Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United 787 Test Flying  
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2984 posts, RR: 13
Posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14240 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14192 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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).


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9817 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13822 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.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13590 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.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 13510 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 13506 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.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13396 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



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5839 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13216 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.


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2984 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13151 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2984 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13106 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5839 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13036 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]

User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2984 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12919 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11458 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.


User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2443 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11066 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?



A landing EVERYONE can walk away from, is a good landing.
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10972 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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]

User currently offlineZKOKQ From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 480 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10969 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.


User currently offlinehkcanadaexpat From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2012, 654 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10753 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!


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3217 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10612 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.


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10550 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10210 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


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10175 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.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10106 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2194 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9594 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?


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day ago) and read 9265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
25 ordwaw : 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]
26 Post contains links mcdu : http://finance.yahoo.com/news/United...ng-theflyonthewall-3706979489.html The 737's were severely discounted to attempt to make up for the above lawsu
27 ordwaw : 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 we
28 VC10er : 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 n
29 ChrisNH : 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
30 SonomaFlyer : 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 AP
31 United1 : 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 ta
32 Post contains links ORDBOSEWR : 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
33 Viscount724 : 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 t
34 ChrisNH : 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.
35 SonomaFlyer : That 67% figure accounts for all delays, not just those attributed directly to the 787.
36 United1 : 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 it
37 Post contains images SonomaFlyer : 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
38 FriendlySkies : 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
39 Post contains images SonomaFlyer : Perhaps the 787 will show some old(er) dogs new tricks?
40 United1 : 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
41 VC10er : 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 n
42 SonomaFlyer : Enjoy Rio!!! I think you'll see the 787 in some form flying to GIG from EWR.
43 gigneil : 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 sh
44 SonomaFlyer : 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 d
45 mcdu : 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 t
46 SonomaFlyer : 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 o
47 Transpac787 : 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, b
48 T5towbar : 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 ther
49 gigneil : 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
50 Post contains links tdscanuck : 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 po
51 T5towbar : 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.
52 CALTECH : 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
53 SonomaFlyer : 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 le
54 mcdu : No you are confusing a secondary barrier with the fortified door electronic lock. Two separate items. The door lock creates an EICAS message that mus
55 SonomaFlyer : Boeing had to revise their manufacturing process due to the outsourcing. They revamped the supplier conduits as well. All airliners are outsourced to
56 packsonflight : 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 a
57 akelley728 : Would you care to elaborate on this statement?
58 tdscanuck : 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?
59 Post contains images gigneil : 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...
60 georgetown : 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
61 mcdu : 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 o
62 flood : 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
63 Antoniemey : 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
64 ORDBOSEWR : 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 n
65 Post contains links and images CALTECH : My original statement is correct as per the manufacturer states. Otherwise, someone needs to call Boeing and tell them to quit saying this. Boeing In
66 Post contains links tdscanuck : Boeing flat out states you can use a 90 kVa stinger. This is in direct contradiction to your statement that it needs 120 kVa. It certainly runs *bett
67 Post contains links CALTECH : 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 groun
68 tdscanuck : This seemed pretty clear: And this: Either it needs 120 kVa or 2x90 kVa or it doesn't. "Need" is a lot different than "works better". That's correct.
69 DualQual : Watching you two argue semantics is exhausting. One guy actually works on the things. Give it a rest.
70 tdscanuck : Actually, we both do. Tom.
71 ZKOKQ : 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.
72 Post contains images Braybuddy : 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 rubb
73 FlyDeltaJets : All of the international 787 flying has been delayed by about a month with the exception of the LAX - NRT flight.
74 mcdu : 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 t
75 SonomaFlyer : 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) o
76 tdscanuck : Is that just UA or multiple carriers? How does that statement fit with this one: Did they modify the airplanes that quickly? That's true for *all* ai
77 mcdu : 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
78 okie : Just guessing from experience with alternator/generator sets non aviation the issue was reffered to here. Any alternator/generator has never produced
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NY Times: Test-Flying The Boeing 787 Dreamliner posted Fri Nov 30 2012 14:51:24 by planemannyc
United 787 Ship 902 Diverted Enroute IAH-EWR posted Tue Dec 4 2012 08:37:14 by Transpac787
MegaDo On The United 787 posted Sun Dec 2 2012 12:18:54 by caliatenza
United 787 First Revenue Flight Underway posted Sun Nov 4 2012 06:19:18 by womenbeshoppin
United 787 @ ORD This Sunday posted Fri Nov 2 2012 23:35:08 by boxsmasher
United 787 Enroute IAH-AMS posted Wed Oct 24 2012 21:01:29 by fshplns
United 787 #3904 To IAH posted Sat Sep 22 2012 06:25:35 by CALTECH
United 787 Flight Schedule Loaded posted Wed Aug 22 2012 19:39:07 by LAXintl
787 Test Flight In The Air Right Now... posted Thu Feb 9 2012 15:53:57 by GoBoeing
What Happens To The 787 Test Aircraft? posted Thu Aug 25 2011 12:16:26 by EASTERN747