Thread Boeing 787
- Autore Discussione FlyIce
- Data d'inizio
io sono pro Airbus, perchè ho sempre ritenuto Boeing lenta e lesiva dei processi di innovazione e contraria alla concorrenza, cosa che nel campo dell'aviazione non è proprio bella...
se si vuole iniziare con la storia antica dei velivoli Jet, Boeing partì in ritardo con la progettazione del B707 sorpassata dall'allora Dehavilland, ne approfittò del disastro del Comet (regolarmente certificato che però aveva il "piccolo" diffetto di disintegrarsi in volo).
Pochi anni dopo (o molti nel senso dell'aviazione) Boeing decise di investire enormemente nei VLA e di cancellare il progetto del B2707 supersonico, mentre gli Europei (allora Airbus non esisteva) investirono enormi risorse nel Concorde. Il Concord ha volato regolarmente, ma stranamente poco dopo il governo USA istituì il divieto di sorvolo della terra ferma in Supercruise bloccando di fatto le potenzialità commerciali dell'europeo a favore del B747 che invece si è rivelato una mucca d'oro.
Quando MDD era messa male, Boeing con una grande mossa politica comprò il secondo costruttore americano garantendo di mantenere la costruzione degli aerei MDD a Long Beach, ma poi alla fine ha di fatto distrutto la produzione civile del B717 (ex MD95) e distrutto tutti i progetti di nuovi velivoli (vedi MD12 etc). Ovviamente a B non fregava niente di produrre un aereo che faceva concorrenza al 736 (che poi è stato un megaFlop) e si è guardata bene dal produrre le versioni streach già progettate da MDD per non avere una concorrenza in casa.
Quando Airbus annunciò il 380, Boeing sbandierò per anni il suo SonicCruiser (progetto utopistico e irrealizzabile) bloccando di fatto le commesse americane del 380.
E' vero che quando ha lanciato il B787 ha preso un bel coraggio nell'utilizzo di nuove tecnologie e che l'aereo è in effetti eccezionale, ma come facevano notare alcuni hanno esagerato non mettendo in conto tutti i problemi che può dare un aereo completamente nuovo.
FAA non è stupida e ha fermato tutti i B787 con una AD, il che vuol dire che anche loro nella certificazione non erano poi così certi, anche uno dei prototipi andò a fuoco durante la certificazione e la reiterazione dei difetti giustamente porta ad AD impegnative. Sicuramente il problema sarà risolto ma credo che dovranno riprogettare exnovo l'impianto elettrico che è il fulcro del sistema 787 e questo allungherà di molto i tempi di raggiungimento del BEP. Non credo che l'FAA (che sono tuttaltro che i nostri politici, permettano la ripresa dei voli fino a quando B non avrà soddisfatto tutte le loro prescrizioni).
Inoltre B in produzione qualche "caxxata" l'ha fatta come quando cascò un B737 perchè i piloti spensero il motore funzionante mentre rimase acceso quello in fiamme in quanto i cavi dei motori erano stati scambiati e i sistemi si riferivano in modo incrociato. Senza contare i problemi dello Yow Dumper che ha portato a più di un incidente sempre sul B737.
ciauz sky3boy
ps tutti hanno avuto i loro problemi, anche Airbus però a volte B si è dimostrata un po' carogna nei confronti dei prodotti europei ed è per questa cosa che preferisco A, perchè, secondo me si sono rivelati eticamente più corretti.
se si vuole iniziare con la storia antica dei velivoli Jet, Boeing partì in ritardo con la progettazione del B707 sorpassata dall'allora Dehavilland, ne approfittò del disastro del Comet (regolarmente certificato che però aveva il "piccolo" diffetto di disintegrarsi in volo).
Pochi anni dopo (o molti nel senso dell'aviazione) Boeing decise di investire enormemente nei VLA e di cancellare il progetto del B2707 supersonico, mentre gli Europei (allora Airbus non esisteva) investirono enormi risorse nel Concorde. Il Concord ha volato regolarmente, ma stranamente poco dopo il governo USA istituì il divieto di sorvolo della terra ferma in Supercruise bloccando di fatto le potenzialità commerciali dell'europeo a favore del B747 che invece si è rivelato una mucca d'oro.
Quando MDD era messa male, Boeing con una grande mossa politica comprò il secondo costruttore americano garantendo di mantenere la costruzione degli aerei MDD a Long Beach, ma poi alla fine ha di fatto distrutto la produzione civile del B717 (ex MD95) e distrutto tutti i progetti di nuovi velivoli (vedi MD12 etc). Ovviamente a B non fregava niente di produrre un aereo che faceva concorrenza al 736 (che poi è stato un megaFlop) e si è guardata bene dal produrre le versioni streach già progettate da MDD per non avere una concorrenza in casa.
Quando Airbus annunciò il 380, Boeing sbandierò per anni il suo SonicCruiser (progetto utopistico e irrealizzabile) bloccando di fatto le commesse americane del 380.
E' vero che quando ha lanciato il B787 ha preso un bel coraggio nell'utilizzo di nuove tecnologie e che l'aereo è in effetti eccezionale, ma come facevano notare alcuni hanno esagerato non mettendo in conto tutti i problemi che può dare un aereo completamente nuovo.
FAA non è stupida e ha fermato tutti i B787 con una AD, il che vuol dire che anche loro nella certificazione non erano poi così certi, anche uno dei prototipi andò a fuoco durante la certificazione e la reiterazione dei difetti giustamente porta ad AD impegnative. Sicuramente il problema sarà risolto ma credo che dovranno riprogettare exnovo l'impianto elettrico che è il fulcro del sistema 787 e questo allungherà di molto i tempi di raggiungimento del BEP. Non credo che l'FAA (che sono tuttaltro che i nostri politici, permettano la ripresa dei voli fino a quando B non avrà soddisfatto tutte le loro prescrizioni).
Inoltre B in produzione qualche "caxxata" l'ha fatta come quando cascò un B737 perchè i piloti spensero il motore funzionante mentre rimase acceso quello in fiamme in quanto i cavi dei motori erano stati scambiati e i sistemi si riferivano in modo incrociato. Senza contare i problemi dello Yow Dumper che ha portato a più di un incidente sempre sul B737.
ciauz sky3boy
ps tutti hanno avuto i loro problemi, anche Airbus però a volte B si è dimostrata un po' carogna nei confronti dei prodotti europei ed è per questa cosa che preferisco A, perchè, secondo me si sono rivelati eticamente più corretti.
UM78
Utente Registrato
TW 843
Senior Member
c'è poco da fare ,con le dovute trasposizioni la storia della boeing , pregi e difetti ,sembra quella della microsoft
detto ciò non credo sia necessario essere tifosi ne di A ne di B
per la verità a volte Airbus spaventa , però pur essendo una società iperstatale quando c'è stato bisogno di stringere i denti , ricordate i giganteschi problemi di cablaggio del 380 , ne sono usciti magistralmente
vediamo la Boeing e speriamo accada la stessa cosa con il 787 e suoi guai
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=ld10TZ4rhQ4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=ld10TZ4rhQ4&gl=IT
Simpatico video 787 LOT..
Simpatico video 787 LOT..
Dr Gio
Utente Registrato
Arrivano i talebani dei costruttori aerei. Io volo solo Boeing, un altro vola solo Airbus...
La mia opinione personale e' che Dio Gratias che abbiamo vari costruttori perche' la concorrenza fa bene al mercato e favorisce l'innovazione (se non ci fosse Boeing, Airbus ci proporrebbe i suoi marcioni per altri 80 anni, altro che A350...)
Sinceramente, tutto si puo' dire su Boeing, tranne che i suoi aerei siano inaffidabili. Il Dreamliner e' un aereo innovativo, e come tale presenta delle pecche che forse per fretta nel portare il prodotto sul mercato non sono state individuate in fase precedente all'inizio della produzione ed alla certificazione. Come tutti i prodotti innovativi, verra' sistemato, A CARO PREZZO per Boeing, ed alla fine tornera' a volare presto sui cieli (almeno credo!). Nel tempo vedremo quanto davvero questo aereo rivoluzionario sia un successo per il costruttore (che rischia di perderci un sacco di soldi... ) e per le compagnie (che contavano in grandi riduzioni dei costi operativi la cui quantificazione e' ancora pendente).
In ogni caso, io ci andrei cauto a dire non volo con questo, non volo con quello. Certo, io ho deciso che non volo con certe compagnie che sono state bannate da EU e USA per motivi di sicurezza, quello e' un altro discorso. Li' ci sono evidenti motivi per cui e' meglio evitare. Comunque, sei libero di scegliere, anche perche' come detto da tiefpeck, non avrai ancora per un bel po' molte possibilita' di volare su un B787 in Italia...
In effetti il Comet era un aereo rivoluzionario. Peccato che non andava usato per piu' di qualche centinaio di ore e poi era meglio cederlo sul mercato dell'usato...
Scherzi a parte, B e' stata un po' carogna in alcuni affari, pero' c'e' anche da dire che A ha goduto di aiuti sostanziosi dai governi europei negli ultimi 20 anni (cosa che ha mandato in bestia B e fatto aprire diverse controversie internazionali tra i rispettivi governi). Insomma, voglio dire, alla fine ognuno guarda ai propri interessi, "it's the business, baby"...
Ad essere fanatici spesso si dimentica una caratteristica fondamentale per ogni discussione civile: l'oggettività.
Airbus ha avuto due anni di ritardo nel progetto 380: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5405524.stm
Ha avuto un grounding della flotta dotata di motori RR: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/11/qantas-a380-fleet-grounded.html
Ha dei problemi per quanto riguarda le ali che hanno comportato perdite per le compagnie che lo operano a causa delle verifiche straordinarie: http://www.arabiansupplychain.com/a...30m-a-month--emirates-president/#.UQboDb-9LTo
Problemi non ancora risolti del tutto, con tanto di ridisegno di alcune strutture alari e ricertificazione per queste ultime: http://airnation.net/hangar/threads/a380-new-wing-phase-in-to-slow-production-this-year.1888/
Qualcosa da aggiungere?
Dr Gio
Utente Registrato
Io non sopporto McDonald, c'ha quei cetriolini odiosi nei panini... non ci mettero' mai piu' piede!!!
Per non parlare dei colori nei locali, un pugno nell'occhio totale... hahaha
UM78
Utente Registrato
Io preferisco sempre quello che mi porta il panino caldoIo non sopporto McDonald, c'ha quei cetriolini odiosi nei panini... non ci mettero' mai piu' piede!!!
Per non parlare dei colori nei locali, un pugno nell'occhio totale... hahaha
crazyale
Utente Registrato
- 4 Settembre 2008
- 218
- 5
Beh... di fatto Boeing è stata condannata per aiuti di stato...
http://finanza.lastampa.it/Notizie/0,462638/Boeing_il_WTO_conferma_condanna_per_gli_aiuti_di.aspx
OceanDrive
Utente Registrato
In effetti in airbus sono così avanti, che sono gli unici che fanno anche i crush test a terra ad aereo fermo.... numeri 1 !!!
crazyale
Utente Registrato
- 4 Settembre 2008
- 218
- 5
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/elon-musk-boeing-787-battery-fundamentally-unsafe-381627/
Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe
By: ZACH ROSENBERG WASHINGTON DC
The lithium ion batteries installed on the Boeing 787 are inherently unsafe, says Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX and owner of electric car maker Tesla.
"Unfortunately, the pack architecture supplied to Boeing is inherently unsafe," writes Musk in an email to Flightglobal.
"Large cells without enough space between them to isolate against the cell-to-cell thermal domino effect means it is simply a matter of time before there are more incidents of this nature," he adds.
Both Boeing and Tesla use batteries fueled by lithium cobalt oxide, which is among the most energy-dense and flammable chemistries of lithium-ion batteries on the market. While Boeing elected to use a battery with a grouping of eight large cells, Tesla's batteries contain thousands of smaller cells that are independently separated to prevent fire in a single cell from harming the surrounding ones.
"Moreover, when thermal runaway occurs with a big cell, a proportionately larger amount of energy is released and it is very difficult to prevent that energy from then heating up the neighboring cells and causing a domino effect that results in the entire pack catching fire," says Musk.
An aerospace-capable version of Tesla's battery has been developed for use in SpaceX's Falcon 9 space launch vehicle. SpaceX, also owned by Musk, competes with Boeing/Lockheed Martin joint venture United Launch Alliance for customers. Boeing has thus far declined offers of assistance from Tesla and SpaceX, says Musk.
"They [Boeing] believe they have this under control, although I think there is a fundamental safety issue with the architecture of a pack with large cells," writes Musk in an email. "It is much harder to maintain an even temperature in a large cell, as the distance from the center of the cell to the edge is much greater, which increases the risk of thermal runaway."
Musk's assessments of battery cells were confirmed by Donald Sadoway, a professor of electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"I would have used the same words," says Sadoway. "I would have used the same words. I'm glad someone with such a big reputation put it on the line."
"He's engineered [Tesla's battery] to prevent the domino effect, while Boeing evidently doesn't have that engineering," adds Sadoway.
As a fleet-wide grounding enters its third week, the battery failures on 787s flown by Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways eariler this month remain under investigation by the US National Transportation Safety Board. Japanese inspectors have cleared the maker of the battery, GS Yuasa, of any defects before the unit leaves the factory. But both Japanese and US investigators continue to examine and test the batteries to understand why they failed after they were integrated into the 787 electrical system and operated on commercial flights.
The NTSB, for example, has began a detailed examination of an undamaged 787 battery at a US Navy laboratory, hoping to "uncover signs of any degradation in expected performance".
Investigators are trying to find the answer to a problem that eluded Boeing and the FAA in the certification phase, even though the manufacturer and the regulator were well aware of the risks posed by lithium-ion batteries.
Mike Sinnett, Boeing's 787 chief project engineer, explained the careful design philosophy employed for the 787's battery system, the first to serve as a starter for an auxiliary power unit and emergency power back-up in a commercial aircraft.
"I design a cell to not fail and then assume it will and the ask the next 'what-if' questions," Sinnett said. "And then I design the batteries that if there is a failure of one cell it won't propagate to another. And then I assume that I am wrong and that it will propagate to antoher and then I design the enclosure and the redundancy of the equipment to assume that all the cells are involved and the airplane needs to be able to play through that."
Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe
By: ZACH ROSENBERG WASHINGTON DC
The lithium ion batteries installed on the Boeing 787 are inherently unsafe, says Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX and owner of electric car maker Tesla.
"Unfortunately, the pack architecture supplied to Boeing is inherently unsafe," writes Musk in an email to Flightglobal.
"Large cells without enough space between them to isolate against the cell-to-cell thermal domino effect means it is simply a matter of time before there are more incidents of this nature," he adds.
Both Boeing and Tesla use batteries fueled by lithium cobalt oxide, which is among the most energy-dense and flammable chemistries of lithium-ion batteries on the market. While Boeing elected to use a battery with a grouping of eight large cells, Tesla's batteries contain thousands of smaller cells that are independently separated to prevent fire in a single cell from harming the surrounding ones.
"Moreover, when thermal runaway occurs with a big cell, a proportionately larger amount of energy is released and it is very difficult to prevent that energy from then heating up the neighboring cells and causing a domino effect that results in the entire pack catching fire," says Musk.
An aerospace-capable version of Tesla's battery has been developed for use in SpaceX's Falcon 9 space launch vehicle. SpaceX, also owned by Musk, competes with Boeing/Lockheed Martin joint venture United Launch Alliance for customers. Boeing has thus far declined offers of assistance from Tesla and SpaceX, says Musk.
"They [Boeing] believe they have this under control, although I think there is a fundamental safety issue with the architecture of a pack with large cells," writes Musk in an email. "It is much harder to maintain an even temperature in a large cell, as the distance from the center of the cell to the edge is much greater, which increases the risk of thermal runaway."
Musk's assessments of battery cells were confirmed by Donald Sadoway, a professor of electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"I would have used the same words," says Sadoway. "I would have used the same words. I'm glad someone with such a big reputation put it on the line."
"He's engineered [Tesla's battery] to prevent the domino effect, while Boeing evidently doesn't have that engineering," adds Sadoway.
As a fleet-wide grounding enters its third week, the battery failures on 787s flown by Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways eariler this month remain under investigation by the US National Transportation Safety Board. Japanese inspectors have cleared the maker of the battery, GS Yuasa, of any defects before the unit leaves the factory. But both Japanese and US investigators continue to examine and test the batteries to understand why they failed after they were integrated into the 787 electrical system and operated on commercial flights.
The NTSB, for example, has began a detailed examination of an undamaged 787 battery at a US Navy laboratory, hoping to "uncover signs of any degradation in expected performance".
Investigators are trying to find the answer to a problem that eluded Boeing and the FAA in the certification phase, even though the manufacturer and the regulator were well aware of the risks posed by lithium-ion batteries.
Mike Sinnett, Boeing's 787 chief project engineer, explained the careful design philosophy employed for the 787's battery system, the first to serve as a starter for an auxiliary power unit and emergency power back-up in a commercial aircraft.
"I design a cell to not fail and then assume it will and the ask the next 'what-if' questions," Sinnett said. "And then I design the batteries that if there is a failure of one cell it won't propagate to another. And then I assume that I am wrong and that it will propagate to antoher and then I design the enclosure and the redundancy of the equipment to assume that all the cells are involved and the airplane needs to be able to play through that."
TW 843
Senior Member
Boeing reiterates confidence in grounded 787
By Aaron Karp | January 30, 2013
Boeing reaffirmed its confidence in the grounded 787 and said “good progress” is being made in finding the cause of recent battery failures.
Speaking to analysts and reporters to discuss Boeing’s $3.9 billion 2012 net profit, chairman, president and CEO Jim McNerney said the 787 will be “the most successful widebody that our company has ever made.” When asked about the Dreamliner production plan in light of the grounding, he said, “Business as usual. Let’s keep building airplanes and let’s ramp up as planned.” Deliveries, however, have been suspended.
“For 2013 our first order of business obviously is getting the 787 back in service,” he said.
McNerney declined to discuss specifics on the investigations into the Jan. 7 Japan Airlines 787 lithium ion battery fire in Boston or the Jan. 16 All Nippon Airways inflight battery event that led to an emergency landing. “I can’t predict an outcome,” he said. “We have every expert in the world working on this issue … We’re narrowing down the things that could have gone wrong.” But he added, “We don’t have a root cause yet.”
He acknowledged that the lithium ion battery replacement rate on in-service 787s was “slightly higher” than anticipated, but he said, “Batteries are replaced on airplanes every day, every type of battery.” He added that 787 battery replacements in all cases were owing to “routine maintenance” and not any “safety concern.”
McNerney said Boeing has seen no reason to question the use of lithium ion batteries on 787s (the first time the company has used such powerful batteries on a commercial aircraft).
“It doesn’t make much sense for us to speculate on the battery because we’re working through [the investigations] right now,” he explained. “We feel good about the battery technology and its fit for the airplane. We’ve just got to get to the root cause of these events.”
Boeing CFO Greg Smith said the company is currently “assuming no significant financial impact” from the 787 grounding.
ATWonline
By Aaron Karp | January 30, 2013
Boeing reaffirmed its confidence in the grounded 787 and said “good progress” is being made in finding the cause of recent battery failures.
Speaking to analysts and reporters to discuss Boeing’s $3.9 billion 2012 net profit, chairman, president and CEO Jim McNerney said the 787 will be “the most successful widebody that our company has ever made.” When asked about the Dreamliner production plan in light of the grounding, he said, “Business as usual. Let’s keep building airplanes and let’s ramp up as planned.” Deliveries, however, have been suspended.
“For 2013 our first order of business obviously is getting the 787 back in service,” he said.
McNerney declined to discuss specifics on the investigations into the Jan. 7 Japan Airlines 787 lithium ion battery fire in Boston or the Jan. 16 All Nippon Airways inflight battery event that led to an emergency landing. “I can’t predict an outcome,” he said. “We have every expert in the world working on this issue … We’re narrowing down the things that could have gone wrong.” But he added, “We don’t have a root cause yet.”
He acknowledged that the lithium ion battery replacement rate on in-service 787s was “slightly higher” than anticipated, but he said, “Batteries are replaced on airplanes every day, every type of battery.” He added that 787 battery replacements in all cases were owing to “routine maintenance” and not any “safety concern.”
McNerney said Boeing has seen no reason to question the use of lithium ion batteries on 787s (the first time the company has used such powerful batteries on a commercial aircraft).
“It doesn’t make much sense for us to speculate on the battery because we’re working through [the investigations] right now,” he explained. “We feel good about the battery technology and its fit for the airplane. We’ve just got to get to the root cause of these events.”
Boeing CFO Greg Smith said the company is currently “assuming no significant financial impact” from the 787 grounding.
ATWonline
Probabilmente hanno interpellato Flaiais/Flaiciics il quale ha aiutato a trovare i difetti. Speriamo
[h=1]LOT Polish Airlines Cancels Boeing 787 Operation in March 2013[/h] by JL
Update at 0900GMT 05FEB13
As per 05FEB13 GDS inventory display, LOT Polish Airlines further extends Boeing 787 replacement schedule until 30MAR13 inclusive. With the latest extension, planned Boeing 787 inaugural service to Beijing is affected, along with New York and Toronto, where both being postponed for the third time.
Warsaw – Beijing Boeing 787 service tentatively to start from 31MAR13, instead of 03MAR13
Warsaw – Chicago Boeing 787 tentatively to resume 01APR13
Warsaw – New York JFK Boeing 787 service tentatively to start from 01APR13, instead of 03MAR13
Warsaw – Toronto Boeing 787 service tentatively to start from 01APR13, instead of 01MAR13
Boeing 767-300ER will continue to operate these services above, instead of 787. Planned Boeing 787 operation and resumption date remains subject to change.
Update at 0900GMT 05FEB13
As per 05FEB13 GDS inventory display, LOT Polish Airlines further extends Boeing 787 replacement schedule until 30MAR13 inclusive. With the latest extension, planned Boeing 787 inaugural service to Beijing is affected, along with New York and Toronto, where both being postponed for the third time.
Warsaw – Beijing Boeing 787 service tentatively to start from 31MAR13, instead of 03MAR13
Warsaw – Chicago Boeing 787 tentatively to resume 01APR13
Warsaw – New York JFK Boeing 787 service tentatively to start from 01APR13, instead of 03MAR13
Warsaw – Toronto Boeing 787 service tentatively to start from 01APR13, instead of 01MAR13
Boeing 767-300ER will continue to operate these services above, instead of 787. Planned Boeing 787 operation and resumption date remains subject to change.
TW 843
Senior Member
Monday, February 4, 2013
JAL and ANA may seek compensation for 787 grounding
Japan Airlines said it would talk to Boeing about compensation for the grounding of the 787 Dreamliner, adding that the idling of its jets would cost it nearly USD$8 million from its earnings to the end of March.
JAL said robust demand on European, North American and Southeast Asian routes would help offset the impact of the 787's grounding, and it increased its annual operating profit forecast by almost 13 percent.
"Rather than negotiations with Boeing, the important thing now is getting the 787 flying again safely as soon as we can," said JAL's president Yoshiharu Ueki. "However, when the situation has settled down we can and are preparing to begin those talks."
Rival All Nippon Airways, which has more 787s than JAL, said last week it would seek compensation from Boeing once the amount of damages was clearer.
JAL raised its operating profit forecast to JPY¥186 billion (USD$2 billion) for the year to end-March, from a previous estimate of JPY¥165 billion. It predicted the impact on its earnings from the grounding of the 787 at around JPY¥700 million for the rest of this fiscal year.
All Boeing's 787s are out of action as investigators in Japan and the United States try to find the cause of two recent incidents with the plane's lithium-ion batteries - a battery fire on a JAL 787 at a US airport and an emergency landing by another plane on a domestic ANA flight after battery problems triggered a smoke alarm.
US officials said late last week they were making progress in their investigation into the battery fire at Boston airport.
(Reuters)
JAL and ANA may seek compensation for 787 grounding
Japan Airlines said it would talk to Boeing about compensation for the grounding of the 787 Dreamliner, adding that the idling of its jets would cost it nearly USD$8 million from its earnings to the end of March.
JAL said robust demand on European, North American and Southeast Asian routes would help offset the impact of the 787's grounding, and it increased its annual operating profit forecast by almost 13 percent.
"Rather than negotiations with Boeing, the important thing now is getting the 787 flying again safely as soon as we can," said JAL's president Yoshiharu Ueki. "However, when the situation has settled down we can and are preparing to begin those talks."
Rival All Nippon Airways, which has more 787s than JAL, said last week it would seek compensation from Boeing once the amount of damages was clearer.
JAL raised its operating profit forecast to JPY¥186 billion (USD$2 billion) for the year to end-March, from a previous estimate of JPY¥165 billion. It predicted the impact on its earnings from the grounding of the 787 at around JPY¥700 million for the rest of this fiscal year.
All Boeing's 787s are out of action as investigators in Japan and the United States try to find the cause of two recent incidents with the plane's lithium-ion batteries - a battery fire on a JAL 787 at a US airport and an emergency landing by another plane on a domestic ANA flight after battery problems triggered a smoke alarm.
US officials said late last week they were making progress in their investigation into the battery fire at Boston airport.
(Reuters)
UM78
Utente Registrato
TOKYO (AP) — An investigation into a lithium ion battery that overheated on a Boeing 787 flight in Japan last month found evidence of the same type of "thermal runaway" seen in a similar incident in Boston, officials said Tuesday.
The Japan Transportation Safety Board said that CAT scans and other analysis found damage to all eight cells in the battery that overheated on the All Nippon Airways 787 on Jan. 16, which prompted an emergency landing and probes by both U.S. and Japanese aviation safety regulators.
They also found signs of short-circuiting and "thermal runaway," a chemical reaction in which rising temperature causes progressively hotter temperatures. U.S. investigators found similar evidence in the battery that caught fire last month on a Japan Airlines 787 parked in Boston.
Photos distributed by the Japanese investigators show severe charring of six of the eight cells in the ANA 787's battery and a frayed and broken earthing wire — meant to minimize the risk of electric shock.
All 50 Boeing 787s in operation are grounded as regulators and Boeing investigate the problem. The Japanese probe is focusing on flight data records and on the charger and other electrical systems connected to the damaged battery.
Lithium ion batteries are more susceptible to catching fire when they overheat or to short-circuit than other types of batteries. Boeing built in safeguards to gain safety certification for use of the relatively light and powerful batteries to power various electrical systems on the 787, the world's first airliner made mostly from lightweight composite materials.
Investigators earlier said they found no evidence of quality problems with production of the 787's batteries by Kyoto, Japan-based, GS Yuasa, whose own aerospace ambitions are on the line.
Yuasa said Tuesday that its April-December net profit fell 3.6 percent to 5.5 billion yuan ($59.6 million) from a year earlier, as demand for batteries lagged due to sluggish demand in Japan and overseas.
The company has struggled to turn its lithium ion business to profitability. In April-December its lithium ion business posted a 7.2 billion yen ($78.2 million) loss, it said, compared with an operating loss of 3.26 billion yen in the full-year that ended March 31, 2012.
The Associated Press
The Japan Transportation Safety Board said that CAT scans and other analysis found damage to all eight cells in the battery that overheated on the All Nippon Airways 787 on Jan. 16, which prompted an emergency landing and probes by both U.S. and Japanese aviation safety regulators.
They also found signs of short-circuiting and "thermal runaway," a chemical reaction in which rising temperature causes progressively hotter temperatures. U.S. investigators found similar evidence in the battery that caught fire last month on a Japan Airlines 787 parked in Boston.
Photos distributed by the Japanese investigators show severe charring of six of the eight cells in the ANA 787's battery and a frayed and broken earthing wire — meant to minimize the risk of electric shock.
All 50 Boeing 787s in operation are grounded as regulators and Boeing investigate the problem. The Japanese probe is focusing on flight data records and on the charger and other electrical systems connected to the damaged battery.
Lithium ion batteries are more susceptible to catching fire when they overheat or to short-circuit than other types of batteries. Boeing built in safeguards to gain safety certification for use of the relatively light and powerful batteries to power various electrical systems on the 787, the world's first airliner made mostly from lightweight composite materials.
Investigators earlier said they found no evidence of quality problems with production of the 787's batteries by Kyoto, Japan-based, GS Yuasa, whose own aerospace ambitions are on the line.
Yuasa said Tuesday that its April-December net profit fell 3.6 percent to 5.5 billion yuan ($59.6 million) from a year earlier, as demand for batteries lagged due to sluggish demand in Japan and overseas.
The company has struggled to turn its lithium ion business to profitability. In April-December its lithium ion business posted a 7.2 billion yen ($78.2 million) loss, it said, compared with an operating loss of 3.26 billion yen in the full-year that ended March 31, 2012.
The Associated Press
OceanDrive
Utente Registrato
Quindi a breve ci saranno novità se prevedono che entro il 31 Marzo gli aerei torneranno a volare !
UM78
Utente Registrato
non lo so.
la scadenza con il 31 Marzo si riferisce quasi sicuramente all' Anno Fiscale Giapponese che si chiude il 31 Marzo.
la scadenza con il 31 Marzo si riferisce quasi sicuramente all' Anno Fiscale Giapponese che si chiude il 31 Marzo.
Ultima modifica: