sekantSekant
Whereas you do rely entirely on extremely selective second hand reporting from discredited sources – primarily the Guardian – whose own tactics have been utterly reprehensible. It’s your case that’s ‘void’, chum.
.
You are right, I rely on entirely discredited sources. Such as a Tony Blair that indicated that the inquiry was shelved for political reasons. Is this what you call second hand??
When you rely on the likes of Bandar, a person who directly benefited from the bribery, to back your position. As if that person had any credibility in this case in the eyes of any sane person. As for Goldsmith being the highest legal authority in the land, and considering his record (Iraq war, BAE, cash-for-peerage), that doesn’t speak for the British political system.
Now, I understand that you find such shady personalities less discredited than the OCDE that slammed the UK for having shelved the inquiry, or the US justice department.
sekantSekant, I’d call ignoring the statements of Goldsmith and others, and the facts as I’ve outlined them (again and again) ‘selective’.
You’re right. You’re entire defense rests on the testimony of Goldsmith. In other words on a Blair stooge, a guy that was nominated by Blair and left the day Blair quit his post. A guy who argued that the British invasion of Iraq was probably illegal under international law and overturned himself when Blair told him to do so. And a guy who shut an investigation into major fraud the day smarmy Blair ordered him to. I am not even speaking of his role in the peerage-for-cash case.
I rest my case, but yours is utterly void.
sekantThat implies that Boeing will not be able to meet its delivery schedule, that was very optimistic in the first place (i.e. start testing late june 2008, deliver first planes first quarter 2009). What I find slightly worrying for Boeing is that they don’t seem to know exactly how much more time they require.
The fact that Virgin ordered A330s yesterday (and is apparently discussing ordering the A350) may not be that innocuous.
sekantThe most amazing in all this is that some people seem to believe that you do arms sales in the middle east without bribes. Provided that the company is from the country of that commentator.
The funny thing is that these people are also very selective in their quotes. They forget to quote their boss Blair who clearly stated that the inquiry in the Al Yamamah deal was not stopped because of a lack of evidence but because of threats uttered by the Saudis. “Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first.”
They forget also to recall that the Saudi representation to the Brit were suddenly initiated because the Swiss judiciary decided that they would provide information on a BAE slush fund that was based in Geneva (for the benenfit of the Saudis). They forget to mention the conclusions of the OCDE inquiry in the case. They forget to mention that BAE is under ongoing investigations for other cases of potential bribery.
That does not make BAE or the UK worse than others (I have no doubt as to what Dassault or other French companies have to do to get a contract in the Middle East). But that usual holier than thou attitude is so laughable.
sekantJust being cynical and quite serious.
To be honest, I will be surprised if they do not either:A) Blame the pilots
B) Blame something non French
Funny thing is, if I were to come up with something even remotely close to that, I would be banned from the forum for starting a flame war.
But if it comes from a Brit, and from a repeat offender as far as airbus and french bashing go, that is just fine.
The usual british fair play in other words.
And btw, we have nothing to learn from you in the field of blaming foreigners for our own shortcomings. Just need to have a look at the mindless blame the filthy europeans game that’s been going on in your media for the past 30 years.
sekantWell, the issue is a sociological one, not one of people being stingy.
The flights to the Reunion are very similar to the flight from Paris to Guadeloupe and Martinique. Half the tickets are essentially bought by locals that moved from the overseas departments/territories to mainland France for work reasons (that is to move from no job on the island to basic jobs in the mainland) and who go back to visit family. These people are not stingy, they simply don’t have the financial capacity to upgrade in Business.
The other half of passengers is made up of people who have bought a one week all inclusive stay in a resort hotel on the cheap.
The few business seats offered by Air France are taken by senior officials and the very few people heading to these places to conduct business. If more were offered, it would not be taken.
sekantToo much automation, and saving money on skilled ‘hands on’ pilot training ‘costs lives’ but sadly it makes profits for shareholders/stakeholders and saves Airline jobs (possibly not senior pilots’ jobs in reality).
The cost of exhaustive testing of all automated systems again isn’t feasible as a ROI on any scientific product has to be made sometime. Sadly modern R&D costs an arm and a leg.
.
I would strongly dispute this, even though pilots will rip into me if there are some on this blog.
Fact of the matter is, the likelihood of an accident being caused by pilot error is much greater than an accident caused by automation. All statistics are clear thereon. Air transport has become safer and safer over the years, in large part because of automation.
We can argue at the margin, whether pilots should in some cases override the machine or not, but not on the overall picture.
In addition, at this stage, we have no clue whether automation is responsible for the AF accident, or whether the responsibilities of pilots is engaged.
sekantAs far as curvature of earth is concerned that should not be a problem , especially over the water. Radar blind zone due to curvature of the earth goes as follows …at100Km radar blind zone will be 0m – 100m , at 200Km it will be 0m – 200m , so at 1000Km it will be 1000m.Since airliners are normally flying at anything between 9.5 Km to 11Km altitude , that means in order not to be seen by radar due to earth curvature they would have to be anything between 9500 Km to 11000 Km from the radar station and that is not the case.
Radar blind zone is due to radar not being powerful enough to see that far .For example , one of the most powerful Air Search radars like Russian P-14 can see up to 1500 Km , but here we are talking about massive radar station with massive antenna .Now I do not know what type of the radar is in use in that area but typically Air Traffic radars have range up to 400 km.
I am not a specialist in radars (far from it, not in the tech world) but it seems to me that the radar cover is an issue of need rather than a technical one. Beyond/over the horizon radar are nothing new. They have been used for decades as part of early warning systems against balistic missiles and enable to track targets as far away as needed.
They have not been used for the civilian airline industry because, in all likelihood, it was not deemed necessary to have a constant view of all planes at all times over the vast and empty expanses of the ocean.
sekant[QUOTE=Schorsch;1413937]
Very interesting points. The failure to have significant weight savings, especially on the B787, let one assume there are some failed plans. However, not sure if it really is due to structural issues.
QUOTE]
Do you know what were the projections/promises and what the reality is today??
Is the greater efficiency promised by Boeing does not come from lighter weight, where does it come from then?
sekantWhat about “We are about to land. Please turn off all electronic equipments” ???
sekantEven Boeing proved you can do a major repair out in Anchorage with a 747! 😀
Or proved that such a repair can be botched, as happened with the JAL 747, which gave way midflight a few years later after the Boeing repair and resulting in an explosive decompression and the death of 520 persons (known as JAL 123).
Frankly, if it is too damaged, scrap it.
sekantSpace security index, mostly chapters 7 and 8
sekantDo they have perfect right to do it, by all laws and international standards.. YES
???
No so simple, and this is why the North Koreans play with the issue of launching of a satellite.
A satellite launch can not be barred by any provision of international law. If the launcher crosses japanese airspace while already in space and not in its airspace, there is nothing that Japan can say/object to. The issue here, though, is that there is no agreed definition of outer space under international law (ie it is not definded by the 1967 outer space treaty), even though it is more or less agreed that if you are above an altitude of 100 km, you are actually in space.
As far as a ballistic missile test is concerned, the legal situation is different. North Korea is barred from conducting any such test by UN Security Council resolution 1718 (adopted under Chapter VII. of the Charter).
sekant“You are saying that Boeing is so good and superior that their new planes know no snitches.” Please show me where I have ever said that. I don’t believe I have ever stated that the 777 didn’t have any problems. The thread titile is: “Qantas grounds A380 fleet.” I don’t recall that happening in the case of the 777. .
You clearly stated that the 777 issues were minor in comparison. When, as I have posted, there were problems of similar natures with planes having diverted because of decompression, planes had to be grounded because of major engine issues. They may not be the exact same issues, but there certainly were not minor in comparison. The letter of UA to Boeing, a highly unusual exercice, listed a whole list of other issues.
Stuff that happen to all newly inducted planes, and whether you care to admit it or not this affects Boeing as much as Airbus.
As far as who is embarrassed, I’ll bet the passenger service people who notified that pax that their travel plans were interrupted were embarrassed for their airline. And I’ll bet Airbus was a little embarrassed also, if I had built the airplane, I would have been.
.
Got stuck 8 hours in Amsterdam last year because the KLM/747 Ihad issues after we had boarded. Got stuck one entire day in Guadeloupe (not that I minded) a year ago because the Air France B777 to CDG had major issues and was grounded. Were Boeing embarassed in any way ?? No, because this happens day in, day out.
sekantAny criticism of the blessed A380 brings out the defenders and fan boys. So be it. The bottom line, which you have not refuted (and I do not believe can be refuted), is that this is an embarrassment for Qantas and Airbus that they would have preferred not happen.
Who do you think you are fooling, mate?? I point out that snags hit all new planes, be there boeing’s or airbuses’. You are saying that Boeing is so good and superior that their new planes know no snitches. You are way past the fan boy state.
And this is an embarassment only in the eyes of people who know squat about aviation. Not really surprised that you are among the lot.
The problems United had seem to be minor by comparison…..their whole fleet was never grounded for example. Airlines routinely groan for better support, to the extent of “leaking” private correspondence..
Minor in comparison?? UA B777s had to be diverted three times during their first few months of exploitation because of loss of cabin pressure. It made big headlines at the time and the issue was blown out of all proportion (probably by the likes of you). Several early BA 777s had to be grounded because of engine issues.
United executive Joseph O’Gorman, who wrote the letter, issued a statement yesterday saying: “The 777 is an excellent airplane. We just want to make it better. The 777 is outperforming all other new airplanes we’ve introduced into our fleet.” …..
SIA said the same type of thing about the 380. You expect a new airplane outperform existing ones. Nothing new or striking here.
Sign In
