Samsonite

I've tried quite a few over the years, but always go back to the one I started with, Slackware.

Part of it, yes, but this is the latest information regarding all 3 versions of the Trent 900 as of today 14 December. it is going to be interesting to see how Singapore Air reacts to all of this as they also use the Rolls Royce engine.

Hear, hear! What distribution are you using?

Only in regard to the delays involved in getting them to market. Anything else is usually in reply to your usual fiction and half-truths. Should have kept you on ignore. But, speaking of the the Flying Citroen, it looks like Rolls really screwed the pooch on this one: "DATE:14/12/10 SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news A380 flights to Los Angeles unprofitable with Trent 900s: Qantas By Ghim-Lay Yeo Qantas Airways will not be able to operate any of its Airbus A380s profitably on the Sydney-Los Angeles route if it uses its existing Rolls-Royce Trent 900 powerplants, says the carrier in a statement of claim against the engine manufacturer. The carrier, which filed the claim in the Federal Court of Australia on 2 December, says each A380 would be able to carry only 80 passengers, instead of 450, on the route due to thrust limitations on the engines. Qantas filed the claim almost a month after one of its A380s experienced an uncontained engine failure on 4 November, resulting in an emergency landing at Singapore. The court has granted the carrier an injunction, which allows it to pursue legal action against Rolls-Royce if a commercial settlement is not possible. In its statement, Qantas alleges that it was advised by Rolls-Royce to not use any "mod B" or "mod C" Trent 900 engines if they had been operated more than 75 times at the maximum thrust level of 72,000lb. Rolls-Royce, which recommended measures to "minimise the severity of engine operation", allegedly told the carrier that earlier "mod A" engines should not be utilised at all. To keep to the thrust limitations, the carrier would have to ensure that its A380 aircraft carries a payload of no more than 30,000 kg if departing Los Angeles International Airport on runway 25L, or 20,000kg if departing the shorter 24L runway. This would make it "uncommercial" for Qantas to operate its Trent 900 powered A380s on the route as "operation at that reduced level involves a reduction in carrying capacity such that typically only 80 passengers will be able to be transported", says the airline. Before the 4 November incident prompted a grounding of Qantas' A380 fleet, a typical A380 flight operating from Los Angeles to Sydney or Melbourne carried up to 450 passengers and freight, it adds. Qantas alleges that Rolls-Royce may have been "misleading or deceptive" in its representations when it proposed its Trent 900 powerplant to the carrier. The airline says that the engine manufacturer had given the representation that "the A380 aircraft operated by Qantas could, if powered by Trent 900 engines, be operated regularly and reliably on Qantas' existing international routes (including the LAX routes) with a profitable payload and without the engines having to be replaced at any point before the end of the projected useful engine life". Qantas says that in Rolls-Royce's engine manuals for the Trent 900, the "mod A" engine was listed as having a life cycle of 2000 flight cycles, and the "mod B" 14,800 flight cycles. The "mod C" variant was believed to have an unlimited life cycle, says the carrier. Alleging that Rolls-Royce was negligent in its duties, the carrier says the engine manufacturer "ought to have known and understood that the most important aspect of the A380 aircraft economics was the payload that the A380 aircraft would be able to carry on the LAX routes". When contacted for comment, a Rolls-Royce spokeswoman says: "We continue to work closely with Qantas on operational and commercial matters but it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage." Qantas' spokesman says there is "no timeframe for when Rolls-Royce might provide further advice" regarding flights to Los Angeles. "We are keen to resume LAX flying, but will only do so once we are absolutely confident that it is safe to do so. Further information from Rolls-Royce will obviously be critical to that process," he adds." http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/...trent-900s.html "DATE:14/12/10 SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news Qantas details history of Rolls-Royce Trent 900 variants By Will Horton Qantas Airways has detailed the history of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 powerplant variants that power its Airbus A380s in the affidavit and claim it filed against the engine manufacturer in Australia's Federal Court. A Trent 900 engine experienced an uncontained engine failure on a Qantas A380 flight on 4 November. The A380 fleet's return to service after a three-week grounding has been dependent on the engine's three different modification standards. After the 4 November incident, Qantas and Rolls-Royce agreed the carrier should not operate any engines with an "A mod" high-pressure (HP)/intermediate pressure (IP) support structure, the affidavit says. Qantas can operate "B mod" and "C mod" engines, the affidavit adds. However, the engines are restricted to performing only 75 72,000lb full thrust take-offs. After that threshold has been reached, the engine requires replacement before being operated at any thrust level. Prior to the incident, seven of 24 Trent 900s on Qantas' six A380 aircraft had the original "A mod" HP/IP support structure. According to Rolls-Royce's engine manual, the life of the "A mod" HP/IP support structure is 2,000 cycles, the affidavit says. The Trent 900 engine that experienced the uncontained failure was an "A mod" powerplant, the affidavit says. In December 2007 Rolls-Royce issued a modification standard, "B mod", for the HP/IP support structure. Prior to the incident Qantas had 16 of these engines. Their life was 14,800 cycles, the affidavit says. Rolls-Royce issued the latest modification standard, "C mod", in April 2009, the affidavit says. Qantas operated at the time of the incident one such engine, which had an unlimited life cycle. The affidavit and claim do not specify what changes were made between the modification standards. Qantas' claim says Rolls-Royce is in breach of thrust specification and payload undertaking agreements. Rolls-Royce wrote to Qantas during the tender process that the "thrust availability guarantee would provide cover against an engine's inability to achieve full take-off thrust whilst on a normal revenue flight, up to 2,000 cycles", the claim says. Rolls-Royce also said a Trent 900-powered A380 could be "operated regularly and reliably on Qantas' existing international routes (including the LAX routes) with a profitable payload and without the engines having to be replaced at any point before the end of the projected useful engine life", the claim says. Last week the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it was focusing on "A mod" and "B mod" variants for having a faulty stub pipe that feeds oil to the HP/IP bearing structure. The "C mod" variant was not affected. The ATSB identified a faulty stub pipe with a misalignment causing pipe thinning as the likely cause of the uncontained failure. As a result of the finding, checks were ordered on 45 "A mod" and "B mod" Trent 900 engines, the ATSB has said. Inspections found three engines with a faulty stub pipe, including one on a Qantas A380 imminently due for arrival." http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/...0-variants.html

"Lethal Weapon."

As usual, apples and oranges. The a330, while a good airplane, doesn't compete with the B777-300ER, but with the 767. Once the 787 and 350 go into service the a330 will become "history." Airbust tried to replace the 330 with an "improved" version of the same and called it the 350, but the airlines wouldn't go for it and after 6 revisions settled on a all new composite aircraft and called it the 350xwb... or something along those lines. Construction of the 350whatitiscalledthisweek recently started and the longest composite panel was made by Spirit AeroSystems in one of their U.S. plants. Spirit AeroSystems is a former Boeing subsidiary who continues to make the fuselage for the Boeing 737 and the forward section (section 41) of the Boeing 787. "Spirit AeroSystems produces first A350 fuselage panel Spirit's new plant in Kinston, N.C., has cured a carbon fiber composite panel for the longest section of the A350 XWB's center fuselage. Posted on: 11/22/2010 Aviation Week reported on Nov. 22 that Spirit AeroSystems (Wichita, Kan., USA), production partner of Airbus’s composites-intensive A350 XWB commercial jet, has cured a carbon fiber composite panel that will make up the longest section of the new double-aisle jet's composite fuselage. Spirit is responsible for the production of the A350 center-fuselage upper and forward-lower shells, which it produces at its new facility in Kinston, N.C., USA. These panels are then shipped to Airbus’s St. Nazaire, France, plant for assembly of the center/forward fuselage and nose sections. According to the report, the 64.5-ft/19.7m long, 828-ft2/77m2 center fuselage crown panel is undergoing trimming, drilling and inspection, prior to shipping to France. The report adds that final assembly of the first A350 is due to start in less than a year in Toulouse, France. The plane will make its first flight in mid-2012 and is due to enter service with Qatar Airways in the second half of 2013." http://www.compositesworld.com/news/spirit...-fuselage-panel

"Places in the Heart."

You must have failed your accounting courses, i.e., if you took any.

Yes, "if the customers order them..." "Air France takes delivery of 777-300ER with new business class seat By Christine Boynton | December 13, 2010 Boeing on Wednesday delivered its 200th direct-delivery jetliner to Air France. The aircraft also launches AF’s new business-class seat; it is outfitted with 42 of the 78.74 in. (2 m.) -long lie-flat seat beds that include 15-in. (38cm.) IFE screens. The 383-seat GE90-115B-powered 777-300ER will operate its first commercial flight Dec. 20 and will be used on the carrier's Paris-Montreal service, as well as on Paris-Ho Chi Minh City beginning in January. "The 777 is the backbone of our long-haul fleet," AF CCO Bruno Matheu said. "This new aircraft will support Air France's projected growth on long-haul destinations and confirm the Air France-KLM Group's European leadership position on the international network." AF will be operating a total of 61 777s for the 2011 summer season, and is scheduled to take delivery of one 777F in 2011 and 11 777-300ERs through 2015." http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-comp...class-seat-1210

The price would include the "cost of goods sold," i.e., the total cost of manufacturing and delivering the product.

Apparently he should explain it to you as you obviously don't know the difference between "gross" and "net."

Well, genius, do you own a calculator? Just do the math. IF, if, after all charges, discounts, etc., the average price of a 787 was $100,000,000.00, and that would be Deep discount,... well, figure it out.... If they don't sell another 787, they would still take in a gross amount of over 84 BILLION Dollars.

Very sad to see you have gone completely "native."

Wishful thinking! Unless many countries repeal their laws designed to keep out "foreign" competition, and therefore, protect their airlines, Emirates doesn't stand a chance of filling all the aircraft they have on order with both Airbus and Boeing. Fortunately, for Boeing, they have a more diversified order book than Airbust. BTW, you didn't answer the questions. How many 787s are on order? 847 as of the end of November 2010. How many a380s has Emirates ordered? 90, isn't it? Out of 234? How about another question. How many a380s have been canceled? Twenty isn't it? Ten each from Federal Express and UPS?

Why don't you tell us the TOTAL number of orders for each aircraft? And, while you are at it, how many of those 36 for airbust were from Emirates and how many of the two hundred and 30 something of the a380 that have been sold have been ordered by Emirates? Somewhere over 40% by one airline? Think Emirates will actually take delivery of all of them? Where are they going to get the customers? Oh, that is right. Since they have airbus and, therefore, Europe by the balls, the airlines of those countries will have to grin and bear it while Emirates cannibalizes their customer base.

They are not. It is not hard to believe you know even less about the subject than cheshirepom. Emirates owns and/or has ordered, at least those bought directly from Boeing, 89 of the various models of the 777. Seventy of the 89 are 777-300ERs of which 30 were order this year. The 777 was not built to be 10 across and God has nothing to do with it. Take that up airlines like Air France who seem to care little about their passengers' comfort.

Completely relevant! Most airlines don't need or want an aircraft the size of a A380 or 747-8I which is why the 777-300ER has been so successful. The 777-300ER gives the airlines a bit less passenger capacity than a 747-400, but hauls over a 1000 cubic feet more cargo, and the money is in hauling cargo, not passengers. The A380 has little room for cargo after it is filled with the passengers' bags. The 777-300ER has almost the same range as the 747-8 or A380. It uses 2 engines instead of four like the 747 and A380, so it saves money on fuel. It weights over 100,000 pounds less than 747-400, and almost 400,000 less than an A380, so it saves even more fuel and it's reliability rate is better than 99%. It is a win-win for the airlines all the around. Oh, and by the way, the suggested typical 3-class configuration calls for 365 passengers, but some airlines, like Air France are pushing 400. In a single class configuration the 777-300ER can carry 550.

"China Moon."

Well, so far total orders for the 747-8I are, 20 to Lufthansa, 5 to Korean Air and 8 have been sold as business or vip jets. Seventy-six of the freighter version have been sold to date. The aircraft most airlines are using to replace their older 747-400s is Not the A380 or the B747-8, but the Boeing 777-300ER. Boeing has delivered more 777-300ERs in the last 6 years than airbus has accumulated orders for the A380 over the last 10 years.

To avoid that you can use a proxy such as, Tor. http://www.torproject.org/

"Natural Born Killers."

I didn't miss a thing. Obviously, you are not bright enough to have noticed the date of the article (in bold print), which in turns means, if you were up to date, you would, one, be aware I know a 'tool' had nothing to do with it, and, two, the 'tool' was not the purpose of the post (also in bold print). How can you be so incredibly dense and still function as a normal, adult human being? Oh, that's right! You don't!

Kim Cattrall.

"Monday, November 22, 2010 French Newspaper: Forgtten tool in P100 sparked fire ....there is now this from the French newspaper "Le Figaro". The article refers to a report in another French newspaper "La Tribune" about a tool being left in the panel. Click HERE to access the article in French. Click HERE for the artice in La Tribune. Below is a translation using Google Translation fro the article in Le Figaro: A foreign body may have triggered the fire that broke out Nov. 9 on a test flight of a Boeing 787, forcing since the American manufacturer to suspend his campaign test flight within 3 months delivery date official said Monday The Tribune. "A tool, forgotten in a cabinet (which is software components, ie), has caused a short circuit," according to comments from industry sources reported by the daily La Tribune. However, this would not have such consequences, notes the newspaper, noting that the entire power distribution system is at stake. The Tribune added that several manufacturers are involved, including French Zodiac, one of the subcontractors of the American Hamilton, supervisor of the electricity distribution and Boeing aircraft, Specifications and controls. And translation of the La Tribune article: Incredible as it may seem, it is a forgotten tool in a cabinet that is at the origin of the fire on 9 November that forced Boeing to halt flight testing of the B787. Although detected, the anomaly still poses problems for engineers who need to understand how to prevent it from reproducing. Among the subcontractors in the crosshairs: French Zodiac. FOD for "foreign object damage" or damage caused by foreign body. That, according to several industry sources, the triggering element of the fire that broke out Nov. 9 on a test flight of a Boeing 787, forcing since the manufacturer to suspend its test campaign flight three months after the first delivery to All Nippon Airways. "A tool, forgotten in a cabinet (which is software, components ..., ed) caused a short circuit," says Will we at The Tribune. However, this should not have such consequences. Because the whole system of power distribution, a crucial point in the plane, which is involved. "For security, everything is redundant in a plane. But the blackout that occurred in the first cabinet spread to the second, and the aircraft had to use emergency power management to ask, "say the sources. This is a small wind turbine (called the rate) that is located on the fuselage and a small generator supplying emergency power for the aircraft to land. Several manufacturers are involved in this can of worms. Including French Zodiac one of the subcontractors of the American Hamilton (subsidiary of United Technologies), supervisor of distribution of electricity in the air, and of course Boeing, Specifications and controls. The French equipment provides such components in the cabinet. Hamilton provides other. "However, you can not blame anyone for now, says one industry, as more than a problem of quality of play is a problem in the logic of management of the electrical system since the breakdown spread.... " http://nyc787.blogspot.com/2010/11/frnech-...ol-in-p100.html

Duplicate. Please delete. Thanks.