Biz

Boeing “Nightmare” Liner Horror Stories

“WE WILL NOT BE FLYING ON THAT PLANE AGAIN” A Boeing Dreamliner traveling over the Atlantic Ocean lost power to one of its engines – forcing the troubled, next-generation passenger jet to make an emergency landing at a military base on a remote island. The incident – which received scant…

“WE WILL NOT BE FLYING ON THAT PLANE AGAIN”

A Boeing Dreamliner traveling over the Atlantic Ocean lost power to one of its engines – forcing the troubled, next-generation passenger jet to make an emergency landing at a military base on a remote island.

The incident – which received scant national press – occurred just two-and-a-half months after the much-maligned aircraft was cleared for trans-oceanic travel.

“They call it the Dreamliner but it was more like a nightmare,” one of the passengers told The Manchester (U.K.) Evening News .

This particular Boeing 787 – owned by British-based Thomson Airways – was traveling from the Dominican Republic to Manchester with more than 200 passengers and crew aboard when it began to inexplicably lose altitude over the ocean.

“We could see on our screens that our altitude was dropping about 500 feet every minute,” another passenger told the paper.  “The captain said he had to fly lower because he only had one engine. It looked like we were just dropping into the Atlantic.”

The ordeal continued after an emergency landing at an American military base in The Azores, as passengers were surrounded by armed guards and forced to stay on the tarmac for more than five hours.

Eventually they were allowed to disembark …

“We will not be flying on that plane again,” the passenger added.

Scary, scary stuff …

The Dreamliner has was grounded in 2013 as a result of an issue with its lithium ion batteries – one of many problems the plane has experienced since entering commercial service in October 2011.  Originally scheduled for delivery in May of 2008, numerous design, supply and delivery problems pushed Dreamliner’s deadline back more than three years – causing numerous cancellations.

South Carolina builds Dreamliners at a government-subsidized manufacturing facility in North Charleston, although that facility has been dogged by production problems.

(Pic: Via Manchester Evening News)

Related posts

Biz

Blackbaud Confirms It Is Being Targeted For Acquisition

Will Folks
Biz

‘Bidenomics’ Jobs Report: Not All It’s Cracked Up To Be

Will Folks
Biz

Guest Column: ‘Bidenomics’ Is A Nightmare For Consumer Costs

FITSForum

19 comments

Socrates August 15, 2014 at 9:58 am

Question of the day:

Would you rather ride on a liquorcycle in downtown Columbia during rush hour or a one engined Dreamliner over the ocean?

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia August 15, 2014 at 6:45 pm

Depends. Could I go against the norm and wear clothing in a color that might actually be visible to the drivers in caged vehicles?

Reply
Halfvast Conspirator August 15, 2014 at 10:14 am

So this was an (not Boeing) engine problem, not a problem with the actual aircraft (that Boeing builds)? Any details on what caused the (not Boeing) engine to become inoperative? Was it because of something Boeing (the builder of the aircraft) screwed up, or some problem with the (not Boeing) engine that is built by a (not Boeing) jet engine builder company (not Boeing)?

Reply
Get A Clue August 15, 2014 at 1:04 pm

harness wiring and equipment installed at North Charleston.

Reply
The Colonel August 15, 2014 at 6:50 pm

But assembled into “plug and play” units at another contractor.

Reply
easterndumbfuckistan August 15, 2014 at 4:52 pm

Being it was a UK based airline I’d be willing to bet the engines were Rolls Royce engines, not only not Boeing but not US made engines. GE and Rolls Royce both make engines for the 787 and most of the British airlines opt for the Rolls Royce engines when available.

That all being said, I am not a huge fan of twin-engine trans-oceanic flights, the old 747, DC-10 and MD-11s just feel safer for those operations.

Reply
irid August 15, 2014 at 5:38 pm

Thomson 787s are powered by GE engines not Rolls.

Reply
Thomas August 15, 2014 at 10:17 am

I fly the Boeing 777 in my X-Plane 10.2 Global Home Version. I can tell you, it floats like a feather landing at Charleston International and charges balls to the walls taking off from Columbia Metro. The 36,000 foot cruising altitude keeps me above those real weather grabs off the net! I think I will by the 787 download this weekend! You suck jet fuel, Fits.

Reply
Fly high August 15, 2014 at 11:12 am

Engine problem is not the same as aairframe problem. The fact that they were able to land safely is a testim to the aircraft and air crew. As far as their treatment on the ground, you’re on a military base that you were not scheduled or cleared to be at, don’t expect a welcome mat.

Reply
Smirks August 15, 2014 at 11:22 am

The ordeal continued after an emergency landing at an American military base in The Azores, as passengers were surrounded by armed guards and forced to stay on the tarmac for more than five hours.

Five hours stuck in a plane at the airport?

Welcome to America!

Reply
CNSYD August 15, 2014 at 11:38 am

Once again Sic Willie regales us with his aeronautical engineering expertise. The plane performed as designed, i.e. continued to fly on one engine. So, master engineer Sic Willie, whose engine was it that failed? GE or Rolls?

Reply
Gravy Yard Was Wasteful August 15, 2014 at 1:05 pm

You’re full of it, as usual.

Reply
Lenny August 15, 2014 at 1:32 pm

Full of what? CNSYD asked a valid question. What is your point if any?

Reply
Bible Thumper August 15, 2014 at 11:49 am

Now I’m convinced. The mysterious group of bloggers at fitsnews known only as “We” are smarter than all the people who run Boeing.

Reply
shifty henry August 15, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Fabio and Nunzio rent a private plane for the day and are
doing fine until it’s time for touchdown. Fabio is busy with all the instrument readings and finally gets the plane down, but has to screech to a stop. “Boy, that’s a short runway,” he says, wiping his forehead. “Yes,” agrees Nunzio, “but look how wide it is.”

Reply
The Colonel August 15, 2014 at 1:59 pm

What a joke Will- do you own Airbus stock? (the Airbus whose stock has been in the tank since January)

A GE engine causes a plane to make an emergency landing which it makes successfully and that’s an indictment of Boeing in SC? The 747, arguably the most important innovation in passenger air movement took a long time to get right, had numerous problems and 44 years later is still “hauling it all”. New plane take time to work out – at least it isn’t falling out of the sky like the De Havilland Comet.

Stick to politics and local interest – you appear to actually know something about that and generally have something interesting to say.

Reply
Rocky August 15, 2014 at 3:30 pm

Gettin’ to the point that when I get on a plane I want to know if it was made in SC. If it was – I want off.

Reply
Randee Dermer August 17, 2014 at 1:01 am

I don’t know the rank amateur who wrote this “news” article, but he so clearly shows his biases that he fails even to understand that plane manufacturers and the entities that build their engines are completely separate. Writings of this subterranean level are typically read on high school bathroom walls. What a hack.

Reply
nitrat August 17, 2014 at 11:03 am

Plastic planes are a bad idea.

Reply

Leave a Comment