TC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 336 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11874 times:
Just wondering, with all the negativity in the public's minds now about the 787's, that ANA have thoughts about removing the big bold 787 titles off their aircraft.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2381 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11663 times:
Quoting KPDX (Reply 1): Implying your average Joe will remember the difference between an A320 and 787 after a few months of the aircraft back in the air.
Well the DC10 is still remembered in the public eye for being grounded as Laker and BCAL were both flying them post 1979.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11523 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting TC957 (Thread starter): Just wondering, with all the negativity in the public's minds now about the 787's, that ANA have thoughts about removing the big bold 787 titles off their aircraft.
They will, eventually. But it's more likely to have been removed as a result of a new coat of paint when it's due rather than a knee jerk reaction to the grounding.
NH is the launch customer for the 787. Why wouldn't they market that to its advantage?
carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2772 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11435 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 3): Why wouldn't they market that to its advantage?
It is no longer an advantage here in Japan.
There was a lot of negative press coverage when the grounding took affect. Not much news since but there will good and/or bad press once service re-starts.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2381 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 11123 times:
Quoting LY777 (Reply 7): But the difference is that hundreds of people were killed onboard the DC10s
The last place you want a whiff of a fire is on board an aircraft, the fact this machine was certificated and entered service before this issue(s) arose is a genuine concern. Having listened to the SR111 tapes and being rather aware of Valuejet, Nationair and Air Canada to name a few who have lost people as a result of a fire, it's a major worry IMHO.
The 787 is a huge leap in technology, usually someone forgets something in the journey and often people die.
Until what? I think you're attitude is completely outdated if you think that it's only a matter of time until a 787 drops out the sky?
Ok, they've had more than their fair share of negative press, but I think the concept that a 787 is bound to drop out the sky at some point is scaremongering at best.
Look at the 777, over 20 years in the sky and not one fatality. The only 'crash' was the BA short landing at LHR and everybody walked off the plane.
LY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10711 times:
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 8): The last place you want a whiff of a fire is on board an aircraft, the fact this machine was certificated and entered service before this issue(s) arose is a genuine concern. Having listened to the SR111 tapes and being rather aware of Valuejet, Nationair and Air Canada to name a few who have lost people as a result of a fire, it's a major worry IMHO.
Of course, but the 787 hasn't crashed, so I don't think people can't associate in their mind DC10 and 787.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 36 Reply 16, posted (3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10150 times:
What is interesting is that if you look into the past for aircraft that had a design flaw, and that flaw caused accidents, say the Lockheed Electra or the DC-10 for example, there was a huge public resistance to flying on those types. And that was before this information age where everyone knows everything.
Then, the "name" of the aircraft was either removed from aircraft or advertising, like the DC-10, or it was changed to "Super Electra" or "Electra II" ... and that was before people had instantaneous information at their fingertips.
Shoot, my 80 year old mother asked if I was going to fly that "Plastic airplane with the batteries that will melt all that plastic"!! I am ... and I am anxiously awaiting my course date, looking forward to it ... but I didn't tell her that!
So I would not be surprised at all if 787 badging was removed from aircraft on their re-introduction, and it was done quietly and without fanfare.
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
What is wrong with you? Its almost like you are hoping something will happen to the 787.
Air travel is safe and it continues to get safer every years So there is an issue with the battery that doesn't mean that the entire aircraft is now deemed unsafe and that it's only a matter of time before one fails. That is a horrible thing to think and say and it is something no one on a.netters should ever want to see happen.
The 787 will return to the sky and I don't see any reason why ANA or any other airline should try to hide the fact that passengers are onboard a 787. Before the passenger ever boards the plane if they are paying attention they will know in advance what type of plane they will be flying on so removing the 787 badge or the dreamliner badge from the fuselage serves no purpose.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1310 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9788 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 3): They will, eventually. But it's more likely to have been removed as a result of a new coat of paint when it's due rather than a knee jerk reaction to the grounding.
My gut feel is they will remove the 787 titles a lot quicker than they did the 777 titles. Indeed I believe JAL has painted over their logo on their 787 which is grounded in Boston; while not the same exact thing. it shows their concern about bad PR around this grounding.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 3):
NH is the launch customer for the 787. Why wouldn't they market that to its advantage?
Because it is no longer a marketing advantage, and indeed if the average pax sees big 787 letters on their aircraft, they may have a negative reaction at least for some time until fears ease.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9683 times:
I am sure this problem will be taken care of, just hope it´s the last major on the 787. We have all the snags waiting on the A350 to look forward too after the A380 and the 787 is done
YYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 853 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9557 times:
Quoting longhauler (Reply 16): Shoot, my 80 year old mother asked if I was going to fly that "Plastic airplane with the batteries that will melt all that plastic"!! I am ... and I am anxiously awaiting my course date, looking forward to it ... but I didn't tell her that!
That's the thing... for whatever reason, the 787's troubles have got people's attention, as far as I can see.
For example, my wife has INSISTED that she (and I and the kids) will never fly on a 787*...
Very different reaction than on prior occasions. When AF447 happened, we experts here at a.net were debating how the aircraft had failed... yet despite the media coverage, she happily crossed the Atlantic in A330 (she even asked me what the aircraft was, said "huh" and boarded without another word...).
Trying to figure our how or why the herd stampedes in one direction but not another is tricky, but when it happens it can stick (like it did with the DC 10). Hopefully, looking back the 787 will not suffer in the same way in the public mind.
YYZYYT
*longhauler, I'll try to take one of your flights - don't tell her!!
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3251 posts, RR: 14 Reply 21, posted (3 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9399 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 18): Because it is no longer a marketing advantage, and indeed if the average pax sees big 787 letters on their aircraft, they may have a negative reaction at least for some time until fears ease.
Especially in Japan, where the public expects stuff to work properly, and where it's therefore a comparatively big story when things don't. For all the press the 787 issues have gotten in the US and Europe, multiply that by about ten-fold for Japan, where the emergency landing happened, after all. The image of that ANA 787 sitting on the tarmac with slides out is now burned into the minds of the Japanese.
It's no surprise to me that JAL completely removed their titles from the 787 at Boston for now (though it makes me wonder if they're doing the same for the 787's in Japan). I would be surprised if ANA flies the 787 again without removing the "787" titles from the tail first.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1542 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8828 times:
Quoting TC957 (Thread starter):
Just wondering, with all the negativity in the public's minds now about the 787's, that ANA have thoughts about removing the big bold 787 titles off their aircraft.
Yes.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved"
jayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 288 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8187 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 18): Because it is no longer a marketing advantage, and indeed if the average pax sees big 787 letters on their aircraft, they may have a negative reaction at least for some time until fears ease
Should airlines then no longer tell their passenger what type of airplane they will be flying on when they purchase a ticket online? Should they then black out all the windows at the departure gate to keep customers from seeing the type of plane they will be boarding and should they remove 787 from the safety information card in the seat back pocket? All of these measures could help ease customers fears as well. Oh and lets no forget the safety information video can not mention that their are 8 exit doors on this Boeing 787 aircraft
Perhaps if airlines kept the customers in the dark about the type of plane they will be flying on throughout the entire process it could help ease customers fears because people only recognize a 787 if and when they see 787 on the side of a plane.
As much as the 787 was in the news this past January I don't think removing the 787 badge from the side of the aircraft will make much difference. If people are comfortable with the aircraft once it is returned to service then they will fly on it those who are not will then choose to fly a on different plane or with a different airline.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1310 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8132 times:
Quoting jayunited (Reply 23): Should airlines then no longer tell their passenger what type of airplane they will be flying on when they purchase a ticket online? Should they then black out all the windows at the departure gate to keep customers from seeing the type of plane they will be boarding and should they remove 787 from the safety information card in the seat back pocket? All of these measures could help ease customers fears as well. Oh and lets no forget the safety information video can not mention that their are 8 exit doors on this Boeing 787 aircraft
No, why are you making such preposterous suggestions? There is a difference between having the aircraft type on the safety instruction card (though perhaps there is no requirement to have the aircraft model on it), and having it on billboard titles on the body.
[Edited 2013-02-21 12:00:37]
25 drgmobile: And then there's the Comet... But seriously, it always surprised me that the DC-10 did so much better commercially than the L1011 while Lockheed got
26 sankaps: The L1011 lost the market to the DC10 when Rolls Royce (the sole supplier for L1011 engines) almost went BK, delaying the introduction of the L1011 b
27 jayunited: It's not preposterous, your original suggestion implied that passengers would be at ease if they didn't see 787 on the side of their aircraft. I don'
28 sankaps: It is just common sense not to have "787" in billboard font on the body of the aircraft as long as it has a negative connotation. Why add salt to the
29 longhauler: Perhaps not, but history shows that airlines have done just that. Removed the name of an aircraft from the side of the aircraft after negative circum
30 ukoverlander: I think Boeing should give serious consideration to dropping the "Dreamliner" nickname from their 787 marketing. At this point, after debacle after de
31 hoons90: Isn't that what AA did with their DC-10 "LuxuryLiners"? Remove the DC-10 titles after AA191.
32 jayunited: Perhaps you are correct and the 787 image has been tarnished but lets say ANA removes 787 from the side of their aircraft what happens the moment the
33 KPDX: This I agree with.. The Dreamliner name is so dreadful, anyways... I like Boeing 787 much better.
34 davidho1985: Agree, we are not talking about removing every "787" wording onboard and hide the fact that the flight is operated by a 787. The billboard "787" is c
35 Wingtips56: Yes, that is correct. They just said "LuxuryLiner" after that. And even though it was 3 years after 191 before the first DC-9-80 came into the fleet,
37 Viscount724: The L-1011's major problem is that there was no model fully competitive with the DC-10-30. "Shrinks" like the L-1011-500 are rarely very successful w
38 carpethead: After their first heavy maintenance visit.
39 Mcoov: I would think that that enormous third engine in the tail would clue people into what kind of airplane it is. Not many other types have an engine qui
40 comorin: Time and again we hear from a.netters that the flying public is unaware of the type of aircraft they fly on. Is there any published research to back u
41 CXB77L: Maybe for some, but not for me. I wouldn't hesitate to fly on a 787. I'd fly on one today if I could. The fact that it is grounded now is a good thin
42 SXDFC: Maybe Boeing should be making the 787's more like this one..
43 AF185: What would be the point of having this title in the first place then? I think we underestimate the number of people whom actually know what airplane
44 Rara: They should really consider this. After all, 7x7 is still an amazing brand, instantly associated with Boeing, American aviation, the jet age and so o
45 sankaps: In fact the negative connotation from the DC10 also led to McDonnell Douglas moving to the "MD" naming scheme for the MD11, and DC9-80 ownwards (whic
46 drgmobile: Just two weeks ago I was having a discussion with somebody from Miami who was telling me how he flew a Dreamliner to Germany, which I figured just unl
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - England, joined May 2012, 336 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2526 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2381 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 481 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2772 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2005, 2448 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 873 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4281 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
