Holy cow! Several posters seem to have an all-or-nothing attitude. Isn’t there something between slavery and workers unilaterally demanding pay and working conditions? Isn’t it possible that the pendulum needs to swing slightly back in the companies favour without sliding all the way back to the sweatshop era?

Many unions in western countries have “no strike, no lockout” clauses, which is something different than Bmused was suggesting, but might help the company in the future.

Sure, Trident, I’ll bite. Can you please inform in what regard the NG is not a “true 320 peer?” Please don’t say the FBW flight control system, which has been debated endlessly for years now, suffice to say that not all would agree that it is “better” than the old system on the 737NG.

Back to the original topic, since I can’t read the article, what is Southwest’s timeline? The interesting part about the Delta piece is that they need planes starting in 2013, ie., before the A320NEO will be available.

The whole issue of “economic loyalty” is somewhat troubling to me.

Furthermore, IMHO its a shame BA didn’t stick with GE on their 777’s. It was an all-new engine at the time, as opposed to the RB-211 rehash that the Trent is. Any gestation pains the GE90 had at service entry were sure to be blown out of proportion by a sympathetic (to RR) British press.

Plus, BA could have avoided the only hull loss accident on the 777 to date if they had not switched to Trents.

I should add that I have no affiliation with either of the companies, but as an observer it appears to me that GE is the class of the aviation engine field with 50% of the industry leading CFM56, the GE90, the GEnx (the only all-new engine on the 787), and the arguably the most reliable fighter engines available. It is indeed hard not to see GE as the pre-eminent gas turbine engine manufacturer when evaluated unemotionally.

While I agree the aircraft is doomed, I would like to point out that a more valid comparison is the 757. I’ve pasted the wing span and area below, the aircraft is much closer to the 757 in size than the smaller A321. It seems it only took the Russians 30 years to copy the 757-200, an aircraft that is now out of production due to lack of demand.:)

type span (ft) Wing area (sq ft)
a321 112 1320
tu204 137 1938
b757 124 1951

Not so simple. The FOD induced fire seems to have led to the identification of weaknesses in the electrical system that require to redesign part of it. In other words, the system did not react as it should have and did not redirect the supply of electricity to ensure a safe continuation of the flight (instead, it deployed the ram turbine).

We now speak of an additional delay of some six months. If it was a simply FOD issue, the 787 would already be back in the air. They have now been grounded for more than three weeks.

While I agree with most of what you say, it is not accurate to say they have been grounded for 3 weeks. Several 787s have made flights, including the incident airplane, which has been fully repaired and returned to Seattle yesterday.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/25965392/detail.html

I believe it would be more accurate to say that flight testing has been suspended for 3 weeks.

How could they possibly know that?

Don’t you know that all pilots are gallant, self-sacrificing, heroes?

I never cease to be amazed at the need of the public to sanctify airplane drivers.

The 707 was closer to the ground as I recall than the DC-8. Thus, because of the reduced engine clearance many commercial operators of the DC-8 chose to do the CFM56 mod, whereas the 707 commercial operators did not. Other factors figured in…..not the least of which was the strong structure of the DC-8. When UPS removed their large DC-8 fleet last year, it was still quite efficient and structurally viable.

Although the 707 series did not lend itself so much to the mod due to the reduced ground clearance of the CFM56 engines, the USAF chose to modify their KC-135’s. (I am purposely choosing not to get into all the 717/KC-135 vs 707 differences, for the purposes of this discussion they are the same IMHO). IIRC, the mod paid for itself in something like 8 years, through reduced fuel consumption. Having said that, the USAF has had a number of engine scrapes through the years, primarily during landings with strong crosswinds and relatively junior pilots. The USAF is, after all, primarily a pilot training organization!:D