Samsonite

Simply not true. I once lived there for over 2 years and there is a lot about the various countries I liked and admired. OTOH, I could never figure out how Paris could be such a great city when it is full of Frenchmen.

Confused yourself, again, did you? Yes, airbust has become the largest producer of commercial aircraft in recent yeards, but we were talking about the a380 flying citroen, remember? It must be hard for you to keep track of all your smoke and mirrors, and outright lies. You remind me of that old saying about lying; "If you are going to lie, you need a good memory to remember which lies you told to whom."

Why not? You and your ilk take every opportunity to knock anything and everything American. I call it the "flying citroen" because it reminds me of the old squat, toad ugly, Citroens from the 1960s. One of the ugliest cars ever made and, even IF I liked airbus, I would have to say the a380 is the ugliest jumbo airliner ever made. Well, maybe it is tied with the DC-10. I've always thought had the a380 been solely a German project it would have been a better built and a better looking aircraft. All aircraft even those well into their service cycle will have an occasional problem, including the 777 which has about a 99% reliability rate. To date 1,116 Boeing 777s have been sold and of those 822 delivered. Out of that 822, most are still in service. With that many in the air you are going to have a problem every now and then. However the number of problems with the airbus 380 are greatly out of proportion to the number in service (20), which is why, as I said in a previous post, airbus refuses to provide any hard data on their reliability, etc. Hopefully they will eventually get all kinks worked out.

How do you get up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror while shaving? Twenty aircraft is hardly a "large slice of the pie." The whole a380 project hasn't made any economical sense whatsoever. It was more out of "national" (European) pride than anything else and a major job works program. Years after the first flight and two years after the first delivery and they still are having trouble keeping the things in the air. SIA A380 returns to Paris after power failure in galley By Ghim-Lay Yeo A Singapore Airlines (SIA) Airbus A380 had to turn back to Paris on 16 December after the power went out in its galley. While the fault did not pose a safety issue, the Singapore-bound aircraft was turned back to Paris two hours into the flight because food could not be served on board, says an SIA spokesman. The 444 passengers remained on board while engineers tried to fix the problem at Paris Charles de Gaulle airport, he adds. The aircraft was later declared serviceable but by then, the flight and cabin crew had already exceeded their operating hours, says the spokesman. Arrangements were made to accommodate some passengers in hotels, while others left on other airlines. The aircraft will depart Paris today for Singapore at 12:00 GMT, says the spokesman. The incident is the latest in a series of glitches affecting the superjumbo aircraft. On 14 December, an Air France A380 bound for Paris did not take off from New York because of a fuel tank problem. On 27 November, Air France turned back a Paris-bound A380 to New York after a problem with its navigation system. Two months before that, another SIA A380 returned to Paris mid-flight after one of its four engines failed. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...-in-galley.html *************** The problem this last Monday was first said to be a fuel tank problem, then an engine problem. Who knows? It was being reported that the plane had be be flown back to airbus for repairs on 3 engines and that the Air France pilots were not qualified to do so, so airbus was going to have to fly their own pilots to New York to get the job done. All new aircraft have some "teething" problems, but, really, this late into the service life of the aircraft?! Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the first two years following the start of 747-400 deliveries, 109 were delivered to 19 different airlines. A total of 694 Boeing 747-400s, all types, were built and delivered. In the first two years after the start of deliveries of the very first 747, in December 1969, 195 Boeing 747-100s and 747-200s were delivered to 28 different airlines. Over the life of the 747 program there have been 1,523 orders and, to date, 1418 deliveries. The next generationi 747, the 747-8 will take its first flight by the second or third week of next month, January 2010. And once again, how many a380 flying citroens were delivered in the first two years? A grand total of 20.

Why didn't Mike Carriker raise the 787's landing gear? By Jon Ostrower on December 16, 2009 3:34 PM This question seems to be popping up all over and I thought it was best to try and explain why the 787's landing gear wasn't retracted immediately after takeoff. During first flights, landing gear is rarely retracted until well into the flight when it is established that everything is safe and stable on the aircraft. In case of an emergency it's one less item to worry about and and second, it creates an entirely new problem if the gear does not come back down again. The landing gear can be dropped with the help of gravity as a backup of need be, but ultimately leaving the gear down provides an additional margin of safety for the crew. That being said, the 787's landing gear was cycled once during the flight by Carriker and Neville, which they reported was successful. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/

And in the two years, plus, since the first a380 was turned over to Singapore Air, how many have been delivered? Very impressive.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner Completes First Flight All-new Boeing Airplane Touches Down Safely After 3-Hour Mission SEATTLE, Dec. 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Boeing (NYSE: BA) 787 Dreamliner took to the sky for the first time today, ushering a new era in air travel as it departed before an estimated crowd of more than 12,000 employees and guests from Paine Field in Everett, Wash. The flight marks the beginning of a flight test program that will see six airplanes flying nearly around the clock and around the globe, with the airplane's first delivery scheduled for fourth quarter 2010. The newest member of the Boeing family of commercial jetliners took off from Paine Field in Everett, Wash. at 10:27 a.m. local time. After approximately three hours, it landed at 1:33 p.m. at Seattle's Boeing Field. 787 Chief Pilot Mike Carriker and Capt. Randy Neville tested some of the airplane's systems and structures, as on-board equipment recorded and transmitted real-time data to a flight-test team at Boeing Field. After takeoff from Everett, the airplane followed a route over the east end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Capts. Carriker and Neville took the airplane to an altitude of 15,000 feet (4,572 meters) and an air speed of 180 knots, or about 207 miles (333 kilometers) per hour, customary on a first flight. "Today is truly a proud and historic day for the global team who has worked tirelessly to design and build the 787 Dreamliner - the first all-new jet airplane of the 21st century," said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of the 787 program. "We look forward to the upcoming flight test program and soon bringing groundbreaking levels of efficiency, technology and passenger comfort to airlines and the flying public." Powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines, the first Boeing 787 will be joined in the flight test program in the coming weeks and months by five other 787s, including two that will be powered by General Electric GEnx engines. The 787 Dreamliner will offer passengers a better flying experience and provide airline operators greater efficiency to better serve the point-to-point routes and additional frequencies passengers prefer. The technologically-advanced 787 will use 20 percent less fuel than today's airplanes of comparable size, provide airlines with up to 45 percent more cargo revenue capacity and present passengers with innovations that include a new interior environment with cleaner air, larger windows, more stowage space, improved lighting and other passenger-preferred conveniences. Fifty-five customers around the world have ordered 840 787s, making the 787 Dreamliner the fastest-selling new commercial jetliner in history. ### http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=997

"NCIS" is of the same genre and number one on my list. "Bones" would come in second followed by "CSI Miami."

Well, I'm not sure about the taxi tests and first flight, but usually the cabin is loaded with engineers, their work stations, and all the related testing equipment. If that isn't enough they position water barrels as if they were seats with passengers to bring up the weight. I do believe they do the aborted takeoff test at the maximum takeoff weight.

I didn't say it was, but it was delivered almost two years late.

I didn't say it was, but it was delivered almost two years late.

Good One, but it probably went right over their heads.

I watched the video, but didn't time it. What impressed me was it wasn't more than a third of the way down the runway when it started to rotate.

How soon we forget. The A380 was about two years late, far more temperamental, and still, over two years after the first delivery, having problems with both manufacturing and in service reliability. So much so that Airbus refuses to release any data on the subject. You know, given their reputation for hype, smoke and mirrors, that if it was really as good as they would like it to be, it would be printed in large type and John, The Mouth, Leahy would be crowing about it at every opportunity. As previously mentioned it is over two years since the first delivery and nine, almost 10 years since the program was started, and airbust has a grand total of 202 firm orders for the A380 and have only delivered 20. Two more are scheduled to be delivered by the end of this month. Boeing has already built or have in final assembly fourteen 787s. Two are static test frames, six will be used for certification, and 6 for customers. By the time the plane is certified they will have at least 20, if not more, sitting on the tarmac waiting for delivery.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...8/pictures.html "DATE:13/12/09 SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news PICTURES & VIDEO: Boeing clears 787 to fly 15 December By Jon Ostrower Boeing has officially set 15 December at 1800 GMT (10:00 a.m. PST) for the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner after receiving final approval from the US Federal Aviation Administration, followed by the flight readiness review and successful completion of high-speed taxi tests. ZA001, the airframer's first 787 Dreamliner, spent six hours on 12 December conducting taxi tests at the company's Everett, Washington facility north of Seattle. The tests saw chief pilot Mike Carriker and engineering test pilot Randy Neville at the controls of the first majority-composite airliner, as it conducted eight runs up and down the 2746m-long (9010ft) runway, gradually building speed. The two final runs, one to the north and one to the south, saw the long-range twin-engine jetliner lift its nose off the runway before returning it gently to the runway about six seconds later. Boeing says the tests reached a top speed of 130kts, though radio transmissions between the aircraft, operating at Boeing 001 Experimental, and the Paine Field control tower discussed a top speed of 135kts achieved during the day's taxi tests. Programme officials gathered at 1430 GMT (630 PT) for the flight readiness review, say those familiar with the meeting where the aircraft was cleared to begin its high-speed taxi runs. Before the taxi tests commenced, the US FAA granted Boeing the Experimental Airworthiness Certificate for the 787, officially placing it in the Part 91 regulatory classification and clearing the aircraft to commence flight testing at a time of Boeing's choosing. The three-to-five-hour long first flight of the 787 is now entirely dependent on the weather conditions come Tuesday 15 December. Boeing policy, in general, calls for "good visibility, no standing water on the runway and gentle or no winds" at the time of first flight. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Tuesday's weather forecasts a 90% chance of rain, with a high temperature near 7C (45F). Boeing has set a target of commencing first flight of the 787 by the close of 2009, while the airframer hopes to achieve certification and first delivery to Japan's All Nippon Airways in the fourth quarter of 2010. Boeing holds 840 firm orders for the 787 Dreamliner, This number does not reflect the recently announced order for 25 787-8s for United Airlines." http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...8/pictures.html

Weather permitting:

As long as I've been making the trip Cathay Pacific, China Air, EVA, and Singapore Air have all had, and have, flights out of SFO between midnight and 02:00, which get you into BKK by late morning or early afternoon. Korean Air, Japan Airlines, and United have late morning or afternoon flights that arrive in BKK at midnight or later. Not sure about ANA or Asiana. Delta did "code share" with China Air or EVA, but they may now be using the old NWA flights that get into BKK around midnight. American "code shares" with Japan Airlines. You'll find a larger number of airlines with more frequent flights out of Los Angeles than San Francisco. Korean Air, for example, has a midnight departure, in addition to an afternoon flight, out of LAX. Thai Air doesn't service SFO, but does have a direct, non-stop flight to BKK out of LAX.

Agreed. I've tried that Starbucks on Sukhumvit, across from the Landmark three or four times and I still think, to this moment, they were serving instant coffee (nescafe to the cousins). Horrible stuff. The number of restaurants in Thailand that serve you instant coffee and charge for a "real" cup of coffee is deplorable. Even the Pig & Whistle in Pattaya serves that instant garbage. Sheesh!! There should be a law against serving that crap.

$450.00, all in, round trip from SFO back during the SARS crisis. It would have been $400.00, but it was a weekend departure.

"Air Transport DATE:09/12/09 SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news Suvarnabhumi to undergo 76.5bn baht expansion By Ghim-Lay Yeo National airports operator Airports of Thailand (AoT) plans to spend 76.5 billion baht ($2.3 billion) to expand Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi airport. This will increase the airport's capacity from 65 million passengers a year to 80 million passengers a year, says AoT. It hopes to begin construction early next year, says an AOT spokeswoman. Of the 80 million, 60 million will be international passengers while the remaining 20 million will be domestic passengers. The expansion will be adequate to accommodate passengers and air traffic volume until 2019, says AoT. "The plans includes the construction and improvement of facilities to handle continuously increasing air traffic volume in an adequate and effective manner, thereby enabling Thailand to maintain its position as South-east Asia's aviation hub," it adds. AoT says the expansion is needed because the main passenger terminal building will be congested from 2014, despite plans for a domestic passenger terminal building. In October, the AoT board approved a 9.1 billion baht baht to construct the domestic terminal building from fiscal year 2010 to 2013." http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...-expansion.html

The United order makes little sense, especially for an airline that has been in as much financial trouble as they have over the last several years. The Boeing 787 is a good replacement for their B767s, which are getting on in years, but the A350 is not, in any manner, an adequate replacement for the B747. The version of the A350 they have ordered is about the same size as B777-200, which means it will carry about 100 passengers less than a B747. Most airlines are using the B777-300ER to replace their aging 747s. So far over 400 of the 777-300ERs have been sold and over 200 delivered since it first went into service in 2004. OTOH, United is apparently planning to become a smaller airline by such a reduction in capacity. Too bad they can't find decent management that understands the business and, therefore, is capable of restoring the once good reputation of United. The management they have had for the last several years are the financial blood suckers of the same ilk that destroyed Pan Am and TWA. Oh, well, a lot can happen in the five years between now and when the first of these new aircraft are delivered.

I wonder what kind of woe the press was predicting when the aircraft manufacturers went from wood and cloth to aluminum?

K3b.