Thread: Big Bird Takes Off (and lands safely)
View Single Post
Old 27-04-2005, 12:12   #17
SMHarman
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Services: Cablevision
Posts: 8,305
SMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronze
SMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronze
Re: Big Bird Takes Off
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Absolutely, I'm just amazed it had the runway length
There is a lot of space down there. STN for example also has a huge long runway (for those B52s to take off from back when it was a Military base).
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior
You put body jacks under the plane and then merrily run the undercarriage up & down.
But make sure all the jacks are in place before you try this. Lufthansa wrote a 747 off last year by performing this test without one of the jacks in place, snapped the plane in two.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth
Watched it live... bit geeky, I know, but I kinda like planes, having worked for Air France a few years back.

Personally, I think that Airbus are going in the right direction in developing a supersized plane, as opposed to Boeing who are concentrating more on mid-sized planes such as the Dreamliner.
__________________

and the Government officials when they get a backhander ...not that Boeing don't get (more than) their fair share too.
They are both going in the right direction. The market needs the supersize me plane for ultralong haul and capacity constrained destinations where price sensitivity exists. The Dreamline (787) is going to compliment the 777 perfectly on US coast to coast and transatlantic routes where frequency is also a key factor. If you look at BAs schedule they fly a mixture of 744s and 777s out of JFK hourly from 6pm to 11pm. This suits the business pax perfectly as they can miss their 7pm and know they have an 8/9/10 flight to catch (and pay for the benefit). On a Tokyo > London route where departure times are constrained by arrival times and airport opening / closing hours the 380 is far better.

Re backhanders - the EU are more open about the whole process, the US provide a lot of money to the commercial airline co's through their military divisions, the 747 is a commercial offshoot of military development, wheras the 380 has been financed by explicit soft loans for the project (no claims it would make a great military freighter / transporter).
SMHarman is offline   Reply With Quote