orbital sander Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elmer Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Can someone please tell me why a 'defense' of this aircraft was posted in the War, Religion and Politica Forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
instudiocity Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Can someone please tell me why a 'defense' of this aircraft was posted in the War, Religion and Politica Forum? I will right after you tell me, 'Why was an OFFENSE of this aircraft posted here'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ glutes Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) As the OP (original poster), my 'offense' was of the the Boeing company and their bullshitting the public and potential buyers. Nearly two years later, they are still doing it. "The Boeing 787 has become a PR nightmare for Boeing, I also think a financial catastrophe at the end of the day. Having just announced another delay yesterday after saying it was going to make a maiden flight by the end of this month. The Paris Air Show crowd must have known that Boeing Execs were bullshitting them... " 06/24/09 Now KMEM posting comments in the Politics, War & Religion about THE PLANE, ask him... Edited January 28, 2011 by glutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orbital sander Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Well, the wait is over... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Boeing-to-deliver-first-787-apf-4218156513.html?x=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Sorry that Boeing made incorrect decisions to farm out production of various parts and assemblies to foreign countries in order to be politically correct which caused much of the delay. Which recent airliner or "politically hampered" aircraft was delivered on time? Certainly not the A380 which had cancellations from "profitable" airlines such as FEDEX, who, in my opinion, is the only airliner that might make this aircraft profitable. Personally, I am wishing to support American made products of which Boeing should be one. Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MsGuy Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Boeing... farm[ed] out production of various parts and assemblies to foreign countries in order to be politically correct Probably more misguided notions of reducing finantial risk by off-loading up-front development costs together with caving to pressure from foreign govs. with big buying power. I don't see the sticky fingerprints of PC on this one, KMEM. personally, I am wishing to support American made products of which Boeing should be one. I, on the other hand, ask only that the product get me from here to there and back with no sudden unscheduled stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 So, you don't view one world government as being PC? There are no guarantees about any product, so long as it is made by man and controlled by man. Your computer never fails, does it? I realize you know all this. Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diverdan Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 It is flying and All Nipon took delivery today. It is a fantastic plane and I can't wait to fly on it. Yes, it took longer time, and a lot was outsourced, but what isn't these days. Unfortunately we are just not as competative as we used to be, but I would rather fly in a Boeing plane than an Airbus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I, for one, would like to hear your impressions after you ride on it. "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going". Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven_Draker Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I would rather fly in a Boeing plane than an Airbus. Really, Diver Dan? Are you choosing your flight depending on the carrier rather than the airline? I don't mind if I fly in a Boeing or an Airbus, as long as I arrive at destination in one piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ glutes Posted September 27, 2011 Author Share Posted September 27, 2011 After 2+ years as the OP on this thread, I would like to make a comment. However, I am prohibited as I would be accused of being a stalker... http://i.neoseeker.com/n/8/stalker_wallpaper_by_imi91_thumb.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ glutes Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 If All Nippon calls me up and asks me to be on the delivery aircraft to Narita or wherever they will take delivery, I shall go. Best regards, KMEM Guess they didn't call you, did they Captain? God Bless the 787 on its maiden flight! http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/boeing-787s-inaugural-flight-lands-in-hong-kong/2011/10/26/gIQAWyjVJM_video.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigvalboy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Was the original OP Clairvoyant? With the thread from EZE and others, is it time for the traveling public to be concerned, as yet another Boeing 787 runs into trouble in Japan. Should I avoid this aircraft for the trips abroad. Inquiring minds want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimboivyo Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Was the original OP Clairvoyant? With the thread from EZE and others, is it time for the traveling public to be concerned, as yet another Boeing 787 runs into trouble in Japan. Should I avoid this aircraft for the trips abroad. Inquiring minds want to know. glutes cant even see when folks are laughing at and not with him. psychic, no. psycho, maybe. a lot of folks knew the 787 would have teething issues and said so. These aren't gigantic issues yet. it's all growing pains and things that have happened to the md80, 737, 747 and 777. They all had bugs to shake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BostonPhil Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 a lot of folks knew the 787 would have teething issues and said so. These aren't gigantic issues yet. it's all growing pains and things that have happened to the md80, 737, 747 and 777. They all had bugs to shake Yup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frequentflier Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The stock market likes trading on headlines. I'd like to see a brief and large drop in the share price of Boeing so I can add to my holding and enjoy the ride upward. I could use the extra $$. I'll continue to trust US airlines based on their track record versus other transportation options and I do think the FAA does a good job. There's only 50 delivered so far (24 grounded currently) and 798 on backorder. I would ride on a Dreamliner if that is what's scheduled for a flight I'm on. Wasn't it in 2012 that American Airlines had several maintenance issues on non-787 aircraft, which some thought were related to cost and labor issues? Those worried me more and I avoided AA for a while because of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Ride the 787 or not at your decision. It definitely is having teething problems just like all other airliners. The French aircraft do seem to have a problem with their tails. (Don't we all?) However, that would not prevent me from riding on the 330 or 340 or 380 except in "unusual circumstances". One has to decide and choose for themselves what those circumstances might be. This is true thoughout life and with various "problems". If air travel is a BIG problem then drive or float or whatever is NOT aviation. But, if getting there in a relatively short amount of time is the issue, then FLY, by all means. Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Agree with KMEM that if you are really all that worried, just take a horse to wherever you have to get to. However (Japanese: 'keredomo' ), the local Seattle press + some industry rags are starting to report rumblings of what I've heard for some time from engineer acquaintances inside Boeing: that they had to over-extend themselves to fix subcontractors' problems, THEN once production commenced, Boeing management chose to ramp up production faster than those internal engineering groups -- still engaged with making sure the subs knew what they were doing -- felt they could pivot back to adequate focus on inspection/quality-control of subs' supplied product. There has been inside Boeing a fair amount of 'This wouldn't have happened under Mulally.' If these 787 'issues' fester on much longer, I would wager stock money on some management shakeup. (P.S. My work is advising Boeing et al. on what engineering software to buy and how to use it. So one has some firsthand visibility into all this disfunction.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigvalboy Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Ride the 787 or not at your decision. It definitely is having teething problems just like all other airliners. The French aircraft do seem to have a problem with their tails. (Don't we all?) However, that would not prevent me from riding on the 330 or 340 or 380 except in "unusual circumstances". One has to decide and choose for themselves what those circumstances might be. This is true thoughout life and with various "problems". If air travel is a BIG problem then drive or float or whatever is NOT aviation. But, if getting there in a relatively short amount of time is the issue, then FLY, by all means. Best regards, KMEM As I said, I love to fly, but I also love to get there in one piece. I appreciate the info about the other aircraft that you mentioned. I am not a pilot, and unlike some members who fly "private".... that is not an option for me. So for me when I know a plane has gone through years of testing, and then still gets grounded, and now the FAA is talking about grounding Dreamliners until they can be proven airworthy, I just get concerned. I am waaaay to young to meet my maker. And I do prefer cruising over air travel, but unfortunately you have to fly to where the ship leaves from, and then once there I start thinking about the "Costa Concordia"......Oh what to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ ArVaGuy Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I recall that Boeing chose to have many of the component parts manufactured by overseas subcontractors. The finished components such as wing assemblies and other parts are then flown to the Boeing plant (in 747s no less) and then assembled. Clearly the effort to shave a few percent on the costs may have contributed to some of the issues but that's true with all manufacturing these days. (Build it all in the US and eliminate the worry of lousy sub-contractors is my line of thinking on this issue.) Let's keep in mind we are talking about 50 aircraft being grounded world wide. Only six of those are flown by a US carrier at this time, United. The engineers are busting their collective asses to trouble shoot this problem and will have it solved in time. No need to freak out about this, it's new technology and don't be surprised if some of this is computer coding issues and not mechanical. The A380 was grounded twice in the first full year of operation. Those pesky engine mounts snapping off in mid-flight or taxi were a bitch. Further the A319 and A320 have been pulled from service due to accelerated corrosion issues from time to time. And the Boeing 737 had major issues just fourteen years ago where the worldwide fleet had to be grounded due to wire insulation issues near the fuel tanks. Not a single 737 ever blew up mid flight as I recall but the entire electrical system of those planes in use in 1998 had be reworked. I personally refuse to buy in to media hype about this issue. The 787 will prove to be a success long term and we need to get over the hand-wringing. (Mullaly went on to save the Ford Motor Company so no doubt he's feeling pretty good about his situation these days.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZEtoGRU Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Let's keep in mind we are talking about 50 aircraft being grounded world wide. Only six of those are flown by a US carrier at this time, United. The engineers are busting their collective asses to trouble shoot this problem and will have it solved in time. No need to freak out about this, it's new technology and don't be surprised if some of this is computer coding issues and not mechanical. The A380 was grounded twice in the first full year of operation. Those pesky engine mounts snapping off in mid-flight or taxi were a bitch. Further the A319 and A320 have been pulled from service due to accelerated corrosion issues from time to time. And the Boeing 737 had major issues just fourteen years ago where the worldwide fleet had to be grounded due to wire insulation issues near the fuel tanks. Not a single 737 ever blew up mid flight as I recall but the entire electrical system of those planes in use in 1998 had be reworked. I personally refuse to buy in to media hype about this issue. The 787 will prove to be a success long term and we need to get over the hand-wringing. The A380 was never grounded by the FAA if I recall correctly. Singapore Airlines and Qantas inidividually decided to ground the aircraft. In my view, the FAA issuing instructions to ground the US fleet (albeit a very small one) of the 787 takes this beyond what has happened with the A380. This is yet another problem on top of many problems and delays with the dreamliner. If Boeing can't get to the crux of the issue pretty quickly, this could have devastating affects on the company. Two potential lithium battery fires in the cargo hold of the 787 is no small matter. Luckily one happened on the ground in Boston and the other on a very short domestic Japanese flight where the aircraft was able to return to an airport very quickly. It's appropriate for these aircraft to be grounded until the battery issue and fuel leak issue can be dealt with. That could take days/weeks/months. If you think that cannot be very very problematic to Boeing, you're fooling yourself. I don't see anyone on this board "freaking out"......but concern is a normal reaction. I have been on the UA Dreamliner twice. I would go on one again for a domestic trip (where a quick emergency landing is possible) but, at this point, I would not take one on a transoceanic flight. I guess its all moot anyway since most of the worlds fleet of this aircraft are now grounded and rightly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZEtoGRU Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 .......oh yes......and thanks to Glutes for having the foresight to start this threat to begin with. He was always spot-on with his intuition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ ArVaGuy Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 The A380 was never grounded by the FAA if I recall correctly. Singapore Airlines and Qantas inidividually decided to ground the aircraft. In my view, the FAA issuing instructions to ground the US fleet (albeit a very small one) of the 787 takes this beyond what has happened with the A380. This is yet another problem on top of many problems and delays with the dreamliner. If Boeing can't get to the crux of the issue pretty quickly, this could have devastating affects on the company. Two potential lithium battery fires in the cargo hold of the 787 is no small matter. Luckily one happened on the ground in Boston and the other on a very short domestic Japanese flight where the aircraft was able to return to an airport very quickly. It's appropriate for these aircraft to be grounded until the battery issue and fuel leak issue can be dealt with. That could take days/weeks/months. If you think that cannot be very very problematic to Boeing, you're fooling yourself. I don't see anyone on this board "freaking out"......but concern is a normal reaction. I have been on the UA Dreamliner twice. I would go on one again for a domestic trip (where a quick emergency landing is possible) but, at this point, I would not take one on a transoceanic flight. I guess its all moot anyway since most of the worlds fleet of this aircraft are now grounded and rightly so. The FAA did not ground the A380 because no US carrier purchased the plane for their fleets. Regulatory groundings are country specific though each authority closely follows its international counter parts. Hence the FAA acted after the Japan regulator grounded the ANA and JAL fleets. Of course the fleet should be grounded till the issue is resolved. But any new design is going to have production issues. I'm not say the board is freaking out but the media coverage is overhyped. Its doubtful to me that we have another DeHavilland Comet on our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMEM Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 AVG- You are exactly correct in that the FAA cannot ground an aircraft or fleet when it does not exist on a US carrier. The 787 apparently has a vendor problem which I would like to think would be solved by using more or exclusively US vendors but that is apparently not PC and not to be. I also agree the 787 is no Comet. There are no large undiscovered or unmanageable problems on this aircraft but that is not to say Boeing will not suffer some economic problems in dealing with the issue or issues. Ditto the flying public. We all have to decide what is "worth the risk and what is not" in dealing with modern technology. Killing 30,000+ drivers and passengers per year in US autos does not seem a very good deal but we put up with it and think little or nothing about driving to the grocery store or the movie theater. However, we should, especially if we overly worry about getting on a very safe airliner of any and every sort. Flying is not inherently safe but many try very hard to make it as safe as humanly possible. Years and years and thousands of hours make me feel that we can do this. Best regards, KMEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now