All I wanted to do is try to fly on a 747!!!

[Ted[_2_]]

Hi Everyone,
All I wanted to try to do is attempt to find a flight aboard a 747 without
going to far to do so. I really didn't realize it would be such a battle to
go through to find one. Wow!! Ultimately a posting by a James Robinson
ended my search and HOPEFULLY will end the battles that I began and to my
fault, help a couple going. THANK YOU, James Robinson for your help and
understanding what I was requesting. I really did think this newsgroup
would have been a proper place to post my request but again, in my life of
many wrongs, I was wrong again.

[Jim Stewart]

Ted wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> All I wanted to try to do is attempt to find a flight aboard a 747 without
> going to far to do so. I really didn't realize it would be such a battle to
> go through to find one. Wow!! Ultimately a posting by a James Robinson
> ended my search and HOPEFULLY will end the battles that I began and to my
> fault, help a couple going. THANK YOU, James Robinson for your help and
> understanding what I was requesting. I really did think this newsgroup
> would have been a proper place to post my request but again, in my life of
> many wrongs, I was wrong again.

I have to ask.

Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
a 747? First class is nice, but coach just
plain sucks. I've flown to Tokyo and London
in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
I've ever flown in.

OTOH, if you can find a lightly loaded 727
with a pilot that's more concerned with putting
the earth behind him than mitigating noise,
well, that's an airplane. For the full experience
sit in the back between the three engines...

[terry]

On Jan 28, 9:06*am, "Ted" <TBBlakeley@comcastDOTnet> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> All I wanted to try to do is attempt to find a flight aboard a 747 without
> going to far to do so. *I really didn't realize it would be such a battle to
> go through to find one. *Wow!! *Ultimately a posting by a James Robinson
> ended my search and HOPEFULLY will end the battles that I began and to my
> fault, help a couple going. *THANK YOU, James Robinson for your help and
> understanding what I was requesting. * I really did think this newsgroup
> would have been a proper place to post my request but again, in my life of
> many wrongs, I was wrong again.

Chill out there Ted, its only a battle if you want it to be. there
probably are better groups to post such a question, but it was SORT
OF aviation related so I dont think there was any big deal about
posting the question here. But if you are going to ask a question
that is sort of flying related dont get so upset if people only SORT
of answer the exact question you asked ( or as will quite often happen
on Usenet , not answer it all or totally change the subject). In this
life you usually get what you pay for and anything else is a bonus.
How much did these answers cost you? I for one was being a bit
tongue in cheek about my G Dubbya comments. It might ( or might not)
surpise you but there is a bit of stereotypical view of Americans
around the world that they dont like to get out of their own country
much, and the way you posed the question kind of played to that
stereotype, even though for all I know you may be quite a travelled
man. I hope you dont take offence to this either, I am an Australian
myself and I know you guys probably have some stereotypical views of
Aussies that may or may not be accurate. ( like drinking beer for
breakfast - ok that one is true but ....)
Terry
PPL Downunder

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
> a 747?

Because it's nicer than flying in a smaller aircraft.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
>> a 747?
>
> Because it's nicer than flying in a smaller aircraft.
>

No, it isn't fjukktard.


Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
>> a 747?
>
> Because it's nicer than flying in a smaller aircraft.

Don't quote my posts out of context.

[ManhattanMan]

Jim Stewart wrote:
>
> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
> a 747? First class is nice, but coach just
> plain sucks.

Exactly what I was thinking! First class front rows have some really unique
views, but other than that, what the hells the difference?
Unless you're at a window seat in back and counting engines... Oh well...

[Marty Shapiro]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Ted wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>> All I wanted to try to do is attempt to find a flight aboard a 747
>> without going to far to do so. I really didn't realize it would be
>> such a battle to go through to find one. Wow!! Ultimately a posting
>> by a James Robinson ended my search and HOPEFULLY will end the
>> battles that I began and to my fault, help a couple going. THANK
>> YOU, James Robinson for your help and understanding what I was
>> requesting. I really did think this newsgroup would have been a
>> proper place to post my request but again, in my life of many wrongs,
>> I was wrong again.
>
> I have to ask.
>
> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
> a 747? First class is nice, but coach just
> plain sucks. I've flown to Tokyo and London
> in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
> I've ever flown in.
>
> OTOH, if you can find a lightly loaded 727
> with a pilot that's more concerned with putting
> the earth behind him than mitigating noise,
> well, that's an airplane. For the full experience
> sit in the back between the three engines...
>
>

Jim -

The old 747's (when they were 2-4-3 in coach and 36 inch pitch was still
standard in international coach) were much nicer to fly in, especially with
the piano lounge in the rear. Those days are long gone.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
>> a 747?
>
> Because it's nicer than flying in a smaller aircraft.

You don't know **** from Shinola.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Because it's nicer than flying in a smaller aircraft.

You on drugs, boy?

[Steve Foley]

"Ted" <TBBlakeley@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
. ..
> Hi Everyone,
> I really didn't realize it would be such a battle to go through to find
> one.

Unfortunately, our resident troll cannot help but pollute a thread like this
and ignite a fuse.

FWIW, A long time ago (1990) I flew from Boston to Lima, Peru on a 747 that
stopped in Miami. I think it was on Continental.

[Benjamin Dover]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Because it's nicer than flying in a smaller aircraft.
>
> You on drugs, boy?
>

Even drugs can't explain MXSmoron's cretenous stupidity.

[Slug]

Benjamin Dover wrote:
> Judah > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Because it's nicer than flying in a smaller aircraft.
>> You on drugs, boy?
>>
>
> Even drugs can't explain MXSmoron's cretenous stupidity.
>

747 fuel will be very expensive soon
Oil too much. Must kiss Arab ass
George

This indirect taxation through inflated oil prices paid to
Saudi Arabia is having two extremely damaging effects on the
U.S.:

1) it is rapidly transferring control of our economy to
Saudi Arabia, one of the most totalitarian and economically
manipulative societies in the world.

2) it is preventing the desperately needed appropriate use
of a gas tax. We need for gas to be even more expensive than
it already is, in order to foster alternatives and we need
this sooner rater than later. It is only the uses to which
it is currently being put that is so bad. (Iraq war, the
creation of various powerful and unaccountable (to the
public) tools of repression (Blackwater, etc.), the
enrichment of various anti-democracy groups, etc.)

“The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this
country, and now they must put it back. … It is ebb and
flow, tidal gravity…. There are no nations, there are no
peoples. There is only one vast and immense, interwoven,
multi-national dominion of petro-dollars. … There is no
America. There is no ‘democracy.’ The world is a business,
one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men
will work.”

[Mxsmanic]

Slug writes:

> 747 fuel will be very expensive soon

It uses the same fuel that other jet airliners use. And a single 747 with 500
pax is more efficient than five 737s with 100 pax.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Slug writes:
>
>> 747 fuel will be very expensive soon
>
> It uses the same fuel that other jet airliners use.

Nope, it runs on bug farts.

Bertie

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Slug writes:
>
>> 747 fuel will be very expensive soon
>
> It uses the same fuel that other jet airliners use. And a single 747
> with 500 pax is more efficient than five 737s with 100 pax.

Only if all 500 seats are full.

[xyzzy]

On Jan 27, 5:06 pm, "Ted" <TBBlakeley@comcastDOTnet> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> All I wanted to try to do is attempt to find a flight aboard a 747 without
> going to far to do so. I really didn't realize it would be such a battle to
> go through to find one. Wow!! Ultimately a posting by a James Robinson
> ended my search and HOPEFULLY will end the battles that I began and to my
> fault, help a couple going. THANK YOU, James Robinson for your help and
> understanding what I was requesting. I really did think this newsgroup
> would have been a proper place to post my request but again, in my life of
> many wrongs, I was wrong again.

You've gotten good advice here if you're willing to wade through the
chaff. You might also try rec.travel.air, that newsgroup is more
focussed on airline travel as a passenger.

In my experience, passenger 747's are awfully rare in this hemisphere.
Even between the U.S. and Europe, it looks like 777's and A330's
dominate. You're probably going to have to go to Asia. Lots of 747s
leave LAX for Asian destinations.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Only if all 500 seats are full.

They are just as likely to be full as the seats of a 737.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Judah writes:

> > Only if all 500 seats are full.

> They are just as likely to be full as the seats of a 737.

What an idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Only if all 500 seats are full.
>
> They are just as likely to be full as the seats of a 737.
>

So what fjukkwit?

Wlaking would be even cheaper?

Or would it?



Bertie

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Only if all 500 seats are full.
>
> They are just as likely to be full as the seats of a 737.

If 160 people want to go from JFK to ORD on a Thursday morning at 8am, they
will fill a 737, but they will consume less than 1/3 of the seats on a 747.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Wlaking would be even cheaper?
>
> Or would it?

You're forgetting. It's almost impossible to walk anywhere without spending
money.

(c) Mx - 2008

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Wlaking would be even cheaper?
>>
>> Or would it?
>
> You're forgetting. It's almost impossible to walk anywhere without
> spending money.
>
> (c) Mx - 2008
>

Good excuse to sit in front of the TV.

Oh wait! Do they have a licence for that in France?



Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Good excuse to sit in front of the TV.
>
> Oh wait! Do they have a licence for that in France?

We do in the UK ;)

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Good excuse to sit in front of the TV.
>>
>> Oh wait! Do they have a licence for that in France?
>
> We do in the UK ;)
>
> Andy
>

I know. I was wondering if he had to pay to watch in France in the same
way.
I wonder if they charge him virtual landing fees?

Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> I know. I was wondering if he had to pay to watch in France in the same
> way.
> I wonder if they charge him virtual landing fees?

Perhaps that's why he Sims so much, he can't afford to watch TV?

:)

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> I know. I was wondering if he had to pay to watch in France in the same
>> way.
>> I wonder if they charge him virtual landing fees?
>
> Perhaps that's why he Sims so much, he can't afford to watch TV?
>
>:)
>
> Andy
>

Exactly. If they ever bring in Being a tit tax in france,he's totally
screwed , though.

Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Exactly. If they ever bring in Being a tit tax in france,he's totally
> screwed , though.

But given that the tax system seems biased towards the rich sometimes, I'm
sure given his 'talent' he'd come out well on that front too :)

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Exactly. If they ever bring in Being a tit tax in france,he's totally
>> screwed , though.
>
> But given that the tax system seems biased towards the rich sometimes,
> I'm sure given his 'talent' he'd come out well on that front too :)
>

Heh heh.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> If 160 people want to go from JFK to ORD on a Thursday morning at 8am, they
> will fill a 737, but they will consume less than 1/3 of the seats on a 747.

If 1000 people want to go from JFK to ORD on Thursday, they'll fill two 747s
or ten 737s. The main difference is in how much fuel is wasted and how great
an impact on the environment is created.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> If 160 people want to go from JFK to ORD on a Thursday morning at
>> 8am, they will fill a 737, but they will consume less than 1/3 of the
>> seats on a 747.
>
> If 1000 people want to go from JFK to ORD on Thursday, they'll fill
> two 747s or ten 737s. The main difference is in how much fuel is
> wasted and how great an impact on the environment is created.
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
>> If 160 people want to go from JFK to ORD on a Thursday morning at 8am, they
>> will fill a 737, but they will consume less than 1/3 of the seats on a 747.
>
> If 1000 people want to go from JFK to ORD on Thursday, they'll fill two 747s
> or ten 737s. The main difference is in how much fuel is wasted and how great
> an impact on the environment is created.


If there were 1000 people that wanted to fly JFK to ORD at the same time
every day, every other day or even once a week there would be some
airline that would schedule the flights with 2 747's. There aren't so
there isn't. The airlines have found that the customers want flights
scheduled throughout the day at different times to match with their
individual schedules.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Judah writes:

> > If 160 people want to go from JFK to ORD on a Thursday morning at 8am, they
> > will fill a 737, but they will consume less than 1/3 of the seats on a 747.

> If 1000 people want to go from JFK to ORD on Thursday, they'll fill two 747s
> or ten 737s. The main difference is in how much fuel is wasted and how great
> an impact on the environment is created.

If frogs had a BRS, they wouldn't bumb their ass so hard when they land.

If you had a clue, you wouldn't have made this post.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> If there were 1000 people that wanted to fly JFK to ORD at the same time
> every day, every other day or even once a week there would be some
> airline that would schedule the flights with 2 747's.

That was exactly the case in the past.

> There aren't so there isn't. The airlines have found that the customers
> want flights scheduled throughout the day at different times to match
> with their individual schedules.

So why not have Citations leaving every ten minutes with five passengers each?
How can people complain about the effect of aviation on the environment while
accepting multiple, inefficient flights of small aircraft instead of a lesser
number of efficient flights of large aircraft? Where does one draw the line?
Is it any surprise that airspace is crowded?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> If there were 1000 people that wanted to fly JFK to ORD at the same
>> time every day, every other day or even once a week there would be
>> some airline that would schedule the flights with 2 747's.
>
> That was exactly the case in the past.
>
>> There aren't so there isn't. The airlines have found that the
>> customers want flights scheduled throughout the day at different
>> times to match with their individual schedules.
>
> So why not have Citations leaving every ten minutes with five
> passengers each? How can people complain about the effect of aviation
> on the environment while accepting multiple, inefficient flights of
> small aircraft instead of a lesser number of efficient flights of
> large aircraft? Where does one draw the line? Is it any surprise that
> airspace is crowded?
>

You are an idiot.

Bertie

[John[_13_]]

Except for the minor detail that a 777 is significantly greener then a 747
and will output less greenhouse gas per passenger mile so running more of
them benefits the environment as well as the needs of the passengers.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> If there were 1000 people that wanted to fly JFK to ORD at the same time
>> every day, every other day or even once a week there would be some
>> airline that would schedule the flights with 2 747's.
>
> That was exactly the case in the past.
>
>> There aren't so there isn't. The airlines have found that the customers
>> want flights scheduled throughout the day at different times to match
>> with their individual schedules.
>
> So why not have Citations leaving every ten minutes with five passengers
> each?
> How can people complain about the effect of aviation on the environment
> while
> accepting multiple, inefficient flights of small aircraft instead of a
> lesser
> number of efficient flights of large aircraft? Where does one draw the
> line?
> Is it any surprise that airspace is crowded?

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> If there were 1000 people that wanted to fly JFK to ORD at the same
>>> time every day, every other day or even once a week there would be
>>> some airline that would schedule the flights with 2 747's.
>> That was exactly the case in the past.
>>
>>> There aren't so there isn't. The airlines have found that the
>>> customers want flights scheduled throughout the day at different
>>> times to match with their individual schedules.
>> So why not have Citations leaving every ten minutes with five
>> passengers each? How can people complain about the effect of aviation
>> on the environment while accepting multiple, inefficient flights of
>> small aircraft instead of a lesser number of efficient flights of
>> large aircraft? Where does one draw the line? Is it any surprise that
>> airspace is crowded?
>>
>
> You are an idiot.
>
> Bertie
>

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> If there were 1000 people that wanted to fly JFK to ORD at the same time
>> every day, every other day or even once a week there would be some
>> airline that would schedule the flights with 2 747's.
>
> That was exactly the case in the past.
>

If there was only one carrier in the world you would probably see just
exactly what you want. One big ass plane flying from A to B as few times
per period as possible. Fortunately we don't have a monopoly on flight
in this country so one of the variable that comes up in the equation is
when do the passengers want to fly. Some want to leave at 0700 some at
0900 some at 1300 some at 1700 some at 2000.



>> There aren't so there isn't. The airlines have found that the customers
>> want flights scheduled throughout the day at different times to match
>> with their individual schedules.
>
> So why not have Citations leaving every ten minutes with five passengers each?

There are people willing to pay the extra cost to have a Citation take
them some where when they want to go.

> How can people complain about the effect of aviation on the environment while
> accepting multiple, inefficient flights of small aircraft instead of a lesser
> number of efficient flights of large aircraft?

Because, thank God, the environment isn't the only thing that drives the
economy.

>Where does one draw the line?

At some economically viable point. The airlines are having a hard time
finding it so you probably won't get the right answer here.

> Is it any surprise that airspace is crowded?

No it isn't. A lot of people need to go places.

[[email protected]]

> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
> a 747? *First class is nice, but coach just
> plain sucks. *I've flown to Tokyo and London
> in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
> I've ever flown in.

I agree.
Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +), that
hurts.
The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And the
onboard food is better too)

-Kees

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:767a019c-11bb-401d-9e25-1ed848f1acd7
@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

>
>> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
>> a 747? *First class is nice, but coach just
>> plain sucks. *I've flown to Tokyo and London
>> in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
>> I've ever flown in.
>
> I agree.
> Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +), that
> hurts.
> The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And the
> onboard food is better too)
>


Try getting a Cessna 150 from Houston to Amsterdam.
It takes a loooooooonnng time.




Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 30, 11:24*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:767a019c-11bb-401d-9e25-1ed848f1acd7
> @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
> >> a 747? *First class is nice, but coach just
> >> plain sucks. *I've flown to Tokyo and London
> >> in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
> >> I've ever flown in.
>
> > I agree.
> > Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +), that
> > hurts.
> > The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And the
> > onboard food is better too)
>
> Try getting a Cessna 150 from Houston to Amsterdam.
> It takes a loooooooonnng time.
>
> Bertie

In a container onboard a 747, 8+ hours I think.

-Kees

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:966fa6fd-c33c-45ff-8ffd-289a18279e16
@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jan 30, 11:24*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:767a019c-11bb-401d-9e25-
1ed848f1acd7
>> @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
>> >> a 747? *First class is nice, but coach just
>> >> plain sucks. *I've flown to Tokyo and London
>> >> in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
>> >> I've ever flown in.
>>
>> > I agree.
>> > Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +), that
>> > hurts.
>> > The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And the
>> > onboard food is better too)
>>
>> Try getting a Cessna 150 from Houston to Amsterdam.
>> It takes a loooooooonnng time.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> In a container onboard a 747, 8+ hours I think.

He he!

Probably cheaper than flying it yourself.

Let's see. With tanks, you could probably get about 1100 miles range out
of one with a bit of reserve. So, Houston to, say, Columbus Ohio, about
500 bucks Ohio to Sept Isle Quebec, another 500. Sept Isle to Goose,
about 750 ( fuel price) Goose to Narsarsuaq another 750. Narsarsuaq to
Rejkavik about 2000 ( you will have to buy an entire 200 litre barrel
of avgas there at about 25 bucks a gallon) Rejkavik to Stornaway,
another 750 or therabouts and then on to Amsterdam for another 750 or
so.

I make that $5500 off the top of my head.

Oh yeah, this would be asingle seat airplane as you would have to stick
a tank in the right seat and remove the right hand stick!

Oh, and before you ask Larry, Yes, you would be overweight and yes it
would be legal.


Bertie



Bertie
..

[[email protected]]

On Jan 30, 1:18*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:966fa6fd-c33c-45ff-8ffd-289a18279e16
> @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 11:24*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in news:767a019c-11bb-401d-9e25-
> 1ed848f1acd7
> >> @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
> >> >> a 747? *First class is nice, but coach just
> >> >> plain sucks. *I've flown to Tokyo and London
> >> >> in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
> >> >> I've ever flown in.
>
> >> > I agree.
> >> > Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +), that
> >> > hurts.
> >> > The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And the
> >> > onboard food is better too)
>
> >> Try getting a Cessna 150 from Houston to Amsterdam.
> >> It takes a loooooooonnng time.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > In a container onboard a 747, 8+ hours I think.
>
> He he!
>
> Probably cheaper than flying it yourself.
>
> Let's see. With tanks, you could probably get about 1100 miles range out
> of one with a bit of reserve. So, Houston to, say, Columbus Ohio, about
> 500 bucks Ohio to Sept Isle Quebec, another 500. Sept Isle to Goose,
> about 750 ( fuel price) Goose to Narsarsuaq another 750. Narsarsuaq to
> Rejkavik about *2000 ( you will have to buy an entire 200 litre barrel
> of avgas there at about 25 bucks a gallon) Rejkavik to Stornaway,
> another 750 or therabouts and then on to Amsterdam for another 750 or
> so.
>
> I make that $5500 off the top of my head.

With todays dollar that is about....hmmm...340 euro?


-Kees

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:d19cf71b-5703-460e-971e-a12a7f2ffee4
@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> On Jan 30, 1:18*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:966fa6fd-c33c-45ff-8ffd-
289a18279e16
>> @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 30, 11:24*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in news:767a019c-11bb-401d-9e25-
>> 1ed848f1acd7
>> >> @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
>> >> >> a 747? *First class is nice, but coach just
>> >> >> plain sucks. *I've flown to Tokyo and London
>> >> >> in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
>> >> >> I've ever flown in.
>>
>> >> > I agree.
>> >> > Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +),
that
>> >> > hurts.
>> >> > The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And
the
>> >> > onboard food is better too)
>>
>> >> Try getting a Cessna 150 from Houston to Amsterdam.
>> >> It takes a loooooooonnng time.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > In a container onboard a 747, 8+ hours I think.
>>
>> He he!
>>
>> Probably cheaper than flying it yourself.
>>
>> Let's see. With tanks, you could probably get about 1100 miles range
out
>> of one with a bit of reserve. So, Houston to, say, Columbus Ohio,
about
>> 500 bucks Ohio to Sept Isle Quebec, another 500. Sept Isle to Goose,
>> about 750 ( fuel price) Goose to Narsarsuaq another 750. Narsarsuaq
to
>> Rejkavik about *2000 ( you will have to buy an entire 200 litre
barrel
>> of avgas there at about 25 bucks a gallon) Rejkavik to Stornaway,
>> another 750 or therabouts and then on to Amsterdam for another 750 or
>> so.
>>
>> I make that $5500 off the top of my head.
>
> With todays dollar that is about....hmmm...340 euro?
>
>
> -Kees
>
>
>
>
>
Prolly!


Add to that landing fees and fitting out the airplane for the trip and
it'd be a lot cheaper to ship it in a container. You could fit two..


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

John writes:

> Except for the minor detail that a 777 is significantly greener then a 747
> and will output less greenhouse gas per passenger mile so running more of
> them benefits the environment as well as the needs of the passengers.

Most of the flights today are 737s.

Exactly how do you define "greener," and how much "greener" is a 777?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> If there was only one carrier in the world you would probably see just
> exactly what you want. One big ass plane flying from A to B as few times
> per period as possible. Fortunately we don't have a monopoly on flight
> in this country so one of the variable that comes up in the equation is
> when do the passengers want to fly. Some want to leave at 0700 some at
> 0900 some at 1300 some at 1700 some at 2000.

So vast numbers of aircraft wait in line to take off and land with 60% load
factors instead of a handful of large aircraft fully loaded. Yes, that will
work wonders for society in the long run.

> > Is it any surprise that airspace is crowded?
>
> No it isn't. A lot of people need to go places.

Fewer aircraft would allow them to go places with less traffic.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John writes:
>
>> Except for the minor detail that a 777 is significantly greener then
>> a 747 and will output less greenhouse gas per passenger mile so
>> running more of them benefits the environment as well as the needs of
>> the passengers.
>
> Most of the flights today are 737s.


So waht fjukkwt?


>
> Exactly how do you define "greener,"


Less purple.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> If there was only one carrier in the world you would probably see
>> just exactly what you want. One big ass plane flying from A to B as
>> few times per period as possible. Fortunately we don't have a
>> monopoly on flight in this country so one of the variable that comes
>> up in the equation is when do the passengers want to fly. Some want
>> to leave at 0700 some at 0900 some at 1300 some at 1700 some at 2000.
>
> So vast numbers of aircraft wait in line to take off and land with 60%
> load factors instead of a handful of large aircraft fully loaded.
> Yes, that will work wonders for society in the long run.
>
>> > Is it any surprise that airspace is crowded?
>>
>> No it isn't. A lot of people need to go places.
>
> Fewer aircraft would allow them to go places with less traffic.


Yes, let's everybody, the intire East Coast, go to Buttfjukk Iowa for the
weekend.

We'll meet up at 7:45 by the Pretzel place at the airport.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> If there was only one carrier in the world you would probably see just
>> exactly what you want. One big ass plane flying from A to B as few times
>> per period as possible. Fortunately we don't have a monopoly on flight
>> in this country so one of the variable that comes up in the equation is
>> when do the passengers want to fly. Some want to leave at 0700 some at
>> 0900 some at 1300 some at 1700 some at 2000.
>
> So vast numbers of aircraft wait in line to take off and land with 60% load
> factors instead of a handful of large aircraft fully loaded. Yes, that will
> work wonders for society in the long run.
>

As usual you are wrong right off the bat because the average load factor
is over 79%.

Load factors 2007 2006 Change
AirTran 77.8% 67.3% 10.5
Alaska 71.6% 71.6% 0.0
American 80.6% 77.6% 3.0
Continental 79.8% 79.5% 0.2
Delta 79.9% 77.2% 2.7
JetBlue 75.9% 78.8% (2.9)
Northwest 84.3% 83.6% 0.7
Southwest 70.5% 70.1% 0.4
United 81.1% 80.6% 0.4
US Airways 80.5% 77.2% 3.3
Average load factors 79.2% 77.6% 1.5



>>> Is it any surprise that airspace is crowded?
>> No it isn't. A lot of people need to go places.
>
> Fewer aircraft would allow them to go places with less traffic.

But not when they needed to be there.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John writes:

> > Except for the minor detail that a 777 is significantly greener then a 747
> > and will output less greenhouse gas per passenger mile so running more of
> > them benefits the environment as well as the needs of the passengers.

> Most of the flights today are 737s.

If you think really, really, hard, you might understand why that is.

Or, if you went to a real airport with real people and real airplanes
it would become obvious.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > John writes:
>
> > > Except for the minor detail that a 777 is significantly greener then a 747
> > > and will output less greenhouse gas per passenger mile so running more of
> > > them benefits the environment as well as the needs of the passengers.
>
> > Most of the flights today are 737s.
>
> If you think really, really, hard, you might understand why that is.

I already know why it is, but the point is that a "greener" 777 doesn't matter
much when most of the flights are on 737s.

And flying many small aircraft is always less efficient than flying a few
large ones.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> As usual you are wrong right off the bat because the average load factor
> is over 79%.

Show me the distribution of load factors by aircraft and route type.

> But not when they needed to be there.

It seemed to work well for decades.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> As usual you are wrong right off the bat because the average load factor
>> is over 79%.
>
> Show me the distribution of load factors by aircraft and route type.
>

As you have said, Do your own research. I gave you the averages for the
majors and it was 79.2%. Much higher than your 60% figure. Sure there
are flight with less and flights with more.


>> But not when they needed to be there.
>
> It seemed to work well for decades.

A lot more people are flying now and it is much cheaper for a person to
fly since deregulation.

As I said though the system isn't perfect and "greenness" isn't the only
factor you have to take into account.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > John writes:
> >
> > > > Except for the minor detail that a 777 is significantly greener then a 747
> > > > and will output less greenhouse gas per passenger mile so running more of
> > > > them benefits the environment as well as the needs of the passengers.
> >
> > > Most of the flights today are 737s.
> >
> > If you think really, really, hard, you might understand why that is.

> I already know why it is, but the point is that a "greener" 777 doesn't matter
> much when most of the flights are on 737s.

> And flying many small aircraft is always less efficient than flying a few
> large ones.

If you think really, really, hard, you might understand why that statement
isn't true.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > John writes:
>>
>> > > Except for the minor detail that a 777 is significantly greener
>> > > then a 747 and will output less greenhouse gas per passenger mile
>> > > so running more of them benefits the environment as well as the
>> > > needs of the passengers.
>>
>> > Most of the flights today are 737s.
>>
>> If you think really, really, hard, you might understand why that is.
>
> I already know why it is, but the point is that a "greener" 777
> doesn't matter much when most of the flights are on 737s.
>
> And flying many small aircraft is always less efficient than flying a
> few large ones.
>

Nope, wrong again ,fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> As usual you are wrong right off the bat because the average load
>> factor is over 79%.
>
> Show me the distribution of load factors by aircraft and route type.

Why?

>
>> But not when they needed to be there.
>
> It seemed to work well for decades.
>

Nope, wrong again fjukkwit.

Bertie

[John[_13_]]

Yo Pinhead:

Of the 4500 aircraft currently aloft on IFR flights only 520 of them are
737s. That is no where near most.

And flying many smaller aircraft is not always less efficient then fewer
large aircraft particularly if you consider load factors.


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > John writes:
>>
>> > > Except for the minor detail that a 777 is significantly greener then
>> > > a 747
>> > > and will output less greenhouse gas per passenger mile so running
>> > > more of
>> > > them benefits the environment as well as the needs of the passengers.
>>
>> > Most of the flights today are 737s.
>>
>> If you think really, really, hard, you might understand why that is.
>
> I already know why it is, but the point is that a "greener" 777 doesn't
> matter
> much when most of the flights are on 737s.
>
> And flying many small aircraft is always less efficient than flying a few
> large ones.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 28, 11:21 am, xyzzy > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:06 pm, "Ted" <TBBlakeley@comcastDOTnet> wrote:
>
> > Hi Everyone,
> > All I wanted to try to do is attempt to find a flight aboard a 747 without
> > going to far to do so. I really didn't realize it would be such a battle to
> > go through to find one. Wow!! Ultimately a posting by a James Robinson
> > ended my search and HOPEFULLY will end the battles that I began and to my
> > fault, help a couple going. THANK YOU, James Robinson for your help and
> > understanding what I was requesting. I really did think this newsgroup
> > would have been a proper place to post my request but again, in my life of
> > many wrongs, I was wrong again.
>
> You've gotten good advice here if you're willing to wade through the
> chaff. You might also try rec.travel.air, that newsgroup is more
> focussed on airline travel as a passenger.
>
> In my experience, passenger 747's are awfully rare in this hemisphere.
> Even between the U.S. and Europe, it looks like 777's and A330's
> dominate. You're probably going to have to go to Asia. Lots of 747s
> leave LAX for Asian destinations.

The days of 747 service are numbered, alot of people missed rides on
L-1011s, DC-10s, and 707s. Its like the Redd Fox lounge shows in
Vegas, you saw the sign on the Hacienda and wanted to go. Then one day
poof, Redd was gone.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> If there was only one carrier in the world you would probably see
>>> just exactly what you want. One big ass plane flying from A to B as
>>> few times per period as possible. Fortunately we don't have a
>>> monopoly on flight in this country so one of the variable that comes
>>> up in the equation is when do the passengers want to fly. Some want
>>> to leave at 0700 some at 0900 some at 1300 some at 1700 some at 2000.
>> So vast numbers of aircraft wait in line to take off and land with 60%
>> load factors instead of a handful of large aircraft fully loaded.
>> Yes, that will work wonders for society in the long run.
>>
>>>> Is it any surprise that airspace is crowded?
>>> No it isn't. A lot of people need to go places.
>> Fewer aircraft would allow them to go places with less traffic.
>
>
> Yes, let's everybody, the intire East Coast, go to Buttfjukk Iowa for the
> weekend.

Meeting up with Jay in RL?

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> wrote in news:966fa6fd-c33c-45ff-8ffd-289a18279e16
> @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jan 30, 11:24 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> wrote in news:767a019c-11bb-401d-9e25-
> 1ed848f1acd7
>>> @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
>>>>> a 747? First class is nice, but coach just
>>>>> plain sucks. I've flown to Tokyo and London
>>>>> in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
>>>>> I've ever flown in.
>>>> I agree.
>>>> Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +), that
>>>> hurts.
>>>> The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And the
>>>> onboard food is better too)
>>> Try getting a Cessna 150 from Houston to Amsterdam.
>>> It takes a loooooooonnng time.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> In a container onboard a 747, 8+ hours I think.
>
> He he!
>
> Probably cheaper than flying it yourself.
>
> Let's see. With tanks, you could probably get about 1100 miles range out
> of one with a bit of reserve. So, Houston to, say, Columbus Ohio, about
> 500 bucks Ohio to Sept Isle Quebec, another 500. Sept Isle to Goose,
> about 750 ( fuel price) Goose to Narsarsuaq another 750. Narsarsuaq to
> Rejkavik about 2000 ( you will have to buy an entire 200 litre barrel
> of avgas there at about 25 bucks a gallon) Rejkavik to Stornaway,
> another 750 or therabouts and then on to Amsterdam for another 750 or
> so.
>
> I make that $5500 off the top of my head.
>
> Oh yeah, this would be asingle seat airplane as you would have to stick
> a tank in the right seat and remove the right hand stick!
>
> Oh, and before you ask Larry, Yes, you would be overweight and yes it
> would be legal.

You're speaking from experience, of course!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
use.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>>
>>>> If there was only one carrier in the world you would probably see
>>>> just exactly what you want. One big ass plane flying from A to B as
>>>> few times per period as possible. Fortunately we don't have a
>>>> monopoly on flight in this country so one of the variable that
>>>> comes up in the equation is when do the passengers want to fly.
>>>> Some want to leave at 0700 some at 0900 some at 1300 some at 1700
>>>> some at 2000.
>>> So vast numbers of aircraft wait in line to take off and land with
>>> 60% load factors instead of a handful of large aircraft fully
>>> loaded. Yes, that will work wonders for society in the long run.
>>>
>>>>> Is it any surprise that airspace is crowded?
>>>> No it isn't. A lot of people need to go places.
>>> Fewer aircraft would allow them to go places with less traffic.
>>
>>
>> Yes, let's everybody, the intire East Coast, go to Buttfjukk Iowa for
>> the weekend.
>
> Meeting up with Jay in RL?
>

Yeah! I wanna sit in his sim and watch top gun!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
use.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> wrote in
>> news:966fa6fd-c33c-45ff-8ffd-289a18279e16
>> @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 11:24 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> wrote in news:767a019c-11bb-401d-9e25-
>> 1ed848f1acd7
>>>> @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
>>>>>> a 747? First class is nice, but coach just
>>>>>> plain sucks. I've flown to Tokyo and London
>>>>>> in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
>>>>>> I've ever flown in.
>>>>> I agree.
>>>>> Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +), that
>>>>> hurts.
>>>>> The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And the
>>>>> onboard food is better too)
>>>> Try getting a Cessna 150 from Houston to Amsterdam.
>>>> It takes a loooooooonnng time.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> In a container onboard a 747, 8+ hours I think.
>>
>> He he!
>>
>> Probably cheaper than flying it yourself.
>>
>> Let's see. With tanks, you could probably get about 1100 miles range
>> out of one with a bit of reserve. So, Houston to, say, Columbus Ohio,
>> about 500 bucks Ohio to Sept Isle Quebec, another 500. Sept Isle to
>> Goose, about 750 ( fuel price) Goose to Narsarsuaq another 750.
>> Narsarsuaq to Rejkavik about 2000 ( you will have to buy an entire
>> 200 litre barrel of avgas there at about 25 bucks a gallon) Rejkavik
>> to Stornaway, another 750 or therabouts and then on to Amsterdam for
>> another 750 or so.
>>
>> I make that $5500 off the top of my head.
>>
>> Oh yeah, this would be asingle seat airplane as you would have to
>> stick a tank in the right seat and remove the right hand stick!
>>
>> Oh, and before you ask Larry, Yes, you would be overweight and yes it
>> would be legal.
>
> You're speaking from experience, of course!
>

Well, ..

Not lately anyway.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The days of 747 service are numbered ...

People have been saying that for forty years.

[ManhattanMan]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The days of 747 service are numbered ...
>
> People have been saying that for forty years.

2 years before it was flown commercially... You are so full of ****, it's
unbelievable.........

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> The days of 747 service are numbered ...
>
> People have been saying that for forty years.
>

No they haven't. They have been saying your days are numbered.

Remember?

Like your last boss?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> ManhattanMan writes:
>
>> 2 years before it was flown commercially...
>
> Yes. The predictions were made even before it started to fly.

Yes, they said it about just about every airplane ever.

What's your net post gonna be, "The sun'll come up, tomorrow, bet your
bottom dollar that tomorrow....

Bertie

[Jon]

On Jan 30, 2:35 pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> [..]
> > And flying many small aircraft is always less efficient than flying a few
> > large ones.
>
> If you think really, really, hard, you might understand why that statement
> isn't true.

Image of Curly uttering "tryin' to think but nothin' happens" :D


Regards,
Jon

[dgs[_3_]]

Jon wrote:

> On Jan 30, 2:35 pm, wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>[..]
>>
>>>And flying many small aircraft is always less efficient than flying a few
>>>large ones.
>>
>>If you think really, really, hard, you might understand why that statement
>>isn't true.
>
>
> Image of Curly uttering "tryin' to think but nothin' happens" :D

I was thinking in more contemporary terms: Homer Simpson's "Brain, you
don't like me, and I don't like you."
--
dgs