dark light

Dantheman77

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 602 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: A350 Go Ahead! #592945
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    Other points raised from the press conferance.
    i
    nterior wider than a 747 (apparantly)
    – big bins
    – 9 or 8 accross
    – range from Paris – anywhere in N or S America, Africa, Singapore + SE Asia
    – Rolls Royce is the launch engine.
    – Engines have common core accross all versions

    Looked at all sections of the plane and assessed what materials are best for each optimising weight, strength, and cost
    – “shell” approach for fuse with 4 shells being attached together to make tubes of up to 16m long. Each shell can be made from material most suitable
    – frames in Al, skin is CF
    – 14% lighter per seat that 777 (787 is 12% lighter)
    – 64m wing-span
    – 3degrees extra sweep – allows higher speed (0.85Mach)
    – Will have bleed-air
    – A380 cockpit technology

    Will be interesting to read Randy Baslers online blog on the Boeing website this month.
    As he has been quite vocal about the A350 in the past months

    in reply to: A350 Go Ahead! #593272
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    Airbus has alot more experiance in carbon fibre than the press,armchair spectators and Boeing give them credit for!

    The A400M military transport planes wing box structure and main components on the wing are made from Carbon fibre…they can use this experiace in the A350.

    The 787 has a more conservative “Black metal” wing, were only the stringers are made of carbon fibre, and the rest made from aluminum.

    in reply to: First B.777 to be scrapped. #593629
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    The 777 thats being scrapped is one of the original “A” market model I.E. a non ER version, and powered by the GE90-76B, which i’m told that this combo is a rarity. And BA has only 5? remaining, all the rest being 777-200ER models powered by Rolls Royce

    After 24263 hours and 5170 cycles with BA it was sold to Boeing in June 2002 and stored for several months as N703BA. In December 2002 it was prepared for entering service with Khalifa Airways.

    in reply to: I loved this when i saw it. . . #594133
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    If you look at the BMI photo, the main passenger door at top nearside doesn’t seem to be flush with the rest of the airframe??

    in reply to: 3 BA 767's grounded #594446
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    i maybe wrong here…

    But when planes fly at high altitude, that they are subject to radiation from the sun/moon/ozone etc etc???

    Until the test on each aircraft proves it is that polonium (sp?) 210 then it would be safe to assume, that the tests carried out just picked up normal background radiation that is everywhere??

    in reply to: New Airbus model revealed. #595241
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    “The world looked in amazement-along with histerical howls of laughter from the boeing boys in Seattle, as John Leahy announced a new member to the A320 family-the A312”

    If you buy 20 A380’s at list prices do they throw in a couple of those for kids??

    in reply to: Korean Air Lines Orders 25 Boeing Planes to Expand #597368
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    could somebody tell me what UFO stands for?

    in reply to: Emirates cancels A346 #597467
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    I think they (airbus) were hoping that the A346’s would be taken up by Phillipine airlines order for some long range jets, but Flight International has said almost definetly that they will take 777-300ERs instead.

    in reply to: BA moving out of LGW? #597866
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    There was a rumour on Pprune, that GB airways on some flights are only operating 30-40% load capacity, which is quite low, and that a takeover from BA mainline was on the cards in the future

    in reply to: Remember AIR UK? #598596
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    That would a novelty as genereally freighters are not normally converted to passenger service….it’s usually the other way round. Pretty sure both of their 767s were new builds.

    ___

    Other AirUK route (rather KLMuk); Manchester-Milan around 1994 (tink it operated Nov 94-Mar95?) 12 weekly using FK100s.

    I’m sure i remember seeing the Air UK Leisure 767 with a side cargo door, my memory must be playing tricks.

    in reply to: Willie Walsh and the A380 #598900
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    What Bemused55 said:-

    What I mean to say is, there is little motivation to switch to Airbus for the long haul fleet.
    But as a 767 replacement the A330 is very possible.
    Having said that, BA do not often send their 767s very far. A330s might not be all that economic for 1:1 replacements as they are long range cruisers (their wings being designed for such).

    Just for the record.

    BA send there 767’s to places like.
    Tanazania
    Uganda
    Philidelphia
    Ghana
    Nairobi
    Toronto
    Dubai
    New York (JFK and Newark)
    Detroit
    Washington-Baltimore
    Zambia
    Chicago

    Ok its not exactly London-Singapore everyday, but to say BA dont send there 76’s far is a mis-leading statement.

    in reply to: Remember AIR UK? #599387
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    Went on a Fokker 100 from Stansted to Salzburg with Air Uk, only to be told, that they would have to leave our luggage behind because the plane was getting to heavy, and it would join us in 3 days. (which is alot of good when your on a 5day ski-ing holiday)

    And also did a Air UK Leisure 737-400 Gatwick to Faro, 6 hour delay on the way out due to technical fault,then the crew didnt have enough hours, so had to wait for replacements.

    And my mum did an Air UK Leisure Manchester to Orlando in a 767, which if remember correctly, was a converted freighter

    in reply to: EZY firms 52 more A319s and options another 75 #600312
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    Great news for the A320/19 and EZY !!

    And how Ryanair which offer even cheaper fares can be the most profitable Carrier around !!

    probably because:

    Low fixed cost base
    Minimal staff in head office, not swamped with Senior VP’s etc
    99% of bookings taken via the internet, so no big expensive call centers
    Minimal staff or agents on ground, no need for offices abroad.
    watertight contracts with suppliers guarenteeing fixed costs over a certain specified time.
    Those extra charges on tickets, soon add up (Ryanairs “wheelchair” tax added another £100million to the profit margins)
    Everything onboard not nailed down or vital to aircraft is sold at premium prices.
    Higher aircraft utilisation, on average Easyjet planes spend 18hrs in the air, compared to 10-12 hours on legacy carriers, in the air more=more ££££

    Just the basics on how they can offer low fares.

    in reply to: B787 as much as 5000lbs overweight! #509119
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    Ah… I’m hearing bigger baggage allowance already !!!

    Although I do wonder if “over designed” is really a smoke screen for ‘delayed arrival’ ? Let’s not mention that A380 project management team … :rolleyes:

    Over-designed also applies to the Engine Alliance engine on the A380, that finished up on the obese side, EA admitted to certain things which can be changed and re-worked, they just have slightly more time to play with!

    in reply to: B787 as much as 5000lbs overweight! #509124
    Dantheman77
    Participant

    Problem? As Bmused55 said, they are under their advertised weight but they still have another 5000 pounds to go to meet their own goal. I wouldn’t really call that much of a problem. A better headline?

    Boeing 787 underweight but Boeing officials still aim to eliminate another 5000 lbs.

    And eliminating 5000lbs could be beneficial in the future. Who knows what will happen. computers can only predict so much…Just ask Airbus!

    Its within the contractual agrement set out to all the airlines that have ordered one. So that means there will not be any financial penalties to fork out… and in any agrement there is some degree of sway…Boeing didnt say that it will weigh XXX,XXXlbs exactly because that would be corparate suicide.

    On the MD11 project, it didnt meet range expectations…American airlines went ballistic, and i from what i recall, they paid less than half price for each MD11 they got.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 602 total)