The New York Times has a great piece on the 2012 safety record of the airline industry (and it’s trend of improvement).
In August 2005, for instance, an Air France flight to Toronto overshot the runway and burst into flames, yet all 309 passengers and crew managed to escape.
Aviation safety officials will also go to considerable lengths to learn what caused a crash. Uncertainty is rarely tolerated, said Peter Goelz, a former managing director at the National Transportation Safety Board.
Thinking further on the problems enumerated in the Boeing article by Eamonn Fingleton the recurring theme is government subsidization of Boeing’s competition. A few questions with no palatable answers:
Mr. Fingleton makes a key point… free trade isn’t really free trade when it is one sided. We’ve opened our doors to the world and other governments are essentially “buying” our high-value manufacturing through subsides on their end.
I don’t think direct government subsidies to Boeing is the answer, those never work as intended. How about tax incentives for US manufactured components? Or perhaps trade tariffs on Airbus aircraft to equalize the subsidies that Airbus receives from the various EU and European governments? Any other ideas?
Eamonn Fingleton with Forbes thinks the Japanese-sourced batteries are just the symptom of an overall larger problem with Boeing… the systematic outsourcing of key, proprietary manufacturing.
Mr. Fingleton links to a 2005 article he wrong, “Boeing, Boeing… Gone” that gives an in depth look at this outsourcing. A frequent and unfortunate pattern amongst American manufacturing industries.
The New York Times thinks the battery issues justify a closer look at the procurement process that approved these Japanese-made batteries for use in the 787.
A hand full of updates. Sounds like airlines are still optimistic about the new aircraft, viewing this part of the process of breaking in a new aircraft.
I can only imagine the amounts of overtime being worked by Boeing engineers right now…
Well this is disappointing but looks to be necessary at this juncture.
From the FAA’s statement:
The FAA will work with the manufacturer and carriers to develop a corrective action plan to allow the U.S. 787 fleet to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible.The in-flight Japanese battery incident followed an earlier 787 battery incident that occurred on the ground in Boston on January 7, 2013. The AD is prompted by this second incident involving a lithium ion battery.
Their full Emergency Airworthiness Directive can be found here.
Boeing has managed to increase the production rate of their 777.
“Our factory is running smoothly and we’ve reduced the time it takes to build a 777 by one day from 49 to 48 days.”
They are now up to 100 aircraft per year.
First it was a battery fire in the APU, then it was a fuel leak, now its a brake problem. Boeing’s Dreamliner is going through the normal process of cutting it’s teeth in regular service. No amount of controlled, FAA regulated, routine testing will work out the bugs that day-in-day-out service will expose. And that’s good. It’s also good to see the airlines not reacting to hype:
JAL spokesman Kazunori Kidosaki said the carrier, which operates seven Dreamliners, had no plans to change orders it has placed for another 38 aircraft. ANA, which has 17 Dreamliners flying its colors, will also stick with its orders for another 49, spokesman Etsuya Uchiyama said.
Of course this spate of growing pains doesn’t come without it’s cost to Boeing’s image. High-profile incidents like these don’t help the stock price and they’ve gotten the attention of the FAA. Glad to see the FAA going about this professionally without causing further hype:
“There are concerns about recent events involving the Boeing 787. That is why today we are conducting a comprehensive review,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told a news conference followed by more than 100 reporters around the world.
Those concerns notwithstanding, though, LaHood also maintained the plane was still airworthy.
“I believe this plane is safe and I would have absolutely no reservations about boarding one of these planes and taking a flight,” he said.
It seems like between Boeing and the FAA the right investigation and oversight is being taken place. Huge technological advances, which the 787 Dreamliner represents, don’t come without taking some risks. It’s heartening to see that we are still willing to take those risks.
So Condé Nast ranks Virgin America as number one yet they are losing millions.
since 2007, Virgin America has posted a net loss of $671 million and an operating loss of $447 million.
How does the airline with highest customer satisfaction and the best reviews do so poorly? The aforelinked article from Time shines some light on that.
I think that, in general, most people flying domestically in the States are purchasing their tickets based largely on price. Perks, comforts, and luxuries aren’t what most domestic travelers are looking for. If they have the money for that they’ll likely have the money for business class or first class anyway. I know that when I fly domestic I don’t even look at the major carriers… I just go to Southwest.com and hope they serve my destination. Virgin is trying to offer value to their flights in a market (domestic America) that values price first.
However, international flights are a whole different story. Myself, and others, are willing to pay a few hundred dollars more (often just 10% of the overall cost) for a better airline that is more accommodating. I’ll never fly international on American again, based on experience. I tolerate Delta. I much prefer a European carrier, or if possibly a Middle Eastern one.
No big surprises here. From the international list I’ve traveled Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar and can vouch for all of them. It doesn’t surprise me that no US air carrier is on that list.
From the US list, I’ve traveled Southwest, Frontier, Delta, AirTran, and American. I’d probably have ranked them in that order as well.