasn't pitched a fit about reliability.

The 787 has had some issues which happens with every new a/c. Keep in mind that not only is the body different but they've made a lot of changes in other areas compared with the 777 (the last "new" a/c Boeing introduced in 1995).

To say its an "albatross" is just silly given the number of orders pending.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: AADC10
Posted 2012-12-24 12:20:38 and read 13432 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 3):
It's not UA that needs to get familiar with the 787.

There is some need for familiarity. With only 3 currently in the fleet, many FAs do not have any direct experience with the 787 beyond the door simulator and for the most part it has been operated with IAH based crews.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-12-24 13:18:43 and read 13322 times.

UA has taken delivery of five 787-8s thus far:

4 are in service, 1 is in LAX for induction.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N26902

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N27903

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N20904

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N45905

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N26906

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-12-24 13:46:16 and read 13142 times.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Also, will UA actually retire a 767 soon after a 787 arrives, (one for one) or will some 767s be kept for future growth?

It's not a 1 for 1 thing, but clearly the 787 will replace some 767 capacity.

UA is already in the process of retiring the sCO 767-200ERs.

Next up will be the "old" batch of sUA 767-300ERs, currently configured as 3-class.

The "new" batch of sUA 767-300ERs and the 767-400ERs will be around for awhile. I'd expect UA to retire some early 772s before retiring those later 767s.

The 767-400ER, incidentally, has very competitive economics even today on those routes which it has the range to fly. Its issues are 1) short range and 2) inability to take LD3s.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-12-24 14:03:33 and read 13077 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):

Will there still be some 3 class sUA 767's flying for a while? I happen to like those 767's in both F & J. I know economy leaves a lot to be desired.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-24 14:05:10 and read 13075 times.

The three class 767s are fine in Y except for the lack of AVOD. The room and 2-3-2 seating are great. These a/c fly on routes under eight hours so folks can use their tablets/phones for entertainment if they don't like the looped movies.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-12-24 14:14:09 and read 13032 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 6):

Oops, I don't know why my post posted twice?

So, United has their first 5, these were sCO orders correct? When are the next ones coming?

Also, will the 787's sUA ordered have the entry arch? And we don't seem to think they will get Global First? Even for the Asia flights? If they come in with the arch and with a 4 to 6 GF cabin, I assume more test runs may be needed?

I do enjoy the 767-400 very much, I am on one tomorrow to Rio.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-12-24 14:34:26 and read 12962 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 8):
Will there still be some 3 class sUA 767's flying for a while?

I'm sure there will be. If nothing else, UA won't have enough 787s to replace their capacity for at least a few years.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 11):
So, United has their first 5, these were sCO orders correct? When are the next ones coming?

One more (ln 45) is coming in January and then there will be another batch of five later in 2013 to fill out the initial sCO order. My understanding is that the sUA order for 25 787-8s will be filled in 2014-2015, but that could change.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 11):
And we don't seem to think they will get Global First? Even for the Asia flights?

I think economic reality dictates that Global First will be present on fewer and fewer aircraft, and they will tend to be the larger aircraft. I could be wrong; I'm not sure plans are set in stone yet.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 9):
The three class 767s are fine in Y except for the lack of AVOD.

And the primitive-looking old 767 interior, complete with tiny bins that can only fit rollaboards sideways.

[Edited 2012-12-24 14:37:56]

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-12-24 15:16:01 and read 12845 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 12):

I agree on the 767-3 refit, the F and J look great and Y looks like the back of a 707 was glued on. They should have at least continued the Boeing signature bins.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: mcdu
Posted 2012-12-24 18:22:36 and read 11384 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4):
I don't suppose you have any statistics to back up this broadside? Its true Boeing blew it in how long it took them to get the a/c to their customers but to make a blanket statement saying the a/c is unreliable doesn't add up.

Statistics? It has rarely flown the domestic schedule it is slated to fly each day. The thing is dispatch unreliable. There have been numerous electrical issues and currently it isn't allowed to be plugged into ground power. It has to have the APU running. APU fails and the airplane is dead in the water.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4):
To say its an "albatross" is just silly given the number of orders pending.

There are plenty of orders. However, what the airlines ordered and what is being delivered SEVERAL years late are two different things. I think there will be a significant number of order cancels going forward. Boeing has always had the ability to create "field of dreams" airplanes in the "if we build it, they will come" mentality. In the case of the B787 if may very well be that airlines with orders may turn away from the airplane in future.

The first several UA airplanes are under performers. Boeing is paying penalties to UA because they can not make the IAH to LOS nonstop service. Also, they would not have been able to fly IAH AKL as was the original plan. Boeing won't modify the airplanes so UA has a set of airplanes that will be truly Albatross members of the fleet.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2012-12-24 19:11:29 and read 10992 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 14):
Boeing is paying penalties to UA because they can not make the IAH to LOS nonstop service.

Do you have any proof of this?

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-24 19:25:08 and read 10898 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 14):

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4):
I don't suppose you have any statistics to back up this broadside? Its true Boeing blew it in how long it took them to get the a/c to their customers but to make a blanket statement saying the a/c is unreliable doesn't add up.

Statistics? It has rarely flown the domestic schedule it is slated to fly each day. The thing is dispatch unreliable. There have been numerous electrical issues and currently it isn't allowed to be plugged into ground power. It has to have the APU running. APU fails and the airplane is dead in the water.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4):
To say its an "albatross" is just silly given the number of orders pending.

There are plenty of orders. However, what the airlines ordered and what is being delivered SEVERAL years late are two different things. I think there will be a significant number of order cancels going forward. Boeing has always had the ability to create "field of dreams" airplanes in the "if we build it, they will come" mentality. In the case of the B787 if may very well be that airlines with orders may turn away from the airplane in future.

The first several UA airplanes are under performers. Boeing is paying penalties to UA because they can not make the IAH to LOS nonstop service. Also, they would not have been able to fly IAH AKL as was the original plan. Boeing won't modify the airplanes so UA has a set of airplanes that will be truly Albatross members of the fleet.

Did you follow the links from post #6? I know they had a divert on one a/c with repairs conducted as described in other threads. I see from looking at the operational history of those aircraft that they've been flying and completing their scheduled runs. I can't speak the APU operational issue you alleged, perhaps a UA employee can clear that up. It could be precautionary until there is a final word given on what happened on that diverted flight.

I can't find any evidence to support your allegation that Boeing is paying UA penalties regarding the IAH to LOS service. You are implying the aircraft can't fly that route - its well within the range of the aircraft. If you have proof regarding this fact, do share.

As for IAH - AKL, that route was cancelled due to the global downturn though UA tried to claim it was due to their tantrum about HOU hosting international flights in a few years.

What modifications did UA request that Boeing refused to do?

[Edited 2012-12-24 19:28:05]

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: ZKOKQ
Posted 2012-12-24 19:25:20 and read 10895 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 14):

I have read some stuff on this site, by by god what you're saying is making me laugh out so hard. You clearly have a dislike for the Dreamliner.

We all accept its entry into service has been tough, but I think your prediction will go the opposite way and more orders will flow in. Look at the A380. All the issues its having, its still a stellar aircraft and will continue to be

With society today and access of information (forums, facebook, twitter) easier than ever to get, then of course its going to look a lot worse than most other entries of service. And then you have people using these forms of media to sway peoples options of what is otherwise a normal situation.

Hardly be an albatross with as many orders as it currently has. Most airlines are eager to get the i would assume.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: hkcanadaexpat
Posted 2012-12-24 19:52:30 and read 10679 times.

Fingers crossed. UA's 787s are on a hot streak. 3 straight days of full schedules without cancellations.
They've actually added additional flights to LAX/ORD/DEN. Let's hope they've turned the corner!

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: Transpac787
Posted 2012-12-24 20:15:22 and read 10538 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 14):
The first several UA airplanes are under performers. Boeing is paying penalties to UA because they can not make the IAH to LOS nonstop service.

You better quickly pass this info along to the UA brass, because IAH-LOS on 787 starts on 30JAN using nothing but the "original 6" of the 787's.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-24 20:23:10 and read 10476 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
The 767-400ER, incidentally, has very competitive economics even today on those routes which it has the range to fly. Its issues are 1) short range and 2) inability to take LD3s.

767's can accept LD3's in a 1LD3 next to an LD2 configuration.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-12-24 21:16:48 and read 10136 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4):
To say its an "albatross" is just silly given the number of orders pending.

...orders pending say nothing about a plane's actual performance.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 16):
You are implying the aircraft can't fly that route - its well within the range of the aircraft.

Can you prove that? Can you prove the actual range of the aircraft?

Show us.

NS

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: flood
Posted 2012-12-24 21:21:25 and read 10101 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 16):
Did you follow the links from post #6? I know they had a divert on one a/c with repairs conducted as described in other threads. I see from looking at the operational history of those aircraft that they've been flying and completing their scheduled runs.

Flightaware's history merely shows what flew, not what was originally scheduled. It doesn't show, for example, the 68 flights which had been substituted by other types since December 7th. Around 32 of those can be directly attributed to the extended 'groundings' of 902 and 906 due to the panel issues.

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 18):
Fingers crossed. UA's 787s are on a hot streak. 3 straight days of full schedules without cancellations.

While not a cancellation, I think their luck ended today when 902 apparently went tech and flight 1430 to LAX was operated by 906 instead with a 2hr 40min delay. Things have definitely improved over the past few days though, and it looks like they're aiming for a record 16 flights on Tuesday. They've added a second DEN and triple ORD.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 14):
currently it isn't allowed to be plugged into ground power.

Can you elaborate?

Quoting mcdu (Reply 3):
the 787 is going to cost the airline dearly in the long run.

Why's that? They may have suffered some bad PR since the MSY diversion and given the number of substitutions this month, but ANA's fleet seems to be doing fine and they're happy with the 787's performance. UA's problems too will soon be a thing of the past.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-24 21:33:57 and read 10032 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 22):
Can you prove that? Can you prove the actual range of the aircraft?

Show us.

Ah, I GET IT!

Airlines are in the habit of purchasing aircraft with a range that can vary by thousands of miles from the manufacturer's claim whilst spending BILLIONS of dollars. Then they compound their error by scheduling said aircraft to fly from places like:

DEN to NRT (5,787 mi);
LAX to NRT (5,451);
LAX to PVG (6,485);
IAH to LOS (6,512 mi) and
IAH to AMS (5,012 mi)

while having no idea if the aircraft will run out of fuel somewhere over the middle of the sea.

Come on folks, lets put away the tin foil hats and rabbit ears. The 787-8 won't have a range issue on these routes.

Quoting flood (Reply 23):
Flightaware's history merely shows what flew, not what was originally scheduled. It doesn't show, for example, the 68 flights which had been substituted by other types since December 7th. Around 32 of those can be directly attributed to the extended 'groundings' of 902 and 906 due to the panel issues.

Thanks for the correction.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: akelley728
Posted 2012-12-24 23:26:14 and read 9520 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 14):
Boeing won't modify the airplanes so UA has a set of airplanes that will be truly Albatross members of the fleet.

Can you elaborate on this?

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-25 01:10:59 and read 9191 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 13):
The first several UA airplanes are under performers. Boeing is paying penalties to UA because they can not make the IAH to LOS nonstop service. Also, they would not have been able to fly IAH AKL as was the original plan. Boeing won't modify the airplanes so UA has a set of airplanes that will be truly Albatross members of the fleet.

I flew was in IAH a few weeks ago when they were giving tours of the 787 and the chief training pilot of the 787 program was telling us how they were flying to LAX at FL400 and burning at least 20% less fuel than a similarly sized plane. He also made a comment about if the flew 3 787 in formation to CDG to have a similar passenger load as the AF or LH (I can't remember which airline flies it to IAH) A380 that flies there they would burn less fuel. So all this bragging from a man that has flown the plane a great deal doesn't seem like disappointment to me.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: ordwaw
Posted 2012-12-25 03:47:50 and read 8745 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 21):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 16):
You are implying the aircraft can't fly that route - its well within the range of the aircraft.

Can you prove that? Can you prove the actual range of the aircraft?

This is to prove ...

IAH-LOS is 6512 miles

ET 501 connects non-stop IAD-ADD, a distance of 7193 miles, on its B787-8

[Edited 2012-12-25 03:49:32]

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: mcdu
Posted 2012-12-25 04:58:16 and read 8548 times.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/United...ng-theflyonthewall-3706979489.html

The 737's were severely discounted to attempt to make up for the above lawsuit. Just hope Boeing doesn't drop the ball with the MAX. They can ill afford to repeat the problems of the 787, of course they have plenty of orders so to some that makes it a success. As an operator, meeting specs and making a profit with the tool purchased is what counts.

Quoting flood (Reply 22):
Can you elaborate?

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 23):
Airlines are in the habit of purchasing aircraft with a range that can vary by thousands of miles from the manufacturer's claim whilst spending BILLIONS of dollars. Then they compound their error by scheduling said aircraft to fly from places like:
Quoting ordwaw (Reply 26):
This is to prove ...

IAH-LOS is 6512 miles

ET 501 connects non-stop IAD-ADD, a distance of 7193 miles, on its B787-8

The first 6 UA airplanes are overweight for BOW and are high burners over promised from Boeing. Thus the airplane CAN fly these routes, it just does it with a penalty in payload. I am sure you could empty a B787 and fly it to the end of the Boeing range numbers. However, the first 6 UA is taking don't allow for full seats on a IAH to LOS routing. Perhaps ET's airplanes enjoy the changes to get the airplanes to meet specs. If you want an empty seat next to you I would book a 787 long haul flight at UA until the +6 airplanes arrive.

I have been a champion of Boeing for many years. Have flown the 727,737,747,757,767,777 and the A320. Hands down I have always preferred the Boeing but what I see and know about the 787 program it is not endearing the Boeing. My belief is that this airplane is going to be a bad piece of equipment to have in your stable going forward.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: ordwaw
Posted 2012-12-25 05:24:48 and read 8485 times.

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 26):
Quoting gigneil (Reply 21):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 16):
You are implying the aircraft can't fly that route - its well within the range of the aircraft.

Can you prove that? Can you prove the actual range of the aircraft?

This is to prove ...

IAH-LOS is 6512 miles

ET 501 connects non-stop IAD-ADD, a distance of 7193 miles, on its B787-8

Did some more digging, and it appears that ET connects ADD with both YYZ and IAD, however, ONLY the eastward flights are non-stop. Apparently, the westward flights have a technical stop at FCO.

So 7,100 mile routes appear to be beyond PRACTICAL (with reasonable PAX and cargo) abilities of B787. (at least for now)

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-12-25 06:15:57 and read 8188 times.

NOVICE HERE! Isn't the 787 more different an aircraft than anything that has preceded it? The size of the technological leap from a 767 to a 777 was not as much a leap as a 777 to a 787. Point I am asking is...wouldn't all these bumps be natural with so much of the aircraft being unprecedented? Also...(and please I don't want to turn this into a 747-8 thread) but isn't much of the new 747-8 (intercontinental and F) created with much of the 787 technology, thus far, an almost problem free airplane? With a number flying for LH and freight carriers, I have only read how well the 747-8 performs. (perhaps I have missed reading about 747-8 problems) So why would there be such a difference in reliability? Remember I am a novice! So be kind!

Last, for those who feel most negative about the 787, if I am on it, am I safe? Do you feel the multiple tech issues translate into any safety issues? Because I just cannot believe either A or B would deliver aircraft that they were not sure was 100% safe.

LAST: do you feel United should be test flying more before going over an ocean?

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: ChrisNH
Posted 2012-12-25 06:31:58 and read 8126 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 3):
This airplane is very unreliable.

Check with JAL and see how many times BOS-NRT has gone 'tech.' Then come back and re-think your blanket statement. One could easily conclude that JAL people know what they're doing and UA people don't. That's no less 'silly' than what you just said.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-25 08:07:59 and read 7648 times.

mcdu, if you are a pilot and you have flown every a/c - then you know machines have issues. Aircraft go tech everyday for some reason or other. The APU issue will be resolved and the internal directive you mentioned is intended to prevent any electrical issues until they get confirmation from Boeing of the fix.

As for the weight issues, UA has aircraft up to L/N 77 I believe at this point. That a/c should be very close to spec though the actual weight target won't be reached till L/N 90 IIRC.

The fact UA sought compensation for the 787 delays is nothing new. Boeing took a serious bath compensating airlines for the delays. Some of it includes discounts on the frames and some discounts on other aircraft types. Its what happens.

As mentioned above, JAL hasn't had many issues with their 787s. A few have gone tech but not many. mcdu, you of all people should know that a brand new a/c with brand new design concepts will have initial issues. If you don't have the patience to put up with the teething issues, perhaps you should bid back to the 737?

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: United1
Posted 2012-12-25 08:09:23 and read 7638 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 27):
My belief is that this airplane is going to be a bad piece of equipment to have in your stable going forward.

I'm not going to go that far...I think the 787 is going to be a great asset to UA and any airline going forward but I also think that its going to take a while to get the bugs worked out.

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 30):
Check with JAL and see how many times BOS-NRT has gone 'tech.'

The flight has an on-time rating of 67%...not bad but certainly not exactly a stellar performer either. Both JAL and ANA have had their share of issues with the 787's... which seemed to start to go away about 6 to 9 months after they became familiar with the aircraft.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: ORDBOSEWR
Posted 2012-12-25 08:22:49 and read 7606 times.

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 30):
Check with JAL and see how many times BOS-NRT has gone 'tech.' Then come back and re-think your blanket statement. One could easily conclude that JAL people know what they're doing and UA people don't. That's no less 'silly' than what you just said.

I will not use UA as the example of reliability of the aircraft. I will use the carrier that has the most of the type and flown it the most, that is obviously NH. They have spoken highly of the dispatch reliability. Is it perfect, no, but they are not using the words disappointed or unsatisfactory, which would be horrible words to hear from a Japanese carrier on the topic

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2012/...one-year-of-boeing-787-operations/

Sometimes it is not the plane but the carrier!!! I will admit I am a UA fan, but I would blame UA more than the type on this issues that mcdu raises.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-25 09:01:41 and read 7524 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 3):
ot only did Boeing fumble delivery they have fumbled execution of the type. This airplane is very unreliable. If I were to book a trip on one I would not put money on it operating or being ontime. It's an albatross. Wish we had ordered more 777's and even 767's. the 787 is going to cost the airline dearly in the long run.

Boeing should be ashamed of themselves for delivering this plastic nightmare.

An article on the 787 in a recent Aviation Week & Space Technology quoted someone at Boeing stating that the 38 787s already in service at that time achieved a 99% reliability record during the first year of service by the type. I doubt many other new types have achieved a better record.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: ChrisNH
Posted 2012-12-25 09:15:08 and read 7463 times.

Quoting United1 (Reply 32):
The flight has an on-time rating of 67%.

You could blame that on a pilot who slept late or on bad weather in Japan or Boston...neither of which are the 'fault' of the plane itself.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-25 09:31:43 and read 7402 times.

That 67% figure accounts for all delays, not just those attributed directly to the 787.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: United1
Posted 2012-12-25 09:44:43 and read 7367 times.

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 35):
neither of which are the 'fault' of the plane itself.

Didn't say that they were but that doesn't exclude aircraft issues either. Like I said I think the 787 is going to be a great aircraft but I think its going to take a few months for any carrier that takes delivery of them to really work the bugs out and get comfortable with the aircraft.

Quoting ORDBOSEWR (Reply 33):
Sometimes it is not the plane but the carrier!!!

UA has quite a bit of experience in putting new types of aircraft in service ...777, 767, 727...not to mention being an early customer for the 747, 737 and DC-10. Right now UA is much more likely to cancel a 787 flight when they have something relativity minor happen while they build up experience with the aircraft and get comfortable with deciding whether its a critical issue or something that can be deferred.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-25 09:59:21 and read 7341 times.

United1 is spot-on. UA is taking a conservative approach with hub to hub domestic flights to get comfortable with how this aircraft operates. Toss in the electrical diversion and they are rightly taking a go-it-slow approach.

I suspect they pushed back the international schedule a bit to ensure they have a good grasp of how this a/c behaves and to publish work-arounds for those issues while working with Boeing to solve the issues.

Also, did the UA engineering dept receive as much training and work-up as NH? Given they were the launch customer, they may have had a bit more time/training to get comfortable with the foibles of this a/c as opposed to the minimum required training.

@vc10 - I would not feel "unsafe" on this a/c. No it won't explode of the Atlantic or anything  Smile They've had some issues but remember that it has multiple redundencies for each system.

As for over-water flights, UA already has flown test flights with the FAA. They went to AMS and NRT from IAH. Included in that was a "unplanned" diversion to KEF to test UA's procedures for dealing with diversions during an intercontinental flight.

They've also done revenue flights to Europe already.

[Edited 2012-12-25 10:45:59]

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: FriendlySkies
Posted 2012-12-25 10:21:39 and read 7297 times.

Quoting United1 (Reply 37):
UA has quite a bit of experience...

You're right, UA does. How about the CO guys running the airline now (and introducing the 787 on the sCO side). If the rest of the merger is anything to go on, the pmUA experience means nothing.

Regardless, this is a very different airplane. Nobody at UA has experience with the complex bleed less electrical system used on the 787, which seems to be related to most of the tech issues. Coincidence? The reliability will improve. It saddens me to see experienced pilots calling the 787 a bad product after indirect experience with the airplane for less than 4 months. You should know better.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-25 10:47:41 and read 7223 times.

Perhaps the 787 will show some old(er) dogs new tricks?   

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: United1
Posted 2012-12-25 11:27:44 and read 7156 times.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 40):
You're right, UA does. How about the CO guys running the airline now (and introducing the 787 on the sCO side). If the rest of the merger is anything to go on, the pmUA experience means nothing.

While they are using the PMCO program, with a few modifications, to launch the aircraft (PMUA hadn't planned on taking delivery of the aircraft until 2016 so their program was not ready to roll yet) to say that PMCO is running the show is quite frankly ignorant. UA TechOps is very much involved....

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 40):
Coincidence? The reliability will improve. It saddens me to see experienced pilots calling the 787 a bad product after indirect experience with the airplane for less than 4 months. You should know better.

Indeed it will and has already....

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-12-25 11:51:42 and read 7106 times.

Ironically, I am sitting in BF on a UA 767-400 (lovely bird) and a 787 just rolled by.

She clearly looks different than anything else, perhaps for a novice like me to conclude that United's conservative approach is wise.

As for "is she safe" I was joking a bit after reading that she's an unreliable albatross - in fact I feel very safe on United. I have always heard their TechOps was one of pmUA's greatest assets.

Off to Rio now. I wonder if I will live to see the 787 from EWR to Brazil?

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-25 12:13:11 and read 7026 times.

Enjoy Rio!!!

I think you'll see the 787 in some form flying to GIG from EWR.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-12-25 18:36:17 and read 6722 times.

Look I wasn't trying to be a dick earlier, I'm clearly in the boat that says the 787 is going to be an outstanding asset to United.

But I think its shortsighted to rate the introduction into service as stellar, or even good. I'm going to go with "okay".

Now, part of that isn't the plane doesn't work, or that the technicians maintaining them or the pilots operating them don't know their craft. But it is such a radical departure from previous devices of its kind that a steep and somewhat slippery reliability curve is almost a foregone conclusion.

NS

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-25 18:45:52 and read 6689 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 43):
Now, part of that isn't the plane doesn't work, or that the technicians maintaining them or the pilots operating them don't know their craft. But it is such a radical departure from previous devices of its kind that a steep and somewhat slippery reliability curve is almost a foregone conclusion.

Agree 100% and I for one didn't take your comments for being a dick lol.

There is a ton of new technology plus a learning curve for the engineering dept. We can expect some issues for a bit. If NH avoided them, its because they spent more time, more money and sent more of their engineers over the Boeing to get familiar with things.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: mcdu
Posted 2012-12-26 07:44:58 and read 6343 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 37):
Also, did the UA engineering dept receive as much training and work-up as NH? Given they were the launch customer, they may have had a bit more time/training to get comfortable with the foibles of this a/c as opposed to the minimum required training.

A big problem for the airplane and the mechanics working the airplane are the lapses in delivery target dates. There is a lead time required to get the mechanics up to speed on the airplane just like pilots and FA's. Some will have had their training lapse before the airplane arrived due to the delays from Boeing.

However looking at the maintenance items that are showing up for the airplane it is numerous electrical issues that trigger status messages that will not clear. I have a good friend that is a check airman on the airplane and he said the fortified door lock has caused tons of issues. He says it faults on a regular basis on ALL of the delivered airplanes so it isn't a one off problem. This is just one of many of the problems the airplane has had.

The appearance is that Boeing delivered a less than ready product. Maybe we can get them covered under the national "lemon laws"

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-26 08:24:29 and read 6239 times.

Sounds like Boeing needs to have an engineering team down at IAH to assist with troubleshooting and repair. Given the next UA a/c is the last of the ones that require rework, I think the delivery target dates will firm up.

It sounds like these electrical problems are a Pain in the ***. The hotline to PAE will need to stay running for a bit.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: Transpac787
Posted 2012-12-26 09:18:35 and read 6155 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 46):
Sounds like Boeing needs to have an engineering team down at IAH to assist with troubleshooting and repair.

They already do.

I flew on two 787's last week and both times through IAH there were a ton of personnel wearing Boeing vests that met the airplane, both inside and out.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: T5towbar
Posted 2012-12-26 10:01:24 and read 6064 times.

On the 787 we cannot plug up any ground power. The funny thing is that this bird has three power plugs . The third plug is for electric starts if there is an APU failure. I' m used to air starting an A/C if there are issues, but with the 787 is does not require an air start. I haven't seen this come up yet since aircraft is worked on while APU is running.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-12-26 10:12:52 and read 6007 times.

I have heard the quality of ground power was the issue with that. You need it to be perfectly clean, and for the moment they've recommended not using it.

NS

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-26 10:39:23 and read 5947 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 13):
There have been numerous electrical issues and currently it isn't allowed to be plugged into ground power. It has to have the APU running.

That has to be a United procedure, in which case it's hard to see how you're blaming the 787. Other 787's all over the world are running on ground power all the time.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 13):
APU fails and the airplane is dead in the water.

No, the APU is on the MMEL. If the APU fails, plug in ground power and go about your day, just like every other airliner on earth. If United has hamstrung themselves by banning ground power for an airplane that was designed to use a lot of ground power I'm not sure how that's Boeing's fault.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 13):
Boeing is paying penalties to UA because they can not make the IAH to LOS nonstop service.

The airplane can make that flight, easily.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 20):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 16):
You are implying the aircraft can't fly that route - its well within the range of the aircraft.

Can you prove that? Can you prove the actual range of the aircraft?

Yes. See p.3 here for the public data:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787sec3.pdf

IAH-LOS is 5700 nm great circle, just pass the MZFW break point of the payload range curve.

Have your dispatch office run JetPlanner or AFM-DPI or whatever software they're using for fuel burn calcs for the official version. The 787-8 ETOPS/F&R program, which used frames more overweight than what United has, did flights far longer than this.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 26):
Yes, there is a directive to NOT connect the B787 to ground power due to issues involving the electronics of the airplane. This is an internal company communication and it is intended to hopefully keep the airplane flying.

So your ground power is causing issues to the airplane, United has decided not to use ground power despite all the other 787 users using ground power, and you blame Boeing?

Quoting mcdu (Reply 26):
I was one of the early groups of pilots at UA to fly the B777. We did not have near the number of tech issues the 787 is having.

The 777 introduction had *different* issues...it wasn't particularly better. A lot of people remember it with rose-coloured glasses because we didn't have nearly the internet information distribution then that we do now so the vast majority of issues went unreported in the public.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 26):
Thus the airplane CAN fly these routes, it just does it with a penalty in payload.

Of course it does...even a spec 787-8 can't do IAH-LOS at full payload. No airliner in existence can go to full range at full payload. United would have known this years ago.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 28):
Isn't the 787 more different an aircraft than anything that has preceded it?

Yes. This is the biggest technology jump since the introduction of the Comet/DC-8/707/etc.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 28):
Point I am asking is...wouldn't all these bumps be natural with so much of the aircraft being unprecedented?

Yes.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 28):
Also...(and please I don't want to turn this into a 747-8 thread) but isn't much of the new 747-8 (intercontinental and F) created with much of the 787 technology, thus far, an almost problem free airplane?

There is relatively little 787-8 technology in the 747-8 other than the engine, so the 747-8's relatively clean EIS is more related to it being a derivative than it being related to the 787-8. The 747-8 has had its own EIS issues.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 28):
Last, for those who feel most negative about the 787, if I am on it, am I safe?

Yes.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 28):
Do you feel the multiple tech issues translate into any safety issues?

No. Nothing that has happened to the 787-8 in service has come anywhere remotely close to a safety issue.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 28):
Because I just cannot believe either A or B would deliver aircraft that they were not sure was 100% safe.

Correct. Not only wouldn't they, they'd lose their production certificate if they did.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 28):
LAST: do you feel United should be test flying more before going over an ocean?

No. None of the things that infant mortality affects are particularly different when you're over the water.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 43):
But I think its shortsighted to rate the introduction into service as stellar, or even good. I'm going to go with "okay".

That's fine, and about right, but it's important to note that new type EIS's *never* go well relative to later deliveries or derivatives. A "good" new type EIS would be a "terrible" derivative or new delivery entry.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 45):
I have a good friend that is a check airman on the airplane and he said the fortified door lock has caused tons of issues.

Is United running a custom door lock? Back in June it sounds like United had asked for a custom installation and then changed their minds:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/union-...united-removing-787-225420734.html

This problem also shouldn't cause a delay, it's on the MMEL, unless United pulled it from their MEL.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 46):
Sounds like Boeing needs to have an engineering team down at IAH to assist with troubleshooting and repair.

They do. Have for decades.

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 48):
On the 787 we cannot plug up any ground power. The funny thing is that this bird has three power plugs . The third plug is for electric starts if there is an APU failure.

The third is there for electrical starts *without shutting down the cabin systems during the start*. The airplane will happily start an engine off two ground power stingers. But what's stopping you from plugging in ground power? It was tested and certified to work off one, two, or three ground power stingers.

Tom.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: T5towbar
Posted 2012-12-26 11:08:31 and read 5898 times.

Internal comm told us on the ground not to plug up. I guess the reasoning is that unexpected divert in MSY due to electrical issues.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2012-12-26 13:03:27 and read 5783 times.

Well IIRC, as in 787 training, one major ground power issue is that the aircraft needs 120 kVa hooked up, and most jetways around the system are only 90 kVa rated. IIRC about another issue, as we went over the electrical systems, you need two sources of ground power to run one CAC (AC pack). The 787 requires a lot of power to run. And they keep the APU running at the gate because of yet another issue, when the APU is turned off and the door closed, the APU shaft bows and locks up when it heats up. There are time limits with the door closed when the APU will not restart. These are things that with time, will work themselves out.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-26 14:43:41 and read 5633 times.

Thanks for the info CALTECH. The issue about power needs at the jetway is something UA should've known about for a long long time. This isn't or at least should not have come as a shock to UA. Given that, UA shouldn't

The problem of course is all the other a/c don't need/want that power rating I suspect. So now...UA gets to uprate certain gates or stick to APU power. The issue with the APU shaft sounds strange. You'd think the testing would've uncovered the issue and a work-around found before delivery to UA.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: mcdu
Posted 2012-12-26 16:27:01 and read 5484 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 50):
Is United running a custom door lock? Back in June it sounds like United had asked for a custom installation and then changed their minds:

No you are confusing a secondary barrier with the fortified door electronic lock. Two separate items. The door lock creates an EICAS message that must be addressed. Just because it is deferrable doesn't mean an time won't create a delay. The actual reason for the fault, (no matter what it is) needs to be identified before something is deferred. Take a defect of unable to communicate from the p1 seat VHF. Is it a headset, handset, audio panel, RT etc? Deferrals are not without a time cost.

The B787 generates status and EICAS messages at a rapid rate. Glad we have the professionals like CALTECH maintaining the planes.

Combine the delivery delays, tech issues, operational failures of systems and the 787 adds up to being a introduction flop. Do hope it can achieve better reliability. However, the overweight under performance of the first batch of planes won't be fixed. Too bad Boeing opted to make this an outsourced jet. I am a keen opponent to outsourcing by companies. The express product is a prime example of the consequences of outsourcing. It is abysmal and Boeing tried it with mfg and failed miserably.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-26 16:55:17 and read 5418 times.

Boeing had to revise their manufacturing process due to the outsourcing. They revamped the supplier conduits as well. All airliners are outsourced to a great degree.

It seems they have the supplier issues under control and the aircraft coming from L/N 90 forward appear to be on spec. So the question now is troubleshooting the electrical issues. It will be sorted sooner rather than later.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2012-12-26 18:57:51 and read 5315 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 54):
However, the overweight under performance of the first batch of planes won't be fixed

I am a bit curious.... Can you post typical empty weight from the load sheet?
What fuel burn are you seeing in an average leg, lets say 4000nm, and at what weights?

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: akelley728
Posted 2012-12-26 19:40:11 and read 5267 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 13):
Boeing won't modify the airplanes so UA has a set of airplanes that will be truly Albatross members of the fleet.

Would you care to elaborate on this statement?

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-26 22:10:13 and read 5111 times.

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 51):

Internal comm told us on the ground not to plug up. I guess the reasoning is that unexpected divert in MSY due to electrical issues.

I have a tough time following that one...whatever happened with the MSY diversion, it happened in the air. How would ground power have been related?

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 52):
Well IIRC, as in 787 training, one major ground power issue is that the aircraft needs 120 kVa hooked up, and most jetways around the system are only 90 kVa rated.

That's not correct. The 787 will happily take a 90 kVa ground power stinger (it will also take a 120). The problem is, usually, that a 787 will take the entire 90 kVa if that's what's hooked up and there are ton of 90 kVa GPUs in the world (especially portable diesel units) that won't actually put out 90 kVa. The airplane tries to take full load, the GPU trips offline, and it gets dark and quiet. One could argue that Boeing should have known the general health of the GPU fleet (i.e. pretty terrible) and taken that into account but, in my experience, they've been pretty vocal about the plane's ground power needs.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 52):
IIRC about another issue, as we went over the electrical systems, you need two sources of ground power to run one CAC (AC pack).

That's true, but at least you have the option. On any other aircraft you can't run the ECS off ground power at all, you have to run the APU. The 787, just like any other airliner, can take a ground air connection and bypass the packs entirely.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 52):
And they keep the APU running at the gate because of yet another issue, when the APU is turned off and the door closed, the APU shaft bows and locks up when it heats up.

That's why the procedure has you leave the door open. If you turn the APU off and close the door you have to wait for it to cool back down.

Tom.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-12-26 22:13:28 and read 5114 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 50):
Have your dispatch office

My dispatch office is two cats and an iphone 5 with Siri reminding me to dispatch my ass to the office  

Now I do manage to keep up with what I can... which is why I try to not make DEFINITIVE statements and why:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 50):
Quoting gigneil (Reply 43):
But I think its shortsighted to rate the introduction into service as stellar, or even good. I'm going to go with "okay".

That's fine, and about right, but it's important to note that new type EIS's *never* go well relative to later deliveries or derivatives. A "good" new type EIS would be a "terrible" derivative or new delivery entry.

We're agreeing aggressively here.

NS

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: georgetown
Posted 2012-12-26 23:48:37 and read 4988 times.

With all due respect, mcdu (and I mean that), it just seems to me that a more measured approach to voicing your opinion might enhance your credibility - especially during a period of time when there is a distinct possibility that events play out opposite your point of view. Even those who might agree with a blowhard will line up to see him proven wrong. I'd just say proceed with caution: people clamor to say "I told you so" and, not that anything "real" is at stake, but what you've written here will be here ten years from now when we have the benefit of hindsight. Could look like a prophet, could look like a goat.

...and as we all know, this tends to get magnified on a.net...

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: mcdu
Posted 2012-12-27 00:47:42 and read 4906 times.

Quoting georgetown (Reply 64):
it just seems to me that a more measured approach to voicing your opinion might enhance your credibility

Not sure how you would prefer I say the airplane has been underwhelming in quality so far. It has had far more tech issues than we had with the 777 or even the 747-400 ( and there were many with the -400). In my opinion the 787 program has been an embarrassment to Boeing previous quality. It is years behind schedule and when it finally arrived it has been very much a beta test airplane in function versus a full operational delivery.

The original poster and a few others somehow hinted that UA was the problem with the airplane. I took that premise to task because the people at UA are working hard to keep this thing in the air. We don't make money with it as a paperweight. However, the airplane just hasn't proven reliable enough.

Some cite ANA and JAL as not having issues. I think they most likely have had just as many issues as the other operators. However, cultural differences curtail much of the criticism of Boeing from those carriers. UA will be reluctant to give the airplane a bad public review as they have a great deal riding on this airplane. Just watch Smiseks video and he touts the wonders of the 787. That is a lot of egg on the face if it doesn't produce. All I am giving is a 25+ year insiders opinion on what I think about this airplane and its future.

There have not been a great number of new orders recently for the 787. Often once a plane gains EIS it will drive orders or at least firming of options. So far that doesn't appear to be the case for the 787. I think new order carriers are taking a wait and see approach to the 787. Since 2008 the order book for 787's has dropped from 910 to 844.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: flood
Posted 2012-12-27 05:37:01 and read 4720 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 61):
Today's flight 1073 DEN to IAH operated over 4 hours late. Spoke to a friend returning from a check ride at our training center in DEN that was on board. He said they had air conditioning issue that forced a ground return and the long delay.

Thanks, had wondered why it returned to gate. The same bird (ship 904) is currently showing a 40 min delay out of IAH this morning and I just noticed the second DEN flight (UA1719) has been subbed with a 767.

Do you happen to know what the problem was with UA 1619 yesterday? It went tech at DEN for 2.5 hrs as well.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 63):
Noticed ANA had a cracked windshield on a 787 a couple of days ago causing cancellations.

JAL had a cracked windshield back in October while operating DEL-NRT, but I don't see how that reflects poorly on the 787... such issues are relatively common and hardly unique to the type.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 66):
I'll amend that to say Boeing can't or is unwilling to develop a method to make these first 6 airplanes meet spec.

Maybe not targeted spec, but surely within contractual spec. If not, UA could have refused delivery. The A350 will be overweight too. If an operator doesn't want to risk taking delivery of new, overweight aircraft, they have no business rushing to the front of the line for early deliveries.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: Antoniemey
Posted 2012-12-27 05:39:30 and read 4710 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 61):
Often once a plane gains EIS it will drive orders or at least firming of options. So far that doesn't appear to be the case for the 787.

However, it's not often that a plane is sold out for a decade's production at EIS. If it's not operating as smoothly as any other type in UA's fleet by the end of 2013, then I'll worry. Until then, it's a new plane with undetected issues, being dealt with by pilots who haven't flown it and worked on by mechanics and rampers who haven't serviced it. There's bound to be trouble. And that's without all the new technology in it.

It is entirely conceivable that Boeing could have designed and built a conventional aluminum aircraft but used the rest of the new concepts they put into the 787, done it all in-house, and you'd still have a list of dispatch failures as long as you are tall.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: ORDBOSEWR
Posted 2012-12-27 06:10:35 and read 4638 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 61):
There have not been a great number of new orders recently for the 787. Often once a plane gains EIS it will drive orders or at least firming of options. So far that doesn't appear to be the case for the 787. I think new order carriers are taking a wait and see approach to the 787. Since 2008 the order book for 787's has dropped from 910 to 844.

They are sold out for years. Why would you buy an aircraft that can't be delivered for 5+ years when you can wait and see.
As a purchaser, there is no call to action or immediacy that Boeing can bring to the table. The only way Boeing can get someone to order it now is price, which could include some other types, like a 737 order or T7, that can be delivered sooner rather than later.
Add to it you also have the A350 development ongoing and one could be waiting to see which program ends better for your criteria.

Has Boeing dropped the ball on this introduction, absolutely. Has UA, probably as well. I think there is enough fault to go around and if I was one of the folks trying to keep it flying at UA, then I would be pissed at Boeing as well.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 54):
Too bad Boeing opted to make this an outsourced jet. I am a keen opponent to outsourcing by companies. The express product is a prime example of the consequences of outsourcing. It is abysmal and Boeing tried it with mfg and failed miserably.

Did Boeing mess up. Absolutely, but they also had contracts with those companies that signed up for more than they could do.

Frankly, I do not follow your express point. Are you saying that all express flying should be brought back in-house? How would that work financially? I am not saying it can't be done, but this seems like a stretch.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2012-12-27 07:19:09 and read 4581 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58):
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 52):Well IIRC, as in 787 training, one major ground power issue is that the aircraft needs 120 kVa hooked up, and most jetways around the system are only 90 kVa rated.
That's not correct. The 787 will happily take a 90 kVa ground power stinger (it will also take a 120). The problem is, usually, that a 787 will take the entire 90 kVa if that's what's hooked up and there are ton of 90 kVa GPUs in the world (especially portable diesel units) that won't actually put out 90 kVa. The airplane tries to take full load, the GPU trips offline, and it gets dark and quiet. One could argue that Boeing should have known the general health of the GPU fleet (i.e. pretty terrible) and taken that into account but, in my experience, they've been pretty vocal about the plane's ground power needs.

My original statement is correct as per the manufacturer states. Otherwise, someone needs to call Boeing and tell them to quit saying this. Boeing Instructors are teaching and saying to our Instructors who are passing it along to us, that 120 kVa is needed to run this aircraft properly on the ground. I am just passing along a Boeing approved statement and training point. And like the rest of your post then reinforced the point I was making, is that the 787 will not power everything up with just a 90 kVa power source. I could look at the wiring diagrams and tell you exactly what will power up with the different power units. A 787 could take a even lower kVa source, but you might only get a few interior lights to come on, if anything at all. Two 90 kVa units might do it, and it was mentioned that IAH was preparing a few gates to accept the 787 power demands on the ground. Sure they have IAH and some International destinations prepared for this.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58):
That's true, but at least you have the option. On any other aircraft you can't run the ECS off ground power at all, you have to run the APU. The 787, just like any other airliner, can take a ground air connection and bypass the packs entirely.

Without enough ground power available, the 787 will not run the CAC's (AC Packs) either, so the APU needs to be running too, just like any other aircraft. In some scenarios we went over, depending on what one is trying to run, you may need 3 ground power sources to run the 787 in certain situations. Just better hope that APU starts up.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58):
That's why the procedure has you leave the door open. If you turn the APU off and close the door you have to wait for it to cool back down.

The point is that this phenomenon manifested itself in service and caught the airlines, Boeing and Hamilton Sundstrand off guard and we then have received a bulletin about this. The option is a way to get around the APU not working as advertised.

' If the APU operation is anticipated from 20 to 120 minutes after APU shutdown, the APU selector switch must be repositioned from the off position to the on position at the last shutdown. In selecting the APU switch to on, this opens the APU inlet door enabling additional required cool down. The inlet door must remain open 40 minutes before closing it in order enable starting the APU at any time after APU shutdown. Standard Maintenance operations procedure will be to select APU on to open the APU door after the normal APU shutdown is completed.

After APU shutdown with the inlet door closed, stagnant air in the APU compartment causes significant temperature differentials to develop after 20 minutes, and this causes the rotor shaft to bow. When the compartment cools down after 120 minutes after APU shutdown, the rotor shaft returns to it unbowed state. If the APU inlet door is left closed, an APU can be restarted within 20 minutes after shutdown before this rotor shaft bow develops, or after 120 minutes after shutdown when the rotor shaft returns to it unbowed state. If an APU start is attempted between 20 and 120 minutes after shutdown with the inlet door closed, the bowed rotor shaft can cause turbine rub and significant damage. In that event, EICAS advisory message APU SHUTDOWN, EICAS status message APU and maintenance message 49-10201 “APU failed during start” will show, and a borescope inspection of the APU is required per the FIM and AMM. To avoid this risk, the APU inlet door should be opened after APU shutdown on the ground by selecting the APU “on” position on the APU panel and then allow 40 minutes for compartment cooling. The following notates these start opportunities.
· With the APU door opened very soon after cool down shutdown, the APU can be started at any time with no restrictions.
· With the APU door opened very soon after cool down shutdown, the APU door must remain open a minimum of 40 minutes to maintain no restrictions on APU starting.
· With the APU door closed for up to 19 minutes after cool down shut down, the APU can be started at any time up to the 19 minutes after cool down shutdown.
· With the APU door closed from 20 to 120 minutes after cool down shutdown, the APU cannot be started.

Boeing and Hamilton Sundstrand are working on a long term solution for this problem.'

At least leaving the door open will allow APU operation. There are some teething things to work out, but they will get worked out, just like our merger. I have only played with the 787 in a simulator, but the cockpit and systems are impressive. The bugs just need time to get worked out.

Flying the 787 simulator left seat, the cockpit and systems are impressive and those windows are huge.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm233/CALTECHphoto/IMAG1452.jpg

[Edited 2012-12-27 07:20:23]

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-27 08:53:00 and read 4477 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 65):
My original statement is correct as per the manufacturer states. Otherwise, someone needs to call Boeing and tell them to quit saying this.

Boeing flat out states you can use a 90 kVa stinger. This is in direct contradiction to your statement that it needs 120 kVa.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 65):
Boeing Instructors are teaching and saying to our Instructors who are passing it along to us, that 120 kVa is needed to run this aircraft properly on the ground.

It certainly runs *better* with more power on the ground (i.e. it can run more systems). This should not be surprising; if you only have 90 kVa you can run 90 kVa of stuff, if you have 120 kVa you can run 120 kVa of stuff. This is quite a bit different than saying that the airplane can't use 90 kVa power.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 65):
I am just passing along a Boeing approved statement and training point.

If the statement is "The airplane runs better on the ground with 120," I completely agree that's a Boeing approved statement and training point. If they actually said "It needs 120" and/or "It won't work with 90" then I know for certain that's not an approved statement because it's the opposite of what all the documentation actually says.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 65):
And like the rest of your post then reinforced the point I was making, is that the 787 will not power everything up with just a 90 kVa power source.

Of course not. No airliner I'm aware of that uses more than one power stinger can power everything up on only one.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 65):
Without enough ground power available, the 787 will not run the CAC's (AC Packs) either, so the APU needs to be running too, just like any other aircraft.

Yes. My point was that you at least have the option...with limited ground power, it behaves like any other aircraft. With full power, you can run the ECS without the APU, which is unique. With the APU up it, again, behaves like any other aircraft.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 65):
In some scenarios we went over, depending on what one is trying to run, you may need 3 ground power sources to run the 787 in certain situations. Just better hope that APU starts up.

What situations? If the APU doesn't start, you can start an engine off two stingers. Boeing's own documentation says they recommend a third to prevent shedding cabin loads during the start but it will still start. The shed loads will come back up as soon as the engine generators come online:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787electrical.pdf

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 65):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58):
That's why the procedure has you leave the door open. If you turn the APU off and close the door you have to wait for it to cool back down.

The point is that this phenomenon manifested itself in service and caught the airlines, Boeing and Hamilton Sundstrand off guard and we then have received a bulletin about this.

It manifested during flight test and it was known prior to first delivery. It did not catch Boeing or HS off guard when it showed up in service...that's why the flight crew ops bulletin was written before the plane ever delivered.

Tom.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2012-12-27 22:54:24 and read 4140 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):
Boeing flat out states you can use a 90 kVa stinger. This is in direct contradiction to your statement that it needs 120 kVa.

That is inaccurate. Never said a 90 kVa source couldn't be used, stated a 120 kVa source is needed to keep the airplane running properly on the ground. Requote

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 65):
120 kVa is needed to run this aircraft properly on the ground.

But what do Boeing and United instructors know. I'd like to know what our IAH workers are experiencing in real operations.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):
It certainly runs *better* with more power on the ground (i.e. it can run more systems). This should not be surprising; if you only have 90 kVa you can run 90 kVa of stuff, if you have 120 kVa you can run 120 kVa of stuff. This is quite a bit different than saying that the airplane can't use 90 kVa power.

Again, never said 90 kVa can't be used. Do not know why this is repeated as it is a inaccurate statement.



Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):
If the statement is "The airplane runs better on the ground with 120," I completely agree that's a Boeing approved statement and training point. If they actually said "It needs 120" and/or "It won't work with 90" then I know for certain that's not an approved statement because it's the opposite of what all the documentation actually says.

Never said "it won't work with 90", seems the above statement is trying to have it both ways. I'll go with the Boeing and FAA approved instruction we received until we are told different. From some Boeing documentation,

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...rticles/qtr_3_08/article_02_3.html

"PARAMETER 787 GROUND POWER EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS (EXTERNAL POWER BUS PROTECTION)
Power consumption
Maximum power consumption (per receptacle) 90 kilovolt amperes (KVA) (continuous)
Peak power consumption (per receptacle) 112.5 KVA, 0.75–1.0 pico-farad per receptacle (5 minutes)"

I'll believe Boeing and my training that says 120 kVa or 2 90 kVa are needed.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):
Of course not. No airliner I'm aware of that uses more than one power stinger can power everything up on only one.

Well that is why we are being told to use 120 Kva or 2 90 kVa sources.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):
Yes. My point was that you at least have the option...with limited ground power, it behaves like any other aircraft. With full power, you can run the ECS without the APU, which is unique. With the APU up it, again, behaves like any other aircraft.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58):
there are ton of 90 kVa GPUs in the world (especially portable diesel units) that won't actually put out 90 kVa.

Self explanatory. We have heard that the APU is left running if the CACs are needed, 2 90 kVas supposedly are only able to run 1 CAC. Think we saw this in the simulator also, whether it is correct or not, I do not have any personal knowledge. The unique feature has some kinks needed to be worked out yet.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):
What situations? If the APU doesn't start, you can start an engine off two stingers. Boeing's own documentation says they recommend a third to prevent shedding cabin loads during the start but it will still start. The shed loads will come back up as soon as the engine generators come online:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...l.pdf

Engine starts. To inform you, the cabin load shedding, if you do not use 3 power sources, would be the CACs/cabin ventilation. Not a good thing with a full aircraft on a very hot summer day. From your own reference,

' Boeing however recommends the use of three 90 kVA ground power sources to minimize the impact on cabin load shedding of ventilation, In Flight Entertainment (IFE) and cabin lighting.'

Another thing that would not be desired is the shedding of the cabin lighting. Probably would kick on the emergency lighting, another undesirable effect. That is the situations.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):
It manifested during flight test and it was known prior to first delivery. It did not catch Boeing or HS off guard when it showed up in service...that's why the flight crew ops bulletin was written before the plane ever delivered.

I am talking about the APU being in service, whether it is test flights or real world doesn't matter. That is why Boeing and HS were caught off guard and now trying to come up with a permanent fix. It did catch them off guard hence the bulletin issued for APU operation. This is a abnormal issue that was not anticipated by HS or Boeing.

Line numbers of 787s and some good info as what line numbers are early builds, late builds and when reworks will no longer come up

http://nyc787.blogspot.com/

The 787 will get the kinks worked out eventually.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-28 14:55:02 and read 3816 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 67):
That is inaccurate. Never said a 90 kVa source couldn't be used, stated a 120 kVa source is needed to keep the airplane running properly on the ground.

This seemed pretty clear:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 52):
one major ground power issue is that the aircraft needs 120 kVa hooked up

And this:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 67):
I'll believe Boeing and my training that says 120 kVa or 2 90 kVa are needed.

Either it needs 120 kVa or 2x90 kVa or it doesn't. "Need" is a lot different than "works better".

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 67):
We have heard that the APU is left running if the CACs are needed, 2 90 kVas supposedly are only able to run 1 CAC. Think we saw this in the simulator also, whether it is correct or not, I do not have any personal knowledge.

That's correct. There are maintenance modes where you can do more but you wouldn't do them with an airplane at a gate turn.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 67):
To inform you, the cabin load shedding, if you do not use 3 power sources, would be the CACs/cabin ventilation. Not a good thing with a full aircraft on a very hot summer day.

As opposed to pneumatic start engines (i.e. every other airliner), which also shed the ECS during starting? This is a complete red herring. Even if you have three power stingers, you're going to shed some ECS power to start the engine (this is true for the 787 and all other airliners). An engine start takes 2-3 minutes...even on the hottest of hot summer days the cabin temperature cannot shift by much in 3 minutes and, as soon as the engine starts (on the 787 or any other airliner) the ECS comes back up.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 67):
Another thing that would not be desired is the shedding of the cabin lighting. Probably would kick on the emergency lighting, another undesirable effect.

If the cabin lighting is off, why would you not want the emergency lighting to come on? The alternative is to have the passengers sitting in the dark.

Tom.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: DualQual
Posted 2012-12-28 15:37:16 and read 3728 times.

Watching you two argue semantics is exhausting. One guy actually works on the things. Give it a rest.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-28 22:27:48 and read 3518 times.

Quoting DualQual (Reply 69):
Watching you two argue semantics is exhausting. One guy actually works on the things. Give it a rest.

Actually, we both do.

Tom.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: ZKOKQ
Posted 2012-12-28 23:14:18 and read 3443 times.

Quoting DualQual (Reply 69):

I enjoy reading what the are talking about. I dont know enough about the 787 and toms input into a lot of the 787 threads have taught me a lot.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: Braybuddy
Posted 2012-12-29 02:41:07 and read 3351 times.

Quoting DualQual (Reply 69):
Watching you two argue semantics is exhausting. One guy actually works on the things. Give it a rest.

Don't you know that you can't post any negative or critical comments about the 787 on this site without every sentence being parsed, analysed or rubbished? It's actually quite entertaining  

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-29 02:50:16 and read 3349 times.

All of the international 787 flying has been delayed by about a month with the exception of the LAX - NRT flight.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: mcdu
Posted 2012-12-29 07:41:07 and read 3212 times.

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 18):
You better quickly pass this info along to the UA brass, because IAH-LOS on 787 starts on 30JAN using nothing but the "original 6" of the 787's.

The below is announcement regarding UA schedule changes due to issues with 787 reliability. Looks like the first six are not reliable enough to fly the schedule as planned. I believe the 30 Jan date for LOS will slip also to another later date.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We now plan to start using 787s on our IAH-LOS (Lagos, Nigeria) route in late January, instead of Jan. 3, continuing to operate a Boeing 777 in the interim. We plan to temporarily use Dreamliners on our IAH-LHR (London-Heathrow) service beginning March 1 instead of Feb. 4. We also plan to start temporary IAH-AMS (Amsterdam) service on Feb. 24 as well as regular service between DEN-NRT and LAX-PVG (Shanghai) in late March

By delaying the LOS and LHR service, we will use this additional time to work with Boeing to continue to improve the reliability of the aircraft

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-29 07:52:08 and read 3180 times.

This has to be frustrating for everyone involved. The issue that comes to mind is whether these are design issues (focused on the electrical system) or manufacturing defects by Hamilton-Sundstrand (for generators) or another sub contractor (for other electrical components)?

ANA does not seem to have had the rate of problems currently experienced by UA. The stats we've seen published by ANA indicate a far higher rate of flight completions/dispatch reliability. Am I reading the stats wrong? If not, what is ANA doing that UA is not doing?

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-29 10:25:18 and read 2992 times.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 73):

All of the international 787 flying has been delayed by about a month with the exception of the LAX - NRT flight.

Is that just UA or multiple carriers?

Quoting mcdu (Reply 74):
We now plan to start using 787s on our IAH-LOS (Lagos, Nigeria) route in late January, instead of Jan. 3,

How does that statement fit with this one:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 13):
they can not make the IAH to LOS nonstop service.

Did they modify the airplanes that quickly?

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 72):
Don't you know that you can't post any negative or critical comments about the 787 on this site without every sentence being parsed, analysed or rubbished?

That's true for *all* airplanes, not just the 787. Try posting something negative about the A380 and the same thing happens (just different posters rush to its defence). In the Venn diagram of airplane supporters there is very little (but not zero) overlap. I have no problem with factual statements that are negative about any airplane. I have a big problem with misleading or incorrect ones. Without analysis, who's to tell the difference?

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 75):
This has to be frustrating for everyone involved.

Lord, yes.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 75):
The issue that comes to mind is whether these are design issues (focused on the electrical system) or manufacturing defects by Hamilton-Sundstrand (for generators) or another sub contractor (for other electrical components)?

Probably some of each. All airliners (from all OEM's) have lower initial reliability due to infant mortality of components; this is true even for really well established types like the A320 or 737. Infant mortality is almost always a manufacturing issue. But, with a new type EIS, you also have design issues and, for a while, it's hard to tell them apart. It takes a lot of engineering investigation of every failure to separate out the two causes and apply the proper fixes.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 75):
Am I reading the stats wrong? If not, what is ANA doing that UA is not doing?

Some of the other threads suggested that ANA spent a lot longer preparing than UA. I don't know if it's true but, if true, it could be a contributing factor.

Tom.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: mcdu
Posted 2012-12-29 11:06:24 and read 2937 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 75):
The stats we've seen published by ANA indicate a far higher rate of flight completions/dispatch reliability. Am I reading the stats wrong? If not, what is ANA doing that UA is not doing?

Where is the ANA B787 specific data? Many say ANA hasn't had issues but I do know they have had some lengthy tech issues. FRA was one of the earlier ones and several other recently. The 787 isn't ready for prime time.

Topic: RE: United 787 Test Flying
Username: okie
Posted 2012-12-29 13:19:47 and read 2808 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 67):
Maximum power consumption (per receptacle) 90 kilovolt amperes (KVA) (continuous)Peak power consumption (per receptacle) 112.5 KVA, 0.75–1.0 pico-farad per receptacle (5 minutes)"


Just guessing from experience with alternator/generator sets non aviation the issue was reffered to here.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58):
That's not correct. The 787 will happily take a 90 kVa ground power stinger (it will also take a 120). The problem is, usually, that a 787 will take the entire 90 kVa if that's what's hooked up and there are ton of 90 kVa GPUs in the world (especially portable diesel units) that won't actually put out 90 kVa

Any alternator/generator has never produced a single watt of electricity ever. It only puts out what you put into it. If you have an old tired worn out engine/turbine turning the alternator/generator then the output will only be what you put into it, less the parasitic losses.

So now I am scratching my head on why they do not have Utility Power Available, producing electricity for a plane parked at a gate with an internal combustion engine is expensive for an extended period of time.

Okie


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/