BigDUSA

He probably was told "not to rock the boat". Thanks to Ms Cosgrove for taking action.

I've eaten at the PBG many times and the food has always been very good. Sometimes it takes a fairly long time to get it served but I find the beer to be cold and the free lancers to be more then OK to fill my time. BTW excellent coffee is served.

I've been to the water park a few times and as others have said. It's good fun for the afternoon. Don't eat at the hotel. The food is not good. I would suggust the Thai seafood restaurant at the very end of Beach Road, Jomtiem.

The Boeing 787 is still way above the break even point. Airbus is still way below the break even point. One could even say the EU Taxpayer Airbus.

Interesting first post. I hope you will become a regular participant on this forum.

Boeing May Win in Orders as Airbus Waffles on A320 Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. may be headed for its first victory in aircraft orders in three years, buoyed by demand for the 737 jet as larger rival Airbus SAS defers a decision on whether to offer a new engine on its A320. Boeing booked 480 net orders through October, compared with Airbus’s 369. Chicago-based Boeing’s total includes 432 for the 737, almost twice as many as Airbus’s 217 for the A320, and was boosted by another three jets in an update last week. The 787 Dreamliner’s flight-test suspension after a fire last week spotlighted the importance of the 737, the world’s most widely flown jetliner. While the 787 has racked up record advance orders, it has lost four more than it won in 2010, and Boeing isn’t getting revenue because the first delivery is almost three years behind schedule. “The 737 is a high-volume, high-profit machine,” said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm in Fairfax, Virginia. Delivery of the 787 has been delayed six times, and Sanford C. Bernstein’s Doug Harned predicted a seventh, which he said will pressure Boeing’s earnings margins. The New York-based analyst, who rates the company’s shares “market perform,” told clients in a note last week he expects Boeing to keep boosting 737 output and post higher profits on the plane. Airlines are responding positively to Boeing’s firm signal that it will develop a new plane rather than extend the 737’s life with a new engine, said Aboulafia. Airbus has said for more than a year it wants new engines on the A320 as an interim step until the technology is ready for a replacement, without making a commitment. ‘Big Advantage’ Boeing’s stiffer stance “just might win some market share until all the confusion is cleaned up,” Aboulafia said “It’s OK to have that uncertainty for a couple of weeks, but do this all year? That’s what gives the other guy a big advantage.” Airbus, based in Toulouse, France, has held back on committing on the A320, saying it’s not sure it has the resources while engineers work on the super jumbo A380, twin- aisle A350 and A400M military transport. Chris Jones, vice president of sales for Airbus in North America, said the company intends to decide on the A320 by the end of December. He said that deliberations won’t stretch into 2011, as United Technologies Corp. Chief Executive Officer Louis Chenevert on Nov. 3 said could happen. United Technologies’ Pratt & Whitney unit makes engines for the A320. Airbus has delivered more jets than Boeing every year since 2003, making it the largest commercial-plane manufacturer. Boeing’s Preference While Boeing hasn’t officially decided on the 737 either, executives have said since at least March that they’d prefer to focus on developing a new narrow-body aircraft, the backbone of the air-travel industry, because airlines see a weak business case for the current jet with a new engine. Both the 737 and the A320 are twin-engine models that seat about 125 to 185 people. List prices for each plane range from about $65 million to $95 million, depending on the version. Boeing also has stressed this year that the 737 is still viable as it is. The plane’s fuel efficiency is set to improve by about 2 percent starting in 2011 with a group of tweaks. Engine maker CFM International, a venture of General Electric Co. and Safran SA, is smoothing out the 737 power plant’s air flow, and Boeing is reducing drag by re-engineering parts including the flashing red light on the jet’s belly. For its part, Airbus plans to offer so-called sharklets for an A320 version’s wings in 2012 to boost range and payload. About half of the airlines with 737s on order are paying to switch to the new Sky interior, delivered to the first customer two weeks ago, which draws from a decade of studies by psychologists and architects for Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner. Pushing Production With a backlog of more than 2,100 737s, Boeing has pushed production of the plane to a record 31.5 a month and plans to boost that in steps to 38 by 2013. Airbus has more than 2,200 unfilled orders for its A320, which it builds at a rate of 36 a month. Boeing executives are considering another increase, to 40 737s a month. “I can’t quote delivery positions before 2015, even at those production rates,” Boeing’s sales chief, Marlin Dailey, said at a briefing last week. “We have a brilliant airplane.” Boeing also benefits from its wide-body 777, which Aboulafia said is “low volume but it absolutely dominates the market, so it has strong profits.” Airlines don’t seem to be interested in a 737 with new engines because it would add complexity to their fleets, Nicole Piasecki, Boeing’s vice president of business development, said on Nov. 3. Different engines on the same model make maintenance more complicated. ‘Bread and Butter’ “There are virtually no customers I can name off the top of my head, throughout their executive suites, that are pushing us to re-engine,” Piasecki said. “Right now, there is so much demand for the 737 and 777 that our primary focus, after delivering the 787 and 747-8, is getting production up.” The 737 is Boeing’s “bread and butter,” in Piasecki’s words. The company needs the jet’s steady revenue stream to fund other projects, especially amid the 787’s three-year setback. Boeing will decide “within the next several months” on what to do with both the 737 and the 777, which will be threatened by Airbus’s A350, Jim Albaugh, president of the company’s commercial-airplanes unit, said at an American Bar Association conference on Oct. 27. ‘What’s the Rush?’ “I suspect Boeing will look to a 777 replacement first, rather than the still strong-selling 737,” said Doug Runte, managing director at Piper Jaffray & Co. in New York. “If this thing is going gangbusters, and people love the airplane, and they can pump out 35 a month with their eyes closed, what’s the rush to re-engine or replace it?” Runte said. “I don’t see it.” Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. fell 13 cents to 18.03 euros in Paris trading and has gained 28 percent this year. Boeing, which dropped 11 percent last week, rose 52 cents to $63.61 at 4:01 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The U.S. company’s shares have increased 18 percent this year. Robert Stallard, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in New York, said in a report today that Boeing shareholders shouldn’t overreact to the 787 fire and recommended buying the stock. “The major driver of the Boeing stock price is the aerospace cycle,” he wrote. “With this end market still robust, we think the outlook for new orders in encouraging, and build rates are set to go higher.” Protecting Slots Airlines are expanding as the economy recovers and are placing orders for single-aisle jets now to reserve production slots, which are sold out for the next two to three years, said Howard Rubel, an analyst at Jefferies & Co. in New York. Some have contracts to let them switch to a new engine, if one ends up being offered, he said. “There are a few airlines holding out to wait and see how this all plays out,” Rubel said. “The market is still growing faster than anybody can meet it. The things that work are selling.” Airbus’s Jones said the indecision hasn’t hurt A320 sales, because it’s a matter of resource management, not credibility. He spoke in an interview Nov. 3, a day before the company narrowed Boeing’s lead by selling 50 A320s to Chinese airlines. “We’re not done with the year yet,” he said. QUOTE

Depends on the time of year, length of stay and location. I'd guesstimate anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 per month. I hope that helps.

It's been revealed that the engine that disintegrated on a Qantas Airbus A380 near Singapore last month had earlier been taken off the aircraft to fix another problem. The Australian newspaper says investigators have revealed that the engine was only refitted in February. An Australian Transport Safety Bureau report released last week shows the No 2 engine was originally fitted as the aircraft's No 4 engine but was removed last year after metal was found in a chip detector. Chip detectors are often a permanent magnet used to gather metal fragments, usually from lubrication oil. The relatively new engine had performed just 3419 flight hours and 416 landing and take-off cycles at the time. The engine was sent to a Singapore workshop certified to maintain and repair Rolls-Royce engines in September last year. Engineers found spalling in a low-pressure compressor bearing and replaced the bearing assembly. Spalling occurs when flakes break off from a larger component and is usually associated in mechanical systems with high-stress points. The low-pressure compressor is a different part of the engine than the one that failed in the dramatic Singapore incident. The repair was completed in December last year. The engine was fitted to the aircraft on February 24 and had completed a further 2895 flight hours since then, the report said. QUOTE Another week has started and the Airbus A380 problems continue to make the news.

The BIG DEAL is the European suppliers can't do the JOB they said they were able to do.

Beer, Jack/coke.

Boeing 787 is still in the test phase. Soon it will be certified for commercial service.

To the men who are reading this article: There are a lot of women who are very unhappy with you. Really. I know, because as a dating coach, I hear women tell me all the time in the most exasperated tone: “How come I never meet a nice, normal guy? Why do I only get approached by creeps?” You’ve probably heard women say this yourself. So how would you respond to them? I’m guessing it’s something like: “Nice guys are afraid of rejection, don’t want to bother you when you’re out, and are generally more concerned with the consequences of being embarrassed than with actually meeting you.” It may be true, but, as truth goes, it’s a pretty sad state of affairs. What’s easy to forget is that most women want to be approached by you. By not approaching them, you’re letting them down and allowing the creeps to take their shot. Follow these lessons and the next time you’re out, maybe you’ll prove that nice guys don’t finish last. Lesson #1: Assume the answer is yes Have you ever been sold a product before? Hair tonic, a car, bathroom tile? I can guarantee you that the salesperson didn’t pitch you by saying, “Um, excuse me… I hate to bother you… would you be interested in… I mean, probably not, but—” No! Any salesman worth his commission is not just selling confidence in his product, but confidence in himself. “Confidence says I’m bright, I’m likeable, women have liked me in the past, I’m comfortable in my own skin,” says Victor, 38, a real estate broker. “Since she has to make a decision on the spot, confidence through nonverbal communication makes the best impression.” You can even “fake it ’til you make it” through these two very simple means: Smile and maintain eye contact. And remember: If you don’t know that you’re worth talking to, how would she know? Browse Local Singles at Match.com on Yahoo! Lesson #2: It’s not about you I’m out at a big Hollywood scene with beautiful people. It’s getting late, towards the end of the night, and I ask my buddy Terrance which woman he’s got his eye on. He points to an attractive brunette talking to a cute blonde across the courtyard. Slightly bemused, I tell him that I will make the introduction. As I stride over, I rationalize that if my approach doesn’t go well, she’s not really rejecting me, but rather, Terrance. I know this isn’t true, but it gets me going. I arrive while the women are in mid-conversation. I say nothing for a few seconds and when they both look at me, I chime in: “You guys just keep talking. I’ll interrupt when I’ve got something interesting to contribute.” And that was it. It wasn’t a line. It wasn’t planned. It just happened. After three minutes, Terrance came over, I made the introductions, and we both got phone numbers. The moral of the story? Playing my little conversational trick in all pick-up situations can be really helpful. Just ask any married friend how easy it is to talk with women when you know that there are no stakes involved. If it’s not about you, you can’t possibly fail. Lesson #3: There’s power in numbers Believe it or not, three is better than one. When you approach a woman who is by herself, she knows that you’re hitting on her based solely on your attraction to her. This increases the pressure in a way that doesn’t always make for a comfortable situation. That’s why the safest way to meet a woman is to approach her in a crowd of her friends. Now there’s no pressure, because nobody knows who you’re hitting on, and you can just be the friendly guy who’s chatting with everybody. “If you’re charming, funny or bright,” says Charles, 36, “she might find herself interested in you before you’ve expressed interest in her.” This tilts things in your favor, even to the point where you might be in control. “By charming her friends and getting their approval, the one you like will be that much more open when you ask her out,” adds Charles. Lesson #4: It’s just that easy If you ever doubt how simple it can be to meet a woman, this story should inspire you: I was at a party with some close friends and saw an acquaintance across the room. Late 30s, attractive, friendly, likeable. We’d met probably four times before through a mutual friend who was also at the party. When our eyes met, I smiled at her. She smiled back. Because it was a large and crowded room, I put out my index finger and beckoned her to come over to me. She sort of did a double take, smiled even more broadly and came right over. “Hi,” I said, warmly. “Hi,” she said, blankly. Then it hit me. “You have no idea who I am,” I said. “None whatsoever,” she replied. “It’s Evan. Evan Katz.” “Oh, yes — we’ve met! You cut your hair. I didn’t even recognize you.” She gave me a hug. But I had one more important question to ask her before we continued talking. “Is it really that easy to get a woman to talk to you… just by calling her over with your finger?” She took a second to consider the evidence and replied, “Apparently, it is.” So there you have it. We men have more power than we even realized. Lesson #5: The outcome doesn’t matter Maybe you’re not her type. Maybe she’s just out of a relationship. Maybe she’s having troubles at work. Maybe she’s not perceptive enough to recognize your worth. You never know why someone may not be interested in you. Truthfully, it doesn’t matter. It’s more diminishing to your self-esteem to let fear run your life than it is to get rejected. Here’s one story below that showcases this in a big way. So I was in the checkout line at the grocery store, and I was waiting for a woman with 400 coupons. In the meantime, I was talking to the tall, raven-haired cutie behind me. We were making jokes, laughing, passing the time. All in all, a very pleasant five minutes of my life. The coupon lady finished up. I paid for my stuff, said goodbye to my new friend and rolled my cart out the door. The second I hit the fresh air, I was kicking myself: Dummy! Why didn’t you ask for her phone number? Because I got all embarrassed what with the other people in line and the woman swiping my bar codes. Because of all the other reasons that nice guys wimp out. I decided that this would not do. I was going to wait until she came out of the supermarket and ask her out. And that’s what I did. “Hey, it was a lot of fun meeting you in there,” I said to her as she emerged with her bags. “I was wondering if you’d like to grab lunch sometime.” A big smile came across her face. “You are so cute and I couldn’t be more flattered, but I have a serious, live-in boyfriend. But I really want to thank you for asking. You totally made my day.” After she said goodbye, I went home, walking on air, so happy that I did it, instead of wishing I did it, like so many times before. It didn’t matter if she had a boyfriend or if she was lying or being polite or whatever — all that mattered was that I took a big swing at the plate and even didn’t hurt myself in the process. Evan Marc Katz is a dating coach, the founder of e-Cyrano.com and coauthor of Why You're Still Single: Things Your Friends Would Tell You If You Promised Not To Get Mad. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article courtesy of Happen magazine, www.happenmag.com. QUOTE

I use Internet Explorer. It works well.

SAS has cooks, clerks and guys in supply.

SYDNEY (AFP) – Australia's Qantas said new rules imposed after an A380 engine blast meant the 470-seat superjumbo could carry just 80 passengers to Los Angeles and was "uncommercial" on the key route. The regulations, which direct lower engine thrust, made the A380 commercially unsuitable for the trans-Pacific trip, according to legal documents filed in the carrier's case against engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce. "If Qantas is to avoid using the maximum takeoff thrust of 72,000 pounds, in accordance with a Rolls-Royce directive, on departure from Los Angeles, Qantas must ensure that any Trent 900-powered A380 aircraft carries no more than a payload of approx 30,000 kilograms on one runway or 20,000 kilograms on the other runway at Los Angeles," a Qantas spokesman told AFP on Saturday, reading from the airline's statement of claim. "The operation of the Los Angeles routes at the reduced payloads makes it uncommercial for Qantas to use a Trent 900-powered A380 on the LAX routes at all, since operation at that reduced level involves a reduction in carrying capacity so that typically only 80 passengers will be able to be transported." The statement was filed in the Federal Court on Friday in Qantas's case against Rolls-Royce, following last month's explosion of a Trent 900 engine over Indonesia which forced an A380 carrying 469 people back to Singapore. Preliminary investigations have identified a potentially "catastrophic" manufacturing defect which caused oil leakage and a fire in the engine as the likely cause of the blast. Qantas grounded all six of its A380s after the November 4 explosion and are yet to resume flying the world's largest passenger jet between Australia and Los Angeles due to the extra engine thrust required. The spokesman said the lawsuit was "just part of a legal process" to ensure Qantas was able to claim damages if negotiations with Rolls-Royce failed, and stressed that it may never end up in court. "The hope will be that compensation will be mutually agreed and negotiated," he said. A "dollar figure" was yet to be hammered out, he added. Britain's Rolls-Royce, also facing compensation demands from Airbus, has offered no comment on the Qantas legal action. QUOTE My my such a BIG airplane and it can only carry 80 passengers from LAX to SYD.

When the 787 enters commercial service, I'll be more then glad to critique Boeing for any flaws that endanger passenger lives.

I worked as a truck driver for the US Postal Service. They offered early retirement and I was able to go out when I was 44.

I'm not bashing Qantas. The pilot and crew did a tremendous job in saving the lives of all the passengers and crew aboard the crippled Airbus A380. Unfortunately for Qantas the engine explosion happened on one of their planes. I'm bashing Rolls Royce for selling engines built with piss poor quality control.

EARLY estimates of the cost of this month's Qantas A380 engine fiasco exceed $100 million. The cost to insurers of the damage to the A380 alone is expected to be about $US70m ($72.9m), according to the insurance arm of US-based Aon Group, The Australian reports. This is in addition to costs associated with business losses and disruptions that analysts predict will fall between $26.5m and $60m, after the airline grounded its A380 fleet. The A380 was damaged when a turbine disk on a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine disintegrated and sent shrapnel tearing through the wing. The debris punched a large hole through its front wing spar, a major structural component of the wing, and slammed into fuel systems, wiring and hydraulics. Qantas says it can be repaired but it is expected to take months to fix and the airline has yet to comment on the cost. Chief executive Alan Joyce told the ABC's Inside Business program that costs were "ongoing'' because four A380s remained on the ground and there were still restrictions on where the aircraft could fly. Read more at The Australian. QUOTE

As soon as he answers my question. I'll answer his........

No thread fucking. I asked the OP a question that was referenced to what he wrote.

There's a good pastry restaurant on the ground floor. I forget the name but the food is tasty.

From what I understand some BM even married one.

I hate to disillusion you but the main purpose of this forum is the sharing of information. What you payed and why you loved the Eastiny is relevant.

What rate did you pay at the Eastiny and why did you love it?