787 never to fly again?

[saaby93]

or so it seems
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21548113

beeb said:

But Transport Secretary Ray LaHood has warned 787s will not fly again until he is "1,000% sure" they are safe

How do you get to 1000%?
Is he an engineer or a mathematician?

[Munter]

Easy. If you take 10 787 and you are 100% sure about each plane... 10 planes x 100% = 1000%

Duh can't believe you didn't know that.

[saaby93]

Munter said:

Easy. If you take 10 787 and you are 100% sure about each plane... 10 planes x 100% = 1000%

Duh can't believe you didn't know that.

It's the way I was edificated

20 planes at 50% would work too?

[S7Paul]

Airbus must be loving this, especially after the tanker fiasco.

[SpudLink]

saaby93 said:

Munter said:

Easy. If you take 10 787 and you are 100% sure about each plane... 10 planes x 100% = 1000%

Duh can't believe you didn't know that.

It's the way I was edificated

20 planes at 50% would work too?

So if there are 100 aircraft and each of them has a 10% chance of flying safely, then we can rest assured that the minister is 1000% certain that they are safe?

[LHRFlightman]

The only thing certain is that this chap is an idiot!

[Godalmighty83]

I back the 787 110%, that means I can backtrack 10% and still be completely behind it.

[CAPP0]

If the 787 was banned from flying again (unlikely, surely, whatever the time/cost to resolve?) then how would that affect Boeing's chances of survival? They must have an inordinate amount of money invested up front in that plane?

[ralphrj]

CAPP0 said:

They must have an inordinate amount of money invested up front in that plane?

Seattle Times said:

A conservative estimate by The Seattle Times puts Boeing's total investment on the program so far at more than $32 billion.

That estimate is from 18 months ago.

[Mermaid]

CAPP0 said:

If the 787 was banned from flying again (unlikely, surely, whatever the time/cost to resolve?) then how would that affect Boeing's chances of survival? They must have an inordinate amount of money invested up front in that plane?

The US government would find a way.

[FourWheelDrift]

Airbus buys Boeing.


(Headline news from 2014)

[LotusOmega375D]

Not sure how you read the OP headline into that report?

Anyway, they mention that all 787s have been grounded since January: not in India they haven't.

Indian Airlines already had 6 in service and when the order came for grounding they were scatterered at various airports across the subcontinent. To add insult to injury cash-strapped Indian Airlines were being charged each day for parking by those respective airports, so decided to ignore the global ban and fly them all back empty across India to their own apron at Mumbai airport, where they now reside.

[mattdaniels]

LotusOmega375D said:

Not sure how you read the OP headline into that report?

Anyway, they mention that all 787s have been grounded since January: not in India they haven't.

Indian Airlines already had 6 in service and when the order came for grounding they were scatterered at various airports across the subcontinent. To add insult to injury cash-strapped Indian Airlines were being charged each day for parking by those respective airports, so decided to ignore the global ban and fly them all back empty across India to their own apron at Mumbai airport, where they now reside.

I'm willing to be corrected by the experts but technically speaking, flying the aircraft empty is not ignoring the global ban. The FAA would have issued a Certificate of Airworthiness for Commercial Transport Operations. With this withdrawn, the aircraft cannot be used for commercial operations ("the global ban"). Flying it empty is not a commercial operation,.

[Black9]

mattdaniels said:

LotusOmega375D said:

Not sure how you read the OP headline into that report?

Anyway, they mention that all 787s have been grounded since January: not in India they haven't.

Indian Airlines already had 6 in service and when the order came for grounding they were scatterered at various airports across the subcontinent. To add insult to injury cash-strapped Indian Airlines were being charged each day for parking by those respective airports, so decided to ignore the global ban and fly them all back empty across India to their own apron at Mumbai airport, where they now reside.

I'm willing to be corrected by the experts but technically speaking, flying the aircraft empty is not ignoring the global ban. The FAA would have issued a Certificate of Airworthiness for Commercial Transport Operations. With this withdrawn, the aircraft cannot be used for commercial operations ("the global ban"). Flying it empty is not a commercial operation,.

The head of India's civil aviation authority said it gave the "special permission" for the aircraft to position back to base after consultation from Boeing.
The FAA have banded all commercial, delivery and test flights of US registered 787's.

[Pothole]

Black9 said:

The FAA have banded all commercial, delivery and test flights of US registered 787's.

They've done what, now?

[WhereamI]

LotusOmega375D said:

Not sure how you read the OP headline into that report?

Anyway, they mention that all 787s have been grounded since January: not in India they haven't.

Indian Airlines already had 6 in service and when the order came for grounding they were scatterered at various airports across the subcontinent. To add insult to injury cash-strapped Indian Airlines were being charged each day for parking by those respective airports, so decided to ignore the global ban and fly them all back empty across India to their own apron at Mumbai airport, where they now reside.

There is no such thing as a global ban, there is no global authority to impose that ban. Whether a 787 flies in India is solely an issue for the Indian authorities.

[williamp]

FourWheelDrift said:

Bombardier buys Boeing.


(Headline news from 2014)

How does this sound?

[maffski]

WhereamI said:

There is no such thing as a global ban, there is no global authority to impose that ban. Whether a 787 flies in India is solely an issue for the Indian authorities.

But you may find no company will provide insurance, which effectively makes a global ban

[Condi]

Boeing have been flying them in the US anyway as part of a very limited test program.

[Sir Fergie]

saaby93 said:

How do you get to 1000%?
Is he an engineer or a mathematician?

Id be thinking that the transport secretary is simply puffing the chest out a bit and is a bit pissed at the whole process of the 787s certification.

The issue here is that unfortunately - planes occassionally go wrong - sometimes big time.

If you suddenly start declaring that certain planes will never fly again - then you will find that yes its Boeing today - but oh - fk its Airbus tomorrow.

As for Airbus been delighted with these developments - the men from Tulouse would want to calm down the delight if they genuinely are deligted - its not very long ago since the Rolls Royce engined versions of the A380 were grounded after one the Trent 900s blew up in flight - in an uncontrolled failure.

I hope Boeing can get the 787 going again - i sometimes wonder where the car industry would be if two failures on a component meant a car was banned. There wouldn't be a manufacturer left imo.

The nightmare scenario for me would be Boeing going out of business over 787 issues - and thus only Airbus in the big Jet market.

I cant exactly see the regional aircraft manufacturers extending themselves to go into the big jet market.

But i am pissed off with Boeing for landing themselves in this position - simply because theyve made themselves look a tad silly over something that should have been planned for - ie back up systems put in place.

But actually now that i think about it - the A350 suddenly is meeting with open road - Airbus have the game there for the winning potentially - all they have to do is not fk up royally.

Still its almost worth it - if it reduces their marketing man Randys arrogance a bit.

Sir Fergie