Boeing 787 grounded due to sfatey concerns

[Φρανκομβριτ]

http://www.bbc.com/travel/blog/20130117-travellers-stranded-as-authorities-ground-all-dreamliners

"More mechanical problems with the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing’s dream jet, have turned air travel into a nightmare for many passengers, as aviation authorities around the world ground their Dreamliner aircraft, a total of 50 planes.

The decision came after a Japanese All Nippon Airlines 787 flight was forced to make an emergency landing and evacuation yesterday. An aircraft alarm indicated smoke in the plane’s electrical component and passengers reported a burning smell. Hours after the emergency landing at Takamatsu airport, both of Japan’s national airlines – All Nippon Airlines and Japan Airlines – announced they were grounding their combined 24 Dreamliners pending an investigation.

This is the latest in a spate of mechanical issues that have plagued Boeing’s most touted airliner since July 2012, with the most high-profile failures occurring in the past week, including a fuel leak, an oil leak, two cracked engines, a damaged cockpit window and a battery problem. Since then, authorities in the US, Europe, India, Ethiopia, Chile and Qatar have halted operation of their Dreamliners.

This decision could potentially leave tens of thousands of passengers stranded. The 210- to 290-seat planes are typically used for high-capacity flights, affecting many passengers on cross-country or cross-global flights, some of which were booked months in advance. Passengers booked on Dreamliners can expect to face days-long delays, modified itineraries and crowded flights as airlines work to make alternative arrangements, including shifting passengers to other carriers and even other airports.

It is unclear when Dreamliners will be reinstated, but the Federal Aviation Authority has cautioned that Boeing must prove their batteries are safe before the 787 resumes service – a process which could take days or weeks."

[Skyline]

Better safe than... well dead... last thing I want is some sort of plane crash...

[Scarface]

About time! That shit was junk anyway, time for the 747 to come back and make a real comeback. the 787 was supposed to be the shit and was supposed to replace those 747's but hey, you know what, they don't look so bad right now. except economically :P

[Φρανκομβριτ]

About time! That shit was junk anyway, time for the 747 to come back and make a real comeback. the 787 was supposed to be the shit and was supposed to replace those 747's but hey, you know what, they don't look so bad right now. except economically :P

You know I wish more than anything for that, but alas; this world is soon to be ripped of it's 747, parked in the desert waiting to be turned in to that beer can at your local store. Airports will be covered with those ugly 380's and these fucking 787's catching on fire every 5 flights.

[Scarface]

You know I wish more than anything for that, but alas; this world is soon to be ripped of it's 747, parked in the desert waiting to be turned in to that beer can at your local store. Airports will be covered with those ugly 380's and these fucking 787's catching on fire every 5 flights.

regardless of how economic those 787's are, you're not going to be able to make the same seating arrangements. Granted you might get there on the fuel, but in the long run, you're going to be spending more on fuel because of the continuous flights, instead of having just a couple flights a day with 747's. The A380 is just an all out ugly plain, granted they're larger, but jesus man, that shit is stupid. If American and Delta are still going to fly 757's and real old Embraer, then why can't we keep, what has done us so well over the past 30 years?

[Φρανκομβριτ]

regardless of how economic those 787's are, you're not going to be able to make the same seating arrangements. Granted you might get there on the fuel, but in the long run, you're going to be spending more on fuel because of the continuous flights, instead of having just a couple flights a day with 747's. The A380 is just an all out ugly plain, granted they're larger, but jesus man, that shit is stupid. If American and Delta are still going to fly 757's and real old Embraer, then why can't we keep, what has done us so well over the past 30 years?

It's when the planes are on the ground that they're the most costly. Parking is outrageous at airport for large aircraft, so they try to cycle them as frequently as possible. Delta and American have seemed to make the MD-80 work well because they own the aircraft and have no lease payments on them, but American have ordered 200 new 737's / A320 NEO's, so they are on the cutting board. Eagle and Delta Connection are too cheap to replace those old Embraers, though they are slowly with CRJ 700 & 900's

In the end, we will see the less fuel efficient aircraft leave fleets over the next 10 years, even sooner in Asia and Europe. 787's on ULH (Ultra Long Haul) flights and long flights where less capacity is needed, and 380's on the heavy routes. 737 NG's and 320 NEO's will replace all remaining MD-80 variant (MD-90, 717, DC-9) as well as older 737, 320 family, and even 757 operations.

In the cargo world, we will see a lot of these older passenger models enter service, and we will see the 747 around for quite some time with them, regardless of the passenger side of things. 'tis the way of the future...

[Scarface]

It's when the planes are on the ground that they're the most costly. Parking is outrageous at airport for large aircraft, so they try to cycle them as frequently as possible. Delta and American have seemed to make the MD-80 work well because they own the aircraft and have no lease payments on them, but American have ordered 200 new 737's / A320 NEO's, so they are on the cutting board. Eagle and Delta Connection are too cheap to replace those old Embraers, though they are slowly with CRJ 700 & 900's

In the end, we will see the less fuel efficient aircraft leave fleets over the next 10 years, even sooner in Asia and Europe. 787's on ULH (Ultra Long Haul) flights and long flights where less capacity is needed, and 380's on the heavy routes. 737 NG's and 320 NEO's will replace all remaining MD-80 variant (MD-90, 717, DC-9) as well as older 737, 320 family, and even 757 operations.

In the cargo world, we will see a lot of these older passenger models enter service, and we will see the 747 around for quite some time with them, regardless of the passenger side of things. 'tis the way of the future...
The fact is, I see no point in keeping the A320 if you've got 767's that are much better space wise and are pretty mid size if I can say so :P 737's disappoint me on absolutely every level, I think those should be grounded and should be used exclusively for UPS and FEDEX use only. I think the seating chart on that aircraft is terrible and there's nothing appealing about it one bit.

Making them cycle is a good thing, having frequent flights using 747's maybe by using cheapoair or kayak deal sites they can sell cheaper seats and have people get to their destination in a larger quantity as well as keeping everything regimented. Instead of using about the same amount or more so in fuel by using multiple planes.

The airlines need to start thinking more economically, I am by no means completely 'pro environment' but the way i see it is, if you're going to be using a shit ton of fuel for travel, do it in style and elegance and in bulk. THAT should be the way of the future, fuck the CRJ. The Embraers are good connection planes and are good non stop regional flyers. I have much respect for them as well as the MD 80 and I especially admire American and Delta for keeping such a good aircraft besides the fact of the T wing in the rear :P you and I both know what happens when those take a shit ;) but if the maintenance is proper and consistent, I can see them having many more hours of flying time for years to come.

[Maverick]

The only way airlines are going to be successful in the future is if they stay on their toes and push toward innovation. No airline is going to want to be left behind on running a more fuel efficient plane if other airlines are on the bandwagon. One of the biggest problems today is that these older airplanes are becoming a lot harder to operate efficiently and they are so desperate to cut costs.

In the good old days when jet fuel was cheap we could run smaller planes, more flights, and more destinations. All of that is coming to an end at this point over time. Smaller airlines are either going bankrupt or going victim to hostile take over. One of the last remaining low cost airlines in America was Airtran until they got bought out Southwest, a move to benefit Southwest by giving them access to Atlanta airport. Once the take over was done fares doubled and tripled for some point and smaller city hubs were dismantled.

Even with a more fuel efficient plane there will be less connections and concentration on fewer airports overall. There will be less competition to choose from and flying will just become more and more of a luxury for Americans. Won't be long before video conferencing will become the standard instead of frequent business traveling.

[stev]

The only way airlines are going to be successful in the future is if they stay on their toes and push toward innovation. No airline is going to want to be left behind on running a more fuel efficient plane if other airlines are on the bandwagon. One of the biggest problems today is that these older airplanes are becoming a lot harder to operate efficiently and they are so desperate to cut costs.



In the good old days when jet fuel was cheap we could run smaller planes, more flights, and more destinations. All of that is coming to an end at this point over time. Smaller airlines are either going bankrupt or going victim to hostile take over. One of the last remaining low cost airlines in America was Airtran until they got bought out Southwest, a move to benefit Southwest by giving them access to Atlanta airport. Once the take over was done fares doubled and tripled for some point and smaller city hubs were dismantled.



Even with a more fuel efficient plane there will be less connections and concentration on fewer airports overall. There will be less competition to choose from and flying will just become more and more of a luxury for Americans. Won't be long before video conferencing will become the standard instead of frequent business traveling.


Wow I really think your thinking way too far ahead.

[Φρανκομβριτ]

The fact is, I see no point in keeping the A320 if you've got 767's that are much better space wise and are pretty mid size if I can say so :P 737's disappoint me on absolutely every level, I think those should be grounded and should be used exclusively for UPS and FEDEX use only. I think the seating chart on that aircraft is terrible and there's nothing appealing about it one bit.

Making them cycle is a good thing, having frequent flights using 747's maybe by using cheapoair or kayak deal sites they can sell cheaper seats and have people get to their destination in a larger quantity as well as keeping everything regimented. Instead of using about the same amount or more so in fuel by using multiple planes.

The airlines need to start thinking more economically, I am by no means completely 'pro environment' but the way i see it is, if you're going to be using a shit ton of fuel for travel, do it in style and elegance and in bulk. THAT should be the way of the future, fuck the CRJ. The Embraers are good connection planes and are good non stop regional flyers. I have much respect for them as well as the MD 80 and I especially admire American and Delta for keeping such a good aircraft besides the fact of the T wing in the rear :P you and I both know what happens when those take a shit ;) but if the maintenance is proper and consistent, I can see them having many more hours of flying time for years to come.

From a pax perspective, I totally agree. I would rather be on a widebody any day of the week. Unfortunately, the main rule in aviation today is frequency over capacity. Back i the 70's and 80's, it was a different story, but now airlines have realised that they can attract more passengers with more flights a day, and that the general traveller doesn't know, or doesn't care about the aircraft type they are flying on.

For example, I am going to use JFK (New York) to MIA (Miami). Hypothetically, lets say we have 300 travellers a day on this route. Let's say DL (Delta) puts a 747 on the route to handle their 300 passengers. Some of them need to be there before that flight arrives, some do not like the times all together. AA (American) puts 4 MD-80's or 737's on the route. This gives the passenger a choice in times when they want to travel, allowing early morning meetings, single day trips, and excellent options for further connections. AA would eventually start getting some of DL's pax because of their lack in flexibility.

As you said, the MD-80 can have a major disadvantage if not properly maintained. Alaska 261 helped make a safe standard of maintenance for T-tail aircraft, which is hopefully now being followed to the fullest extent.

At the end of the day, airlines don't care about efficiency, as long as they're making money. It's all about money, like every other industry in this world. If they'll make more sending 5 ERJ-145's than 2 737's, they'll do it (like Ottawa and every American carrier serving it). They don't care about what we want to fly on, or our comfort. Just they money we'll be putting in to their company, and hopefully, earning our loyalty for future gain.

The only way airlines are going to be successful in the future is if they stay on their toes and push toward innovation. No airline is going to want to be left behind on running a more fuel efficient plane if other airlines are on the bandwagon. One of the biggest problems today is that these older airplanes are becoming a lot harder to operate efficiently and they are so desperate to cut costs.

In the good old days when jet fuel was cheap we could run smaller planes, more flights, and more destinations. All of that is coming to an end at this point over time. Smaller airlines are either going bankrupt or going victim to hostile take over. One of the last remaining low cost airlines in America was Airtran until they got bought out Southwest, a move to benefit Southwest by giving them access to Atlanta airport. Once the take over was done fares doubled and tripled for some point and smaller city hubs were dismantled.

Even with a more fuel efficient plane there will be less connections and concentration on fewer airports overall. There will be less competition to choose from and flying will just become more and more of a luxury for Americans. Won't be long before video conferencing will become the standard instead of frequent business traveling.

You are correct Anthony, and this is the case in Asia where you see mainly new and large aircraft being operated. If you look at the airlines themselves though, you'll notice the majority of these shiny new aircraft have quite a heavy lease/loan payment. This means for each month of operations, they have a quota that they must meet so that aircraft is not running at a deficit.

When you look at airlines like DL (Delta) and AA (American), they have already paid off their older aircraft. They don't have to worry about getting a certain amount of passengers on that plane per month for it to pay for its self. The maintenance and fuel may be slightly higher, but it still outweighs the cost of a new aircraft for them, not to mention the re-training of pilots, flight attendants and ground crews. They will be replaced eventually, but not until every ounce of profit is squeezed from them.

The situation in the United States with airlines is ridiculous. The amount of competition that existed, and still somewhat exists is hurting the airlines. Since the turn of the century, we've seen TWA bought by American, Northwest bought by Delta, America West bought by US, Airtran by Southwest, and a looooong list of smaller carriers come and go. When 4 or 5 airlines are all competing on the same route, one of the companies will sell tickets at a partial loss in order to gain greater ticket purchases and hope that they sell the plane out. This has been reflected in many markets in the US, spoiling the U.S. public with cheap rates. When competition starts to go, we not only see the fares going back to their normal rate, but most airlines will "gouge" the market by inflating the cost because they have a monopoly on the market and people have no choice.

If you compare fares in the U.S. to Canada, you can see what I mean. Flying from ATL to somewhere like Seattle should be 300 - 500$. I'm sure you can get them cheaper and more expensive, but for argument's sake, lets keep at that. To fly from Ottawa to Iqaluit, it is never less that 2000$. This is quite a difference, especially considering the first route is almost double it's Canadian example. This is simply because there are only two carriers operating the route, so they gouge the market to make the maximum profit they can. From this perspective, you could say Southwest remains a low cost carrier. Don't forget about Spirit or Allegiant either!

Flying used to be a luxury before deregulation, and sometimes I wonder if we would have been better off it remained regulated. Gone are the days of proper meals, cigars in first, comfortable seats with attendants who actually cared about their passengers. Flying is now comparable with taking the bus, especially if you're on someone like Southwest or US air....

[RElk]

They have had bad luck with them from the begining. I live near the plant were they make them.