The United 787

[EZEtoGRU]

Some of you may be airliner geeks like I am so this might be of interest. United is the first US carrier to get the 787 and they took delivery of their first aircraft in mid October and they are flying it on some domestic routes out of Houston for the next few weeks before it gets put on international missions. I'm about to board my first 787 flight shortly from Newark to Houston. Lots of excited airplane geeks like me at the gate.

 

I understand the aircraft is 20% more fuel efficient than other aircraft due to them using much more composite material.

[Diverdan]

I am jealous! I was hoping to get on one of the flights between Houston and Chicago, but no such luck... let us know if it really lives up to the hype... they have four or five more 787 planes going into service yet this year, but all on International Flights.

[EZEtoGRU]

I am jealous! I was hoping to get on one of the flights between Houston and Chicago, but no such luck... let us know if it really lives up to the hype... they have four or five more 787 planes going into service yet this year, but all on International Flights.

 

Lots of fun. Just got to Houston. Climb-out from EWR was as steep as I've experienced. Very quite inside. Larger than normal windows and also there is no up/down window shade. There is a dimmer button for the window to make it darker if you don't want the light coming through......however the windows never get completely dark. United has the inside kitted out just like the x-CO 777 aircraft with a very similar Business First cabin. Lots of fun and lots of plane geeks on-board.

 

Unfortunately the plane departed two hours late from Newark due to delayed inbound aircraft so I have missed my IAH to MEX connection. Thankfully they protected me on a later flight.

 

I believe the 787 will start serving flights to Narita, Lagos, and London by December or early January. You are right they are taking delivery of more of these (they have ordered 50 in total). UA already have posession of the 2nd aircraft but I think they are still doing test runs and training runs with it. Should be in service domestically in 1-2 weeks. They are initially basing the 787 in Houston so the domestic flights are mostly IAH to EWR/LAX/SFO/ORD and back.

[Irtwo]

Interesting. I hope Qantas buys some. I would love to have a nonstop flight from NYC to Australia. My understanding is the 787 can be the first aircraft to do that (at least on a test flight it flew nonstop from Seattle to Bangladesh).

[jimboivyo]

had a couple of pals invited on a preview flight with UA. they said it was nice and new, but nothing compared to the 747s of yesteryear

 

for a few new gadgets on the equipment, I'm not yet sold on the 787. its a composite plane and while more fuel efficient, it'll be interesting to see how it holds up from a maintenance angle

[EZEtoGRU]

for a few new gadgets on the equipment, I'm not yet sold on the 787. its a composite plane and while more fuel efficient, it'll be interesting to see how it holds up from a maintenance angle

 

Composites have been used on aircraft for a long time now and the material has proved to be quite reliable. On the 787, Boeing have applied even more composite material which allows them to take alot of weight out of the aircraft for major advancements in fuel efficiency.....this is the main competitive advantage of this aircraft. As far as the on-board experience, it was basically the same as a 777 or 767 albeit everything was fresh, new, and clean on today's 787. The only thing that I noticed that was really different was the size of the windows and the automatic dimmer. Its true that most of the benefits of this aircraft are things the average flyer won't even notice.

 

Anyway, a fun experience. The gate area at EWR was mobbed with lots of airport people trying to get a glimpse and picture of the aircraft.

[BigK]

Flew the 787 on Wednesday from Chicago to Houston. Wednesday was the 4th day of service. Noticeably quieter. More ceiling height in the cabin. The inside air pressure/altitude is set lower than the prevailing altitude which increases oxygen absorption. This is supposed to leave a flyer with less Jet Lag. It also has roomier luggage bins. Most rolling bags could be fit in sideways.

 

United personnel were taking tours before we boarded. People were taking pictures of the interior...there was almost a carnival like atmosphere.

[EZEtoGRU]

Flew the 787 on Wednesday from Chicago to Houston. Wednesday was the 4th day of service. Noticeably quieter. More ceiling height in the cabin. The inside air pressure/altitude is set lower than the prevailing altitude which increases oxygen absorption. This is supposed to leave a flyer with less Jet Lag. It also has roomier luggage bins. Most rolling bags could be fit in sideways.

 

United personnel were taking tours before we boarded. People were taking pictures of the interior...there was almost a carnival like atmosphere.

Congrats.....you got on it before I did! I did not notice any difference with the inside air pressure myself but you are right with your statement that they have it pressurized to mimic a lower altitude than other aircraft. It's supposed to made a big difference with how one feels once getting off a long-haul flight.

[Diverdan]

Thanks for the updates... I was on a flight from Chicago to Denver recently and sat in the row ahead of the President of UA. Of course he emphasized the fuel efficiency and the ability to fly longer distances with the smaller plane where the 777 or 747 is just to large to be economical.... but he said that he thought over time that it would be the interior, the lower pressure in the cabin and the increased humidity level that will be noticable to folks on long flights. They will feel better and have less jet lag, but not truly not aware of the reason for feeling better. Looking forward to a person experience, and may just have to fly to Houston to board a flight to experience it. I am not a fan of the Airbus 380 because of its size and some of the mechanical problems it has had. I hope that the 787 doens't have the same issues.

[gp0560]

Where is KMEM when we need him? Isn't he the pilot guy who knew all about the technical side of new planes?

[+ Charlie]

Where is KMEM when we need him? Isn't he the pilot guy who knew all about the technical side of new planes?

 

I have an uneasy feeling about KMEM. He made normal posts on both this site and MER on the same day in May, then completely disappeared from both sites. This thread would surely have provoked a response from him if he were still around.

[EZEtoGRU]

I have an uneasy feeling about KMEM. He made normal posts on both this site and MER on the same day in May, then completely disappeared from both sites. This thread would surely have provoked a response from him if he were still around.

 

Yes he just disappeared. Used to participate in the "politics" forum frequently (and was quite firm in his conservative views). I found his participation on non-political matters much more productive.

[AdamSmith]

for a few new gadgets on the equipment, I'm not yet sold on the 787. its a composite plane and while more fuel efficient, it'll be interesting to see how it holds up from a maintenance angle

 

With you on that.

 

Yes, Boeing had to go to composites to get the efficiencies demanded by the carriers, etc. And yes, FAA certification does mean plenty. Nonetheless, my materials-scientist acquaintances still fret that their engineer colleagues are overconfident in what they think they understand about the fabrication, assembly, maintenance, diagnostics and long-term structural performance of all-composite airframes.

 

Things they worry about: Insufficient understanding of material interactions where composites are fastened to aluminum, including fatigue life of the fasteners themselves. Insufficient ability to inspect the interior plies of composite laminates; worry that delamination and poor bonding may not be caught until an in-flight "incident." Inspection regimes in general consisting of not much more than going over the skin, thumping it manually and listening for "funny" sounds.

 

To be sure, I'll fly one as and when I get booked on one. But as I said here before, the things will be flying test labs for the first 2 or 3 years at least.

[PATRICK12]

New plane maybe ok - but United need to get their service levels upto 2012 levels - LHR-LA - the Air NewZealand redesinged 777 + fabulous service and staff makes United look like PamAm.

[+ azdr0710]

787 APU catches fire - January 7, 2013

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/boeing-787-dreamliner-catches-fire-bostons-logan-airport-1B7832998

[KMEM]

Sorry that I missed this thread from the beginning. Like most "new" aircraft the 787 will have teething pains. I am hoping that it will not have a "magnicificent" episode like the 737 from Hawaii which became an unexpected "convertible". It does take time to discover most of the attributes as well as deficiencies of composite and other "man-made" materials. However, like AS, I would not hesitate to ride on one now. After all, flying is not "natural" in and of itself, but we should not resist taking advantage of current technology, should we?

 

When the 777 was introduced by UA from LAX or SFO to AKL (west coast to NZ) the FAA "forced" them to land with way more fuel than necessary (to err on the side of caution), which cost UA money in refused cargo, reduced pax load, etc. Now the 777 is well accepted in all of its' routes and similarly so will the 787 be after a little while.

 

In spite of some attention grabbing headlines, aviation in general is very conservative, something pax should be very grateful about. I will refrain from offering a political parallel.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[EZEtoGRU]

Another problem with the 787 today (actually just in the last few hours). An ANA 787 made an emergency landing in Japan after a battery malfunction and smoke smell in the cabin. Passengers were evacuated by slides. ANA have announced all 787 aircraft to be grounded for inspection. Look for JAL to do the same. If you own Boeing shares, tomorrow is going to be a rough day!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-787-makes-emergency-landing-due-battery-012759722--finance.html

 

EDIT: JAL have now grounded their fleet of 787 aircraft as well. Will UA follow? UA have 3-4 of them flying currently.

[+ ArVaGuy]

The Airbus 380 is also still having issues so this Boeing situation is nothing to get worked up over. Every time we fly on any plane we are test subjects anyway.

 

There was an engine mount issue with the first batch of A380s, they kept falling off. This happened on Qantas and Singapore jets. Then this past November engines blew up in flight on an Emirates jet. Oh and there's that "wing flex" issue that causes the wings to flap (for lack of better term) upon landing. Airbus still hasn't figured out how to solve that issue.

[MsGuy]

The Airbus 380 is also still having issues so this Boeing situation is nothing to get worked up over.

 

Is this supposed to be comforting?

[+ ArVaGuy]

Is this supposed to be comforting?

 

Yes. We should not be over reacting to situations like this so much. But then the media wouldn't be able to sell advertising if we don't buy into the hype.

 

The 787 has been in development for a decade. As with any mechanical equipment the bugs are going to have to be worked out. It's during day-to-day operation that unforeseen issues are going to arise, Even variances that may have been within tolerances during testing may become more amplified in daily use. No doubt Boeing will take a hit for short term but long term the issues will be worked out.

 

New technologies will have growing pains. Even established ones are far from perfect. Take the 2013 Ford Escape and the Fusion for example. Both based on redesigns under development for five years. Now one wold assume that car manufactures would have the kinks worked out with over a century of mass production. Well maybe not.

 

The new 2013 models of the Escape and Fusion have a nasty engine fire issue. Seems fluid leaks in the 1.6 liter models have caused engines to overheat and catch fire. A recall was issued just in December for 89,000 new vehicles. Vehicles who's owners have likely not had for a yeat yet.

 

So what's more serious? A few doze newly delivered jets having tech issues, or tens of thousands of automobiles in similar circumstance? In both cases the issues will be fixed by manufacturers and regulators eventually. Therefore, I choose not to over react to media induce hype. Oh, btw, I own a Ford Escape...2011 model that is. :-)

[+ Charlie]

I learned my lesson years ago about buying the newest model of a car. Now I wait until it has been around a year or two and the problems have been discovered and corrected (or so we hope), before I buy a car.

[AdamSmith]

So what's more serious? A few doze newly delivered jets having tech issues, or tens of thousands of automobiles in similar circumstance?

 

In the engineering chest-thumping biz, that's how the car guys taunt the aircraft guys. Who in turn reply, Hah! Your pitiful things can't even get off the ground.

 

As a consumer and from a product-in-use standpoint, I think I might rather encounter an "issue" with my car than with my plane. Collecting on the manufacturer's warranty from Boeing could be a challenge in more than one respect.

[KMEM]

Let's not get carried away, shall we? Most warranty or deficiency issues with both cars and planes are relatively minor and more of a nuisance than safety issue. One difference between cars and planes is the extent to which they broadcast their problems. Unfortunately there are many, many almost unknown car problems that take who knows what to unearth. OTOH aircraft makers send notices to their owners when there is a problem. That is not to say they always step up and claim or adjust the economic effects of same.

 

One thing that bothers me about both cars and planes is so called product improvements that are not necessarily actual improvements. Simple example. Lycoming, an aircraft piston engine manufacturer, many years ago came out with an improved gear for the oil pump. At 2,000 hours of operation and during what should have been a routine engine overhaul and parts examination, it was clear that the "new, improved gear" was not living up to a normal life of service. In fact, pretty soon it became mandatory to replace this gear for either an "old" one or a "new, improved" version. Silly and expensive.

 

Best regards,

KMEM