Samsonite

Tom, Competiton is good. Definitely benefited the American car buyer. Guess we will have to wait and see how it all "washes out" in the market place. BTW, is there an English slang to American English dictionary available? "chuffed"????????????? Yes, a 777-200ER, 200LR, 300ER, and a 747-400 could easily make that range. The 777-300...er.....maybe...... Probably not enough business from Manchester to warrant using a 747.

Yes, FedEx and UPS have both placed orders. FedEx wants it, but UPS wanted out of a deal to buy, I think it was, the A300F and Airbus refused, but made them a deal to take their deposit money and apply it toward a purchase of the A380. Also, according to the article I mentioned above, companies like FedEx and UPS are just two of a few types of companies, if not the only types of companies, to which the A380 as a freigher would appeal, due to the type of cargo they transport. Let's see if I can find that thread...hang on.... http://www.airliners.net/discussions/gener...d.main/2229364/ Here from one contributor: "...The A380F is limited to less than 8. lb/cu ft by Airbus' own numbers so that even though you have all this great volume, the amount of payload you can actually carry is limited by the lower density. Further, even with this lower density, the A380F does have a slight over-all payload advantage over the 747-Adv by about 6.5 tonnes, the problem is this comes at the cost of 80 tonnes higher OEW. And that's weight that you fly around every day, every flight regardless of if you are able to fill it to capacity and take advantage of the slightly higher 6.5 tonne payload. Bottom line...my view is the A380F has some serious short-comings as a main-line freighter. It does pretty good as a package carrier where you can maximize usable volume with containers. And the package carriers ( FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc...) all tend to max out on volume before they max out on weight. Kind of makes sense of who's making a sizable investment in the A380F - only FedEx and UPS (and UPS even somewhat unwillingly!!)." And from another contributor: "It's hard to say whether UPS would have ordered the A380F if they didn't have this huge unfilled order for A300Fs for which they had paid deposits that they no longer wanted. UPS worked out a deal where they move the deposits for A300Fs over to the A380F and cancel 37 A300Fs." The actual press release on the UPS purchase was posted in this thread and the language was not what you might call, "warm and fuzzy." Airbus created a market for the A380, where a market didn't exist. Several years ago Boeing announced a stretched version of the 747, what they called at that time the, "747 X." No one stepped forward to place any orders, so the project was canceled. Airbus can afford to build on spec as they are financially supported by Spain, France, Germany, and Britain. Boeing cannot afford to build an airplane until they have firm orders in hand. Of course, there is the argument that Boeing is supported by the U.S. Govt. by defense contracts, but as Boeing is the major aerospace contractor, the field of possible winners of a contract is quite narrow. Apples and oranges. Now that Airbus has built the A380 and sold it by wheeling and dealing, but not enough yet to cover the cost of development, and their customer base has been able to see it and determine if it is suitable for their needs, several of the airlines have approached Boeing and asked them to build the "747 Advanced." Boeing's marketing research says there isn't a big enough market for the A380. They think the market lies in longer range smaller jets, 777-200ERs and LRs, 777-300s and 300ERs, and the 787, which will fly directly to passenger preferred designations without having to go through a "hub." The current surge in Boeing sales may prove them to be correct. A group at Northwestern (?) did a study on the market for the A380, which Boeing paid for, and the results, which they claim were not influenced by Boeing's pocket book, showed the A380 will lose 8 Billion dollars over it useful lifespan. It other words it will never pay for its development cost, and then some.

In room safes?

I was reading a long discussion on the merits, or lack thereof, of the A380 as a freighter (http://www.luchtzak.be) and was surprised to learn the design does not lend itself well to that purpose. It would appear that the 747F remains the preferred large commerical cargo aircraft.

The 747 Advanced: Looks like it is just a matter of time before Boeing makes it official. If I remember correctly the passenger version will be stretched about 12 feet and the freighter version approximately 17 feet. BOEING FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF NEXT GENERATION AIRCRAFT Luxembourg, 20th July 2005. - The Board of Directors of Cargolux has authorized Management to enter into negotiations with Boeing for the procurement of a minimum of 10 Boeing B747 Advanced Freighters (ADV F) for delivery beginning as of 2009. The Board decision is the culmination of a thorough and lengthy selection process. For some time, Cargolux had encouraged aircraft and engine manufacturers to build a new generation aircraft offering better economics and environmental protection. More recently, Cargolux had launched an in-depth analysis of all factors relevant to the decision, leading to the selection of a successor aircraft to the B747-400F currently operated by the company. The B747-ADV freighter will combine state-of-the-art airframe and engine technology. Environmentally, this aircraft will meet all future noise limitations and assure lowest emissions and allow Cargolux to maintain its profitability in an environment marked by very high fuel prices. Cargolux President and CEO Uli Ogiermann stated: “ Management’s recommendation to the Board is the result of a very thorough analysis during which we assessed which aircraft was best suited to our fleet renewal in the next decade. The fact that we enter into negotiations with the Boeing company is based purely on commercial considerations, supported by the environmental benefits the B747-ADV F offers.” http://www.cargolux.com/press/press-release.htm

Go to the airlines home site or site for the country from which you want to fly. Most of the airline web sites have a link at the top of the page for their other sites, e.g., on the Singapore Air site, top right hand corner of the page you will see a link that says, "Country/Region." Click on that and there you go.

More and More The Sabai Lodge looks to be, IMHO, the ultimate compromise of comfort, security (in room safes), quality, staff, price, and reasonable location.

Great pictures of the 747-400. I was surprised that China Air, when ordering these aircraft didn't buy the 747-400ER (extended range). They have the "Boeing Signature Interior" which is modeled after the 777 interior. From the Boeing web site at, http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archi...ber/i_bitn.html Dated December 2004: "Boeing unveils China Airlines 747-400 in distinctive livery The newest Boeing 747-400 gleams in the sun after leaving the company's Everett, Wash., paint facility last month. Destined for delivery to Taiwan-based China Airlines, the 747-400 features a unique promotional paint scheme. Combining Boeing's new dynamic blue-and-white livery with China Airlines' traditional plum blossom tail marking, the special limited-time design symbolizes the strong relationship between the two companies. The airplane is the first 747-400 with the Boeing Signature Interior, which provides unrivaled comfort for airline passengers. China Airlines will take delivery of the new airplane early this month." **************** Also, from: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q4/nr_041207h.html dated 7 December 2004, "EVERETT, Dec. 7, 2004 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today delivered to China Airlines a unique 747-400 featuring a distinctive blended paint design and the Boeing Signature Interior. The exterior of China Airlines' 14th 747-400 combines the airline's plum blossom tail image with Boeing's new blue commercial airplane livery. The award-winning interior is designed to make passengers as comfortable as possible on intercontinental flights. The cabin features ambient lighting and larger overhead stowage bins that open downward for convenient loading. It also has a high ceiling that provides passengers a roomier, open environment. ...................................................................................................." **************** "Dreamliner" is, I believe, and I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, the marketing name Boeing uses for its forthcoming 787/7E7.

There are many things taken into consideration when making up the schedules, some of which cannot be known at the time they are printed. Tailwinds, headwinds, congestion at the airport (availability of a gate), etc., etc., etc. For example, if a plane is leaving late for, whatever reasons, and is parked at the gate your plane has been assigned to use upon arrival, your pilot might just slow down a little so the gate is free by they time you arrive. Once a plane I was on left 30 minutes late, but still managed to arrive 20 minutes early. Some call it the "fudge factor," and no, not that kind of "fudge" I'm sure others have similar names for it.

echster, Here is a little more on the Boeing 777-200LR and Qantas. It has a error or two, but pretty much along the lines of what you said on the subject. From today's Sydney Morning Herald" "Forget spending hours in Qantas's transit lounges. At last, non-stop flights between Sydney and London could be reality - but only if Boeing can persuade the national carrier to buy its newest plane. Boeing's latest aircraft, the 777-200 long range, flies in to Sydney today, and the aircraft manufacturer has a clear agenda. It must sell this jet to Qantas or risk surrendering to its nemesis, Airbus. Qantas is one of three leading international airlines (the others are Emirates and Singapore) to order 12 of the new super jets, the double-decker 500-seat Airbus A380. The plane will revolutionise air travel. The A380, the biggest advance in commercial air travel since Boeing's 747 about 30 years ago, was due to enter service early next year, but it has been delayed by at least six months. But despite its commercial appeal, the A380 will not provide Qantas with what it calls the "holy grail" of air travel: non-stop flights between Sydney and London, or between Sydney and New York. The A380 may allow Qantas to increase the number of passengers it carries into congested airports such as Heathrow, but the Boeing jet would avoid stops in hubs such as Singapore or Bangkok. The 777-200LR was first slated as a London to Sydney direct option, with the reverse route unlikely because of tail winds. But it is understood that Boeing is close to improving its new jet's range. A spokeswoman for Qantas, Jodie Taylor, said that the airline was looking at Boeing's long-haul options as it would with all new aircraft. But it is understood that Qantas is looking at the 777-200LR with renewed interest. Pakistan International Airlines was the first airline to order the jet, followed by Eva Air. The new Boeing aircraft will arrive from Singapore this morning, but it is expected to completed its first record-breaking 24-hour flight in September. Source: Sydney Morning Herald"

Just about. The first 747-100 entered commercial service with PanAm in January 1970, and the last of that series was delivered to Japan Airlines in Sept. 1986. The 747-200 entered service in June 1971, and 393 were built before the last one was delivered 1991. Many of the 747-200 passenger versions have been converted to freighters. The 747-300 entered service in March 1983 and the last one was delivered in Sept. 1990. 747-400, the current series, entered service in January 1989, the cargo version in 1993, the ER (extended range) version both passenger and cargo, in November 2002. They are now considering building a new "747 Advanced." As of May of 2004, Boeing had delivered 1,356 747s. I don't know how many have been ordered and/or delivered between May of '04 and June of '05, but as of June there were 25 firm orders for new 747s, and since then I've read of at least 6 new orders. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family...pf_400back.html http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/background.html

I once flew Singapore to NRT on a JAL 747-400D, D for domestic. It is a "special" version built for Japan Airlines with the understanding, according to Boeing, that it would NOT be flown outside of the Islands of Japan. It is a total cattle car that seats 568 in the smallest seats I've ever seen on an aircraft. It was one of, no it was, the worst travel experience of my life. I'm a BIG FAN of the 747-400, but not the "D". ;-)

Thx echster, that told me what I wanted to know, 17 1/2 hours. Depending on the layover time at LAX, plus the flight to LAX (one hour) the overall flight time will probably work out to be the same as flying SFO to BKK and making the connection in TPE, HKG, or NRT. Plus LAX is a pain in the ass to get around. Think I might skip this "adventure." I do however, like the schedule. Arriving in BKK at 07:00 has its appeal, provided you can check into your hotel that early. Of course, if you are going straight on to PYX, that is even better.

echster, Thank you for all the good information. Do you know the scheduled flight time between LAX and BKK? MIGHT be worth jumping on a shuttle to LA to catch this flight.

echster, I agree with you on the 777-200LR and the following chart at the Boeing web site, http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html shows that Sydney to London is within its range of 9,420 nautical miles (10,840 miles). A friend of mine, "in the business," told me TG is broke and really cannot afford to be buying any new aircraft, Airbus or Boeing. True or not, I really don't know.

Great picture. Thanks.

It will probably be at least another year before we see the new A380 enter commercial service and the first few are scheduled to go to Singapore Air. In this case they are talking the A340-500 or 340-600, which can use conventional airport facilities. Maybe Boeing will get lucky and by the time Thai Air can make the purchase, they will choose the Boeing 777-200LR instead.

It was a year ago this month that I took some Thai/American friends to the airport for their trip "home." They said they were flying AA, but when we got to the check-in counter it turned out they were actually on a "code share" flight with Japan Airlines.

According to the tech specifications on the Boeing web site, the 747-400 is slightly faster than the 777, flying at .855 of Mach at 35,000 feet vs .84 of Mach at the same altitude for the 777. Sounds small, but makes a difference on a long trip.

Is AA actually flying these routes or are they using a "code share" program with an Asian airline?

Anything is possible. I have always heard that the airlines pick the seats and the plane manufacturer installs them, BUT, I was just on Boeing's web site reading about their new 777-200LR "Worldliner" and they make a point about their seats being "more comfortable" than those used by Airbus. Of the two 777-200LRs that started flight testing this last March, one is being used for PR puproses and a section of the plane has been outfitted with "Airbus seats" so a direct comparison can be made by prospective buyers. I Found that interesting as I have always thought that Airbus somehow manages to put the seats even closer together than they already are on Boeing aircraft. While I have always been a big fan of the 747-400, I've found the 777-200 to be a more comfortable plane. At least the ones used by Korean Air. Many of the older 747-400s are now being refurbished with a 777 style interior which I believe is called, "The Boeing Signature Interior." Also, soon a decision will be made on whether or not to build a new advanced version of the 747-400 using the technology they have developed for the forthcoming 787/7E7. Appropriately, as of the moment, this new 747 will be called the "747 Advanced."

Where are you making the connection to China Air and what airline will you be using to get there? Terminal One a CKS/Taipei airport sucks. Worst airport I've seen in years. That is the bad news. The good news is, as of January of this year, flights from and to the U.S. arrive and depart at the new Terminal Two. Night and Day difference between the two terminals. Also, you use to have to walk clear across the old terminal, but China Air has gates near to a small "train" that connects the two terminals. So, it is a "relatively" short walk from the gate at Terminal 2 to the train and from the train to your gate in Terminal 1. A tremendous improvement over the old "system." China Air has made great improvements to their safety record in the last couple of years. You might want to go to: http://www.airsafe.com and check for yourself.

FINALLY!!! Maybe now one can fly Singapore Air from SFO or LAX to Tokyo and then directly on to BKK without being routed through Singapore. From SIA's web site: Singapore Airlines To Launch Bangkok To Tokyo Service 27 June 2005 From September 2005, Singapore Airlines will launch a six-times weekly direct service between Bangkok and Tokyo. For customers travelling between Singapore and Tokyo, they now have the option to stopover in Bangkok before proceeding with their onward travel. SQ996 will depart Singapore at 2035hrs and arrive in Bangkok at 2200hrs for a one-hour stopover. The flight will continue at 2300hrs and arrive in Tokyo the following morning at 0655hrs. In the reverse direction, SQ995 will depart Tokyo at 0925hrs and arrive in Bangkok at 1335hrs. The flight will depart Bangkok at 1435hrs and arrive in Singapore at 1800hrs on the same day. In addition to this six-times weekly flight, Singapore Airlines also operates two direct flights daily (SQ12 and SQ998, SQ11 and SQ997) between Singapore and Tokyo.

Where are you staying in BKK? At the end of Sukhumvit, Soi 11, on the West side of the street are two buidlings perpendicular to the street and facing each other with a parking lot in between. "The Bed" restaurant/bar is across the street. In front of the building on the north side of the parking lot are usually a few relatively new Volvos and a sign advertising taxi service to the airport, Pattaya, etc. 1,000 THB, one way. Excellent service. You can also arrange to have them pick up up and take you back to BKK or directly to the airport.

Echster, Thank you for the information!