Well, I certainly HOPE they have them in Intl business class! We were actually talking about economy.
I’ve always thought that seats at the rear are more prone to the “fishtail effect.” On a 747, for sure. By the way T5, nice avatar! I was going to use that one, but opted for a little variety at the beginning and pay homage to my favourite Australian carrier that I never flew on at the same time; plus, I’m headed down there, as well.
No problem. I was aware that BA did have them, but last time I flew on a LH 744, which was 4 years ago mind you, they didn’t have them. Therefore I wasn’t sure.
So you were talking about BA, then?
Wysiwyg, indeed LAX’s 4 runways are massive, well, 3 of the 4 at least. 25R and 24L are typically used for takeoffs, and they always go to the West over the Pacific, so there are no obstacles to clear. I, myself, have never seen or experienced takeoffs to the east at LAX. The longest flight out of LAX currently is QF’s LAX-MEL flight which is 7,900+ statute miles. SIN is too far to operate a non-stop flight (The A340-500 will supposedly alleviate this problem). SIA has stops in NRT and TPE on their 2 flights to LAX. UA has stops in NRT and HKG. Either way, those 7,000+ mile flights I’m sure are fully fueled, and if they only require 75% full thrust, then so be it. They do have a lot of runway to work with. Lastly, Kabir, when I flew Singapore from SYD-SIN, it was only a 7 hour flight, which means they probably only require about half the fuel needed for a 13 hour flight to LHR, per se. They still used up quite a bit of runway. Maybe it’s airline procedure to do so.
I thought something was fishy because: 1) Condor’s “regular” 767’s are -330’s and this was was a -3Z9 or something of that nature; and 2) the model in question has Pratt’s whereas the -330’s are GE powered. So they are Lauda 767’s, that’s what I wanted to know, thank you gentlemen. I realize that I’m the only one in here that likes the new Star scheme, Saab. It is rather simple, I’ll agree there. I just like the billboard titles with the name of the airline underneath. I didn’t like the previous patchwork scheme where they had a patch of the 15 airlines across the fuselage. I thought that was horrible. I see this as an improvement. My favorite Star scheme, was the original one when it was only 6 airlines. Each part of the fuselage was painted in the livery of the 6 carriers, with the front part being the airline that owned the aircraft. I believe UA has a 763 still painted in that old Star scheme. Lastly, Condor used to have seasonal service to Vegas once a week. Do they still do that?
A 14 hour LAX-SYD flight on a fully loaded 744, I’m assuming would be pretty darn near full power on take off. The plane is pretty much shaking as it rotates. Still much smoother than the classic 747’s especially the -100’s, in particular the landings. On TWA’s 747’s in the early 80’s, it felt like we were bouncing around on the landing, untill all 18 wheels were on the ground. It’s not like that at all on the 744, or even a 743 for that matter. On a 777, you can’t even tell that you’ve landed, it’s so smooth.
Mongu, I get the occassional email from UA letting me know what’s going on, since I’m a Premier Exec member. I know that they worked out deals with all their unions, and they reduced some frequencies on various routes, even canceling others. One route I couldn’t believe they canceled altogether was the LAX-AKL run. I know they codeshare with NZ on that route already, but the 3 or 4 times I flew on that route, it was always full. Last summer, it was changed from a 744 to a 777, and they discontinued the AKL-MEL portion. It was still a full flight. UA always had high load factors on their Pacific routes, and I know first hand that they do on the SYD and AKL routes. Maybe they didn’t like the fact that the aircraft would sit on the tarmac at AKL for 12 hours, arriving at 6 a.m. and not leaving till 6 p.m. An aircraft can’t make money sitting on the ground. Then again, QF pretty much has 3 744’s sitting on the tarmac @ LAX doing the same thing on a daily basis. One of them gets to go back and forth from LAX to JFK while the other 3 basque in the SoCal sunshine. As far as their website goes, I think it’s rather easy to navigate. If you want to see some potential usefull info, on one of the columns with links on the home page, is “company information.” Click on that, and you can go to press releases, among others.
Would they be completely swallowed up, or would they still retain their identity, name, color scheme, etc.?
Softlad, why don’t you read your previous post. Are you talking about LH or BA having the PTV’s? Earlier you were saying BA had the PTV’s, now you’re saying Lufthansa. Or is it both?
They’re pretty strict in the U.S. and Australia. In the U.S., even on domestic flights, you have to show some form of I.D.(drivers’ license, passport, etc.) when you present your boarding pass at the gate.
They do, indeed, have fashion shows on their flights. Very NIIIIIICE to say the least! I flew them LAX-MBJ back in ’97. Their fleet is rather impressive and has grown steadily. 6 years ago, they had had 6 A310’s, 4 A320’s, 2 727’s, 2 MD80’s and a couple prop job’s. Their remaining A310’s aren’t that old. They were leasing them from Delta, and can’t be more than 15 years old. Rather young for an airframe, in my opinion.
744 I would imagine? Spending the entire time in Thailand?
Thanks, my man. Where are flying to/from on Thai?
I’ve never flown the Concorde. Had BA been part of Star and not Oneworld, then I would have used tons of mileage by now and gotten a round trip ticket. That’s the only way ‘normal’ people can fly that thing.
P.S. Off the subject, but, T5, your avatar rules! How can I get one of those? I know how to post them, but I want to know where I can get the link or the file in order to post.