Air NZ new planes announced
Light years ahead Alby??? Ploooise
Don't get upset ol' son, as it will be "light years" from now that Lockheed will build another civilian aircraft.
l think they they may have had their little pinkies burned by something called graft and corruption in Japan all those years ago.
Good planes, bad management!?!?!
Hang on there is a probably a copyright on something like that by Air New Zealand from Fat boy?
This a nothing more than a phase, so please all, don't get too upset by it.
Airbus are banking on '4 being more' whilst Boeing are saying 'less is best'.
l think the the latter is the winner.
Ten years from now we will see what swings around........
halas
Don't get upset ol' son, as it will be "light years" from now that Lockheed will build another civilian aircraft.
l think they they may have had their little pinkies burned by something called graft and corruption in Japan all those years ago.
Good planes, bad management!?!?!
Hang on there is a probably a copyright on something like that by Air New Zealand from Fat boy?
This a nothing more than a phase, so please all, don't get too upset by it.
Airbus are banking on '4 being more' whilst Boeing are saying 'less is best'.
l think the the latter is the winner.
Ten years from now we will see what swings around........
halas
Good to be wrong.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: I've got a phat gut
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
_did I hear my name mentioned?
you're lucky crack it was a close thing. the frogs woulda been sharpening their pencils and offering truck-loads of complimentary garlic snails to get that sale.
That under-powered plastic pile of crap, if squeezed into a tall glass of ice, would produce a most refreshing citric beverage.
That under-powered plastic pile of crap, if squeezed into a tall glass of ice, would produce a most refreshing citric beverage.
Those who are speculating about B777-300ER's being purchased in the future to replace the B744's as they retire - have you thought about the fact that GE stitched up an exclusive deal to power the B777-300ER and B777-200LR. If the 300ER was on the cards, I would have thought that they would have specified the GE90 engine to power the 200ER's that they have ordered so that they would have some comonality (especially as Air NZ have been a fan of GE high bypass engines for many years- eg DC10's). I believe that they ordered the RR donk because the 2 Trent 800's are 4.3 tonnes lighter than 2 GE90's and that equates to a lot more payload on every long sector.
Then again, who knows what Air NZ management will do in the future. GB
Then again, who knows what Air NZ management will do in the future. GB
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crack mate, keep smoking it. You wouldn't have 777s if it wasn't for Airbus competition. You'd still be plying round in the 100 series of Boeing everything while Boeing fed you the "EFIS is bad - you loose your scan" bullsh*t. Or the "two engines in a wide body is too inherently unsafe for the public to want to fly on it" (Boeings preA300 drivel)
Best one was "Airbus will be gone by '75, they'll be lucky to get 5% of the market"
And as for the limp wrist, have you seen the cockpit mockups of the 7E7 with the side stick.
Didn't think so.
halas if you seriously think in technology terms the classic 747 was even remotely near the L 1011 you have been borrowing something from crack. It had an autoland system and a level of redundancy that is still as good as better than anything out there.
Lockheed in Japan was decades ago. Have a look at Boeing NOW with the tanker scandal. It'll be broken up, military from commercial, by the end of next year. Then we'll see who's been surviving on subsidies and creative accounting.
I agree that Boeing will probably put pressure on the FAA to go well over 200 min with ETOPS (they don't have a 4 eng aircraft to compete) but with 3 ETOPS Eng failures on the 777 with US carriers within a month I think it could get ugly.
The next two years will be interesting. What about the new 172 now with inertia reel seatbelts and Fuel injection as the big upgrades from '65. State of the art or what. Those Americans and their technology.
Best one was "Airbus will be gone by '75, they'll be lucky to get 5% of the market"
And as for the limp wrist, have you seen the cockpit mockups of the 7E7 with the side stick.
Didn't think so.
halas if you seriously think in technology terms the classic 747 was even remotely near the L 1011 you have been borrowing something from crack. It had an autoland system and a level of redundancy that is still as good as better than anything out there.
Lockheed in Japan was decades ago. Have a look at Boeing NOW with the tanker scandal. It'll be broken up, military from commercial, by the end of next year. Then we'll see who's been surviving on subsidies and creative accounting.
I agree that Boeing will probably put pressure on the FAA to go well over 200 min with ETOPS (they don't have a 4 eng aircraft to compete) but with 3 ETOPS Eng failures on the 777 with US carriers within a month I think it could get ugly.
The next two years will be interesting. What about the new 172 now with inertia reel seatbelts and Fuel injection as the big upgrades from '65. State of the art or what. Those Americans and their technology.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Sofa
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Camomile Anyone?
Geez stillalbacore have a herbal tea or something will ya?!
The gentle mocking of Airbus/Boeing products has been going on for ages - lighten up.
Anyway, I'd suggest you're in possession of the same facts & quantity of as most others on this forum ie those available from (somebody else's) opinion pieces in Oz Aviation, Flight International & the like.
Since you do seem to be an authority though, how will the mooted 7e7/777 cross qualification (read common cockpit)work if one has a sidestick the other a traditional (read man' s
) yoke. Would they consider this a significant difference? I would.
Re ETOPS, isn't it due to be replaced by LROPS soon? 2 engines or 6 it aint going to matter soon.
thump
ps: all opinions expressed are the result of extensive magazine subscriptions!
The gentle mocking of Airbus/Boeing products has been going on for ages - lighten up.
Anyway, I'd suggest you're in possession of the same facts & quantity of as most others on this forum ie those available from (somebody else's) opinion pieces in Oz Aviation, Flight International & the like. Since you do seem to be an authority though, how will the mooted 7e7/777 cross qualification (read common cockpit)work if one has a sidestick the other a traditional (read man' s
) yoke. Would they consider this a significant difference? I would.Re ETOPS, isn't it due to be replaced by LROPS soon? 2 engines or 6 it aint going to matter soon.
thump
ps: all opinions expressed are the result of extensive magazine subscriptions!
Wherefore Art I?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near the pointy end... But not TOO near...
Age: 56
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gotta add a few things here, just 'cause some people seem to be taking this WAAAAAY too personally.
Alb, this goes mostly toward what you said (although the Boeing/Airbus debate will rage until one buys out the other):
To hold up US Airways's opting for Airbus products is a mistake. US is almost out of business, mainly through mismanagement and poor decisions. Every mainline US Airways flight I've been on has had something mechanical going wrong (both Boeing and Airbus). Same with NW. Their A330s are as bad as their A320s comfort-wise. I'd much rather fly Delta's Boeings than NW's Airbuses (And I hate Delta).
The other thing goes toward the 7E7 sidestick mockup. Have you seen the "t-tail" version of the 767? 'Cause that's the way it was originally drawn up (grew up just outside Seattle, with friends from Boeing). How about the mockups of the Sonic Cruiser? Just because you see the mockup doesn't make it a reality. Besides, Boeing already announced the 7E7 would have the usual Boeing column (or as someone would say, "a real man has something between his legs,").
One thing we do agree about, though, is that the L1011 was/is one of the greatest aircraft in the world. I only had the chance to fly on a few of them before they disappeared from the domestic skies of the USA, but every flight was a joy. And the SOUND of those turbofans was incredible...
RD
Alb, this goes mostly toward what you said (although the Boeing/Airbus debate will rage until one buys out the other):
To hold up US Airways's opting for Airbus products is a mistake. US is almost out of business, mainly through mismanagement and poor decisions. Every mainline US Airways flight I've been on has had something mechanical going wrong (both Boeing and Airbus). Same with NW. Their A330s are as bad as their A320s comfort-wise. I'd much rather fly Delta's Boeings than NW's Airbuses (And I hate Delta).
The other thing goes toward the 7E7 sidestick mockup. Have you seen the "t-tail" version of the 767? 'Cause that's the way it was originally drawn up (grew up just outside Seattle, with friends from Boeing). How about the mockups of the Sonic Cruiser? Just because you see the mockup doesn't make it a reality. Besides, Boeing already announced the 7E7 would have the usual Boeing column (or as someone would say, "a real man has something between his legs,").
One thing we do agree about, though, is that the L1011 was/is one of the greatest aircraft in the world. I only had the chance to fly on a few of them before they disappeared from the domestic skies of the USA, but every flight was a joy. And the SOUND of those turbofans was incredible...
RD
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GoingBoeing,
of the 42 options announced by AirNZ, it is believed 17 are for 773ERs. Their 744s are dual powered(GE,RR), so they may be happy appeasing as many engine manufacturers as possible. RR may also have offered a very good deal for their 7E7/772ER powerplants.
of the 42 options announced by AirNZ, it is believed 17 are for 773ERs. Their 744s are dual powered(GE,RR), so they may be happy appeasing as many engine manufacturers as possible. RR may also have offered a very good deal for their 7E7/772ER powerplants.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stillalbatross, yip - Lockheed built a good widebody. However the fact remains that Airbus suck. Thank god the chaps at Air NZ saw past the french discount and went for the real deal. The bean counters will of course be happy in the long run when the properly built aircraft save them sh#tloads on maintanance. It's unfortunate the fleet has already been tarnished with 320s, perhaps a lesson will be learned.
It amazes me the ignorance that some display on this forum with this Airbus v Boeing (my p***s is longer than yours) debate crap. The outfit I fly for operates both. We bought Airbus 330/340 and B777 at around the same time. Both have excellence dispatch reliability with the oldest now ten years old. A few engineers of Australian/ New Zealand and South African origin live near me and look after these aircraft. I have been told by a number of them that the bus is no worse or better that the Boeing product and that their overall durability appears the same. This must all be true, as my airline has just made another purchase of more aircraft from both camps. Knowing how my airline works and thinks they would most certainly not purchase any more of a particular aircraft if it were crap.
“Ditto” on the L-1011. By far the best aircraft ever built. Would leave anything that was ever built by Boeing or Airbus for dead. It’s only down fall was its empty weight and the fact it only came with one engine selection.
“Ditto” on the L-1011. By far the best aircraft ever built. Would leave anything that was ever built by Boeing or Airbus for dead. It’s only down fall was its empty weight and the fact it only came with one engine selection.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404, i don't think it's anything more than a bit of a debate. I don't mind either aircraft but there seems to bee a feeling amongst those that don't have any experience with Airbus that it is a cr*p aircraft and all the world should buy Boeing always. So if I can occasionally show that Airbus aren't as bad as some who have absolutely no experience with the aircraft make out then I'll be happy to do so.
Cloudcutter, unfortunately airbus makes a product that makes it's operators money. If everyone wanted to fly on old 767s because they last so long then my taxpayer money wouldn't be propping up a little airline from downunder. And KPMG wouldn't be releasing reports saying AirNZ is dead if it doesn't get a fleet replacement underway.
And Phat Boy, if you can read then take a look at the performance figures (climb gradients etc) for 777 vs 330, any variants of each. Performance wise the 330 is ahead. Early 340 wasn't as good but they went with the max thrust available on the CFMs at the time. Now if Boeing had been making a longer 737 at the time as plenty of operators had been asking instead of saying "we're Boeing - you buy what we give you" then there would have been a CFM with more thrust and a history of reliability to strap on to the early 340s. That all changed when Airbus offered the A321.
Cloudcutter, unfortunately airbus makes a product that makes it's operators money. If everyone wanted to fly on old 767s because they last so long then my taxpayer money wouldn't be propping up a little airline from downunder. And KPMG wouldn't be releasing reports saying AirNZ is dead if it doesn't get a fleet replacement underway.
And Phat Boy, if you can read then take a look at the performance figures (climb gradients etc) for 777 vs 330, any variants of each. Performance wise the 330 is ahead. Early 340 wasn't as good but they went with the max thrust available on the CFMs at the time. Now if Boeing had been making a longer 737 at the time as plenty of operators had been asking instead of saying "we're Boeing - you buy what we give you" then there would have been a CFM with more thrust and a history of reliability to strap on to the early 340s. That all changed when Airbus offered the A321.
Last edited by stillalbatross; 11th Jun 2004 at 04:46.
