|
For some reason it looks smaller than I remember...
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
I love the 787, but it looks awful in the United livery for some reason. Yuck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
A Ford Tri-Motor in the area tomorrow? Why yes, I'll go check it out. Pictures sometime tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
I love how the 78's wing design is so bird like. Nature got it right first time, millions of years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
Also, will the merged AMR and UA be called "American Airways" or is that just too perfect?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Also, will the merged AMR and UA be called "American Airways" or is that just too perfect? It'll be called "Chapter Seven Liquidation" knowing how both of those airlines handle any sort of integration. Here's another 787 to distract you from the clusterfuck that all Oneworld airlines are: Not that Air India is any better off  N10230 by Powercube, on Flickr Furthermore, the post merger United livery looks like poo poo on any aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
Powercube posted:It'll be called "Chapter Seven Liquidation" knowing how both of those airlines handle any sort of integration. So in CHS we have 3 of these ready for delivery, but they keep delaying taking the airplane. Both LAN and ETH took their airplanes before air India. We have a pool when they will actually take them. I'm thinking never.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
So I've been wondering, how is the market varied enough for the 737, 767, 777, and 787, plus all the Airbus two engine jets? Also what is Boeing going to name their planes after the 797?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:I love the 787, but it looks awful in the United livery for some reason. Yuck. That's because the new United livery is awful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
PatrickBateman posted:So in CHS we have 3 of these ready for delivery, but they keep delaying taking the airplane. Both LAN and ETH took their airplanes before air India. We have a pool when they will actually take them. I'm thinking never. It will be never at this rate. They were supposed to be delivered yesterday, but then some obscure bureaucrat blocked the sale due to lack of bribe. When you remember that AI wants to sell their 77Ls and Ws; aircraft they need to carry VFR traffic, and instead focus on extremely high density 787s that can carry less than two thirds the pax. You know they are terminally hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Aquila posted:So I've been wondering, how is the market varied enough for the 737, 767, 777, and 787, plus all the Airbus two engine jets? Also what is Boeing going to name their planes after the 797? Well, the 787 was originally going to be 7E7, and the replacement for the 727 was going to be 7J7, so I guess they'll just resurrect the idea of using letters as the middle 'digit'. As for market variation, the boeing planes don't really compete with each other, although there is, naturally, some overlap at the extreme edges of the range vs capacity graph for each, especially between the 757 and 737, or the 787 vs 777-200LR, but there are usually obvious choices depending on your expected passenger density on a specific route (If you have a lower passenger density but need ~9000nm range, then the 787 is going to win, but if you have a higher density, then the 777-200LR might be a better choice, at the expense of fuel economy). As for airbus vs boeing, sadly it's pretty much boiled down to nationalism/'sticking it to the US' in most cases .
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:That's because the new United livery is awful. I suppose that depends on how much of a continental fan you were *shrug*. Personally, I've found all of united liveries except the rising blue/blue tulip and 90's grey/blue to be ugly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:I suppose that depends on how much of a continental fan you were *shrug*. Personally, I've found all of united liveries except the rising blue/blue tulip and 90's grey/blue to be ugly. I'm a huge CO fan, but I always thought the globe was lackluster. Give me back the gold and meatballs of varying colours depending on profitability drat it! I am, however, suspicious of anyone who disliked the UA Saul Bass livery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Well, the 787 was originally going to be 7E7, and the replacement for the 727 was going to be 7J7, so I guess they'll just resurrect the idea of using letters as the middle 'digit'. Boeing only gives letter desingators to product studies and development projects only; once they are approved for sale they get a traditional three-number designator. As for overlap, Boeing and Airbus are usually very careful not to sell products that cannibalise sales from their respective model ranges. It does happen from time to time; the 777-300ER is probably the biggest reason why 747 sales have been so slow for the last decade or so. The same goes for A330 sales in light of the launch of the A350. As for how they compete with one another, Boeing and Airbus basically offer products that are nearly exact matches for one another. The only area where one has a product that the other doesn't is in freighters; Boeing basically has that market sewn up tight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The only area where one has a product that the other doesn't is in freighters; Boeing basically has that market sewn up tight. There are a few reasons for that and most of them are actually more to do with financing and discounts rather than aircraft superiority. The reason the A330-200F is selling like a turkey is because Airbus flat out refuses to discount it. Airbus designed the frame expecting to breathe life into an era of declining A330 sales. Instead, since they do not have the extra lines to assemble A330s faster- they'd rather sell fewer freighters to get the HGW 200s and 300s off the line as fast as possible. That, combined with huge KC-46 related incentives, is why FedEx Express went for the 767-300F. The interesting thing is that while the 747-8I is basically given away to customers as compensation for delays or cancelled orders. In Lufthansa's case, the MD-11s. The 747-8F is only sold at a pretty low discount. To make matters worse, the fuel burn on the early 747-8Fs is no better than a 400. The Cargolux 747-8s used to fly with speed taped nacelles to try and fix some of GE's issues with the bleed-air version of the GEnX. Edit: I forgot to mention how Airbus has been dragging their feet on an A330 P2F program. Other than making Akbar al Bakr lose his poo poo, no one has really cared. A330 frames are in too high demand to justify taking out of the pax fleet to use for parcel freight. That said, if Airbus doesn't make an STC- Bedek will. The last reason Boeing has the freighter market, though indirectly in this case, is because one can purchase a 747-400 for 36 million dollars. Fly it to Bedek, and get it converted for another ten- and get an aircraft that can fly almost any cargo mission a 747-8F is needed for, with only at most a 5% higher ton/mile cost and a much wider availability of parts. Powercube fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Sep 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
Powercube posted:There are a few reasons for that and most of them are actually more to do with financing and discounts rather than aircraft superiority. I agree for the most part, but I maintain that the A332F is a niche product at best. There are very few companies that wouldn't be better served by either a 763ERF or a 777F. Beyond that, I'm still surprised that Airbus seems to have no plans to slow down the A330 line after the launch of the A350. The A350 can basically be thought of as super-A330; the -800 and -900 are basically the same size as the A330-200 and -300 respectively, only they have much more favorable payload-range and fuel burn (the A350-1000 is a complete mess, so no mention of that obviously ). I can easily see the A350 doing to the A330 what the ER/LR versions of the 777 did to the rest of the 777 family. The 747-8 is kind of an interesting case; as a passenger aircraft, it doesn't make a huge amount of sense over either a 773ER on the small side and the A380 on the large side. Unless you have a very specific need for cargo capacity, the 747-8I doesn't have much of a place anywhere. That said, there is still the (limited) commonality between the -400 and the -8, plus the fact that there are a number of airlines with large fleets of 747s that need every bit of its capability. The biggest problem with -8I sales is that Boeing built a huge number of -400s in the late 1990s, and these aircraft haven't really reached retirement age just yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
Aquila posted:So I've been wondering, how is the market varied enough for the 737, 767, 777, and 787, plus all the Airbus two engine jets? Also what is Boeing going to name their planes after the 797? the 767 is an old piece of poo poo that needs to be retired, the 787 more or less replaces it. I've always wondered how the narrow body market could possibly support both the 737 and the 757. They'd be better off scrapping both and just making a universal narrow body that they can stretch or shrink depending on what the customer prefers a la 320 family.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Linedance posted:the 767 is an old piece of poo poo that needs to be retired, the 787 more or less replaces it. I've always wondered how the narrow body market could possibly support both the 737 and the 757. They'd be better off scrapping both and just making a universal narrow body that they can stretch or shrink depending on what the customer prefers a la 320 family. You do know they haven't made the 757 since 2004 right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Beyond that, I'm still surprised that Airbus seems to have no plans to slow down the A330 line after the launch of the A350. The A350 can basically be thought of as super-A330; the -800 and -900 are basically the same size as the A330-200 and -300 respectively, only they have much more favorable payload-range and fuel burn (the A350-1000 is a complete mess, so no mention of that obviously ). I can easily see the A350 doing to the A330 what the ER/LR versions of the 777 did to the rest of the 777 family. A friend in the OEM business once told me that one should look at the predicted delivery date for the AF/KL airframes to figure out why Airbus will be producing the A330 into the next decade. In his opinion, Airbus knows that they have a 787 style delay situation and their inability to offer a complete "family" of aircraft due to the clusterfuck of the A35J means that they need to focus on grabbing as much cash as they can off of the A330 line just to cover the estimated costs of the delays. Also, at least the way I was educated on the issue of A330+A350 it has a lot to do with engine SFC on shorter flights. On any flight <4000nm, apparently the A330 is the smarter choice due to lower structural weight and smaller engine diameter. Anything over that, however- is the A350's domain. The fact that Leahy has never said there will not be an A330NEO is also very telling. Regarding the A332F, I feel like I agree with you in some ways- but I still feel like there is a market due to the fact that Airbus gave me some nice presents last air show.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
Linedance posted:the 767 is an old piece of poo poo that needs to be retired, the 787 more or less replaces it. I've always wondered how the narrow body market could possibly support both the 737 and the 757. They'd be better off scrapping both and just making a universal narrow body that they can stretch or shrink depending on what the customer prefers a la 320 family. The 767 was limped along in anticipation of the KC-X program, and the 757 line shut down in 2004. With the growth in size of the 737, there was really no need for the 757 line to stay open, as the only advantage the 757 had over the 737-900 was a much longer range which not every customer needed. Supposedly, when/if Boeing gets around to doing a clean-sheet replacement for the 737 (which will be 2025 at the absolute earliest, if it ever happens), the aircraft will be in the 150 to 230 seat range, from what I understand, which would encompass the heart of the current 737 lineup, the 757 and the very lower end of the 767/787 lineup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
kill me now posted:You do know they haven't made the 757 since 2004 right? Nope, didn't know, though someone might have told me at one point. Not many operators outside the US seem to operate them. The only ones I see regularly are Turkmenistan's and AA's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Linedance posted:the 767 is an old piece of poo poo that needs to be retired, the 787 more or less replaces it. I've always wondered how the narrow body market could possibly support both the 737 and the 757. They'd be better off scrapping both and just making a universal narrow body that they can stretch or shrink depending on what the customer prefers a la 320 family. The 737 is not a narrow-body aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:The 737 is not a narrow-body aircraft. single aisle = narrow body, twin aisle = wide body. That's how it works in my neck of the woods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Linedance posted:single aisle = narrow body, twin aisle = wide body. That's how it works in my neck of the woods. And the 737 is twin-aisle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:And the 737 is twin-aisle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
737-900 cabin interior
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
MrChips posted:as the only advantage the 757 had over the 737-900 was a much longer range which not every customer needed. The 757 is also better in "hot and high" take off conditions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:The 737 is not a narrow-body aircraft. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:What the gently caress? Yeah I was wrong there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Air New Zealand (my countries carrier) is still waiting on the 787-9 that were supposed to have arrived back in 2010. Means the 767-300ER and 747-400 they're (indirectly) replacing are starting to get old.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
dissss posted:Air New Zealand (my countries carrier) is still waiting on the 787-9 that were supposed to have arrived back in 2010. I wish US carriers had a fleet that we could call "old" at 24 years. You can still find your rear end in an MD-80 here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
I thought fuel economy improvements would have made those old models uneconomical even on short haul routes? Air NZ is replacing the 737-300s (I think they have the last ones built) with A320s because fuel economy (and carbon emissions) is better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:I wish US carriers had a fleet that we could call "old" at 24 years. You can still find your rear end in an MD-80 here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Who is the U.S. market still flies MD-80s/717s? The last couple of times I've been on a route that I expected to be served by a MD-80 type aircraft (a route that was in between something best served by a regional and a route that would be best served by a 737/A320 type) I flew on an E-190. I think it's mostly just AirTran, American, and Delta, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Who is the U.S. market still flies MD-80s/717s? The last couple of times I've been on a route that I expected to be served by a MD-80 type aircraft (a route that was in between something best served by a regional and a route that would be best served by a 737/A320 type) I flew on an E-190. I think it's mostly just AirTran, American, and Delta, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Delta and American operate like 200 each of various models. It's unreal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Who is the U.S. market still flies MD-80s/717s? The last couple of times I've been on a route that I expected to be served by a MD-80 type aircraft (a route that was in between something best served by a regional and a route that would be best served by a 737/A320 type) I flew on an E-190. I think it's mostly just AirTran, American, and Delta, isn't it? Allegiant, Delta, Airtran, American and several smaller charter carriers fly the MD-80. I see a million of them a day at work. Allegiant gets them because they can buy them very cheaply and they work for the kind of flying they do. Delta has been picking up MD-90s because they have comparable trip costs to a 737-800, but they cost less. They also are picking up AirTran's 717s from Southwest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
dissss posted:I thought fuel economy improvements would have made those old models uneconomical even on short haul routes? The main reason the MD-80 series has hung around with companies like Allegiant is that they're dirt cheap to buy compared with a new airframe, and they're not quite old enough to require expensive new avionics or engines to fly in the US. Allegiant can pick up a used MD-80 for something like $4 million, compared to about $60 million for a new 737. Even though the MD-80 family aren't terribly fuel efficient compared to newer aircraft, $56 million buys a lot of jet fuel, so the aircraft can turn a profit for a low cost or charter operator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
To continue the MD-80 chat. What happened to the add on American was exploring involving leaving the reverser cowls open in flight to redirect airflow and effectively increase the bypass ratio?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Powercube posted:To continue the MD-80 chat. What happened to the add on American was exploring involving leaving the reverser cowls open in flight to redirect airflow and effectively increase the bypass ratio? http://www.dugankinetics.com/ The company apparently got approval for it, but I haven't seen anyone actually use it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 05:25
|
|