sn26567 wrote:
If The Aviation Herald deems necessary to mention such an incident, it means that it is serious enough to be mentioned to aviation enthusiasts.
If you would mention every incident The Aviation Herald publishes every day, you should prepare for more room on the server... Many of the mentionned incidents overhere are indeed serious enough to be mentionned, but the 10th 'incident' with the ELT we know there are problems with...getting boring. Some of the other so called "serious incidents", "groundings" (well yes if an aircraft has a technical problem with which it can't fly it's grounded, happens not only with the 787 last time I checked) are not even close to being that significant as some want to show it.
But ok, same happened with the A380 back then (Emirates grounded one or two of their brand new A380's due to a problem with the electrical system, Singapore Airlines had a black out in a A380 galley due to electrical issues, ... I can name some more, yes the 787 has many many more, but it's also the first aircraft that's basicly a flying power plant without using bleed air and the first one to use li-ion batteries in such a scale in a commercial aircraft). And yes the A380 problems were not that serious for sure, I agree on that with Streetstream.
tolipanebas wrote:
Let's be fair: there's really nothing revolutionary on the 787 and on several technological aspects the plane is still behind on Airbus, but I agree, for a Boeing plane it's a big step forward, but then Boeing were coming from miles behind too.
With all due respect for Airbus, they do build aircraft which are probably more technologicly advanced. But nothing revolutionary about the 787? Then what is revolutionary about the A380 compared to the A330/A340 family? Slightly bigger and that's it? No of course not and neither that's the case with the 787. The first commercial aircraft with full composited wings, and most of it's fuselage allowing a higher cabin pressure and humidity besides bigger windows. What about the fact that the 787 doesn't use bleed air en mass and is in fact a hug electrical power plant (which has it's problems, that's true), the first commercial aircraft to fully abandon classic heavy and less performing batteries (another thing that caused problems and let Airbus decide to get the li-ion batteries out of their A350's for the time being). What about the hybrid laminar flow control system in the leading edges of the 787-9 vertical stabilizor (and other new laminar flow technologies incorporated in the whole 787).
Yes many of these things don't seem to be that revolutionary and obvious as with the A380 or back in the seventies with the 747 or so on. But that doesn't mean it's not revolutionary and even Airbus will be the last to deny that the 787 is revolutionary on many aspects.
I can't deny Airbus has always been ahead of Boeing when talking about fly by wire, cockpit systems and standardization,... But is that because Boeing is less capable? No, that's because they have another way of thinking on many aspects. Just as with their cockpits, that they don't use joysticks. As long as Boeing pilots are not complaining about it en mass, why changing it, many pilots prefer Boeing over Airbus, others prefer Airbus over Boeing. If Boeing would be miles behind Airbus, they wouldn't be where they are today. When looking at the latest 10 years, Airbus is bigger, but it's not that they are dominating the whole market, not at all, if they would be miles in front of Boeing, they would also be miles in front of Boeing when talking about sales, profits, ... If the "out-dated" Boeings work for airlines, why making it more revolutionary to add that percent when it costs you much more on development or profit margins (Airbus may be bigger, Boeing Commercial's profit margins are higher).
