It has not been a good few weeks for the 787 program. There have been fires, fuel leaks, and more to make for a very eventful month, and not in a good way. So is this airplane doomed to disaster? No. It is just having teething problems, like every airplane before it. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t concerns to be had about what’s happened, especially electrical ones.

You don’t remember them years and years later, but pretty much every airplane has had its share of problems when it first gets introduced. How about the 747? Its inaugural on Pan Am was delayed for hours on end when it had an engine problem. (The early Pratt engines were nothing but trouble.) The only reason it was delayed a matter of hours and not more was because there was another aircraft that they could push into service.

But these teething problems pale in comparison to the airplane with the worst of all teething problems – the Comet. When the de Havilland Comet was introduced as the first viable commercial jet, it was a marvel. Unfortunately, the designers didn’t quite understand metal fatigue well enough. The repeated pressurization cycles exposed weak spots in the airframe that simply gave out. Airplanes started to drop out of the sky.

For the 747, it took some time but reliability became less of an issue and now its early problems are just a footnote. For the Comet, despite a major redesign, it was easily surpassed by the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 and the airplane, not its problems, became a footnote in history.

So what is happening with the 787? Are these normal teething problems or is it the end of the world? It will be much easier to answer that question in 20 years, but I have to assume that it’s likely to be the former.

The incidents we’ve seen so far have been covered widely by the media and it may very well scare travelers from booking on a 787 for awhile. But the problems we’ve seen so far have been far from the major disasters we saw with the Comet or even with the DC-10 (American flight 191). Even though the American 191 issue was maintenance-related, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) briefly grounded the airplane and the public became incredibly nervous. Still, the DC-10 went on to be quite successful.

With the 787, the incidents have been less dramatic so far. We’ve seen failed generators, brake problems, a fuel leak, and more. But if anything should be more troubling, it’s the electrical issues. There have been a few reports of improper wiring and other electrical issues. The JAL 787 that had a battery fire on the ground is possibly the most nerve-wracking.

After landing in Boston, a JAL 787 had a battery that powers the auxiliary power unit (APU) catch on fire. While the APU is primarily used on the ground, that doesn’t mean that the battery couldn’t catch fire in the air. It is a lithium ion battery, and that has long been known to pose a fire safety risk. For that reason, there were a ton of extra safety precautions taken with these batteries before they were allowed on the 787, but it didn’t take long for one to catch on fire. Just think what could have happened if this happened over the ocean.

Boeing says that had the fire happened in flight, it would have been contained within the compartment where it was located. That may be the case, but I don’t know anyone who would be comfortable having a fire onboard an aircraft while over the middle of the ocean. Lithium ion batteries are great because of their efficiency at providing energy but they are also less stable than other options. That has already been proven with this fire.

The good news is that these incidents have caught a lot of regulatory attention. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has, as always, initiated an investigation. Meanwhile, the FAA is doing a very thorough review of the electrical systems on the airplane. Japan’s regulatory agency is looking into it as well. When this is all done, there will undoubtedly be some changes to the airplane. Every aircraft goes through changes. If you look at the number of Airworthiness Directives issues by the feds, you would be amazed.

What’s the bottom line here? Well, there are definitely some concerns, that’s for sure. You might hear a lot of saber-rattling by the airlines. That is probably more about trying to get compensation from Boeing along with a quick fix to avoid reliability problems than it is lack of faith in the airplane’s future. And the regulatory agencies are now going to be looking VERY closely over the airplane to make sure it’s safe so that’s good.

In the end, we’re going to end up with a very safe airplane. But for now, there is at the very least, a strong concern about reliability. If travelers decide to book away from the 787 until that gets sorted out, it wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve had similar thoughts. But eventually, this will all get ironed out and all will be good. It’s just a matter of how long it will take to get there.

[Original battery/sign icons via Shutterstock]

While I was excited to ride Lufthansa’s A380 last year, I was secretly looking ahead to the introduction of the 747-8. To me, that was a much bigger event for Lufthansa. Last week, the airline brought the 747-8 to LA on its first scheduled passenger flight to the airport and I was able to go check it out.

So why was it that I was excited about the 747-8 more than the A380? Because while Lufthansa rolled out its new First Class on the A380, it kept the same old angled bed in Business Class on that airplane. The 747-8, however, introduced the new flat beds in Business Class, and that is way more important for most people. I’ll get to that a little later.

This event was also a good opportunity for me to see some Lufthansa folks and talk shop. So how was it? The airplane was impressive, though I do wonder about spending time in the coach seats. Let’s start there.

From afar, the cabin looks great. The colors are very Lufthansa and the big 787-style overhead bins disappear quietly into the ceiling to leave an open feeling. The seats themselves seemed comfortable, but I only sat for a minute. It’s hard to know what it would feel like 6 hours into a 12 hour flight.

The seats do recline, but they also slide forward a little bit when you do, reducing legroom a little. The seatback screens are big and, I assume, packed with content. And the seatback has one of my favorite features, a little cupholder so you don’t have to pull your tray down if you just have a drink.

But there’s one big issue.

The seat tracks are awkwardly not aligned with the edge of each seat. So in this particular seat above, the seat anchor splits your legroom. The little inflight entertainment box on the left restricts you even more. (How did that not get buried under the floor?) But where do you put your carry-on under your seat? On your left, barging in on the person next to you? Or on the right, messing with that person’s space? Each seat has a different setup, and that’s a concern. (Thanks to Taylor Michie for pointing this out onboard.)

Now, what about the business class? It looks fantastic.

The seats look great, they’re comfortable to sit in, and since they angle out near the head, it feels pretty private if you want it to. But if you’re traveling with someone you know, then you don’t feel isolated as you do in some of the current business class seats.

The one area where there might be some concern is around the feet. Your feet really are very close to those of the person next to you, but it really doesn’t seem like an issue when you’re sitting there. The bigger issue may very well be that the person in the window seat has to climb over the aisle seat to get out. It looked a little easier than in other double seat pairings on other airlines, but it’s still the weak point of this seat.

Unlike on the 747-400, Lufthansa also has business class upstairs on this airplane, so for those who aren’t concerned about climbing over the person in the aisle, those window seats should be the best onboard with the extra ledge next to them. The upper deck has been extended again on this airplane, and because of that, it has lost some of the exclusive feel from the smaller cabin on previous models but it’s still excellent.

I asked Jürgen Siebenrock, VP of the Americas, about why LA was chosen as the second destination for the 747-8 in the US behind Dulles. He said that it was a combination of solid leisure and high business demand. The new business class has very strong appeal to business travelers (especially compared to the old angled seats), and there are a lot onboard. Up to 92 seats. At the same time, there are fewer coach seats than on the 747-400, and around 150 seats fewer than on the A380. So this fits well for Lufthansa in the LA market.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to fly on the media trip Lufthansa is putting together on this airplane in January, but hopefully I’ll have a chance to do it another time.

[See my post detailing the Business Class offering at Conde Nast]
[See more photos from the day at Google Plus]

Don’t get too excited. I didn’t actually get to fly on one. But I did get invited to come take a tour of a 787 while it was on the ground here in Long Beach as part of a tour around North America. Of course, I was thrilled to do it.

I had plenty of time to spend on the outside of the airplane, because they had us waiting around for quite some time until Governor Jerry Brown arrived and gave a little speech. In the meantime, we could walk around all different sides of the airplane without anyone stopping us. It was a lot of fun. My first impression was probably skewed by the fact that it was nose to nose with a C-17, the military transport aircraft they make in Long Beach.

The 787 really is a good-looking airplane. That nose makes it look mean and fast. In fact, the only thing that makes it look a little slower is the engines themselves. They’re so large and impressive in their own right that they seem a little too big for the airplane. I will say that the engines with their scalloped cowlings and curved fan blades are a sight to be seen.

I think what I liked seeing most, however, was the big wing. It’s not A380-massive by any stretch, but it’s contoured with raked and curved wingtips on the end. It’s a thing of beauty.

Enough about the outside. It was finally time to head in. While many people fawned over the seats, I couldn’t have cared less. This is a Boeing demonstrator and we’ll never see those seats on an airplane in service. For me, I was interested in seeing some other features, which I covered in this 1:55 video. (Sorry about some of the sound being too soft.)

First up was the new entryway. Though Boeing clearly made the entry larger than you’ll ever see on any airline, the height of the ceiling with the new arch feature really did make for a different impression of openness. I look forward to seeing how that works with bulkheads on either side in actual airline service.

Next up was the overhead bin. They’re big. Nothing revolutionary but certainly big. Last and most important, I wanted to see those big, beautiful windows.

They really are huge and they’re close together. They provide some excellent visibility for passengers. As a window seat guy, I’m really excited about that. But the big win for me was getting to test out the window dimmers.

The 787 doesn’t have window shades but instead uses a method that dims the windows as you like. It takes 90 seconds for the windows to get their darkest, but even then it’s only 98 percent opaque. This is the best thing to happen to windows on airplanes in years. Now those who want to look outside can still do it while those who want to watch movies without glare or sleep can do it as well. I know it sounds silly, but this is a huge improvement.

I didn’t get to experience the low cabin noise, higher humidity, or lower cabin pressurization altitude, because we didn’t fly. Something tells me I’m going to need to seek one of these out sooner rather than later.

[See all my photos of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner]

Boeing has now officially launched its 737 with new engines – it’s being called the 737 MAX to counter the A320neo. What do you think of the MAX? Will it be a success?

It’s now official. Delta has decided to order a hundred 737-900ER aircraft. These aren’t the new engine versions but just plain old 737s, stretched to an insane length. With so many airlines ordering Airbus A320neo aircraft and showing great interest in Boeing’s proposed re-engined 737, why would Delta go with the old 737-900ER? My mind instantly went to baseball.

Before we talk about America’s pastime, let’s talk details first. Delta ordered one hundred 737-900ER aircraft to begin replacing its 757, 767, and A320 fleets. I assume this can replace some of the A320s coming off lease as well as the older domestic 767s. Add the 757s on top of that, and this is only a start. The airline will need a lot more airplanes to completely replace these fleets. My assumption is that you’ll see these fit right in with the domestic and Caribbean route structure.

The 737-900ER holds almost as many people as a 757. Continental has it configured with 173 seats right now in a similar configuration to what I’d expect to see from Delta, so it’s maybe a 10 to 15 seat cut versus the 757. It doesn’t have the range of the 757, so it’s not going to be serving Europe anytime soon. But there is plenty of room for this airplane to take over within the US for Delta. But why bother?

Most airlines have been clamoring for the re-engined A320 and 737 families and the promises of lower fuel burn. American may have ordered current generation aircraft, but that’s to replace its MD-80s, which it sees as needing replacement sooner rather than later. So why wouldn’t Delta just wait and order airplanes with newer engines since its existing fleet still has a few good years left?

It’s because Delta seems to look at the world in a different way, and that’s where baseball comes to mind. If you’ve read Moneyball, you know the story of the Oakland A’s. Being a small market team, the A’s couldn’t compete on revenue so they had to get creative to build a competitive team. They decided to flip baseball’s knowledge on its head. The A’s believed that the traditional way of valuing players wasn’t necessarily the best judge of actual performance and there were other metrics to use that would help Oakland build a team without breaking the bank. It worked and Oakland was initially able to create low dollar, high quality playoff-bound teams.

I see a similar thing going on at Delta. Everyone is clamoring for the newly-engined aircraft to the point where Boeing was forced to announce the new 737 before it wanted, just so it could win an order from American. But Delta sees that fever for new engines as providing an opportunity for it to do something different. Take a look at this quote from CEO Richard Anderson:

A key component of Delta’s strategy is making prudent investments for the future while maintaining our financial and capacity discipline

Yes, better fuel efficiency is very important, but not if the initial cost of buying that fuel efficiency is so high. This is how Allegiant justifies buying MD-80s, and it’s how Delta seems to be looking at its current fleet decisions. (It also explains why Delta has been buying up MD-90s on the used market.) These airplanes do still provide better fuel efficiency over the existing fleet, but the initial cost is much less than going for one of those newer-engined aircraft. The math works for Delta because of the way others behave.

We don’t know anything about Boeing’s pricing of its re-engined 737 yet, so let’s look at Airbus for an example. An A321 lists for $99.7 million. The new engine option is an additional $6.2 million. That might not seem like a huge difference, but remember that we’re talking about list prices.

With the A320neo selling like hotcakes, you can bet that the discounts wouldn’t be as steep compared to the current generation models. Think of it as a year-end model clearance. Cal Worthington would be proud.

Lower acquisition costs give the airline more flexibility. When you have higher variable costs and lower fixed costs, you can think about scheduling your fleet in different ways. It gives you some flexibility that Northwest has known about for years. Why do you think those DC-9s are still flying 40 years down the road? They’ve been a great asset for the fleet, even if their time is finally coming to an end.

Now, it’s not like Delta is a small market airline and can’t afford more expensive airplanes. It’s just seeing a piece of the market that’s being undervalued and is trying to take advantage. That’s smart.