Samsonite

Post a picture of your legs and let us run a poll on whether or not you should buy a long or short AirBus cheerleader skirt. To get back on Topic, i.e., the Boeing 787, here is a very interesting, IMHO, article about the company that makes the molds for the 787 fuelage. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boei..._janicki17.html

In both cases these were not New orders. Qantas converted eight of its 12 options and that was announced in October. Singapore Air firmed up a follow-on order for nine additional A380s announced this last July.

Looks like you already have the correct number. Under the old system the mobile numbers were 9 digits including the first zero. So assuming your 7 digit number was, 285-6xxx, and the prefix was 05, for a total of 9 digits, you new number would be as you have it above, 085-285-6xxx. On the following conversion list an "old" prefix of 08 or 085 is not listed. http://www.thailand-uk.com/phones/10digitmobile.php

Interesting, but I haven't found anything on the Internet that supports the theory that the Boeing 777 is inherently unstable. Can you please provide a link to this information. Again I can find nothing that supports your claim, but I did find this, "Boeing and Airbus differ in their FBW philosophies. In Airbus aircraft, the computer always retains ultimate control and will not permit the pilot to fly outside the normal flight envelope. In a Boeing 777, the pilot can override the system, allowing the plane to be flown outside this envelope in emergencies." Which is consistent with Boeing's known application of FBW technology. If you can provide documentation to the contrary I would like to read it. Thank you.

Once again you jump in and dazzle us with your painfully obvious lack of knowledge on the subject. Boggles the mind.

Thoughtful response. The original 747, as were all planes before it and many after, was designed the "old fashion way" with paper, pencils, and slide rules. It was designed in the mid 1960s and I not sure if even primitive CAD was available at that time. Anyone know? The PC sitting on your desktop or even your laptop, is many, many times more powerful than the mainframe computers of that time. The 777, designed almost 25 years later, was the first airliner designed totally on a computer and a prototype was not built. It went straight from the computer to production. Over the years Boeing has converted most, if not all, of the both the 747 and 737 engineering to digital and each new series has all the latest available technology built into them, e.g., new wing designs, engines, latest avionics (flight controls), etc., etc., etc.

You took it as a bet. I was using the definition number 2, below. I still think there is a good chance the project will be canceled. If it were a private company, not, by extension, a "government department" they never would have started the A380. At this point, without an additional major influx of government (taxpayer's) money, they won't be able to do both the A380 and the A350. If they pull the A380 out of Hamburg there will be major political fallout between the Germans and the French. The odds are not strongly in your favor. odds (ŏdz) pl.n. 1. A certain number of points given beforehand to a weaker side in a contest to equalize the chances of all participants. 2. a. The ratio of the probability of an event's occurring to the probability of its not occurring. b. The likelihood of the occurrence of one thing rather than the occurrence of another thing, as in a contest: The odds are that she will get the nomination on the first ballot. 3. Games. A ratio expressing the amount by which the stake of one bettor differs from that of an opposing bettor. 4. An amount or a degree by which one thing exceeds or falls short of another: won the contest by considerable odds.

Noon to 16:00 depending on the girl and what time you arrived back at the hotel the night before. Also, a Long Time means you get to go boom boom again in the morning. If you have a late night and get back to the hotel at 03:00 and the girl tries to leave at 06:00, then she has tried to turn a Long Time into a Short Time and should be paid the Short Time rate. If she refuses to go boom boom again in the morning she shouldn't be paid the Long Time Rate.

So, you want me to put up $5,000.00US, on a bet that "sometime" as in "anytime" in the future, Airbus will finally deliver an A380? Maybe not next year, maybe not even in 2008, but anytime they get around to it? Not a chance. You should shave your legs and get some You would make a great bar-girl.

Money is not the issue, but you might want to read this before you put any real money on the table: http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/index.ph...mp;#entry411019

The first A380 is suppose to be delived to Singapore Air in October of 2007, almost 2 years late. How nice of you Tom to allow them to be late again. I sure the people at Airbus appreciate your approval and will take you up on your kind offer. Hub, Tom stopped responding when I answered his question on the structure (ownership) of Airbus/EADS. During the recent fiasco it was revealed by the press that 63%, almost two thirds of Airbus/EADS, is owned and controlled by the various governments involved and their surrogates. In the near future you will see that figure rise both on the German and French sides of the ledger. Ah, Tom, now we get down to it as you reveal your true political agenda. You're a Socialist? So it is Socialism vs. Capitalism in your view? "...taxpayers money is meant to be squandered on military aircraft..." Loosely put, Yes! A resounding YES! I wouldn't expect you to have read it, but if one were to read the U.S. Constitution, you would find that (Oh, My Buddha! ) the U.S. is a Capitalist country, not a Socialist country and I make no apologies for that. None what so F***ing ever!!!!!!!!!!!!! The U.S. Government is suppose to provide for the protection of our country and our interest. It was NEVER intended for it to become a socialist welfare state as have so many of our European Allies.

CheshireTom wrote: >The wings and fuselage sections are being built in Japan/Italy > before being transhipped to the US; something Boeing has not > done before. 787 fuselage and wing assemblies are being made in Wichita, Kansas and Chareston, South Carolina, U.S. A., and Italy and Japan. In Japan, Mitusbishi Heavy Industries and Fuji Heavy Industries are working on wing sections. They started putting the first wing box together last June. In Italy they are building, I think, two (maybe more) of the fuselage barrels. I know the first barrel containing the cockpit is being made in Wichita. > I'll take USD 5k at evens on the aircraft being finished and > delivered. Sure you can afford to lose that much?

Simply not true. Lockheed, which is still in business, and McDonnell/Douglas could not afford to sell aircraft at a loss. They have to make a profit to stay in business. Something some people willingly overlook in the Boeing vs. Airbus debate. With Airbus allegedly selling at a lost to gain a foothold in the market, Lockheed bowed out of the commercial market and M/D became so financially weak, Boeing took them over. M/D's early troubles with the DC-10 didn't help. As to the old BULLSHIT about Boeing getting government subsidies, it is just that, a tired worthless rebuttal in an effort to obfuscate Airbus' own practices. Of course Boeing gets government contracts. They are, among other things, a defense contractor, but those projects and contracts are audited. They are NOT give aways program designed to surreptitiously finance Boeing's commercial projects. Pure European Union propaganda. I'll give Airbus that. They are public about not being able to fund their own projects. A private company would simply not be able to start a project they couldn't afford, could they? Here is a novel idea: They could earn and save enough money from the sale of their current products to be able to fund a new project. Sounds like basic econ 101, doesn't it. Anyone want to take odds on whether or not the A380 is delayed again or not? How about whether or not the project is actually finished and delivered? How about whether or not Airbus is even in business a year or two from now? There is a good chance that the fighting between the various governments involved, but mainly the French and Germans, bitter enemies for centuries, could scuttle the company.

I agree it is being marketed as a "super hub aircraft," but that was not the question I was addressing, which was, "Is it revolutionary?" No. As to cargo, the reviews I've read said the design doesn't lend itself well to cargo applications. It would work well for light weight, but high volume, such as UPS or FedEx, who both ordered it, but just recently FedEx canceled their A380 order and bought Boeing 777-200 Freighters instead. Emirates and ILFC have both converted their A380 Freighter orders to the passenger version and ILFC has deferred delivery of their A380s to at least 2013. That leaves UPS as the only A380 Freighter customer. Virgin Atlantic has also deferred delivery of their A380s until 2013 and has extended leases on several 747-400s to compensate. Their A380s originally were scheduled to arrive in 2009. Looks like some airlines are taking a "wait and see" attitude and that is really all we can do. Wait and see if the A380 proves itself. You are correct, the airlines determine how the interior is designed, i.e., what type of seats and how they are spaced, carpets, colors, inflight entertainment, etc., etc., etc. However, they are some of us who would still know the difference regardless of how the interior is outfitted. No. See below. If Airbus had not come on as it did, as a government supported and controlled entity, that recent events have proven it to be, and who undercut the market to get a foothold (because it wasn't necessary to make a profit as France, Germany, Spain and the UK were paying the bills), there is a very good chance that Lockheed and McDonnell/Douglas would still be building commercial airliners.

The only person in these aviation threads who has repeatedly displayed his stunning lack on knowledge on the subject is none other than yourself, Wacky. BTW, no one is comparing the 767 as you stated or the 787 to the A380. What I said is the A380 is not a revolutionary aircraft, but the 787 is just that, revolutionary. Size, markets, routes, etc., has little to nothing to do with it.

One more time Wacky, the A380 is evolutionary it is NOT revolutionary in anyway, shape, or form, regardless of the hype you seem so eager to swallow, hook, line and sinker. Other than size there is nothing being done on the A380 that hasn't been done somewhere else before. Hell, if you put the fuselage side by side with a 747 it is not much bigger than the 747, but it has the full upper deck and, of course, to carry the weight, it has larger wings and a larger tail wing assembly. The Boeing 787 IS a revolutionary plane. It cannot be described as anything else as it is the FIRST commercial aircraft to have a completely composite fuselage, made as one piece (each barrel) as opposed to the traditional aluminum frame and panel "skin" used on all previous commercial aircraft. Oh, and BTW, did you know the A380 is not inherently stable? It is not unstable, but it is not stable. What that means is it cannot be flown without the computers doing some of the work. This has been done with military fighter aircraft, but it has never been done with a commercial aircraft carrying passengers. With Boeing aircraft, the pilot has the last word and can take control away from the computer. With the A380 the pilot cannot fly the plane without the computer. Given Airbus' record with their early fly-by-wire system, I'll wait a while before getting on a A380...if they are ever delivered. The latest in a story involving their "Launch customer," “There comes a point where, if you can’t build it and deliver it, then [even though] the technical capability may be brilliant, it is just no good to anyone.” Story here, http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Document....90-723D94CDFF8F

Where is your bar located?

Funny Butt should we be taking about this aspect of her business in a public forum.

Ever sent your good clients a Christmas card or a little gift on their birthday or anniversary? Same thing. She is ensuring "customer loyalty."

Good One!

He could take that flight the night of the 25th and get the maximum amount of time available to him on the ground in LOS.

The Sportsman on Soi 6 closes at 11:00 or 11:30PM. We all have different taste, but of the all the places I've had breakfast in Pattaya I like the The Sportsman best.

The Chok Dee Bar, a beer bar and restaurant on Soi 6/1, has good Thai food. If you don't see the sign it is right next door to The StarLight Bar. If you are walking down Soi 6 from Second Road, turn left at the first alleyway past the Queen Vic and The Starlight Bar is dead ahead. The Chok Dee Bar will be to your right.

Exactly the same thing happened to me while using the ATM near the Beach Road entrance to The Royal Garden Plaza. As you described, a hand came over my shoulder and, like you, I knocked his hand away and he backed off. I would say he was Indian. I haven't been able to get anything smaller than a 1,000 Baht note out of an ATM in Thailand in at least 3 years. Of course I gave up trying sometime ago and haven't tried every machine I've used.

Given the cost of fuel that is very interesting as the A340 is a notorious gas hog. Maybe it has something to do with the average number of passengers per flight vs the distance flown, yada, yada, yada..... If they start doing this out of their other U.S. departure points I'll have to find another airline. OTOH, they pack their Boeing 747-400s out of SFO and LAX. I was just yesterday looking at fares and there isn't a seat available, at the time I looked, for almost the entire month of December out of SFO. I don't know if calling them direct would result in a different outcome as their web site is not the best..... Good luck. I would think out of Seattle the fare would be down under $700.00 before tax for that time of the year, but then, again, it might have to do with a lower number of passengers flying out of Seattle. Who knows what magical formulas they use when calculating airfares.