171–180 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, it just seems hard to believe the UAE with a population of little more than Austria would have that many travelers.
Obviously, a vast majority of passengers are just changing planes in the hub to go to other destinations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Delta chose to go with Bombardier planes in this case[1] which directly affected Boeing's ability to sell them their equivalents. That sounds like competition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo...
> which directly affected Boeing's ability to sell them their equivalents. Boeing's bid to Delta was some Embraer E series they had from an Air Canada trade-in. [1] No model of 737MAX competes with the C Series for Delta's RFP. Both Boeing and Delta have readily admitted this when asked (see [1]). Boeing has nothing in the market to compete with regional jets like the C Series. This is exactly why they are now lookin…
787 bankrupted them mentally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But New Orleans/London isn't two smaller cities, it's one smaller city and one major intercontinental hub. Doesn't expecting to have a nonstop flight from London to every city in the world put unsustainable pressure on landing slots in London?
Does the comparison not work if the smaller city is in Europe and he major hub is one of the ones in the US? Or even two US cities? I think perhaps using London as an example is overshadowing the point being made. If you aren't aggregating passengers at hubs which you then use larger planes for the common leg of the journey, you don't need as many larger planes.
Also, it's totally possible that there's a better example of a rote enabled by the 787 than New Orleans/London. That's just one that came to mind.
[1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2014/12/11/airbus-a38...
[2] - https://centreforaviation.com/insights/analysis/787-network-... (though you only get a lame summary of the article without an account)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 787 windows seem to block cell phone signals. Their tinting technology seems a a little unnecessary.
The reason for the tinting is really simple - weight. You have to be able to shade the windows and doing this way is less weight then have pull down screens. Everything in aircraft design here comes down to weight reduction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which directly affected Boeing's ability to sell them their equivalents. Boeing's bid to Delta was some Embraer E series they had from an Air Canada trade-in. [1] No model of 737MAX competes with the C Series for Delta's RFP. Both Boeing and Delta have readily admitted this when asked (see [1]). Boeing has nothing in the market to compete with regional jets like the C Series. This is exactly why they are now lookin…
That sounds like there is competition for this market between Bombardier and Boeing.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Let me try again:
It's like going to a Ford dealership and asking them for a scooter. Because Ford doesn't manufacture scooters, they offer to sell you a Vespa instead because the last customer traded one in.
Sure, they'll make a sale, but it's not like Ford makes the Vespa or the replacement parts for a Vespa (maintenance contracts are a BFD in aerospace, often worth more than the initial plane order).
So now you (Delta) come and want to buy 100 Vespas, and Ford still doesn't make a Vespa and has no plans to. So while slagging Vespa (Bombardier) for detracting from Ford's scooter sales they start talks to buy Vespa's closest competitor (Embraer).
Yeah... Totally competing in the same segment...
I think coverage of the A380 often misses the point that at the time, Boeing's 747 simply had no competition, whereas all of Airbus's planes did. So Airbus pretty much had to create the A380 in order to protect its other lines from cross-subsidy by this unopposed cash-cow. And, also missing from almost all the coverage is the fact that this worked: if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead. Official back…
Boeing made a bet on the 787. However, as you note, that's an easier bet to make when you already have the 747. Boeing already had a jumbo. It's easy to make a bet on twin-engines getting certified for longer ocean crossings when you already have the 747. There's a lot of things that Boeing bet on with the 787 and you're totally right that it's way easier to make those bets when you already have the 747. However, the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flying jumbo jets is bad business these days, but the immediate reason for why these carriers dropped the 747 in 2017 was because starting in 2018 they wouldn't have been allowed to fly due to new FAA rules around fuel tank inerting. Of course putting "we won't be allowed to fly them since the regulator thinks they're too likely to explode coming next year, but we're still selling flights on them!" in your own press…
Do you have a source for that? I’m particularly interested because I’m due to fly on a British Airways 747 in a couple of weeks to the US. As an aside, BA appears to have the largest remaining passenger 747 fleet[0] and doesn’t plan to fully retire them until 2024. [0] https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/last-ba-747-400-t...
The FAA issued a directive in 2008 saying that by December 26, 2017 (not 2018, sorry) [4] passenger planes flying within or into the US had to have fuel tank inerting. Many operators such as Delta and United (can't find a better source for that now than this reddit comment [5]) decided not to retrofit and flew their 747s pretty much right up to the deadline.
Other operators, such as BA (presumably) have already retrofitted their 747s and will continue flying them.
So obviously Delta and United weren't very interested in flying the 747s anyway since they consider it more economical to turn them into beer cans or cargo planes than continue flying them, but the immediate reason they're stopping at this time is because they couldn't legally continue past the deadline.
Which is all I'm pointing out here, that they've known this was coming since 2008 but didn't value the safety of their passengers enough to retrofit the planes, and continued flying them right up to the deadline.
It's worth calling out corporate doublespeak and convenient omissions whenever they occur.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15478442
2. http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/FAA_Inaction/in...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800
4. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...
5. https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/7bxs0x/final_unit...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot upvote you enough, it's true. A380 is in its own league, super comfortable, super low noise. No 747, 777 or 787 can match the comfort. They are noisier, or have downsides.
Exactly, when flying economy I always try to get an A380. 747 is the most painful plane there is in economy.
I think coverage of the A380 often misses the point that at the time, Boeing's 747 simply had no competition, whereas all of Airbus's planes did. So Airbus pretty much had to create the A380 in order to protect its other lines from cross-subsidy by this unopposed cash-cow. And, also missing from almost all the coverage is the fact that this worked: if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead. Official back…
if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead Two American carriers (United and Delta) already knew this. They discontinued the 747 and their last flights were earlier this year. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/... https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/... The A320s and 777s (and soon A350s) are just more efficient for passenger ETOPS flights. Hell, United wi…
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/...
Delta replaced it with A350's.