As long as someone is willing to do the job for less at a competitor, the union has no leverage. In most industrialized, western countries, “Critical Mass” for unions was lost years ago…they no longer have a labor cartel….they can no longer dictate wage/benefit rates on an industry wide scale. So the unions elect “labor friendly” politicians with a leftist bent and they try to protect existing (screw the unemployed youngsters) employees through regulation (for example tariffs against foreign competitors or laws like the one in the U.S. Senate right now which would require ALL First Officers to have an ATP and 1,500 hours of flight time).

We all want to buy good stuff on the cheap, but no one is willing to work for less. “Let someone else work for less,” but most customers are also employees somewhere else…..the cycle churns.

And on a related topic, how did a cabin job become a “career” anyway? Isn’t this a job you do for a few years until you can get something better? And as for the safety part, how confident are you that a 4′ 11′, 102 pound, 68 year old grandmother with osteoporosis could evacuate the airplane? Joe customer would much prefer to fly on a hip “new” airline which has new airplanes and staff that is 24 years old (and coincidentally makes half as much).

I don’t think you quite understand the concept of multiple-redundant systems, or the battery of extensive testing and simulation that has to be satisfied before code is cleared for live service. It’s not just some bloke sitting there with a PC, you know!

After all, there is also a probability of a chunk of an aircraft’s wing being torn off by a passing meteorite. Let’s ground every aircraft in the world just to be on the safe side, shall we?

There have been some very scary actual inflight incidents caused by the computers. At least two 777 incidents were traced to problems with some of the onboard computers, you can read about one of them here:
http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/777DataFailure.htm
This incident and another related one caused an emergency Airworthiness Directive to be issued by the FAA.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/25F9233FE09B613F8625706C005D0C53?OpenDocument

And then again there is AF447, which the investigators haven’t fully figured out yet.

And then there were the F-22’s whose were unable to navigate after crossing the International Date Line the first time….good thing they had a tanker to follow.

So I believe it can be stated that even with “multiple redundancies” and “extensive testing and simulation,” incidents can still happen. I’ve only listed a few of the commonly known ones. The scary part of theses types of incidents is that they were induced by the new technology. You didn’t hear about these kinds of problems on the DC-8 for example. I don’t believe it is unreasonable for observers to say the system of testing and approving new computerized technology for aviation could be more bulletproof.

Regarding A vs B I agree completely with Cking….this problem affects both the same on a/c that are equipped with vacuum toilets. Passengers ignore the signs and put things down there that shouldn’t go down there….the toilets get clogged, but eventually it all passes…:)

If it’s a weight penalty, the Customers will demand payment in lieu. (Unless they negotiated a naff contract with Boeing). Only after then will we find out the truth, once the airlines start shouting that it’s X% heavier and Y% less efficient etc. The OEM will lie until then.

But the customers aren’t always fully truthful either. Witness American Airlines a few years ago when they went public with the MD-11 range shortfall when it was really a very marginal shortcoming……most knowledgeable observers realized that they really wanted to ditch the aircraft before they lost one due to it’s atrocious landing characteristics

What, no 380’s?

From recent history and nonperformance, one gets the impression that the extant manufacturers will promise “everything” for “nothing” just to secure a program, and then will exert rampant arm twisting through politics, ie., jobs, to keep the program going through all manner of overruns and quasi-illegal activity.

Even in an emergency the taxiway is prime to make a bad situation a lot worse. First, the pavement isn’t built to withstand landing aircraft and could fail under such an impact blowing tires, etc. Second, there is no guarantee that a taxiway is clear of aircraft or vehicles. In fact at such a busy airport there’s a very high probability that such a taxiway would be occupied.

The emergency onboard has been referred to as a medical emergency so nothing critical to the aircraft. Landing 100′ closer to the terminal wouldn’t expedite medical attention for the passenger anymore than landing on the runway. Actually it could delay it if they hit something as a result of the landing.

Actually, one of the taxiways at ATL was upgraded to be a runway and was used as a runway for a significant period of time while the adjacent runway was rebuilt. This taxiway was not the one that the airplane landed on though.

WRT to the age of the KC-135’s, they were extensively rebuilt when they got the CFM56 engine upgrade in the 1980s, and are even now receiving CNS/ATM mods. At the time they were upgraded, USAF said they would fly until the year 2040. Now, they intimate that they have a crisis keeping these airplanes flying. A rather predictable ploy for funding IMHO.

These pampered, over-maintained, under-flown airplanes with 25,000 hours on them have had a very different life than one flown by PanAm in the 1960s, for example, which might have accumulated 65,000 hours in 12-14 years.