The Nimrod demo in Holland is G-ALYW

Yes, Lufthansa warned… not even a 787 operator. The Article calls it a 787 problem yet reports is as an engine issue which it clearly is…shocking reporting

In a relative sense yes.

Folk sometimes fee the 757 is small for TA yet that is almost a latter day 707 as far as cabin dimensions go.

KLM, Swiss and Lufthansa used to used Boeing 737s with reduce luxury seating. Owned and operated by Privatair.

Yep…I know this goes on with all countries bugging each other if they can

the question is…Should they be doing it and the answer is morally no…but I guess they would then play the “For reasons of National security” card, which covers anything they want to do without having to answer for it or disclosing anything about it.

So I guess the answer is no but realistically we have to accept that it is going on, always has and always will.

The storage in the desert of new 747’s is only temp and often done to delay import duty as the climate is tighter now than wen they ordered them

The same thing happened with some -200 and 400 BA and Air Canada were just two who sent aircraft initially straight into storage. In fact BA sold a couple of -200 to Malaysian and replaced those with new orders.

I doesn’t mean the end or even a wind down, as I mentioned above this is just one aeroplane per four months reduction. The 747-8I will never have a big market, it’s a long time ago now that the 747 was the main man for pax operations, but the 8F with it’s straight in nose loading should have a steady market for sometime as older aircraft are retired and need replacing

I don’t think we will see big order or fleets, but in a steady stream of small orders.

However it might be that the steady relatively low demand might in the future not suit Boeing if with an upturn they might feel the production space could be better used on another project.

So, maybe in the future Boeing might pull the plug.

It has had a remarkable production run, which viewed from the time it was originally designed is phenomenal.

Wasn’t there one that hit a bridge a few years back?

For sure it’s dangerous but the danger is the thrill. Ban this and they’ll find something else. Human nature to push the limits well beyond where the normal footsteps tread. That is how and why we’ve progressed as a species.

With many airlines swinging away from Boeing (and McD Douglas) towards Airbus over the last few years, JAL a major carrier who has never ordered Airbus before will be of major concern to Boeing.

Whether or not the 787 issues have anything to do with this, the fact that an Airbus breakthough has happened on the doorstep of where the 787 issues were perhaps most felt can only add to Boeing woes.

The airport shouldn’t be charging passengers anything.

The airport costs are covered in the landing fee and anything else the airport charges the airline to use.

You buy your travel from the airline and don’t always want to fly from the airport you have to use

This is like having to pay a shop an entrance fee to help it keep nice carpets etc.