September 17, 2004 at 11:38 pm
I was at Heathrow today,making my way to T4,and parked round the back of the BA engineering hangar was a 757 Reg G-BPEE, it looked in a real mess,like the paint was discolouring (it had the Chatham historic dockyard logo), just wondering if anybody knows the history to this aircraft?
By: seahawk - 21st September 2004 at 16:59
Well at least that is trend I have noticed on other airlines as well. The older planes are not looking so good anymore. Seems like they are trying to stretch the time between a complete overhaul of the interior to the maximum. Not a BA specific problem.
By: LBARULES - 21st September 2004 at 15:16
No reply from Danair? 😀
By: Bmused55 - 21st September 2004 at 07:38
One of the best flights ive ever had was on a Air Canada 767 LHR-Calgary, almost 9hrs on a plane with 2 engines.
The 767 gave airlines a choice befor then it was operate a 747 for long haul routes or operate nothing…The 767 opened up many more options for airlines that didnt want the 747..It was economical,great payload and range. Your 4Vs2 engines debate is laughable at best…the average customer only cares about his/her plane getting them to their destination on time..and with far more realiable engines around than 20 years ago the 4Vs2 debate is really a non starter.
well said
By: Dantheman77 - 21st September 2004 at 00:27
One of the best flights ive ever had was on a Air Canada 767 LHR-Calgary, almost 9hrs on a plane with 2 engines.
The 767 gave airlines a choice befor then it was operate a 747 for long haul routes or operate nothing…The 767 opened up many more options for airlines that didnt want the 747..It was economical,great payload and range. Your 4Vs2 engines debate is laughable at best…the average customer only cares about his/her plane getting them to their destination on time..and with far more realiable engines around than 20 years ago the 4Vs2 debate is really a non starter.
By: Bmused55 - 20th September 2004 at 22:51
Sandy, that is so not true! The Airbus is way better because, because, because….stop being so Pro-Boieng, you big-pro-boeing-ist you! Yeh, you heard me….
Note : This post serves no other purpose than to make Sandy feel better 😛
LMAO
By: LBARULES - 20th September 2004 at 22:22
I bet he convienanty forgot that..
By: Bmused55 - 20th September 2004 at 22:21
You two are like a double act. The 735 is not a very old aircraft by anymeans. It was a BA operated aircraft and with that comes certain expectations like seats where the leather isnt torn. BA give good service compared to the competition but they should take more pride in the cabins!
will this view also include the 777-200LR and aircraft already capable of flying farther than the A340-500?
777’s regularly operate 10+ hour flights.
By: LBARULES - 20th September 2004 at 22:14
HAHA!!!! SO FUNNY!!! GOD YOU ARE A REAL COMDEIAN!!!
By: danairboy - 20th September 2004 at 22:06
Well, maybe it is asking a bit much for operators to replace the carpet but cleaning it wouldnt go a miss. The airlines ever heard of 1001 carpet shampoo. The cabin crew could clean it during a length turnaround! haha
By: wannabe pilot - 20th September 2004 at 22:02
Not in my opinion. The 777 does have excellent range capabilities, I said earlier, I cannot dispute the fact. However, I personally prefer 3 or 4 engines for long-haul. All this 777 and 330 nonsense. I blame the 767 that was the aircraft that started this off.
Funny how the 767 shares much, and was designed alongside your beloved 757.
By: RIPConcorde - 20th September 2004 at 22:01
Ah, the A330. Best aircraft I’ve ever flown so far.
By: Mark L - 20th September 2004 at 22:01
danairboy, there is no point writing a post based enitrely around one prejudice (fear of 2 engined aircraft) if you are not prepared to back it up with ANY fact whatsoever.
By: Mark L - 20th September 2004 at 22:00
The 737-500s were built in around 1990, and have passed through an average of 4 or 5 operators utilising the aircraft on some high density routes. The seats are likely to have been changed 1 or 2 times in the aircrafts life time, and so are hardly going to be in the same pristine condition as a 6 month old Airbus. The aircraft are likely to be retired at the end of this year, or the beginning of next year, so an entire refitting or recovering of these aircrafts interior is not something ANY airline would do, be it BA or anyone else.
By: danairboy - 20th September 2004 at 22:00
Not in my opinion. The 777 does have excellent range capabilities, I said earlier, I cannot dispute the fact. However, I personally prefer 3 or 4 engines for long-haul. All this 777 and 330 nonsense. I blame the 767 that was the aircraft that started this off.
By: LBARULES - 20th September 2004 at 21:55
Yes but they are getting rid of them. They have hard lifes, and the modern Airbuses will be an excellent replacement.
By: danairboy - 20th September 2004 at 21:53
You two are like a double act. The 735 is not a very old aircraft by anymeans. It was a BA operated aircraft and with that comes certain expectations like seats where the leather isnt torn. BA give good service compared to the competition but they should take more pride in the cabins!
By: wannabe pilot - 20th September 2004 at 21:51
I expect the interiors to be kept to a decent standard and not worn carpets and seat covers. Wisdom comes with age something you will learn as you mature LBA.
The 777 has got two engines so in my book it will always be medium-haul at best, despite its range capabilities.
If you’re so contempt at backing up your points with REAL information, could you please prove to us that the 777 is a ‘medium-hauler at best’? You may come into a slight bit of trouble when you realise the range is in the region of 7000nm or more :rolleyes:
By: LBARULES - 20th September 2004 at 21:50
Thank you Kev 🙂
By: kev35 - 20th September 2004 at 21:49
I expect the interiors to be kept to a decent standard and not worn carpets and seat covers. Wisdom comes with age something you will learn as you mature LBA.
danairboy, if wisdom comes with age, how long is it before you get any?
The airlines are there to make money. They utilise their airframes to the maximum. Why would you refurbish an aircraft you are going to replace? The one you sell will have a new interior designed by its new operator won’t it?
The airline pays for maintenance, refurbishments etc. If you want the aircraft to look really new you obviously won’t mind paying the huge increase in fair prices will you?
Regards,
kev35
By: LBARULES - 20th September 2004 at 21:44
You are talking complete rubbish, as proven by Matthews post.
The 777 a medium haul at best is one of the funniest statements ive read on this forum.