|
Jumpingmanjim posted:I remember qantas repaired a plane rather than writing it off just to keep their perfect record. This is true, but it was helped by the fact that Qantas didn't have to pay for the repair. slidebite posted:Here is a photo if you haven't seen the damage. Can they replace spars? I didn't think so until QF32 came along. That repair might have invented it (I'm speculating). I'm still not sure why you would unless there was a brand image to protect or something.
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Wasn't the 747-8 only developed because Lufthansa wanted it? Partly, but also for the same reason the A380 was developed (it has nothing to do with capacity). Boeing had a One-Two punch for decades that they were using to hurt Airbus. They charged a premium on 747's (because there was no competition, so they could) and used the profits to subsidise* the 737's (which Airbus had to price-match). This put Airbus in a position of either running on razor thin margins, or raising prices and losing all customers. It was a clever move by Boeing. Airbus didn't develop the A380 to sell a thousand of them and make a profit, they developed it to provide competition to the 747, draw sales away from the 747 and force Boeing to lower prices on the ones they did sell, and stop subsidizing the 737, thus leveling the playing field in the much more lucrative 737/A320 market, which is where real money is made. If the A380 broke even (it looks like it won't), that would just be a bonus. If it doesn't, well the 747 line is shutting down now so it has still done its intended job. I suspect that's why the 747-8 came along, because now the A380 didn't have any real competition anymore (beyond the global demand for super-jumbos itself) due to the age of the 747-400, and there was a risk of Airbus doing unto others as others had done unto them. Personally I think the A380 looks like the "special" kind of plane that would wear a bicycle helmet when riding in an electric wheel-chair, while the 747-8 is just stunning, so I hope the line stays open. *it wasn't just a discount in price, but also cost savings in back-end systems like engineering and crew training. Purchase price aside, it's generally cheaper to run one manufacturer than two, unless you're buying in serious bulk. edit: Since I double posted at the top of a new page, here's a picture .jpg)
Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I like how you all know my extreme dislike for the Connie. It's thread lore at this point. psst The Tomcat sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
I have never been in a 747, but if I do I will feel like a failure if I'm not on the top section. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
I've done tons of pacific crossings on 744s, never even stepped foot in the upper deck
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I have never been in a 747, but if I do I will feel like a failure if I'm not on the top section. I'm told I flew on one when I was 2. Almost all my civilian flight time has been on mediocre (or worse) RJs. A 767 twice, a 737 once, a 777 twice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
My mom got an award upgrade with Emirates on one of their long haul A380 flights. She said it was the most serene she's ever seen a nigh-fully loaded widebody deck, but I guess being all business class helps with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Partly, but also for the same reason the A380 was developed (it has nothing to do with capacity). I've heard this before, and it sounds quite plausible to me. Still, I guess I have to be a cross-grained contrarian here, and ask is there any good evidence for this view? Because having heard A380s discussed around here before, it seems like there are two views on it: 1) It's a failure because Airbus made a bet on where the market was going and lost, and 2) it is a success for the reasons you just gave. And I can't quite decide if 2) is some sort of ex post facto justification or not. Also, I was up at the airport yesterday, and this thing was in. I'm guessing is was flying Airbus personnel around for Airbus's FWSAR bid. And please people, can I post a picture of a A320 without 20 pages of discussion of A320s? And the inevitable Boeing counter arguments where we have to tour the 737/757 family IN ITS ENTIRETY? We've posters who've quit this thread and now post in the totally different aerospace thread in TFR because "the A320 discussion/fanboyism in AI is now 10x as obnoxious and pointless as drone vs. not-drone chat and is now bordering on some sort of wehraboo-ism, Airboos or something, and jesus Christ there just airplanes designed by a pan-European aerospace consortium, the way people go on and on and on about the A320 and start making these weird famous actress analogies like "the A320 neo is the Jennifer Lawrence of mid-body airliners," and the A318 is the "Sharon Stone of small versions of mid-body airliners" and all the discussion of making a Airbus thread just to contain all the airbus chat and I just can't take it anymore." So please people, there's been enough probations, Iowncalculas says he's gonna start banning people. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
What? If people have actually quit reading this thread because their feelings got hurt because someone said something about a plane they liked/didn't like, that's the most childish loving thing I've ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
MrChips posted:What? No, I'm joking (perhaps not well.) I just realized I was posting a not very good photo of a especially boring airliner, and I felt I needed to add something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
hey guys i find the ergonomics of the airbus series are vastly superior to the warmed up 60s leftovers you have in the 737
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
I do a lot of work for a European tour operator that exclusively uses Boeings, but sometimes I end up shunted on to EasyJet A320s and I always remember this thread and the horror of pilots not knowing what law they're subject to when things go wrong and  I never worried about it before I kept up in here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:No, I'm joking (perhaps not well.) I just realized I was posting a not very good photo of a especially boring airliner, and I felt I needed to add something. Just want you to know that it took me a while but I got the joke but I smirked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Speaking of A320s, the first American assembled A321 rolled out of the paint shop this week, and is about to start undergoing testing. http://www.fox10tv.com/story/31387454/first-us-built-airbus-a321-painted-ready-for-test-runs 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
So I went to watch the 727 prototype land.    
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:psst Goddamn you're just the wrongest person ever. Jealous Cow posted:I've done tons of pacific crossings on 744s, never even stepped foot in the upper deck For reasons I still don't know, I was put into the upper deck on one for a United transatlantic flight. It wasn't anything special. Of course, this was back before business and first class seats were turned into those amazing booths that do everything except jerk you off. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:So I went to watch the 727 prototype land. When I think of commercial aviation, this is what I think of. God drat, I'm old.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Goddamn you're just the wrongest person ever. What do you mean except? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I've heard this before, and it sounds quite plausible to me. Still, I guess I have to be a cross-grained contrarian here, and ask is there any good evidence for this view? Because having heard A380s discussed around here before, it seems like there are two views on it: 1) It's a failure because Airbus made a bet on where the market was going and lost, and 2) it is a success for the reasons you just gave. And I can't quite decide if 2) is some sort of ex post facto justification or not. What
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Tried to make a joke about people being obsessed with A320s, the most boringist airliner. Failed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:So I went to watch the 727 prototype land. thank gently caress, a competent photographer was also at that event. the previous posted photos were terrible and bad, so 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Psion posted:thank gently caress, a competent photographer was also at that event. the previous posted photos were terrible and bad, so You vastly overestimate my abilities. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Well it's more like I wanted to mock my own, but I don't know what you're talking about. That photo is about an inch from perfection. A crow riding a plane is much like a crow riding eagle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:TELL 'EM Indeed. http://youtu.be/D9UzH7Odt20
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Tried to make a joke about people being obsessed with A320s, the most boringist airliner. Failed. In a world where the E-Jet, 767 and A330 exist, you couldn't be more wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
I posit that as literally the result of Boeing punching "long range twinjet" into a computer, the 777 is the most boringest jet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:I posit that as literally the result of Boeing punching "long range twinjet" into a computer, the 777 is the most boringest jet. Watching the planes at LAX can be almost depressing as every trans-Pacific flight that used to be flown by literally anything else gradually switches to the 777-300ER. It's the boringest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:You vastly overestimate my abilities. Lies. This is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
How's United? I flew Delta/KLM to the US before but this option was both cheaper and more convenient. Also my first ever intra-US flights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
United's fine; O'Hare is the worst.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:This is true, but it was helped by the fact that Qantas didn't have to pay for the repair. I was talking about this one not QF32. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:I was talking about this one not QF32. Yeah, Qantas is real big on having never had a hull loss or fatality on a jet.* *Plenty of Qantas planes ate poo poo back in the early days and some more got shot down in WWII. And two piston-engined planes were lost at sea postwar. But they have gone to absurd lengths to not write off a jet, and got lucky that nobody's died on one. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 11:20 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 11:16
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
MrChips posted:In a world where the E-Jet, 767 and A330 exist, you couldn't be more wrong I guess I've been thinking about it lately because I've been making a model of a A320. Airliners are paradoxical because on the one hand, they are these amazingly engineered devices that are incredibly safe and efficient. If you are on a newer airliner, for most of us that's when we get to experience the leading edge of technology. On the other hand, they are (in some senses, anyway) boring - brilliantly engineered white goods. And I suppose that boring is a feature, not a bug: airliners that tend to be really interesting also tend to be the ones that are rare, blow up a lot, or both. Success comes with efficiency and safety and ubiquity - I guess we shouldn't be surprised that this makes them anodyne as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I guess I've been thinking about it lately because I've been making a model of a A320. Airliners are paradoxical because on the one hand, they are these amazingly engineered devices that are incredibly safe and efficient. If you are on a newer airliner, for most of us that's when we get to experience the leading edge of technology. On the other hand, they are (in some senses, anyway) boring - brilliantly engineered white goods. And I suppose that boring is a feature, not a bug: airliners that tend to be really interesting also tend to be the ones that are rare, blow up a lot, or both. Success comes with efficiency and safety and ubiquity - I guess we shouldn't be surprised that this makes them anodyne as well. That's why air transport engineering is so impressive to me. Doing something incredible like flying over an ocean once requires that a few people have time and money to do it. Modern transoceanic flights are more than that: it's the sigma sum of a substantial part of the output of modern society, and it's turned a courageous feat into something so routine that it's a mildly inconvenient ordeal that costs less than a month of minimum wage and thousands of people do every day. I found http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/11/travel/atl24/index.html to be way cooler than anything SR-71 related just because of how reliable it all is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:United's fine; O'Hare is the worst. United post-Continental merger/buyout/whatever is terrible, O'Hare is .... well, usually also terrible, but I like it. I've never gotten weather-hosed at O'Hare like approximately everyone else who's ever flown through there, so that probably has something to do with it. And at least United owns the nice half of the airport. but all domestic US flights are varying degrees of terrible so there's very little you could do to alter the situation regardless of carrier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Speaking of A32X chat, got the best seat on an A321 for a 6'3" dude such as myself on a recent leg from IAD-SAL-TGU. Please ignore the sneakers and white socks with khakis. I like to be comfortable travelling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
That's nothing. I saw someone board in PJs and slippers on ATL-NRT once.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Not entirely unreasonable, it's nice to have shoes you can just slip on and off at security checkpoints that make you remove them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Also, Avianca is great for travel to/from the US and Central America. 1/2-1/3rd the cost as a US carrier for really good service, in my experience great on-time, and fun food for no additional charge even on short hops. Been a lifesaver living in Central America for the time being. Definitely would again. Star Alliance member so miles are still fairly valuable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
I saw a guy change into PJs during boarding on a flight from JFK to Dublin. The girl with him was way out of his league.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:01
|
|