![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I think the Operators section should be removed. Wikipedia isnt a travel guide. What do you think? -- JetBlast ( talk) 10:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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
I sorted the main table and sorted table from planespotters.net references 1 and 2 in text box
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)
I was thinking, I would like everyone's opinion here whether or not this article should be semi-protected. I am not going to request it yet, however, with the recent reports of issues with the 787, there is the potential risk of edit wars in the article about these issues and whether or not they are normal "teething issues". The tension between Boeing and Airbus fans are getting higher by the moment. ANDROS1337 TALK 01:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I 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)
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)
Not a forum
|
---|
Probably Airbus was right by using Bleed air for the A350. Could stop the production and ground the fleet of the Dreamliner for months, possible years:
I´ve ever questionized the safety of these things. If its true - and the possibility is NOT LOW - its a DISASTER for Boeing. Tagremover ( talk) 17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Is it just too early to make a redirect here from Nightmareliner? (Sorry for the bold. Ah, ok, i love being bold. But here its imho needed!) Tagremover ( talk) 18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Why are the batteries now catching fire: The Separator (electricity) is getting old: + and - together makes it hot. And: Capacity is getting lower, so the battery has to be charged higher. See Lithium-ion_battery#Disadvantages. (edit-conflict) Tagremover ( talk) 18:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC) PS: The varying air-pressure stesses the separator, too. Tagremover ( talk) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
|
I 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 see some pro-Boeing biasing at Dreamliner, but also at other aircrafts: Boeing and a lot of Americans and Airbus: Often too positive. Russian and especially former Soviet: Often too negative. Ukraine editors ( Antonov): Fighting hard. Let me explain a few examples (mainly Dreamliner): Tagremover ( talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Please anyone should feel free to add and discuss normally at the end of each subsection. Tagremover ( talk) 18:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Facts:
...allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy.
Result: "indisputable": Its too sad to LAUGH about. Has to be rewritten! Tagremover ( talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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:
But:
And:
Results (major message):
IMPORTANT message.
Facts:
Result:: Has to be rewritten. Tagremover ( talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"On March 28, 2010, the 787 completed the ultimate wing load test, which requires that the wings of a fully assembled aircraft be loaded to 150% of design limit load and held for 3 seconds."
If the wings are loaded to 150% of their design limit during the testing, then surely the designers design for that. Which means the wings were really designed for that, and they're actually being tested to 100% of their design limit, because the test is the limit of what they were designed for. See what I mean?
It seems that sentence is circular reasoning, and the logic is unsound.
If the 787 wings were tested to load n, and n is 150% of what they were designed for. However, the designers knew they would be tested to n, so n is 100%. It doesn't make any sense. Otherwise the wings could break and the designers could say, of course they broke, we only engineered them to take a lower load, because that was the design plan.
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.226.182 ( talk) 17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone explain about these auto-dimming windows? Do the passengers have control or not? Seems like you either want to look out the window or else be totally asleep, so I don't understand any possible use for it. Wnt ( talk) 02:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I found information from newsarticles that Elon Musk has offered his expertise into solving the dilema with the batteries. have there been any other companies that have done the same?-- Nrpf22pr ( talk) 03:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I think this should be shortened, because:
Probably this difficult task could be started in a week or later, when facts are getting clearer: for example half the size? Could be decreased even to a quarter in a few months, when the 787 is flying again and facts are much clearer than today.
"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)
I propose subsections to summarize these statements and give a better overview:
The section Groundings and even the "Operational problems" seem to long for me, see above, and content could be transferred. Tagremover ( talk) 05:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and did a major edit on the Incidents section, to have it both conform to existing standards on Wikipedia, and to reduce the massive amount of information about the problems with the 787. I may further trunicate it to only leave minimal mention of the problems, and create a redirect link for everything else. Let me know if this new layout works for you all. The Legacy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I was looking for info on the 787 battery size. I saw this listing,"One of the two batteries weighs 28.5 kg and is rated 29.6 V, 76 Ah". How ever this spec does not look right, most car batteries have much higher capacities then this. I think this spec is for the size of one of the multiple cells that make up the battery packs on the 787. I hope someone can find the real specs and correct the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.21.199 ( talk) 00:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Might want to work this into the article. From CNN:
The Federal Aviation Administration cleared Boeing to make fixes to the battery system of the 787 Dreamliner. That paves the way for the aircraft to start flying again.
Nearly 50 Dreamliners have been grounded for the last four months, after two fires on Japanese jets prompted the FAA to order the planes grounded on January 16. •Jim62sch• dissera! 20:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I had a recent electric fire onboard a testflight at the 4th of May 2013 with one of ANAs 787 erased, what is worth to write about? Alexmcfire ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this photo of grounded ANA 787s on Commons. I’m not sure it’s a worthwhile addition to the article, so I post it here instead... Feel free to grab it. Ariadacapo ( talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 noticed that articles such as Boeing 777, Boeing 767, and Boeing 747 are FA and have about 215 references, while this article is only B-class and has 340 references that form an excellent article? Can someone review for it for FA-class? WorldTraveller101 Breaks Fixes 22:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
There are many cases of new airframes having serious problems, from the DC-10 and 747 to the F14 and Osprey. But they do not all warrant their own articles. Andrew 327 04:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [Typo fix Andrew 327
Thanks for the WP:GA nomination. However, to meet the GA criteria and pass review, this article needs to be adequately prepared first. There are outstanding issues which still need to be resolved here, including:
As someone who has experience with putting up aviation and other articles for GA/A-class/FA review, in my opinion this article has potential, but should be fully vetted before going through the GAR process. I'd like to help but am exceptionally busy at this time, so such efforts on my part are limited. As it stands, it seems uncertain if the article can pass GAR (it might get put on hold pending improvements, best case scenario), and one might consider delaying the nomination until such time as it is adequately prepared. Overall, some additional work is needed (not a huge amount, the article is largely workable). One might consider asking the WP:GOCE for help or requesting a peer review, if one has patience for the turnaround time. Cheers, SynergyStar ( talk) 03:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
English is not my native language, please excuse my mistakes with your language.
[ [10]] (Remove minor and/or related incident from Lead. Wikipedia is not a news service. Separate incident text with its ref)
[ [11]] (dont think we need this lets just wait we are not a news service)
So I took note of [12]
My idea about 'WP or not WP' so far is: Something that is 'just news', is not 'WP'. I am a full supporter of that idea. But anything can be 'both news and WP', for instance when it is an important and objective fact. Though if it is recent, it might be difficult to know, often history will have to tell. The problem being the blur of recentism. But sometimes it is immediately clear that it 'both news and WP'. (example: a president is shot yesterday, WP editors do not have to wait and see whether he will be in office on Monday or dead). So I think that WP does not have to be clean from all recent facts. WP can be up to date.
After these 2 changes the article about the dreamliner lacks important (yes: recent but still WP) facts. The importance of these facts is apparent to me from the shareholders reaction (initially 7% down while other aviation companies went up, see here [13]. This alone makes it a VERY important fact about the Dreamliner (relative to the surrounding data, in the lead and in the section 'Operational problems').
Though overreaction to such incidents is a concern to me, extra caution is needed to my opnion, but I think WP is not to be temporarily censored because recent information might lead to overreaction by shareholders or passengers, in case you might have thought about that too.
Any important (maybe not much to aviation lovers, but more to passengers and investors) facts about the Dreamliner can be added, without bias for positive or negative to most editors. And sometimes the facts can be recent facts too, as long as recentism blur is avoided. The facts can be updated with sharevalue and investigation results next week. That does not make WP a newspaper. The difference is in the WP absence bias, trivialism (caused by recentism).
That is what I understand so far. And just in case you might want to know: I do not have any connection to aviation industry or anything else connected to this subject, I like helicopters a bit more than most people, but thats all.
I think anything that is 'just news' should be deleted from WP, but objective relevant important facts should not be deleted JUST for 'being recent'.
I hope this is the right place to ask my question to the users that deleted the information: Are there other objections against this deleted information?
Please reply and/or restore the information about the Heatrow Dreamliner fire and the connected 7% Boeing sharevalue drop on July 12, 2013. Bas van Pelt 12:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
@Fnlayson and MilborneOne. Several users have been trying to contribute about this and mainly MilborneOne and SempreVolando have deleted everything (of the three connected events) until only the Heathrow fire is briefly mentioned in 'operational problems'. I also think that some deleting had to be done. But there is just a little bit to much deleted, I think. Trying to get to know the reasons (see above) did not give me enough to understand.
As of the defence for deleting I read: - not notable - no news in WP - undue weight - Boeing sharevalue is notable in article Boeing - no connection TOM0126 and sharesdrop. My reaction was - an event can in some cases be BOTH news AND notable (WP can and should be up to date) - an event can be notable in more then one article (both Boeing and Dreamliner) - the three events (fire, TOM0126 and sharesdrop) are connected (AP July 12, 2013 6:53 PM [18]) and - the three combined are notable for Dreamliner-article. I did not get much of reaction on what I brought forward, that is my perception. I did some reading in the guidelines, it changed my opinion slightly.
Boeing shares recovered partially today, but that does not change the description of what happened July 12th, 2013 much.
I found something similar in section “Pre-flight ground testing”: Aug 28th, 2009 “The company expected to write off US$2.5 billion because it considered the first three Dreamliners built unsellable and suitable only for flight tests.” This is also about a few billion loss for Boeing.... and is also 'notable' for Dreamliner article.
I still think 'return home TOM0126' and the sharedrop could and should be mentioned in 'operational problems' in connection with to the Heathrow fire. I think that many people (at least by the other contributing users whose information was deleted here) that this information should not be absent in a article of about this size about Dreamliner.
A bit premature I hope, but in case of no consensus... I read about deleting by reversion here [ [19]]: "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." "Finally, do not revert any edits that can be verified per WP:V and would be an improvement to a page, within the boundaries of other Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. If an edit can be verified as encyclopedic, and improves a page but you still worry that someone else might disagree, then let the person who disagrees with the change revert the edit. Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy." Does that mean the deleter will be no longer deleting in some cases?
My idea now is to add this after the Heathrow fire in 'Operational problems': In a separate incident the same day, a Thomson Airways 787 returned to Manchester Airport after taking off on a transatlantic flight after experiencing an unspecified “minor technical issue". Both incidents added to concerns about the plane which had an immediate partially temporary negative impact on Boeing sharevalue that day. [1] BTW I saw you both doing lots of other work on WP: keep up the good work. And it would help inexperienced users to add if applicable [ [20]] instead of just 'not notable'. Bas van Pelt 23:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasvanPelt ( talk • contribs)
An artist's conception of the 787-10 should be added to the article. Also, perhaps the 787-3 picture should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no real cargo capacity. We are told "4,826 cu ft". Cubic feet is a volume not a mass. Can it lift 4,826 cu ft of Styrofoam? Can it lift 4,826 cu ft of gold? We are also told it can carry "28× LD3"!?! Huh? Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the general audience. I have never heard of an "LD3". Could we have a wikilink to LD3?
Mass would be a better designation. Something like "10,000 kg at maximum range (max fuel load)". Nick Beeson ( talk) 16:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I moved this section more towards the top so that it was in the correct "sorted" order like the other variants were. 75.185.34.253 ( talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as we know, so far there have been four fire incidents in some 72 assembled planes. This section should list them all, I do not see a justification to keep that information fragmented. -- 84.56.17.63 ( talk) 11:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Outdated introduction to Incidents section. The introduction sites Boeing saying in dec 2012 that the problems are normal. That's before all the most publicized problems began (including all the problems quoted in this section). So the quote is outdated and irrelevant, looks like marketing. 178.174.211.163 ( talk) 07:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this again as it doesnt appear to be anymore notable as the last time inclusion was challenged, we are not here as a 787 news service of random events, it really needs to get consensus to add this non-notable event again. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
>> Boeing Has a New 787 Dreamliner Headache With Wing Cracks ( Lihaas ( talk) 19:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)).
The windows of the 787 are quite special (e.g. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFG2Rvgx7Og ) compared to other airplanes. It's however nowhere to find if the also offer you UV protection, which is growing a concern of air flights. Does someone have info to make an entry about this in the topic? 77.160.237.220 ( talk) 12:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Just challenged the addition of an entry on Air India problems and the fact that they have a number of aircraft grounded as spares sources, it is clear that all but two aircraft have flown today, one flew yesterday and one is on maintenance. Borrowing bits from an aircraft on maintenance is not notable. The other issues appear to have been cleared up quickly so unless User:Wikimucker can gain consensus for the Air India section it can be removed, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
This was fully referenced and the phrase "A Couple" is used in the Times of India. If you have EG archived Transponder Data _showing_ that all but one of their 787 fleet are on the move in the last 72 hours or so then I will accept that the Times of India have misreported the number of 787s that are being cannibalised for parts in the recent past.
But there is nothing whatsoever wrong with my attribution and the Times of India is hardly a tabloid. If you provide the movement evidence you assert you have access to I will of course leave the article as is. Reminder > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Now-Dreamliner-grounded-in-Hong-Kong/articleshow/37994368.cms
Wikimucker ( talk) 20:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I checked all of the planes listed here > http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/787?sort=reg&p=3
All are showing as active in the last 72 hours bar VT-ANI > http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/vt-ani
The Times of India was wrong. Lets leave it at that shall we??? :)
Wikimucker ( talk) 20:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed several minor incidents from the Accidents section, most of which already have consensuses to be removed in the preceding sections. I also propose that we change the hidden note to require consensus to readd them after they've been removed as being minor. The wording of the current hidden note just adds unneeded alarmism, and isn't the way such incidents are generally handled in aircraft articles. - BilCat ( talk) 03:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I changed the quotation on the image of two United Airlines' 787s at "Los Angeles International Airport" to "San Francisco International Airport", which is correct. I was challenged on this, and now I am justifying my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.26.228 ( talk) 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There appear to be a few formatting issues on the page (the image thumbnail problem is present throughout the entire article) which are not present on any other articles. I took a brief look at the page source, nothing looks wrong, and oddly enough, when previewing the page (i.e., click edit → show preview), it renders correctly. What's going on? Procellam ( talk) 02:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an article about their purchase (finally) but I can't find any prior info about them on the page or archives. Is that a decision which I somehow missing? Ashtul ( talk) 18:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I think the Operators section should be removed. Wikipedia isnt a travel guide. What do you think? -- JetBlast ( talk) 10:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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
I sorted the main table and sorted table from planespotters.net references 1 and 2 in text box
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)
I was thinking, I would like everyone's opinion here whether or not this article should be semi-protected. I am not going to request it yet, however, with the recent reports of issues with the 787, there is the potential risk of edit wars in the article about these issues and whether or not they are normal "teething issues". The tension between Boeing and Airbus fans are getting higher by the moment. ANDROS1337 TALK 01:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I 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)
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)
Not a forum
|
---|
Probably Airbus was right by using Bleed air for the A350. Could stop the production and ground the fleet of the Dreamliner for months, possible years:
I´ve ever questionized the safety of these things. If its true - and the possibility is NOT LOW - its a DISASTER for Boeing. Tagremover ( talk) 17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Is it just too early to make a redirect here from Nightmareliner? (Sorry for the bold. Ah, ok, i love being bold. But here its imho needed!) Tagremover ( talk) 18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Why are the batteries now catching fire: The Separator (electricity) is getting old: + and - together makes it hot. And: Capacity is getting lower, so the battery has to be charged higher. See Lithium-ion_battery#Disadvantages. (edit-conflict) Tagremover ( talk) 18:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC) PS: The varying air-pressure stesses the separator, too. Tagremover ( talk) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
|
I 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 see some pro-Boeing biasing at Dreamliner, but also at other aircrafts: Boeing and a lot of Americans and Airbus: Often too positive. Russian and especially former Soviet: Often too negative. Ukraine editors ( Antonov): Fighting hard. Let me explain a few examples (mainly Dreamliner): Tagremover ( talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Please anyone should feel free to add and discuss normally at the end of each subsection. Tagremover ( talk) 18:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Facts:
...allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy.
Result: "indisputable": Its too sad to LAUGH about. Has to be rewritten! Tagremover ( talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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:
But:
And:
Results (major message):
IMPORTANT message.
Facts:
Result:: Has to be rewritten. Tagremover ( talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"On March 28, 2010, the 787 completed the ultimate wing load test, which requires that the wings of a fully assembled aircraft be loaded to 150% of design limit load and held for 3 seconds."
If the wings are loaded to 150% of their design limit during the testing, then surely the designers design for that. Which means the wings were really designed for that, and they're actually being tested to 100% of their design limit, because the test is the limit of what they were designed for. See what I mean?
It seems that sentence is circular reasoning, and the logic is unsound.
If the 787 wings were tested to load n, and n is 150% of what they were designed for. However, the designers knew they would be tested to n, so n is 100%. It doesn't make any sense. Otherwise the wings could break and the designers could say, of course they broke, we only engineered them to take a lower load, because that was the design plan.
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.226.182 ( talk) 17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone explain about these auto-dimming windows? Do the passengers have control or not? Seems like you either want to look out the window or else be totally asleep, so I don't understand any possible use for it. Wnt ( talk) 02:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I found information from newsarticles that Elon Musk has offered his expertise into solving the dilema with the batteries. have there been any other companies that have done the same?-- Nrpf22pr ( talk) 03:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I think this should be shortened, because:
Probably this difficult task could be started in a week or later, when facts are getting clearer: for example half the size? Could be decreased even to a quarter in a few months, when the 787 is flying again and facts are much clearer than today.
"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)
I propose subsections to summarize these statements and give a better overview:
The section Groundings and even the "Operational problems" seem to long for me, see above, and content could be transferred. Tagremover ( talk) 05:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and did a major edit on the Incidents section, to have it both conform to existing standards on Wikipedia, and to reduce the massive amount of information about the problems with the 787. I may further trunicate it to only leave minimal mention of the problems, and create a redirect link for everything else. Let me know if this new layout works for you all. The Legacy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I was looking for info on the 787 battery size. I saw this listing,"One of the two batteries weighs 28.5 kg and is rated 29.6 V, 76 Ah". How ever this spec does not look right, most car batteries have much higher capacities then this. I think this spec is for the size of one of the multiple cells that make up the battery packs on the 787. I hope someone can find the real specs and correct the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.21.199 ( talk) 00:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Might want to work this into the article. From CNN:
The Federal Aviation Administration cleared Boeing to make fixes to the battery system of the 787 Dreamliner. That paves the way for the aircraft to start flying again.
Nearly 50 Dreamliners have been grounded for the last four months, after two fires on Japanese jets prompted the FAA to order the planes grounded on January 16. •Jim62sch• dissera! 20:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I had a recent electric fire onboard a testflight at the 4th of May 2013 with one of ANAs 787 erased, what is worth to write about? Alexmcfire ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this photo of grounded ANA 787s on Commons. I’m not sure it’s a worthwhile addition to the article, so I post it here instead... Feel free to grab it. Ariadacapo ( talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 noticed that articles such as Boeing 777, Boeing 767, and Boeing 747 are FA and have about 215 references, while this article is only B-class and has 340 references that form an excellent article? Can someone review for it for FA-class? WorldTraveller101 Breaks Fixes 22:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
There are many cases of new airframes having serious problems, from the DC-10 and 747 to the F14 and Osprey. But they do not all warrant their own articles. Andrew 327 04:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [Typo fix Andrew 327
Thanks for the WP:GA nomination. However, to meet the GA criteria and pass review, this article needs to be adequately prepared first. There are outstanding issues which still need to be resolved here, including:
As someone who has experience with putting up aviation and other articles for GA/A-class/FA review, in my opinion this article has potential, but should be fully vetted before going through the GAR process. I'd like to help but am exceptionally busy at this time, so such efforts on my part are limited. As it stands, it seems uncertain if the article can pass GAR (it might get put on hold pending improvements, best case scenario), and one might consider delaying the nomination until such time as it is adequately prepared. Overall, some additional work is needed (not a huge amount, the article is largely workable). One might consider asking the WP:GOCE for help or requesting a peer review, if one has patience for the turnaround time. Cheers, SynergyStar ( talk) 03:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
English is not my native language, please excuse my mistakes with your language.
[ [10]] (Remove minor and/or related incident from Lead. Wikipedia is not a news service. Separate incident text with its ref)
[ [11]] (dont think we need this lets just wait we are not a news service)
So I took note of [12]
My idea about 'WP or not WP' so far is: Something that is 'just news', is not 'WP'. I am a full supporter of that idea. But anything can be 'both news and WP', for instance when it is an important and objective fact. Though if it is recent, it might be difficult to know, often history will have to tell. The problem being the blur of recentism. But sometimes it is immediately clear that it 'both news and WP'. (example: a president is shot yesterday, WP editors do not have to wait and see whether he will be in office on Monday or dead). So I think that WP does not have to be clean from all recent facts. WP can be up to date.
After these 2 changes the article about the dreamliner lacks important (yes: recent but still WP) facts. The importance of these facts is apparent to me from the shareholders reaction (initially 7% down while other aviation companies went up, see here [13]. This alone makes it a VERY important fact about the Dreamliner (relative to the surrounding data, in the lead and in the section 'Operational problems').
Though overreaction to such incidents is a concern to me, extra caution is needed to my opnion, but I think WP is not to be temporarily censored because recent information might lead to overreaction by shareholders or passengers, in case you might have thought about that too.
Any important (maybe not much to aviation lovers, but more to passengers and investors) facts about the Dreamliner can be added, without bias for positive or negative to most editors. And sometimes the facts can be recent facts too, as long as recentism blur is avoided. The facts can be updated with sharevalue and investigation results next week. That does not make WP a newspaper. The difference is in the WP absence bias, trivialism (caused by recentism).
That is what I understand so far. And just in case you might want to know: I do not have any connection to aviation industry or anything else connected to this subject, I like helicopters a bit more than most people, but thats all.
I think anything that is 'just news' should be deleted from WP, but objective relevant important facts should not be deleted JUST for 'being recent'.
I hope this is the right place to ask my question to the users that deleted the information: Are there other objections against this deleted information?
Please reply and/or restore the information about the Heatrow Dreamliner fire and the connected 7% Boeing sharevalue drop on July 12, 2013. Bas van Pelt 12:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
@Fnlayson and MilborneOne. Several users have been trying to contribute about this and mainly MilborneOne and SempreVolando have deleted everything (of the three connected events) until only the Heathrow fire is briefly mentioned in 'operational problems'. I also think that some deleting had to be done. But there is just a little bit to much deleted, I think. Trying to get to know the reasons (see above) did not give me enough to understand.
As of the defence for deleting I read: - not notable - no news in WP - undue weight - Boeing sharevalue is notable in article Boeing - no connection TOM0126 and sharesdrop. My reaction was - an event can in some cases be BOTH news AND notable (WP can and should be up to date) - an event can be notable in more then one article (both Boeing and Dreamliner) - the three events (fire, TOM0126 and sharesdrop) are connected (AP July 12, 2013 6:53 PM [18]) and - the three combined are notable for Dreamliner-article. I did not get much of reaction on what I brought forward, that is my perception. I did some reading in the guidelines, it changed my opinion slightly.
Boeing shares recovered partially today, but that does not change the description of what happened July 12th, 2013 much.
I found something similar in section “Pre-flight ground testing”: Aug 28th, 2009 “The company expected to write off US$2.5 billion because it considered the first three Dreamliners built unsellable and suitable only for flight tests.” This is also about a few billion loss for Boeing.... and is also 'notable' for Dreamliner article.
I still think 'return home TOM0126' and the sharedrop could and should be mentioned in 'operational problems' in connection with to the Heathrow fire. I think that many people (at least by the other contributing users whose information was deleted here) that this information should not be absent in a article of about this size about Dreamliner.
A bit premature I hope, but in case of no consensus... I read about deleting by reversion here [ [19]]: "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." "Finally, do not revert any edits that can be verified per WP:V and would be an improvement to a page, within the boundaries of other Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. If an edit can be verified as encyclopedic, and improves a page but you still worry that someone else might disagree, then let the person who disagrees with the change revert the edit. Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy." Does that mean the deleter will be no longer deleting in some cases?
My idea now is to add this after the Heathrow fire in 'Operational problems': In a separate incident the same day, a Thomson Airways 787 returned to Manchester Airport after taking off on a transatlantic flight after experiencing an unspecified “minor technical issue". Both incidents added to concerns about the plane which had an immediate partially temporary negative impact on Boeing sharevalue that day. [1] BTW I saw you both doing lots of other work on WP: keep up the good work. And it would help inexperienced users to add if applicable [ [20]] instead of just 'not notable'. Bas van Pelt 23:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasvanPelt ( talk • contribs)
An artist's conception of the 787-10 should be added to the article. Also, perhaps the 787-3 picture should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no real cargo capacity. We are told "4,826 cu ft". Cubic feet is a volume not a mass. Can it lift 4,826 cu ft of Styrofoam? Can it lift 4,826 cu ft of gold? We are also told it can carry "28× LD3"!?! Huh? Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the general audience. I have never heard of an "LD3". Could we have a wikilink to LD3?
Mass would be a better designation. Something like "10,000 kg at maximum range (max fuel load)". Nick Beeson ( talk) 16:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I moved this section more towards the top so that it was in the correct "sorted" order like the other variants were. 75.185.34.253 ( talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as we know, so far there have been four fire incidents in some 72 assembled planes. This section should list them all, I do not see a justification to keep that information fragmented. -- 84.56.17.63 ( talk) 11:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Outdated introduction to Incidents section. The introduction sites Boeing saying in dec 2012 that the problems are normal. That's before all the most publicized problems began (including all the problems quoted in this section). So the quote is outdated and irrelevant, looks like marketing. 178.174.211.163 ( talk) 07:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this again as it doesnt appear to be anymore notable as the last time inclusion was challenged, we are not here as a 787 news service of random events, it really needs to get consensus to add this non-notable event again. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
>> Boeing Has a New 787 Dreamliner Headache With Wing Cracks ( Lihaas ( talk) 19:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)).
The windows of the 787 are quite special (e.g. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFG2Rvgx7Og ) compared to other airplanes. It's however nowhere to find if the also offer you UV protection, which is growing a concern of air flights. Does someone have info to make an entry about this in the topic? 77.160.237.220 ( talk) 12:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Just challenged the addition of an entry on Air India problems and the fact that they have a number of aircraft grounded as spares sources, it is clear that all but two aircraft have flown today, one flew yesterday and one is on maintenance. Borrowing bits from an aircraft on maintenance is not notable. The other issues appear to have been cleared up quickly so unless User:Wikimucker can gain consensus for the Air India section it can be removed, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
This was fully referenced and the phrase "A Couple" is used in the Times of India. If you have EG archived Transponder Data _showing_ that all but one of their 787 fleet are on the move in the last 72 hours or so then I will accept that the Times of India have misreported the number of 787s that are being cannibalised for parts in the recent past.
But there is nothing whatsoever wrong with my attribution and the Times of India is hardly a tabloid. If you provide the movement evidence you assert you have access to I will of course leave the article as is. Reminder > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Now-Dreamliner-grounded-in-Hong-Kong/articleshow/37994368.cms
Wikimucker ( talk) 20:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I checked all of the planes listed here > http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/787?sort=reg&p=3
All are showing as active in the last 72 hours bar VT-ANI > http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/vt-ani
The Times of India was wrong. Lets leave it at that shall we??? :)
Wikimucker ( talk) 20:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed several minor incidents from the Accidents section, most of which already have consensuses to be removed in the preceding sections. I also propose that we change the hidden note to require consensus to readd them after they've been removed as being minor. The wording of the current hidden note just adds unneeded alarmism, and isn't the way such incidents are generally handled in aircraft articles. - BilCat ( talk) 03:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I changed the quotation on the image of two United Airlines' 787s at "Los Angeles International Airport" to "San Francisco International Airport", which is correct. I was challenged on this, and now I am justifying my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.26.228 ( talk) 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There appear to be a few formatting issues on the page (the image thumbnail problem is present throughout the entire article) which are not present on any other articles. I took a brief look at the page source, nothing looks wrong, and oddly enough, when previewing the page (i.e., click edit → show preview), it renders correctly. What's going on? Procellam ( talk) 02:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an article about their purchase (finally) but I can't find any prior info about them on the page or archives. Is that a decision which I somehow missing? Ashtul ( talk) 18:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)