Japan Today

United 787 Dreamliner heading to Tokyo diverted to Seattle


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

No wonder an anagram for Dreamliner is "Marred Line"...

7 ( +7 / -0 )

It's a bit like Windows, you need to wait for SP2 or 3 before everything is working properly.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Here we go again... What are the odds of actually arriving at your intended destination with this thing, I wonder?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

This stupid plane has way too many problems!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I won't be flying on a 787 for a long time.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

And yet another one. It really IS going to take a major accident to get them to stop trying to put profit ahead of actual safety. Of course then they'll get the pants sued off them and suddenly realize they never should have lifted the grounding of said planes. Sadly, that's what it takes.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Seattle... Maybe the plane just wanted to go back home for a few days.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I hear airbus were the winner at the recent paris airshow re orders of their equivalent to the 787. Boeing don't need much more bad news. However this sector of the plane sales is expected to be a very big market in the next decade so Boeing have alot to loose/alot to gain.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Concorde, the most famous airliner of them all, was in its day as unique as the 787, being a pioneer, however she only ever had the one accident in nearly 30 years of flying, and that was the fatal crash in 2000 of an Air France one. In its short operational life the 787 has been grounded, diverted and it is building up a reputation as a troubled airliner. How many more times will they be in the news for all the wrong reasons?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

USN, the point I was making is that Concorde didn't have all of these niggling probs that the 787 has, even though it operated supersonically and at a higher altitude. The issues were sorted before the plane went into service - I just feel that modern aircraft manufacturers are either sidestepping or cutting short the prototype testing phases in favour of a quick quid.

Take Concorde again - there were smaller scale test aircraft such as the Fairey Delta 2, designed to test the wing shape and the droop-snoop. The engines were the same as those fitted to the Vulcan bomber, so a proven design. The prototype Concorde flew as many missions as it took to iron out the kinks before her sisters were built and put into service. The crash in 2000 was down to sheer bad luck - a piece of metal fell from a Continental Airlines plane a few minutes prior to Concorde's take-off, got hit by a tyre, flew up, punctured the wing, fuel tank and eventually caused the fire. Concorde's only issue was her tyres wearing out more quickly than slower airliners due to her landing and take-off speeds.

787 seems bedevilled with problems - I hope there will never be a fatal crash, but why are there still issues. You test, test and test again until you are as certain as anyone could be that the aircraft will fly faultlessly. There is no way that the battery issue should have happened for example - that system should have been tested to destruction before even being fitted to the aircraft.

That's just my opinion, though...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Well, if you have to drag the Concorde into this, it had it's fair share of problems, as do all planes have. But since it is this Dreamliner, people make a fuss about it. If the lock of the toilet door isn't functioning properly, we'll have to read about it as well. An oil filter, so what. Better safe than sorry. I am an avid watcher of Mayday and several pilots ignoring very very minor problems, are dead now, including all the passengers. The Concorde had a recurring rudder problem, pieces falling of. Multiple tire bursts causing fuel tank ruptures and so on, but not ending in a disaster. Still, they apparently didn't do enough about it, since one crashed near Paris, caused by exactly this tire burst problem.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yawn. I wonder how many 747's are safely diverted because of an indicator light? How many Airbuses? I'm guessing dozens each year. The only reason this one is making the headlines is because of the past problems the model has had. Media scrutiny taken to the extreme.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Nightmareliner, more like.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Wow! Boeing just can't catch a break, can they.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Well at least they didn't drop engine parts on Batam, Indonesia (Qantas Flight 32 A380) or fall out of the air ( Air France Flight 447 A320) or drop onto the runway in Nagoya (China Airlines Flight 140 A300). I'll stick with Boing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nightmareliner, more like.

If the passengers got nightmares after this flight set down in Seattle, it would be because of the cheezy motel they were put up in. The landing was a normal, non-emergency landing. The only thing wrong was the landing was performed at a different airport than was originally intended.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sure it was an oil filter... That's at least what they're going to tell us.

Tuesday’s crew decided to land in Seattle because of “an indication of a problem with an oil filter.”

Maybe it was a circuit failure that caused a 'false positive' or maybe it was yet another electrical glitch, who knows? One thing for sure is if Boeing doesn't get to the root of all these 'non-related' (yeah right) problems then the world will have only one thought on its mind about the "Emergency-Liner" if it continues in service, "will I get there on time, if ever?"

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Battery Problem (Yuasa). Engine Problem (Rolls-Royce) and this Oil Filter Problem....belongs to...?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The nightmare to be continued.....

0 ( +2 / -2 )


The fare is cheaper to go through LAX SFO, SEA, HOU instead of non stop DEN/TYO flights now. The direct flight from DEN/TYO cuts flight time significantly, but the safety comes first.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thunderbird2, while I agree that the Concorde crash was mostly due to bad luck, you should Google "concorde incidents." It had its share of prior problems and incidents. The 787 is not unique in this regard.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I'd argue the plane has problems, but I've flown United before. This could be anyone's guess.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )


Concorde, the most famous airliner of them all, was in its day as unique as the 787, being a pioneer, however she only ever had the one accident in nearly 30 years of flying, and that was the fatal crash in 2000 of an Air France one.

So the 787 has 29 years to have its first fatal accident! That's great news.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

They got a warning light about a relatively minor problem. They "diverted" and "landed normally" (from the first paragraph). Note this wasn't an emergency landing. My sense is this was done out of an abundance of caution. This is what's supposed to happen. These are professionals, and if there was any real reason for concern, they wouldn't be flying these things.

Of course, the media wants to give the impression of something more interesting than that, more dangerous and risky. But if anything this incident was about the airlines and flight crew not willing to take any risks.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites