InsideFlyer.com [English] United States InsideFlyer.uk [English] United Kingdom InsideFlyer.de [German] Germany InsideFlyer.no [Norwegian] Norway InsideFlyer.se [Swedish] Sweden InsideFlyer.dk [Danish] Denmark InsideFlyer.nl [Dutch] Benelux
Discussion in 'General Discussion | Travel' started by guberif, Apr 19, 2013.
| Print Topic
Interesting that they did not change the ETOPS status (yet). Three hours away from the nearest airport on what is essentially a beta test of the fix may be ok, but its not the one step at a time process that I expected. The flight tests must have been very good.
I'm sure Boeing lobbied the hell out of Washington to make sure ETOPS didn't drop below 180. Would have been the death of the plane. We'll see how long it takes to get ETOPS 330.
I'm not so sure they did. And if they did, I'm not sure how much good it would have done. I'm normally very cynical about all things politics, but in this case, the consequences of a potential 787 crash would've been so dreadful (for everyone involved) that I think any lobbying by Boeing would be futile. The people who run Boeing aren't stupid, would realize what could go wrong, and would've mostly stayed quiet. Boeing could've made a lot more noise than they did, had they wanted to.
Tests as in multiple? How many hours did they actually fly with the new battery?
I sure hope Boeing realizes that any future battery incident would likely make the previous situation look like a walk in the park. Doesn't even have to kill or injure anyone.