Originally Posted by geh065
Just one actually, B-HOZ.
KAA/KAC/HOZ are history. KAB, KAD, HMD, HME, HVX, HVZ already deregistered in various forms of destruction.
Originally Posted by Kasompe
It's just a real shame that captain didn't just stay on the Airbus!
He did come from something else before the Airbus, and yes it is a shame he left. The Airbus fleet has lost a lot of very good trainers to the Boeing fleet. I see the Boeing fleet office has let some of their more robust people take different directions outside of training.
Originally Posted by Kasompe
Our first are almost twenty years old and have worked hard, yet they still fly with rarely an MEL item in the book when you turn up at the aircraft. Also, the oldest 777 and the newest ERs are basically identical in the flightdeck.....they built it right in the first place and have no need to change anything.
Come on, pull the other leg, you are up to the block 14 or so software update, it is not the same aircraft that left the factory. And the only reason Cathay still has them, nobody wants a 777 that you cannot load cargo into (even Biman Bangladesh Airlines said no to them), some bright person decided to put the small cargo doors on the early 777s.
Notice how Singapore Airlines replaced their regional and medium haul 777s with A330s ?
Originally Posted by Kasompe
Airbus can barely keep aircraft built in the same month the same.
You obviously never flown one then, they fly the same. What are these big differences you talk about ? Removing ADFs ? Location of the camera ? The style of table ? Different IFE systems ?
As for the 350, well, good luck with that when it is up against the 777X!
I do not expect the first A350 to be as good as an A350 that will came off the production line 10 years later. That is the same for any new aircraft. Even in CX there is a few tonnes difference in empty weight on the 777-300ERs, and that was a mature airframe to start with over a short production span. The A350 will still be a lot lighter, faster, and more fuel efficient than the 777 or 77X.
Originally Posted by Kasompe
An upgraded 777 will likely mesh composite wings with an aluminum-lithium alloy fuselage.
We read about that idea before, that is how Airbus initially decided to upgrade the A330 against the 787. Look how that turned out.
Originally Posted by Kasompe
Analysts are saying the bigger and more efficient 777 (it’s already the world’s biggest twin-engine jet), will stay ahead of Airbus’ planned A350 1000 in size, and possibly in efficiency.
They are doing this by playing with seat counts. They are proposing to remove a few inches of insulation from the cabin to make wider, and increase the seat count that way. Cathay would have to use the skinny 747 economy seats and 7 across in business in a 777X to take advantage of this, and you would end up flying with them empty on long haul flights like United does from EWR.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
I think the 330/40 conversion (should it ever happen) will have limited utility because the MZFW is so pathetically low.
What is the MZFW ? Can this be changed ? (I know the answer to both).
Originally Posted by cxorcist
Hence, the need for that bulbous nose wheel housing on the production A330F, which seems like a good freighter as long as you're not planning to cross the Pacific with it.
The block between the nose gear and fuselage is to make loading easier, it is not actually required, all A330s can still be loaded without it. You will notice the new 737MAX has copied the nose blister idea as well to get some additional engine clearance.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
Pit the the 738 against the 320 and even the most 'bus friendly numbers give the Boeing a 5% advantage.
5% advantage in aviation is massive, how is Airbus able to sell any ?
So how has the market got it so wrong ? Why have 30+ airlines changed from 737s to A320s ? Why did Dragon order the A320 ? Why is the market split 50/50 ? is it due to "your" numbers being "questionable" ?
Originally Posted by cxorcist
How long has it taken Airbus to even get "sharklets" on the 320?
The A320 wing is still very efficient, the sharklet upgrade is more than just a winglet, it is a series of aerodynamic modifications starting from the wing/body fairing out. With the 737MAX, Boeing will be on their 3rd wing for the type. Winglets alone actually cost fuel and payload on short sectors, that is why some 737NG operators within the same fleet have aircraft with and without winglets. They are used for different routes. The winglet in the 737NG was not actually developed by Boeing either.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
And the 787/350, well the race is on but who believes Boeing is not light years ahead in working (and patenting) carbon fiber technologies and processes.
The technology to build the one piece fuselage sections actually came from a company called North Sails, it is their 3DL composite tape layup technology used to make massive sails on a flexible mandrel that was adapted to build the fuselage barrels. They built the first composite barrel for the sonic cruiser concept, which was the technology basis for the 787. Boeing does not have a lot of composite patent technology, and they actually did not build much of the 787 in house until the bought a few of their failing suppliers out to try and get the project back on track.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
A380 wing cracks... whoops. Aren't these airplanes just a few years old?
Do you realise that every single aircraft flying has cracks in it, even brand new out of the factory ? Why have you not mention the various ADs over the years with widespread cracking found on the 747 ? The upper deck cracking has come up again this year, that was the issue of an AD back in 2005, the AD did not fix it.
If you were to actually understand the role a rib plays in the structural load path of a semi-monocoque wing construction, you would realise how much this was a media beat up. Sure they need to be fixed at some point, it will not however cause a wing to fail.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
The 777, it still has no equal after how long?
That would be why the A330-300 has replaced the 777-200 as the de-facto medium haul wide body. Singapore Airlines is in the process of replacing their 777-200 fleet with A330s on medium haul route to Australia etc. Malaysian has indicated they will be doing the same with their 777-200 fleet. Cathay has tried a number of times to offload their 777-200s as well.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
Again I'll go empirical, which airplanes can fly HKG-JFK with a full pax load and reasonable (10-20T) cargo? One (perhaps 2), the 777 and maybe the -8I.
A340/A350/A380. The 747-8I would not make it, the tail fuel tank is still not certified, Lufthansa 747-8I aircraft have it deactivated like a BCF.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
If any of you throw the A380 out there, we all know that thing would be lucky to even carry all the passenger bags on this route, much less any cargo (ref Qantas who runs a 744ER as cleanup behind the A380 to LAX if you need evidence).
The 777-300ER is even limited LAX-MEL, they are diving into NZ for fuel occasionally. The QF 744ER (which they have 6 total) only has around 300 seats in it (Cathay has more economy seats in our 744s than they have for the whole aircraft). The 744ER cargo hold has less room in it due to the additional fuel tanks. What you are talking about is not a regular occurrence.
The A380 has a lot of range over the 747-8I, and SQ have recently announced they will be upgrading their SQ1 service Hong Kong-San Francisco to A380s later this year. China Southern also plans to deploy A380s Guangzhou-Los Angeles at the same time. Routes that you have previous claimed the A380 is incapable of flying. JFK is actually shorter in terms of air nautical miles.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
With regard the the -400BCFs, this aircraft will be a cargo workhorse for generations.
There are 744BCF conversion slots available worldwide now, and 744 passenger feeder stock available at bargain basement prices (Lufthansa, Thai, Cathay, Qantas, Malaysian all trying to offload, some only 10 years old). Airlines are just not getting BCFs, Cathay is trying to get rid of them. The experiment did not work, as a freighter, they are no where as good as the 744ERFs.
Air China also has three of their BCFs they are trying to get rid of (B-2460, B-2458, B-2456).
Originally Posted by cxorcist
Half of that $5B came through NASA on "space related" research. Much of that $5B had direct defense (ie gov't) contract implications as Boeing is the third largest defense contractor in the world since acquiring MCD.
The true value of a lot of that is not known, Boeing got to keep the patents and intellectual property at zero cost as a result of that research. Boeing in percentage terms has been spends a lot less on R&D than Airbus has, the reason being they were being funded externally by the US taxpayer.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
predatory lending and development grants Airbus has pulled in over the years
Boeing benefits from them as well. They have the EXIM bank which is the US government lender that loans airlines worldwide (except in the US) the money to buy US made engines and aircraft. The WTO only looked at the relationship between the US and Europe, to have real understanding of the picture with Boeing, you need to include other countries like Japan, Korea, China, and Australia who have all subsidised Boeing civil projects. Japan for example subsidised the 787 wing development by 3 billion US dollars alone.
The main difference between the European repayable loans, and the Boeing subsidies is that the loans are being repaid, while the subsidies are not. the Japanese Government still has not be paid back a cent in the subsidies it gave on the 767 development. The WTO found the European repayable loan mechanism legal, their assessment was the interest rate being paid was below commercial rates.
The European governments today get a royalty fee for every A320 and A330 series aircraft built, even after the governments loans have been fully paid off, that is why they are so keen to participate. The governments that have supported Boeing get nothing like that.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
How many C-17s could already be in operation if the money had just been used for those instead of building this hair-brained disaster?
A large number, however the A400Ms role is not the same as the C-17, it can do a lot of things a C-17 cannot do. The same reason why most countries operate C-17s and C-130s, different aircraft, different roles.