He’s SQ 777 flight crew, so he surely can’t have had that far to Zoom in…

that’s, eh, off topic… 🙁

Ah well, I’ve got tickets to the Scottish Cup final against Dunfermline next Month, so look out for another photo report of the Incredible Travelling Tims…

(and yes, I would like to see Sir Bobby Robson lift a trophy with the Toon, but Valencia’ll be bloody difficult)

Originally posted by Jeanske_SN
The a340-300 is underpowered. Who says that? Why is it believed if the aircraft can achieve a normal cruising speed?
there are a few possibilities here, however some of them can be ruled out?

It’s underpowered in as much as if one of the engines were to fail during a takeoff roll, the three remaining engines wouldn’t have enough thrust to complete the takeoff. Each of the CFM56’s they use generate 31’200lb st. Compare that with the 64’000-72’000lb st generated by each of the A330’s engines (depending on which engine is used), and you can already see that 1 330 engine is more powerful that 2 343 engines. The 345/346 however, are certainly not underpowered (but then, they have engines built by a proper manufacturer. ;))

FBW error (For example the LH aA20-100 that burnt out in Warsaw after the aircraft touched down so softly that the computers didn’t consider itto be landing, which delayed thrust reverse and spoiler deployment by about 7-8 seconds I believe. The aircraft overran the runway and burned out)

Again, I said this to you last week when you mentioned this incident, it was a -200, not a -100. Lufthansa has never operated the 320-100. I know the site you referenced (airdisasters.com) talks of it as a -100, but like I said, do an a.net search for the registration (which I can’t recall offhand), and you will see pictures of it with Winglets. ergo, a -200. QED.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. As far as Hubs go, I’d suggest ZRH is better placed than BRU, much more central, as all of Europe is reachable within about 2 1/2 hours flight, whereas BRU is probably 3 hours+ to say Greece. ok, not a huge amount, but if you were connecting within Europe flight, that could potentially add an extra hour or so.

Having said that, I’m not a particular fan of Unique (Yes, that is Zurich’s subtitle. Unique Airport. :rolleyes: ).

As regards Swiss’ interests to BA, the fact that Switzerland isn’t a member of the EU shouldn’t make any difference, as the EU is currently half way through a 5 year implemantation of transferring EU Citizens rights to Swiss Nationals in EU Countries (and, shock horror, it is being recipocrally implemented by Switzerland, too, meaning EU Nationals can now take up jobs in Switzerland without needing to apply for Work Visas). Switzerland has already signed a bilateral agreement with the EU granting EU Carriers 5th rights from Switzerland. In fact, SNBrussels has based an RJ85 at Geneva with which it operates twice daily flights to Marseilles. So I can’t see many issues arrising should BA want to take over LX, except for the fact I can’t see any reason why BA would want to take over LX… they’re squeezing LX enough as it is… And LX have two many issues to deal with themselves first, anyway.

C5’s are American, so they’re hardly likely to be versions of Antonovs… Not quite up on Military, but I *think* they’re built by Lockheed.

No, BA don’t operate out of Stansted. They have enough other London airports to use (LHR, LGW, LCY and LTN).

yeah, ‘small’ RB211’s. The same engines as on 767-300’s, Tristars and 747-400’s… (well, not quite the same variant, but they’re all RB211’s. :drool: )