787 Dreamliner

[russ_a]

It has the RR Trent 1000 engine. There is a GE option but not many takers

[Eric Mc]

el stovey said:

OMG just noticed it.

It's an image of Jesus on the PFD. What does it mean?

I presume that's the weather radar image. Looks like they are approaching the Weather of the Apocalypse.

[craggers]

Flew over pretty low but couldn't see very well but can see the outline. Quieter than I thought.

Yes, I work for RR.

[JuniorD]

My mate is on board for this mornings activities. His Facebook page has been on fire since early. Nothing like an aircraft nerd on a new type!

[motomk]

Someone at work showed me this today. From February, Not sure if it is a repost.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/20...
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE236/history/...

[megy]

Saw it earlier as it flew along the runway at EMA, nice looking bird it is and I agree, it was quiet. Its the first time I have seen it so am happy.

[knight]

It's arrived at LHR apparently, not that I saw it but I might go for a drive later to try and find it.

[mcdjl]

Glad it wasn't any higher otherwise we wouldn't have seen it.

[neenaw]

knight said:

It's arrived at LHR apparently, not that I saw it but I might go for a drive later to try and find it.

It's still at LHR, I've just seen it taxi past T3!

[DJRC]

There is a lot more to come with efficiency from the aircraft. Currently a lot of the "limitations" are derived from the engine spec.

[MitchT]

Eric Mc said:

I don't like that spooky picture on one of the LCD screens. Is the 787 haunted?

The only image I can see there that I've not seen on another aircraft screen is a grey aerial image of the wings (with engines), fuselage and horizontal stablilizer.

[FUBAR]

MitchT said:

The only image I can see there that I've not seen on another aircraft screen is a grey aerial image of the wings (with engines), fuselage and horizontal stablilizer.

Glad Im not the only one. Eric has been sniffing the UHU again.

[sneijder]

It was our turn today, we launched with another new customer, Flybe Nordic. Something was distracting me in the background though ...





'Old' 738 :



.. compared with the new wing tip and tail set up :



The engines only start electrically apparently, no more deafening air starters getting wheeled out at the last minute.



The nose, for me, is ugly. It seems like it's hit a wall. The whole front end is slick and slippery though. I think it's time to redesign the windscreen wiper though surely. Only last week I had a Qatar A330-200 with a broken wiper, the aircraft wasn't a year old. The 757 rocket in the background for comparison still looks great.



I have nothing to do with Norwegian Air Shuttle, so I couldn't get onboard today as they were showing all their top brass around. I have BA, United and Qatar amongst my customers. Qatar will be itching to get the first one in for 'real'. I might be able to get onboard tomorrow if I can.

Duct tape holding the door shut ?

[mrloudly]

I was told Thompson have the 787 on order? Got a load of free up-grades on existing fleet because it's late though?

[R1_NUR]

mrloudly said:

I was told Thompson have the 787 on order? Got a load of free up-grades on existing fleet because it's late though?

I work for Thomson (no "P please Bob"). First Choice Merged With Thomson and the 787's they ordered stayed in the frame. The aeroplanes are about 2.5 years late. We got a good deal because we were early (European launch customer), the delays were compensated for with a deal on the Winglets fitted to 75 and 76's.

All that said - apparently a new 767 only burns about 4% more fuel and the 787 costs twice as much a month!

Our customers have to pay a £20/sector premium to fly on the 787. The pilots on it have worse terms and conditions to the rest of us.

I want to fly it but so far it is looking like a poisoned chalice.

767



787

[ETOPS]

r1nur said:

Our customers have to pay a £20/sector premium to fly on the 787. The pilots on it have worse terms and conditions to the rest of us.

I want to fly it but so far it is looking like a poisoned chalice.

What a farce. Surely that defies the point in having it!

As for the Ts & Cs, that's pretty disgraceful, too. Joining a company on a different contract is one thing, but being ripped off to change fleets is unacceptable.

They're all the same beyond a point, as you know. Unless it offers you a massive increase in quality of life, you'd be crazy to accept worse terms for the sake of a new type.

[mrloudly]

R1_NUR said:

mrloudly said:

I was told Thompson have the 787 on order? Got a load of free up-grades on existing fleet because it's late though?

I work for Thomson (no "P please Bob"). First Choice Merged With Thomson and the 787's they ordered stayed in the frame. The aeroplanes are about 2.5 years late. We got a good deal because we were early (European launch customer), the delays were compensated for with a deal on the Winglets fitted to 75 and 76's.

All that said - apparently a new 767 only burns about 4% more fuel and the 787 costs twice as much a month!

Our customers have to pay a £20/sector premium to fly on the 787. The pilots on it have worse terms and conditions to the rest of us.

I want to fly it but so far it is looking like a poisoned chalice.

767



787

Are Thomson flying it now? Missed that if so! Good friend of mine has just retired from BHX His last trip was hauling a load of wealthy Yanks around the world very lucky!

[bob1179]

sneijder said:

The nose, for me, is ugly. It seems like it's hit a wall. The whole front end is slick and slippery though. I think it's time to redesign the windscreen wiper though surely. Only last week I had a Qatar A330-200 with a broken wiper, the aircraft wasn't a year old. The 757 rocket in the background for comparison still looks great.

This is interesting - Is anybody seeing Comet/Caravelle in the way the nose is designed?

[anonymous-user]

ETOPS said:

What a farce. Surely that defies the point in having it!

As for the Ts & Cs, that's pretty disgraceful, too. Joining a company on a different contract is one thing, but being ripped off to change fleets is unacceptable.

They're all the same beyond a point, as you know. Unless it offers you a massive increase in quality of life, you'd be crazy to accept worse terms for the sake of a new type.

Too right. TBH I'd be surprised if they're actually any worse, my mate in TOM explained to me that it's just different to suit a different (pure long haul operation). Nobody is going to change fleet for worse terms and conditions.

It's quite common for all long haul or all short haul pilots to have subtly different rules etc to fit the operation better.

[ETOPS]

el stovey said:

ETOPS said:

What a farce. Surely that defies the point in having it!

As for the Ts & Cs, that's pretty disgraceful, too. Joining a company on a different contract is one thing, but being ripped off to change fleets is unacceptable.

They're all the same beyond a point, as you know. Unless it offers you a massive increase in quality of life, you'd be crazy to accept worse terms for the sake of a new type.

Too right. TBH I'd be surprised if they're actually any worse, my mate in TOM explained to me that it's just different to suit a different (pure long haul operation). Nobody is going to change fleet for worse terms and conditions.

It's quite common for all long haul or all short haul pilots to have subtly different rules etc to fit the operation better.

That makes sense. It would surprise me if this were the case, given what I know of TOM being a good outfit to work for. That said, you know how things are - contractually, not much raises my eyebrow in the industry anymore!