Originally Posted by geh065
Just one actually, B-HOZ.
Originally Posted by Kasompe
It's just a real shame that captain didn't just stay on the Airbus!
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.
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.
As for the 350, well, good luck with that when it is up against the 777X!
Originally Posted by Kasompe
An upgraded 777 will likely mesh composite wings with an aluminum-lithium alloy fuselage.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
Pit the the 738 against the 320 and even the most 'bus friendly numbers give the Boeing a 5% advantage.
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?
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.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
A380 wing cracks... whoops. Aren't these airplanes just a few years old?
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
predatory lending and development grants Airbus has pulled in over the years
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?
|
SWH,
All the registrations you reference are classic 747s except one. Very deceptive. You are confident that the unbuilt A350 will be more efficient than a 777X which has not even finalized its specs? Get real joker! Yes, I know the max ZFW for the A33/40. And yes, I know they can be increased. So when will we actually see one. There is no shortage of A340s available for conversion. I can't wait to see a 340F limp off the runway! The A320/737NG numbers are not questionable. The answer to your question about 50/50 split lies in the fact that the Airbus is much cheaper, but it will cost more in the long run due to lost efficiency and reliability. You can find the dispatch reliability numbers for yourself... The carbon fiber technology I was referring to is not fuselage construction but attaching the wings to that fuselage. Good luck Airbus! I understand they are hand drilling each rivet. That shouldn't take too long... Let's not pretend the A380 wing crack problem is a non-issue. It directly affects production rates and eventually all the wings will need to be fixed. This will likely result in increased time out of service. You would like to compare this to cracks on 20 year old aircraft. Ok, but I'm not sure that's a great comparison. The 748I tail tank is a non-issue. With a realistic load, it won't be used anyways. The -8I certainly would make HKG-JFK with 400 plus passengers. The question is how much cargo it would be able to take along. I suspect the limitation will be volumetric, not performance based. Just because the A380 will be doing those routes proves nothing. The question is what load they will carry into the wind coming back. I suspect it won't be pretty based on Qantas' experience. You don't deny that the A380 can't even carry its own bags on the LAX route. I'm not going to argue the whole WTO case, but let's just agree that Airbus has had heaps of help trying to get caught up with Boeing. Have they caught up? I would say no. Boeing garners a higher premium on average for its aircraft. This is why its profit margins are significantly better. |
Cxorcist, the aim of my post was merely to point out that Boeing too have been recipients of illegal funding as your original post on this thread might have led the casual observer to think that Airbus are the bad guys and Boeing are knights in shining armour, so to speak. I opened the door for you do discuss the amounts involved but I rather hoped you'd do so in a less dismissive manner - I expected better from you of all people. Be that as it may, simply because the Boeing figure is lower than the Airbus figure doesn't make it any less illegal. I had planned to go into details about the funding but swh has written a more concise summary than I might have.
Whatever the outcome of this A vs B thread, I don't get any choice in which equipment I fly and there's no pay differential between the types so I try not to get heartburn over it. Yes, Boeing make good aircraft but so do Airbus. Oh, and by the way, I haven't spoken to one Boeing pilot that truly understands VNAV whereas I've spoken to hundreds who completely understand the other brand's version thereof but hey, maybe I'm being narrow-minded. STP |
STP,
Fair enough on the subsidies. WRT VNAV, the moment I stop understanding it I revert to basic modes (which is pretty much after the initial descent). I am still pretty good at my three times tables, so it usually works out well. Cheers. |
So how many Boeing aircraft have had successful conversion programs? Well, the 72,3,4(Classic and -400),5,& 67 - count them, 7 |
Out of interest cxorcist have you ever flown an Airbus? Do you hold an aeronautical engineering degree? Are you privy to statistical information from the Engineering Department at Cx, or even worked in that Department? Have you even ever worked for the Planning and Purchasing Department?
If you're forming an opinion based on information provided by Richard Quest and trying to argue your point without having any of the credentials above, well the only clown here is really you! I am not an A verus B guy! I've flown both and they each have their pros and cons from a pilot's perspective. But I have to admit, the 330 is a great workhorse around the region. The 340 on the other hand....the sooner we get rid of them the happier I will be. |
I am not an A verus B guy! I've flown both and they each have their pros and cons from a pilot's perspective. But I have to admit, the 330 is a great workhorse around the region. The 340 on the other hand....the sooner we get rid of them the happier I will be. |
As we're all entitled to our opinions here, you're all comparing Apples to Apples, O days to Reserve Days....... bla bla!
Whatever aircraft you fly, like it or not, you'll be fatigued, overworked, underpaid, COS abused, divorced, stuck in HK forever, grumpy, and waiting for the AOA to save you. CX will buy, lease, steal BOTH brands, so suck it up and enjoy the Middle East or North America/Europe, whichever aircraft you fly!:{:{ |
The reference of the 777 to a blond is perfect. Now what would the 380 be?
|
David Puddy from Airbus recently claimed that the 350 wouldn't be more than 12 months.
|
Dragon,
Thanks for the thorough rebuke. You feel all better now? Your notion that one must belong to one of those departments to have a valid opinion really only shows that you're the clown. How would an aeronautical engineering degree help? We're not building them here. We're judging based on strengths and weaknesses. I think an Econ degree or MBA might be more useful because this is really all about money. You might be surprised how much good info can be gleaned from the CFP if you have a few other numbers like BOWs and pax carried. From there, figuring cargo weights is pretty easy. Subsequently, it is not difficult to generate a good idea of an aircrafts' capabilities throughout the network. Perhaps you should role up your long sleeves and try it some time when you can't sleep on an overnight. For the record, I never insinuated that the 330 was not a good aircraft. Clearly, it is the backbone of CX's medium range and regional operation. However, I'm not sure it will be a good converted freighter. Time will tell. In the meantime, enjoy your roster... |
cxorcist
I think an Econ degree or MBA might be more useful because this is really all about money. |
Ice,
Perhaps you've noticed... Successful airlines are not run by pilots, or aeronautical engineers. I would never argue that those backgrounds couldn't help, but they are equally likely to be harmful. At the end of the day it's all about dollars and cents, and some airplanes are better than others at generating those profits. Cheers. |
Cxorcist
Boeing is better because blah blah blah......
Both will get you from A to B. Stop flogging a dead horse |
And through the night!
|
Boeing is better because blah blah blah...... Both will get you from A to B. Stop flogging a dead horse |
As will both a Ferrari or a Kia. Doesn't mean one isn't better than the other for the driver. Though of course it is irrelevant if all your job really means to you is getting you and your passengers from A to B. As for your very lame Ferrari vs Kia argument, firstly it's not an apples with apples comparison, but let's pretend it is. When stuck in bumber to bumber traffic, I'm sure the Ferrari will do wonders with its racing gearbox and stiff clutch, whilst the Kia will really shine around the Nürburgring.:ugh: |
I've flown both types and yes, all they do is to get passengers from A to B. What else does YOUR Boeing do that makes it so special? Please do tell. |
Cxorcist
You say: However, I'm not sure it will be a good converted freighter. Time will tell. The only reason their aircraft sell is because the cost of ownership is lower than the Boeing equivalent. Using your logic, if we assess an aircraft by its cost of ownership and ability to be converted into a freighter then why are the BCFs going? I would have thought that they are owned outright (standing-by to be corrected) and they've already been turned into freighters, ergo, they must be brilliant aircraft surely? I know you were joking about VNAV but if you do use V/S or FLCH(?) from TOD then the FMC must be a TUPOS, IMHO. :) STP |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:44. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.