Ethiopian Dreamliner on fire at Heathrow

I read that the 'Source of Ethiopian Airlines Dreamliner fire at Heathrow was battery in emergency beacon.'

So another lithium ion battery issue whichever way you slice it.

I think I'll say now that I won't be booking a 787 flight anytime soon.

[Darren Wheeler]

I read that the 'Source of Ethiopian Airlines Dreamliner fire at Heathrow was battery in emergency beacon.'

So another lithium ion battery issue whichever way you slice it.

I think I'll say now that I won't be booking a 787 flight anytime soon.

Best not fly on any aircraft then. over 6000 units have been manufactured and are fitted to many different aircraft types. This is the first reported incident with them

The report also says it is a chemical Lithium-Manganese Dioxide battery. It produces power through chemical reaction rather than stored electricity. A bit like making a light glow with zinc, copper and a lemon (no G&T).

I read that the 'Source of Ethiopian Airlines Dreamliner fire at Heathrow was battery in emergency beacon.'

So another lithium ion battery issue whichever way you slice it.

I think I'll say now that I won't be booking a 787 flight anytime soon.

And you won't be buying any more consumer electronic products either because many of them contain lithium-ion batteries as well?

The aeroplane has had numerous incidents, and I'm quite happy to wait a couple of years before trying one myself.

Same reason I never buy a new car as soon as its released, always wait a year or so for manufacturing gremlins to be ironed out.

I read that the 'Source of Ethiopian Airlines Dreamliner fire at Heathrow was battery in emergency beacon.'

So another lithium ion battery issue whichever way you slice it.

I think I'll say now that I won't be booking a 787 flight anytime soon.

And you won't be buying any more consumer electronic products either because many of them contain lithium-ion batteries as well?

I think Boeing is on the cusp of public opinion changing with this - any more incidents and people will not want to travel. I'm edgy about 787's as it is. Sky News was reporting it as 'and it's a battery problem' this afternoon.

I read that the 'Source of Ethiopian Airlines Dreamliner fire at Heathrow was battery in emergency beacon.'

So another lithium ion battery issue whichever way you slice it.

I think I'll say now that I won't be booking a 787 flight anytime soon.

And you won't be buying any more consumer electronic products either because many of them contain lithium-ion batteries as well?

I'm with Clarkey, this aircraft has now had four unexplained fires - note ALL are unexplained still even though on two of them battery run away was at the centre the actual cause remains unknown, on a third there was electrical arc-ing that caused a fire and also unexplained (blamed on a foreign object that was never found), and now a fourth centred on the emergency location transmitter which is also unexplained (read the AAIB initial report, they say explicitly that the cause is still under investigation).

As I said earlier in this thread, I hope these problems are solved before VS gets any, until then I'll take flights on other aircraft.

Its possible people might be over reacting about this but its very understandable if your taking your family on an aircraft that is under question on safety. Just like people switched bookings during the DC10 era. Whichever way you look at it, it must be a PR gamble for airlines who are about to take delivary. Has VA made any comments?
Frankly I think its very odd the way they sell a product like this befor the glitches are ironed out, its not like an Apple product where they sell a new model knowing its not refined and the customer has to isolate the glitch so Apple can just send out an upload, its a blinkin plane!
Hope they get it sorted anyway.

JAL 787 returned to airport shortly after take off from Boston as a "precautionary measure".

Not related to batteries, but sheesh.

[Darren Wheeler]

There'll be some rather worried execs at Honeywell too over the next few weeks.

Was this a one-off problem with the ELT?
Is there a design flaw?
Manufacturing fault?

There are around 6000 units of this design in use so was it just really bad luck that this one was in a 787?

JAL 787 returned to airport shortly after take off from Boston as a "precautionary measure".

Not related to batteries, but sheesh.

To be fair, JAL has had a very good record with the 787, a very high per cent of on time departures and very few cancellations. United has suffered from many delays and of course the fire issues have been with other airlines and Boeing themselves.

This particular instance was a faulty fuel indicator that had to be checked.

JAL 787 returned to airport shortly after take off from Boston as a "precautionary measure".

Not related to batteries, but sheesh.

not looking too good for the 787 at the moment. Like others have said "up thread" I for one would probably choose a different airline on my route if the only AC VS (or other Airline) operates is a 787.

I was really looking forward to flying on this aircraft , but now I'm definitely with the give it a couple of years people. Just too many incidents involving fire. Why risk it when especially if the the airline has alternative choices on proven aircraft. I know that the 777 had teething proms but there long gone now.

This year I will have flow Airbus A319,320,321,333,380 B737,747,757,767,777 and I just needed he 787 for the set

[Darren Wheeler]

Some passengers won't really have a choice to fly on it or not.

Unless the regulators ground the 787, operators will continue to use it as it is officially 'safe'.

Someone booked on, say Thomson, turns up at the gate then declines to use the 787 may find themselves cancelling their holiday. While the airline might be sympathetic and re-book them on to a later flight or another carrier, you are affectively a no-show.

It's unlikely that your insurance will pay out and EU rules won't apply either, and I really can't see them taking the hit and transferring you to a competitor.

I was really looking forward to flying on this aircraft , but now I'm definitely with the give it a couple of years people. Just too many incidents involving fire. Why risk it when especially if the the airline has alternative choices on proven aircraft. I know that the 777 had teething proms but there long gone now.

This year I will have flow Airbus A319,320,321,333,380 B737,747,757,767,777 and I just needed he 787 for the set

Someone else like me!
I am flying the 787 from Oslow to Gatwick next weekend and have no problems with that (but will choose a seat next to a door!)

Then I only have the e175 and 195 for the full set from Boeing airbus and embraer.

Some passengers won't really have a choice to fly on it or not.

Unless the regulators ground the 787, operators will continue to use it as it is officially 'safe'.

Someone booked on, say Thomson, turns up at the gate then declines to use the 787 may find themselves cancelling their holiday. While the airline might be sympathetic and re-book them on to a later flight or another carrier, you are affectively a no-show.

It's unlikely that your insurance will pay out and EU rules won't apply either, and I really can't see them taking the hit and transferring you to a competitor.

I accept that but I wouldn't book with Thomson and I would avoid operators who could only offer the 787 or re route for example if BA make EWR all 787 or TPA I would fly to JFK or do a one stop on the TPA route. As Slinky said they still haven't sorted out the route cause for the fires

[Darren Wheeler]

I think Thomson will have to address it somehow as there are quite a few post on their FB page where customers don't want a 787.

Thompson have made a big USP on the 787.

I think Thomson will have to address it somehow as there are quite a few post on their FB page where customers don't want a 787.

Thompson have made a big USP on the 787.

I wonder how many of those people would recognise a picture of a 787 if they had to choose from a line up of planes?

I wonder how many of those people would recognise a picture of a 787 if they had to choose from a line up of planes?

Easy - the one with smoke billowing out behind it.

[Darren Wheeler]

I wonder how many of those people would recognise a picture of a 787 if they had to choose from a line up of planes?

Easy - the one with smoke billowing out behind it.

That and when they booked it, it would have said 787

I wonder how many of those people would recognise a picture of a 787 if they had to choose from a line up of planes?

Easy - the one with smoke billowing out behind it.

That and when they booked it, it would have said 787

yeah but how many ordinary people look when they book at what plane they are going to be on? Just look at how many 'what plane will I be on' posts appear on here

Valid point Tonty

I think ordinary people do look if its a newsworthy topic, I know if I had kids and it was all over the news I would even if I wasn't a nerdy plane geek that I am.

Whilst I do doubt many would recognise the AC, I'm fairly sure that Thomson actually charged a supplement for flights on a 787 instead of another type (The "Dreamliner supplement" was £10 pp I believe) people will have payed more to fly 787 so I think perhaps more people than normal will be aware what AC type they are due to fly because of this.

Also on some Disney forums, passengers were often very boastful about the fact they were flying 787 and putting a lot of faith in the fact that flying 787 with Thomson would be an entirely different service level/experience over the other current AC types offered.

IMO Thomson will have some very nervous and possibly unhappy customers in the coming months if AC types are changed

Saw this over on FT -- another bit of worrying news?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/26/us-ana-dreamliner-beacon-idUSBRE96P0AK20130726