Always wait for SP1.

Minor correction - both incidents were at Logan in Boston.

Good article in Leeham News, and the comments are interesting:

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013/01/…

The electrical system on the 787 is more extensive than on any other airliner, and it is almost entirely the work of subcontractors. If subcontracted work bites them in the ass... this could weaken Boeing in the contract talks with SPEEA, since they are taking the position that engineering work is a commodity that they can outsource.

@3 - I was thinking along the same lines, as well as wondering if the planes were build in WA or SC

Anything to save a buck right Boeing? Wonder if they did the same study that Ford did with the gas tank problem with the early Pinto's? You know, if a few people die it's okay as long as the profit margins are rich enough

Remember when Boeing was the best company in the world? I do. I blame Chicago.

@3: Boeing typically only adds one new Big Thing when introducing a new plane, but Boeing introduced three w the 787:
(1) high energy electrical system to fly the plane (vs hydraulics on the past),
(2) composite structure (vs aluminum), and
(3) building major parts of the plane (nose, wings, etc) all over the world and only doing final assembly in WA.
It is this ambition that has caused so much delay and headache.

@5: WA. Everett, specifically.

today it is a brake problem in japan...
I'm in no hurry to fly in an 87.

OMG! A new plane isn't perfect from day one! This is the FIRST TIME EVER! Unless you count the 737 or 747 or 707. Or pretty much any other plane.

@5: If you are going to argue that, should these problems be with SC-built planes, this reflects the danger and short-sightedness of using non-union labor... I hope you're also willing to argue the opposite if these are WA-built planes. Clearly, in that case, that would mean non-union labor is superior and that Boeing should redouble efforts to get rid of unions in the name of passenger safety, right?

@2: Thanks, fixing.

The quickness of the turnaround (flight departure with the same aircraft 3 hours later) suggests that this fuel leak was maybe a fuel-filler port ("gas cap") left loose by a ramp employee; probably unrelated to the earlier-reported and -inspected fuel-line connectors in the engine pylons.

Most ramp workers are at or near minimum wage. Doesn't inspire a whole lot of attention to detail if you don't value your work.