Mod Edit: Please don’t quote lengthy postings that appear just above your own. It’s a waste of screen space and bandwidth.

IMHO, the reason they need to get flying ASAP (prior to replacing ALL the bad fasteners) is that they need very badly to see how the systems work. The air cond/pressurization that doesn’t use engine bleeds, the electric brakes, the “all-electric airplane” in general. There is potential for further significant delay in the airplane systems.

What more do you expect. It’s horrible to say this, but people who have been brought up in the “Western World” treat people inferior due to their race or religion. IT’S STUPID! At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what colour skin we have or whether we read the bible or the torah, we are all still people in our own rights, we all have the capability to feel fear and to suffer prejudice and pain. This just proves to me why so many muslim students in my school stick to people of their own race. Because most of the other kids will judge them, simply because of the way in which they dress. It’s pathetic.

I personally have a respect for people of all race and I don’t judge people from any circumstances. Obviously though, I think that the whole concept of a fight against the “muslim world” which seems to have been created post 9/11 is stupid and is due to the simple-minded idiots of the Western World. 😉

Let me see if I understand you, only those brought up in the Western World engage in this kind of prejudice?

Seems to me as if you are the one engaging in pre-judgement, against your own western culture, and because of one idiot. I often wonder why we in the west are seemingly always ready to believe the worst about ourselves? Human nature being what it is, I would think that there would be sufficient numbers of idiots such as Mr. Pincus throughout the world, spread in relatively equal percentages.

Quite right Andy, same story after the BA 777 incident last year. Let’s hope he does indeed get the hero status he apparently deserves. Now then, is anyone else wondering why the FO has so far been denied the ‘limelight’ ?

For the same reason the Flight Attendants have been denied hero status: ignorance on the part of the press and the public. The Flight Attendants no doubt initiated the evacuation immediately after the landing, and were then assisted by the pilots. And there was no possible action they might have taken to avoid the water landing in the first place.

The public demands instant gratification, the press is only too willing to apply “hero” or “goat” status post haste. The reality is often shades of grey in between the extremes. Witness the Air Transat glider. Had the crew not manually opened the crossfeed valve, which the automatic fuel system was keeping closed, perhaps the airplane wouldn’t have ran out of fuel in the first place. In the Air Canada case, people often focus on the liters/gallons conversion, completely omitting the detail that the fuel config light comes on quite awhile before the airplane runs out of fuel (no matter what unit of measurement is being used.) The old addage usually applies, “A superior airman uses his superior judgement to avoid situations which might require the use of his superior skill.” Often, the real heroes are the ones the public never knows about.

In this case, we don’t know a lot of details, other than the flight crew executed a flawless water landing, and subsequent evacuation. Good on them for that. Until we know more, we should avoid annointing the pilots as heroes, IMHO.

One last thought, I’m sure ALPA will milk the “hero” stuff for all it’s worth.

Having spent more than a couple of years working for an aircraft manufacturer I can assure you that detailed studies of an airline’s route network and suitability for the aircraft are made by the manufacturer prior to a sale. These would include airfield performance, taking into account weather – wind, temp, surface condition; range with all the variations and challenges outlined above; economics with fuel burn, atc and airport costs etc. and more.

Guarantees would be provided by the manufacturer that their aircraft would be capable of operating to and between specified airports and any limitations would be noted.

The oft quoted max or typical range of an aircraft is nothing more than a very rough guide to start your investigations into possibilities.

Try to get hold of a book ‘The Airline Business’ by Rigas Doganis which would give you a good background knowledge of these things.

Thank you. Agree completely. Especially this part:
“Guarantees would be provided by the manufacturer that their aircraft would be capable of operating to and between specified airports and any limitations would be noted.”
When those guarantees aren’t met, conflict occurs, then resolution. Happens all the time. I have witnessed it.

The manufacturer most definitely does “publish what routes it can achieve.” (Quote from post 13)

Airlines purchase airplanes that “only just fit the bill” all the time. Buying a larger airplane is wasteful, and we live in a business world now driven by bean counters and MBA’s that don’t know doodledy squat about airline operations, or anything else other than massaging numbers and making their goals, IMHO. Believe it or not, the airlines have entire departments that do nothing other than optimize (their words) the equipment onto continually longer and more challenging routes, with less and less downtime for maintenance between flights. They are measured by how “well” they use the available airplanes, they do not have to answer for the dispatch reliability, or the fuel stops, or the involuntary denied boardings, or the bags left behind. Everyone lives in their own little silos.

IMHO, the initial poster really was asking questions which go right to the heart of what it takes operate an airline. All the factors that go into flying from point a to point b are the guts of airline operations. It takes lots of people other than pilots to make that operation go. I have 22 years experience doing that at a major airline, and am far from naive regarding these topics, but still consider myself an enthusiast also.

Sorry, but I can’t resist adding that all of the reasons listed above are why manufacturer claims of range capabilities on their products must be taken with a grain of salt.

An airliner may be delivered with a promised range of 7000 miles, but once all the other considerations get factored in 6400 might be the “real” max range. (i just randomly selected those numbers).

Its a great airplane for high density short haul routes (500-1000NM), but for the longer routes it is very altitude challenged due to the relatively high wing loading. Some comparitive numbers:

B764: 144 lb/sq ft.
B763: 134
A333: 132
B777: 118
B777ER: 142
A300-600: 136
B757: 123

I didn’t include quads. I obtained these numbers by dividing the Maximum Gross Weight by the wing area. For a short range mission, the 764 would not reach max weight with a full passenger load, putting the wing loading back into a more reasonable range.

It’s handy to remember that modern turbofan engine fuel consumption goes up considerably as altitude goes down, so being unable to reach the higher flight levels requires more fuel, which is even more weight and the proposition becomes self defeating.

The 764 empty weight is almost 90,000lb less than the 777 though, making it very attractive comparatively for shorter routes since landing fees are based upon weight.

Finally, wasn’t the E-10 advanced J-STARS going to be based upon the 764 airframe? IIRC, that project has been delayed so long that it is basically cancelled because Gulf War II sucked up all the money.

How unfortunate that no one has posted photographic evidence of their claims…..(suitable for public viewing of course)

There is no true replacement for the 757. It occupies a unique place in the lineup of airliners. I think at one time Boeing advertised it as, “The largest single aisle airplane that can profitably be built and operated” or some such. And that was before the -300 was built.

I’ve studied this airplane for quite awhile, and near as I can tell, the biggest problem was that it had widebody systems (three hydraulic systems, three autopilots, etc.) but was unable to generate widebody revenue. Although we never really know what airlines really pay for airplanes, the thinking seems to be that Boeing wouldn’t sell the airplane at a price consonant with the revenue it is able to generate.

Nevertheless, I’ve always felt that it never got it’s due. It is a very, very efficient airplane. The fuel burn per seat is almost 20% less than the 767-300ER on a similar routing (a short North Atlantic run), and this is amazing since a larger airplane often has an advantage in this statistic due to the larger number of seats. Its true that the PW2000 has been extremely unreliable (something else that is largely unreported), but it is lighter than the competing RR engine. The RR product runs about 3 times longer on the wing though.