If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Looks like we gotta reset the "Last time since a 787 Dreamliner has been grounded" clock back to zero again   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line 73
    More: Obvious, Qatar Airways, Boeing, domestic flights, James McNerney, Honeywell, backup power, clocks, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration  
•       •       •

6157 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jul 2013 at 2:09 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-26 11:39:23 PM
Can we just admit this thing is a piece of shiat and that maybe sourcing out everything is a bad idea in some cases?
 
2013-07-26 11:47:18 PM
The AMC Motors of the Sky™
 
2013-07-27 12:29:38 AM

ecmoRandomNumbers: The AMC Motors of the Sky™


Better that than a flying Ford Pinto...

upload.wikimedia.org
Subsequent research reveals that a flying Pinto was, in fact, a thing...
 
2013-07-27 02:10:57 AM

brianbutz: Can we just admit this thing is a piece of shiat and that maybe sourcing out everything is a bad idea in some cases?


Boeing seems to have the same problem admitting fault as many of the Japanese did in the 70's.  Losing face just isn't an option.  Killing people - no problem.
 
2013-07-27 02:11:07 AM
It's now the Nightmareliner.
 
2013-07-27 02:17:28 AM
King 9 will not return.
 
2013-07-27 02:18:04 AM
Or perhaps it's just too damn big.
 
2013-07-27 02:22:05 AM

brianbutz: Can we just admit this thing is a piece of shiat and that maybe sourcing out everything is a bad idea in some cases?


Those cases being "when it breaks people might get hurt or die"?
 
2013-07-27 02:27:53 AM
graphics8.nytimes.com

It's called the Boeing Dreamliner, because you have to be asleep to believe it will fly.
 
2013-07-27 02:35:47 AM
Airbus is quietly smiling and hoping one of theirs doesn't drop out of the sky with 500 on board.
 
2013-07-27 02:49:07 AM
I've flown more than few times, and while most of them were more or less pleasant (it was always coach, so what do you expect?), there were some...experiences.

(CSB) My first flight was on some Bombardier twin-engine airplane, and after the safety brief and wrangling luggage into overhead bins, we start rolling on the runway in New Orleans. We're halfway down the runway, I'm counting cars on the interstate, and in the back of my head I'm thinking "Yeah, this can't be fast enough. We're going to end up as a fireball at the end of the tarmac." Because I needed a panic attack at the time. The second experience was flying into Raleigh, NC. There was already turbulence--that was my first time in turbulence, and apparently I'm susceptible to having my stomach show up in my mouth--and as we're on the descent, I feel the plane starting to yaw quite severely. I hoarked into the air sickness bag, and then the guy sitting next to me says "Yeah, you're gonna want another bag..." like something bad is about to happen. And he was right, because the plane yawed so far that we may as well have been descending upside down and backwards. (End CSB)

Thank god no flight I've been on has had mechanical problems (that I was aware of), but the Dreamliner makes me not want to take a plane again. I'd rather Amtrak--at least on their trains I can more or less safely jump out if I something catches fire. Plus it's cheaper and far more comfortable. (And the meals--good meals, no less--are included in the fares.)
 
2013-07-27 02:58:34 AM

maram500: I've flown more than few times, and while most of them were more or less pleasant (it was always coach, so what do you expect?), there were some...experiences.

(CSB) My first flight was on some Bombardier twin-engine airplane, and after the safety brief and wrangling luggage into overhead bins, we start rolling on the runway in New Orleans. We're halfway down the runway, I'm counting cars on the interstate, and in the back of my head I'm thinking "Yeah, this can't be fast enough. We're going to end up as a fireball at the end of the tarmac." Because I needed a panic attack at the time. The second experience was flying into Raleigh, NC. There was already turbulence--that was my first time in turbulence, and apparently I'm susceptible to having my stomach show up in my mouth--and as we're on the descent, I feel the plane starting to yaw quite severely. I hoarked into the air sickness bag, and then the guy sitting next to me says "Yeah, you're gonna want another bag..." like something bad is about to happen. And he was right, because the plane yawed so far that we may as well have been descending upside down and backwards. (End CSB)

Thank god no flight I've been on has had mechanical problems (that I was aware of), but the Dreamliner makes me not want to take a plane again. I'd rather Amtrak--at least on their trains I can more or less safely jump out if I something catches fire. Plus it's cheaper and far more comfortable. (And the meals--good meals, no less--are included in the fares.)


These experiences were your problem, not the plane's.
 
2013-07-27 03:04:08 AM
Meh.. Minor technical issues happen constantly. Just when one happens to a 787 the media foams at the mouth.

http://avherald.com/


^ Should all those planes be grounded too?
 
2013-07-27 03:05:36 AM

UsikFark: maram500: I've flown more than few times, and while most of them were more or less pleasant (it was always coach, so what do you expect?), there were some...experiences.

(CSB) My first flight was on some Bombardier twin-engine airplane, and after the safety brief and wrangling luggage into overhead bins, we start rolling on the runway in New Orleans. We're halfway down the runway, I'm counting cars on the interstate, and in the back of my head I'm thinking "Yeah, this can't be fast enough. We're going to end up as a fireball at the end of the tarmac." Because I needed a panic attack at the time. The second experience was flying into Raleigh, NC. There was already turbulence--that was my first time in turbulence, and apparently I'm susceptible to having my stomach show up in my mouth--and as we're on the descent, I feel the plane starting to yaw quite severely. I hoarked into the air sickness bag, and then the guy sitting next to me says "Yeah, you're gonna want another bag..." like something bad is about to happen. And he was right, because the plane yawed so far that we may as well have been descending upside down and backwards. (End CSB)

Thank god no flight I've been on has had mechanical problems (that I was aware of), but the Dreamliner makes me not want to take a plane again. I'd rather Amtrak--at least on their trains I can more or less safely jump out if I something catches fire. Plus it's cheaper and far more comfortable. (And the meals--good meals, no less--are included in the fares.)

These experiences were your problem, not the plane's.


I agree, they were. But if you as a child had been bitten by a dog, you'd still have a fear of dogs regardless of whether or not someone else says that dogs are fun, safe animals. The dog may well have had everything perfect--not a hair out of place, every organ and muscle operating perfectly--but if that dog bit you*...

*I have experience with a dog, quite literally, biting my ass. I'm still not a fan of dogs.
 
2013-07-27 03:31:39 AM
assets.bizjournals.com
Boeing has a sad monkey.
 
2013-07-27 03:36:21 AM
Just flew a Dreamliner from Chicago to Houston. Zero problems, but Fark, what a large plane. I was talking with the lady next to me and she flew first class on the way up, seated in row 6( and we were in row 35). She said the wing started in row 8 and went back to our row basically. Nine across too. That will be lots of bodies when it does go down.
 
2013-07-27 04:14:39 AM
If it's Boeing, Im not going... home?
 
2013-07-27 04:20:07 AM

brianbutz: Can we just admit this thing is a piece of shiat and that maybe sourcing out everything is a bad idea in some cases?


I was chatting with a friend about this sort of thing.  With outsourcing there seems to be line of thinking that goes.

Step 1: Outsource.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit.

I can possibly see a point of outsourcing for political reasons or as a hedge against currency fluctuations.  Or to play the tax arbitrage game.  But usually companies that do that buy semi commodity parts from general vendors, but handle specialized production and assembly together at each plant. But and the key point, only when you fully understand the manufacturing and design issues.

A radically new design, you keep as much of the design and manufacturing within walking distance of each other. So that the people dealing with interacting subsystems can interact with each other directly. The whole, the designers are in Redmond.  The fastener manufacturer is in Holland and the composite section the fasteners go into made in Italy, that's cray cray.

So as a result of trying to rely on the outsourcing elves, the project is way way late. So then they call upon the accelerated testing monkeys to pull their magic, and now crap is breaking during the initial commercial flights instead of during the test and qualification period.

It's like they never learned anything from the DC10 where a bad design and hamfisted attempts at fixing resulted in cargo doors popping open while in flight. Leading to their planes getting a lasting bad rep. After a few planes crashed with a couple of hundred souls each, they fixed the problem, but too late.
 
2013-07-27 05:02:13 AM
Good news, everyone! Much like software, vehicles frequently find bugs in the system when more people are using them!

/this is getting ridiculous...
 
2013-07-27 05:17:38 AM
I have two very important questions...

1) When was the last time you had a modern piece of electronics spontaneously combust?

2) How many people in the world have an economic or political interest in hurting Boeing?

There are probably more spies and saboteurs working for Boeing than actual employees.
 
2013-07-27 05:23:31 AM

Bucky Katt: It's now the Nightmareliner.


I prefer: Horrorliner
 
2013-07-27 05:28:05 AM

Bucky Katt: It's now the Nightmareliner.


I prefer Screamlimer.
 
2013-07-27 05:34:59 AM

gibbon1: brianbutz: Can we just admit this thing is a piece of shiat and that maybe sourcing out everything is a bad idea in some cases?

I was chatting with a friend about this sort of thing.  With outsourcing there seems to be line of thinking that goes.

Step 1: Outsource.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit.

I can possibly see a point of outsourcing for political reasons or as a hedge against currency fluctuations.  Or to play the tax arbitrage game.  But usually companies that do that buy semi commodity parts from general vendors, but handle specialized production and assembly together at each plant. But and the key point, only when you fully understand the manufacturing and design issues.

A radically new design, you keep as much of the design and manufacturing within walking distance of each other. So that the people dealing with interacting subsystems can interact with each other directly. The whole, the designers are in Redmond.  The fastener manufacturer is in Holland and the composite section the fasteners go into made in Italy, that's cray cray.

So as a result of trying to rely on the outsourcing elves, the project is way way late. So then they call upon the accelerated testing monkeys to pull their magic, and now crap is breaking during the initial commercial flights instead of during the test and qualification period.

It's like they never learned anything from the DC10 where a bad design and hamfisted attempts at fixing resulted in cargo doors popping open while in flight. Leading to their planes getting a lasting bad rep. After a few planes crashed with a couple of hundred souls each, they fixed the problem, but too late.


Let us not forget that a lot of those employees in Redmond are actually imports from other countries anyway.
 
2013-07-27 06:26:35 AM
I'd make a comment about how "If you make something more complicated it's more subject to flaws" but the 777 and 787 are actually less complicated than the current generation of 747. But it still took years to make the 747 the perfect thing it is today.
 
2013-07-27 07:29:59 AM

gsmphoto: Just flew a Dreamliner from Chicago to Houston. Zero problems, but Fark, what a large plane. I was talking with the lady next to me and she flew first class on the way up, seated in row 6( and we were in row 35). She said the wing started in row 8 and went back to our row basically. Nine across too. That will be lots of bodies when it does go down.



Yeah...... I'm thinking Amtrak. My part of the country has more of the "Talgo" trains w/ Wi-Fi, and most of my travel is regional....

/ OTOH, those new trains ARE Spanish-built...could be cursed...
 
2013-07-27 07:34:00 AM
So should I be worried about terrorism™ or outsourcing this week?
 
2013-07-27 07:35:02 AM

wildcardjack: I'd make a comment about how "If you make something more complicated it's more subject to flaws" but the 777 and 787 are actually less complicated than the current generation of 747. But it still took years to make the 747 the perfect thing it is today.


The 747 went from design drawings to First Flight in 18 months, without using computers. But you had real engineers and machinists working at the same site in those days, not outsourced power-point putzes like today.
 
2013-07-27 08:13:05 AM

styckx: http://avherald.com/


"A US Airways Airbus A330-300, registration N278AY performing flight US-703 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Philadelphia,PA (USA), was enroute at FL380 over the Atlantic about 350nm southeast of St. John's,NL (Canada) when the crew received a low oxygen pressure warning with the pressure further decreasing. The crew declared emergency, performed oceanic contingency procedures to descend to 10,000 feet without clearance and requested to divert to the nearest airport at St. John's, where the aircraft landed safely about one hour later.

The Canadian TSB reported maintenance found a small leak in the captain's oxygen mask. The mask was swapped with the observer's mask, the oxygen bottle serviced and a leak check performed, the aircraft was subsequently returned to service.

The aircraft continued the journey and reached Philadelphia with a delay of 4:15 hours."

This happened last week. Anybody hear about it? No? If it was a 787 it would have been all over the news for a week
 
2013-07-27 08:15:29 AM

Bslim: Bucky Katt: It's now the Nightmareliner.

I prefer: Horrorliner


Norfolking Chance: Bucky Katt: It's now the Nightmareliner.

I prefer Screamlimer.



I prefer Reemliner
 
2013-07-27 08:32:08 AM
I think quite a few of the problems reported in the press are overblown, but I am starting to think that if Boeing had the chance to do the whole thing over they might have stuck with bleed air for a lot of their systems instead of being ambitious and going with lots of batteries.
 
2013-07-27 08:43:55 AM

Gritty Kitty Litter: It's called the Boeing Dreamliner, because you have to be asleep to believe it will fly.


Awesome.
 
2013-07-27 08:58:47 AM

brianbutz: Can we just admit this thing is a piece of shiat and that maybe sourcing out everything is a bad idea in some cases?


Planes get taken out of service for this or that every day but that doesn't make the papers, let alone get randomly tied to some other problem.

The Dreamliner had a serious problem there for a while. Every other little minor problem does not therefore become a serious one.
 
2013-07-27 09:05:56 AM

italie: Bslim: Bucky Katt: It's now the Nightmareliner.

I prefer: Horrorliner

Norfolking Chance: Bucky Katt: It's now the Nightmareliner.

I prefer Screamlimer.


I prefer Reemliner



Real Boeing: the 737 / 747 / 757 / 767 / 777

shiat outsourced Boeing: 787 / Deathliner
 
2013-07-27 09:06:39 AM

gibbon1: I was chatting with a friend about this sort of thing. With outsourcing there seems to be line of thinking that goes.

Step 1: Outsource.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit


One compelling reason is to put your center of production in the region where you have the biggest market, or the most promising growth region.  I can't really think of a reason for most plane parts to be built afar because the 'market' for planes is global.  But brackets and things can be used for other shiat, and cables and connectors are used in electronics... which are mostly manufactured in Asia.  So there's that to think about.  Even premier electronics companies have most of their major product lines, things like the millions of feet of cable in every single plane they have a contract for, in Shenzhen.

Have we gotten any specifics about what systems are going tits up?  Or are we only hearing "minor electrical problems"?
 
2013-07-27 09:18:09 AM
I remember the DC-10 had a bad reputation in its early years. Nowadays, it has a safety record comparable to other planes normally seen as more reliable.

The thing with the 787 is that it quickly gained a reputation of not being built properly, in part because its outsourced and in part because its systems were catching fire even during their test flights... and in the information era we live, it takes seconds for a news to make it across the globe, thus making the 787 has problems again quite memetic.

If anything, the 787 has not suffered a catastrophic hull lose like the DC-10 had with its badly designed door -- but the question is... for how long?

I remember an electrical fire being the cause of a Swiss Air flight years ago, so there is the possibility that the continuing 787 electrical problems will one day cause a fatal accident.
 
2013-07-27 09:32:32 AM

ghall3: styckx: http://avherald.com/

"A US Airways Airbus A330-300, registration N278AY performing flight US-703 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Philadelphia,PA (USA), was enroute at FL380 over the Atlantic about 350nm southeast of St. John's,NL (Canada) when the crew received a low oxygen pressure warning with the pressure further decreasing. The crew declared emergency, performed oceanic contingency procedures to descend to 10,000 feet without clearance and requested to divert to the nearest airport at St. John's, where the aircraft landed safely about one hour later.

The Canadian TSB reported maintenance found a small leak in the captain's oxygen mask. The mask was swapped with the observer's mask, the oxygen bottle serviced and a leak check performed, the aircraft was subsequently returned to service.

The aircraft continued the journey and reached Philadelphia with a delay of 4:15 hours."

This happened last week. Anybody hear about it? No? If it was a 787 it would have been all over the news for a week


The captains O2 bottle is probably a piece of Do Not Fly equipment.   The plane was not in jeopardy, other than compliance with some rule - the plane did not have to descend to  10,000, or divert.  (done only so that if the plane did depressurize the pilot would not loose consciousness.  Unlikely that the plane would depressuize)  Probably the diversion was so the plane did not have to continue at 10,000 ft.

Not the same as smoke.
 
2013-07-27 09:36:30 AM
Future headline: Boeing, Boeing, gone.

Feel free to steal this awesome headline.
 
2013-07-27 09:37:26 AM
I know, let's make the next one even bigger and heavier!
 
2013-07-27 10:06:39 AM

Dinobot: I remember the DC-10 had a bad reputation in its early years. Nowadays, it has a safety record comparable to other planes normally seen as more reliable.

The thing with the 787 is that it quickly gained a reputation of not being built properly, in part because its outsourced and in part because its systems were catching fire even during their test flights... and in the information era we live, it takes seconds for a news to make it across the globe, thus making the 787 has problems again quite memetic.

If anything, the 787 has not suffered a catastrophic hull lose like the DC-10 had with its badly designed door -- but the question is... for how long?

I remember an electrical fire being the cause of a Swiss Air flight years ago, so there is the possibility that the continuing 787 electrical problems will one day cause a fatal accident.


I think that was down to the entertainment system being added (incorrectly) at a later date, rather than being OEM.
 
2013-07-27 10:13:44 AM
They sure are pretty, though:

cdn-www.airliners.net

Large
 
2013-07-27 10:14:34 AM

stellarossa: think that was down to the entertainment system being added (incorrectly) at a later date, rather than being OEM.


Yeah. I do remember that, but an electrical fire is an electrical fire. Which seems to be the Achilles heel of the Dreamliner.
 
2013-07-27 10:17:26 AM

brianbutz: Can we just admit this thing is a piece of shiat and that maybe sourcing out everything is a bad idea in some cases?


Better:  When you're out to make a bigger buck, you get cheap.  When you get cheap, shiat like this happens.  The lesson:  Don't be farking cheap when you're building stuff.
 
2013-07-27 10:31:32 AM

Dinobot: stellarossa: think that was down to the entertainment system being added (incorrectly) at a later date, rather than being OEM.

Yeah. I do remember that, but an electrical fire is an electrical fire. Which seems to be the Achilles heel of the Dreamliner.


I agree but what makes the situation worse for the Dreamliner is that the electrical problems are caused by the original aircraft design, not some poorly thought out/ botched after-market addition. Seems like the Dreamliner designers realized the batteries had some issues but were pressured to deliver on time so they came up with some solutions that are more 'quick-fix' than either 'long-term' or 'solves problem'.
 
2013-07-27 10:47:41 AM

ghall3: styckx: http://avherald.com/

This happened last week. Anybody hear about it? No? If it was a 787 it would have been all over the news for a week


Some of us remember the "scarebus" threads from a few years ago (before the Dreamliner was released); and the "Dreamliner is delayed again" threads and commentary that went with both.

Back then it seemed that some people had an "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't Going" attitude, and were going out of their way to slam on Airbus.  This was also a time when Boeing and Airbus were competing for some lucrative contracts.  Not that I am implying a connection there, but much popcorn was consumed in the reading of comments therein.

Jump forward a few years and now Boeing is in much the position that Airbus was then, while Airbus has had time to work out their major bugs and it no longer makes news when they have a delay for routine maintenance.
 
2013-07-27 11:44:32 AM

ghall3: styckx: http://avherald.com/

"A US Airways Airbus A330-300, registration N278AY performing flight US-703 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Philadelphia,PA (USA), was enroute at FL380 over the Atlantic about 350nm southeast of St. John's,NL (Canada) when the crew received a low oxygen pressure warning with the pressure further decreasing. The crew declared emergency, performed oceanic contingency procedures to descend to 10,000 feet without clearance and requested to divert to the nearest airport at St. John's, where the aircraft landed safely about one hour later.

The Canadian TSB reported maintenance found a small leak in the captain's oxygen mask. The mask was swapped with the observer's mask, the oxygen bottle serviced and a leak check performed, the aircraft was subsequently returned to service.

The aircraft continued the journey and reached Philadelphia with a delay of 4:15 hours."

This happened last week. Anybody hear about it? No? If it was a 787 it would have been all over the news for a week


seems that you don't remember all the negative press coverage of Airbus' A380.

the 787 is Boeing's flagship product, and is a dramatic shift in airplane technology. its going to be under the microscope for a while.
 
2013-07-27 11:52:23 AM
Meh, Airworthiness Directives are issued all the time for a bunch of aircraft... this is more of a function of media created hype, like with sharks or whatever... and a bunch of morons (see thread above) buying into that hype. You are far more likely to get hit by lightning or win the lottery than you are to die on a 787 flight... but you keep on believing that the press is there to inform you, not just sell commercial time.
 
2013-07-27 11:55:00 AM
I would rather fly on a 777 or A330 with Amanda Bynes at the controls than the screamliner.
 
2013-07-27 12:04:45 PM
so its the screamliner or flying reaper now
 
2013-07-27 12:09:54 PM
I just wanted to say good luck, we're all counting on you.
 
2013-07-27 12:11:48 PM

maram500: I've flown more than few times, and while most of them were more or less pleasant (it was always coach, so what do you expect?), there were some...experiences.

(CSB) My first flight was on some Bombardier twin-engine airplane, and after the safety brief and wrangling luggage into overhead bins, we start rolling on the runway in New Orleans. We're halfway down the runway, I'm counting cars on the interstate, and in the back of my head I'm thinking "Yeah, this can't be fast enough. We're going to end up as a fireball at the end of the tarmac." Because I needed a panic attack at the time. The second experience was flying into Raleigh, NC. There was already turbulence--that was my first time in turbulence, and apparently I'm susceptible to having my stomach show up in my mouth--and as we're on the descent, I feel the plane starting to yaw quite severely. I hoarked into the air sickness bag, and then the guy sitting next to me says "Yeah, you're gonna want another bag..." like something bad is about to happen. And he was right, because the plane yawed so far that we may as well have been descending upside down and backwards. (End CSB)

Thank god no flight I've been on has had mechanical problems (that I was aware of), but the Dreamliner makes me not want to take a plane again. I'd rather Amtrak--at least on their trains I can more or less safely jump out if I something catches fire. Plus it's cheaper and far more comfortable. (And the meals--good meals, no less--are included in the fares.)


WTF is a "Bombardier-twin engine plane"?

I've flown more than a few times too.  I have never been the slightest bit worried about flying.  I was even allowed to take the controls of a Cessna once, although not for landing or takeoff.  That would have worried me.  I've never flown on an Asian airline either.  That would have worried me.  Bear in mind Russia is in Asia and Russian airplanes crash more frequently than Boeing or Airbus airplanes have.

The 787 has had a few problems all of which have resulted in safe landings.  I wouldn't hesitate to get on one.  If the pilot says it's safe to fly, I trust him (or even her).
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report