• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
10:10PM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesLondon Heathrow Airport closed due to Boeing 787 aircraft fire

Back to Squawk list

London Heathrow Airport closed due to Boeing 787 aircraft fire

Submitted
A Ethopian Airlines plane is on fire near one of the terminal buildings (www.bbc.co.uk) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


wx1996
wx1996 2
But Britain's Air Accidents Investigation Branch said there was "no evidence of a direct causal relationship" between the Dreamliner's batteries and the fire.

"There has been extensive heat damage in the upper portion of the rear fuselage, a complex part of the aircraft ... it is clear that this heat damage is remote from the area in which the aircraft main and APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) batteries are located," the agency said in a statement.
JetMech24
JetMech24 2
He never said the batteries caused the fires, just giving locations so people know that there is no battery back there.
wx1996
wx1996 1
Correct - it was meant to confirm it is NOT the batteries.
imtxsmoke
Jeffrey Bue 9
I'll be interested in the repair procedure that is used for the carbon structure that was compromised as a result of the fire.
gadjodilo
cedric f -8
It will be an easy job like the electrical problem fixing. And the 787 CATCHFIRE will soon be allowed to cross ocean again by the FAA.
williambaker08
william baker 5
The fire is near the too crew rest in the rear of the plane. I think that the plane has a bigger electrical problem and this sounds to me like it is not battery related. Boeing needs to tear a plane apart and walk thru the electrical system and find out where the shorts are because I'm sure this is why the system has issues on too of pulling to much power also this plane was in the ground for 8 eight hours before catching fire so it also kinda of sounds fishy to me how it caught fire. Could it be the APU catching fire because there were reports that if the APU was not shut down right it would cause it to over heat and not be able to be started for about 2 hours? We :shall see what comes out of this.
skuttlerats
Jeffrey Babey 4
The people at Boeing have got to be slapping their heads thinking "What next?"
Coolbreeze
Coolbreeze 6
Officals are suspicious because no one was around and the plane was parked on a hardstand near the terminal. Possible foul play this time...hopefully...
jshhmr
josh homer 1
An Airbus employee perhaps?
99NY
99NY 4
Probably doesnt matter if this is ruled foul play or has nothing to do with the previous battery-related fires...the 787 is turning into a nightmare-liner for Boeing and getting a pretty tarnished reputation.
preacher1
preacher1 5
Boeing's 787 Dreamliner reminds me of Windows VISTA. It'll work but full of bugs.
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
M$oft didn't even need to subcontact all the coding to get the problems. In house track record for it.....
JetMech24
JetMech24 2
Not a very good comparison, Microsoft knew Vista was crap, that's why 7 came out only a year later, what will Boeing do?
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 2
Talking of new designs, during my days at Engineering College('65-70), I learnt that for a car designer she becomes obsolete the day drawings leave his board and go to shop floor. And he has to start on the new one! Later during early days I learnt while working for high value capital goods manufacturing company that AFTER the drawings go to shop floor, the concerned designer would visit shop floor every now and then help manufacturing as well as to IMPROVE future designs.
These are the basics and this is how ALL work. MS could not be different.
Similarly of new product introduction, kindly check the consumer product manufacturing world. Many many new products get withdrawn from production line, either due to problems related to production or market acceptability. Again all elementary and
My apologies for making it so academic and generalized and across-the-board.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
I thought it was a good comparison. How do you really know what Boeing thought about 787? All companies put out so standard products from time to time when they are committed to it and buried in it financially. IMHO.
selby50c
selby50c 1
Bring out the 797 a year early ? ;-)
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, it has taken more than a year but you will notice that Boeing has shifted emphasis now to the new 777 program and Airbus is going after the 350. You don't have near as much emphasis anymore on the 380 or 787 as you did. While many new innovations, both the 777 and 350 are from proven platforms and not brand new. That said, both those were brand new at one time, just a lot better launch. Windows XP was wonderful, VISTA stunk. 7 was a lifesaver and a home run. You really don't hear much about 8 and hopefully by the time they quit supporting 7, they'll have the bugs out of 8.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
That's my point, and why it's not a good comparison. Microsoft KNEW they made something bad. We don't know what Boeing is thinking right now.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, Microsoft chunked Vista and hit a home run with 7. Now, if they could just get the bugs out of Office 13, it'd really be nice.LOL
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
Very good points, and I would have to agree. Both companies are trying the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" game with the 380 and 787, but unfortunately things keep happening and the media and general population are not paying attention, they aren't the ones being sold these aircraft.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, the lead time that is there on new AC is what will keep them in the forefront of everybody's mind, but AB is already complaining about lack of sales on the 380. It had it's teething problems but I think it is just too big. 747 sales are in the tank as well. 787 is a good idea as has been evidenced by future sales but Boeing really needs to get their act together on it and fast. As one has suggested here, they may just need to strip one down and go back thru it to see what they missed.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Well they can't be thinking its their finest hour. They may well have KNOWN of many short comings. They aren't gonna say and I don't think Msoft ever said Vista was bad and that they knew it. Corporations really don't like saying anything that they can be held accountable for. As for the 787 it may turn out ok but it is off to a really rough start. I am a Boeing fan and definitely not trying to pooh pooh them at all. I hope it all works out.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
No, Msoft never admitted they knew Vista was garbage, but that would be the only reason why 7 was announced when Vista was only a year old. I know the majority on this site are Boeing fans, me myself, I am a AIRPLANE fan, regardless of who built it. Truth be told, I do not like either one really, they both do some pretty stupid things. The 787 and A350 are going to be nightmares for both companies.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
I'm mostly convinced that it is the 4 engines vs. 2 engines mostly. The 747 and 380 are very good at the intended purposes when used correctly. AB should not be surprised at the lack of sells right now, there aren's that many routes that it would be really useful on and once an airline has 4 or 5 of them, thats all they need. Boeings biggest problem with the 747 besides the 4 engines is that the -8 didn't hit the numbers that Boeing advertised during developement. But overall, nothing will ever out sell the 737 and A320 series.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Most large corporations are run by CEO's who are so arrogant they could be in the congress or senate. They will do anything and then lie about it if they have to. So I believe very little of what they tell the public. This is not true across the board but in the majority. Is what it is.
AJACOBS2
Alan Jacobson 1
Wallace24, you hit it on the head, twice in fact, many of the CEOs and Congressmen do qualify for double duty since thats where most of the money changes hands and direction....

When the Supremes, the "Babelficators" of the Constitution opened up the fuel valves for political donations, the entire country (US) was compromised... Thats what it is.....

As far as Microsoft goes, I was doing IT work for many years, major, major corp, decades and because of their shortcomings MS made me a good living. I own five Apple products today and never looked back after I retired and spent my own money on computer products and systems. The day I left CC I threw my PC's to charity.... and have not had any headaches since....
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, the 380 was late to the party as is the 748. The 747, since introduced in the late 60's, has not really had any serious competition and it has just been lately that airline execs have been getting away from the bigger is better thinking. The 340 was a nice plane, but the 4 engines got it. You may be correct on the others. By getting away from that bigger is better thinking and into an economy mode, the twins may be killing them both.
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 1
My computer never ignited into flames.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
You got that right
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Actually there have been batteries in laptops to explode... Sony a few years ago had a battery recall for just that reason. It is not impossible, as it has happened. That is one reason if you check you computer, you are supposed to carry the battery with you.
LewisSckolnick
Boeing 787 Heathrow makes you wonder if the battery is ever totally off. The electrical system on this computer is never totally off unless the small core battery is removed.
vanstaalduinenj
737/777....who needs a 787 anyway? Enough variations of both to satisfy all needs, and those birds are dam safe and reliable.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Lets not judge too quickly... There are a lot of reasons for a fire, and the article did not mention the batteries.
jpcooper
Peter Cooper 2
How long before the " If it's Boeing, I'm not going " movement starts ?
LewisSckolnick
Does the electrical system in the Boeing 787 have a software problem?
hviswanathan
Man, i hope they are able to figure out the problem. Seems eerily similar to the Boston Logan fires. The 787 is a stunning bird with its flexed wings.
honzanl
honza nl 4
planes should not be at fire, no matter what is the reason.....
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
NEVER! Boeing may be having some issues right now, but what new plane didn't. It is just now with the one the scene media and every moron with an IPHONE wanting to be a news anchor.

[This poster has been suspended.]

StymieHo
Chris Donawho 1
Lol - that'll stir up the Homers.
jshhmr
josh homer 2
You rang?
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Never. There are dozens of other brands churning out hundreds of models with thousands of functional characteristics to choose from. And this is true for the ENTIRE commercial world. And the basis of "anti trust" concept all over the world!
rradunz
ronaldo radunz 1
this remind me of exploding laptop batteries issue that happened some time ago
AJACOBS2
Alan Jacobson 2
Well, Ronaldo you just brought back fond memories of a time when I was doing IT work and it was the common battery plant in Japan that blew up, the first incident. I believe was 1995. But there were three more plant fires and explosions in addition to hundreds of callbacks...cell phones to camera flashes...

Later the Toshiba line, Panasonic and Matsushita blew a plant in 2007, they made many (millions) of bad Lithium batteries for themselves and others ( most of the majors) and both times we got to do the repairs for those lines which needed an inspection to see if any damage might be internal and not visible or functional... after a few thousand, with an needle scope and some required Johnny five extradition, now I hate working on laptops because of it, plus I do not trust Lithium.

In 2008, a KOREAN plant had a fire. Lithium was the culprit.

Panasonic again had issues with high capacity batteries sold under the Panasonic and Kodak labels which destroyed many cameras they were put into... open architecture and what we call a runaway... We had one that burst into flames, needless to say he didn't get the picture. They were recalled.

Years ago, my ELT on my Piper had a Lithium callback, due to corrosion, fires, the Boeing issue and though retired from the Corporate Guano, I own a small battery company for the paparazzi photo industry and we refuse to work on Lithium.

COMMON DENOMINATOR - LITHIUM.... There is a race in the battery industry to add a different chemistry to the mix to get beyond Lithium..

Im not planning any trips on the 787, 27 years of GA flying and I PC'd and landed two fires from Marvel-Snaubel Carbs, I managed to survive, and not trying for the charmed third.
TXCAVU
UPS Airlines Flight 6 was also carrying Lithium.
AJACOBS2
Alan Jacobson 2
Twice, explained...Our aircraft was STC'd for car gas, a Piper 160, It seems the MS inverted carb had a plastic float and the car gas had Toulene in it's coumpound ( spelling) and gradually killed the float, a runaway and ignition. I was lucky enough to be one mile from an airport. Best dead stick short field landing I ever made. Twice, the guy who did 6000 dollars of repairs (1990 money) never fixed the fuel line, he recovered it and on take off it burst again, I barely made it around. Two times was enough. The mechanic upon inspection by FAA (old GADO) at that time had his shop closed (other violations) and his life saved since I was going to do harm to him with the towbar...

Back to Boeing

NOW the culprit may be the battery for the ELT, and it's LITHIUM, AHA! For evert article you see in the papers or on the web, we hear or know of other ( not aircraft related) problems with LITHIUM. Even cell phone batteries can explode, one poor Japanese gentlemen got it in the ear killing him. Lithium is lighter than NiMH and cheaper thus it appeals to many applications but it is still in this modern day and age inherently dangerous.
one of my associates calls Lithium a rattlesnake, no matter how well you feed him, or pet him eventually you'll get bitten....
preacher1
preacher1 1
I will not discount your statement about Lithium batteries of any kind, but this incident gives me pause to wonder; As these ELT's are in a bunch of aircraft, would we have even heard about it if it were in anything besides a 787? BUT, and the bigger question; as the 787 is NOT PANELED for repair I wonder what they are going to do. A comment was made either here or in another thread, that after the investigators got done, it would be between the airline and their insurance company and looking at cost of repair versus a hull loss and scrapping it out. That part will be interesting.
AJACOBS2
Alan Jacobson 2
Obviously being in the battery business I see more and get more bullitins than the average person does. Its amazing how people ruin things and think we can work miracles. I'll bet if I looked under the hood of 3/4 of the people here their battery terminals on their cars are corrroded.

This is do know. The ELT's we had in the PIPERS were recalled and we had to go back to Alkalines, the reason the Lithium was preferred or being pushed is that it had shelf life, you could have it on the shelf for five years and it was still 97 Percent. It was a cheap chemistry in terms of longevity. Follow the money.

Thats if it didn't leak and Lithium will eat through stainless under certain conditions. The first ones that did leak were discovered when a pilot was doing a preflight, and the stabilator came crashing down when the corroded cable snapped, then the hole in the fusi was discovered above the snapped cable. Seven planes later we got the recall.

Back to Boeing
Heres the difference, older Lithiums were made from banks of smaller batteries placed together with plastic insulation preventing heat exchange from building since they were small. The power requirement for the 787 is enormous thus they went to BIG cells for Lithium, less connections and big cells when pushed either in the charge or discharge cycle produce enormous heat. If you use rechargeable lithiums or NiMH in your camera at your nieces wedding and you change them out, they might be as hot as 130 degrees. Wedding guys got burnt fingers and know this... I dropped four on a carpet and they melted the nylon.

The Tesla car and most of the Hybrides use the Lithium in smaller cells ganged together and have less problems. Eventually we'll know the truth, but I think the problem is in the size of the batteries and the connectivity.

Thats my 2 cents....
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
It would make sense for Boeing to certify an alternate battery type with a completely different chemistry. Otherwise if there is another incident, the entire fleet will be grounded again while they design and certify another battery.

All that would take a steep reputational hit to the plane and the company.

Now that the plane is flying, and while all the replacement batteries are still new, it is time to plan and certify an alternate and give airlines a choice. They shouldn't let the 787 get the rep as the flying BBQ. Keep iterating the battery design to improve its' safety, but do provide an alternate ASAP.

They need to put space between the battery and the plane (figurative or literal) so the the faults of the one don't permanently tar the rep of the other and affect its' and The company's long-term success.
LewisSckolnick
How long will it be before Boeing starts printing airplanes on 3D printers?
frfkuwhf
Grant wanless 3
A poor track record after only a short time in the sky. I will not be on one quick.
Scrape
Scrape 3
Looks like it was right over the rear galley. Maybe somebody left the coffee pot on.
delmonaco03
Saw this on twitter: http://t.co/5dDvxRnffP

Shows a fire in the tail section.
mayue1989cheval
Yue Ma 1
looks like crew rest room
99NY
99NY -1
Its also directly above the rearmost L-I battery that powers the APU.
wx1996
wx1996 11
Please see page 7 in the pdf linked below for battery locations - they are not in the tail

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/arff/arff787.pdf
bill54494
bill54494 6
Thanks for posting. FACTS = GOOD
honzanl
honza nl -1
pity that you are wrong...., it tells you were the vents are, not the batteries, better check the correct information:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/elon-musk-boeing-787-battery-fundamentally-unsafe-381627/

look at it, and see where the APU battery is: 99NY was 100% right !
then check this next pic (it is the 2nd pic on this page):

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ethiopian-airlines-787-at-centre-of-heathrow-fire-alert-388243/

and guess what: the firefighters are exactly busy where the APU Lithium-Ion battery is located......
wx1996
wx1996 1
The you second link picture the fire fighters are opening the cargo door. They are accessing cargo door exterior latching device.

Additionally Britain's Air Accidents Investigation Branch said there was "no evidence of a direct causal relationship" between the Dreamliner's batteries and the fire.

"There has been extensive heat damage in the upper portion of the rear fuselage, a complex part of the aircraft ... it is clear that this heat damage is remote from the area in which the aircraft main and APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) batteries are located," the agency said in a statement.
Scrape
Scrape 1
Wrong. If the fire were from the batteries in the rear cargo hold, the cargo door would have already been one of the first things opened and there would have been smoke staining around it. Its also 20' from where the fire was.
wx1996
wx1996 1
Let me understand, Boeing's data and instructions to firefighters are Wrong?
While a news media outlet, flightglobal.com, has correct information about a Boeing aircraft?

The flightglobal.com data is from BEFORE the latest Boeing modifications, 29 Jan 2013. While Boeing's "AIRPLANE RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING INFORMATION" is from 23 April 2013.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 2
B-787
Demons at work. High Priestess, the queen of Dark, the ruler of the Wolves angry.
Next full moon night, Boeing must visit to Her to pay obeisance and appease Her to get rid of the curse.
;-p
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
How about we just beat her ass!!!
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Sounds like fun. Lol
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 2
BBC reports no passengers on board.
honzanl
honza nl -4
the plane was already standing there empty for 8 hours......!
it also was the first 787 cleared fit to fly after the last grounding, of course again with full 3 hours ETOPS as it is such a reliable proven plane.....(according to the FAA and Boeing then that is)
wasn't one of these high-tech batteries placed in the tail, where now the fire started ?
comforting feeling to fly one of these over the ocean where no firefighter nor runway is to help you out in case the 787 again turns into a flying BBQ
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
It's bad enough there was a fire at all, even if it turns out to sabotage or a faulty toaster oven in the crew rest area.

If you take 10 seconds to look at the links above, you'll see neither of the 2 batteries is anywhere near the tail nor the top of plane. They are on the underside and way further forward, one near the front and the other just aft of the wingbox.

No need to spread lies and baseless rumors, inconsistent with reality.
honzanl
honza nl 0
lies and baseless rumours ?? then read this:
the (Lithium-Ion) APU battery is located next to the aft cargo door, at the right under side of the hull.
and on flightglobal.com you can see a pic of firefighters at London Heatrow busy with the plane, and where are they busy: next to the aft cargo door on the right under side of the hull
see my remark elsewhere on this page with the correct links
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
See elsewhere here the initial comments of the responsible investigative agency:

But Britain's Air Accidents Investigation Branch said there was "no evidence of a direct causal relationship" between the Dreamliner's batteries and the fire.

"There has been extensive heat damage in the upper portion of the rear fuselage, a complex part of the aircraft ... it is clear that this heat damage is remote from the area in which the aircraft main and APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) batteries are located," the agency said in a statement.

I stand by my characterization of lies and baseless rumors. Worse, your comments cane after diagrams of actual battery locations were already posted in this thread, so your disrespect for the truth is clear. But hopefully, you can finally accept reality, and admit that your statements flouted the truth and had no intention of being truthful.
LewisSckolnick
If they turned the power off after the fire they turned off the soiurce of the heat.
delmonaco03
Via LHR's Twitter feed around 12:55: The runways are now fully re-open following an earlier incident on board an aircraft. Please expect delays to arrivals and departures.
dronezboeing39
Dylan Wang 1
not again
Dl8698
David Loh 1
I wonder why Bo-eng did not just place trapdoors below all the batteries and at the first whiff of smoke jettison all the batteries? Hmm, ok, that might work in flight but not on the ground! Ok, then how about strapping ejection seat rockets to the batteries and shoot the batteries a couple of hundred meters away the moment smoke is detected. OK, OK, maybe it is not the batteries burning but highly combustible carbon and resin burning...have to put on my thinking cap on that!!
R123154
R123154 1
Is this a galley area also ? As Dave said,battery location.

R123154
R123154 1
Missed the link in Daves post.
Cakittel
Case Kittel 1
Boeing's price per share dive-bombed 7% after the crash, after reaching an all-time high just 2 hours earlier.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=BA+Basic+Chart&t=1d
Dl8698
David Loh 1
Anyone could or should have seen that all I said about the batteries were "tongue in cheek" in reference to previous episodes. You mean You thought I was serious? The Nightmare Liner did have batteries catch fire before!! And my reference to carbon and resin fire shows I knew this incident involved fire not at the Batteries! Thank god, Boeing.
tchulski
Thomas Chulski 1
I'm a "groupie," not a "techie," but are the batteries close enough to the cargo doors that they could be damaged by careless loading?
LewisSckolnick
They are saying the batteries are in the clear so that just leaves the rest of the electrical system.
LewisSckolnick
They are trying to find out where the fire started.Sparking had been seen at some point on that aircraft's AC system.
LewisSckolnick
Did the carbon composite burn or did it melt.
Iewiew
I read today that another 787 had to land due unnamed mechanical problem.
vanstaalduinenj
Oh dear.....
LewisSckolnick
A Kabo Air 747 blows out two of eighteen tires upon landing at Sokoto, Nigeria on 5 October 2013
LewisSckolnick
Not exactly first class wiring from my POV.
SootBox
SootBox 1
NEW! From Weber, the 787 Grill... self ignition system is ready for a BBQ even if you aren't!
LewisSckolnick
I think that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner problems might all go back to mistakes in its computer programming.
LewisSckolnick
Most likely not the battery or the electrical system but a programming error.
GSC2012
Report on BBC radio here in UK that fault was in the emergency beacon.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I still wonder about the repair. That's gonna be a trip.
LewisSckolnick
Boeing is cruising with its stock price up 13%!
LewisSckolnick
Boeing to check 1200 transmitters for defects.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
You could cook for all the relatives and friends on that SOB. Lol
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Airbus shouldn't be too far behind, if they care mire about passengers than the perceptions and optics of the situation.

Most likely an isolated incident, but you can't be too careful. Other devices have been found with crimped wiring.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
It may not be the plane at all.. Could have been an external source.
preacher1
preacher1 1
The repair on this thing will be something to watch for. There exists the possibility of a hull loss as the 787's aren't paneled to where a section at a time can be replaced.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
They need to call Cessna.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You need to look at the schematics below. There are no batteries in the area of the fire.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Yeah, that'd be crazy.

It would make the A350, with the panels of composite fiber the smarter design, in tbat it'd be repairable.

You would think that Boeing has considered this issue before, at some point. Maybe they can create a machine to build fuselage segments in place so that thy don't have to dismantle it to change the affected fuselage segment.

The question is how to either get the machinery to the plane or the plane to machinery.

I've heard the suggestion temporarily fix it and fly it low without pressurization to the NC plant for repairs. A more pleasant option for the crew might be transporting by cargo ship across ocean. Then fly it the short distance to the plant.

Worst case, as you suggest, they might write off the plane. They could potentially recycle much of the mostly new parts to build another plane. The hope is that in its'decades if future service, the plane won't have too many incidents of destructive fire requiring major repair.

On a related note, if a small electronic device can cause enough damage to result on hull loss, the plane might need some fire suppression equipment that can extinguish any actual hot spot in the crawl spaces of the aircraft before fire can cause enough damage to result in hull loss.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, somewhere in here after the investigation is over with, that decision will be made, by the carrier and insurance company. My gut feel is a below 10,000 ft ferry to Charleytown, assuming it is flyable. That said, what will happen in the future over the years. I cannot believe something like this was not anticipated. Maybe it was and has just not been shared with anyone yet.LOL
pilot62
Scott Campbell 1
Wow ! just love the 787 , scheduled on one to Houston the 26th, and flew the first week United had service.
SootBox
SootBox 1
Someone needs to do an editorial cartoon on the 787 where fire extinguishers drop from the overhead instead of oxygen masks...
gadjodilo
cedric f 1
I don't know about if it is Boeing i am not going. But i am sure that if it is 787 i am not going.
KevinBrown
Kevin Brown 1
According to the BBC the aircraft on fire is a 787! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760#TWEET819627
KevinBrown
Kevin Brown 1
Boeing stock price taking a dive http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BA
Av8nut
Michael Fuquay 1
Close BOTH runways?? I bet that really screwed up London airspace. How could this have been so severe that BOTH needed to be closed? I can't imagine how many diversions there were. Even on a normal day, you expect a holding pattern on approach.
LewisSckolnick
Boeing 787 most likely need a completely new electrical system that can do the job without consideration to the weight of such a system as is now the case.
LewisSckolnick
Probably just one of those very minor short circuits.
UpInFlames
River Phoenix 1
I see there's lots of fanbois (or possibly Boeing astroturfers) around.
The 787 has experienced electrical related fires since the first test flights back in 2010: http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2013387936_787emergency10.html
Too early to say what went wrong this time around, but if this was again the electrical system malfunctioning, be it related to the batteries or not, it simply means the choice by Boeing to renounce engine bleed power and rely much more on battery/apu electricity has badly... backFIREd!
dvl
Dan Langille 4
From the article:

"The aircraft was parked on a remote parking stand and there were no passengers on board. Arrivals and departures were temporarily suspended while airport fire crews attended to this incident.

"This is a standard procedure if fire crews are occupied with an incident."
pjshield
pjshield -4
Gotta remind Ethopian passengers that you cannot use charcoal grills onboard the plane (even if it has a cover)!
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 3
That would be kinda hard to do since it was empty. The world isn't as primitive as you think!!!
DIRECTFLT
DIRECTFLT 1
No Deep-Frying Turkeys either !
donshaw
Don Shaw -2
Good one!
honzanl
honza nl -3
people who keep saying If it ain't a Boeing I'm not going better buy good walking shoes or do some extra swim training
mayue1989cheval
Yue Ma -1
and insurence!! haha !!
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 0
You Boeing Homers best get ready to do the Reebok Walk. Seattle will soon be the new Detroit.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 0
Chris...you can do the moon walk if that makes you feel better about "Aviation"!! Detroit is Bankrupt...what is your message here? Boeing is still alive and well in Seattle! And Proud of it! We are not going down like the auto industry!! Good day to you, Chris.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
I'm guessing he might mean BA is slowly leaving Wa. Seattle can't possibly be as ill run as Detroit. Lol
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
Yeah, the writing is on the wall, Boeing is slowly pulling out of WA.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You probably can't get the Boeing union folks to believe that though. They'll probably wake surprised one day and be full of righteous indignation.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
It is not in the interests of the union bosses (management if you will) to acknowledge that. Just as businesses are driven by Wall Street 'market numbers' for the next reporting period, Union management has to keep the sheep (rank and file) happy in order to stay in power next term.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
LOL! It will take a long time for them to do so though, so they are safe for a bit.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Seems he meant it in the rub-salt-in-wound kind of way sooner after the Heathrow fire of the Ethiopian 787, before details about the cause of the fire being a ELP. A device not at all related to the 787 design, and found on all modern airliners (even the ones made by Aurbus).

I think the implication was that 787 was going to ruin Boeing and/or part of a story about Americans not be making the best airplanes going forward, and ceding airplane manufacturing leadership.

Some points:
1. Boeing took more orders and delivered more planes in 2012 than any other manufacturer.
2. Boeing is ahead in orders so far 2013.
3. Some of the best airplanes ever made, including current flying airliners are still American designed and American made (777, 747, 737, etc)
4. 707 was a pioneering airplane, like the 787 is today.
5. 787 is part of the reason that Boeing is doing so well. (Not discounting the cash cows that provide revenues, profits and planes sold). But in taking the risks to build the next generation of airliner, using technologies that many/most airliners will adopt in the coming decades, involves taking some short-term risks, but in cementing long-term airliner design and manufacturing leadership.
6. Even if Boeing were to leave Seattle, the city has a lot more going on than Detroit ever did.
7. I'm not convinced that Boeing is leaving, either. While it majestic strategic sense to not have all your eggs in one basket. Boeing has developed a deep manufacturing and design knowledge base in tbe Seattle area, that is a strength for the company.
8. Diversifying into non union-controlled facilities and geographies means tbat the union can't bring the company to its' knees and handicap it in the very real global marketplace for airplane manufacturing that doesn't only include archival Airbus, but others in Brasil, Canada, Japan and soon China.
9. The transition away from the Seattle area will be influenced by the level of idiotic restrictions requested by unions. The more problematic the unions become, the fewer jobs will remain in the area. At least many of the jobs will still ve in Anerica. Losing manufacturing flexibility and ceding aircraft manufacturing leadership to foreign competitors Aldo means the jobs will disappear too.
10. Diversifying out of Seattle is a hedge against the Detroitification of the US airline manufacturing industry.

In short,

Hah! Hah! Neh! Neh!
Every other manufacturer would love to be in Boeing's shoes (even with the teething troubles of its' new baby - 787.
johndanzy
John Danzy -1
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going... true that.
donshaw
Don Shaw 5
Apparently you ain't going even if it is a Boeing!

[This poster has been suspended.]

THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
Didn't UA have problems with theirs???
LewisSckolnick
The severe overheating of a battery on a laptop turned out to be a programming problem.
LewisSckolnick
The severe overheating of a battery on a laptop I own turned out to be a programming problem.
LewisSckolnick
At want temp does the carbon conglomerate of a Boeing 787 start to melt?
andreadebiase
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Fire on an empty Boeing 787 Dreamliner

A fire on an empty Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane forced Heathrow Airport to close both its runways Friday, suspending all arrivals and departures.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/12/heathrow-plane-fire-ethiopian-airlines_n_3586882.html
Alex13
Alejandro S 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

London's Heathrow Airport Closes Runways Following An "Incident" With An Ethiopian Airlines Airplane

London's Heathrow International Airport has closed its runways to air traffic following an "incident" involving an Ethiopian Airlines airplane...

http://www.thefloridanewsjournal.com/2013/07/12/londons-heathrow-airport-closes-runways-following-incident-ethiopian-airlines-airplane
LewisSckolnick
London 787-Cause of firs still unknown

Thomson 787 Return-some small problems

[This poster has been suspended.]

WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -1
They treat 'em like women.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Like they treat their women is what I meant to say.
VisApp
Dave Mills -4
Another burning Boeing. Bring marshmallows!
KevinBrown
Kevin Brown -2
Picture of Ethiopian Airlines a/c that was on fire https://twitter.com/DaPakiGuy/status/355716645118943234/photo/1
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick -3
The main thing about the battery in the Boeing 787 that caught the company's attention was its weight as though saving a few ounces were more important than anything else.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick -3
Boeing knew that it was using a battery that could not do the job and thus over heated. Rather than replace the battery with one that could it decided instead to insulate the battery and provide additional venting just in case the battery caught on fire@!
yr2012
matt jensen -1
I guess it was too early to be returned to service.
dronezboeing39
Dylan Wang -2
it's a different airline this time...something wrong with General Electric GEnx turbofans!?!
pmbell64
Pat Bell 4
How do you blame the engines for a fire inside the aircraft that had been sitting parked for 8 hours?
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 1
How do you build an aircraft that spontaneously combusts?
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
50 points for Gryffindor.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick -3
I wonder what kind of a contract Boeing has with the Japanese battery manufacturer.

So far the FAA is going along with this game plan.

The Thomson 787 which returned to Manchester may have done so in response to the 787 that was grilling at Heathrow.
pmbell64
Pat Bell 2
The Thomson aircraft turned back to Manchester hours before the Heathrow event. It spent over two hours in a hold burning fuel before landing. I think I will wait to see what the investigators have to say.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick -4
Boeing 787 Redux for 12 July 2013

A Thomson Airways Boeing 787 traveling from Manchester, UK to Sanford, FL USA experienced a technical problem on Friday 12 July 2013.


Thomson Flight 126 returned to Manchester.
momokookie
380 was never brand new that's why it hasn't 787 problems,the dreamliner is a new concept in aviation history