United Airlines is really having some bad luck with one of its newest Boeing 787-9s, which also features the carrier’s brand new interiors. The plane has had an incredible number of maintenance issues since entering service, to the point that the plane was sent back to Boeing to be repaired. After around 10 days with Boeing, the plane returned to service… only to still have issues.
In this post:
United’s “broken” Boeing 787 is still broken, even after being fixed
United Airlines is currently taking delivery of a large number of brand new Boeing 787-9s, which are in a premium configuration, and feature the carrier’s new “United Elevate” interiors, with a new experience across cabins.
N61101 is the registration code for United’s first new Boeing 787-9 with these interiors, and it also has the United 100th anniversary decal on it. On the return portion of the plane’s first-ever international flight, to Singapore (SIN), it encountered a maintenance issue, to the point that the plane had to divert, and then be ferried back to United’s maintenance facility in San Francisco (SFO) without passengers.
Unfortunately even after that, things didn’t get better. In June, I covered how the plane had issue after issue, to the point that it spent more time on the ground than in the air. The situation got so bad that on June 20, 2026, the plane flew to Moses Lake (MWH), which is a Boeing maintenance base.
Clearly United mechanics couldn’t figure out what was going on, so the plane was returned to Boeing. Well, the plane spent around 10 days with Boeing, before once again returning to San Francisco on June 30, 2026.
You’d assume things would be good from there, but on July 2, 2026, the plane flew to London (LHR). While that flight operated as planned, the return flight on July 3 was canceled due to a maintenance issue. Now the plane is expected to be once again ferried back to San Francisco empty, flying today, July 4, 2026.
This is obviously embarrassing — not for United, but for Boeing, since one assumes this somehow reflects an issue with Boeing’s production process, or something.
The issue with this Boeing 787 revolves around TCAS
What exactly is wrong with this particular United Dreamliner? The issue reportedly revolves around TCAS. For those not familiar, TCAS stands for Traffic Collision Avoidance System, and it’s supposed to help pilots avoid midair collisions.
These alerts come in the form of either TAs (Traffic Advisories), which alert pilots of other planes nearby, or RAs (Resolution Advisories), which give specific instructions about which action pilots should take. It goes without saying that this is a very important safety feature for planes, and TCAS saves lives.
As reported by JonNYC, it’s believed that both antennas were replaced by Boeing in Moses Lake, and that this would resolve the issue. However, clearly that wasn’t the case, based on how quickly the plane was taken out of service again.
Here’s something that’s beyond my area of knowledge, and which I can’t otherwise make sense of — as I understand it, airplanes have endless redundant systems in place so that pilots are alerted if something isn’t working as it should be. How is it that they performed test flights in Moses Lake and thought the plane was safe to reenter service, only to have the same problem arise again?
Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see what happens next. I imagine this plane is headed back to Moses Lake, and then we’ll see what happens from there. I don’t want to draw too many conclusions, but it sure seems like Boeing production quality isn’t what it once was.
Bottom line
One of United’s newest Dreamliners has been plagued by endless maintenance issues, ever since entering service. The carrier’s return international inaugural flight diverted for a maintenance issue, and stuff hasn’t improved since then. A couple of weeks ago, the plane was sent to Boeing to be repaired… only to once again have issues on the return portion of its first international trip.
The problem reportedly revolves round TCAS, which is a very important feature to help pilots in the most critical of situations. It’s going to be interesting to see how long it takes Boeing to fix this. I’d also be fascinated to know how exactly reimbursement works in these kinds of situations, between Boeing and United.
What do you make of the issues with this United Dreamliner?
Why doesn’t Boeing just offer three people along with the plane who will sit with binoculars on each side and one in the cockpit scanning for traffic.
There is so much software on modern planes. Could It could be one line of code in error somewhere hidden in a sea of software?
I was ticketed to fly on this flight yesterday but my plans changed. What a pity. I would have for sole nice EU271 compensation.
There's close to THIRTEEN HUNDRED 787's delivered. One one think if its a major manufacturing issue, it would be seen on say greater than 0.1% of the frames delivered. As mentioned, maybe it doesn't have to do with Boeing but a particular vendor/manufacturer.
While there should be legitimate concern and discussion, most of these comments are a bit childish.
"One should think".
OMAT should have an "edit" function.
"Clearly United mechanics couldn’t figure out what was going on, so the plane was returned to Boeing."
@ Ben - that's taking your speculation and presenting it as fact, with no real basis to support it.
New aircraft actually come with a warranty like any other product. It is possible that UA's mechanics were stumped. It's also possible that Boeing decided it was more cost effective to get the plane back in house instead...
"Clearly United mechanics couldn’t figure out what was going on, so the plane was returned to Boeing."
@ Ben - that's taking your speculation and presenting it as fact, with no real basis to support it.
New aircraft actually come with a warranty like any other product. It is possible that UA's mechanics were stumped. It's also possible that Boeing decided it was more cost effective to get the plane back in house instead of reimbursing parts and labor to UA under warranty. It's also possible there's another explanation besides "the mechanics couldn't figure it out".
It must have been built in South Carolina.
While Boeing is ultimately responsible for delivering a 100% perfect aircraft, TCAS is reportedly made by Collins Aerospace (https://www.rtx.com/collinsaerospace/what-we-do/industries/business-aviation/flight-deck/additional-flight-deck/traffic-awareness/ttr-2100-airborne-collision-avoidance-system-traffic-computer). As such, the issue may not have been specific to the 787 design or manufacturing. The same goes for the comment regarding an oven issue. Ovens are reportedly provided by Jamco Corporation and Safran Cabin.
While Boeing is ultimately responsible for delivering a 100% perfect aircraft, TCAS is reportedly made by Collins Aerospace (https://www.rtx.com/collinsaerospace/what-we-do/industries/business-aviation/flight-deck/additional-flight-deck/traffic-awareness/ttr-2100-airborne-collision-avoidance-system-traffic-computer). As such, the issue may not have been specific to the 787 design or manufacturing. The same goes for the comment regarding an oven issue. Ovens are reportedly provided by Jamco Corporation and Safran Cabin.
Have you ever had a “lemon “ vehicle?
I have but didn’t accuse the manufacturer of going down hill
Have you ever made a mistake?
Means you can’t be competent?
Airbus has had their issues as well on some of their planes . Give me a break
I thought Boeing was finally turning the corner with a competent CEO. But with this B789 issue and after just reading the unusual move made by a Latin American carrier of returning back 3 recently acquired B737Max aircraft (although exact cause of return not as yet known), once again Boeing production quality becomes a matter of concern.
If anyone tries to point the finger at sloppy union standards, Seattle HR practices, or the increasingly woke Boeing brand, I will be very, very upset. Because that has absolutely, positively nothing to do with this latest situation. Of that, I am certain. Or at least reasonably confident. With a touch of potential doubt, but not a deal breaker. I mean maybe it’s possible, but that would be pure speculation. Boeing has never had serious...
If anyone tries to point the finger at sloppy union standards, Seattle HR practices, or the increasingly woke Boeing brand, I will be very, very upset. Because that has absolutely, positively nothing to do with this latest situation. Of that, I am certain. Or at least reasonably confident. With a touch of potential doubt, but not a deal breaker. I mean maybe it’s possible, but that would be pure speculation. Boeing has never had serious problems in the recent past, so I’m sure there’s nothing to see here at all. Any hint to the contrary would be malicious, so don’t you even think of going there.
It's probably sloppy non-union standards in the South!
Why doesn’t someone just plug into the OBD port and get the codez?
Yeah and just clear them and hope they don’t reappear haha
Jiggle the handle!
How much did they have to pay those LHR passengers in UK261 compensation when the flight was canceled?
I was supposed to be on it but my plans changed and I’m flying LX instead. Drat.
Not just TCAS, the SIN divert was due to overheating galley ovens.
Ben, unrelated but if you need a new photo of a United plane let me know I can provide it for you for free. Lol.
Okay, so Boeing turned out a lemon. It happens. We haven't seen this occur on a fleet scale and, as said, this does appear to be isolated to this one frame. Bad timing and bad optics for Boeing, who are continually under the microscope in large part due to rabid Airbus fanboys who leap on situations like this.
This is an asset that costs well over $100 million. You don't just say oopsie when there are multiple cancelations and delays because of poor manufacturing.
And since you brought Airbus into the discussion, let us know how many Airbus wide bodies Delta has had to send back to the manufacturer.
Boeing is a great company with a long history and I certainly wish them well. Let's not sugarcoat how badly they have screwed up...
This is an asset that costs well over $100 million. You don't just say oopsie when there are multiple cancelations and delays because of poor manufacturing.
And since you brought Airbus into the discussion, let us know how many Airbus wide bodies Delta has had to send back to the manufacturer.
Boeing is a great company with a long history and I certainly wish them well. Let's not sugarcoat how badly they have screwed up engineering and customer disclosure on the 737 and manufacturing on the 787
What does Delta have to do with this?
Delta has nothing to do with this, TD simply wanted to bring them in because that’s all he thinks about, yet couldn’t come up with an actual example. If you want a sample of a real Airbus issue, look at Qatar’s A350 dispute. Neither manufacturer is immune to turning out some lemons now and again.
https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airbus-a350-paint-conflict-timeline/
"who are continually under the microscope in large part due to rabid Airbus fanboys who leap on situations like this."
You alllllmost created an entirely lucid post, for the first time; only to screw it up in the end.
Keep trying!
And yet who did the first response to my missive? Rabid Airbus fanboy Timbits. I am proven right.
Immortal is right. There was no reason to bring Airbus into the discussion. You did and I responded. The facts are pretty clear.
I didn't bring Airbus into it. I brought in their rabid fanboys like you. If I did bring Airbus in, it would be a statement about how the A350-1000 is a flaming bag of elephant waste.
Isn’t this the system that caused the MAX to crash?
No, that was MCAS.