Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!  
User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 16659 times:

There is an astonishingly strong critique of both the FAA and Boeing in today's Australian aviation media.....

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...tery-fires-burn-faa-and-media-too/

The basic argument is that all media statements by Boeing about the 787 from 2005-10 were misleading, and that the FAA certification process has become dysfunctional and incompetent.

And yes, the article really does introduce Lance Armstrong's name into the comparison.

If true, it raises serious questions as to whether the 787 program can be rendered safe at all.

[Edited 2013-01-18 22:30:31]

71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5652 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 16368 times:

A fubulous writing in every respect!


Next trip: SLC-DEN-SLC-PHX-JFK-LAX-SLC with my wife and oldest daughter. F9 to and from DEN, US to JFK, AA 321 and CR7
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11224 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 16289 times:

At least the 787 doesn't need EPO to start its engines.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7114 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 16141 times:

The planetalking blog is well respected. Prior to the Qantas purchase of the 787, the PR media went crazy with hype in Australia.

I have to agree with this statement - considering they used fasteners from Home Depot -

"The roll out of the shell of a 787 in July 2007 that was purported to be the prototype that would fly by the end of September that year and be certified by late May 2008 was a willful, orchestrated and totally deceitful lie."



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25080 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15962 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 5):
The planetalking blog is well respected. Prior to the Qantas purchase of the 787, the PR media went crazy with hype in Australia.

I'm Australian and I don't respect it.

I accept that Ben Sandilands is knowledgeable and well-informed, but he is hostage to his own very narrow agenda and his style is too hyperbolic for me and often too aggressive.

And it wasn't just the media that went crazy with hype about the 787 - some of the most respected people in the industry were getting pretty crazy, too.

mariner

[Edited 2013-01-19 02:19:41]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineZB052 From UK - England, joined Jan 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15899 times:

Quoting koruman (Thread starter):

If true, it raises serious questions as to whether the 787 program can be rendered safe at all.

Seriously?

*Shakes Head*

Guess we'd better shut down every aviation regulation authority who are prepared to certify the '87 for operations(not just the FAA), as they are surely just as implicated in this as Boeing?

Total and utter nonsense.

[Edited 2013-01-19 02:19:39]

User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1334 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15863 times:

The article is certainly way over the top. However, so was Boeing's PR also. And the one goes with the other. This is how the press works.

User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15846 times:

Have to agree with mariner. If the 787 is to be rendered 'unsafe', and 'impossible' - that would mean the aircraft technology will never evolve beyond its current state. And by virtue, in a few years time that would push this industry into history as the current technology is not efficient enough to be competitive at sustained USD125+/bal fuel prices. In the same token, you would have never seen any hybrid or electric automobiles.


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlinetraindoc From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15779 times:

According to the Bloomberg website, the problem may be with the battery manufacturer and not Boeing. Apparently a bad batch of LI ion batteries from the Japanese manufacturer. Obviously, yet to be confirmed. And by the way, the A350 will also rely on LI ion batteries for it's design.

Time to stop the hysterics and await the facts!


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 869 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15769 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 5):

The planetalking blog is well respected.

Err no. I saw the source and I knew I shouldn't read it, but I did and saw exactly what I expected.

I agree with most of what Mariner said. He may know something about the airline business (or he may not), but throughout his body of work he has demonstrated a complete lack of clue about anything technical or related to certification. He writes with plenty of bluff and bluster and confidence, and I can see why the layman would believe it.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15751 times:

The issue about safety appears to be this: is it reasonable for the FAA to delegate back to the manufacturer the responsibility for oversight of key areas?

By the way, what did happen to the prototype shell from 2007 with the Home Depot fasteners?


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 869 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15677 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
By the way, what did happen to the prototype shell from 2007 with the Home Depot fasteners?

There was no prototype. ZA001 flew as part of the test program. The temporary fasteners were replaced as intended. As for being "home depot", was that actually the case or just the colloquial expression used to describe the temporary fasteners?


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15657 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 13):
As for being "home depot", was that actually the case or just the colloquial expression used to describe the temporary fasteners?

"Flightblogger has learned that many of the temporary fasteners, which were painted red and installed in place of flightworthy parts, were purchased from run-of-the-mill chain hardware stores, including Home Depot and Ace Hardware.

The use of hardware store parts has been confirmed by multiple sources working directly with the aircraft at assembly sites in both Everett, Wa. and Charleston, S.C."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...emporary-fasteners-causing-ma.html


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7114 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15572 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 13):
As for being "home depot", was that actually the case
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/11/the-little-fast/

" In 2007, facing a big shortage, Boeing bought temporary fasteners from Home Depot and Ace Hardware so assembly work could continue while more suppliers were lined up."


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...emporary-fasteners-causing-ma.html

Flightblogger has learned that many of the temporary fasteners, which were painted red and installed in place of flightworthy parts, were purchased from run-of-the-mill chain hardware stores, including Home Depot and Ace Hardware.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 869 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15532 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 14):
were purchased from run-of-the-mill chain hardware stores, including Home Depot and Ace Hardware.

Fair enough. It was too long ago for me to remember the detail. And I shouldn't have been lazy and not checked myself.


User currently offlineBE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15499 times:

Quoting traindoc (Reply 10):
According to the Bloomberg website, the problem may be with the battery manufacturer and not Boeing.

I agree waiting for the hysterics to go away!
Keep in mnd though that in every case it was Boeing that selected all their suppliers, and is therefor the problem is with Boeing for not picking a better supplier for that component. Boeing can absolutely hold the supplier accountable if that is the case.
However, all of the Boeing customers affected by this are certainly entitled to hold Boeing acocuntable.

For most of us, if we were on a flight affected by the the battery supplier, we're not going to hold either Boeing or the battery manufacturer accountable, but it is the airline we will expect to respond to the problem - since that's who promised us (in a contract) the trip which makes them 100% accountable to us.

Morally and contractually, everyone is accountable for what they promise, regardless of who in their supply chain is involved. The normal way is to have Force Majeure clauses in the agreements / contracts to cover things that you really can't control. Like everything else, this gets negotiated.

More than once I've had to change suppliers because they couldn't deliver because their suppliers couldn't deliver. The suppliers who got a second chance later were usually the ones who told me the minute they knew about it and helped me find an alternative - basically owning up to their responsibility / accountability. Of course it has also happened to me where a supplier failed to deliver, so I had to fess up to the clients and do whatever I could to keep them going, even if it meant calling a competitor and handing over the job.



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
User currently offlineupperdeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15461 times:

I think the post title is inaccurate. The article doesn't compare the 787 to Armstrong at all, it merely points out that the aviation media were made to look like fools by Boeing in the same way that Armstrong made the sports journalists look like fools also.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7119 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14968 times:

We are talking about a/c which fly millions of pax around the world every day, these a/c must meet standards applied and approved by governments around the world, so in order, I could care less about Boeing PR, they are a salesman like all others. In addition to the customer being satisfied in the credibility of the sales pitch we also have the government regulators stamp of approval on the basic safety claims that the salesman can make, we now have consumer protection laws for everything.

1. Since the FAA as claimed in the article was incompetetnt and complicit is not doing their job, is any government anywhere in the world grounding US registered or FAA certified a/c for additional testing and or certification that they are safe?

2. Is the belief that the incompetence of the USA inspection body limited only to one type of a/c, the 787? Usually when someone is incompetent it is across the board, not limited to one particular product or region, so has any government proposed a 24 hour grounding for all other FAA certified a/c in their nation to do mandatory inspections to verify certifications done by the FAA since design of and outsourcing of the Dreamliner was commenced?
Example do we perform evacuation test, engine out test, smoke drills, and other emergency related test on all 737's, 777's, 767's, 747's and 748's delivered since the outsourcing?

I mean if I follow the logic of the article and public safety is a concern, am I wrong in mandating that the world governments follow this through to the logical conclusion, lets remember, all of the regulatory bodies around the world do not take part in the testing and certification of USA designed a/c, they review the documents from the FAA and if they have concerns those are passed on to be answered and in some cases modifications are put in place. So if we cannot rely on the recent work of the FAA, until they regain their credibility, do we not owe it to our pax to ensure that we do all that is necessary to keep them safe?

So in a nutshell, are we to throw the entire FAA under the bus for incompetence of just throw the FAA under the bus for incompetence on the 787 and they are perfectly fine in everything else that they have done and are doing?


User currently offlinea380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14218 times:

Quoting koruman (Thread starter):
If true, it raises serious questions as to whether the 787 program can be rendered safe at all.

It's commentary. It's not true or untrue. His facts are true. I had never truly realized how the FAA screwed up on the Eclipse 500 but now that I think of it... Plus the 7/8/07 roll out is the symbol that something was very wrong at the helm of the Boeing company for the 787 program.

Quoting mariner (Reply 6):
And it wasn't just the media that went crazy with hype about the 787 - some of the most respected people in the industry were getting pretty crazy, too.

That's because people tend to believe in institutions until they crumble. They will tend to have faith in them way longer than they deserve because of conservatism. The mere proof of them being dysfuntional will not persuade anyone that they must be change. They have to run their course and collapse.

Quoting traindoc (Reply 10):
Time to stop the hysterics and await the facts!

Yes. Nobody can criticize Boeing unless three 787 crash into the sea and the 787 is abandoned as ill conceived. I mean seriously guys? What has to happen before one can get a little hysterical about this program and criticize Boeing? It was on the wrong track since the shark tail drawing and the empty shell roll out is the absolute proof of the unprofessional manner in which it was conducted (7/8/7 ? Give me a break!).

So for 10 years now (and more with the sonic cruiser joke), Boeing is playing catch-up with Airbus while being unwilling to invest what was required in a new, history making type (the unwillingness to invest of its own pocket is what explained the out of control outsourcing). But we on airliners.net who dare pointing that out are jingoistic. What's jingoistic is not being able to see how wrong this program went.

So I agree with a lot of what's said on this article. It is the harsh reality of a company that has lost its bearing when it comes to innovation.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30877 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 12258 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As to Mr. Sandlands allegations of corruption: if one reads the Wall Street Journal article he references, one would find that is standard operating procedure for the FAA (and, I expect, EASA, as well) as they do not have the money or the staff to independently develop and test everything.

Mark Rosenker, former head of the NTSB and a CBS analyst, stated in an interview that he doesn't believe the FAA cut any corners in certifying this airplane: "Who knows more about the aircraft than the manufacturer itself?"

That being said, I expect these incidents with the battery (which was a new form of technology) will result in even closer collaboration between the OEMs and the Regulatory Agencies, especially when new systems or technologies are being introduced.

[Edited 2013-01-19 08:42:40]

User currently offlineupperdeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 12090 times:

Airproxx - you need to start quoting sources! From what source do you believe the A380 has 'terrific' dispatch reliability problems?? Did you read EASA's report into AF447?? Yes the pitot tubes froze up when the pilots decided to fly straight into a supercell, but the sheer volume of pilot errors makes me cringe!

I would agree with many of your comments about Boeing's 'morals' IF they had recommended the grounding of the 787 themselves, but they didn't, the FAA did it for them!

I must admit you don't put your points across like someone who's a 'pro' in the aviation industry!


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7114 posts, RR: 57
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11989 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
I guess maybe by Airbus and Virgin Australia fans.

Ah, the old - he's an airbus fanboi technique...

Two recent examples to prove you not fully accurate...

Those of us who are more than around 180 cms tall may take some convincing, but the bean counters will no doubt be thrilled by getting up to 236 seats to sell in a jet that currently maxes out at 220 passengers.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...-pack-more-seats-into-its-a321neo/

He also called the new virgin australia aircraft " every bit as intolerably uncomfortable in economy class as airline bean counters can render them within the safety rules relating to the maximum permissible passenger loads in each family of misery tubes".

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...-truly-big-news-about-the-737-max/



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30877 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 12024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 24):
Ah, the old - he's an airbus fanboi technique...


Richard Aboulafia is considered a Boeing fanboi by a not-insignificant part of the forum because of his body of work predominately being positive towards Boeing and negative against Airbus. And yet I am sure I can find cases where he has spoken well of Airbus if I looked.

Anyway, I recommend folks read the WSJ article, instead.

[Edited 2013-01-19 08:42:02]

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9592 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11286 times:

The FAA’s certification process had by the time it dealt with the 787 moved from real independent testing and certification of projects to oversight of the processes. This outsourcing of the certification processes to the actual beneficiaries of the process is incompatible with the purpose and intent of testing and certification.

From article

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):

The issue about safety appears to be this: is it reasonable for the FAA to delegate back to the manufacturer the responsibility for oversight of key areas?


I think the article is commenting on the AR (Authorized Representative) program and delegated authority. It is where the FAA delegates the subject matter expertise to the manufacturer to ensure compliance with the FARs. To further review delegated authority read 8100.51B.

Fundamentally it makes sense when you have people with the most subject matter knowledge reviewing for compliance with the FARs. Conspiracy theorists will say it is a corrupt setup that produces inferior products. I say it results in a process that is manageable and produces the safest airplanes.

It is easy to forget how disastrous how bad a prominently entry into service was in the late 1980 s with a new airplane having 4 fatal crashes in the first 5 years of service. The oversight authority was influenced by political reasons and suspicious accident findings were published. Independent review is not going to always be better.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7114 posts, RR: 57
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11181 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Mark Rosenker, former head of the NTSB and a CBS analyst, stated in an interview that he doesn't believe the FAA cut any corners in certifying this airplane: "Who knows more about the aircraft than the manufacturer itself?"

And the investment banks said the same thing about banking.



The world is really getting smaller these days
25 F9animal : I think the top brass at Boeing should be lynched for all of their terrible decisions lately. I think it is time to replace the CEO. Alan would have n
26 mariner : I'm one of those who consider Richard Aboulafia an aggressive Boeing fan-boy and I've never seen much positive that he's written about Airbus. But he
27 Stitch : I assume you mean the A320 and the JAA (the precursor to EASA)? And the Banking Regulators were clearly far too close to the banks, themselves. As I
28 Roseflyer : I completely agree. The regulations are very strict and the Authorized Representatives are not swaying from them. The conspiracy theorists say the FA
29 Post contains links and images Redd : I agree, and it does not present any facts or references for its wild conclusions. Although it may be all 100% true, a 5th grader could write a bette
30 kanban : Due to lack of government funding, the FAA basically performs a review function.. they tell Boeing which tests to do and what the acceptable results
31 lhrnue : I actually would love to see Jon's Flightblogger back these days to get some insight into Boeing. I think that this article is quite good and the foll
32 Post contains links airproxx : My source is an internal source issued by my airline, and then published my many newspapers, one of them is "Les Echos" (not the stantard tabloid), h
33 Post contains images EPA001 : But without proper backing up of your claims, they are just flame-bait. Nothing more. And if you think the AF447-report was a cover-up, again back it
34 F9animal : I read the post. I thought it was well written, and very interesting. He does not hold back any punches, and seems very emotional about air safety. I
35 Stitch : Even if the Regulatory Authorities had all the money and manpower they wanted, how would it make the procedures fundamentally different? Is there the
36 kanban : Way back then we had a major discussion on the term "prototype"... European continental, British, and Americans have subtly different definitions. Th
37 Stitch : And others with direct knowledge of the incident - and who spoke with those aboard the plane and therefore had direct experience with the incident -
38 Post contains images CM : This comparison is hardly fair to Lance Armstrong
39 HBGDS : Wow, nice to see we're up on our history. United had substantial dispatch issues. It's part of the deal with any new airliner. As for the fastener bu
40 KarelXWB : Unless the plane breaks apart I don't know how it could falling out of the sky anyway. Even without power (worst case scenario) and with standby inst
41 sweair : But it wasn't without power. That's the thing, you have a RAT as a last defence, all modern airliners have this, and in the so called fire there were
42 KarelXWB : Exactly, that was my point. It cannot fall out of the sky, unless it breaks apart.[Edited 2013-01-19 11:56:33]
43 Post contains links ordwaw : Another interesting article … This one from current issue of Forbes magazine … Steve Denning, a respected author and a management guru is using Bo
44 DTW2HYD : We can compare 787 with Armstrong, only if it flew for 7 years without getting caught. 787 is grounded very quickly. I guess Li-on is the EPO. One que
45 CM : It's garbage journalism. Not because it takes a swing at the 787 and Boeing, but because he uses deeply flawed and incorrect examples from the 787 pr
46 BestWestern : This is not a fault at Boeing, but at every western company that is anyway subject to the whims of the investment industry. They demand quarterly res
47 FI642 : Unfortunately, few remember the issues with the 747, the grounding of the DC-10, and many are forgetting the issues with the A330. This is totally new
48 Post contains links ordwaw : He never gave a specific example to support his claim of parts not fitting together. I understand that the Section 41 and 43 connections were the big
49 BestWestern : Sorry, badly worded. I meant to say that this wasn't only a fault at Boeing but a fault of the system of corporate immediate return and NPV financing
50 Post contains links teneriffe77 : While we are on the subject of the 787 grounding, this isn't the first successful plane to be grounded early in it's service. The DC-6 had a temporary
51 RickNRoll : Sometimes Ben is good, sometimes not so much. As with all media, use your own powers of scepticism and evaluat I'm know I'm going out on a limb here,
52 Desh : Jeez - what does this guy have against fastners from Home Depot - its flipping fastener, if it meets specs , why not use it ? There are quite a few US
53 zippyjet : And these birds don't need organic bodily fluids extracted, mixed with a chemical cocktail and reintroduced into it's body. The Dreamliner's tail is
54 pl4nekr4zy : Well that's the thing: they don't meet specs. Aviation parts usually have to conform to military specs. As such, most aviation hardware has an "AN" (
55 BestWestern : My God, they were building an aircraft, not a tree house!
56 Post contains images Owleye : Once the truth will come out.
57 BE77 : I can only imagine the discussions in the lunchroom and at the pubs around town. Really, how many people involved would not have realised what was go
58 Post contains images airmagnac : Even worse than that IMO, because he is trying to fit something he obviously has no clue about - complex system design - into an agenda against offsh
59 Stitch : They didn't meet specs for flight. And Boeing did not fly ZA001 with those Home Depot-sourced fasteners installed. They were all removed and replaced
60 kanban : Boeing has it's own specs.. BAC.. or BMS .. yes they still use some mil spec items.. like an AN960 washer. the original problem was inexperience in p
61 tdscanuck : Yes, it's reasonable, because there's no alternative. The FAA (nor any other regulator) has enough knowledge, manpower, or resources to do it all the
62 brons2 : Boeing chose the subcontractor. Boeing installs the battery, and integrates it into other systems on the aircraft. Boeing is responsible for validati
63 kanban : the contractor designs, builds and tests the components/assemblies... within Boeing's performance criteria.. The closest Boeing comes to design of th
64 Post contains images Stitch : I take it then you believe Airbus has sole-responsibility for the crash of AF447 because the airframe was an A330. That they didn't manufacture the p
65 odwyerpw : What a stupid and inflammatory thread title. Makes no difference whether the OP was just citing an article... Not all garbage that the media spews nee
66 tonystan : Basically this is about ethics and society in the US as a whole. To be honest I'm not sure it can be focused purely on the states however!
67 brons2 : No, I don't think Airbus is directly responsible any more than Boeing is directly responsible for the battery problems. However, the buck has to stop
68 kanban : should but don't... you're in government where no contractor is expected to perform to contract specs or cost.. Sorry but profit oriented manufacturi
69 bikerthai : Yeah, if they wanted better quality fasteners . . . they should have gone to Tacoma Screws. Although being a local re-tailer, they specialized in fas
70 kanban : agreed, however when I retired the existing engineering still called them out and they were stocked... With paper drawing that change would be imposs
71 brons2 : Ideologically motivated drivel, and not true I might add. In fact there was a Fortune 20 company who got canned last year for failure to perform to t
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...
Economics Of The 767-300ER Compared To The 787-8? posted Tue May 30 2006 15:35:07 by OyKIE
A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus posted Sun Jul 24 2005 20:31:48 by Sabenapilot
787-10 Authority To Offer Coming, But Not So Soon posted Tue Nov 27 2012 19:17:41 by RickNRoll
787-10 Authority To Offer Coming Soon posted Fri Sep 28 2012 11:02:05 by WarpSpeed
Boeing 787 Ferry Flights To Kftw Paint Shop posted Wed Sep 26 2012 17:18:26 by gdg9
NH To Send 787 From HND To Kagoshima And Fukuoka posted Wed Apr 4 2012 10:32:35 by PHX787
The 787 Is Coming To Australia! posted Mon Nov 7 2011 21:23:54 by Shnoob940
Boeing 787 Program Overview posted Mon Oct 3 2011 12:33:50 by TomB
Todays 787 Cost 185m$ To Build posted Wed Aug 24 2011 06:14:41 by ferpe
Any 787 Interior, Inflight/TO/Landing Videos? posted Sun Dec 19 2010 00:09:39 by Aeroflot001