Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ericloewe (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 21 January 2013 (→See also: Electric car fire incidents‎). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 5 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Washington High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as High-importance).

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Boeing 787 Dreamliner at the Reference desk.

A news item involving Boeing 787 Dreamliner was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 December 2009.

A news item involving Boeing 787 Dreamliner was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 October 2011.

A news item involving Boeing 787 Dreamliner was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 January 2013.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 5 months

Operators section

I think the Operators section should be removed. Misplaced Pages 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 Sánchez 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#Service_entry_and_operations 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. ANDROS_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 Sánchez 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'sTalk_{Make 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#Safety lets Boeing BLEEDING!

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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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/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)

Neutrality and Boeing <> Airbus and other editors fights_Airbus_and_other_editors_fights-2013-01-20T06:29:00.000Z">

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)_Airbus_and_other_editors_fights"> _Airbus_and_other_editors_fights">

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

"Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines...."_Airbus_and_other_editors_fights-2013-01-20T17:27:00.000Z">

Facts:

1. This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages.

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"_Airbus_and_other_editors_fights-2013-01-20T17:27:00.000Z">

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: Misplaced Pages: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:
   1. Design change: Weight increase.
   2. Design change: Range reduction.
4. 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.
5. "similarly sized 767": similarly see weight increase, and: What version, which age, what for engines? Vague !
6. 787 : What version? Vague !
7. How is that calculated? Per seat? Vague !

But:

1. ANA said 21% fuel savings. But:
   1. 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.
   2. 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"_Airbus_and_other_editors_fights-2013-01-20T17:27:00.000Z">

IMPORTANT message.

Facts:

1. Detail: Meant is most of its weight, not most of its volume.
2. Outdated: .
3. Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example:
   1. Design change: Weight increase.
   2. Design change: Range reduction.
4. 51%, 50% (other refs), or 49% ? Or: Much more Titanium? Boeing's 787 Dreamliner is no lightweight (Describes plane ready to flight)

Result:: Has to be rewritten. Tagremover (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Low Article quality_Airbus_and_other_editors_fights-2013-01-20T06:29:00.000Z">

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 - Misplaced Pages 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#.22Boeing_says_this_system_extracts_35.25_less_power_from_the_engines.....22
• 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)

Not me. I give up. This guy is insufferable. Good luck. Marteau (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You are a nice guy. Tagremover (talk) 20:17, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Shortening of section "Incidents" including subsections

I think this should be shortened, because:

• No one was hurt
• Its size gives it an inappropriate, negative weight, although its sentences are correct

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.

"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)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• B-Class Washington articles
• High-importance Washington articles
• WikiProject Washington articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles