Some road warriors standing by Boeing's 787
DALLAS (AP) - Some frequent fliers say they aren't worried about safety aboard Boeing's problem-plagued 787 aircraft, while many less-seasoned travelers are often unaware of what model of plane they're flying on.
That makes it anyone's guess whether Boeing Co., or the airlines that use its planes, will pay a price for concerns surrounding the 787. The planes were grounded worldwide on Thursday after a battery fire on one, and an emergency landing on another after pilots smelled something burning.
"I'm as excited today to get on a 787 as I was a year ago," says Edward Pizzarello, a travel blogger who has logged four flights on the 787, which Boeing calls the Dreamliner. "Boeing will fix this, and I'll be flying on this plane for many years."
Lee Simonetta, a research engineer at Georgia Tech, said he too would hop on the Dreamliner again. He was among the aviation fanatics aboard the plane's first trip with paying customers, an All Nippon Airways flight from Tokyo to Hong Kong in October 2011. It was a time to marvel at a jet made of composite materials that make it lighter and far more fuel-efficient, and at its use of electrical systems to do just about everything.
That was before a series of incidents including fuel leaks, cracked windshields and overheating batteries gained worldwide attention. Photos of charred battery boxes from the planes popped up all over the Internet. Safety officials around the world took a second look at the planes, and the Federal Aviation Administration grounded 787s in this country - United Airlines is the only U.S. carrier to fly them, but several foreign airlines use them on flights to and from the U.S.
Boeing officials and some frequent fliers say there are hiccups with just about every new plane, and the 787 was a particularly bold technological leap over previous aircraft. But will those reassurances satisfy the flying public?
Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general of the U.S. Transportation Department and FAA critic who's now an aviation lawyer, said she would not fly aboard a Dreamliner.
"It's very serious. Nobody wants to get on a plane with these things happening," Schiavo said.
Schiavo said she thinks that if Boeing and the FAA believe there is something wrong with a few batteries, replacing them with other lithium-ion batteries would be a quick repair. But, she said, the FAA might force Boeing to use an entirely different type of battery, which could require redesign work and a new round of regulatory approvals that might take months.
Blake Fleetwood, president of Cook Travel in New York, said a few customers have called in the past two days to ask about the plane but none have changed their itineraries. Of course, those flights won't involve 787s if safety regulators haven't cleared the planes by takeoff time.
"A month ago we had people who were dying to get on this plane," Fleetwood said. "Now they're showing a bit more trepidation."
Many people who don't fly frequently may not even notice what type of plane they're on.
From interviews with more than a dozen travelers at Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport, it appeared that price, schedule and nonstop service are more important to consumers than the type plane itself. Only one knew that the government had grounded the 787.
Curtis Johnson, a retailer from San Antonio, said that he purposely booked on a 787 last month from Houston to Newark, N.J. "Very impressive," he said, describing the large windows, wide seats and other flourishes.
Johnson said he pays attention to the type of plane when he books a long flight, and he admitted that he might be "a little bit more nervous than I was three weeks ago" about the 787.
Christine Carlton, who arrived on a United flight from San Antonio, said she wouldn't seek to change planes but would instead "just be stuck and hope for the best."
Many sounded like Casey Ager, a 22-year-old from Seattle, who said he wouldn't have any misgivings about getting on a 787.
"If it's out there and they're letting us fly, I trust it's ready to go," he said.
___
Associated Press Writer Michael Graczyk in Houston contributed to this report.
That makes it anyone's guess whether Boeing Co., or the airlines that use its planes, will pay a price for concerns surrounding the 787. The planes were grounded worldwide on Thursday after a battery fire on one, and an emergency landing on another after pilots smelled something burning.
"I'm as excited today to get on a 787 as I was a year ago," says Edward Pizzarello, a travel blogger who has logged four flights on the 787, which Boeing calls the Dreamliner. "Boeing will fix this, and I'll be flying on this plane for many years."
Lee Simonetta, a research engineer at Georgia Tech, said he too would hop on the Dreamliner again. He was among the aviation fanatics aboard the plane's first trip with paying customers, an All Nippon Airways flight from Tokyo to Hong Kong in October 2011. It was a time to marvel at a jet made of composite materials that make it lighter and far more fuel-efficient, and at its use of electrical systems to do just about everything.
That was before a series of incidents including fuel leaks, cracked windshields and overheating batteries gained worldwide attention. Photos of charred battery boxes from the planes popped up all over the Internet. Safety officials around the world took a second look at the planes, and the Federal Aviation Administration grounded 787s in this country - United Airlines is the only U.S. carrier to fly them, but several foreign airlines use them on flights to and from the U.S.
Boeing officials and some frequent fliers say there are hiccups with just about every new plane, and the 787 was a particularly bold technological leap over previous aircraft. But will those reassurances satisfy the flying public?
Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general of the U.S. Transportation Department and FAA critic who's now an aviation lawyer, said she would not fly aboard a Dreamliner.
"It's very serious. Nobody wants to get on a plane with these things happening," Schiavo said.
Schiavo said she thinks that if Boeing and the FAA believe there is something wrong with a few batteries, replacing them with other lithium-ion batteries would be a quick repair. But, she said, the FAA might force Boeing to use an entirely different type of battery, which could require redesign work and a new round of regulatory approvals that might take months.
Blake Fleetwood, president of Cook Travel in New York, said a few customers have called in the past two days to ask about the plane but none have changed their itineraries. Of course, those flights won't involve 787s if safety regulators haven't cleared the planes by takeoff time.
"A month ago we had people who were dying to get on this plane," Fleetwood said. "Now they're showing a bit more trepidation."
Many people who don't fly frequently may not even notice what type of plane they're on.
From interviews with more than a dozen travelers at Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport, it appeared that price, schedule and nonstop service are more important to consumers than the type plane itself. Only one knew that the government had grounded the 787.
Curtis Johnson, a retailer from San Antonio, said that he purposely booked on a 787 last month from Houston to Newark, N.J. "Very impressive," he said, describing the large windows, wide seats and other flourishes.
Johnson said he pays attention to the type of plane when he books a long flight, and he admitted that he might be "a little bit more nervous than I was three weeks ago" about the 787.
Christine Carlton, who arrived on a United flight from San Antonio, said she wouldn't seek to change planes but would instead "just be stuck and hope for the best."
Many sounded like Casey Ager, a 22-year-old from Seattle, who said he wouldn't have any misgivings about getting on a 787.
"If it's out there and they're letting us fly, I trust it's ready to go," he said.
___
Associated Press Writer Michael Graczyk in Houston contributed to this report.
I remember some years ago, when budding journalist were queried what they would like to achieve in their careers, many answered they want to change the world, what, hell-o, is that really your job, or is it to report factually the happenings? To subscribe to any print format and assign it anymore credibility than hearsay is a joke....it is akin to giving the wino on the corner a few bucks and telling him to buy food, not wine with it. Ain't never gonna happen. If they could be honest, reporters would tell you they have an agenda, and willingly promote it, or neglect stories, that don't serve its best interest....reporters, car salesman, attorneys, yep, they sure know the truth when they see it.
"Some road warriors standing by Boeing's 787"Â
Â
The article appropriately states "frequent flyer"Â Who creates these sensationalized headlines, looks like the news service can rewrite the headline to suit their agenda.
Â
The same article by the same writer may have many different headlines.Â
Â
KOMO
Â
"Some road warriors standing by Boeing's 787"Â KOMO
Â
Huffington Post:
Â
787 Groundings Don't Scare Frequent Travelers Who Say 'Boeing Will Fix This'
Â
Fox News:
Some travelers unshaken by Boeing 787 safety concerns, others don't know what plane they're on
Â
David Koenig (the writer)
Frequent fliers confident that @Boeing will fix 787 #Dreamliner
I along with many are saying the same thing. The 787 is having teething problems as anything that is radically new will. Look back at the 747 and some of the other aircraft. Was it the A300 that crashed at the Paris air show one year because of a software problem? The news junkies seem so willing to slaughter someone or something just for getting their names in it, but in reality the battery problem is not really Boeing's but the battery manufacturer. I am troubled that Boeing decided to use a technology that has proven to be troublesome in the past, but they must have been assured that those problems had been controlled. The fuel leak is the same thing. It is the jet engine manufacturer that is at fault, but all these problems are being heaped onto Boeing's shoulders. I am sure these problems and any others that may pop up will be found and corrected in time but quit trying to destroy a company because of the fault ot their suppliers. One other thing that has disturbed me and this one is the fault of Boeing and that is their OUTSOURCING of work. When they kept it in house there were a lot fewer problems than there are now. They might rethink this outsourcing.Â
 @LongBeachBum In our global economy where do you find all expertise that you need to build a world class airplane. Believe it or not the United States Companies are not the leaders in all technologies. Boeing's core competence is integration.Â
Â
http://www.newairplane.com/787/whos_building/
Outsourcing parts manufacture is a problem for me. The batteries would not be a concern if they were made in the US, where Boeing has more control over quality. Until the concerns over lithium ion batteries are resolved, there are going to be problems longterm. Funny that Japanese airlines are the ones with the most problems since their country is making the batteries!
Your alias is fitting. Anytime something with this many moving parts comes off the line, issues like this pop up. You simply issue a fix and call it good. The issue with this one is that there's so much publicity around it Boeing can't just say, "Every other plane company has the same problem". [See Steve Jobs' "You're holding the phone wrong" statement"]. The FAA has to assure an uninformed public they're "doing something". So we get things like this.
 @MB Whose alias are you talking about???
Please learn to use the "Reply" button.
The 787 PF ( Pissing Firebird) will get the leaking fuel tanks and the battery fire problems fixed. Thing is most planes have that done before the plane goes to the public. The question I have is did Boeing rush this plane to market even with problems thinking oh we will fix them later . Not good for reputation of a plane manufacture thats been around for ever .