Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/Archive 4

Operators section
I think the Operators section should be removed. Wikipedia isnt a travel guide. What do you think? --JetBlast (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh, "Operators" is a standard WP:Aircraft section (see WP:Air/PC) and has been for 4 years or so. Many or most aircraft articles have this section.  I don't see why this article should be different. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * sorry about that, i have never noticed them before. :-) --JetBlast (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. The section should be reformatted more like Boeing 777, Airbus A330 in a few months after more operators get 787s in service. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Emergency landing
CNN just reported on an emergency landing because of dubious engine problem. Any word on that you guys? -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 22:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * http://news.yahoo.com/boeing-787-emergency-landing-inspections-ordered-005248202--sector.html 80.156.44.33 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The recent electrical system issue(s) is mentioned Boeing 787 Dreamliner now. An United Airlines flight made an emergency landing in early Dec 2012 because on a mechanical problem. I can't find anything that stated an engine failure was the initial cause for this incident. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

787 Operator List (in information box)
United and Ethiopian each have four 787 delivered aircraft. They should both be listed in info box. This would still make a max of 3 additional carriers and one primary user. If United is out, then using the "logic" of this edit, the "see other operators" should be placed under JAL.

I am editing back.

Hans100 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Hans100


 * You're completely right. Even if ET and UA weren't tied, 1 (one) "primary user" and 3 (three) "more users" are what is suposed to be listed. Every other aircraft type on Wikpieda from the A320 series to the B777 series has 1 (one) "primary user" and 3 (three) "more users" - DONALDderosa (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

DonalDderosa, thanks for the support! One thing I would add is the following which is different than what you said. In this case, since there are several airlines tied at three, if United only had 3 the rule of list a primary then two and "see list of other operators" would be correct. But since United and Ethiopian are tied at four and the next highest number of aircraft is three by a carrier, both United and Ethiopian should be listed. If for some reason we get a bunch of airlines tied at four (taking it beyond three additional carriers, then it would seem ANA, JAL, and then "see list of other operators" would make sense. Otherwise we would be picking a winner among those tied to be listed.  As more aircraft are delivered, this issue will not keep coming up.

But clearly as of today: ANA, JAL, Ethiopian, and United are the list to use.Hans100 (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Hans100

THANKS DONALDderosa for keeping on top of this issue and moving United to #3 per flightaware!Hans100 (talk)Hans100


 * Just remember that flightaware and similar are not reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I sorted the main table and sorted table from planespotters.net references 1 and 2 in text box


 * planespotters is not a reliable source either. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * DONALDderosa you really should discuss using these amateur websites before re-adding them again. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Clear Writing
I enjoyed reading this article but the following sentence is unclear. It seems to be missing a verb or something. "Japanese industrial participation was very important to the project, with a 35% work share, the first time Japanese firms had taken a lead role in mass production of Boeing airliner wings, and many of the subcontractors supported and funded by the Japanese government." I would fix this if I knew what it was intended to say. Specifically, what is confusing is the phrase "with a 35% work share" and "...many of the subcontractors supported and funded..." I suggest that it ought to be three separate sentences, and possibly more. Can someone fix it? Anewcharliega (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed - it's confusing and at least missing a 'were' from the last clause, so I've had a look at the relevant source and I've rewritten this bit as "Japanese industrial participation was very important to the project, with Japanese companies co-designing and building of 35% of the aircraft. This was the first time outside firms had taken a lead role in the design and production of Boeing airliner wings, and the Japanese government provided support by providing them with loans estimated at up to US$2 billion" - which I hope is clearer. AliasMe (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
I was thinking, I would like everyone's opinion here whether or not this article should be semi-protected. I am not going to request it yet, however, with the recent reports of issues with the 787, there is the potential risk of edit wars in the article about these issues and whether or not they are normal "teething issues". The tension between Boeing and Airbus fans are getting higher by the moment. ANDROS1337 TALK 01:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not one to advocate locking things down in anticipation of edit wars. I advocate locking them down when they begin.  They have not begun here, and people are behaving themselves.  It does my heart good :) Marteau (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, as if on cue, out come the nitwits. I'd have no issue with semi-protection.  Marteau (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and requested semi-protection Marteau (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I changed the heading Early operational issues to Operational issues, as the heading is a sub-head of Development and is therefore obviously early. For the record, I can assure you I'm 1. not a nitwit, and 2. uninterested in either Boeing or Airbus (in fact I hate flying). Ericoides (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, this edit was the one made by the "nitwit". - BilCat (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection was denied. Marteau (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking and the update. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Series of safety incidents in late 2012 / early 2013
I know these are included in the operations section, but does the recent series of safety incidents and subsequent investigations warrant it's own section in the article? It seems that this aircraft is suffering a relatively high number of teething problems even considering that it's brand new. 86.159.110.166 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, the article definitely needs one, today there was a SIXTH incident in under a week. 82.31.236.245 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't this article covering the current technical failures and incidents with the Dreamliner around the planet? -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 04:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See the "Service entry and operations" section... at the end Marteau (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think an "Incidents" subheading is justified - will have a look at creating one unless someone else gets there first ... please! Springnuts (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think a heading of that sort would be a good idea for the sake of ease of navigation. Just FYI, the Airbus A380 has a section called Incidents and accidents. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 14:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the heading "operational issues" has been added to break up the section. This sounds like a fair and neutral heading for the section describing the problems encountered by the aircraft type - many reliable sources use much stronger language than this. I've edited the description of the Takamatsu 787 evacuation because it's description of the passengers being "safely evacuated" to say "evacuated using emergency slides" as "evacuated safely" was not in the reference and in any case it has been reported that there were 5 minor injuries with one taken to hospital for treatment. 86.159.110.166 (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Bleedless??? Lithium-ion battery lets Boeing BLEEDING!
Probably Airbus was right by using Bleed air for the A350. Could stop the production and ground the fleet of the Dreamliner for months, possible years: I´ve ever questionized the safety of these things. If its true - and the possibility is NOT LOW - its a DISASTER for Boeing. Tagremover (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lithium-ion batteries can rupture, ignite, or explode when exposed to high temperature.
 * Lithium-ion batteries containing more than 25 grams (0.88 oz) equivalent lithium content (ELC) are exempt from the rule (that passengers on commercial aircraft could carry lithium batteries in their checked baggage) and are forbidden in air travel.

Is it just too early to make a redirect here from Nightmareliner? (Sorry for the bold. Ah, ok, i love being bold. But here its imho needed!) Tagremover (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are the batteries now catching fire: The Separator (electricity) is getting old: + and - together makes it hot. And: Capacity is getting lower, so the battery has to be charged higher. See Lithium-ion_battery. (edit-conflict) Tagremover (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: The varying air-pressure stesses the separator, too. Tagremover (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more in accordance with the sources, as well as easier for people to find what they're looking for if the header was changed to Incidents. After all, businessweek is asking: Boeing's 787: Will This Plane Kill You? :D .... But seriously, I think it would be better for people looking for this specific information as well as perfectly objective. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a very short technical analysis based on my engineering knowledge. The future will show who is right. I repeat: Above average probability that on THIS plane bleedless causes (minimum financial) bleed!
 * I propose a section: "Bleedless" listing technology, advantages, disadvantages, related issues. Boeing_787_Dreamliner, Engines and Interior is not enough. Tagremover (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * U.S. regulators ground Dreamliners over fire risk I ANALYZED and predicted THIS ! Tagremover (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors with technical knowledge should not waste time to write the ABOVE proposed section Bleedless. I have no time to make it alone. Tagremover (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagremover, what is going on? You are sounding very much upset and angry. For wikipedia, I feel we should wait for the various inspections and investigations which are happening now to make some statement of findings before we publish any information about the causes of the various problems and incidents so far.  It is not for Wikipedia to reach conclusions about the safety of various aspects of the 787 like engine design and battery systems.  Hope you can stay calm until some more information is available.  Cheers. —fudoreaper (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fudoreaper, its sad but seems that you haven´t understood much. Because you don´t mind and care about anything? Its clearly my original research, and if you would understand a thing, than that guys like me know what they can publish in an article. I am quite proud of this analysis, which in the first part has proven to be correct (I thought FAA will take 2-4 days until they make such a strong and serious decision: But: My respect, they are good!) I chose some bold "headline language" to sum it up: In a few months, there will be a lot more guys who understand what i already know now: Thats what leading engineers are for: To make an analysis based on knowledge deep enough, make the decision and present the results and the consequences in a wide context. It seems science is not your thing, so just ignore the bold language.
 * To others: The consequences including the other design faults will quite surely cause serious damage to Boeing for years (although Boeing will have a healthy production of especially 737 and 777 in the next few years, until the 737MAX could be delayed because the 787 eats up engineering power). Tagremover (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum. As per WP:NOTFORUM "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information"  That includes talk pages.  Marteau (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You ignored my proposal of a section summing bleedless. Tagremover (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Give it up, you're "pissing in the wind" against "established editors" with WP:OWN issues who will "revert" you into oblivion... Not worth it.
 * Is the Dreamliner Becoming a Financial Nightmare for Boeing? sees probably months of grounding. Other analysts come and join my previous stated opinion. Too many biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. That was one reason i used strong words above; but if one see the consequences, one chose them - see established time magazine. Sources: fix A350 Tagremover (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ALL I SEE IS LOTS OF GLOATING. CONGRATS YOU GOT YOUR WISH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.39.11 (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If all my wishes will come true as easily.... (edit conflict) Tagremover (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:AGF. You are clearly POV-pushing and seem to have an agenda here.   ANDROS1337  TALK 18:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First: IMHO its aggressive, to take this discussion about a somewhat biased article to ANI. You want to fight by all available means to keep some critical statements out of the article ? I hope its clear even to you: I NEVER added or proposed to add something worded like that written above. And: Those are just a few statements, plus a proposed neutral section related to bleedless, covering this here NOTABLE topic.


 * To others: The 787 is not a bad plane, but seems to achieve no advantages of its advanced technologies (weight issues, efficiency and safety of bleedless, window-cracks), but as disadvantages design and production problems, delays and cost, and now teething issues.
 * The next thing keeping the "Dreamliner" in the headlines will likely be the big (bigger means > must be thicker) cockpit windows, which are additionally in a line (Force vector) with the fuselage: Capturing Torsion (mechanics) and Shear stress. Currently its probably too early, but i am sure there will be some investigations with notable info for this article. Tagremover (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

So Which Factory Made All These Mistakes?
I went to this page just knowing it was going to say this was the airplane made at the brand new non-union factory in South Carolina and of course I was RIGHT!!! However it seems the plant in Everette, Washington might have made a few of these planes as well. However I checked everywhere on the front page and it does not say anywhere that all the bad ones were also the non-union planes built down in the Carolinas. Can we clear up this issue with non-union 787's? I also noticed NONE of the news stories made any reference to this issue at all whatsoever. It should appear on the front page of this article IF the affected planes were the ones built in the Carolinas by the non-union amigos. . . or whomever. Lesbrown99 (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If as you say no reliable sources are reporting these issues then that would exclude mention here as well. Marteau (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We certainly state that 787s have been assembled in Everett, and also in South Carolina. But we don't talk about how many were assembled at each, nor any differences between assembled aircraft. You are making a suggestion here that the 787 aircraft experiencing problems have been assembled in South Carolina. Do you have any information that says this is the case?  If you do, please tell us, we would all be interested to read about it. If you do not, please end this kind of discussion, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, where we talk without restraint about a topic, but a place to collect information we can demonstrate to be reliable and accurate.  Speculating about causes of accidents is not a discussion of facts, and thus not what we will spend time discussing.  Cheers, and thanks for giving feedback on the talk page, where we can talk about what should be included in the article.   —fudoreaper (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RIGHT, Dude! I just checked one of the places where i seen the non-union angle and it turns out it was from the comments section below the story! I will continue to find a credible citation and appreciate your help on this matter!!! Thank-You for your help on this!!! Lesbrown99 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Lesbrown99 (talk)

Cockpit Image
The source of this image is listed as: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/1940205/L/ where there is a CLEAR copyright notice that is not Creative Commons (as the Wikimedia image citation says), and indeed says "This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without proper permission." Even the image itself contains a copyright notice that is clearly not CC. This is pushing "fair use" a bit far. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The notice you quoted from airliners.net says it cannot be used "without proper permission". Proper permission was granted by the owner of the copyright and is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_787-8_N787BA_cockpit.jpg Marteau (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Grounded worldwide status
I'm not sure if 'grounded worldwide' is the best description of the aircraft's status. It implies a permanent state, whereas the grounding is temporary and a result of specific concerns about the battery. Anyone have a better idea for status? Skrelk (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Grounded worldwide' seems reasonable because aircraft are frequently grounded for one reason or another and it's almost never permanent so there's not cause for confusion. OTOH, there's no reason why you can't precede 'grounded' with 'temporarily' if you think it would be clearer. PRL42 (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Tabulation/chronology of operational incidents
It looks like there is enough going on with the problems on this plane that it would very helpful to have a table that lists the chronology of notable incidents affecting this plane (battery fires, fuel leaks, etc.). Perhaps unlike some other areas, in aviation, pretty much any "incident" rises to the level of notability, so it is unlikely that a discussion of those incidents will be removed from this article in the future. Instead, there'll probably be thousands of pages of reports on every single incident involving the plane. So starting with a table makes sense to me. Thoughts? jhawkinson (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a 2-dimensional table with time on one axis and issue type on the other axis? Or can you refer to other tables for examples? TGCP (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dont think it is really needed far to much info for an encyclopedia entry, we have a section describing the incidents and grounding already. Its probably a bit over the top and I can see it shrinking once the news driven stuff is tidied up adding a table will be something else to delete later. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a forum
Can a remind users that this page is for comments to improve the article, it is not a page for general discussion, speculation or fringe theories. Forum type discussions will be removed and continually adding forum type discussion may be seen as being disruptive, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

An artist's impression
These An artist's impression pictures are considered original research, are they not? How can they be allowed in the article?--98.87.90.173 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can see no rationale for those images being included in the article. Marteau (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The images are modified versions of the current 787-8 with a lengthened fuselage or other changes based on cited sources. There's not enough changes visually with these to amount to Original Research, in my opinion.  The artist illustrations in the article are a 787-3 image (shorter wingspan with winglets), and 787-9 (lengthened fuselage), btw.  The size comparison image might fall in this same group. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have always considered original research to be a binary yes or no kind of thing and not a matter of degree. But I'll of course go with the consensus and don't really think these images matter that much considering the more pressing issues with this article and aircraft Marteau (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, either original research is present or it is not. The changes are not from a reliable source and there is nothing otherwise notable about the images.  Marteau (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I revise my opinion. I have since seen several other examples of Wikipedia editors creating visual representations demonstrating the purport of other sources, and I now realize that what Fnlayson says in this issue is true.  Consider... by using words we in fact create representations of other works. We are describing in words what other sources have said. To a degree, creating representations using JPG images we as Wikipedia editors create is no different in intent than creating representations using words. Given that, I strike out my previous opinion and now believe these images are acceptable and are not "original research" per se.  If this issue or others like it is addressed formally in codified Wikipedia standards I am not and was not aware of it... if there is not there should be.  Marteau (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality and Boeing <> Airbus and other editors fights
I see some pro-Boeing biasing at Dreamliner, but also at other aircrafts: Boeing and a lot of Americans and Airbus: Often too positive. Russian and especially former Soviet: Often too negative. Ukraine editors (Antonov): Fighting hard. Let me explain a few examples (mainly Dreamliner): Tagremover (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please anyone should feel free to add and discuss normally at the end of each subsection. Tagremover (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines...."
Facts:
 * 1) This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS TECHNOLOGY IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV !
 * 2) "says": See ref: Boeing believes...and expects... : Thats different!
 * 3) Are all systems included, for example de-icing?
 * 4) 35% compared to what EXACTLY? An equally modern system isn´t meant: Airbus disputes that. Stop that biased anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing thinking ! Technology has to be understood: But this statement is vague.
 * 5) Reference is OLD (6 years?), a clearly PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, a time diff in which the whole system was constructed in reality. A NEWER ref of EXISTING tech is needed.

...allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy.
 * 1) see above: 1. and 5.
 * 2) "The total available on-board electrical power is 1.45 megawatts, which is five times the power available on conventional pneumatic airliners...": Sounds not very efficient: Has to be explained/detailed.
 * 3) Advertising primary source

Result: "indisputable": Its too sad to LAUGH about. Has to be rewritten! Tagremover (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article was written well before the aircraft flew and statement from Boeing were the only ones available to describe the aircraft systems. I think you are trying to say that the 35% claim was not the end result, if so then have you a reliable reference that shows that the original claim of 35% less power from the engines proved to be wrong? MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The article was written well before the aircraft flew and statement from Boeing were the only ones available to describe the aircraft systems. " I agree: If you remember my subsection A350 (here deleted, available at ANI): Its easy to claim something of a not existing plane!
 * <5. "trying to say that the 35% claim was not the end result": I have no new ref. But the wording has to be changed, because of not only point 5., but also 1-4, and the second part below. Regarding points 1. and 2., first part:
 * Boeing expected... Thats an easy solution for points 1. and 2., if you can live with that. But:
 * Points 3-5, first part of the sentence: Difficult! Starting with:
 * Point 4, first part of the sentence: Somehow including that Airbus disputes that, and: This could also be combined with the second half of the sentence, which gives valuations and comparisons. Probably 2 sentences. Tagremover (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK dont think we need to bring Airbus in to it they are not a reliable source for information for a Boeing aircraft, if we have no later reliable information we cant really refute the statement. How about something like In 2007 the Boeing 787 systems director said they were expecting the no-bleed system to extract 35% less power from the engines than a pneumatic system. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Far better! I can live with that as a first sentence, but its too questionable for me, and must be strengthened or related to another statement. In a following sentence?
 * "Airbus ... not a reliable source for information for a Boeing aircraft": As well as Boeing knows other systems, im very sure Airbus knows nearly every important stuff from the 787. They made a lot of statements about the 787, even posted in Wikipedia.
 * Proposal for a following sentence: "Boeing as well Airbus for its competing A350..." (and then im searching the ref, have only recently read it... Something like:) "...claim lower total operating cost for their aircraft."
 * Airbus<>Boeing are related. I will support links from Airbus pages to Boeings. Found a probably interesting ref about something different:
 * 737MAX is getting real
 * Boeing has revealed more details on its definition for the 737MAX now and one significant revelation is the decision to add 8 inches to the nose gear. This was the tough choice engineering wise.
 * A new pylon and strut for engines will be used in the style of the 787 and the rear tail cone will be extended and the area above the elevator thickened to improve aerodynamics. Electronic bleed air will be added to improve cabin pressurization (which is much like how the A350 will use bleed air)and better means more efficient fuel burn.
 * If you have this ref from Airbus about bleed<>bleedless cost, it would be nice. Tagremover (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I cant agree with mentioning Airbus, this article has nothing to do with Airbus (or the 737), I have made a reasonable comprise on an alternate wording supported by the reference, we will let others agree with it or not. If you have an alternative then you really need some references. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your proposal, as i already mentioned its far better, even without a following sentence. Probably i start a new section about Boeing <> Airbus and other links to improve performance statements/comparisons/valuations independent of this. Thanks. Tagremover (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"According to Boeing, the 787 consumes 20% less fuel than the similarly sized 767"
This is a message of MAJOR importance, the KEY reason for the Dreamliner: FUEL-EFFICIENY ! Avoid ANY biasing, it bias the message of the WHOLE article!

Facts:
 * 1) This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS AIRCRAFT IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV !
 * 2) Outdated:.
 * 3) Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example:
 * 4) Design change: Weight increase.
 * 5) Design change: Range reduction.
 * 6) Clearly ADVERTISING: "super-efficient airplane", "top aerospace companies", "unmatched fuel efficiency", "exceptional environmental performance", "exceptional performance" ...I wouldn´t trust this text a thing. Minimum this section seems to be written by advertising department, sentence with 20% just copied from old text.
 * 7) "similarly sized 767": similarly see weight increase, and: What version, which age, what for engines? Vague !
 * 8) 787 : What version? Vague !
 * 9) How is that calculated? Per seat? Vague !

But:
 * 1) ANA said 21% fuel savings. But:
 * 2) Tokyo-Frankfort is nearly out of range even for the 767-300ER, an extended midrange-model, must be measured in shorter distances, like North-American east-coast <> Western-Europe.
 * 3) Vague: Per seat, aircraft, or whole payload?

And:
 * A350 - direct competitor - not mentioned: Also its preliminary.

Results (major message):
 * Reference as unreliable, primary, old, vague and advertising: disputed !
 * 20% highly questionable (deleted), 21% (ANA) vague.
 * Has to be rewritten! Tagremover (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The source now says similar sized airplane so we do need to change the quote. The article covers later on in service entry that ANA achived more than 20% so I dont think we have an issue with the original claim. Do you have anything reliable that says it is not more than 20% efficient. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See: I do not want to delete the 20% fuel-savings totally: Just the wording has to be changed. And: I think the ANA results could be combined. Proposal: To combine it (in the article) with ANA results: we are writing now about an existing plane.
 * <5. similar sized airplane: Outdated: : Compare the weight increase.
 * "ANA achived more than 20% " See 2 points above: 1. Tokyo-Frankfort, 2. Vague
 * "Do you have anything reliable that says it is not more than 20% efficient.": No.


 * Proposal: "Boeing projected the 787 to consume 20% less fuel than the similarly sized 767. According to ANA specific results on long ranges, the 787 surpassed the promised 20% fuel burn reduction, as compared to the shorter ranged Boeing 767. On the Tokyo-Frankfurt route the fuel savings was 21%." First sentence could be used in the intro. Second shouldn´t: Too specific: Wait for more results: Than it will be even ok to write: Airline results... average xx %. Tagremover (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"...the world's first major airliner to use composite materials for most of its construction"
IMPORTANT message.

Facts: Result:: Has to be rewritten. Tagremover (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Detail: Meant is most of its weight, not most of its volume.
 * 2) Outdated:.
 * 3) Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example:
 * 4) Design change: Weight increase.
 * 5) Design change: Range reduction.
 * 51%, 50% (other refs), or 49% ? Or: Much more Titanium? Boeing's 787 Dreamliner is no lightweight (Describes plane ready to flight)

Low Article quality
Especially Aircraft articles seem to consist of quite isolated, ordered sentences; a list of sentences. Also articles contain a lot of info, no real concept or coherent explanation. Talk pages sometimes similar: "Does this isolated sentence comply with the following reference?" This is no real discussion. Tagremover (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Improvements
Must mainly be done regarding the editors. Difficult. But this anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war is disruptive and leads to biased, low Article quality. Talk? Discuss?

Hopefully this shows some problems and improves the article. Thanks for reading. Talk welcome. Tagremover (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments Tagremover I am sure we can look at your comments about this article. All the other comments about Boeing/Airbus rivalry and editor bias in other articles are not really relevant to this talk page so you wont get an answer here. Perhaps I can suggest that issues that you have with other articles are raised at the individual talk pages or at the aircraft project talk page - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course they are relevant here. Please release the section above from the forum tag to suppress other opinions. And of course this article is biased, see above. (Update: deleted A350 + Tu-144) Tagremover (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh, I was hoping that you would discuss your issues about this article here editing the article again is starting to get disruptive and could get you blocked. MilborneOne (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why i should be blocked? Why disruptive? Reasons?
 * AND: i see no discussion. If it would be some, i stop editing. Of course i would not revert it. But discuss. Tagremover (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You evidently misunderstand and are misusing the "dubious" tag. By tagging "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines" as dubious, you are claiming Boeing never said that.  They did in fact say that and it is cited.  Whether it actually extracts 35% less power is a different matter; the fact that they did say that is not dubious. I'm not sure how much clearer I can get about this.  Marteau (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "You evidently misunderstand and are misusing..." Please stay calm. But: Thanks for a reply.
 * "you are claiming Boeing never said that." Wrong. Think clearly.
 * They did in fact say that and it is cited": See above 2.: "says": See ref: Boeing believes...and expects... : Thats different!
 * Lots of other reasons given above.Tagremover (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagremover you are not making much sense, the statement from Boeing is reliably referenced so cant be dubious. Now if you have issues with the context of the statement thats fine that is what the talk page is for. I think you are saying that now the aircraft has been built the statement could be wrong, OK then provide some reliable references to counter the statement, we have no reason not to add further explanations. As to being disruptive, re-adding the tag again after it has been explained that the quote reflects the reference is disruptive. You have to help us by explaining what you dont like, accusing others of bias is not going to help as it upsets other editors. So please calm down and we can deal with your issues one at a time, we are not in a rush dont throw loads of text at the page, again other users see that as being disruptive. So start a separate section below for each of your points and explain clearly what you want and provide reliable references if you have them. Other users will help and and even agree to modifiy the article if your points are valid but you need to just take your time and explain clearly. MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @User:MilborneOne
 * Accusations:
 * I already apologized for some language above (thought that someone like my highly rational and obviously accurate analysis, but with the understandable use of some bold language presented results: Posted to start an article discussion) but was wrongly accused for disruptive editing and personal attacks and taken to ANI: Only one apologized to me.
 * "Tagremover you are not making much sense", "other users see that as being disruptive" and even worse, including taken to ANI: Do YOU like that if it was done to you?
 * But: I was probably right, but i was not friendly and it wasn´t helpful to call the article and, unspecific, users biased: There are just a few statements. Sorry. OK?
 * Please could we end this accusations: I do not like called disruptive and taken to ANI, and i admit i am somehow biased, too, as i am human.


 * "So start a separate section below for each of your points and explain clearly what you want and provide reliable references if you have them": Already done above, signed every section. Do you mean this:Talk:Boeing_787_Dreamliner
 * Please anyone should feel free to add and discuss normally at the end of each subsection. Tagremover (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for breaking up the sections, other editors will be along shortly I am sure to discuss each of you points above. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I am not. I do have the virtue of saying what I mean in a couple sentences, so when I inflict myself on others, it is short and to the point.  You might want to tighten up your prose is all I'm saying... quite seriously, it's painful to read. Marteau (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a significant difference between suggesting that someone is less verbose and calling them 'insufferable'. PRL42 (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ya think? Marteau (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cracked Windshields on the 787
Reading the wikipedia article on the 787, I've noticed mention of cracked windshields listed with the operational problems in the Operational Problems section. I feel that the mention of cracked windshields should be omitted, as this is a common issue with all aircraft, not just the 787, and is misleading for readers in regard to its reliability. Unless it is occurring on a substantially higher than normal basis, it shouldn't be included, and as of right now I'm only aware of two incidents since it was released to airlines. I recommend checking Aviation Herald, and searching for "Cracked Windshield" for a good example of how frequent it happens with all models of aircraft from any company, and simply happens due to the pressure changes during flight, as well as wear and tear. I'll make this change myself in a week's time if no one makes objections to this change. The Legacy (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable. There's no need to start enumerating every minor problem with the type just because there appears to be one temporary, major, one. PRL42 (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm removing the references to cracked windshields, and based on the below discussion on "Shortening of section "Incidents" including subsections", more should also be trimmed. The Legacy (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes complete. The Legacy (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Question - 150%
"On March 28, 2010, the 787 completed the ultimate wing load test, which requires that the wings of a fully assembled aircraft be loaded to 150% of design limit load and held for 3 seconds."

If the wings are loaded to 150% of their design limit during the testing, then surely the designers design for that. Which means the wings were really designed for that, and they're actually being tested to 100% of their design limit, because the test is the limit of what they were designed for. See what I mean?

It seems that sentence is circular reasoning, and the logic is unsound.

If the 787 wings were tested to load n, and n is 150% of what they were designed for. However, the designers knew they would be tested to n, so n is 100%. It doesn't make any sense. Otherwise the wings could break and the designers could say, of course they broke, we only engineered them to take a lower load, because that was the design plan.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.226.182 (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the 150% is the correct terminology. That's 1.5 times the maximum design load, the max load expected to be seen by the wings or other components.  The 1.5 is a safety factor (or factor of safety) called for by aviation regulations. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Design load" is the maximum load they must support in normal operation. Thus, the wings are loaded 50% than they would be during operation. Maybe the expression is a bit misleading, but it's the right one. Ericloewe (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume that 100% is forever, or at least during a flight, but 150% is tested only for 3 seconds, so the requirements are 100% and 150% for 3 seconds. Not very circular? --Stefan talk 13:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the design load will be the load at maximum take off weight when the aircraft is pulling maximum certified +ve of -ve G. If you only made it strong enough to withstand maximum weight + 50% in normal flight the wings would come off as soon as you hit any major turbulence. PRL42 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, not an answer: I think there is indeed a sort of circle (well, more a spiral) there - somewhere, the assumption is being made (probably based on a lot of evidence gathered over many decades) that if a metal wing can withstand a given weight indefinitely, that just 151% of that might snap it in under three seconds. I suppose the choice of factor of safety, and the sharpness with which regular load turns to immediate destruction, are indeed part of the "design" in some broader sense of the word.  But if you're going by the way the sources use a word, whether or not that makes perfect philosophical sense, that is what matters. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Auto-dimming windows?
Can someone explain about these auto-dimming windows? Do the passengers have control or not? Seems like you either want to look out the window or else be totally asleep, so I don't understand any possible use for it. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Each window has a button for varying its transparency. It takes the place of a shade, which can reduce maintenance. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I found  which gives a mixed result.  Apparently, as with all electronic innovation, it means that Daddy Corporation is now in control, in this case of your window.  (And probably being very stingy, since you can't just pull the shade up a little)  However, at least sometimes the passenger still will have a say. Wnt (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Battery problems - Offered assistance
I found information from newsarticles that Elon Musk has offered his expertise into solving the dilema with the batteries. have there been any other companies that have done the same?--Nrpf22pr (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Musk has only offered to help. This does not seem that notable unless they actually help. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Shortening of section "Incidents" including subsections
I think this should be shortened, because: Probably this difficult task could be started in a week or later, when facts are getting clearer: for example half the size? Could be decreased even to a quarter in a few months, when the 787 is flying again and facts are much clearer than today.
 * No one was hurt
 * Its size gives it an inappropriate, negative weight, although its sentences are correct

"Incidents" is surely a good word, because they had potential danger in this heavily coal and oil based plane, see my previous discussion (now forum), which results were later joined by FAA and other analysts, airlines and authorities. Tagremover (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Short term (i.e. until further details are known), "softening" the references to the minor issues is probably the best alternative (they are indeed minor problems and some of them are indeed more common than one would think, like cracked windshields). I think major re-writes should wait for a preliminary report from the authorities, at least. Ericloewe (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The usual Wiki method is to add content when events occur, and then trim down / spawn when the fog clears later. Fortunately, the impact is on economy rather than safety. Here is a link documenting the electrical system, may be useful in the article. TGCP (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling we're at or beyond the point where we start speculating. Adding information right now might be seen as speculation and/or original research. That document does look like it could be useful as a source for clearing up doubts that might arise from a preliminary report, once one is available. Ericloewe (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a follower of the Aviation Herald, and I've read that site for a few years now. Based on that experience, I know that a variety of problems are normal for every day aviation. If you look at the website, you'll see that between one and three -notable- incidents can occur each day (far more aren't listed, and the Aviation Herald doesn't cover most ground incidents). Of these, you'll see a lot of mention of incidents that look similar to what the 787 has gone through; cracked windshields, leaky hydraulics, electrical problems, burning stoves, failed engines, fuel leaks, you name it.


 * That all said, I think how it reads now is fair; the two fuel leaks in such a short period of time seems very unusual for a brand new aircraft, and the battery problems go without saying. I removed the references to the cracked windshields as per my above question thread. I don't see any other unneeded references, so I suggest not adding anything extra unless it catches the FAA's attention, and not removing anything. Perhaps a good way to balance this article is to study the Airbus A380's page to get a good idea of how to go about this fairly. The Legacy (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the section should expand, as cause and effect are being discovered. I have left out the contradicting reports about the Japanese investigation for now, as they will likely soon be resolved into stable info, but here are the links on battery still being checked along with the no-fault battery. TGCP (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree; in fact, I think this entire investigation should be put on a separate Wiki page, called "Boeing 787 Dreamliner Battery Problems". I'm going to try editing the entire section tomorrow to do exactly that, if that's okay with everyone? The reason is because it puts far too much weight onto the teething problems of the 787, when its safety record for the most part has been stellar. It's just these darn batteries, that should have their own article. The Legacy (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. In the past, I'd just have recommended shortening the section once the problem was solved and the whole picture was available. Since it seems the saga isn't close to its end, a separate article about the battery problems makes sense, especially considering that there may be repercussions for the A350 and other future aircraft. Ericloewe (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Section "Groundings" or "Operational problems" subsections
I propose subsections to summarize these statements and give a better overview:
 * "Financial consequences" (exceptional event and therefore notable, with many different statements, latest:)
 * and something like "Technical details and quality" (also related to outsourcing production Company engineers blame the 787’s outsourced supply chain, saying that poor-quality components are coming from subcontractors,, and even quality checks FAA faulted for outsourcing 787 safety checks to Boeing).
 * Also in this section: 3rd faulty battery:

The section Groundings and even the "Operational problems" seem to long for me, see above, and content could be transferred. Tagremover (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and created a new subpage to hold all talk about the batteries. Later, I may in fact take everything launch related, and put it on its own page as well. The Legacy (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Major Edit - Incidents section
I've gone ahead and did a major edit on the Incidents section, to have it both conform to existing standards on Wikipedia, and to reduce the massive amount of information about the problems with the 787. I may further trunicate it to only leave minimal mention of the problems, and create a redirect link for everything else. Let me know if this new layout works for you all. The Legacy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and placed the ANA and JAL incidents in chronological order, I think. The section is much improved in clarity, but it needs some work, since at least some information is repeated across the section.
 * I'm not sure all four incidents mentioned in the beginnings of the first two paragraphs were due to the batteries, so I'll reword that as well.
 * Final nitpick: should Boeing 787 Dreamliner Battery Problems be the "main article" or a "see also" for the section? Ericloewe (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be the main article, because it has a shortened description on the 787 page, and a full description on the new page. However, I've considered changing the new page to "Boeing 787 Teething Problem" or "Boeing 787 Early Service Issues", and dumping that entire section into there, scrapping "Boeing 787 Battery Problems" in the process, and transferring its data over. If you want, I can do that conversion, which will, of course, require a second major edit. The Legacy (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The main problem is the batteries and that's why they are grounded. Names should be more formal/encyclopedic than "Teething Problems" (and sentence case). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Battery size
I was looking for info on the 787 battery size. I saw this listing,"One of the two batteries weighs 28.5 kg and is rated 29.6 V, 76 Ah". How ever this spec does not look right, most car batteries have much higher capacities then this. I think this spec is for the size of one of the multiple cells that make up the battery packs on the 787. I hope someone can find the real specs and correct the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.21.199 (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Check the numbers in the attached sources - they are the same as the article (that is how Wikipedia works). Car batteries have similar ampere-hours and weight, but that is for only 12 Volts. So lithium batteries have significantly higher energy density. TGCP (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And Li batteries charge faster, which is another reason for their use. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

new info
Might want to work this into the article. From CNN:

The Federal Aviation Administration cleared Boeing to make fixes to the battery system of the 787 Dreamliner. That paves the way for the aircraft to start flying again.

Nearly 50 Dreamliners have been grounded for the last four months, after two fires on Japanese jets prompted the FAA to order the planes grounded on January 16. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What is worth to write about?
I had a recent electric fire onboard a testflight at the 4th of May 2013 with one of ANAs 787 erased, what is worth to write about? Alexmcfire (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't actually a fire. If it had been, it would probably have been worth inclusion. However, any aircraft will have problems if it is not put back together properly after maintenance so it's really not worth adding every instance of such a failure to an article on the relevant aircraft. PRL42 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The article you cited even said it was minor. It was a minor incident in a test flight.  Wikipedia is not a news service where it covers everything like a news outlet. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo of grounded 787s
I stumbled upon this photo of grounded ANA 787s on Commons. I’m not sure it’s a worthwhile addition to the article, so I post it here instead... Feel free to grab it. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That seems more fitting than the image of the 787 at Boston, which does not show much. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I like this image too. Shows these aircraft grounded, very clearly. —fudoreaper (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do we need a photo? --JetBlast (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We could ask why we need photos on any article on Wikipedia. I have reverted the removal of the image from the article, and have added some additional information to the caption to make it even more encyclopaedic in nature. Russavia (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox status
Someone keeps putting grounded in the info box. It is not grounded in every country world wide. Just because it is in some countries doesn't mean it should be put there. That status is for an overall general world wide status. The FAA only has jurisdictions for US registered aircraft similar to the EU equivalent. Plus its not a permanent grounding so still should be put in. This should not be changed to grounded without consensus. --JetBlast (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh really? The BBC and The Guardian must be mistaken then? --John (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverting from 'grounded' to 'operational' is disingenuous. By all means add some qualifying text but to claim an aircraft type that has been grounded by every country who has a carrier that uses them is 'operational' is absurd. PRL42 (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox is for permanent status of the type not for temporary stuff like precuationary groundings. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an official Wiki reference for that or is it just your opinion? (Serious question - you may be correct but there are elements in other info boxes that are not permanent) PRL42 (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just my observation of how it is used from many years working on aircraft articles, the official description is a bit vague and probably needs to be tweaked quote  !Status - In most cases, redundant; use sparingly MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that it is a rather pointless heading once the aircraft is in service. Perhaps, rather than, 'operational' which is simply wrong, at the moment, we could use 'released to customers' or something similar. Although I'm still at a loss to understand why this issue appears so controversial given the 'grounded' is a perfectly accurate status. PRL42 (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it? What plane types have ever been permanently grounded? --John (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hughes H-4 Hercules has been. Concorde is another example. John, the links you provided do not say its been grounded in every country. Why have you changed it back without consensus????? --JetBlast (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no, and I didn't. Keep trying though. --John (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry i meant to say why was it changed without consensus, not specifically you. I was typing in a rush. No no? care to Expand? --JetBlast (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble confirming that either the Hughes H-4 Hercules or the Concorde was permanently grounded and have never heard of such a thing. Certainly it makes no sense whatsoever in the case of Concorde as it returned to service the year after its fatal crash. The Hercules was a one-off experimental type in any case and it doesn't make a good comparison with the 787. Better comparators would be the Comet and the DC-10, which were both grounded pending safety improvements. In the former case these improvements resulted in a new variant, but in neither case was the aircraft type permanently restricted. --John (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally an aircraft is grounded by the authorities rather than the users, an example is the withdrawl of the aircraft type certificate like the BAC One-Eleven which grounded all but one aircraft which was flying under military rules. I think the same happended to Concorde but cant find a reference at the moment. Although it is not really relevant to this discussion. Might be best just to remove the status for the time being. MilborneOne (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean this? I can't think of any other groundings of the One-Eleven. --John (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No Airbus revoked the type certificate effectively grounding the type. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How could Airbus revoke a type certificate for anything, let alone an aircraft made by a completely different manufacturer before they were even in business? PRL42 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Airbuses heritage includes Aerospatiale which held the Concorde manufacturers type certificate. A manufacturer can voluntarily revoke any type certificate it holds, making it illegal to fly those aircraft in most circumstances in any ICAO jurisdiction - flying a type without a manufacturers type certificate means the manufacturer is no longer supporting the aircraft, and while alternative type certificates can be granted, they are extremely expensive to achieve.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.8.176 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

John, as you like to quote the BBC i have done this same. They say Concorde is grounded for good See here --JetBlast (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As in retired from service voluntarily by their operators? A somewhat different case than the one we are discussing I think. --John (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's not what you said, I quote "What plane types have ever been permanently grounded?" So i answered your question. --JetBlast (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. So you are arguing that the 787 has been voluntarily grounded by its operators? I don't think that is the case though. --John (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ANA and JAL did, according to the article. --JetBlast (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And have the FAA said or done anything or was it just a voluntary grounding by the two Japanese operators? --John (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to see what all this fuss is about. The aircraft is, quite clearly, grounded until further notice. Try and remember the purpose of an encyclopaedia; it's where people come to find (they hope) accurate and up to date information. It's beyond stupid to have as a status for an aircraft that is not being flown by anyone and has been officially grounded by many aviation authorities worldwide: 'operational', because it quite evidently is not. PRL42 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. --John (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But there is no reason why it can't operate say in Australia. The FAA only applies to the USA. Have a look at this, reasons why it should not be there Template:Infobox_aircraft_type --JetBlast (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One reason that it cannot operate in Australia is that all operators have grounded their planes, and Boeing has grounded all of theirsDingowasher (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see why you say that the status is incorrect according to that source. The problem seems to be that the keyword is wrong. If a reader sees 'Status: Operational', then one would expect them to assume that means that the plane is able to operate. There's no way they can know that some editor decided that 'status' meant 'programme status', rather than the current status of the type. I feel it's important to avoid showing information that appears to be incorrect just because some editor, at some time in the past, decided that 'status' means something more specific than it would generally mean. PRL42 (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A question
I noticed that articles such as Boeing 777, Boeing 767, and Boeing 747 are FA and have about 215 references, while this article is only B-class and has 340 references that form an excellent article? Can someone review for it for FA-class? WorldTraveller101BreaksFixes 22:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because it has more references doesn't mater it a better article. --JetBlast (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but it has much more verifiable content. To the least this is GA or A-class. WorldTraveller101BreaksFixes 23:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

See also: Electric car fire incidents‎
I took the liberty of removing this nonsensical reference, since it is, at best, only tangentially relevant to the 787. Comparing these battery-related incidents to "Electric car fire incidents" (A pretty questionable topic in its own right) is quite absurd, in my opinion, especially without official results from the ongoing investigations. Ericloewe (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I somewhat disagree; this is a problem that has been plaguing Lithium-Ion batteries for quite some time now, let it be cell phones, laptop computers, and electric cars. In fact, there's a known cargo aircraft crash that happened due to thermal runaway of Lithium-Ion batteries that were simply being transported! The point is, is that Lithium-Ion is a quite unstable technology, and some reference to this should be added. I've taken my own liberty to add a reference to problems with Lithium-Ion batteries, and put it at the bottom of the section instead of the top. The Legacy (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point of view - it is definitely noteworthy that Li-Ion batteries have been known to occasionally combust due to defects/bad charging/other reasons. Referencing Li-Ion batteries in general seems appropriate - it was the "Electric car" part that was bugging me most. I suggest leaving the references to Li-Ion batteries as you left them, until further developments come along and allow for a more precise explanation of what really happened - no point in speculating, plenty of other places to do that.
 * On second thought, referencing UPS 6 seems a bit excessive, since it is a rather different issue, even though it is related to Li-Ion batteries. Ericloewe (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reasonable. The reference down in See Also at the end of the article is still there, so I'm assuming you're fine with that. The Legacy (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would argue for the removal of the UPS Flight 6 link, particularly since that article contains only one minor reference to the crash possibly being caused by Li-ion batteries in the cargo, with no official findings to support that assertion. I don't know much about that crash or what the investigations have determined, but as it stands now, the article being linked does not support the stated reason for linking it here. 198.202.68.212 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can not find a final report on the investigation of Flight 6, only an interim report. So I added 'possibly' to the description. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This picture shows the energy output during thermal runaway for various battery technologies, and LiCo is the most reactive (post #20). Can anybody access www.sandia.gov for the original ? For weeks, that site has been unavailable to me. TGCP (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find the original, but I found a virtually identical image in this PDF. I have uploaded it here. Feel free to upload it to the Commons if it qualifies under copyright. The Legacy (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems
There are many cases of new airframes having serious problems, from the DC-10 and 747 to the F14 and Osprey. But they do not all warrant their own articles. Andrew327 04:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [Typo fix Andrew327 ]


 * Oppose: Much to much info for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner: Technical details are even coming. Tagremover (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems has enough content for its own article. --JetBlast (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the above reasons. It would make the article end up with far too much focus on a particular aspect of the life of the type that will become less relevant as time passes. PRL42 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (weak) - the battery problems article essentially duplicates what is in this article and is less up to date. A consensus was never reached here to split that off anyway.  If that article is not being fully supported, then merge it back here. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * After a few months, it should be "merged" the other way: from Incident section to the detailed battery problem article. Tagremover (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is a rapidly evolving set of circumstances in a field where navel lint can necessarily be encyclopaedic. The details are important and affect human lives. There's more than enough for the separate article, and it will be helpful to isolate the churn from developing events and breaking news. Revisit this question in a year or two after the controversy has died down; but I suspect even then we'll wish to keep it separate. jhawkinson (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as we have far to much info in this article already, probably needs a serious prune once we get past it being a news item down to a couple of paragraphs, further Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems is clearly a deletion candidate as it covered here and doesnt need the extensive coverage of trivia in a seperate article it woffles on enough here as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose but it depends on how fast Boeing is able to reliably fix the problems. If it's going to be an endless story - fix, fix doesn't work in service, another fix - the article should be kept separated, otherwise merged ~2 months after Boeing's fix has been proven reliable. --Denniss (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was the one who originally did the split of the subject; my motivations was because approximately half of the entire article length was based on the battery issues. Once the issues become less important, the issues can be easily truncated into simple facts, and the article can be deleted. However, until then, to merge the articles would make for significant reader stress. Even now, the article is a bit on the long side, and the entire battery section is to blame. We should start transferring some of the information to the split article before we consider transferring it back. The Legacy (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

More work needed before Good Article nomination
Thanks for the WP:GA nomination. However, to meet the GA criteria and pass review, this article needs to be adequately prepared first. There are outstanding issues which still need to be resolved here, including:


 * 1) "citation needed" tags for unreferenced claims
 * 2) proper, consistent formatting of all references (include method of referencing, conversion of "bare urls", dates etc.)
 * 3) verification that all references are WP:RS (reliable sources) and not casual websites.
 * 4) check of the article prose to ensure that it conforms to WP:MOS for wikilinks, wording, layout, etc.
 * 5) a general copy-edit either by an editor or dedicated individual to ensure that it is well-written.

As someone who has experience with putting up aviation and other articles for GA/A-class/FA review, in my opinion this article has potential, but should be fully vetted before going through the GAR process. I'd like to help but am exceptionally busy at this time, so such efforts on my part are limited. As it stands, it seems uncertain if the article can pass GAR (it might get put on hold pending improvements, best case scenario), and one might consider delaying the nomination until such time as it is adequately prepared. Overall, some additional work is needed (not a huge amount, the article is largely workable). One might consider asking the WP:GOCE for help or requesting a peer review, if one has patience for the turnaround time. Cheers, SynergyStar (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The GAN was just started and quick failed at Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/GA1 -Fnlayson (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Heathrow Dreamliner fire (and return home of flight TOM126) and 7% Boeing sharevalue drop on July 12, 2013
English is not my native language, please excuse my mistakes with your language.

[] (Remove minor and/or related incident from Lead. Wikipedia is not a news service. Separate incident text with its ref)

[] (dont think we need this lets just wait we are not a news service)

So I took note of

My idea about 'WP or not WP' so far is: Something that is 'just news', is not 'WP'. I am a full supporter of that idea. But anything can be 'both news and WP', for instance when it is an important and objective fact. Though if it is recent, it might be difficult to know, often history will have to tell. The problem being the blur of recentism. But sometimes it is immediately clear that it 'both news and WP'. (example: a president is shot yesterday, WP editors do not have to wait and see whether he will be in office on Monday or dead). So I think that WP does not have to be clean from all recent facts. WP can be up to date.

After these 2 changes the article about the dreamliner lacks important (yes: recent but still WP) facts. The importance of these facts is apparent to me from the shareholders reaction (initially 7% down while other aviation companies went up, see here . This alone makes it a VERY important fact about the Dreamliner (relative to the surrounding data, in the lead and in the section 'Operational problems').

Though overreaction to such incidents is a concern to me, extra caution is needed to my opnion, but I think WP is not to be temporarily censored because recent information might lead to overreaction by shareholders or passengers, in case you might have thought about that too.

Any important (maybe not much to aviation lovers, but more to passengers and investors) facts about the Dreamliner can be added, without bias for positive or negative to most editors. And sometimes the facts can be recent facts too, as long as recentism blur is avoided. The facts can be updated with sharevalue and investigation results next week. That does not make WP a newspaper. The difference is in the WP absence bias, trivialism (caused by recentism).

That is what I understand so far. And just in case you might want to know: I do not have any connection to aviation industry or anything else connected to this subject, I like helicopters a bit more than most people, but thats all.

I think anything that is 'just news' should be deleted from WP, but objective relevant important facts should not be deleted JUST for 'being recent'.

I hope this is the right place to ask my question to the users that deleted the information: Are there other objections against this deleted information?

Please reply and/or restore the information about the Heatrow Dreamliner fire and the connected 7% Boeing sharevalue drop on July 12, 2013. Bas van Pelt 12:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment but we already have a section on the Heathrow fire under operational problems which gives a brief idea of what happened, as to the Boeing shares drop then that is something for the Boeing article I would suggest. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply.
 * The Heathrow fire and the return of TOM126 are Dreamliner incidents that are important enough, to my opinion. These are also notable elseware ([Boeing]), but that does mean it is not important enough or out of place here. It is about the Dreamliners, the safety, the confidence... (and this is apparently important enough that it caused the 7% share drop immediately)


 * The return of TOM126 is important fact in understanding the publics and shareholder reactions to the Dreamliner incidents. I do not understand why just you deleted it (Undid revision 564217981 by 86.29.164.250 (talk) no evidence that this was notable)


 * Can you inform me if and why you still think this incident should be deleted? Bas van Pelt 13:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I dont think the heathrow fire should be deleted the the bit we have in the article at the moment is fine. The Thomson precuationary landing is just not notable with the sources we have at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Notable? I understand the question now is 'WP or not WP'. :-) And I think we DO have sources that these two Dreamliner incidents on the same day (return home TOM126 ande Heathrow fire) are WP: the shareholder reactions on the same day: July 12th, 2013. This reaction shows that these incidents are considered important by many people and thereby also important enough for here. That already happened Friday. The 7% drop is a fact of history already. It makes the incidents WP. Lets make the information here more complete, OK? I propose: ondoing the 3 above mentioned reverts (2 done by you). As soon as more (reliable etc.) information is there, condensing if turnes out to be not a bigger issue then it is since last Friday. And adding if this is what some fear: the beginning of more problems with the Dreamliner offcourse. The article is in that way more useful, more complete, relevant and up to date. Please explain to me if and why you think differently about this. Bas van Pelt 16:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasvanPelt (talk • contribs)


 * I dont think you can just revert the edits dont you have to gain a consensus first, perhaps if you could give a link to a reliable source that the Thomson precautionary landing is directly related to the share price change and that a precuationary landing (which happen all the time) are of any note to the aircraft type. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I prefer seaking consensus. I would have liked to reach consensus before you deleted contributions. I am aking you both: users Fnlayson and MilborneOne. You undid some recent contributions from at least these users: SepreVolando, Roja.Jorge96, Harry the Dirty Dog and me. The contributions were mentioning what I think is important to know about the Dreamliner. The importance is clear from the sharevalue drop. The bruden of proof for the connection incidents and sharevalue drop is on me? well, that is easy, in the abundant media coverage the connection is made, the shares drop is mainly caused by the news of the two recent Dreamliner incidents 'on one day' etc. I cannot give a simple link, but google-search on "dreamliner incident" and "Boeing shares" should make that clear easily. Now I hope that is solved.
 * I have this remark: you might think that shareholders should not have responded to the incidents so quickly because newer facts might show that it was all of little importance. The shareholders and the public have a right to know and also a right to react the way to want. And they did. Now the sharedrop is a fact and that makes the 2 incidents important. That why I think you should not keep deleting the information about the causes for the sharedrop from the Dreamliner article. I asking you to agree on restoring the information contributions.


 * To user MilborneOne: your change [] As you might guess I do see that the lead should NOT mention the 2 Dreamliner incidents and the Boeing 7% share drop of July 12th, 2013. I think it importance is clear from the sharevalue drop and that makes the lead more up to date. Even if next trading day the Boeing shares are at 'before the incidents level', the shares drop of July 12th, 2013 is still WP. Nothing to wait for. Please give me good arguments to reach consensus for deleting or replace the information back or stop deleting the information that goes with the shares drop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasvanPelt (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I cant see any evidence that the share drop was significant to mention in the article never mind the lead, this is an article about the aircraft not Boeing. If you say the shares went up again then this is the normal stuff of the trading floor and not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is not primarily about Boeing sharevalue, I agree, but this sharevalue drop makes 2 Dreamliner incidents important, and it is all still about Dreamliner it's safety, confidence... the facts, please let people place the facts that caused the share drop on July 12th, 2013. Or tell me why not. Bas van Pelt 18:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasvanPelt (talk • contribs)


 * OK we are just repeating ourselves here, lets just wait for other opinions on the matter, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with MilborneOne, no question about it. There is nothing to support the Thompson issue is directly linked with the share value going down anyway. --JetBlast (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @JetBlast You surprise me: when I google search for "Dreamliner" "Boeing shares" I found that the media I find assume the connection between the Boeing share drop and BOTH the 2 Dreamliner incidents 'on one day'. The timing is also convincingly matching with the 'in one hour' breaking of the news of both incidents, the drop started just after 12:00 and lowest value around 01:00p. Two incidents are assumed to be the cause. Where and how did you look, what did you find? Bas van Pelt 23:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @MilborneOne I am repeatedly asking you both: users Fnlayson and MilborneOne: (FnLayson is not responding so far) for your reasons. Thanks for responding, but still I do not see your reasons for deleting all these contribution about the other important incident (TOM126), important enough to be part of the cause of a Boeing share drop of 7%. It is about safety and that is important. Do you think, that all the data in the article are considerably more important then that? With only 50 Dreamliners flying the list of incidents during the first few operational months can still be complete here, I saw several lists in the media. Why not the best list here? At least the TOM126 incident should be found here, and some mentioning of the unusual the shares drop, I still think. For deleting someone's contributions I expect you to have more explaination, sorry. I will read any follow up in the morning (GMT+2). (I am putting four ~ here, but that does not seem to work most of the time) Bas van Pelt 23:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasvanPelt (talk • contribs)


 * I've stated my reasons in my edit summaries. Mainly that Wikipedia is not a news service for every thing that happens (WP:NOT) and also what MilborneOne and JetBlast have already stated. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @Fnlayson Thank you for responding. I am a full supporter of [] and especially WP:NOT. But I do not think these guidelines conclude that something can be deleted 'JUST because it is news'. Sometimes it is immediately clear that it is BOTH news and notable.

@Fnlayson and MilborneOne. Several users have been trying to contribute about this and mainly MilborneOne and SempreVolando have deleted everything (of the three connected events) until only the Heathrow fire is briefly mentioned in 'operational problems'. I also think that some deleting had to be done. But there is just a little bit to much deleted, I think. Trying to get to know the reasons (see above) did not give me enough to understand.

As of the defence for deleting I read: - not notable - no news in WP - undue weight - Boeing sharevalue is notable in article Boeing - no connection TOM0126 and sharesdrop. My reaction was - an event can in some cases be BOTH news AND notable (WP can and should be up to date) - an event can be notable in more then one article (both Boeing and Dreamliner) - the three events (fire, TOM0126 and sharesdrop) are connected (AP July 12, 2013 6:53 PM ) and - the three combined are notable for Dreamliner-article. I did not get much of reaction on what I brought forward, that is my perception. I did some reading in the guidelines, it changed my opinion slightly.

Boeing shares recovered partially today, but that does not change the description of what happened July 12th, 2013 much.

I found something similar in section “Pre-flight ground testing”: Aug 28th, 2009 “The company expected to write off US$2.5 billion because it considered the first three Dreamliners built unsellable and suitable only for flight tests.” This is also about a few billion loss for Boeing.... and is also 'notable' for Dreamliner article.

I still think 'return home TOM0126' and the sharedrop could and should be mentioned in 'operational problems' in connection with to the Heathrow fire. I think that many people (at least by the other contributing users whose information was deleted here) that this information should not be absent in a article of about this size about Dreamliner.

A bit premature I hope, but in case of no consensus... I read about deleting by reversion here []: "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." "Finally, do not revert any edits that can be verified per WP:V and would be an improvement to a page, within the boundaries of other Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. If an edit can be verified as encyclopedic, and improves a page but you still worry that someone else might disagree, then let the person who disagrees with the change revert the edit. Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy." Does that mean the deleter will be no longer deleting in some cases?

My idea now is to add this after the Heathrow fire in 'Operational problems': In a separate incident the same day, a Thomson Airways 787 returned to Manchester Airport after taking off on a transatlantic flight after experiencing an unspecified “minor technical issue". Both incidents added to concerns about the plane which had an immediate partially temporary negative impact on Boeing sharevalue that day. BTW I saw you both doing lots of other work on WP: keep up the good work. And it would help inexperienced users to add if applicable [] instead of just 'not notable'. Bas van Pelt 23:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasvanPelt (talk • contribs)


 * As you probably know you need to gain consensus for the information to be added to the article, it does not matter why you think the information should be added the fact the addition has been challenged really means that you need consensus to add it. Please do not add it again without gaining a consensus here other editors can just remove if it has not gained consensus and it is better to talk then for you to start disruptive editing, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @MilborneOne Sorry, but I do not know that. I think your view is not in line with the above Guidelines on reverting. What I understand and find more reasonable too: if a user adds information that are ¨verifiable changes that may be an improvement¨, the burden of 'reaching consensus first' lies more on the deleter. "Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy".
 * And I try again because I do prefer to reach a consensus first: do you need more other facts, do you have contradicting facts? If not I still think that I made clear that what happened to the two Dreamliners July 12th, 2013 is notable, the indicator being that fact that so much concern about Dreamliner raised that Boeing shares immediately dropped 7%. That is about a few billion dollar difference for Boeing that has a connection with the two Dreamliner incidents 'within an hour'. That is why I think was notable on July 12th, 2013 already. Now it is a notable part of Dreamliners history.
 * There could also be a smaller longer lasting effect. After one trading day, monday, Boeing shares recovered further. But they are still 1% down while Dow Jones and most (4 out of 5) other big American Aerospace Companies (United Techno, Lockheed, Honeywell, Northrop, Gen Dyn) are up 0,5% - 1,5% - compared to last thursday, one day before the incidents. If that is the case it would only add to the incidents being notable. Please react to my explaination and proposal too Bas van Pelt 13:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasvanPelt (talk • contribs)

An artist conception of 787-10
An artist's conception of the 787-10 should be added to the article. Also, perhaps the 787-3 picture should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

cargo capacity
There is no real cargo capacity. We are told "4,826 cu ft". Cubic feet is a volume not a mass. Can it lift 4,826 cu ft of Styrofoam? Can it lift 4,826 cu ft of gold? We are also told it can carry "28× LD3"!?! Huh? Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the general audience. I have never heard of an "LD3". Could we have a wikilink to LD3?

Mass would be a better designation. Something like "10,000 kg at maximum range (max fuel load)". Nick Beeson (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added a link to the first use of LD3. MilborneOne (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

787-3
I moved this section more towards the top so that it was in the correct "sorted" order like the other variants were. 75.185.34.253 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Accidents and Incidents section
As far as we know, so far there have been four fire incidents in some 72 assembled planes. This section should list them all, I do not see a justification to keep that information fragmented. --84.56.17.63 (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We have a discussion of the battery problems and a separate article on the battery problems (so we dont really need to go into detail) and we do mention the ELT issue perhaps you could explain what is being fragmented, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I count 3 actual fires: ANA, JAL, and the recent Ethiopian one. There has been some other minor events like fuel leaks also.  The info in the "Incidents and accidents" section was somewhat disjointed, imo.  I moved text around so most of the battery text is together in the "Battery problems and groundings" subsecton now. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Outdated introduction to Incidents section. The introduction sites Boeing saying in dec 2012 that the problems are normal. That's before all the most publicized problems began (including all the problems quoted in this section). So the quote is outdated and irrelevant, looks like marketing. 178.174.211.163 (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement covers the 787's first year in service and the date is clearly stated to show that. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Norwegian fuel leak
I have removed this again as it doesnt appear to be anymore notable as the last time inclusion was challenged, we are not here as a 787 news service of random events, it really needs to get consensus to add this non-notable event again. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe, in this particular case, it's not just a news reel. Dreamliner is slowly turning into a Nightmareliner. This leak is not just including a news article; it's one in a series of events that affect the craft's airworthiness, not the least important characteristic. MAYBE (I do but keep the peace) we can list all those known events in one paragraph stating that 787 experienced fuel leaks with these airlines at these airports and at the moment it is (not?) considered to be a design flaw. With the appropriate sources of course. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you a reliable source that links fuel venting from the surge tank overflow on the Norwegian 787 to all the other fuel related problems, and is it being considered notable by anybody important? I understand that venting fuel is not that uncommon when all the tanks are full and it is not just related to the Boeing 787 it does happen on other aircraft types. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> Boeing Has a New 787 Dreamliner Headache With Wing Cracks(Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)).

Special windows
The windows of the 787 are quite special (e.g. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFG2Rvgx7Og ) compared to other airplanes. It's however nowhere to find if the also offer you UV protection, which is growing a concern of air flights. Does someone have info to make an entry about this in the topic? 77.160.237.220 (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Air India
Just challenged the addition of an entry on Air India problems and the fact that they have a number of aircraft grounded as spares sources, it is clear that all but two aircraft have flown today, one flew yesterday and one is on maintenance. Borrowing bits from an aircraft on maintenance is not notable. The other issues appear to have been cleared up quickly so unless User:Wikimucker can gain consensus for the Air India section it can be removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This was fully referenced and the phrase "A Couple" is used in the Times of India. If you have EG archived Transponder Data _showing_ that all but one of their 787 fleet are on the move in the last 72 hours or so then I will accept that the Times of India have misreported the number of 787s that are being cannibalised for parts in the recent past.

But there is nothing whatsoever wrong with my attribution and the Times of India is hardly a tabloid. If you provide the movement evidence you assert you have access to I will of course leave the article as is. Reminder > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Now-Dreamliner-grounded-in-Hong-Kong/articleshow/37994368.cms

Wikimucker (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked all of the planes listed here > http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/787?sort=reg&p=3

All are showing as active in the last 72 hours bar VT-ANI > http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/vt-ani

The Times of India was wrong. Lets leave it at that shall we??? :)

Wikimucker (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Mind you User:MilborneOne VT-ANI has been grounded for almost 3 months now > http://planefinder.net/data/aircraft/VT-ANI Wikimucker (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor incidents removed
I've removed several minor incidents from the Accidents section, most of which already have consensuses to be removed in the preceding sections. I also propose that we change the hidden note to require consensus to readd them after they've been removed as being minor. The wording of the current hidden note just adds unneeded alarmism, and isn't the way such incidents are generally handled in aircraft articles. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have had a tweak of the note see what you think. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What you have looks good, but we might want to keep the mention of WP:AIRCRASH, even though it's not a working link. - BilCat (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Picture of two United 787s at "Los Angeles International Airport"


I changed the quotation on the image of two United Airlines' 787s at "Los Angeles International Airport" to "San Francisco International Airport", which is correct. I was challenged on this, and now I am justifying my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.26.228 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on what though? I think the photographer should know where he/she was when the photo was taken. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Similar https://www.flickr.com/photos/jss8699ca/8369770790/ also says LAX. MilborneOne (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Article formatting issues
There appear to be a few formatting issues on the page (the image thumbnail problem is present throughout the entire article) which are not present on any other articles. I took a brief look at the page source, nothing looks wrong, and oddly enough, when previewing the page (i.e., click edit → show preview), it renders correctly. What's going on? Procellam (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Terrible teens
There is an article about their purchase (finally) but I can't find any prior info about them on the page or archives. Is that a decision which I somehow missing? Ashtul (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a news service. A mention is fine but no need to restate info on weight issue with the early 787s that is already in the article.  Also, 10 aircraft is not a lot with Boeing producing about that many 787s a month now. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)