Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boeing 787 Makes US Debut

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the up-in-the-air-senior-birdman dept.

Transportation 317

thomas.kane writes "After years of delays, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is set to take off from Bush Intercontinental Airport this morning bound for O'Hare. Designed to make the flying experience 'revolutionary,' it is constructed from composite materials, has larger windows than previous jetliners, and high efficiency engines. United Airlines became the first U.S. carrier to take delivery; they've ordered 50, but due to processing delays, they only have 2 right now. Start looking for more to take to the skies early next year."

cancel ×

317 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Awesome (3, Insightful)

diemuzi (940206) | about 2 years ago | (#41872405)

Would love to see this in person!

Re:Awesome (2, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41872761)

I'd love to see United stop treating us all like shite.

HINT: Start with people, not with aircraft. Oh, and food service, too.

Re:Awesome (5, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | about 2 years ago | (#41872899)

That's what everybody says. Then they go to travelocity, and fly with the lowest bidder. If more people wanted to pay more for a better experience, there'd be more first class seats in airplanes.

Re:Awesome (5, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 years ago | (#41872981)

funny, I go with the lowest bidder for airlines based in other parts of the world and the food, beer & wine, entertainment and courteous service are included. the US airlines *could* do it if money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets

Re:Awesome (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873061)

money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets

Yeah, the unions are killing the US airlines..

Re:Awesome (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873117)

Yeah, the unions are killing the US airlines..

Except mysteriously for SWA which does just fine despite being union.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873175)

That's why union salaries aren't dwarfed by executive compensation.

Re:Awesome (5, Informative)

Smallpond (221300) | about 2 years ago | (#41873219)

From United's Q3 financials: [google.com]

Net profit margin 0.06%

but having just flown SwissAir and Lufthansa, I have to agree about food and service being better in Europe.

Re:Awesome (1)

21mhz (443080) | about 2 years ago | (#41873297)

It's getting worse. Finnair has stopped offering free food on short haul flights, and they are in a battle with the unions to reduce their staff costs, too. The lowest bidders such as Norwegian and Flybe are expanding, though.

Re:Awesome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872967)

I think they only treat people with dark complexions as shite.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873127)

I'm about as white as they come and have Premier status, so I can confirm they treat all people like shit regardless of their complexion.The only time I don't get treated like crap is when I can manage an upgrade to first class.

dom

Re:Awesome (4, Insightful)

kiwimate (458274) | about 2 years ago | (#41872979)

Yep, everyone says they want to be treated better. And have even lower fares. As well as full meals. And free movies. And no charge for baggage. But make it cheaper than it already is.

Do you see the problem?

HINT: If you want food service, pay more and fly first class.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873163)

Maybe we want something in-between being treated like crap and paying 10x? I don't know about the US, but travelling in Europe, first class will often cost around 1500 EUR for what is normally a 110 EUR flight, that is just beyond unreasonable.

Re:Awesome (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41873263)

that is just beyond unreasonable.

Then you need to have words with the people buying these tickets, not the airlines selling them.

Re:Awesome (4, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#41873041)

United provides food service. It's just not "free." Of course, other airlines charge you for it too, they just include it in your ticket price whether you want the food or not.

Re:Awesome (5, Informative)

StarWreck (695075) | about 2 years ago | (#41873077)

The United "Tapas Box" is pretty awesome. Well, it was awesome last year when it was only $5, they've since raised the price to $7.50...

Re:Awesome (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about 2 years ago | (#41872771)

It is an airplane, not a person ;-)

Re:Awesome (5, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 2 years ago | (#41872875)

A few years ago, I was in Seattle for a band trip. On the Sunday morning, a dozen of us went up to Everett to see the Boeing factory.

The first plane ready to get out the door was 787 #1, the FAA smasher, so we got to see it fairly close. We also got to see the Dreamcargo? whatever it's called take off. That's a funny looking plane.

They are very cool planes, and if you're ever in the PNW, I highly recommend heading to Everett and checking out the factory. It's incredible.

Re:Awesome (4, Interesting)

ls671 (1122017) | about 2 years ago | (#41873199)

I remember landing in Seattle for the first time. I could just see miles of runways figuring out; there is the airport! It went on for a while before actually getting to the airport. It turns out they were Boeing factory runways.

Re:Awesome (1)

Dr. Tom (23206) | about 2 years ago | (#41872883)

Go to Ethiopia, where the first one was delivered 3 months ago.

Boston Already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872463)

Hasn't it been doing non-stop Boston Tokyo flights since April? Or did something stop that from happening.

Re:Boston Already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872485)

ANA doesn't count to CNN, I guess.

I suppose Kyung Lah's editor has moved up in the world since they finally managed to get her out of Tokyo?

Re:Boston Already? (2)

sensei moreh (868829) | about 2 years ago | (#41872551)

ANA isn't an American carrier (or wasn't last time I flew on them)

Re:Boston Already? (2)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 2 years ago | (#41872611)

TFA didn't say "Debut with an American carrier", it said "US Debut".

Of course, since it is made here, it has been flying in the USA for years - but they ignore that fact as well.

Re:Boston Already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872741)

You yankees don't count as Americans - only us cunfederates!

US ? That's nothing. (4, Funny)

ballpoint (192660) | about 2 years ago | (#41872555)

In Soviet Russia, Boeing 787 Makes YOU Debut !

Re:US ? That's nothing. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872635)

Hilarious man... Absolutely hilarious.

Re:US ? That's nothing. (0)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#41872777)

Every single fukin' time I read it.

Meh ... (3, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | about 2 years ago | (#41872561)

I was worried at first, until I saw that the airport was named after the at least somewhat sane one.

Re:Meh ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872811)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_O'Hare [wikipedia.org]

They named it after a Medal of Honor recipient.

Re:Meh ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873095)

Yea, that 5% average unemployment and not covering up attacks on Amricans really did suck. I perfer 8% unemployment and lies and coverups when Ambassadors or border agents get killed due to Federal government incompentence.

New feature (4, Funny)

freeasinrealale (928218) | about 2 years ago | (#41872621)

But do the windows open?

Re:New feature (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 years ago | (#41872701)

You can't open Windows because the 787 runs on Linux.

Re:New feature (0)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#41873155)

If your underwear contains enough explosives, then yes.

Did I miss something? (4, Funny)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 2 years ago | (#41872623)

Getting a bit of deja vu here. Looks like they'll be counting it as a first everytime this plane takes off. First for an American carrier, first time at night, first time with a special guest aboard, first flight with ground fog, etc.

Re:Did I miss something? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872727)

I think you're missing the point...the story here is that a US carrier can finally afford a new airplane.

Re:Did I miss something? (1, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#41872869)

"a US carrier can finally afford a new airplane."

Really? The Nomitz class carriers have been getting new versions of strike aircraft on a regular basis and soon they will be getting the naval version of the F35
(Unless we go 'off the cliff' of course

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

iRommel (1684036) | about 2 years ago | (#41873019)

FTFY Nimitz.

Re:Did I miss something? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872941)

Ah, now I get it. Also a chance to say "Bush! Fuck Yeah! Texas!" Oh, and thanks for cancelling the SSC, Texans. Go drive your SUVs during a gas shortage. Raise 2 cows in your yard to get a farm subsidy. Everything's bigger there, including their stupidity.

Re:Did I miss something? (3, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | about 2 years ago | (#41872745)

First American carrier to use an american-built plane made mostly of composite materials.
 
Don't get me wrong, Carbon Fiber is absurdly strong, and computer models help negate design flaws.... but CF's failure mode tends to be sudden and...explosive. Steel bends long before it breaks, and Aluminum is somewhere in the middle, but CF just.... goes when it fails. I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41872785)

Aluminum had a long history of catastrophic failures for many years. Carbon fiber is off to a pretty good start. Flying is amazingly safe right now. Pilot error is the remaining concern at this point.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#41872801)

Aluminum has nothing on Cf for strength and lightness though.

Re:Did I miss something? (3, Interesting)

imsabbel (611519) | about 2 years ago | (#41873189)

ACtually, the difference is less than you think. 10-15%, to be exact. Modern airlines do not use plain aluminium. Most recently, Alumnium-Magnesium-Lithium alloys have been introduced, for example

Re:Did I miss something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872805)

Carbon fiber is in no way "absurdly strong". I really wish you software types would refrain from commenting on real science.

Re:Did I miss something? (3, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | about 2 years ago | (#41872891)

Ah, Anonymous Coward, we meet again! This is where I link to two very amusing CF stress test videos
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrjId0-K-Ts
 
Hooray for science and/or standardized testing based on Real Science.
 
On that first video, skip ahead to the 5 minute mark where they're just beating the frame against a concrete wall/corner.

Re:Did I miss something? (5, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | about 2 years ago | (#41872921)

I really wish you software types would refrain from commenting on real science.

Why? I deal with terrible code written by science types all the time. Payback's a bitch.

Re:Did I miss something? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873037)

Carbon fiber is in no way "absurdly strong". I really wish you software types would refrain from commenting on real science.

Don't you have a cock you need to go suck ?

Because your comment is utterly without value or merit,
and you have no qualifications which give you credibility.
Do us all a favor and die.

Re:Did I miss something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873137)

Young's modulus. And since when is "absurdly" an engineering term, Hadlock?

Re:Did I miss something? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872861)

You are getting old.

Modern engineering simulation using non-linear finite element software with appropriate calibrated fracture and failure material models can model the deformation and stresses accurately. When the structure is overloaded, the software can model the delamination of the individual plies, the damage that occurs and the residual strength and performance of the structure.

Disclaimer: I used to work for the company that writes the software that Boeing uses.

Re:Did I miss something? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873009)

Maybe I'm just getting old.

Maybe you don't know shit about materials science but because you
are an ignorant piece of shit you think you are qualified to comment.

Yes, that's it.

Re:Did I miss something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873055)

You make it sound like engineers are clueless of a concept called "elastic limit", and that boeing's people are so inept at nonlinear structural analysis to be completely oblivious to how to design structures to work safely in elastic limits.

Re:Did I miss something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873119)

I doubt it will be just carbon fibre, there will be fibreglass and Kevlar materials in there too. Plus you have the advantage over aluminium in that it can be repaired easily.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#41873145)

I don't think you appreciate just how bad aluminum's failure mode is. It's not like an airplane crashes and gets a few dents. It's usually torn apart into hundreds of pieces. There's no way carbon fiber could be worse, because structural failures are always catastrophic anyway. However, carbon fiber is less susceptible to fatigue, so it's less likely to fail in the first place. The point goes to carbon fiber. If we ever find a way to make these composites as cheaply as stamped metal, we'll probably make all our vehicles (and a lot of other things) from them.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

toolie (22684) | about 2 years ago | (#41873171)

I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.

That concern came up ages ago when the 787 being mostly Carbon-Fiber was announced, people were worried about Boeing's 'lack of experience' with it. Boeing revealed that it had at least one aircraft with a US carrier that had a carbon fiber vertical on it so they could get experience.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41873173)

I think the engineers at Boeing know how to account for CF's strength characteristics in their structural design.

I just wish they had consulted with the electrical design group about using a structural material that can melt/burn when the electrical folks deleted the differential bus protection that clears arcing faults.

Oh, and how do you repair the stuff when someone runs into it with a forklift? I mean in some third world country where all they have is a pop rivet gun and some scrap aluminum.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

JimBobJoe (2758) | about 2 years ago | (#41873281)

The FAA required a few tests specific to the 787 and its structure. I seem to recall a test where they took a fuselage and dropped it from a particular height to see how well it would deal with such a drop.

My recollection is that the FAA said that the test was passed. Not much information is available on it since they wanted to keep the information a trade secret.

Re:Did I miss something? (2)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | about 2 years ago | (#41872793)

They do the same thing on TV. "World premier of MOVIE", "US premier of MOVIE", "Network premier", "Cable premier", "Season premier", and so on.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

Smallpond (221300) | about 2 years ago | (#41873313)

also the latest oxymoron "midseason premiere"

Ceiling Lighting (3, Interesting)

Riddler Sensei (979333) | about 2 years ago | (#41872625)

Watching the "Passenger Experience" video it was almost obnoxious how much attention they kept giving the ceiling lighting, but looking at the different settings for the dynamic LED lighting it is actually pretty cool. I like that it not only changes the brightness but also the color of the cabin for things like meals and pre-landing.

Re:Ceiling Lighting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872933)

They need every possible gimmick they can use. According to this, http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/news/airbus-vs-boeing-battle-for-air-space, the it cost 10billion to develop, while the airbus a380 was 13 billion, and only half the seats an airbus has.

They have a lot of orders pending though.

Still, I don't see why they're compared, since they're completely different classes.

@losers above, stop dissing aluminum

Re:Ceiling Lighting (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#41873227)

Why do you think it should cost less to develop a smaller jumbo jet? Especially one using unconditional materials, bleed-less engines and so on. The 787 is Boeing's new flagship aircraft. Boeing doesn't expect to make a lot of money on each one, but by building a plane that's years ahead of what Airbus can produce, they're increasing the value of their brand. This is also a first step toward making their whole line more advanced. So releasing this plane is a tactical move, it's not intended to make them a lot of money right away.

Re:Ceiling Lighting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873283)

I've always loved the business 'tactic' of releasing products that don't make money.

Re:Ceiling Lighting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873031)

Clearly you have not ridden on a Boeing plane with this "Blue Sky Interior". It is horrid. They chose low frequency LED drivers - meaning the lights flicker when you move your head quickly. Very nauseating to those who notice it. (I build LED driver ICs so perhaps I'm more sensitive than most). Epic fail Boeing. Epic fail.

-AC for good reasons.

But it's still United (5, Funny)

magarity (164372) | about 2 years ago | (#41872723)

Did they upgrade the staff with all new attitudes and customer service skills? Otherwise I'd rather be on another carrier's older plane.

Re:But it's still United (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#41872819)

I'll take 100 old dc-11's with crotichity old men as stewards if they'd abolish the TSA.

make the flying experience 'revolutionary,'... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41872751)

You mean they have spacious seats, and the back of the plane is as quite as the front, and no more TSA?

Re:make the flying experience 'revolutionary,'... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872923)

No, by "revolutionary" they mean the plane spins on its access, often for no reason.

Re:make the flying experience 'revolutionary,'... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41873013)

It's not nice to mock the disabled...

Re:make the flying experience 'revolutionary,'... (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#41873233)

The new plane is quieter, and the cabin appears more open because of the larger windows.

Flash much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872759)

I'd love to find out more, but everything about that fucking Boeing site requires Flash.

There goes another "feature" (1, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 years ago | (#41872783)

I always try to get a window as .. gasp .. I like looking out the window! But in a lot of US long haul domestic flights they "encourage" you to shut the window shades in the middle of the day. Generally you can "comply" with this by pulling the shade down 3/4 of the way and still give you some window to look out of. However with the Dreamliner's electronic dimming of the whole window you won't have a chance of balancing your desires with the cabin crew's requests.
 
And in a bit of conspiracy thinking, I wonder if the cabin crew has a master switch to force the windows to darken when they want - Hello Zaphod's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses!

Re:There goes another "feature" (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41872817)

Well that stinks! I fly for the view. I don't want to have to stare at some stupid monitor that the pilot can shut down. I guess the next generation of planes won't bother with windows, as the structure needed for them only adds weight. Yuck!

Re:There goes another "feature" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872931)

They should have built camera outside and project the view onto the walls (or LED walls). No sunlight glare, yet great view. Haaa...

Re:There goes another "feature" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872867)

I haven't flown in the US after the implemented the nude scanners. I do they "encourage" you to shut the windows shade on mid-day flights? Are they afraid you might go blind from the sun or something? Maybe it's a terrorist security issue? I'm not joking, why do they tell you to do this?

Re:There goes another "feature" (3, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 years ago | (#41872893)

Are they afraid you might go blind from the sun or something?

Its so the passengers can better enjoy the in-flight entertainment. Especially on planes that don't have seat back monitors.

Re:There goes another "feature" (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 years ago | (#41872951)

back when I was younger the in-flight entertainment was called "the mile-high club"

Re:There goes another "feature" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873035)

That was before they put spy cameras in the toilets.

Re:There goes another "feature" (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872907)

I actually work for the company that manufactures the windows (Gentex) and I only have a little experience working with the windows, but I do know that there is a master control for the dimming level. Also, there are 5 different dimming levels so it's not just full dark and full clear. I think with the master control there is also the ability to limit the selectable dimming levels. So the flight attendants or whoever gets to control it could require you to set it to at least dimming level 3 and you'd still be able to look out of the window.

Re:There goes another "feature" (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 years ago | (#41873079)

I saw that there were multiple levels of dimness. But if I want to look out a dimmed window I'd wear sunglasses!
 
However my conspiracy theory was more aimed at the cabin crew forcing the shades down prior to the impending doom of the aircraft in order to reduce panic.

Re:There goes another "feature" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872973)

I don't know about long haul domestic, but if they could force people to close windows in long haul international flights -- especially over ocean -- this would be a godsend. Sleeping on the same aisle as a douchebag with the window open the whole time is a nightmare, 3/4 closed doesn't help that much in my experience. How long can you stare at flat ocean and/or the top of clouds anyway?

Have some consideration if 90% of the rest of the passengers are asleep, even if it is daytime outside.

Re:There goes another "feature" (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 years ago | (#41873049)

Have some consideration if 90% of the rest of the passengers are asleep, even if it is daytime outside.

This boils down to "why my needs and desires trump your needs and desires". So who are you to pass judgement in your favour as opposed to your window seat neighbour?

Re:There goes another "feature" (1)

rally2xs (1093023) | about 2 years ago | (#41873207)

Aw, they should just make the planes without windows, so we can all have claustrophobia attacks all the way from DC to Sydney, Austrailia. No need to look out the window when someone wants to sleep in the daytime, anyway.

Re:There goes another "feature" (1)

rally2xs (1093023) | about 2 years ago | (#41873259)

And this is the sort of nonsense that makes mass transit of any sort the largest PITA on the planet. I've given up flying completely because of the TSA nonsense, which incidentally is 100% unconstitutional, and drive everywhere I go. The irritants to flying are endless: Paying to park in a lot that is still a 10 minute bus ride from the terminal, overpriced everything in the terminal, having to do a mini-marathon to get between planes on a connecting flight, lost bags, bags pilfered by TSA, never being 100% sure you can take this or that on the plane because the TSA doesn't really follow the website, having the things you pack in bubble wrap 'cuz they're fragile unwrapped by TSA so maybe they break and maybe they don't, tiny airline seats, no legroom, having to arrive 2 hours before the plane, "gotcha" pricing for everthing such as bags, overweight bags, oversize bags, and the 50 lb limit on the bags that used to be 70 - I have trouble with that 'cuz some of my equipment uses heavy batteries. 45 minute waits to get bags at the carousel, and then maybe 45 minutes to rent a car including another 10 minute ride to the rental car off-site office. Expensive airline tickets that I can often beat in terms of gasoline and motels, even without having a passenger sharing expenses.

Get the D TSA out of the formula and I _might_ get back on airplanes, but nonsense like this doesn't help.

Re:There goes another "feature" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873225)

Well, as you so rightfully pointed out, it is a "desire" thing, but how *I* feel about it that it is light pollution, which is extremely similar to noise pollution. Enjoy that bus ride where that obnoxious person on the phone makes a great deal of noise and is generally unpleasant?

Again the same sort of situation. Is it really that much different? Sure, unless they were being a horrendous prick about it, people tend to just put up with it, but is there a point where common courtesy falls out the window, so to speak?

Re:There goes another "feature" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873109)

Just close your eyes. That'll make it dark for you. Want to make it light again? Just open them! Strange how that works, you can't explain that.

Re:There goes another "feature" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873293)

I am generally considerate, but on a flight from the US to Asia the flight map showed we were passing over Siberia. This brought up images of Dr. Zhivago and passages from Solzhenitsyn, so I had to sneak a peek. I was greeted by desolate snow-swept peaks (enjoyed from my comfy seat in a room temperature cabin). After several minutes the glare was too much, so I returned to the gloom of the shuttered cabin. I didn't see a single other person open a window, kind of sad really, passing over regions I certainly never thought I would get to, and not even bothering to look.

Re:There goes another "feature" (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#41873261)

I'm not sure you've thought this through. The dimming windows give you move control over the light level, not less. It's not an on or off setting. As with anything, you should really try it before you decide it's terrible.

Evil Capitalists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872795)

These decadent capitalists are always trying to make more efficient things so they can make more money...!
Wake up people!

Go Boeing! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41872945)

I live in Seattle. Everytime I hear someone complain that nothing is made in the USA I think - are you kidding, look up in the sky those planes were made right here.

Re:Go Boeing! (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41873017)

I live in Seattle. Everytime I hear someone complain that nothing is made in the USA I think - are you kidding, look up in the sky those planes were made right here.

Sort of true (Boeing is huge and mostly in the US) - but in an effort to get international orders, YoYoDyne subcontracted the 787 to pretty much every country with an airport. That was one of the reasons that it fell so far behind (the other being that Boeing, like everyone else, can't hit a release target to save it's life). It became hugely difficult to monitor and integrate suppliers from damned near everywhere.

Sort of sounds like the Space Shuttle writ large.

Odd priorities (1)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | about 2 years ago | (#41872989)

From TFA:

It features passenger comforts such as bigger windows, larger overhead bins and better ventilation.

Really? Those are the "passenger comforts" so significant they get a mention?

How about they just make the seats (ALL the seats) wide enough for normal Americans to sit comfortably without feeling they are intruding on the personal space of others?

I'd happily fly in slow, noisy, propeller-driven planes fired by coal if they'd just give us enough room to be comfortable on a long flight.

Re:Odd priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873047)

Buy a business class ticket. Or loose weight.

Re:Odd priorities (2)

demonlapin (527802) | about 2 years ago | (#41873311)

Unless you're very overweight, the span of your shoulders is the widest part of the human body. There's only so much that can be accomplished when seats are made narrower than the average shoulder width, and seat pitch is so short that even modestly tall people (I'm 6'0") have their knees touching the seat in front of them even when seats are upright and fully locked.

Business/first is an option, of course, but it's not available on the regional jets that have made such huge inroads in American air transport.

Re:Odd priorities -- 787 seat width small. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873169)

A little googling leads me to believe the seat width on the economy class 787 by United will be smaller than ever. They want to go with a 3-3-3 configuration which drops the width under 17 inches. Some carriers (e.g.: ANA) are going 2-4-2, but apparently not United.

Re:Odd priorities (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#41873271)

It's called "first class."

Re:Odd priorities (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41873273)

How about they just make the seats (ALL the seats) wide enough for normal Americans to sit comfortably without feeling they are intruding on the personal space of others?

Perhaps Boeing figures that the international market is larger than the domestic one and that it would be cheaper to make normal Americans narrow enough to fit in the international airplane seats. :-) *ducks*

I'd happily fly in slow, noisy, propeller-driven planes fired by coal if they'd just give us enough room to be comfortable on a long flight.

There are such planes, only they fly at a really low altitudes and tend to crash into icebergs. But otherwise there is plenty of room in them.

Re:Odd priorities (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41873307)

Airplane manufacturers don't control seat width; the airlines are the ones who define that. The 787 is wider than other airplanes in its size class and Boeing had intended for that to be reflected in the seats. Instead, airlines chose to cram in two more passengers per row.

Processing delays? (3, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 2 years ago | (#41873301)

It turns out there was some poor guy at United Airlines refreshing this web page for months:

Tracking results for order 18293387382484758342093837439382:
  Seattle, WA 2012-07-02 13:43:23 In Transit.
  The item has left the seller's facility.
  Estimated delivery time: NA
  No further information available, please check again later.

What's worse, when the plane finally arrived, it was packed in a giant welded plastic clamshell. It took two weeks for a crew at the airline to extract the aircraft without damaging it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?