I agree. The 777 is fantastic to fly in. One of the best flights I ever had was from Manila to Amsterdam in a brand new one that was all but empty (maybe 50 people). Daytime flight and a great window seat so I got to see some great vistas flying over Asia (winter time). I think the only hull loss on a 777 was the one where the guy came in too low into SF airport and hit the embankment - no deaths IIRC.
BTW the move in the industry is away from 4 engines to 2 engines. It’s called ETOPS.
ETOPS - Wikipedia
Big fuel and maintenance savings. Airbus had the first ETOPS compliant trans Atlantic aircraft in 1977 but the engines were not up to it for longer flights until the 1990’s which is when development on the 777 took place.
Last edited:
“Like the little tinkerer who heard about coalition tanks and trucks being killed by own planes because they were hard to identify in dusty desert environments. He developed a small IR flasher that could be coded, and could be placed on any vehicle, and small detector on a plane. The Army checked it out and then ordered so many sets that he almost fainted.
But worked flawlessly”
Is this why you retired early?
But worked flawlessly”
Is this why you retired early?
I transferred from an A380 to a 777 going to Sri Lanka. I enjoyed the 777 more. It feels more spacious. I must say the A380 because of the boarding seems just another aircraft. I flew on a DC10 that was into it's last days. Somehow it was special even though it was falling apart. Just cosmetic stuff I was told.
My boss nearly freaked out. He had just said how frightened he was of DC10s. To which I said" I have news for you" . He had entered the aircraft without realising. To reinforce his fear bits were falling off. The crew were very reassuring and said they loved the speed and space. It had a quality I really like. Hard to say what. Looking up DC10 it managed in time to put it's problems behind it. 737max should. If it's fail-safes work well it should also regain safety. I will feel happy to believe that.
I think I read some DC10 still are flying.
I think I read some DC10 still are flying.
The most frightening flight I took turned out to be rather nice. Flying back from Cyprus our 737 type aircraft had broken down for I was told the umpteenth time. Mysteriously in the dark we were herded into what was obviously a wide-bodied jet. Some thinking it through realised it was a 747 and seemed an early one. The staff were extremely smart and turned out to be Russian. Not only smart but professional. Maybe part of the state owned company. Their English not bad. Sort of like a benign version of James Bond. As the flight went on I gradually reassured myself being Boeing no need to worry. The seats were navy blue leather or top grade vinyl. They were like well loved vintage cars. I guess Moscow to Nicosia isn't far. What I found most difficult is a 747 doing that flight. Thinking about it why not? It's five hours. I guess I confirmed they were Russian before knowing it wasn't a Tupolev.
Kegworth air disaster: Plane crash survivors' stories - BBC News
I was told a simple warning system caused the pilot to shut down the wrong engine ( rejected officially ). As my informant said the pilot is always wrong even when he isn't. He was angry about it and said others of the series had to same wiring error.
Kegworth crash if BBC reject the link.
I was told a simple warning system caused the pilot to shut down the wrong engine ( rejected officially ). As my informant said the pilot is always wrong even when he isn't. He was angry about it and said others of the series had to same wiring error.
Kegworth crash if BBC reject the link.
Last edited:
I remember myself and my wife flying Perth to London on a DC10. Wife had only taken a passing interest in planes as we were nearing our trip. She'd picked up that the DC10 had some issues (I watch that air crash investigations TV show) but had forgotten about it, but when we embarked, she asked what kind of plane this was. I knew but didn't want to say - then she pulled down the window blind as we sat on the runway waiting with the hot afternoon sun streaming in. Have you guys seen the little DC10 logo on the handle of the blind? Arrgh, the secret was out!
A couple of years ago we did Perth to New York City in an A380 (that's 35 hours in the air) and we thought this was a fantastic aircraft.
A couple of years ago we did Perth to New York City in an A380 (that's 35 hours in the air) and we thought this was a fantastic aircraft.
Last edited:
I'm sure this has been said, if not here goes. Airbus A320 in it's latest form has better fuel consumption than previous typical aircraft. Boeing got very close using very sensible modifications to the 737 design. Unfortunately they were determined to make the difference close to zero. This demanded about 25 cm wider fan. From this came many detailed changes to meet regulations, clearance with the ground being one. Reading between the lines this made the automation more important and the rest of the story is known. The fuel use was so trivial smaller to larger fan. It's a shame opperators didn't recommend that the narrow engine just fine. Hopefully this is a warning. Fuel efficiency shouldn't out rank safety. Also if pursuing efficiency there is a limit to how far a 1960s concept can go. Not least that it started life before anything ever went into orbit in the 1950s.
And in the expanding shorter haul / smaller passenger load market for which it was targeted, what is the most recent fresh design from Boeing or Embraer that exists elsewhere but on paper? No snark intended - I’m truly curious.
There appears to be enough demand for efficient aircraft in all market segments, but it could be foolish for one manufacturer to try to fill them all, and most certainly doing so as we’ve seen in the case of the Max series.
I think it’s certainly gonna leave a lot of red ink on the financials for years to come.
Time maybe to include near term shorting of the stock in a long term investment plan?
There appears to be enough demand for efficient aircraft in all market segments, but it could be foolish for one manufacturer to try to fill them all, and most certainly doing so as we’ve seen in the case of the Max series.
I think it’s certainly gonna leave a lot of red ink on the financials for years to come.
Time maybe to include near term shorting of the stock in a long term investment plan?
It always feels as if Airbus is state run .Boeing must at times feel they are up against a competitor who plays with loaded dice. The 737 max is a remarkable achievement that to my non expert eye went a step too far .Even now with proper fail-safes and thought it still can be what was intended. Someone somewhere was too anxious to get it sold. I would argue that if something can happen it will happen. It is impossible to think someone didn't think this and voice a doubt.
This is nonsense Nigel. Boeing are the largest private enterprise recipient of state aid/grant/tax breaks in the US. Not even Elon Musk comes close.
That they went after Bombardier the way they did does not surprise me. Having worked at senior for a NASDAQ listed MNC I am pretty well appraised of the shenanigans these big corporations get up to. It’s par for the course. And no, Airbus is no more a ‘state owned’ company than Boeing.
None of these big civilian aircraft make any money standing on their own two feet and these companies would not survive without the various breaks they get. And they get away with it because aerospace is a prestige industry and it’s critical to defence.
I feel no pity for any of these guys - only the passengers that took the fall for a bunch of boardroom operators interested in one thing only: lining their own pockets (just look at how Muilenberg pumped the stock price up. Been there, seen it being done and got the T-shirt).
That they went after Bombardier the way they did does not surprise me. Having worked at senior for a NASDAQ listed MNC I am pretty well appraised of the shenanigans these big corporations get up to. It’s par for the course. And no, Airbus is no more a ‘state owned’ company than Boeing.
None of these big civilian aircraft make any money standing on their own two feet and these companies would not survive without the various breaks they get. And they get away with it because aerospace is a prestige industry and it’s critical to defence.
I feel no pity for any of these guys - only the passengers that took the fall for a bunch of boardroom operators interested in one thing only: lining their own pockets (just look at how Muilenberg pumped the stock price up. Been there, seen it being done and got the T-shirt).
I didn't say it was true. I was saying how it feels. Your point is proved by the fact Boeing has been allowed to weather this storm. Global warming has something like the big bad wolf about it. That is we know warming is bad news, we just don't know what will be the thing that hits first. Or we didn't. Boeing is for the moment more important. The UK needs Boeing.
One possibility we have to fear is Greta Thunberg and troop might decide aircraft need to be sacrificed. Whilst it wouldn't be their decision it wouldn't help. To them a wounded big bad wolf an irresistible target. When I hear about electric aircraft I know the avalanche of stupidity has started.
Rolls Royce has launched it's mini nuclear reactor plans to help power electric cars or whatever. People won't like that. Realistic reaction to the real situation. I know a young engineer on that team. What I told him became reality. That technology has been perfected on nuclear submarines. Rolls Royce make jet engines and definitely need Boeing. The reactors are ready to go. Wind power alone most likely won't be enough. Team Greta Thunberg think otherwise.
I have just checked statistics. It could be argued Boeing was slightly the larger manafacturer. However Airbus has been 60% recently. Having seen supermarkets loose ground this way it might be permanent. One mistake can rub out 70 years of hard work.
One possibility we have to fear is Greta Thunberg and troop might decide aircraft need to be sacrificed. Whilst it wouldn't be their decision it wouldn't help. To them a wounded big bad wolf an irresistible target. When I hear about electric aircraft I know the avalanche of stupidity has started.
Rolls Royce has launched it's mini nuclear reactor plans to help power electric cars or whatever. People won't like that. Realistic reaction to the real situation. I know a young engineer on that team. What I told him became reality. That technology has been perfected on nuclear submarines. Rolls Royce make jet engines and definitely need Boeing. The reactors are ready to go. Wind power alone most likely won't be enough. Team Greta Thunberg think otherwise.
I have just checked statistics. It could be argued Boeing was slightly the larger manafacturer. However Airbus has been 60% recently. Having seen supermarkets loose ground this way it might be permanent. One mistake can rub out 70 years of hard work.
Last edited:
We need Boeing?
Airbus invested £2 Billion in the UK over the last 10 years in Wales for wing manufacture and employ 14000 people directly with another whole bunch linked to the 4000 odd suppliers they have here.
Boeing employ 2500.
Airbus will be in the UK for another 12-24 months and then they will leave.
Get a grip.
Airbus invested £2 Billion in the UK over the last 10 years in Wales for wing manufacture and employ 14000 people directly with another whole bunch linked to the 4000 odd suppliers they have here.
Boeing employ 2500.
Airbus will be in the UK for another 12-24 months and then they will leave.
Get a grip.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.