Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[BigDUSA 71]

I think we've been over this before but Concorde was an absolute cash-cow for British Airways.

 

I guess that's why BA and Air France dumped it because they were making so much money and if I remember correctly didn't they spend a ton of money upgrading shortly before they stop flying it?

[nidnoyham 30]

Each time I have been on a taxying aircraft at LHR when Concorde was about to take off, the pilot made an announcemant on the P.A for passengers to look out of the window to watch.

 

On BA flights to New York taxying at the same time as it took off, the pilot would announce 3 1/2 hours out-

" The Concorde you saw taking off at Heathrow, has just landed in New York " They, were half way there.

 

To watch that 'plane getting airbourne at dusk, banking to the right, with the pure white exhausts glowing, would send a shiver down my spine.

 

It was like my love life, noisy- but quick.

Edited August 29, 2007 by nidnoyham

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Each time I have been on a taxying aircraft at LHR when Concorde was about to take off, the pilot made an announcemant on the P.A for passengers to look out of the window to watch.

 

On BA flights to New York taxying at the same time as it took off, the pilot would announce 3 1/2 hours out-

" The Concorde you saw taking off at Heathrow, has just landed in New York " They, were half way there.

 

To watch that 'plane getting airbourne at dusk, banking to the right, with the pure white exhausts glowing, would send a shiver down my spine.

 

It was like my love life, noisy- but quick.

 

I think it was also the likely cause of so many accidents on that section of the M25 between the M3 and M4.

 

Maybe we should start a Concorde appreciation thread.

Edited August 29, 2007 by CheshireTom

[TheFiend 1,181]

I guess that's why BA and Air France dumped it because they were making so much money and if I remember correctly didn't they spend a ton of money upgrading shortly before they stop flying it?

 

After the Paris crash which was caused by a punctured fuel tank, modifications were made to prevent a repeat... but they had lost the majority of the customer base by the time it returned to service. Meetings via webcam and other technology cut down the number of people requiring rapid transport across the Atlantic for business purposes.

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

 

Concorde, what a plane !!! Will be talked about thousands of years after thr 787 is forgotten.

[joekicker 53]

Hi,

 

Concorde, what a plane !!! Will be talked about thousands of years after thr 787 is forgotten.

 

Wow, you're going to be around, too? That's great. I know people who have just given up on being here in thousands of years from now, the losers.

Edited August 31, 2007 by joekicker

[nidnoyham 30]

I think it was also the likely cause of so many accidents on that section of the M25 between the M3 and M4.

 

 

Or it could have been the fumes from Perry Oaks sewage works, when the wind was from the S.E.

[Emil 0]

Ask yourself, will either of these aircraft get me to LOS quicker- cheaper- more comfortably ? If they can tick all three boxes, I might get a bit more exited about them.

 

Maybe not for you but it could for us in the states in the future. The 787 is a smaller plane than the 747 so it will be easier to fill than the larger 747 on direct flights to LOS. Currently I fly out of San Francisco to Nariata where I then have to wait a few hours for my connection to Bangkok. While the 747 out of SFO is full only about a 1/3 are continueing to LOS. The 747 out of Narita to LOS is full as it now has the PAXs from the LA and Seattle flights on board. With the smaller 787 the predictions are that we will have non stops (eliminating the hub and spoke method) from LA, SFO and Seattle to Bangkok thus eliminating the connection time and allowing the aircraft to fly a direct route. Thus reducing my trip time around 3 or 4 hours. With one less stop and eliminating the landing fees at Narita, flying a direct route thus saving on fuel, and if the maintenance fees are lower on this type of aircraft then it should be ceaper for me. I can't comment on comfort as I haven't flown on a 787, but if I'm spending less time on the aircraft then I should experience some advantage in confort.

[Sa-teef 44]

"Concorde, what a plane !!! Will be talked about thousands of years after thr 787 is forgotten."

 

If you want to fly supersonic at least do it with something that has teeth.

 

Top Gun Trailer

 

If there is reincarnation, I wanna fly planes off ships on the next go 'round.

 

And try to remember the next time you see those 19 and 20 year old sailors on the streets of Pattaya that some of 'em do this stuff for a livin'................

 

 

~Sa-teef

 

Edit:

 

If that's not enough testosterone poisoning for you, the Kenny Loggins video is good.

And way better in divx. The codec only takes a minute to load if you don't have it already:

 

Kenny Loggins- Danger Zone

Edited September 1, 2007 by Sa-teef

[TheFiend 1,181]

I can't comment on comfort as I haven't flown on a 787

 

Nobody has flown on one yet!!!

Edited September 1, 2007 by TheFiend

[eltib 54]

I think it was also the likely cause of so many accidents on that section of the M25 between the M3 and M4.

 

That was because of a crappy DC10 falling apart on the Paris runway.

 

Maybe we should start a Concorde appreciation thread.

 

I agree

 

 

Maybe not for you but it could for us in the states in the future. The 787 is a smaller plane than the 747 so it will be easier to fill than the larger 747 on direct flights to LOS. Currently I fly out of San Francisco to Nariata where I then have to wait a few hours for my connection to Bangkok. While the 747 out of SFO is full only about a 1/3 are continueing to LOS. The 747 out of Narita to LOS is full as it now has the PAXs from the LA and Seattle flights on board. With the smaller 787 the predictions are that we will have non stops (eliminating the hub and spoke method) from LA, SFO and Seattle to Bangkok thus eliminating the connection time and allowing the aircraft to fly a direct route. Thus reducing my trip time around 3 or 4 hours. With one less stop and eliminating the landing fees at Narita, flying a direct route thus saving on fuel, and if the maintenance fees are lower on this type of aircraft then it should be ceaper for me. I can't comment on comfort as I haven't flown on a 787, but if I'm spending less time on the aircraft then I should experience some advantage in confort.

 

Do you actually think that there will be daily flights to LOS on the 787? Just look at Thai Airways. They cut back A340-500 nonstop service from LAX to BKK from 5 days to 3 days weekly, because they couldn't fill the planes. I still say the airlines will still use the 787 to hub airports, and not point to point. Except maybe on shorter routes. But definitely not on the long haul ones.

The 787 will actually have less range capacity than the 777-200LR.

Edited September 1, 2007 by eltib

[Eneukman 1]

Maybe not for you but it could for us in the states in the future. The 787 is a smaller plane than the 747 so it will be easier to fill than the larger 747 on direct flights to LOS. Currently I fly out of San Francisco to Nariata where I then have to wait a few hours for my connection to Bangkok. While the 747 out of SFO is full only about a 1/3 are continueing to LOS. The 747 out of Narita to LOS is full as it now has the PAXs from the LA and Seattle flights on board. With the smaller 787 the predictions are that we will have non stops (eliminating the hub and spoke method) from LA, SFO and Seattle to Bangkok thus eliminating the connection time and allowing the aircraft to fly a direct route. Thus reducing my trip time around 3 or 4 hours. With one less stop and eliminating the landing fees at Narita, flying a direct route thus saving on fuel, and if the maintenance fees are lower on this type of aircraft then it should be ceaper for me. I can't comment on comfort as I haven't flown on a 787, but if I'm spending less time on the aircraft then I should experience some advantage in confort.

 

Whilst that may work to some people's advantage, there are still many of us who have no choice but to take a connecting flight to a larger airport. Somehow, I don't see any airline starting a direct flight to Bangkok from either Edinburgh or Glasgow. When I go back home, I have no alternative but to fly to somewhere like Amsterdam ot heathrow and fly on to Edinburgh from there. I have no real wish to fly to Glasgow, as I will be staying on the east coast of Scotland and I would have to get into the centre of Glasgow and take 2 trains before being picked up and driven the last 15 miles or so. Flying to Edinburgh, I can take the airport bus into the centre of Edinburgh, cross the road to the station and take just one train.

 

Alan

[Sa-teef 44]

Do you actually think that there will be daily flights to LOS on the 787? Just look at Thai Airways. They cut back A340-500 nonstop service from LAX to BKK from 5 days to 3 days weekly, because they couldn't fill the planes. I still say the airlines will still use the 787 to hub airports, and not point to point. Except maybe on shorter routes. But definitely not on the long haul ones.

The 787 will actually have less range capacity than the 777-200LR.

 

Try to remember that's Thai Airways.

The same guys who can't back-up a A380 "loaner" without dinging the wing!

 

Banging up a superjumbo

 

US west coast to Asia is a big market, and it would seem to me it's ideal for a point to point with the 787.

 

 

~Sa-teef

[BigDUSA 71]

I've flown with Thai out of LAX and JFK. Plane was always full.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

With the smaller 787 the predictions are that we will have non stops (eliminating the hub and spoke method) from LA, SFO and Seattle to Bangkok thus eliminating the connection time and allowing the aircraft to fly a direct route.

 

Can the 787 do BKK non-stop from continental US with a viable payload? It would have to be double-crewed for starters. Which airline that has ordered the aircraft has plans to do the routes? As far as I know there is only Continental of the US carriers that has ordered the long-range variant up to now that could do the route.

[Emil 0]

Can the 787 do BKK non-stop from continental US with a viable payload? It would have to be double-crewed for starters. Which airline that has ordered the aircraft has plans to do the routes? As far as I know there is only Continental of the US carriers that has ordered the long-range variant up to now that could do the route.

 

 

Tom,

 

I acquire just under 8K miles when I fly SFO to Narita and then to BKK which I don't believe is the most direct route. I read an article that said when the 787 is configured in 3 classes it will carry about 260 PAXs up to 9700 miles. Since 9-11, the major US carriers with the exception of Southwest suffered financially and are just now recovering. Maybe thats why they haven't placed any orders.

 

US west coast to Asia is a big market, and it would seem to me it's ideal for a point to point with the 787.

~Sa-teef

 

and they wouldn't necessarily have to rely on all paxs making LOS their final destination. From there you could have some of the paxs making connections to Cambodia, Viet Nam or other countries.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Tom,

 

I acquire just under 8K miles when I fly SFO to Narita and then to BKK which I don't believe is the most direct route. I read an article that said when the 787 is configured in 3 classes it will carry about 260 PAXs up to 9700 miles. Since 9-11, the major US carriers with the exception of Southwest suffered financially and are just now recovering. Maybe thats why they haven't placed any orders.

and they wouldn't necessarily have to rely on all paxs making LOS their final destination. From there you could have some of the paxs making connections to Cambodia, Viet Nam or other countries.

 

Emil,

 

You are correct. That said, I think both Hong Kong and Singapore will have a higher priority than BKK purely because of the number of premium fare pax.

 

I don't get the bit about onward connections though. Surely the whole point of point-to-point is that you don't have connections. SFO/LAX to BKK with connecting pax sounds awfully like a typical hub-to-hub operation.

[Emil 0]

I don't get the bit about onward connections though. Surely the whole point of point-to-point is that you don't have connections. SFO/LAX to BKK with connecting pax sounds awfully like a typical hub-to-hub operation.

 

It is but with 1 less connection (I'm talking about the little countries like Laos, Cambodia, etc.) and in my view less is always better when we're talking about connections.

 

BTW how many miles or flying time before you need a backup crew?

Edited September 1, 2007 by Emil

[CheshireTom 1,377]

It is but with 1 less connection (I'm talking about the little countries like Laos, Cambodia, etc.) and in my view less is always better when we're talking about connections.

 

BTW how many miles or flying time before you need a backup crew?

 

The regulations are extremely complex but basically I think that an extended duty period, including pre-flight planning, with an augmented crew is around 16 hours. The Thai and SQ A345s operate with augmented crews i.e. they can take rest periods of minimum 3 hours that doesn't count towards duty time ............ or something along those lines. Flying westabout (i.e. from the westcoast US to SEA) is so long that the airline would then lose the whole augmented crew for a good few rest days.

 

I'm sure Mango will have the answer.

 

Anyway, back to the subject of the thread .......... from Scally's favourite publication .....

 

Boeing may acknowledge further 787 delays next week

By Dominic Gates

 

Seattle Times aerospace reporter

 

Boeing is expected to announce Wednesday a further delay in the first flight of its 787 Dreamliner jet — one that could push that milestone into late October or beyond, according to a person close to the program.

 

Almost eight weeks after the jet rolled out with great fanfare in Everett, mechanics are still working to finish the airplane's structure, which was partly dismantled after the July 8 rollout ceremony.

 

Replacing thousands of temporary fasteners with permanent ones has taken longer than anticipated, and the installation of wiring and other systems has hardly begun, according to the source.

[Samsonite 181]

Key word is "may."

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Key word is "may."

 

Very true although I don't think it's any big deal if it does get moved back as long as the entry into service date ain't affected.

Edited September 2, 2007 by CheshireTom

[MrMango 667]

I'm sure Mango will have the answer.

This may surprise you, but I don't have a clue. I have never flown for a Airline.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Early September, if not before.

 

 

So now that BigD's prediction of August's first flight has, as normal, come to nought we now have the second contestand, Mr Scally, with his prediction ....................

[joekicker 53]

So now that BigD's prediction of August's first flight has, as normal, come to nought we now have the second contestand, Mr Scally, with his prediction .................... grin

 

Not sure what anyone "contributing" here can do about it, one way or another. For any fact-lovers that might be around, the best, most-informative reporting I have seen at this particular stage is here:

 

http://flightblogger.blogspot.com/2007/08/...unities-on.html

[CheshireTom 1,377]

See what can happen when the engineering team talks to the manufacturing team.

 

Judging by the state of the braking system during rollout you might wonder what they've actually been talking about .......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure what anyone "contributing" here can do about it, one way or another. For any fact-lovers that might be around, the best, most-informative reporting I have seen at this particular stage is here:

 

http://flightblogger.blogspot.com/2007/08/...unities-on.html

 

Joe,

 

The guy that does the blog has a very good reputation and has been spot on with his previous articles so I would think that the article is a pretty fair assessment of where things are.