Page 190 – Key Publishing

greekdude1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,836 through 2,850 (of 3,029 total)

← 1 2 3 … 189 190 191 … 200 201 202 →

Author

Posts
July 12, 2002 at 4:21 am in reply to: BA plane at missile strike ris #649785

greekdude1
Participant

RE: BA plane at missile strike

Those bloody YANKS, eh Bhoy?

GD1

July 11, 2002 at 1:43 pm in reply to: Aberdeen #649967

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Aberdeen

Thanks Bartboy, that really helps.

GD1

July 11, 2002 at 1:42 pm in reply to: Double decker plane banter #649968

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Double decker plane banter

IL-86’s have a down stairs compartment. In fact, it is used for boarding at airfields with no jetways, and they even have stowage for carry-ons down there, as well. Not quite sure if they had lavs down there, or not.

GD1

July 11, 2002 at 1:34 pm in reply to: air new zealand to get a320s #650097

greekdude1
Participant

RE: air new zealand to get a32

Many times, airlines will fly their long-haulers from hub to hub on a regular basis, regardless of capacity. An aircraft may be inbound at one hub, and outbound at another, and they just need to fly it from one to the other. At present, AirNewZealand has 3 flights each way from AKL to SYD, all of which are operated by the 767. I just flew on them from AKL to SYD, in fact. They use the 737’s on ‘other’ trans-tasman routes. Last year I flew on QANTAS from SYD to AKL, and it was a 747-200. They actually regularly use those on at least one of their SYD-AKL flights, as they continue to do so. The one I was on, was rather full, but then many of us had been re-booked from a cancelled ANZ flight. I would never PURPOSELY give my money to a member of the rival Oneworld alliance!

GD1

P.S. For the record Kabir, I VERY MUCH approve of ANZ

July 11, 2002 at 1:25 pm in reply to: Latest Issue #650103

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Latest Issue

I was under the impression that they would, indeed, add winglets to a 747-400D if in fact, they converted it to a standard model. Those can be retro-fitted, just like they are doing to all the 737NG’s.

GD1

July 11, 2002 at 12:29 am in reply to: Landing on water #650123

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Landing on water

Oh, I wasn’t implying that you plagarised, that was just a comparison used to show the high caliber of quality and information that your post contained. Good work.

GD1

July 10, 2002 at 11:55 pm in reply to: Aberdeen #650129

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Aberdeen

I would be headed for the ‘malt whiskey trail.’ What would be the best option, train? Also, how much do the trains/coaches cost, roughly? Thanks for the info.

GD1

July 10, 2002 at 11:44 pm in reply to: Landing on water #650137

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Landing on water

Wow, that’s pretty impressive. Looks like it came straight out of a thesis on water landings, or something.

GD1

July 10, 2002 at 11:34 pm in reply to: LAX-AKL-SYD flight #650140

greekdude1
Participant

RE: LAX-AKL-SYD flight

I guess chillin’ in Chiangi can’t be all that bad, since I’ve heard it’s the best airport around. I’ll get to do that in a couple of weeks. But I’m actually staying the night there on the outbound, and have a 17 hour layover on the inbound. It’s all good either way. This is totaly off the subject now, but yesterday I went to take some pictures at SYD right near runway 34/16, and I saw 2 BA 744’s take off within 45 minutes to an hour of each other. Are their schedules that close together, or was the first one likely delayed? Unless one was going to SIN and the other to BKK, perhaps?

GD1

July 10, 2002 at 10:23 am in reply to: Lets blame 11/9 for everything #650320

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Lets blame 11/9 for everyt

I guess you boys in Europe never could do that anyway, eh? The only terminal at LAX where you couldn’t do that from day 1 was the Bradley terminal. As a result, Bradley has all their shops/bars/restaurants prior to the security checkpoints. Basically nowadays, if I’m dropping off somebody that I’m going to stay with till they board, and we have time to spare, we take the LAX shuttle over to Bradley, goof around over there, then take the shuttle back to the terminal they are departing from. That’s the only option other than sitting in a seat doing nothing for the time being.

GD1

July 10, 2002 at 10:04 am in reply to: Lets blame 11/9 for everything #650326

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Lets blame 11/9 for everyt

There are many aspects of aviation that we could blame those bastards that were/are the masterminds of September 11th, on. Unfortunately, what’s done and done, and we just have to make the most of what there is left. The part I hate the most is not being able to go past security checkpoints as a non-passenger when I’m picking up or dropping off somebody. That has to be the worst. LAX did all this reinnovating a few years back, opening up shops/bars inside the terminals, now only ticketed passengers can use those facilities. That’s horrible.

GD1

July 9, 2002 at 11:42 pm in reply to: LAX-AKL-SYD flight #650335

greekdude1
Participant

RE: LAX-AKL-SYD flight

Well, depending on the route you take, it’s 12-14 hours. Flying westbound, it takes 14 hours from LAX to SYD, 12 hours to AKL. AKL-SYD is another 3 hours, if you’re doing it that way, which I have the last 2 times in order to maximize my mileage. Not only that, but UA started using 777’s on the LAX-AKL run which offers personal video screens in economy, whereas the 744’s do not. I also like to take a shower in AKL, before I continue on to SYD. So basically, stopping in AKL, has many advantages for me, aside from taking longer to arrive in SYD. That does not bother me, however. Your flight Mongu, I would imagine contained 2 segments of roughly 10 hours a piece, correct?

GD1

July 9, 2002 at 11:10 pm in reply to: Pic Of The Day-Big Bully!! #650338

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Pic Of The Day-Big Bully!!

Lufthansa, Cathay, AirFrance, Singapore all operate both the A340 and 744. I think capacity also has a lot to do with it, as well. Why deploy a 744 on a route when an A340 can be deployed, to match, perhaps smaller demand. I would think an A340 burns slightly less fuel, as well, to go with less capacity and cargo weight. The ironic thing is, the A340 actually has more hold space than the 744. The A340 holds 11 pallets, whereas the 744 only holds 9.

GD1

July 9, 2002 at 10:58 pm in reply to: And now for some completely different airlines #650340

greekdude1
Participant

RE: And now for some completel

Saab and T5, both of you are correct, there’s no way that pic was taken at JFK. In fact, right behind that CSA 737, is a Crossair MD80. Both of those were taken at Amsterdam, as 2 KLM birds are evident in the background. Furthermore, the pic right above that of the Mandarin MD11, was also taken at Schipol. There’s no way 2 KLM birds would be on the ramp at the same time at JFK, as they only serve JFK from AMS. Would they have 2 AMS flights on the ground at the same time at another airport? I think not. Nice pics, nevertheless.

GD1

July 9, 2002 at 1:04 am in reply to: Pic Of The Day-Big Bully!! #650514

greekdude1
Participant

RE: Pic Of The Day-Big Bully!!

I agree. The A340 definitely lacks when it comes to engine thrust, and my cousin who used to be a ramp worker at the LAX Bradley terminal, comfirmed that the A340 cargo loads had to be much more conservative in order to preserve range. For example, I’ll use Phillipine airlines, who sends both the 744 and A340-300 to LAX. When the A340’s had a big load, they had to stop in Honolulu en route to Manilla. The 744’s didn’t have to do that, even with a big load. Those planes were generally full, pax-wise. I think that Airbus definitely did a good job in increasing the thrust dramatically, in the -500’s and -600’s, however. Maybe these 2 will not have to compensate in order to fullfill their range like the -200’s and -300’s do.

GD1
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 2,836 through 2,850 (of 3,029 total)

← 1 2 3 … 189 190 191 … 200 201 202 →