Slashdot Mirror


Boeing 787 Makes US Debut

thomas.kane writes "After years of delays, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is set to take off from Bush Intercontinental Airport this morning bound for O'Hare. Designed to make the flying experience 'revolutionary,' it is constructed from composite materials, has larger windows than previous jetliners, and high efficiency engines. United Airlines became the first U.S. carrier to take delivery; they've ordered 50, but due to processing delays, they only have 2 right now. Start looking for more to take to the skies early next year."

61 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. Awesome by diemuzi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would love to see this in person!

    1. Re:Awesome by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd love to see United stop treating us all like shite.

      HINT: Start with people, not with aircraft. Oh, and food service, too.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Awesome by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Informative

      A few years ago, I was in Seattle for a band trip. On the Sunday morning, a dozen of us went up to Everett to see the Boeing factory.

      The first plane ready to get out the door was 787 #1, the FAA smasher, so we got to see it fairly close. We also got to see the Dreamcargo? whatever it's called take off. That's a funny looking plane.

      They are very cool planes, and if you're ever in the PNW, I highly recommend heading to Everett and checking out the factory. It's incredible.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    3. Re:Awesome by localman57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's what everybody says. Then they go to travelocity, and fly with the lowest bidder. If more people wanted to pay more for a better experience, there'd be more first class seats in airplanes.

    4. Re:Awesome by kiwimate · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, everyone says they want to be treated better. And have even lower fares. As well as full meals. And free movies. And no charge for baggage. But make it cheaper than it already is.

      Do you see the problem?

      HINT: If you want food service, pay more and fly first class.

    5. Re:Awesome by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      funny, I go with the lowest bidder for airlines based in other parts of the world and the food, beer & wine, entertainment and courteous service are included. the US airlines *could* do it if money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets

    6. Re:Awesome by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      United provides food service. It's just not "free." Of course, other airlines charge you for it too, they just include it in your ticket price whether you want the food or not.

    7. Re:Awesome by StarWreck · · Score: 5, Informative

      The United "Tapas Box" is pretty awesome. Well, it was awesome last year when it was only $5, they've since raised the price to $7.50...

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    8. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, the unions are killing the US airlines..

      Except mysteriously for SWA which does just fine despite being union.

    9. Re:Awesome by ls671 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember landing in Seattle for the first time. I could just see miles of runways figuring out; there is the airport! It went on for a while before actually getting to the airport. It turns out they were Boeing factory runways.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    10. Re:Awesome by Smallpond · · Score: 5, Informative

      From United's Q3 financials:

      Net profit margin 0.06%

      but having just flown SwissAir and Lufthansa, I have to agree about food and service being better in Europe.

    11. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And yet there's RyanAir, which will sadly never work in the US because we lack an abundance of old military airfields an hour away from places that people actually want to go.

    12. Re:Awesome by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this country, executives get paid for performance-- or at least for tweaking the stock price. Unions, with their incessant demands for decent working conditions, interfere with the creation of totemic representations of shareholder value.

    13. Re:Awesome by khallow · · Score: 2

      funny, I go with the lowest bidder for airlines based in other parts of the world and the food, beer & wine, entertainment and courteous service are included. the US airlines *could* do it if money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets

      Just remember that customers are on that short list of "money-grubbing scum". Shop for those other criteria, if that's what you want and pay a little more like you do with those "lowest bidders" in other parts of the world.

    14. Re:Awesome by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, the unions are killing the US airlines.

      Your concluding statement contains a doctrinary truism. This hypothesis is not borne out by the evidence.

      Experience on European flag-carrier and private airlines is qualitatively better than US service and amenities, in general and overall.

      Surely, you don't propose that, somehow, European workers are less unionized than their American counterparts? I laugh at the thought!

      Of course Asian premiere carriers also shame the US - so perhaps unionization is a red-herring, and may not be germane to the argument. But don't let that stop you from your neo-objectivist claims. I understand that they are impervious to empiricism. ;-)

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    15. Re:Awesome by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just saw one at Beijing in ANA colors - looked a lot like a mid-sized twin engine airliner.

      I spend a lot of my life on airliners. The things that matter to me are:
      Big overhead bins: 787 has them, but so do lat model 747s and 777s.
      AC power sockets: These could be put on any plane, but usually airlines only have them in business.
      Legroom: Entirely up to the airline to set the seat spacing, nothing to do with the airplane.
      In seat video with a selection of movies: Again up to the airline for the interior configuration.
      Sufficient restrooms: Again, an airline configuration issue.

      The improved fuel efficiency will reduce costs some - which is nice, but that is an ongoing trend. Presumably the airbus A350 will be the next step, followed by a 797 or something. I occasionally look out the windows, but most of the time there isn't much to see - so big windows are only a minor change. If they really operate the plane at lower cabin altitude that would be nice, but the extra weight burns more fuel - I doubt they actually operate that way for long. I couldn't care less about the multi-colored lighting.

      It looks like a nice plane, but not in any way a game changer. Give me a Mach 3 SST, or a sub-orbital that can do Shanghai to SFO in 40 minutes and we'll talk. We've had Mach .85 airliners for >50 years now.

    16. Re:Awesome by Mike_EE_U_of_I · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In this country, executives get paid for performance-- or at least for tweaking the stock price. Unions, with their incessant demands for decent working conditions, interfere with the creation of totemic representations of shareholder value.

      That was a joke right? "Shareholder value" when talking about passenger airlines is pretty much zero. The lifetime profit/loss of the industry is a loss. Every legacy US airline has declared bankruptcy at least once. Southwest has not gone belly up, but you would have been far better investing in the S&P 500 over the last five or ten year periods, perhaps longer.

          The problem is that owning airlines is "sexy" and way too much money is invested in it. The result is that shareholders are completely and utterly screwed. The problem with airlines is not the execs, the unions, the corporate structure, or even fuel costs. The problem is the "sexy" factor has caused there to be way too much capacity built and no airline can operate at a long term profit because of it.

    17. Re:Awesome by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      No, the untaken business class seats are for people who needs to fly RIGHT NOW, and the 10x price is the price for being guaranteed a seat on the next flight. Note that the seats are handed out for free to frequent fliers as a perk for always flying the same airline.

  2. Re:Boston Already? by sensei+moreh · · Score: 2

    ANA isn't an American carrier (or wasn't last time I flew on them)

    --
    Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
  3. US ? That's nothing. by ballpoint · · Score: 4, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, Boeing 787 Makes YOU Debut !

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  4. Meh ... by lennier1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was worried at first, until I saw that the airport was named after the at least somewhat sane one.

  5. Re:Boston Already? by sunderland56 · · Score: 2

    TFA didn't say "Debut with an American carrier", it said "US Debut".

    Of course, since it is made here, it has been flying in the USA for years - but they ignore that fact as well.

  6. New feature by freeasinrealale · · Score: 4, Funny

    But do the windows open?

    --
    A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
    1. Re:New feature by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can't open Windows because the 787 runs on Linux.

  7. Did I miss something? by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Getting a bit of deja vu here. Looks like they'll be counting it as a first everytime this plane takes off. First for an American carrier, first time at night, first time with a special guest aboard, first flight with ground fog, etc.

    1. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you're missing the point...the story here is that a US carrier can finally afford a new airplane.

    2. Re:Did I miss something? by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First American carrier to use an american-built plane made mostly of composite materials.
       
      Don't get me wrong, Carbon Fiber is absurdly strong, and computer models help negate design flaws.... but CF's failure mode tends to be sudden and...explosive. Steel bends long before it breaks, and Aluminum is somewhere in the middle, but CF just.... goes when it fails. I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:Did I miss something? by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 2

      They do the same thing on TV. "World premier of MOVIE", "US premier of MOVIE", "Network premier", "Cable premier", "Season premier", and so on.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    4. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are getting old.

      Modern engineering simulation using non-linear finite element software with appropriate calibrated fracture and failure material models can model the deformation and stresses accurately. When the structure is overloaded, the software can model the delamination of the individual plies, the damage that occurs and the residual strength and performance of the structure.

      Disclaimer: I used to work for the company that writes the software that Boeing uses.

    5. Re:Did I miss something? by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ah, Anonymous Coward, we meet again! This is where I link to two very amusing CF stress test videos
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrjId0-K-Ts
       
      Hooray for science and/or standardized testing based on Real Science.
       
      On that first video, skip ahead to the 5 minute mark where they're just beating the frame against a concrete wall/corner.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    6. Re:Did I miss something? by localman57 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I really wish you software types would refrain from commenting on real science.

      Why? I deal with terrible code written by science types all the time. Payback's a bitch.

    7. Re:Did I miss something? by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ACtually, the difference is less than you think. 10-15%, to be exact. Modern airlines do not use plain aluminium. Most recently, Alumnium-Magnesium-Lithium alloys have been introduced, for example

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    8. Re:Did I miss something? by fnj · · Score: 2

      You make it sound like engineers are clueless of a concept called "elastic limit", and that boeing's people are so inept at nonlinear structural analysis to be completely oblivious to how to design structures to work safely in elastic limits.

      Strange you should put it that way, since CFRP has essentially no plastic deformation at all. It's all elastic. The yield strength, or elastic limit, is essentially the same as the ultimate strength.

    9. Re:Did I miss something? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2

      First American carrier to use an american-built plane made mostly of composite materials.

      Don't get me wrong, Carbon Fiber is absurdly strong, and computer models help negate design flaws.... but CF's failure mode tends to be sudden and...explosive. Steel bends long before it breaks, and Aluminum is somewhere in the middle, but CF just.... goes when it fails. I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.

      Well, they do test these things, with built prototypes, not just computer models. For every plane Boeing builds, they do a wing break test where they bend the wings until they break. The wings on the 787 could be bent more than the wings on any of their aluminum built frames.

      787's wing break test and regular wing testing.

  8. Ceiling Lighting by Riddler+Sensei · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Watching the "Passenger Experience" video it was almost obnoxious how much attention they kept giving the ceiling lighting, but looking at the different settings for the dynamic LED lighting it is actually pretty cool. I like that it not only changes the brightness but also the color of the cabin for things like meals and pre-landing.

    1. Re:Ceiling Lighting by Solandri · · Score: 2

      The manufacturers don't control the seats - the airlines do. Both Boeing and Airbus try to choose cabin widths which maximize the width of each seat, while not quite providing enough room for the airlines to squeeze in an extra seat. But they can't do anything if an airline chooses to forgo 2-4-2 seating (8 across), shrinks the aisles and seat widths, and makes it 3-3-3 seating (9 across).

  9. But it's still United by magarity · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did they upgrade the staff with all new attitudes and customer service skills? Otherwise I'd rather be on another carrier's older plane.

    1. Re:But it's still United by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      I'll take 100 old dc-11's with crotichity old men as stewards if they'd abolish the TSA.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  10. Re:There goes another "feature" by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Are they afraid you might go blind from the sun or something?

    Its so the passengers can better enjoy the in-flight entertainment. Especially on planes that don't have seat back monitors.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  11. Re:There goes another "feature" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I actually work for the company that manufactures the windows (Gentex) and I only have a little experience working with the windows, but I do know that there is a master control for the dimming level. Also, there are 5 different dimming levels so it's not just full dark and full clear. I think with the master control there is also the ability to limit the selectable dimming levels. So the flight attendants or whoever gets to control it could require you to set it to at least dimming level 3 and you'd still be able to look out of the window.

  12. Processing delays? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny

    It turns out there was some poor guy at United Airlines refreshing this web page for months:

    Tracking results for order 18293387382484758342093837439382:
      Seattle, WA 2012-07-02 13:43:23 In Transit.
      The item has left the seller's facility.
      Estimated delivery time: NA
      No further information available, please check again later.

    What's worse, when the plane finally arrived, it was packed in a giant welded plastic clamshell. It took two weeks for a crew at the airline to extract the aircraft without damaging it.

  13. Re:Odd priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Airplane manufacturers don't control seat width; the airlines are the ones who define that. The 787 is wider than other airplanes in its size class and Boeing had intended for that to be reflected in the seats. Instead, airlines chose to cram in two more passengers per row.

  14. Re:Odd priorities by demonlapin · · Score: 2

    Unless you're very overweight, the span of your shoulders is the widest part of the human body. There's only so much that can be accomplished when seats are made narrower than the average shoulder width, and seat pitch is so short that even modestly tall people (I'm 6'0") have their knees touching the seat in front of them even when seats are upright and fully locked.

    Business/first is an option, of course, but it's not available on the regional jets that have made such huge inroads in American air transport.

  15. That doesn't really show anything. by raehl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SWA may do fine as a business, but it doesn't do any better than other US carriers in terms of product or value for the customer.

    If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.

    1. Re:That doesn't really show anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because more bonus money for executives is more important than the notion of anybody wanting to work an honest living earning a decent wage. When did a strong middle-class become the bad guy? It seems to me that you poor-but-aspiring and middle-class have a case of Stockholm syndrome, identifying with your capitalist captors as a survival technique. Well, you've already lost the battle. Go back to your Foxconn dormitory.

      Hey, maybe if I repeatedly vote against my best interests, I too can be rich someday. A rich guy in a suit told me so on T.V!

      Oh, and fuck you.

      -- Ethanol-fueled

    2. Re:That doesn't really show anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.

      That's a bizarre non sequitur. How does that keep foreign carriers from getting into a race to the bottom like we're seeing in the US? And why are you excluding the Europeans?

    3. Re:That doesn't really show anything. by gomiam · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's called cherry-picking: he only picks the data that support his hypothesis.

    4. Re:That doesn't really show anything. by LateArthurDent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.

      Except that if you compare US airlines to foreign airlines including Europe, they have far better "soft products" despite labor costs..

      I remember taking a coach flight from Glasgow to London with British Airlines, and thought they had upgraded me to business class, based on how much space I had at my seats, and having only experienced flight in the US up until that point. They don't cram twice as many seats as there should be in their planes. Good service too.

    5. Re:That doesn't really show anything. by LateArthurDent · · Score: 4, Informative

      A similar ticket in the US costs 1/3 less than in Europe

      Really? Because I just compared ticket prices in expedia (round-trip, weekend trip, a few months out (February).

      Cheapest flight from LA to San Francisco (distance 347 miles): $177, United Airlines, which I can attest has crappy service.

      Cheapest flight from Glasgow to London (distance 343 miles): $166, British Airways, which I can attest has great service.

    6. Re:That doesn't really show anything. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      I remember taking a coach flight from Glasgow to London with British Airlines [...]

      Note that British Airlines is a Flag Carrier, so there are various subsidies for the airline. Same with Air France.

    7. Re:That doesn't really show anything. by sr180 · · Score: 2

      Cheapest (full service - Qantas) flight from Adelaide to Melbourne 700kms (Australia): $140 (Meal + Newspaper + 1 free alcoholic drink + minimum 1000 FF points compared to BA's measly 125.)
      Cheapest flight from Adelaide to Melbourne: $48.

      US has it bad, very bad. Australians don't realise how bad flying is until we leave Australia.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    8. Re:That doesn't really show anything. by cthulhu11 · · Score: 2

      When did a strong middle-class become the bad guy?

      The same time that labor unions went from fighting abusive management practices to downright extortion.

    9. Re:That doesn't really show anything. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      The combined pay for the top 4 executives of Southwest Airlines is 0.026% of the total revenue, which is on the order of 3 cents per passenger per flight. Quite simply, it is not significant. It is swamped by airport fees, fuel costs, and flight crew wages.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  16. I'd care more... by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ,.. if flying hadn't become such a nightmare. I remember how excited I was the first time I flew as a kid. The last time I flew, the seat put my arse to sleep, and the guy in the next seat kept elbowing me as he worked on a PP presentation. The restroom was this tiny compartment I couldn't even stand up straight in.

    I avoid flying at all costs. I'll probably never board a 787.

  17. Re:There goes another "feature" by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    If you want darkness, wear this

    If you want silence wear these

    In fact, get both

    But don't tell me I can't look out the window

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  18. Re:There goes another "feature" by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

    I've had plenty of flight attendants ask me to close my shade when it was only open a crack. With the shade, the light is always at full brightness, so they have to tell you to close them so that others can sleep. This way, they can dim the windows to a lower setting, but you'll still be able to see out of them. It'll also be a lot easer on your eyes, since you won't have to stare into the blinding light from a dark cabin. This gives both you and the flight attendant more control.

  19. Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, etc. by mark_reh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All I want is some godammed leg and elbow room.

  20. Re:There goes another "feature" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    And in a bit of conspiracy thinking, I wonder if the cabin crew has a master switch to force the windows to darken when they want - Hello Zaphod's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses!

    They always tell you to open the shades fully when taking off or landing because the cabin lights may fail and you need to see outside in the event of an accident. If anything the master switch would be for forcing them to fully transparent.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  21. Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e by Phanatic1a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No you don't. If that's all you wanted, you'd fly first class or business class and get it. What you want is more leg and elbow room and the same amount of money left in your wallet after you buy the ticket.

  22. Re:Reality check by jbwolfe · · Score: 3, Informative
    You are grossly misinformed:

    http://www.glassdoor.com/GD/Salary/United-Airlines-Flight-Attendant-Salaries-E683_D_KO16,32.htm?filter.experienceLevel=TEN_PLUS/

    $84k:

    try $48K at most.

    12-15 days off per month (average):

    not if you want that $48K: More like 10 days off...

    free travel for you and your family:

    There's never any "space available" for those pesky employees. It's nothing but an enormous waste of time to even try.

    big discounts on rental cars and hotels

    You get the same thing we do...

    per diem of $3k-$5k per year:

    What? Do you think dining on the road is cheap- you must not travel much. That doesn't even cover it. Take a look next time, most of them carry a cooler full of food with them.

    tuition reimbursement, matching 401k:

    YGTBSM. Maybe at Southwest, but even with them 401K's are the only retirement.

    pensions:

    GONE, GONE, GONE. After telling us to take MASSIVE paycuts to save them- tremendous bait and switch. We were totally suckered. Live and learn...

    Of course, airline pilots making up to $200k per year and all the above is a pretty good deal too.:

    IAAAP (I am an airline pilot) and I don't even make half that- after 17 years. From the devil itself:http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/06/16/pilot-pay-want-to-know-how-much-your-captain-earns/. Not everybody gets to be Captain, and it take years to make it. Oh yeah, they keep raising the retirement age: moving the line ever so further away...

    --
    Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
  23. Sigh! by CaptainZapp · · Score: 2

    If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.

    Citation needed..

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk