21–30 of 251 posts
[0] https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjkmpacv7yvpur5/PXL_20230411_00382...
[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/2pgdlmn7z9ej0rc/PXL_20230411_00433...
[2] https://www.dropbox.com/s/f65qu80wlcb5wma/PXL_20230411_21410...
Thanks United for getting me out of Australia!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d be interested in a source for that. The 737 is an unqualified success. IIRC, at the turn of the century, one out of every three commercial flights was undertaken on a 737. (At around the same time, another third would have been DC-9 and derivatives) The 737 wasn’t particularly expensive to design or build. It shares a 41 section with the 707 and 727 for example.
Let's not get too carried away, shall we? At least the 346 people that died in the two 737-MAX crashes would probably question your "unqualified success" statement. But yes, no one can deny that the 737 has been a cash cow for Boeing (for far too long, some would say).
It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience, even in turbulence. Boeing's 747 was incred…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The A380 was Airbus trying to out-American the Americans, by being the biggest plane, and by betting big on mega-hubs like Dubai, Heathrow, and LAX. There was a great paper that argued that Airbus could only do so because the risk of the decision was mitigated by government launch aid. Airbus's view of the market was wrong, and instead, we have the rise of more city pairs. Not small cities certainly - but right now,…
> Airbus walked away from what made them successful to go after the "we are the biggest" crown... But they have direct competitors for these types of routes too. A350, A321-XLR, the various neo planes. All of which are as good as Boeing’s options! (And even some which Boeing doesn’t have, like the A220.) As an outsider, it seems like Airbus is in a fantastic spot, at least until Boeing starts shipping the 777X and wo…
It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience, even in turbulence. Boeing's 747 was incred…
> demand for flying is higher than ever Is it ? Trafic is close to prependemic but still below. > The industry is now just about 15% below 2019 levels of demand [0] [0] https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-releases/2023-04-04-0...
Airlines have opted and are opting to fly fewer planes with higher ticket prices. It's a price over volume optimisation that seems to be in fashion in many industry segments. [0]
I will note that some airlines have been affected very badly by issues with rebuilding staffing in ancillary services like luggage and airport security. That uncertainty I think leads to them being less ambitious with growth.
0 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/transcrip...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d be interested in a source for that. The 737 is an unqualified success. IIRC, at the turn of the century, one out of every three commercial flights was undertaken on a 737. (At around the same time, another third would have been DC-9 and derivatives) The 737 wasn’t particularly expensive to design or build. It shares a 41 section with the 707 and 727 for example.
Let's not get too carried away, shall we? At least the 346 people that died in the two 737-MAX crashes would probably question your "unqualified success" statement. But yes, no one can deny that the 737 has been a cash cow for Boeing (for far too long, some would say).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d be interested in a source for that. The 737 is an unqualified success. IIRC, at the turn of the century, one out of every three commercial flights was undertaken on a 737. (At around the same time, another third would have been DC-9 and derivatives) The 737 wasn’t particularly expensive to design or build. It shares a 41 section with the 707 and 727 for example.
Let's not get too carried away, shall we? At least the 346 people that died in the two 737-MAX crashes would probably question your "unqualified success" statement. But yes, no one can deny that the 737 has been a cash cow for Boeing (for far too long, some would say).
It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience, even in turbulence. Boeing's 747 was incred…
The A380 is pretty smooth, but I found that the way it cruises is not great for me. It tends to surge and glide in a way that prevents me from actually falling asleep, more so than on other smaller planes like a 787. While the 787 might not be as silky smooth taking off and landing, I prefer it for the long term comfort that matters for most of the flight.
Sorry for the highly technical terms but I agree it is unique to the A380.
Apart from this they comfortable to travel and sleep on.
