News /
Polish hero pilot lands 767 without wheels. (Warsaw) [191]
Some purty shoes there aphro, especially them red ones. :)
Yeah, of the European airlines KLM (or actually Air France since they own KLM) is a good carrier, I like Lufthansa and SAS too (somewhat biased lol). Virgin Atlantic is another good one and no, it's not because of the name. ;)
I'd say most airline in Europe are pretty good, haven't flown on LOT but my friends who'd deadheaded on them said they had good equipment and service. Airlines are like women you know, they all have good days and not so good days. ...and some days they just want to yell at you. :-)
Why doesn't the quote function work from anymore? Well, at least from an iPhone?
vincent: Time to put that iphone on eBay mate, and buy yourself a net book! :) Perhaps you should take this up with Apple?
Net book?? That's so WWII! lol
...I do agree with you with your concerns about the dreamliner. We are at an interesting chapter in our world and the materials used to construct the plane have me thinking .... If they start compromising materials I think I may explode. (not that boeing has compromised- but you are accurate when saying they are rushing the build)...
Just to clarify, I'm hesitant when it comes to this "new" technology however I definitely don't think Boeing is rushing the Dreamliner, if anything they're taking their time and I'm actually kind of impressed they haven't caved in to this immense timeline pressure. I have a couple of friends working there and heard that even when some major customers told Boeing they'd be canceling orders if B didn't speed things up (787 was already delayed) the management told them they'd take as long as they needed to get it right.
As all new airplanes the 787 will have some teething problems but I think it'll end up being a great bird. If anyone might be tempted to rush things it'd be Airbus with the A350. Remember that when they announced the original A350 the industry specialists and major airlines worldwide lambasted the design as a big joke. It was basically a stretched A330 with new engines, no real technological improvements at all. Airbus didn't want to design a new aircraft because they're losing money already on the A380 with the huge delays (think penalty payments to airlines that had ordered them). Eventually they had to give in to customer demand and redesigned the 350. However, now they're several years behind on what's become a major money maker for Boeing so I'm sure they'll be tempted to speed thing up. I hope (and believe) that cooler heads will prevail.
As far as the safety aspect of this new technology being used on both airplanes (787 and 350) only time can tell.
The A350 was born as an A330-derived minimum-changed competitor to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the larger Boeing 777, but was unanimously rejected by prospective customers. Airbus was forced to redesign the initial proposal, but airlines voiced for a complete overhaul. The eventual proposal incorporates major changes, which Airbus says that will be more fuel-efficient, with up to 8% lower operating cost than the Boeing 787..."en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbus_A350
What's the point when both of you are full of sh*t. All that talk of not flying unless it's a brand new plane etc...
Nah, they might be high maintenance (allegedly :) but aren't full of this or that. They hold a pretty common view amongst the passengers and the airlines know it, perception has always been a factor when it comes to travel. Many years ago American Eagle (AA subsidiary) did a study on passengers' perception of flying turboprop airplanes versus jet airplanes To clarify, turboprop airplanes are jets too, they burn jet-a fuel just like the regular jets but they also have a reduction gear box which "slows down" the engine rotation so a propeller can be attached to it. There are versions without the rgb but that's irrelevant here.) Anyways, turboprops are much, much more fuel efficient on shorter routes.)
At the time eagle was flying the Saab 340 turboprops and the Embraer regional jets. They interviewed numerous passengers at first, they focused on those with little flight experience. Almost unanimously passengers prefered the jets. They felt that the turboprops were old, post WWII airplanes (many were about the same age as the jets), loud, (sound levels were about the same just slightly different frequencies), unsafe (total nonsense), etc.
Then at several airports they built a walk way to the turboprops so passengers could not see the airplane from outside while boarding. Basically they walked from a terminal section that had no windows via a jetway (no windows) directly to the airplane. Now they interviewed just as many passengers about their experiences and to everyone's amazement there were no longer any major differences in people's preferences, jets were still preferred but by a very small margin. Yes, perceptions are hugely important when it comes to passengers' preferences.
--------
please refer to #182 post in this thread:). Tad patronizing, wouldn't you say? Whatever makes you feel better Sky. Check sarcasm in the dictionary;)
Re-read my original comment and the one you just replied too. There's absolutely zero patronizing. You totally missed my humor and my sarcasm. I think the dictionary would help you much more on this one. :)
