Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Has The 787 Been Performing Lately? (Part 1)  
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 61024 times:

Interested to know how the 787 has been performing lately. Not much news or discussion other than problems Norwegian seems to be having on a recurring basis with them, being discussed in another thread. Have delays and cancellations at other airlines come down to acceptable levels yet? Appreciate any info.

250 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 60847 times:

According to this, so far, 84 aircraft delivered, 35,000 flights, 7M. passengers flown, 50M. miles covered............

http://flighttracker.newairplane.com/



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently onlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 901 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 60317 times:

According to ANA's post modification website, overall pretty well. In last week over 400 flights only 1 was cancelled and 1 was delayed. With that being said, they seem to be having quite of bit of issues with the electrical system.

https://secure.ana-g.com/anacom/cgi-bin/787/pdf/service_e.pdf


User currently offlineglbltrvlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 770 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 59944 times:

I'm scheduled on the United 787 from LAX to Shanghai later this week. Looking forward to it.

User currently offlinehkcanadaexpat From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2012, 656 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 59824 times:

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 2):
In last week over 400 flights only 1 was cancelled and 1 was delayed.

ANA's stats should be taken with a grain of salt. They keep 5 spare 787s (2 domestic + 3 international) at all times. Helps keep the schedule look like its working like clockwork. That being said, its an expensive proposition for any airline to keep that many frames on standby at all times...

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 3):
United 787 from LAX to Shanghai later this week.

I hope you don't have a domestic connection in PVG or dinner plans that night in Shanghai. That flight is notoriously late. I reckon 3 out of 4 is late. Fingers crossed you get one of the lucky ones that's on time!
A


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1624 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 58854 times:

Interesting notations from ANA:

Sept 5: flight canceled due to damage to fuselage. The notes state necessary maintenance was carried out and the plane returned to service. An instance of ramp rash of some sort? At any rate, the fix doesn't appear to be that remarkable.

Aug 25: Flight delayed 30 mins due to lightning strike "near the spot area" whatever that means. Certainly didn't take long to sort out that issue.

These two entries are notable because they are two of the challenges raised early on in developing the 787 - repairing the fuselage and effect of lightning strikes. It appears neither issue was remarkable in terms of getting the planes back in service. Nice!


User currently offlineglbltrvlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 770 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 58826 times:

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 4):
I hope you don't have a domestic connection in PVG or dinner plans that night in Shanghai. That flight is notoriously late. I reckon 3 out of 4 is late. Fingers crossed you get one of the lucky ones that's on time!

Shower, dinner and bed is all that is on the agenda, but I hope it isn't too late arriving. Now you have my curiosity up - will go look at the history.


User currently onlineswallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 58724 times:

And right on cue, AAB chimes in...

there are “still issues and Boeing is aware of that. And they need to resolve these issues very quickly because Qatar Airways is getting very frustrated with them.

“There are so many teething problems... although it is not anything major that would require us to ground our aircraft, it is enough to give us grief on our dispatch reliability,” says Al Baker



http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ut-continuing-787-problems-390629/



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineglbltrvlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 770 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 58383 times:

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 4):
That flight is notoriously late.

Took a quick look at FlightAware history and the past two weeks don't look too bad. Looks like they are adjusting the departure time for winds as those are a minimum 30 minutes later than the schedule, but the arrivals for all but two flights are pretty much bang on with two exceptions. The flight yesterday was 5 hours late leaving LAX and 4 hours late arriving and one a couple weeks ago was about an hour late.

Funny how our expectations have changed over the years. Wasn't that long ago that arriving on the scheduled day would have been good enough.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7671 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 58103 times:

"The decision about which aircraft to order will be driven by “how the problems are fixed and how we are convinced that we have confidence that the problems will be fixed."
Ok so here we have an executive of an airline publicy stating that the decision to purchase a/c is not always about which a/c better suits their needs, accomodates their market and performance specifications compared to the alternatives.
Can we now dispense with the A.Net myth that politics and non-a/c performance issues have nothing to do with orders?


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 57895 times:

AAB's closing remark in the FlightGlobal article is pretty blunt: "“If we have to move away from the -8 due to the issues we have, then we may look at interim A330s.”

He has been fairly quiet and a strong defender of the 787 at least in public (he called the grounding stupid), but seems to be on the verge of losing patience...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 57839 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 10):
He has been fairly quiet and a strong defender of the 787 at least in public (he called the grounding stupid), but seems to be on the verge of losing patience...

He could also be on the verge of converting those 30 options to firm orders at the Dubai Air Show. He does seem to prefer negotiating via public statements.   

I mean how quickly can he get A330-200s?


User currently onlineSelseyBill From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 54676 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
I mean how quickly can he get A330-200s?

I'd imagine he has JL on speed-dial on his phone, and I'd also imagine that JL would 'find' 30 A332's for QR pdq, and attached to a pretty nice price-tag too.

I'd also imagine the executives in Toulouse would love to have a headline or two reporting 787 orders being replaced by A330's.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 54527 times:

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 12):
and attached to a pretty nice price-tag too.

Price tag should be the least concern for Mr Baker.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently online7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1761 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 54208 times:

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 4):
ANA's stats should be taken with a grain of salt. They keep 5 spare 787s (2 domestic + 3 international) at all times.


I don't know about that. With the flight rate they were hitting in early September (up to 76 flights a day--normally around 70) I don't see how they could do that with a fleet of 20 airplanes with 5 of them parked. They must be doing 5-7 flights a day with their domestic fleet. Also in cases where the standby airplane was used, it would be hard to get the flight off within their 2 hour reporting requirement so we'd see more substitutions on their website.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 51687 times:

United had a plane stuck in China for a week.

UA 787 NRT-ORD 09-07-13 (by airfinair Sep 9 2013 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 51580 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 15):
United had a plane stuck in China for a week.

Another frame was apparently out of service in DEN for a week as well, seems they just conducted a post-mx flight:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N26906


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 50706 times:

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 4):
ANA's stats should be taken with a grain of salt. They keep 5 spare 787s (2 domestic + 3 international) at all times. Helps keep the schedule look like its working like clockwork. That being said, its an expensive proposition for any airline to keep that many frames on standby at all times...

Well this is pretty typical of the Japanese process.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 5):
Aug 25: Flight delayed 30 mins due to lightning strike "near the spot area" whatever that means. Certainly didn't take long to sort out that issue.

Twitter confirms there was a huge thunderstorm nearby that day. A lightning bolt struck a commuter train earlier in that day too. So it was basically for severe weather.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 48915 times:

N27901 didn't fly 30 Aug, 23 Aug thru 25 Aug.
N26902 didn't fly 09 Sep, 29 Aug thru 06 Sep (ferry flight on 07 Sep), 17 Aug thru 20 Aug
N27903 didn't fly 17 Sep, 08 Sep, 28 Aug, 19 Aug, 09 Aug thru 12 Aug
N20904 didn't fly 13 Aug.
N45905 didn't fly 21 Aug.
N26906 didn't flu 11 Sep thru 16 Sep, 28 Aug thru 29 Aug, 14 Aug
N29907 has flown every day since 10 Aug

Based on flight aware data.


User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1227 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 47428 times:

Hi,

For Norwegian the 787 reliability has been nothing less than a disaster so far. One plane was grounded for technical reasons for days messing up the whole long haul schedule and causing badwill among passengers.



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1911 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 46863 times:

Per passenger reports, LO 787s notoriously have issues with their in-flight entertainment system. The plane itself though seems to be doing fine, save for minor growing pains.


Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlinephotoshooter From Belgium, joined Feb 2010, 456 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 45275 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting ADent (Reply 18):

N27901 didn't fly 30 Aug, 23 Aug thru 25 Aug.
N26902 didn't fly 09 Sep, 29 Aug thru 06 Sep (ferry flight on 07 Sep), 17 Aug thru 20 Aug
N27903 didn't fly 17 Sep, 08 Sep, 28 Aug, 19 Aug, 09 Aug thru 12 Aug
N20904 didn't fly 13 Aug.
N45905 didn't fly 21 Aug.
N26906 didn't flu 11 Sep thru 16 Sep, 28 Aug thru 29 Aug, 14 Aug
N29907 has flown every day since 10 Aug

Based on flight aware data.

Wonder if they planned this or were forced to do so. Both would be very sad. I've logged the NAX 787 last summer and it was the best flight ever. Any news from the TUI group? Are they having problems? Can't wait to see JAF B787!

Photoshooter   



'A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.' - Winston Churchill
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 45051 times:

The worst thing about the DY incidents is that the plane worked perfectly fine on European operations. But it does seem to me that Boeing delivered the first aircraft without enough maturity in the test program. This has got to be one of the most disasterous new aircraft launches of all time?

The A380 had its problems, but never anything lasting this long. Even SQ said that during the first few months of A380 operations they had very good dispatch reliability.



Next Flights: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
User currently offlineBaconButty From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2013, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 44850 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
"The decision about which aircraft to order will be driven by “how the problems are fixed and how we are convinced that we have confidence that the problems will be fixed."
Ok so here we have an executive of an airline publicy stating that the decision to purchase a/c is not always about which a/c better suits their needs, accomodates their market and performance specifications compared to the alternatives.
Can we now dispense with the A.Net myth that politics and non-a/c performance issues have nothing to do with orders?

I don't know that there's may on here who would question that politics can influence some orders, though the particular orders that get singled out seem to lack any rational basis. However, isn't there a bit of confirmation bias going on here? AAB is actually saying the reverse - surely dispatch reliability is an aircraft performance metric?



You could do with some brown sauce on that.
User currently offlineracercoup From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 44600 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 22):
The A380 had its problems, but never anything lasting this long. Even SQ said that during the first few months of A380 operations they had very good dispatch reliability.

Comparing the two aircraft is difficult in MHO. Between Oct of the launch year and the following year only 13 A380 were delivered. In Sept of its launch year and the following year 49 787's were handed over to customers. It just seems there are more problems because there are a lot more air frames out there.


User currently offlineLofty From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 45538 times:

I know Boeing have had to provide engineering teams to some carriers to overcome the issues which has included battery changes and Slow Fuelling. I also know one airline has had to change its towing procedure due to issues.

User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 45469 times:

Quoting Lofty (Reply 25):
I know Boeing have had to provide engineering teams to some carriers to overcome the issues which has included battery changes and Slow Fuelling. I also know one airline has had to change its towing procedure due to issues.

DY had Boeing personnel on its 787 flights when it was trialing the aircraft in Europe. They sat in the front row of the premium cabin and had all sorts of equipment set up.



Next Flights: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2341 posts, RR: 5
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 46240 times:

SInce we reliably know that the 787 is the worst launch of any aircraft in history and a complete disaster for its customers, can someone produce the charts and stats for all aircraft launches since the dawn of the jet age? I'm kind of curious to see the rankings for the first two years of intro: dispatch rate, miles flown, pax flown, diversions, delays, deaths etc.

User currently onlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 46018 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wingman (Reply 27):

SInce we reliably know that the 787 is the worst launch of any aircraft in history and a complete disaster for its customers, can someone produce the charts and stats for all aircraft launches since the dawn of the jet age? I'm kind of curious to see the rankings for the first two years of intro: dispatch rate, miles flown, pax flown, diversions, delays, deaths etc.

That is a large overstatement. This is the first "all new" a/c launch in the age of the internetz and instant information. Every burp and hiccup is tweeted/cross posted and magnified x100.

The 747 and 777 each had tons of issues. IIRC the 320 and 330s had hull losses either during the testing phase or early introduction.

The 788 has had issues to be sure but there've been no injuries, no deaths and no hull losses. Boeing has learned a very expensive lesson in controlling the design phase of the a/c better and not being as reliable on out-sourcing. Penny wise and pound foolish etc.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 45913 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 28):
IIRC the 320 and 330s had hull losses either during the testing phase or early introduction.

Yes, although that comparison is irrelevant because it was pilot error.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 45826 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 28):
That is a large overstatement.

I think Wingman was being sarcastic.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 45670 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 30):
I think Wingman was being sarcastic.

Me too

tortugamon


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5842 posts, RR: 6
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 45691 times:

Quoting Navigator (Reply 19):
For Norwegian the 787 reliability has been nothing less than a disaster so far.

I think the lesson here is a good one for any carrier: don't buy a small number of frames of a brand-new type and immediately try to use them in a 16-hour-utilization long-haul schedule. Any new type would have had the same issues. That is the sort of schedule that is extremely prone to disruption even for long-established carriers with mature types... just ask KLM.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 45670 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 32):
I think the lesson here is a good one for any carrier: don't buy a small number of frames of a brand-new type and immediately try to use them in a 16-hour-utilization long-haul schedule.

Ding ding, jackpot.

I remember a few interviews with Norwegian's CEO (or a spokesman, don't remember it anymore) before they started long-haul. The man was a bit aggressive, he could not wait to start long-haul asap and he would crush the competitor (SAS), but now he's learning it the hard way.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7671 posts, RR: 8
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 45552 times:

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 23):
AAB is actually saying the reverse - surely dispatch reliability is an aircraft performance metric?

Yep, so the performance of the any future Boeing or Airbus product is??????
Essentially he is throwing all future OEM products under the bus regardless of their performance metircs, so a OEM metric.


User currently onlineSelseyBill From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 45264 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 28):
no hull losses

Do we know the status of the ET B788 that caught fire @ LHR ? Is it being repaired or written-off ?
(Apologies if this has already been discussed/ reported elsewhere).


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 45123 times:

Quoting Navigator (Reply 19):
For Norwegian the 787 reliability has been nothing less than a disaster so far.

The article I read quoted the Norwegian CEO? saying that they had had no real problems until these recent ones, so your statement is somewhat hyperbolic.


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4970 posts, RR: 40
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 45084 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 32):
I think the lesson here is a good one for any carrier: don't buy a small number of frames of a brand-new type and immediately try to use them in a 16-hour-utilization long-haul schedule. Any new type would have had the same issues.

Spot on!   

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 33):
I remember a few interviews with Norwegian's CEO (or a spokesman, don't remember it anymore) before they started long-haul. The man was a bit aggressive, he could not wait to start long-haul asap and he would crush the competitor (SAS), but now he's learning it the hard way.

I guess he is. But in the end we will see the B787 stabilise her performance, but the question for the customers is of course "when?"


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12966 posts, RR: 25
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 44778 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 13):
Price tag should be the least concern for Mr Baker.
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 22):
This has got to be one of the most disasterous new aircraft launches of all time?

I would not use the word "disaster" because (thankfully) there were no lives lost. Maybe I'd call it a "PR disaster" or "fiscal disaster" but even those sound too strong. Compare to DC-10 which had hulls and lives lost and orders cancelled directly due to engineering faults like the cargo door design.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 28):
That is a large overstatement. This is the first "all new" a/c launch in the age of the internetz and instant information. Every burp and hiccup is tweeted/cross posted and magnified x100.

I suppose, but the two battery "fires" after the delay due to the EE bay "fire" would have been magnified to the hilt in the pre internet days as well.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days ago) and read 44617 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 28):
That is a large overstatement. This is the first "all new" a/c launch in the age of the internetz and instant information. Every burp and hiccup is tweeted/cross posted and magnified x100.

I suppose, but the two battery "fires" after the delay due to the EE bay "fire" would have been magnified to the hilt in the pre internet days as well.

Not necessarily. I'm not claiming these are good events but nothing like what's happened to Airbus or McDonnel-Douglas.

It might be that Boeing blew it with having the suppliers handle a lot of the design and quality control may not be great. It's been a royal pain to Boeing but I assume they've identified the major issues and we'll see the 789 with a much smoother introduction. For the 788, they will incrimentally improve the plane and might also swap out parts as the designs improve.


User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days ago) and read 44441 times:

Not seen many recent delays on any of the recent TOM 787 flights

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 43708 times:

Small issue, an UA 787 diverted on a DEN-NRT flight due to a flap indicator light.

http://twitter.com/FriendlySkies1K/status/380932224738029568



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2341 posts, RR: 5
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 43627 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 29):
Yes, although that comparison is irrelevant because it was pilot error.

I've always been proud, and quite amazed, that Airbus has never suffered a single crash due to anything wrong with its aircraft. As Karel says, all the early 320 losses, and the 320 demo/330 test flight losses (and all subsequent 320/330 crashes), were due to pilot error. In my immediate recollection I can't think of any aircraft manufacturer in history with such a "perfect record". They should put that in their sales brochures.

On the other hand, is it safe to say that since the fault in Airbus crashes always lies with the pilot that Airbus flight training might have room for improvement?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 43451 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 42):
On the other hand, is it safe to say that since the fault in Airbus crashes always lies with the pilot that Airbus flight training might have room for improvement?

There is always room for improvement but it is usually up to the airline to decide how far they go.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStTim From UK - England, joined Aug 2013, 841 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 43430 times:

No frame maker will be too loud about safety and crashes - even lack of them. Such words could very easilly come back to haunt them if there was a manufacturing fault causing loss of life.

I never feel worried getting on a plane in a country with a high safety ethos. Some places say some African or ex - soviet countries may not engender such a feeling of inherent safety - merited or not.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 43430 times:

Again, I think Wingman was being sarcastic.

He does raise an interesting point though: Are there any Airbus crashes where the ultimate cause was not pilot error (as in the result of some command input of lack thereof)? A crash that was just the result of a structural or mechanical failure?

And it does suggests something less than perfect in the man-machine interface.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 43490 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 45):
He does raise an interesting point though: Are there any Airbus crashes where the ultimate cause was not pilot error (as in the result of some command input of lack thereof)? A crash that was just the result of a structural or mechanical failure?

Yes, an American Airlines A300 once lost a rudder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

[Edited 2013-09-20 08:39:15]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 43463 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 46):
Yes, an American Airlines A310 once lost a rudder.

That was an A300-600, but even that was blamed on excessive rudder movements commanded by the pilots. At AA pilot training had to change as a result. I do agree that this appears to come closest to something other than "pilot error".


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4970 posts, RR: 40
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 43374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 47):
I do agree that this appears to come closest to something other than "pilot error".

It does, but it was more like an operational error by the whole of AA when they were flying with the A300.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1911 posts, RR: 4
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 43419 times:

Not a good week at LO: two of their 787s are grounded due to faulty fuel filters, most likely it is a manufacturing defect. EuroAtlantic 777 and 767 will fill in while two Dreamliners are being repaired.

[Edited 2013-09-20 09:00:37]


Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 43299 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 42):
I've always been proud, and quite amazed, that Airbus has never suffered a single crash due to anything wrong with its aircraft. As Karel says, all the early 320 losses, and the 320 demo/330 test flight losses (and all subsequent 320/330 crashes), were due to pilot error. In my immediate recollection I can't think of any aircraft manufacturer in history with such a "perfect record". They should put that in their sales brochures.

Pilot Error isn't always black and white though. Confusing/conflicting indicators and an input system that lacks feedback from the other pilot's commands are all things that contributed to the AF 330 crash, even if the main cause was human error.

As for dispatch reliability, do OEMs have to publish numbers on these sorts of things? I know they are tracked because reliability shortcoming penalties are typically written into contracts for commercial aircraft design/manufacture. And the penalties are almost always directly financial.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 43314 times:

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 50):
Pilot Error isn't always black and white though. Confusing/conflicting indicators and an input system that lacks feedback from the other pilot's commands are all things that contributed to the AF 330 crash, even if the main cause was human error.

True, pilot error is usually a combination of many factors. But in case of AF447, a proper stall training would have helped.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinebillreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 1043 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 43005 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 22):
The A380 had its problems, but never anything lasting this long. Even SQ said that during the first few months of A380 operations they had very good dispatch reliability.

I think this is completely unfair.
The A380 was not new technology at a level equivalent to the B787.
Remember that the A380's order book has gone DOA.

Comparing the A380 to the B787 is crazy at best.



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlineAirIndia111 From India, joined Aug 2013, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 42923 times:

Air India's VT-ANM was grounded in FRA for the past 48 hours. It has just taken off as AI 120D back to Delhi.

Apart from this, AI hasn't had any other major hiccups with their 787 operations and all flights have been operating as per schedule.


User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2776 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 42813 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 52):
think this is completely unfair.
The A380 was not new technology at a level equivalent to the B787.
Remember that the A380's order book has gone DOA.

Comparing the A380 to the B787 is crazy at best.

Well, to add on to this, aren't the majority of the 787's current problems caused by the electrical systems? If I understand correctly, they are quite a bit more complex than previous airliners. But I could be wrong.  



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4970 posts, RR: 40
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 42545 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting billreid (Reply 52):
The A380 was not new technology at a level equivalent to the B787.

Oh yes, the A380 at EIS easily was at least as much new tech as the B787 is now.

But let's focus on the B787 instead of other aircraft from whatever manufacturer. I am sure all the operating airlines and their customers are much more interested in that.

Overall I think het reliability rates are rising, and that is a good thing. In about a year or two there are enough B787's out there, and their reliability rate will have been proven by then at 9*.**%. At best we await that number before drawing conclusions.

[Edited 2013-09-20 15:44:04]

User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4970 posts, RR: 40
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 42458 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KPDX (Reply 54):
If I understand correctly, they are quite a bit more complex than previous airliners

They are not. They are a choice by Boeing and supposed to be simpler with the ability to operate with less maintenance in the future. The problems are caused by these systems being new to civilian airliners, and therefore have teething problems. Whether or not the more electrical based architecture of the B787-systems are really better compared to the systems we currently see in aircraft is highly debatable. Also these systems make continues progress.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 42358 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 49):
Not a good week at LO:

Not a great week for UA.
- There was a diversion to Anchorage (N27901 on DEN-NRT). Aircraft enroute to DEN.
- A plane down for a day in China (N26902).
- 787 in DEN that has did not fly yesterday or today (N45905) .

Looks like a 777 is flying UA142 to LOS today.


User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 41541 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 49):

Not a good week at LO: two of their 787s are grounded due to faulty fuel filters, most likely it is a manufacturing defect. EuroAtlantic 777 and 767 will fill in while two Dreamliners are being repaired.

Faulty fuel filters sounds strange to me. More likely fuel filters plugged way to early from less than clean components from Boeing subs or from rework. Sub contractors might not have the familiarity with the work environment required for complex integration and rework would introduce like risks. Maybe the fuel filters are faulty (maybe next gen fuel filters with built in diagnostics) vice just standard stuff that got prematurely plugged.


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 41386 times:

When 787 is AOG and taken out of service for couple of days and the flight substituted with, say 777 does that affect the dispatch rate in a negative way? I mean when a aircraft is taken out of service there is technically not a delay....

What I find strange is the incredibly high dispatch rate with all those cancelations.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 41221 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 59):
I mean when a aircraft is taken out of service there is technically not a delay....

What I find strange is the incredibly high dispatch rate with all those cancelations.

It is a good question. My hypothesis is that the immediately impacted flight may count against the dispatch rate, but the following flights that are substituted by another aircraft while the 787 is AOG, does not count against the dispatch rate.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7671 posts, RR: 8
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 41044 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 32):
I think the lesson here is a good one for any carrier: don't buy a small number of frames of a brand-new type and immediately try to use them in a 16-hour-utilization long-haul schedule.

I can only see one major flaw in this form of thinking, that is the product that Boeing initial offered.
The 787 was offered up to the airlines as a long haul a/c able to open new routes with sufficient capacity to make long and thin viable at a price point that allowed many smaller players to get into the market. The initial 787 price was much lower that it is today and this is even before the well known discounts.
Prior to the 787, long haul was done by carriers who were able to afford a/c like the 747's, it then shifted to the 767/A330/777's, on the high end the 777W was and still is an expensive frame, small carriers without the capital and the market size left the market to "major foreign" carriers who at times demanded guarantees to provide service.
In looking at the order book for the 787, the bulk of the initial orders are / were not to a few major carriers but to numerous smaller carriers some of them national airlines who finally saw an a/c which would allow them compete in the long haul market at a price to themselves that was competitive.
In the high tech world we live in today, do we expect a device to be delivered with a operational rate of less than 50%, in the a/c industry everyone expects high 90%'s, no one expected the current debacle that is the 787, and if experts abound that say I told you so how do we compare that with the OEM's track record prior to that?
Time will not tell whether it was a false promise by Boeing, as the price of the frame has gone up and no one expects it to come down after production and deliveries have stabilized, so maybe a bridge too far.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1670 posts, RR: 7
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 40987 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 52):
Remember that the A380's order book has gone DOA.

What has this to do with the subject at hand??!!



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1911 posts, RR: 4
Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 40580 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 62):
Quoting billreid (Reply 52):
Remember that the A380's order book has gone DOA.

What has this to do with the subject at hand??!!

Please don't feed the troll.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently online7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1761 posts, RR: 16
Reply 64, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day ago) and read 40360 times:

Looking at the ANA data, since June 1st they've flown 7575 flights and have had 36 "issues" for a 99.5% "successful" flight rate. Take it ant way you want, it looks pretty good to me.
http://www.ana.co.jp/wws/japan/e/local/common/share/boeing787info/


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 40054 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 64):
Looking at the ANA data, since June 1st they've flown 7575 flights and have had 36 "issues" for a 99.5% "successful" flight rate. Take it ant way you want, it looks pretty good to me.

Anyone have a definite answer for the hypothesis below? If one of the 36 "issues" results in a 787 being AOG for 5 days and 20 flights requiring substitute aircraft, is that one issue or 20? Is it one cancellation or 20 that count against the aircraft?

Quoting sankaps (Reply 60):
hypothesis is that the immediately impacted flight may count against the dispatch rate, but the following flights that are substituted by another aircraft while the 787 is AOG, does not count against the dispatch rate.


[Edited 2013-09-22 13:14:57]

User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7739 posts, RR: 17
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 40595 times:

BA operated its first 787 revenue rotation on 9 August (LHR-ARN-LHR, BA780/81) with two aircraft delivered and available. This same flight then operated every day until 31 August. Of the 23 completed rotations in this period 10 were flown by the first aircraft delivered, G-ZBJB, 13 by the second, G-ZBJA. At no time were flights operated by a single aircraft on more than two consecutive days.

BA switched from these short-haul "test" (but fully commercial) flights to long-haul flights as pre-announced on 1 September. Since that date and up to and including 20 September BA has operated LHR-YYZ-LHR BA092/93 every day. This rotation was first flown by the third aircraft to be delivered, G-ZBJC, on 7 September. With three aircraft available BA launched the planned three-times-weekly BA097/96 service (also LHR-YYZ-LHR) on 15 September. In this second phase of BA operation no flight has been cancelled. However 'JB did not operate a single flight between 4 and 14 September. It is not clear whether this was a planned or forced withdrawal from service. But I would tend to favour a planned withdrawal as it was returned to service on the day that BA097/96 was operated by a 787 for the first time.

We can draw two possible conclusions from the above facts. It may be that all planned revenue flights have operated (with no significant delays?) because of BA's cautious planning that has ensured that a back-up aircraft has been available every day. Or it may be because of the reliability of their 787s.


User currently offlinebillreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 1043 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 39509 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 55):
Oh yes, the A380 at EIS easily was at least as much new tech as the B787 is now.

Seriously?
The A380 wasn't the quantum leap that the A350 is or the B787 is. Big doesn't translate into new technology.
I read that the B787 uses six times the electricity that any previous commercial aircraft uses.
Boeing has had a lot of problems with different pressurization and humidity that the A380 can't do.
The barrel construction was so radical and risky that AB didn't dare do similar with the A350. We can root for one acft vs. another but please try to keep this reasonable.
AB also backed away from the Lithium battery in the A350. I see a lower risk tolerance at AB. It may be smarter or perhaps not, but to claim the A380 was as much new tech as the B787 is shocking.

So could you please list all the "Brand" new technology in the bus?
Or are you referring to the gold faucets in Emirates A380?



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 months 12 hours ago) and read 39356 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 64):
Looking at the ANA data, since June 1st they've flown 7575 flights and have had 36 "issues" for a 99.5% "successful" flight rate.

I suspect that part of the picture is a perennial problem in journalism; that, on any given day, there are a lot more stories being contributed by the journalists than there is space available in the newspaper to print them.   The editors and sub-editors often, therefore, late in the day, have to 'cut' many perfectly-good stories because there simply isn't room for them!

It's therefore very possible (indeed, only too likely) that, because of its 'prominence' and its early teething troubles (especially fires, no editor worth his salt would 'spike' a story about an aeroplane actually catching fire!), stories about B787 flights being delayed are considered 'news' and often get left in - whereas delays affecting less-prominent aircraft marques are 'cut'? Boeing did an excellent job of 'publicising' the 787's special qualities etc. - but that very success may be 'backfiring' on them now, for a while at least?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 39051 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 67):
So could you please list all the "Brand" new technology in the bus?
Or are you referring to the gold faucets in Emirates A380?

New technology is only useful if it is both cost-effective AND reliable. Don't think a discussion of which aircraft -- the 787, A350, or A380 has the most new technology -- unless that technology is actually doing its job properly.

Keep in mind the 787 is no longer a that new. It first flew 6 years ago. EIS was two years ago.

On a related note, both Norwegian 787s has tech delays yesterday as well -- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/norweg...s-both-dreamliners-064708437.html. .

And according to the other thread, two LOT 787s are AOG as well -- or were AOG yesterday -- requiring substitution by Euroatlantic.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 68):
stories about B787 flights being delayed are considered 'news' and often get left in - whereas delays affecting less-prominent aircraft marques are 'cut'?

Only way to dispel whether this is unfounded is through apples-to-apples stats that show dispatch reliability, utilization (to account for excessive use of spares, if that is indeed the case), and unscheduled downtime of the 787 (to account for lengthy AOGs that may not be captured fully in dispatch reliability) relative to other aircraft across the different airlines. What stats we have seen so far do not really paint a full picture.

[Edited 2013-09-23 02:38:33]

User currently offlinedavies2911 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2011, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 38858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does anyone know how TOM are managing with thier fleet of 787's?

The days ive looked online they seem to be doing ok with them?


User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 969 posts, RR: 37
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 38595 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 69):

Keep in mind the 787 is no longer a that new. It first flew 6 years ago. EIS was two years ago.

First flight December 2009, first delivery Sept 2011.

Its not that new but its first flight was less than 4 years ago. It is now two years in service.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 38556 times:

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 71):

First flight December 2009, first delivery Sept 2011.

Its not that new but its first flight was less than 4 years ago. It is now two years in service.

Apologies, you are correct -- I meant roll-out was 6 years ago, and EIS two years ago.


User currently offlineStTim From UK - England, joined Aug 2013, 841 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 38510 times:

Ah yes - but you have to remember that the Roll Out proved to be a stunt. That date should be forgotten. I bet many at Boeing wish they could forget it with hindsight.

User currently offlineKengo From Japan, joined Apr 2013, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 38534 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 69):
Quoting sankaps (Reply 69):
On a related note, both Norwegian 787s has tech delays yesterday as well -- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/norweg...html.

Per this article, DY demanded a meeting with Boeing executives later this week.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/norweg...mands-better-boeing-114548215.html


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7671 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 38503 times:

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 71):
Its not that new but its first flight was less than 4 years ago. It is now two years in service.

It was also grounded for a few months, so as with all statistics there is some truth or lack thereof if someone takes it that the a/c has been in continous service for 2 years.


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4970 posts, RR: 40
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 38322 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting billreid (Reply 67):
Seriously?
The A380 wasn't the quantum leap that the A350 is or the B787 is. Big doesn't translate into new technology.

Yes it most certainly was. There were so many firsts on the A380, the list is long. There were more firsts in aviation in the A380 then on the B787 if you do the research right. B787 has different technology in electronics and of course a CFRP-barrel fuselage.

But on virtually all other aspects which were advertised on the B787, the A380 had them first. Like high-pressure hydraulics, higher humidity cabins, higher pressurisation of the cabin, etc, etc,etc. Things like brake to vacate are not on the B787, even though it is 5 years younger and supposedly more modern. But the reality tells a different story, a more diverse story.

Overall the B787 will now be more modern then the A380, but when the A350 has its EIS, that is the most modern airliner then. Just as natural evolution goes forward.

On topic: a friend of mine, also an aviation enthusiastic guy, just flew his first flight on the B787 as a passenger. There were no tech-issues at all, and the flying qualities of the B787 were very convincing. IFE was also very good and worked flawlessly. But the overall experience compared to the B777 was to him a bit disappointing. It was not that silent as he had hoped it would, and the interior lacked of warm look and feel, at least at UA. Also the seating was crappy and the cushions he did not find that comfortable.

I guess this is in line with quite a few trip reports we have read over the B787.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5842 posts, RR: 6
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 38523 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 61):
In the high tech world we live in today, do we expect a device to be delivered with a operational rate of less than 50%, in the a/c industry everyone expects high 90%'s, no one expected the current debacle that is the 787, and if experts abound that say I told you so how do we compare that with the OEM's track record prior to that?

No one is alleging, and the data does not come remotely close to supporting, an "operational rate of less than 50%."

And it's just reality -- reality that any airline should be prepared for. Brand-new types suffer worse dispatch reliability for any operator, both because there are technical issues to be worked out and because it takes the operator more time to diagnose and fix problems with an unfamiliar airplane. The smart operators understand that and gradually ramp up utilization and stage length. Any operator that immediately plunges a brand-new new type into a schedule with extremely high utilization of all frames should not be surprised when reliability suffers. I don't think the way DY initially scheduled their 787s was realistic for any frame or airline.


User currently offlineglbltrvlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 770 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 38234 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 76):
On topic: a friend of mine, also an aviation enthusiastic guy, just flew his first flight on the B787 as a passenger. There were no tech-issues at all, and the flying qualities of the B787 were very convincing. IFE was also very good and worked flawlessly. But the overall experience compared to the B777 was to him a bit disappointing. It was not that silent as he had hoped it would, and the interior lacked of warm look and feel, at least at UA. Also the seating was crappy and the cushions he did not find that comfortable.

I just did my first 787 flight a few days ago UA 198 LAX-PVG. Complete report is here: 787 - UA198 (LAX-PVG) (by glbltrvlr Sep 21 2013 in Trip Reports)

but I would generally agree with your friend. I didn't see a notable reduction in cabin noise and the coach seats weren't any different than any other coach seat. Not sure what a warm interior looks like - I thought the blue/purple "evening" colors were interesting. I was less impressed with the coach IFE, but that could have been because I was in a bulkhead seat with the armrest screen.


User currently offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 3063 posts, RR: 23
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 37573 times:

Another news article in the constant stream of what seems to be bad news or the Dreamliner recently, this time affecting two LOT frames, SP-LRB and 'LRC.

The article, written by Christine Negroni for Seattle pi., reports that the two Dreamliners in question were delivered without the fuel filters fitted and were only discovered to be missing during routine maintenance.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyingless...liners-spend-the-weekend-grounded/

There will inevitably be some uninformed supposition that this is the fault of the engine manufacturer. It will be confirmed in the fullness of time however, that the filters in question are the LP filters, that they were removed by Boeing and that they were not reinstalled prior to delivery.

Whilst this news will inevitably incite posts of outrage and disbelief from the usual suspects, this latest issue is valid, current and unique to the other Dreamliner woes.

The powers that be seem to think it not worthy of a new thread in which to dicuss it. However, this issue raises questions now, not of the electrical architecture or of the multitude of software glitches, but on Boeing's ability to actually assemble and put the things together correctly.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3684 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 37431 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 66):
We can draw two possible conclusions from the above facts. It may be that all planned revenue flights have operated (with no significant delays?) because of BA's cautious planning that has ensured that a back-up aircraft has been available every day. Or it may be because of the reliability of their 787s.

What was the time keeping like ? last minute substitutions will show up as a flight delay.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 37435 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 77):
Any operator that immediately plunges a brand-new new type into a schedule with extremely high utilization of all frames should not be surprised when reliability suffers

Norwegian received their first 787 on June 29, and put them on long-haul on August 16. Prior to Aug 16, they were used on intra-Europe short-hauls. They did not plunge it directly into a long-haul schedule with high utilization.


User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 969 posts, RR: 37
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 37250 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 81):
Norwegian received their first 787 on June 29, and put them on long-haul on August 16. Prior to Aug 16, they were used on intra-Europe short-hauls. They did not plunge it directly into a long-haul schedule with high utilization.

They only had one frame until August. You cant do long haul and 11-12 hour flights with one frame and do daily service.

As soon as they had two... they went to straight to long haul. Whether that was wise or not, I leave to A-net at large.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 37188 times:

Just whipped up some numbers.

UAs 787s have sat on the ground 12% of their days since Aug 1. 11% in Aug and 14% so far in Sep.

N26902 has been on the ground 24% of its days, N29907 has not missed a single day.
N20904 has missed 2%, the rest is at least 11%.


User currently offlineSooner787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 36987 times:

Anybody care to crunch nbrs on 787 reliability between the delivered
frames that went thru post-factory re-work versus the later builds that
didn't require rework?


User currently offlinehkcanadaexpat From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2012, 656 posts, RR: 3
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 36719 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 83):
Just whipped up some numbers.
UAs 787s have sat on the ground 12% of their days since Aug 1. 11% in Aug and 14% so far in Sep.
N26902 has been on the ground 24% of its days, N29907 has not missed a single day.
N20904 has missed 2%, the rest is at least 11%.

Are you including the calc that UAL's current 787 flight schedule requires only 6 frames while they have 7 on hand (ie UAL has one spare on hand). I would presume that if you calculated the fact that one of the 7 frames is supposed to be on the ground at all time (ie no scheduled flights planned), the stats improve a lot.

The reality is that UAL's 787s are having teething problems like those of all other airlines. Having the spare 787 in the system has although allowed them to minimize cancellation and manage delays.

A


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 36440 times:

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 85):
Are you including the calc that UAL's current 787 flight schedule requires only 6 frames while they have 7 on hand (ie UAL has one spare on hand)

Nope.

Of the 46 days since the 7th plane entered regular service - on 8 days all 7 flew, on 32 days 6 flew, and on 6 days only 5 flew.

On 13% of the days they were one plane short and 17% of the time they had an extra in service.


I figured if they had a 6 plane schedule they would rotate the planes in and out in a pattern. 2 of the planes have missed a combined total of 1 day.

The extra 787 should be in IAH, right? I can check the number of days the out of service plane spent there.
3 planes have been on the ground for 6 days in a row in Sep. 2 of those spent the time in DEN and 1 in PVG.


User currently offlinehkcanadaexpat From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2012, 656 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 36357 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 86):
on 6 days only 5 flew

those are the problem days where there were cancellations and/or type subs. 6-out of-46 is still very high rate. would be interesting to see if the trend has been decreasing (ie whether those 6 days are evenly distributed over 46 days or front-end heavy).

Quoting ADent (Reply 86):
The extra 787 should be in IAH, right?

Not necessarily. also LAX and DEN.
Cheers
A


User currently online7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1761 posts, RR: 16
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 35918 times:

Since the beginning of September JAL (with 11 airplanes) has scheduled either 18 or 20 flights every day (520 flights total) with 2 roundtrips being subbed with a 767 due to "change of airplane operating plan" and 1 flight cancelled due to lightning strike damage--that's about 99%.

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 33845 times:

LOT 787 Lands diverts to Iceland because of ID System Issue

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...n-identification-system-issue.html


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 33760 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 88):
Since the beginning of September JAL (with 11 airplanes) has scheduled either 18 or 20 flights every day (520 flights total) with 2 roundtrips being subbed with a 767 due to "change of airplane operating plan" and 1 flight cancelled due to lightning strike damage--that's about 99%.

No flights delayed because of technical problems?


User currently online7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1761 posts, RR: 16
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 33738 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 90):
No flights delayed because of technical problems?


Not from the looks of it. They're pretty forthcoming with information.

http://www.jal.com/cms/en/corp_00229.html


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 33603 times:

I had a look at the table it runs from June to 28th of September. During that time there are 1849 flights and 22 delays of more than 15 minute because the airplane going tech.
That makes it 98,81 %, a really good number.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 33520 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 92):
During that time there are 1849 flights and 22 delays of more than 15 minute because the airplane going tech.
That makes it 98,81 %, a really good number.

Not quite, as the table states "Departure Delay More Than 2 Hours" - rather than 15 minutes. From July through August I estimate they were operating with a DR in the lower 97%.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1467 posts, RR: 3
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 33338 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 89):
LOT 787 Lands diverts to Iceland because of ID System Issue

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0....html

Sounds like transponder failure, but they were allowed to enter Oceanic airspace for a FL270 (below RVSM airspace) crossing. And while pottering along at FL270 over the ocean is fine, not a lot of traffic down there, traversing European airspace would have caused a lot of ATC centres a lot of hassle, and inconvenienced a long range of other flights. Good call then, all things considered, to order the aircraft down in KEF so that only LOT are being affected.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 32754 times:

The transponder went tech? First time I heard about this issue.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 32398 times:

A statement from Boeing:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...chile-boeing-idUSBRE98T0N920130930

Quote:
"Clearly we've had some challenges on 787 reliability and we're focused on making that reliability better", Boeing Commercial Airplanes marketing vice president Randy Tinseth said at a press conference in Chile's capital Santiago.

Tinseth described the issues surrounding the 787s as a "teething problem, not systemic."



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineLO231 From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2392 posts, RR: 22
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 31618 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 32):

So true, I flew on SP-LRA and SP-LRB back in January, flights were perfect on European promotional flights to BRU, BUD, LHR or Germany.... Once they entered intercontinental, grounded for months... Lately LO flight diverted to KEF, or 2 frames got grounded with oil filters missing...

Just not a good image, lately....



Got both LO 788 frames already, next LO E95 and 734 BRU-WAW-BRU
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7304 posts, RR: 57
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 31299 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 93):
Not quite, as the table states "Departure Delay More Than 2 Hours" - rather than 15 minutes. From July through August I estimate they were operating with a DR in the lower 97%.

How many stand-by aircraft were required to meet this departure standard?



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineLO231 From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2392 posts, RR: 22
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 30900 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 98):

flood, by this, Ircan quote maaaaaany European big carriers that dont depart on time from US.... Its not their policy, is US standard. Slots dont matter at JFK, it seems, spent more hours sitting on the tarmac, well, inside the plane, than actually at the airport.... I think only Jetblue departs there on time, if lucky....

Try to get to the likes of BRU, FRA, WAW, Ams,FCO and the likes.... 7 hours trip easy becomes 12



Got both LO 788 frames already, next LO E95 and 734 BRU-WAW-BRU
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7739 posts, RR: 17
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 30656 times:

"Norwegian Air said its grounded Boeing 787 Dreamliner could return to short haul service later this week and is so confident in the aircraft it will probably order more. The airline’s chief executive Bjorn Kjos said the 787 was a better aircraft than advertised but Boeing was unprepared to cope with its teething problems."

Source:

http://uk.flightaware.com/squawks/vi...short_haul_service_later_this_week


User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 30522 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 88):
1 flight cancelled due to lightning strike damage

As I recall, the strike required no repairs, it was just inspection?

From

http://airguideonline.com/2013/10/02...hort-haul-service-later-this-week/

“I believe that the 787 is an incredibly good aircraft,” Kjos (CEO) said in an interview. “It’s even better on performance than we anticipated, the fuel burn is lower.”

What frame number is this? Post or pre-airframe 50? Is this still an overspec weight aircraft at Norweigian?

and this

“Boeing is increasing parts stocking at all the airports where Norwegian flies its 787s,” Boeing said in a statement. “Norwegian will be receiving this increased parts stocking as an enhancement to the services Boeing is providing and the parts are expected to be in place in the days ahead.”

Are the parts failures evenly spread, or are there specific pieces causing the majority of the trouble?


User currently offlinehkcanadaexpat From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2012, 656 posts, RR: 3
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 30579 times:

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 101):
What frame number is this? Post or pre-airframe 50?

Both Norwegian frames are post-50. EI-LNA is line number 102 and EI-LNB is line number 112.
A


User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 30373 times:

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 102):
Both Norwegian frames are post-50. EI-LNA is line number 102 and EI-LNB is line number 112.
A

So these are on spec aircraft it looks like for weight anyway.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 29706 times:

Apparently today's UAL94/95 flight has been canceled. The aircraft involved (N29907) has been re-scheduled for IAH-LOS with an 1.5 hours delay.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...4/history/20131011/1400Z/KIAH/KDEN



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2341 posts, RR: 5
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 29524 times:

Are we going to reopen this thread for every delay, diversion, or cancellation of a 787 flight? It'd be like reopening the 380 threads for every day that goes by without one selling. I struggle to see the point but always happy to play the game.

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 29505 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 105):
Are we going to reopen this thread for every delay, diversion, or cancellation of a 787 flight?

This thread was never closed. Secondly, the above post answers the question of the thread starter.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2341 posts, RR: 5
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 29446 times:

OK, was just wondering. Now we're back to four active and separate 787 bashing threads. Thanks.

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 29450 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 107):
four active and separate 787 bashing threads

Yup, like the "bashers" are making up the incidents and are somehow responsible for the issues.


User currently onlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 901 posts, RR: 1
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 29411 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 107):
OK, was just wondering. Now we're back to four active and separate 787 bashing threads. Thanks.

Unfortunately until this beautiful bird improves her reliability , we are going to continue seeing these threads.

For what its worth, UA's DEN-NRT flight was 2 hours late today and 1 hour late yesterday. LAX-NRT was on time today and on time yesterday.


User currently onlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 29423 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

People on this board are at the least, curious about how the 787 is performing - including me. The bashers are in a seperate category.

It's simple, if you don't want to "endure" those that want a list of issues with this plane, don't read it.

We know the a hydrolic pump was redesigned in part given DY issues with their aircraft. Boeing gets tons of data as each plane operates and is building up information they need to make decisions about changes to the design of certain parts on the a/c.

Welcome to the information age.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 29399 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 107):
OK, was just wondering. Now we're back to four active and separate 787 bashing threads. Thanks.

I'm not sure why you see this as bashing. This thread is about the performance of the 787 and an United bird going tech is 100% on-topic.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinebillreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 1043 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 29224 times:

Last I heard it performs quite well after getting off the ground as do most airplanes. Generally planes are considered not to be performing well if they are on the ground.


Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7304 posts, RR: 57
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 29189 times:

Using Flight Stats on Denver to Nartia

This flight has an average delay of 54 minutes with a standard deviation of 72.28 minutes. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight has delay performance characteristics better than 0% of other flights.


In the last 62 flights - 3% cancellations, 16% excessive delay.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinecopter808 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 29104 times:

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 109):
Unfortunately until this beautiful bird improves her reliability , we are going to continue seeing these threads.

But why do we have to bring up every little thing?


User currently online7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1761 posts, RR: 16
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 29015 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 113):
Using Flight Stats on Denver to Nartia

This flight has an average delay of 54 minutes with a standard deviation of 72.28 minutes. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight has delay performance characteristics better than 0% of other flights.

In the last 62 flights - 3% cancellations, 16% excessive delay.


Not to say the 787 is the poster child for entry into service but lets add a few more numbers to the mix. In the last 30 days only one airport in the U. S. has had more delays than DEN (6032, average of 200+ per day) and that's ORD (8384). During that departure/arrival time periods DEN/NRT only have about an 80% departure/arrival on time rate for ALL flights. So even if the flight leaves DEN on time its only going to arrive on time 80% of the time.


User currently offlinehkcanadaexpat From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2012, 656 posts, RR: 3
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 29054 times:

Here are some more stats:

> 94 788s delivered to date
> 1 Broken in LHR (Ethiopian)
> 5 Haven't Entered into Service Yet (1 for each of LAN, Air India, China Southern, Qantas, Royal Brunei)
> Which leaves 88 "Active" 788s

Of those 88, 5 have not flown for more than 48 hours = 6%
> ANA JA-801A (hasn't flown in more than a week)
> Qatar A7-BCK (hasn't flown since 9-Oct)
> LOT SP-LRA (hasn't flown since 7-Oct)
> Thomson G-TUIA (hasn't flown in more than a week)
> Norwegian EI-LNB (hasn't flown in more than a week)

Based on these stats and way of calculation, reliability could be estimated at 94%. Now this is based on a moment in time (now) rather than an average over time. Nonetheless, I'm convinced neither Boeing or its customers are happy with that statistic.

A


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7304 posts, RR: 57
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 28940 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 115):
In the last 30 days only one airport in the U. S. has had more delays than DEN (6032, average of 200+ per day) and that's ORD (8384). During that departure/arrival time periods DEN/NRT only have about an 80% departure/arrival on time rate for ALL flights. So even if the flight leaves DEN on time its only going to arrive on time 80% of the time.
http://www.flightstats.com/go/Media/....do?region=us&queryDate=last30Days has Denver right down the list.




San Diego - NRT - According to Flight Stats

This flight has an average delay of 40 minutes with a standard deviation of 53.4 minutes. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight has delay performance characteristics better than 11% of other flights.

60 flights - 9 with excessive delays - 15%


Boston - NRT - According to Flight Stats

This flight has an average delay of 36 minutes with a standard deviation of 21.65 minutes. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight has delay performance characteristics better than 34% of other flights.

10% of flights Late or very late - no excessive delays.

Helsinki - NRT - According to flight stats

This flight has an average delay of 71 minutes with a standard deviation of 119.36 minutes. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight has delay performance characteristics better than 0% of other flights.

6% of flights very late of excessive



Peking - Handa - According to flight stats


Jal 787

This flight has an average delay of 39 minutes with a standard deviation of 55.4 minutes. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight has delay performance characteristics better than 9% of other flights.

Late 11 17%
Very Late 3 4%
Excessive 8 12%


ANA 787

This flight has an average delay of 44 minutes with a standard deviation of 65.7 minutes. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight has delay performance characteristics better than 5% of other flights.

Late 11 19%
Very Late 0 0%
Excessive 7 12%



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 28916 times:

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 116):
> ANA JA-801A (hasn't flown in more than a week)

I heard this one is getting some routine maintenance done. Remember she was the first to be delivered 2 years ago, so she's probably due for a check or 2.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 117):
This flight has an average delay of 36 minutes with a standard deviation of 21.65 minutes. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight has delay performance characteristics better than 34% of other flights.

Now is this all other flights or just 787s?



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7304 posts, RR: 57
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 28881 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 118):
Now is this all other flights or just 787s?

All the flights with that flight number - so if the aircraft was subbed I cant change it.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 28855 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 113):
Using Flight Stats on Denver to Nartia

This flight has an average delay of 54 minutes with a standard deviation of 72.28 minutes. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight has delay performance characteristics better than 0% of other flights.


In the last 62 flights - 3% cancellations, 16% excessive delay.
Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 116):
Here are some more stats:

> 94 788s delivered to date
> 1 Broken in LHR (Ethiopian)
> 5 Haven't Entered into Service Yet (1 for each of LAN, Air India, China Southern, Qantas, Royal Brunei)
> Which leaves 88 "Active" 788s

Of those 88, 5 have not flown for more than 48 hours = 6%
> ANA JA-801A (hasn't flown in more than a week)
> Qatar A7-BCK (hasn't flown since 9-Oct)
> LOT SP-LRA (hasn't flown since 7-Oct)
> Thomson G-TUIA (hasn't flown in more than a week)
> Norwegian EI-LNB (hasn't flown in more than a week)

Based on these stats and way of calculation, reliability could be estimated at 94%. Now this is based on a moment in time (now) rather than an average over time. Nonetheless, I'm convinced neither Boeing or its customers are happy with that statistic.

Revealing stats. At least proves there is no smoke without a fire.

Quoting billreid (Reply 112):
Last I heard it performs quite well after getting off the ground as do most airplanes. Generally planes are considered not to be performing well if they are on the ground.

Even after it gets off the ground, there number if inflight turnbacks / diversions is way too high. But yes, when it does get from A to B on time, it does so saving 20% of fuel, which is why airlines and all of us "bashers" too are hoping like heck that its performance stabilises.


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4970 posts, RR: 40
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 28778 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 109):
Unfortunately until this beautiful bird improves her reliability , we are going to continue seeing these threads.

We might see them a lot longer then that. The A380, which never had these reliability issues is continuing to attract mostly negative threads here at A-net. Even this week we had 4 separate threads running at one time. But that is usually only bashing without any base to found it on, just because it is the A380. Here the basis is clear, the B787 is up till now relatively week in reliability, sadly enough.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 111):
I'm not sure why you see this as bashing. This thread is about the performance of the 787 and an United bird going tech is 100% on-topic.

It is.   .

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 116):
Now this is based on a moment in time (now) rather than an average over time. Nonetheless, I'm convinced neither Boeing or its customers are happy with that statistic.

I am sure they are not, and I am also sure they are working hard to improve their product, also the ones already delivered. But many customers are expressing being quite unhappy with the way the problems are resolved and/of how they are financially compensated for these issues. That is sure to debate here without calling it bashing, because it isn't bashing.


User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 28705 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 121):
The A380, which never had these reliability issues is continuing to attract mostly negative threads here at A-net.

Not issues like these, no. I remember more than a few gate calls (mostly no-relief messages coming up and requiring the whole plane to be powered down to reset). What I do not remember are three year in service delays, followed by a whole first flight of overweight units, followed by four month battery groundings, followed by spontaneous auto-torchings while powered down, followed by problems with actual longhaul reliability... And the beat goes on.

The 380 gets attention because it's not what people thought it was. The 787 gets attention because there are genuine problems with it. Which (or both) of those quals out as "bashing" is very subjective to be sure.

The only thing I can say conclusively is that neither aircraft will be the game-changers (unless you're EK) they were sold as and as long as that's the case, they will get attention.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7671 posts, RR: 8
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 28623 times:

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 84):
Anybody care to crunch nbrs on 787 reliability between the delivered
frames that went thru post-factory re-work versus the later builds that
didn't require rework?
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 121):
Here the basis is clear, the B787 is up till now relatively week in reliability, sadly enough.

And I think the open question by Sooner787 is a really good one, hopefully it does not have to be moved to the technical forum for participation, funny how I never noticed that type question before, too many threads saying the same things.

My bigger concern is the parts issue, time on frame before failure is too low, I wonder if it is deliberate.


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4970 posts, RR: 40
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 28646 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 122):
The only thing I can say conclusively is that neither aircraft will be the game-changers (unless you're EK) they were sold as and as long as that's the case, they will get attention.

I think that is a very fair comment which sums it up quite nicely.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 28269 times:

Today's UA199 PVG-LAX operated by N20904 apparently returned to PVG:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N20904

UA lists it as cancelled, don't know what the issue was.

edit: UA has rescheduled departure for Monday as UA7961

[Edited 2013-10-13 17:22:42]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 28247 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 125):
UA lists it as cancelled, don't know what the issue was.

Ok, let me say it before the usual suspects: "Why don't you tell us which other aircraft also had turnbacks today"?   

In all seriousness though, unless this turnback was not related to the aircraft in any way (like for instance, if it was to offload a drunk and the crew then timed out), this is not good.

For perspective, one aircraft-driven turnback for a 787 is equal to ~11 for 777s (in terms of proportion). I don't think 777s are turning back and going AOG at anything close to that rate.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28496 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 126):
if it was to offload a drunk and the crew then timed out

Anything's possible. Whatever the reason was, it can't have been very serious as they would otherwise have diverted.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7304 posts, RR: 57
Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28523 times:

Flight stats has a 20% excessive delay and 6% cancellation of LAX PVG for UA

This flight has an average delay of 56 minutes with a standard deviation of 79.13 minutes. Statistically, when taking into consideration sample size, standard deviation, and mean, this flight has delay performance characteristics better than 0% of other flights.

This position is far worse than the AA stats on the route with half the excessive delays and cancellations.


PVG is a notoriously delay prone airport.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineglbltrvlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 770 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 28272 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 128):
This flight has an average delay of 56 minutes with a standard deviation of 79.13 minutes.

Is that based on departure time or arrival time? Having just flown that flight, I noticed that although the departure times were delayed, the week I traveled, most of the flights arrived within 15 minutes of their scheduled arrival, which suggests that UA may be trying to meet an arrival slot.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7304 posts, RR: 57
Reply 130, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 28270 times:

That's based on departure time. PVG is notorious for delays, so schedules are totally padded.

The UA departure time isn't in the craziest period, but early afternoon in PVG for departures is a total disaster - flight holds for 30mins to one hour are commonplace and since the ATC don't bother the crew informing until doors are closed and ready for pushback, a common frustration.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5793 posts, RR: 28
Reply 131, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 28190 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 126):
In all seriousness though, unless this turnback was not related to the aircraft in any way (like for instance, if it was to offload a drunk and the crew then timed out), this is not good.

Isn't "IF" a lovely word? It opens up so many possibilities.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 126):
For perspective, one aircraft-driven turnback for a 787 is equal to ~11 for 777s (in terms of proportion). I don't think 777s are turning back and going AOG at anything close to that rate.

Proportion is great, but I'd hope you'd agree somewhat meaningless given fleet size, age, etc.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 28143 times:

It appears JA826J got stuck at DME Sunday due to "failure of one of four elevators" per JAL.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/JA826J

Departure was rescheduled to the following day.
JA825J operating as JL8191 en route to pick up the pax?
http://www.flightradar24.com/JAL8191


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 27897 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 131):
Proportion is great, but I'd hope you'd agree somewhat meaningless given fleet size, age, etc.

How so, Dave? I think having approx 100 frames flying now makes the 787 fleet size large enough to not have huge deviations based on scale relative to the 777 wen using a probability-based approach. And age should be working in the 787's favour, not against it.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 27783 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 130):
That's based on departure time. PVG is notorious for delays, so schedules are totally padded.

So how is PVG so delayed? Is it because it's so cramped?



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineBlueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 3063 posts, RR: 23
Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 27658 times:

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 116):
> Thomson G-TUIA (hasn't flown in more than a week)

Having crew rest fitted.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7304 posts, RR: 57
Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 27616 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 134):

Welcome to China!



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 27371 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 136):
Welcome to China!

Glad I live in Japan           
Quoting Blueshamu330s (Reply 135):
Having crew rest fitted.

Explains the other thread



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7304 posts, RR: 57
Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 27352 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 134):
So how is PVG so delayed? Is it because it's so cramped?

Sorry for the crap response earlier... I was on a ferry.

Now for the proper answer..

Meanwhile, airspace is limited by the People's Liberation Army, which controls most of the skies above China. In a 2011 interview with state news media, Li Jiaxiang, head of the Civil Aviation Administration of China, revealed that the military controlled 80% of the airspace. In the U.S., roughly 17% is federally controlled.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep...a-fg-china-airline-delays-20130916



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently onlineSelseyBill From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27370 times:

Quoting copter808 (Reply 114):
But why do we have to bring up every little thing?

Because Boeing called it the 'Dream)liner'.

Every little experience people have with this aircraft that is not dream worthy, attracts derision. It was almost asking for trouble.

Its a bit like calling a vacation company 'Perfect Holidays'.........


User currently offlineontime From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 26947 times:

Both 787 flights from LAX today (UA 32 to NRT and UA 198 to PVG) are delayed again for hours for "aircraft servicing".

UA must be taking quite a beating in terms of customers on these routes defecting to other carriers. When these were 777's (from the "old" United), these were incredibly reliable flights; now, extended delays have become awfully common.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 26748 times:

Quoting Reply 140):
Both 787 flights from LAX today (UA 32 to NRT and UA 198 to PVG) are delayed again for hours for "aircraft servicing".

Delayed 3 hours and 2 hours respectively, it appears.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5793 posts, RR: 28
Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 26580 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 133):
How so, Dave?

The 787 has about 93-ish frames active. They are very new overall and some are brand new. The oldest is only a few years old. Comparing them to a fleet of many hundreds that have been flying since 1995 is not quite a fair comparison. I wouldn't discount it completely of course, but it's not like comparing the 777 to the A330.

I'm sure, though, that the 787 would compare poorly to the A380, which I think would be a much better comparison.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineontime From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 143, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 26466 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 141):
Delayed 3 hours and 2 hours respectively, it appears.

UA 198 is now at more like a 5-hour delay. I guess they gave up on fixing the scheduled aircraft and are awaiting the arrival of the next 787 from Asia.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 26109 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 142):

I'm sure, though, that the 787 would compare poorly to the A380, which I think would be a much better comparison.

-Dave

I agree with that. Similar number of frames in service too (89 vs 111).


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 145, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 25153 times:

As per replies #20 and 24 in this thread Indian Aviation Thread Part 105 (by ojas Oct 13 2013 in Civil Aviation) , Air India has been having a tough couple of days with its 787s... 3 to 4 of them are currently AOG including an inflight turn-back.

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 146, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 25166 times:

And yesterday, a Norwegian 787 went tech for 19 hours due to brake problems.

http://www.nrk.no/norge/norwegians-dreamliner-pa-bakken-1.11321162

The aircraft involved was EI-LNB



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 147, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 24913 times:

Does anyone know if UA cycled their 787s through DEN these past few weeks for hardware updates or was it routine maintenance? They started with ship 906 and cycled through to 901, taking each off the schedule for 4-8 days. Things don't seem to have improved at UA this month, as this week alone I believe they had 2 substitutions with associated delays and another 2 servicing delays in excess of 3 hours.

User currently offlineJohnwaynebobbet From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2013, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 24125 times:

Seems BA might have had a few issues recently?

User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2100 posts, RR: 3
Reply 149, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 23974 times:

And last week flight 142 from IAH to LOS was delayed between 3-4 hours, 2 days in a row! I don't remember if it was Wednesday and Thursday or Thursday and Friday's flights.

One was due to the aircraft servicing situation in NRT making it late to DEN and then late to IAH and then to LOS late.
The second day it arrived on-time from NRT to DEN to IAH, and whatever mechanical problem was discovered in IAH. What a nightmare. At least UA has no competition on IAH-LOS.


User currently offlinekevinkevin From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2013, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 23876 times:

Has TOM had many problems with their 787s. Every time I check FR24 their always up in the air flying back and forth SFB CUN etc

User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 151, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 23664 times:

Today's UA33 NRT-LAX departed around 4 hours late as the inbound apparently had an issue on approach into NRT.
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20131028-00000122-jij-soci

Quoting Johnwaynebobbet (Reply 148):
Seems BA might have had a few issues recently?


Apparently BA99 LHR-YYZ was cancelled yesterday. Doesn't seem to have been weather related, maybe someone can confirm the nature of the problem.

edit to add:

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 149):
And last week flight 142 from IAH to LOS was delayed between 3-4 hours, 2 days in a row!

Today's UA143 LOS-IAH is currently showing a 2.5hr aircraft servicing delay as well.


[Edited 2013-10-28 15:49:14]

User currently offlineJohnwaynebobbet From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2013, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 23808 times:

Was it just not just delayed 24hrs.

User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 153, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 23761 times:

Quoting Johnwaynebobbet (Reply 152):
Was it just not just delayed 24hrs.

Technically, yes. My bad.

Quoting flood (Reply 151):
Today's UA143 LOS-IAH is currently showing a 2.5hr aircraft servicing delay

Status updated to cancelled.

[Edited 2013-10-28 17:27:48]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 154, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 23548 times:

According to AvHerald, AI's 787 VT-ANN was treated as a "semi-emergency" on Oct 27 when it turned back to MEL.

"An Air India Boeing 787-800, registration VT-ANN performing flight AI-311 from Melbourne,VI (Australia) to Delhi (India), was enroute at FL360 about 370nm north of Melbourne and 150nm norteast of Adelaide,SA (Australia) when the aircraft descended to FL350 and turned around due to a flaperon problem. In the meantime Melbourne tower informed workers on runway 27, that the runway would be needed for a "semi-emergency" coming in.

Based on all of the incidents, delays, and cancels discussed in the last few posts across airlines, it has not been a good few days at all for the 787 in terms of reliability.


User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 542 posts, RR: 2
Reply 155, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 23455 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 154):
Based on all of the incidents, delays, and cancels discussed in the last few posts across airlines, it has not been a good few days at all for the 787 in terms of reliability.

At first glance, yes. But the posts only show the delays and not the departures that were on time. Looking at the delays only we don't know much about dispatch reliability...


User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2100 posts, RR: 3
Reply 156, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 23373 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 153):
Status updated to cancelled.


A new section for LOS-IAH was created today leaving at 2:00 PM in LOS to accomodate the cancelled flight last night. Obviously the need to get the plane back to IAH.

I wonder if UA gets sick of all the 787 mx issues.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 157, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 23167 times:

Quoting Unflug (Reply 155):

I don't know Unflug... if one airline alone has 3 to 4 of its 787s (of a fleet of 9) AOG at the same time while others with small fleets are having multihour delays and cancelling flights, I would think DR in this period couldn't be that good.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 158, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 22465 times:

A LOT 787 suffered a power failure although it was nothing serious.

Story (you'll have to translate the article):
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomos...y_w_Bangkoku___Drobny_problem.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 159, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 22099 times:

Air India suffering some new glitches, but strongly defending the 787. An interesting read. Food-for-thought for many who curiously have impression that Air India has been somehow unfairly bad-mouthing the aircraft in an effort to "extort" money from Boeing.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...i-airport/articleshow/25269034.cms

Excerpt:

"A senior Air India pilot, who refused to be named, said the glitches were "teething problems as the aircraft has been bought almost off the designing board. The plane is safe and sound." "


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 160, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 21925 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 159):

Air India suffering some new glitches, but strongly defending the 787. An interesting read. Food-for-thought for many who curiously have impression that Air India has been somehow unfairly bad-mouthing the aircraft in an effort to "extort" money from Boeing.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...i-airport/articleshow/25269034.cms

It is obvious the all electric brakes are one of the problem makers. I know the Cseries have them two but BBD says they learned from having them on one of their Bizjets and they should be OK from a reliability point now, what about Boeing and it's supplier which I think is Goodrich, have they made it before?



Non French in France
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 161, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 21905 times:

I am a fan of discussing all in-service 787 issues in this thread instead of a new one every week. There will be other comments. Hopefully we can keep them all contained here. It does appear that the electric panel and the breaks are common issues.


In terms of fuel burn Leeham news has this comment regarding fuel burn:

"As readers also know, Boeing promotes its 787 as being 20%-25% more fuel efficient than today’s airplanes. With the (also) never-ending prospect of Airbus proceeding with an A330neo, the question arises over what the delta is between the A330 and the 787. We asked a fleet planner. The answer: 10% in favor of the 787, a gap that an A330neo could narrow considerably (but be unlikely to close altogether) with new engines and sharklets. So how about that 20%-25%? These figures compare with the 767 and A340 respectively, the fleet planner tells us."

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/

tortugamon


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 162, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 21781 times:

Another cracked windscreen this week, this time on Air India.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-...g-in-melbourne-20131105-2wxvx.html



BV
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 163, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 21663 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 162):
Another cracked windscreen this week, this time on Air India.

Just curious: how much do these cost? (if somebody knows…)


User currently offlinezotan From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 164, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 21601 times:

A330neo will not happen. You can get same result by just heavily discounting current A330s which is exactly what Airbus is doing.

User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 165, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 21389 times:

Five days into the month and it appears UA has already encountered two ~2hr aircraft servicing delays, two aircraft changes with subsequent 30m / 4.5hr delays, and a return to gate with ~4hr delay. This over about 50 scheduled flights.

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 166, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 21203 times:

Quoting zotan (Reply 164):

In my opinion, when the 787 and A350 backlog drops to reasonable levels (~3 years) the A330 sales will decline dramatically and discounting wont help.

I would like to see an A330 'Next Generation': new wing, new engines, new systems based on A350. Skip the A358 and let A330 handle less than 300 seats and the a350 300-400 seats. This is predicated on the A350-1100 being viable.

tortugamon

edit: typo

[Edited 2013-11-06 04:04:36]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 167, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 21214 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 166):
U would like to see an A330 'Next Generation': new wing, new engines, new systems based on A350. Skip the A358 and let A330 handle less than 300 seats

The issue is that such an airframe will never be able to match the fuel burn of the A358.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 168, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 21162 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 166):
In my opinion, when the 787 and A350 backlog drops to reasonable levels (~3 years) the A330 sales will decline dramatically and discounting wont help.

The A332F sales should take up the slack unless the problems of the cargo market continue. Not at this pace, but a respectable level.


User currently offlinebobdino From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 169, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 21220 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 165):
Five days into the month and it appears UA has already encountered two ~2hr aircraft servicing delays, two aircraft changes with subsequent 30m / 4.5hr delays, and a return to gate with ~4hr delay. This over about 50 scheduled flights.

So down to about 90% dispatch reliability. Ouch.


User currently offlineEBGflyer From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 0
Reply 170, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 21128 times:

I saw a QR 788 (probably A7-BCK) parked remotely in CPH yesterday November 5. It seems CPH-DOH on November 3 was cancelled, which means it has been on the ground for around 2 days as it appears it has been ferried back to Doha sometime during November 5. Funny how misleading the information is on FlightRadar/Flightaware. Could they be trying to cover up the disruptions?

The QR flight DOH-CPH-DOH has been operated by a 77W on November 4+5 instead.

Anybody knows what caused the cancellation/grounding?



Future flights: CPH-BKK-MNL; MNL-GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL-LAX
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 171, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 21072 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 167):
The issue is that such an airframe will never be able to match the fuel burn of the A358.

I am not entirely sure of that. If engine OEMs have until 2022ish, and assuming 777x/737NG type of overall I think it is very reasonable. If an A330 is only 10% different now, this much of a change has to close that gap. If it is just a NEO I think you are right.

If Airbus proceeds with the A350-1100 its hard to see how they can dedicate production slots to an A358 so I don't think it matters that it has the potential to be more efficient. I bet the A330 supply chain could do it.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 168):
The A332F sales should take up the slack unless the problems of the cargo market continue. Not at this pace, but a respectable level.

They have been marketing the aircraft since 2001 (selling ~43) and although the recent cargo market is bad, I am not sure if an immediate rebound will do much for the model. I am more interested in the A359F if we ever see it.

tortugamon


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7304 posts, RR: 57
Reply 172, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20922 times:

Dreamliner's technical dispatch reliability in AI - on-time performance - is under 98% when it should be closer to 99.5%. "We have been flying the plane since last September but have not been able to get much experience on it as Dreamliners were grounded for four to five months," the official said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...eamliners/articleshow/25276758.cms



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinejox From Sweden, joined Jan 2003, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 173, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 20315 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

DY7006 is today expected to arrive at ARN around 10,5 hours late, and thus estimated to depart to BKK (as DY7205) almost 10 hours late.