Boing 787 Dreamliner encounters Major New Problems

[fountainhall]

First it was battery overheating that ended up grounding the entire 787 fleet. Now it is major engine problems that is causing airlines major concerns. It's so bad that Japan's ANA is replacing its 50-strong fleet with 100 new engines.

The problem seems to be in cracking and early corrosion in engine turbine blades. This has led to ANA grounding 4 of the aircraft and cancelling 18 domestic flights due to engine problems. The worry for the airline - and for passengers - must be that the engine maker Rolls Royce will not have a new blade design ready until the end of this year. It will then take three years to refit the entire fleet.

With 445 planes already delivered, does this mean that other operators have been experiencing similar failures?

Newly designed Rolls Royce engines for new aircraft have sometimes experienced flaws requiring eventual redesign. It happened with the 747 and it was an RR engine which exploded on an A380 soon after take-off from Singapore in 2010 resulting in the loss of many controls. Only the skills of the pilots enabled it to land safely even at a very fast speed.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/01/engine-failures-on-787-dreamliners-prompt-ana-to-refit-entire-fleet

[goji]

Just for completeness, the 787 is available with either Rolls Royce or GE engines.

The GE engines have also not been trouble free and were subject to an FAA airworthiness directive earlier this year, after some cases of engines shutting down.


Since the 787 has been operating in the market for almost 5 years, with 445 aircraft in service & as far as I know, no fatalities, so I am happy to fly them.

[fountainhall]

I have flown two sectors on 787s. I was looking forward to a "different" feeling in the cabin and the more oxygen in the cabin air. Whilst my flights were problem free, I noticed no difference at all apart from the larger windows! I can't wait to try the A350. Reviews of Qatar's A350 economy class have been excellent with more width and leg room space thanks to IFE boxes being taken from the floor and incorporated into the seat design.

[goji]

I have done one 11.5 hour flight in a 787. I thought the plane was reasonably quiet and well appointed.

The only downside was the excessively firm base to the seat. That was becoming uncomfortable during the flight.

[Moses]

The only downside was the excessively firm base to the seat. That was becoming uncomfortable during the flight.

Airlines don't order aircraft with seats, moreover - most manufacturers of aircrafts don't make seats. It is different market and airlines are buying seats directly from seats manufacturer plants and then installing them to aircraft by themself. Most known manufacturers of seats for mass-markets are Zodiac, B/E Aerospace and Recaro.

How firm or comfortable is seat in aircraft depends on airline and Boeing is not responsible for it.

[Andaman!]

I have flown two sectors on 787s. I was looking forward to a "different" feeling in the cabin and the more oxygen in the cabin air. Whilst my flights were problem free, I noticed no difference at all apart from the larger windows! I can't wait to try the A350. Reviews of Qatar's A350 economy class have been excellent with more width and leg room space thanks to IFE boxes being taken from the floor and incorporated into the seat design.

i have flown the 787 on a couple of sectors with British Airways and the A350 on one sector with Qatar. I was disappointed with the 787 which was rather noisy, made bizarre creaking sounds in turbulence and is rather narrow which apparently means the seats are very narrow in the economy cabin. On the other hand, the A350 was a most impressive aircraft being both quieter and wider than the 787 - Infound the A350 to be wholly superior to 787. I was fortunate not to be in the economy cabin on the 787 but people who have flown economy tell me it is a "nightmare liner" and they will actively check aircraft type when booking in future to avoid 787 unless in a premium cabin. You will also see appalling 787 economy reviews on www.airlinequality.com

[francois]

You will also see appalling 787 economy reviews on www.airlinequality.com

Could you be more specific? I did not see reviews of 787.

[fountainhall]

You will also see appalling 787 economy reviews on www.airlinequality.com (http://www.airlinequality.com)
I sympathise with Francois. It's far from easy picking out the information you're looking for on a site as complex as that of Skytrax.

In an effort to find out how travellers have rated the 787 and the A350 I checked on reviews of specific airlines. It's difficult to make a comparison because the A350 has been in service for such a short time compared to the 787. Accordingly there are lots more 787 reviews. So I selected 5 airlines. ANA since it was the launch customer for the 787 and Qatar which was the launch customer for the A350 but also has 787s. I added British Airways for 787 reviews, Finnair for A350 reviews and Vietnam Air as it operates both types (but I had given up on A350 reviews by the time I got to there)! I looked only at reviews for economy class passengers (no premium economy or business) and where the type of aircraft is specified in the review.

The first thing I noticed was that a vast number of economy passengers had little clue which aircraft they flew. The 747 and A380 had lots of reviews, 777s quite a few but not many 787, A350, A340 and A330 reviews. Skytrax has a star rating system out of 10 and so I planned to summarise the first ten reviews I could find of each aircraft type with each airline. I gave up on British Airways since after 300 reviews I could only find 4 economy class reviews! I did notice though that one passenger in First Class rated the 787 with just 2 stars! I tried to locate a United review of the 787 but gave up after 100 reviews. So only Qatar and Vietnam Airlines had 10 reviews for the the 787. The most I could find for the A350 is seven.

Boeing 787
ANA: 4 x 10 stars / 1 x 9 stars / 2 x 8 stars / 3 x 7 stars
Qatar: 2 x 10 stars / 2 x 9 stars / 3 x 8 stars / 1 x 7 stars / 1 x 6 stars / 1 x 2 stars
British Airways: 1 x 8 stars / 1 x 7 stars / 2 x 3 stars
Vietnam Airlines: 1 x 9 stars / 1 x 8 stars / 2 x 7 stars / 1 x 6 stars / 2 x 5 stars / 1 x 4 stars / 2 x 2 stars

Airbus A350
Qatar: 1 x 10 stars / 1 x 9 stars / 1 x 8 stars
Finnair: 1 x 10 stars / 1 x 8 stars / 1 x 6 stars / 2 x 5 stars / 2 x 2 stars

To check on the individual traveller's experience, you'll have to open up the reviews because it is too complex for me to do here. Now you know the airljnes, you can click again on the link. Immediately under the title there is a bar along the page. Click Airline Reviews. Then click A-Z Airline Reviews. Click the alphabetical first letter of the airline to get a list of airlines starting with that letter. Then click the airline. The type of aircraft is usually the first line after the actual review.

Skytrax bases the average review rating on ratings for things like seat comfort, F&B offerings, crew attitude and so on. So it is almost impossible to get much from the average star system - other than that top airlines like Qatar and ANA obviously give passengers a far better overall in-flight experience than the others listed above.

The only other point I'd make is that anyone considering flying to Europe from Bangkok should look at Finnair. It's business class reviews for the A350s it operates out of BKK are almost universally excellent. Presently you can buy a return biz ticket to London for around Bt. 54,000 valid through to early July next year. An amazing bargain!

[fountainhall]

Just to finish last night's listing, Vietnam Airlines has 2 reviews for economy in the A350 - 1 x 5 stars and 1 x 4 stars. Very average.

The ratings for Seat Comfort are obviously useful. Whilst the average overall rating is out of 10 points, only 5 stars are allocated for individual elements including seating. Vietnam Airlines gets 4 stars in most its 787 reviews with 1 x 3 star and 1 x 5 star. Plenty of legroom is mentioned more than once. But seating gets much lower ratings for the A350 - only 2 stars.

Finnair reviewers are also mixed about the A350 seating. Some give it 2 stars, one gives 1 star, others give 4 or 5. Qatar reviewers give the A350 economy seating high marks for pitch, legroom and recline. Qatar's 787 economy seating runs the gamut from 1 star to 5 star!

Clearly actual seating layout is part of the key to a comfortable flight. Of other airlines, JAL gets extremely good 787 economy seat reviews - perhaps because it only has 8 across seating ( same as ANA) whereas most other airlines have 9 across. One tall passenger even wrote he had plenty of legroom. The two reviews I could find for American Airlines 787s give seating above average 3 and 4 stars. KLM's 787s get very good seat ratings - 2 x 3 stars / 2 x 4 stars / 3 x 5 stars.

The key point here is that, as with hotels, you can only trust reviews up to a point because there is a huge number of variables with each passenger experience. However, what I found does not generally speaking bear out Andaman!'s point that the 787 gets appalling reviews. Indeed, overall the reviews for the A350 economy seating are not as good as those for the 787. I may not have selected the airlines he was told about. It would certainly be useful if he were to provide examples of lousy Skytrax reviews of a few flights on 787s operated by other airlines.

[goji]

The only other point I'd make is that anyone considering flying to Europe from Bangkok should look at Finnair. It's business class reviews for the A350s it operates out of BKK are almost universally excellent. Presently you can buy a return biz ticket to London for around Bt. 54,000 valid through to early July next year. An amazing bargain!

That's a very good price, so I had a look at their schedule. The London==>BKK leg is only 14 hours too, but as they leave at 10:20 in the morning I'm not going to get any sleep, like we can with the direct flights.

[fountainhall]

That's a very good price, so I had a look at their schedule. The London==>BKK leg is only 14 hours too, but as they leave at 10:20 in the morning I'm not going to get any sleep, like we can with the direct flights.
I've flown twice on Finnair biz class to London via Helsinki and agree you're unlikely to get much sleep. On the other hand, British Airways one daily flight is also a morning departure and on crappy old 777s in desperate need of renovation and still with 8 across biz class seating. So you'd be stuck with TG if you want an overnight non-stop. And that would cost you around Bt. 150,000! Is one night's sleep seriously worth close to an extra Bt. 100,000?

You can still go non-stop overnight to cities like Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt on AF, KL and LH and change for the final short hop. But then you're looking at prices well in excess of Bt. 100,000. I'll happily lose a night's sleep to save such a lot of cash!

[Khor tose]

I like the Boeing 787, but I have never flown a plane by Boing. I do not know about you, but if someone told me my plane was made by boing, I too would really hesitate to get on it. The only plane that I know that went boing was the BOAC Comet upon reaching 35,000 feet where it would boing into all of its constitute parts. Sorry Fountainhal,l but as a resident of Seattle, I cannot let this one go without comment.

[goji]

Is one night's sleep seriously worth close to an extra Bt. 100,000?

No. What I am booking is a Premium Economy direct flight, with the London - BKK leg overnight.

For me, business class has more added utility on an overnight leg, since the flat seat allows better sleep. For a daytime flight, a premium economy or even an economy emergency exit row seat is enough, since I will be awake and upright for most of the flight.

I've not yet seen an indirect flight that offers sufficient advantages over the direct one. If the Finn Air flight left at about 8:00 pm, I would be seriously considering it.

Most of the other indirect flights involve airlines I don't want to use (Arab & Russian), excessive detours & at least one unreasonably long stopover.

[gerefan2]

Goji
There are only three airlines that fly direct London to BKK. Thai, Eva and the dreaded BA.
BA does actually leave in the afternoon (1500 hours) and the other two leave at 2130.
Thai is expensive, BA is appalling, which leaves Evaair who I use. They are acceptable but never have male stewards!!
I cannot find the cheap Finair Business Class fares (even under special offers) at the prices mentioned above. Maybe they have all been sold.

[Smiles]

By Gerefan: " ... which leaves Evaair who I use. They are acceptable but never have male stewards!! ... "

Talking about male stewards: as I fly back to Canada once a year these are my recent observations (going Pacific-wise). The most handsome dudes can be found on China Southern (BKK ~ Guangzhou ~ Vancouver) by a long shot. I tried China Southern because of an incredibly cheap flight offered in Biz Class last April. All male stewards in my section, speaking excellent english and very sexy. Korean Air (BKK ~ Seoul ~ Vancouver) is hit and miss especially in Economy (I peeked into Biz Class a few times and found the pickings there much better by far). Malaysian (Bangkok ~ Adelaide) was unexpectedly eye-candy positive and very pleasant.
United (i.e. before it closed up shop to Bangkok) was horrendous. Cabin crews completely made up of unbelievably grouchy authoritarian old girls/nazis (very old!), with the odd male purser hiding out, shivering in fright, in the kitchen.

[fountainhall]

The only plane that I know that went boing was the BOAC Comet upon reaching 35,000 feet where it would boing into all of its constitute parts.
A fellow boing enthusiast! I also once flew on a Comet 4 (a BOAC reject handed down to the long dead Dan Air). I was certain it would go boing at cruising altitude like some of the earlier models had, and was quite surprised that it got me to Crete in one piece.


BA does actually leave in the afternoon (1500 hours)
For decades BA's BKK/LHR was a night flight after coming in from Sydney. Since BA gave up the BKK/Sydney route some years ago it has always been a morning departure ex-BKK. And it is not only the price that is appalling. The aircraft interiors and the service are dreadful - or were the 2 times I took it. Never again!

[gerefan2]

Sorry fountainhall, I thought you were talking about LHR to BKK, so you may be right about the morning departure.

Last year I decided to try BA Business Class UK-BKK and back. Truly awful.Never, ever will fly BA again.

They even charged £140 extra to book your seat...I paid because I didn't want to face backwards all the way. Their weird layout. Only to be asked at check in if I wanted to change my seat...wtf?

The aircraft was so old the TV was opaque.

The final straw for me was when I asked for a toothpick. None carried! Even cattle class with Eva has a toothpick as part of the plastic cutlery. I had to tear off a bit of the menu...

Fuck em.

[fountainhall]

They even charged £140 extra to book your seat...I paid because I didn't want to face backwards all the way. Their weird layout.
I only started taking BA because it was the first to introduce flat bed seats in 1999. I also found the backward facing seats strange, but then I wanted a window seat and so tried it. Thereafter, I never had any problem with them. I even quickly rose up the ranks to become a gold executive member. When they introduced that criminal charge for choosing your actual seat in advance I was relieved that executive club gold and silver members did not have to pay. But as the overall service rapidly deteriorated, I gave that up.

There are no biz seats on the 777s that now fly between BKK and LHR I would ever consider taking. On the A380s from HKG to LHR there are just two I'd want - window seats at the back of the first upper deck cabin. But I would never pay extra for seats at the time of booking. So BA is now right off my radar.