Quote
"...Just immagine (sic) what a step forward it could be if the court would decide that "The redundancy can not be used for commercial reasons only..""
Hey Mr Engineer, design me an aircraft than can fly on 2 engines, but is fitted with 4, so that if 1 fails we can recover the plane to a more suitable airfield and still have adequate redundancy. Hey Mr Airplane operator, shan't bother, some clown on pprune reckons it is an improvement that you cant use redundancy for commercial benefit. OK Mr Engineer give me a 2 engine aircraft with no redundancy, with no back up air, hydraulics and electrical...that'll save me a fortune....horrah G&T's all round.....
Nice thinking...how has Boeing and Airbus and BA and VS, CX, QF, NZ got it so wrong all these years.....
I note Rananin hasn't replied to my post of the 20th so I have taken the liberty of rewording his post of the same date....
"I don't fly the -400, nor am I familiar with the manner in which US carriers operate them, however I reckon that in the States, the Captain would have had his ticket pulled...blah..blah...unsubstantiated rhetoric...shallow comments blah....
Doncha just love folks who post a diatribe and then finish with "this thread has run its course".....if its run its course why are you posting???
