Qatar Airways Ltd. said a 787 jet received from Boeing Co. (BA) this week has been grounded with a faulty generator, a problem similar to one that forced the emergency landing of a Dreamliner operated by United Continental Holdings Inc. (UAL) (www.bloomberg.com) More...
What I thought comical was that after all his B&G that he said Boeing made fine airplanes and were quite adequate in performance, meaning he feels he has to B&G but he knows that he has no other way to turn.lol
There is a reason the generator is installed with bolts. So you can change it. How is it Boeings fault he does not have spare parts or qualified mechanics in his country? The plane made it safely to the ground, so why is he complaining?
A generator is a complex device, but to call it a major problem is inflating the level of failure. What does he consider a minor problem? A sticky lavatory door latch?
How is the quality of the large airplanes made in Qtar?
My 2cts worth regardless of what you think of Baker: A faulty generator will bring a warning light in the cockpit; a sticky door latch won't. You don't expect that on a new vehicle of any kind but it hasn't been that long back that I saw a brand new car, less than an hour off the lot, coming back into the dealership on a roll back. Stuff Happens
What kind of an ass comment is this? Did you even read the article? Qatar Airways is consistently rated one of the world's top airlines each year. I'm sure they have qualified mechanics. They are awaiting a part for a new airplane. I doubt anyone besides Boeing has this part on stock.
It is Boeing's fault for sending a new plane with a generator problem. Imagine you bought a new car and that same week the alternator needed to be replaced. I'm sure you'd want Ford to cover the cost and replace it for you.
Whether it's bolted or not, the airplane isn't flying and the guy is running a business, an airline.Step out of you're trailer and see the world. The Arab world is not all what you see on tv. Qatar is a wonderful airline and so is Emirates. Heck, you probably don't know that an Arab airline's (Emirates) maintenance facility is top notch.
John, your last paragraph is a personal attack, a fallback often used by people without a defensible position. I did read the article, and the "ratings" of the airline do not measure their maintenence abilities. Many airlines contract their maintenence from third parties.
I take issue with your assertation the Boeing is at fault for sending a new plane with a generator problem. The test protocol is extensive both during manufature, through installation and flight testing. At the hand over the plane is as good as humanly possible.
I have never owned a Ford, but I did buy a Peterbilt once that lost an alternator on its first cross-county trip. Peterbilt covered the cost of the alternator, but not my drivers pay and expenses nor the lost income while repairs were made.
Emirates does have competent maintenence people and facilities, not only at DXB, but at a few dozen other locations. They provide service to 20 odd airlines including some service to Qtar. Emirates would have handled Qtar's AOG with all possible dispatch.
Though these generator failures have been widely reported, no one has revealed the exact cause of the problem. The VFSg (variable frequency starter/generator) itself might not be the problem, it might be in the control system that separates the starter function from the generator function. This airplane has a much more advanced onboard service/maintenence system than prior aircraft.
Anyone interested in the maintence systems of the 787 might enjoy this:
Akbar Al Baker sounds like a Dick. "We are not going to buy an aircraft to put in a Museum"??? Get a grip Ach-med obviously you have no clue how the aircraft business works. New equals growing pains. There is not a better company on Earth to resolve aircraft technical problems than Boeing. If you don't like it go buy an old MIG from the North Korean Air Force. Your sudden oil wealth combined with the hot sun has made you ignorant
I paritally agree. Most of this paranoia about the 787 has stemmed from Boeing's problems from Day One on the plane. Boeing should have brought parts suppliers under its control, should have written off several billion on the plane itself because of its forward technology and controversy over the development of the plane itself.
The 787 will be a success, and customers are satisfied despite the bugs. JAL is connecting Boston with Asia, San Jose, CA, which needs a link to Asia because of the Silicon Valley, is getting a flight through ANA, ditto for San Diego. I understand how with aviation fuel so expensive, airline execs are outraged that their money maker is bug-ridden.
It comes down to that Boeing should call up Rolls-Royce and GE and offer them into a 767 reengining project. Ditto for the 757 if something can be done in that arena. If I was an airline exec and I was already happy with a 767 fleet, I'd want to build on that with a new engine. In fact, I'd volunteer to give up a jet for testing.
Probably nothing to be done with the 757's as the 737 advances already in place will over take that one. The 767 reengine might draw more interest than the 777 redo planned, although they could run concurrently
Can't you get your stuff together Boeing? I know the 787 rewrote the book on commercial jet aircraft, but c'mon, you guys have a half-century of experience in the field. Do you REALLY want the 787 to be the DC-10 as it was for MDD?
Personally, Boeing should be considering a 767 re-engining project. No, across it's entire line. The Cammacorp project was a hit, and heck, had the circumstances been there, I could have been have been a few months old traveling with my parents to visit relatives in Denver on a DC-8-70 series. (I was born in 1990 and United didn't retire the Super Seventies until '91, if I am correct).
