Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will ANA Remove The Big 787 Titles Off Their 787'  
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 852 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12986 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.

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2741 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12908 times:

Implying your average Joe will remember the difference between an A320 and 787 after a few months of the aircraft back in the air.  

But really.



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3236 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12775 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.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2606 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12635 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?



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 812 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 12556 times:

It will be good to see those jumbos flying again.

User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 12558 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 3):

Because the flying public reading about and seeing your aircraft grounded is hardly a marketing advantage.


User currently offlinecarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2954 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 12547 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.


User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2679 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 12510 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 2):

But the difference is that hundreds of people were killed onboard the DC10s



אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3236 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 12235 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.


User currently offlinehotplane From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 1038 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 12003 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 7):
But the difference is that hundreds of people were killed onboard the DC10s

Only a matter of time...



?
User currently onlinesandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 1100 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 11903 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting hotplane (Reply 9):
Only a matter of time...

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.

Aviation is safer than it's ever been. Fact.

Sandyb123



Member of the mile high club
User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2679 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 11823 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.

Quoting hotplane (Reply 9):

Only a matter of time...

Why are you so negative? I think the 787 will not fly again until a real solution is proposed



אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlinehotplane From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 1038 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 11777 times:

No doubt there will be something else after this problem is sorted.


?
User currently offlinesimairlinenet From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 912 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11607 times:

I think for a precedent, we should look at ANA's initial 777-300s.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dennis Lau



How long was it until ANA repainted these into standard? Just 3-4 years.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3236 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 11332 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 11):
so I don't think people can't associate in their mind DC10 and 787.

Given it has joined the rare list of planes being *grounded* for safety concerns, we're already there.


User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 11303 times:

Quoting hotplane (Reply 12):
No doubt there will be something else after this problem is sorted.

As there always is. Just remember to look before you book, if it says 787, you don't have to fly it.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 43
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 11262 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
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 11105 times:

Quoting hotplane (Reply 9):
Only a matter of time...

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.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 10900 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.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 10795 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  

User currently offlineYYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 948 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 10669 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!!  


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 10511 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!
User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 9940 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.



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9299 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.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9244 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]

User currently offlinedrgmobile From Canada, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9367 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 16):
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.

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 out of the commercial business, although I guess being beaten to market and the Electra problems had plenty to do with that.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9223 times:

Quoting drgmobile (Reply 25):
But seriously, it always surprised me that the DC-10 did so much better commercially than the L1011 while Lockheed got out of the commercial business, although I guess being beaten to market and the Electra problems had plenty to do with that.

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 by about a year. It never recovered from that.


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9110 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 24):
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

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't see what difference that makes especially when once on board they would for sure know that they are now onboard a 787 aircraft and since the aircraft (pictures included) was in the news a lot I take a lot of people now know what a 787 looks like so removing the 787 billboard type title from the side of the airframe will do nothing to ease people fears.

If a person is afraid to fly onboard a 787 I personally would rather they find out they type of plane they are on before they board they plane and see the safety information card or the safety video thats all I am saying.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9029 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 27):
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

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 wound? Just like it is common sense not to joke about bombs when going through security. Even though it does not make it any more or less likely that the person joking is actually carrying a bomb.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 43
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 8553 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 27):
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.

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 circumstances. I am guessing that the marketing departments of airlines know more about this than me or you.

Quoting drgmobile (Reply 25):
But seriously, it always surprised me that the DC-10 did so much better commercially than the L1011 while Lockheed got out of the commercial business, although I guess being beaten to market and the Electra problems had plenty to do with that.

By the time the DC-10 was grounded, Lockheed was pretty well out of the airliner business. About half of the DC-10s sold, were sold by the end of 1971, and by 1979 (the grounding) only a couple dozen more were sold. Had the DC-10s been grounded when the initial design flaws were discovered, namely the cargo door issues and the rear floor venting, the L1011 might have had a better shot.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 8035 times:

I think Boeing should give serious consideration to dropping the "Dreamliner" nickname from their 787 marketing. At this point, after debacle after debacle, whenever the word "Dreamliner" is mentioned it feels so cringeworthy and so painfully ironic that it's probably best dropped (Joe Public has a short memory - it'll be quickly forgotten by those who don't live on A-Net)

Consign it to the advertising junk pile and go forward simply calling the aircraft the 787.

[Edited 2013-02-21 14:05:33]

User currently offlinehoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 3009 posts, RR: 52
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 7924 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Isn't that what AA did with their DC-10 "LuxuryLiners"? Remove the DC-10 titles after AA191.


The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 7405 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 29):
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 circumstances. I am guessing that the marketing departments of airlines know more about this than me or you

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 these planes are cleared for takeoff? I'll tell you the big difference between today and when this happened to the DC-10's. We live in a 24 hour news cycle world when these planes were grounded everyone not just a.netters were talking about it and once the 787 has been cleared every news channel will have this story on the air multiple times a day and online. Pictures of not only ANA's 787 will be on TV but also pictures of every other airline that has a 787 in their fleet. Unfortunately people already know what a 787 looks like thanks to all the publicity this aircraft has received. 787's will be front and center once cleared passenger operations so even if they remove those large 787 titles off the fuselage the plane itself will still be on display and will be scrutinized even the smallest mechanical problem will make the news which will do nothing to ease the fears that some people may now have.
Now if there was a way for Boeing and the airlines to sneak the 787's back into the sky without creating a huge news story then removing those titles makes since. But unfortunately we all know that is not going to happen the 787's image has been tarnished what the airlines and Boeing need to focus on is campaign designed to let people know that these planes are still safe to travel on. Hiding is not the answer and quite frankly is not a option to much noise was made when these aircraft were grounded. Boeing and the airlines now must try to make sure that these aircraft perform flawlessly to make sure that only positive stories end up making the news.


User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2741 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 7079 times:

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 30):
I think Boeing should give serious consideration to dropping the "Dreamliner" nickname from their 787 marketing. At this point, after debacle after debacle, whenever the word "Dreamliner" is mentioned it feels so cringeworthy and so painfully ironic that it's probably best dropped (Joe Public has a short memory - it'll be quickly forgotten by those who don't live on A-Net)

Consign it to the advertising junk pile and go forward simply calling the aircraft the 787.

This I agree with.. The Dreamliner name is so dreadful, anyways...   

I like Boeing 787 much better.  



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlinedavidho1985 From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2012, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6177 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 28):
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 wound? Just like it is common sense not to joke about bombs when going through security. Even though it does not make it any more or less likely that the person joking is actually carrying a bomb.

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 clearly for marketing purpose. Why continue to emphasize it when it may have negative impact on the ANA's reputation/ customers' confidence etc. Removing the "787" billboard take little efforts ( and costs as well) especially all of them are sitting on the apron 24/7 flying to nowhere. It won't affect ANA's schedule.


User currently offlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6197 times:

Quoting hoons90 (Reply 31):
Isn't that what AA did with their DC-10 "LuxuryLiners"? Remove the DC-10 titles after AA191.

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, they were marked as "Super 80", rather than DC-anything due to that sensitivity. As now the MD80, they still are painted with the "Super 80" title and that's what's always been on the emergency procedures card in the seat back pocket.



Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 43
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6085 times:

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 20):
*longhauler, I'll try to take one of your flights - don't tell her!!

And this is the ship we'll fly!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 5834 times:

Quoting drgmobile (Reply 25):
it always surprised me that the DC-10 did so much better commercially than the L1011 while Lockheed got out of the commercial business

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 with fewer seats and less cargo capacity.


User currently offlinecarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2954 posts, RR: 3
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 5131 times:

Quoting simairlinenet (Reply 13):
How long was it until ANA repainted these into standard? Just 3-4 years

After their first heavy maintenance visit.


User currently offlineMcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 128 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5027 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 2):
Well the DC10 is still remembered in the public eye for being grounded

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 quite like the DC-10's.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4677 times:

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 up that assertion, or is it just a meme? I well remember my road warrior days and fellow businessmen were quite aware of what they were flying on, mostly in terms of the cabin experience. Today, on long hauls, the A380 is a much desired choice, based on my sample of four people.

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2606 posts, RR: 5
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4629 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting TC957 (Reply 5):
Because the flying public reading about and seeing your aircraft grounded is hardly a marketing advantage.
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.

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 thing, because it tells the general public - well, me, at least - that they're taking the problem seriously and are looking at ways to fix it and get it back in the air. Scaremongering, hyperbole, and speculation as to the severity and cause of the issue beyond established and published facts don't help anyone.

Perhaps I shouldn't be making comparisons, but after the QF32 incident, there was a lot of scrutiny on QF and the A380, even when they did the only logical thing which is to ground the fleet. But QF, and the A380, turned out just fine, and some passengers still want to fly on it. Once the 787 is back in the air, the grounding and the issues associated with it will be forgotten. NH can still proudly present to the world that they are the launch customer of the 787 Dreamliner.

Quoting hotplane (Reply 12):
No doubt there will be something else after this problem is sorted.

Every new type introduction is bound to be laced with teething problems. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

Quoting simairlinenet (Reply 13):
How long was it until ANA repainted these into standard? Just 3-4 years.

I wouldn't expect that the timeframe for removing the 787 titles would be any different. I would be quite surprised if they were removed upon return to service.

Quoting davidho1985 (Reply 34):
Removing the "787" billboard take little efforts ( and costs as well)

Except for JA801A and JA802A which could require a complete repaint.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2316 posts, RR: 21
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4380 times:

Maybe Boeing should be making the 787's more like this one..  


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineAF185 From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2012, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3869 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.

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 they fly on, especially considering new planes like the B787 are mostly working on Business oriented routes.


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2076 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2734 times:

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 30):
I think Boeing should give serious consideration to dropping the "Dreamliner" nickname from their 787 marketing. At this point, after debacle after debacle, whenever the word "Dreamliner" is mentioned it feels so cringeworthy and so painfully ironic that it's probably best dropped (Joe Public has a short memory - it'll be quickly forgotten by those who don't live on A-Net)

Consign it to the advertising junk pile and go forward simply calling the aircraft the 787.

They should really consider this. After all, 7x7 is still an amazing brand, instantly associated with Boeing, American aviation, the jet age and so on. While the Dreamliner turned out to be a Nightmareliner, the 787 can still thrive off the Boeing heritage.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2215 times:

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 35):
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, they were marked as "Super 80", rather than DC-anything due to that sensitivity. As now the MD80, they still are painted with the "Super 80" title and that's what's always been on the emergency procedures card in the seat back pocket.

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 (which were renamed MD80). A sad end to a once glorious designator, from DC1 thru DC9.


User currently offlinedrgmobile From Canada, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

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 unlikely until he started talking about being on the upper deck when I realized he was actually on a Lufthansa A380 out of MIA.

This was the same person who tried to tell me he flew from Frankfurt to Johannesburg on British Airways. Moral of the story, people don't pay enough attention to know much of anything.


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...
787 - Will We See The Documentary? posted Mon Sep 26 2011 14:31:09 by FlyingCello
Will Boeing Replace The 787-9/777 With A New Line? posted Mon Aug 16 2010 22:43:11 by panais
Will LAN Use The 787 For MAD-FRA Flight? posted Thu May 1 2008 00:39:53 by LHStarAlliance
Where Will ANA Fly Their 787? posted Tue Jun 19 2007 07:57:47 by Vulindlela744
What Will The Actual 787 Look Like? posted Wed May 16 2007 18:10:53 by Deaphen
Will We See The 787(-3) At DCA? posted Wed Dec 27 2006 00:26:28 by D L X
Where Will NWA Use The 787? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 13:53:13 by DTW757
When Will BA Order The B-787-800, B-747-ADV? posted Tue Oct 11 2005 04:43:03 by KC135TopBoom
Just Curious When Will ANA Firm Up Their 787 Order posted Tue Aug 23 2005 03:21:44 by Georgiabill
Will The Numbers 787 And 797 Ever Be Used? posted Tue Dec 31 2002 01:40:03 by BR715-A1-30