Page 180 – Key Publishing

greekdude1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,686 through 2,700 (of 3,029 total)

← 1 2 3 … 179 180 181 … 200 201 202 →

Author

Posts
October 6, 2002 at 8:51 pm in reply to: Airbus gets order for 10 aircraft from Lufthansa #727265

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Airbus gets order for 10 aircraft from Lufthansa

It was only a matter of time before LH acquired A330’s, as they have operated every other Airbus type to date. Same with AF, taking A330’s not too long ago to be able to brag about the same thing.

GD1

October 6, 2002 at 8:44 pm in reply to: UA/US #727274

greekdude1
Participant

RE: UA/US

This is good news for both airlines. I didn’t see any reason why their codeshare bid would have been shot down, like their merger bid was 2 years ago. There’s very little overlap in their schedules, except of course, hub to hub. And their respective market strengths complement each other. I should benefit from this, as well.

GD1

October 6, 2002 at 8:26 pm in reply to: Tower #727283

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Tower

I like both the LAX and the SYD. Ironic how both of those towers are fairly new, and the old ones still exist at both airports. The old LAX one is now offices, and the Sydney one is used by ground control, or something. I was told when I took the tarmac tour, but I forgot.

GD1

September 26, 2002 at 3:33 am in reply to: Question On the 747-100/737-100 #730072

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Question On the 747-100/737-100

There were only 30 or so 737-100’s made, to begin with, until they did a slight stretch, and thus begin making -200’s. LH originally oredered all the -100’s, I believe. The Phoenix Suns plane was used by the basketball team during the season, but provided regular passenger work during the offseason. I would assume that the seats would have to be reconfigured, accordingly. I used to see it at my hometown airport, ONT (Ontario, California, not Canada) regularly. As far as differences between 747-100 and 200 series, the 200 series had a considerable range improvement over the -100. The -100 only had a 5,000 and change mile range, whereas the -200 did 7,000+, if I’m not mistaken. I could be wrong. As far as TWA goes, they dumped their 747’s long before 9/11 or even the AA takeover.

GD1

September 26, 2002 at 3:11 am in reply to: Air New Zealand B747 lands back at LHR after engine scare! #730077

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Air New Zealand B747 lands back at LHR after engine scare!

United ceased the around the world flight after 9/11. As far as ANZ using LAX rather than SIN or BKK like everybody else, the reasoning is two-fold. First of all, they have a mini-hub at LAX, serving 7 destinations from there(used to be nine, but post 9/11 they ceased HNL and FRA service, now codesharing with UA and LH, respectively). Second of all, AKL-LHR is actually shorter using LAX as a stopover rather than SIN or BKK. If you’re leaving SYD to go to LHR, then it’s closer to use Asia. But from AKL, routing via LAX is closer.

GD1

September 26, 2002 at 2:56 am in reply to: Open Skies Agreement #730080

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Open Skies Agreement

I can’t vouch for the majority of U.S. carriers, as I don’t fly them frequently. But I always vouch for United, and vouch negatively for America West, as I have flown them 2 the most. America West sucks. Anything bad that is said about U.S. carriers is valid, with them, on any front. Hell, they don’t serve meals on any segment less than 4 hours, even in 1st class! I’m sure there are shitty Euro airlines like HP, as well. United is a while different ballgame. First of all, they don’t charge for headsets on domestic flights, the only U.S. carrier to do so. As far as meals on segments around 2 hours, they will at least serve a snack, if not a meal, which usually includes a little sandwhich, some chips and a candy bar, or something. One thing that United does, that no Euro airline that I’ve flown on does, is give you the entire can of soda with the ice in a plastic cup. Also, they will give you the miniatures, whereas Lufthansa, pours the booze from a bottle. I prefer the mini’s. Anyway, I just had to protect my airline. Amazing how talking about open skies led to this!

GD1

September 24, 2002 at 5:16 am in reply to: Open Skies Agreement #731027

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Open Skies Agreement

No Bhoy, I don’t think I know how bad the U.S. domestic service is, enlighten me please. I fly United trans-con all the time, and even on shorter routes, and it’s comperable to any European airline I’ve flown on, which include Lufthansa, Austrian, KLM, and Olympic. I’m sure we could learn a lot from the likes of Virgin Blue, right? I flew them too. There service was adequate, nothing spectacular. I’ll take the service on a UA flight of around an hour over theirs anyday. At least I won’t have to pay for my soda or peanuts, of even water!! I’m sure VirginRed would be just as comperaple as VirginBlue, and they’d show us a thing or 2 I’m sure! You guys need to get over this whole issue of U.S. domestic travel not being up to par with yours, real quick, because it’s a bunch of B.S. Sure, our any U.S. carrier service isn’t going to be as good as the Singapore’s or the Emirates’ or the Virgin Atlantic’s of the world. But other than them, they’re just as good. Oh, and by the way, thanks for the explanation on the Open Skies agreement, and no, I’m not being sarcastic on this front. It was actually pretty good, and very informative. Lots of things I didn’t know, like the Virgin LAS slot.

GD1

September 22, 2002 at 8:14 pm in reply to: Open Skies Agreement #731533

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Open Skies Agreement

So United can’t allocate one of their slots for the Denver flight, but BA can. I’m curious as to whether BA had to eliminate one of their gateways, when they began serving Denver. I would think, ‘probably not.’

GD1

September 22, 2002 at 3:11 am in reply to: Open Skies Agreement #731669

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Open Skies Agreement

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-09-02 AT 03:13 AM (GMT)]Kabir, first of all, I don’t need to chill out. I had every right to declare my amazement. Had I posted something about U.K. charter airlines(which of course I never would), there would have been like 50 replies. Or perhaps, post a pic from airliners.net, and get 20 or so replies of, “nice pic,” “beautiful pic,” “lovely pic.” That’s fair enough, but considering the controversy of this particular topic, not one lousy response one day later? Anyway, good to see there was about 10 or so eventually. And I was well aware Mongu was out of town, hence the statement “Where is he when I need him?” If he was in town, I wouldn’t have needed to said that, he would have more than likely been the first to respond. So now my take on the subject. To my understanding, only 4 airlines are allowed to fly from LHR to any destination in the U.S. I’m not quite sure where the source of that is, but that’s fair enough. Given that United happens to be one of those 4, they serve LHR from LAX, SFO, IAD, JFK, EWR, ORD and BOS. Four of these seven being only once daily. Why the hell shouldn’t they be allowed to have one daily from DEN as well? Prior to 9/11, they had 3 dailies to LHR from JFK, and now only 2. Also, LAX and SFO both were twice daily. So theoretically, why can’t they use one of those slots for a Denver flight?

GD1

September 19, 2002 at 3:59 am in reply to: Open Skies Agreement #732420

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Open Skies Agreement

It’s absolutely amazing to me, that I can’t get one lousy response to this, from a predominantly U.K. forum. Where’s Mongu when I need him?

GD1

September 19, 2002 at 3:53 am in reply to: best airline company to go to los angeles #732424

greekdude1
Participant

RE: best airline company to go to los angeles

Isn’t that the flight you got to see the flightdeck, comet? That sounds really bad to me.

GD1

September 17, 2002 at 6:44 am in reply to: best airline company to go to los angeles #733005

greekdude1
Participant

RE: best airline company to go to los angeles

Virgin has 2 flights, one 744 and one A340. BA has 3 flights, all on 744’s. AA and UA each have 1, both on 777’s. Of course I always toot UA’s horn, and I’ve flown them between LAX and LHR and had a great flight, even sitting in the middle seat. Virgin, naturally, might have the best on-board service of the lot. Those are the 4 that fly non-stop, per the the ‘open skies agreement.’ No flights from Gatwick go to LAX. Whoever mentioned Continental, they don’t serve LAX from London, you have to go to EWR, IAH, or Cleveland first. By the way, stopping in JFK first isn’t necessarily cheaper, even if you fly Jetblue.

GD1

September 16, 2002 at 6:26 am in reply to: viewing planes #733545

greekdude1
Participant

RE: viewing planes

Trust me, if you’re kickin’ it in the Proud Bird parking lot spotting and taking pics, nobody is going to say anything.

GD1

September 15, 2002 at 8:24 pm in reply to: is lax good for viewing the planes #733551

greekdude1
Participant

RE: is lax good for viewing the planes

Yes, see my other post on viewing in the U.S. in general. By the way Monster, before 9/11, LAX was better than either of those 2, in terms of terminal viewing. Now, they’re all the same.

GD1

September 15, 2002 at 8:22 pm in reply to: viewing planes #733553

greekdude1
Participant

RE: viewing planes

LAX is tremendous for approach shots on rwy’s 25R/L. From the Proud Bird parking lot, you can just park your car free of charge, sit back and enjoy. If anybody needs directions, let me know.

GD1
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 2,686 through 2,700 (of 3,029 total)

← 1 2 3 … 179 180 181 … 200 201 202 →