Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

flightradar24.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 139 posts

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#111

Post by technofiend »

Moto7451 wrote: post #99
TeMPOraL wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine these 8 executives are there to lay down suppressive fire, keeping customer's management at bay so that the engineers can go in and fix the problem uninterrupted.

Hehe. The comparison is both amusing and apt. I’m often in the “executive” position in this scenario and this barrier between the angry team/customer/partner and the people doing engineering work really pays in spades. The people doing the “real” work on both sides usually avoid animosity and the management teams slugging it out in conference rooms usually understand that the dance they’re doing is just business as u…

That job actually sounds like a lot of fun. Thank you for tip on Never Split the Difference.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#113

Post by fulafel »

sajomojo wrote: post #18

It just seems like a very bad idea that twin-engine planes can fly so far from an air strip. If the #1 engine had failed as well it would have been game over. There's no possibility of gliding a 787 for 2+ hours and hundreds of miles. If the FAA wanted to prioritize safety, it would still require the use of four-engined planes, as it used to for most long ocean routes. The desire to fly twin-engine planes over the oc…

If we are concerned about loss of life resulting from air travel, the main issue is co2 emissions. We should drastically refuce especially long distance air travel.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#114

Post by lsc »

sajomojo wrote: post #18

It just seems like a very bad idea that twin-engine planes can fly so far from an air strip. If the #1 engine had failed as well it would have been game over. There's no possibility of gliding a 787 for 2+ hours and hundreds of miles. If the FAA wanted to prioritize safety, it would still require the use of four-engined planes, as it used to for most long ocean routes. The desire to fly twin-engine planes over the oc…

I dunno, man; I think it is deeply weird how we put so much effort in to airline safety, but let anyone drive essentially anything on the road, without even requiring more than homeopathic liability insurance, and only the most cursory of skill tests. (In California, it's totally legal to drive with $35K in liability insurance; and not all of that needs to cover personal injury!)

I personally think that any additional safety effort ought to be put into making cars safer, and not just safer for the occupants, but safer for the poor SOBs who they run into. I mean, sure, I'm not saying we should decrease airplane regulation (except maybe in the security theatre bits) but I think there's a lot more to be gained, safety wise, by regulating cars more than by regulating airplanes more.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#115

Post by peterwwillis »

kmbond wrote: post #100
philshem wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand that Microsoft has a similar crew they can dispatch to any customer to get their business software working again. There is a saying that these teams are dispatched by private jet and consist of 8 executives and 2 engineers.

> I understand that Microsoft has a similar crew they can dispatch to any customer to get their business software working again. Yikes well I work for a large corporation that uses tons of Microsoft software, and we use their dispatch team constantly. Granted, we are probably one of their largest customers. It's great to have such a resource. But the fact that we need it doesn't speak well for Microsoft -- I would pr…

The fact that most people don't need to call said team might say more?

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#116

Post by andrewem »

joemag wrote: post #112

I found it interesting that a town of 100 had a runway capable of landing a 787. Was it built specifically for these kinds of scenarios, i.e. as an earliest diversion point for trans pacific flights?

Wikipedia says it was built for as US Army airfield in World War II. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Bay_Airport

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#118

Post by cesarb »

WalterBright wrote: post #106
ethbro wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, expected revenue looks a bit difference when you're leveraged to the hilt and have interest payments scheduled. My understanding is that very few airlines outright own their planes.

Even if they own the planes outright, the interest cost of the airplanes remains the same (because the money tied up in the airplane could be otherwise put to use earning interest). For example, conventional wisdom is that owning your own home outright is a Good Thing. But if mortgage interest rates are low, taking out a mortgage and investing in something that pays more than that interest rate is a Better Thing.

> But if mortgage interest rates are low, taking out a mortgage and investing in something that pays more than that interest rate is a Better Thing.

Yes, but there's extra risk that way. That strategy depends on either the investment returning enough every month to pay the mortgage for that month, or another funding source (like a salary) being available every month to do so. If for some reason neither are available on a given month, you risk losing your home.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#119

Post by bronco21016 »

ethbro wrote: post #98
CalChris wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A plane sitting on the ground costs revenue. The highest revenue per hour route is JFK to Heathrow at $24,639 [1]. A 787-800 costs about $8000/hr [2]. So that's about $277/min of revenue. Yeah, $125/min sounds about right for an average route. [1] https://www.planestats.com/bhsw_2014sep [2] https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1398091

Well, expected revenue looks a bit difference when you're leveraged to the hilt and have interest payments scheduled. My understanding is that very few airlines outright own their planes.

It varies. Some airlines are printing money like it’s their job and have very savvy purchasing teams. Large piles of cash spent on second hand aircraft can really help soften the blow when times get tough. Although in the current market some are even spending cash on NEW airframes which is really kind of crazy.

But speaking globally, I would say you’re likely right. The majority of airlines are very heavily leveraged and as soon as the economy softens we’ll see at least a few casualties again.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#120

Post by grogenaut »

dredmorbius wrote: post #58
grogenaut wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hey at least they decided not to use hypergolic fuel in the sr-71 tho having a jet that was on fire all the time would be pretty bad ass looking. Titanium would probbably handle it and it'd eventually warm up the skin and close the gaps.

Whilst the SR-71 didn't run on hypergolic fuel (because reasons -- including leaky tanks and supersonic skin-heating, so JP-7, which specifically has a high flash point was used for fuel), the ignition system for the aircraft, including its afterburner ignition system, used hypergolic fuel (triethylborane) to initiate combustion, with a limited number of ignition cycles aboard each mission. Afterburner light-ups were…

I remember thinking from one of the books on the sr71 equating restarts to setting off a stick of Dynamite in the tailpipe... But I was younger then and didn't know about these fuels. Thanks for the details
Post reply on HN