Boring airliners?

wrote in message

P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

Nothing extraordinary to comment on. Big is not new. The 380 is only a few
feet larger than a 747; beefier, longer wing for the weight, but essentially
they've just added a second floor. New design challenges, 'tis true, but
the real question is where it will fly, and how often, and how full, to pay
for itself.

JG

"john smith" wrote in message news:7Tfce.14750

FYI... here in Columbus Ohio we discussed that issue 15 year ago.
It is an ATC problem getting the aircraft up to altitude Columbus to
Europe and getting them down Europe to Columbus. The flight paths interfer
with with Clevland, New York and Detroit operations.

I think that with a strong probability of full airplanes making those climbs
and descents, arrival and departure paths could have been worked out.

Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).

But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.

I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
way they've done with the 737 for years?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote:

Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).

But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.

Yes, but interesting doesn't pay the bills in the airliner business.


I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
way they've done with the 737 for years?

Maybe, but I believe the 777 is an "old" airplane and they needed
something new to compete with the "new" airplanes from the bus.

I always have thought that Airbus was an accurate, yet unfortunate, name
choice for an airplane company. Talk about pedestrian...

Matt

Hopefully some airlines build a smokers lounge in that tube.
It looks big enough.
Would be an improvement, a drink, a smoke and getting extremely bored
instead of just being bored and the feeling your legs are going to drop
off any minute.

-Kees

P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH someday...

What else can be said?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article , Matt Whiting wrote:
Maybe, but I believe the 777 is an "old" airplane and they needed
something new to compete with the "new" airplanes from the bus.

Yet they apparently don't feel that need with the 737 - the first model
which came out decades ago, yet they keep making new versions of it. I'd
expect a new 777 (which isn't actually an old design by airliner
standards) would be far less expensive to improve than building a
completely new ...well, tube with wings.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote:
Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).

It's a marvel of modern ugliness...it looks hydrocephlic.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:14:37 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH someday...

What else can be said?

Not sure it can land there. I read that it's so heavy, only a few
airports in the US can take it.

Corky Scott

In article , says...

Maybe, but I believe the 777 is an "old" airplane and they needed
something new to compete with the "new" airplanes from the bus.

I always have thought that Airbus was an accurate, yet unfortunate, name
choice for an airplane company. Talk about pedestrian...



I agree. The French often get screwed up when they invent "English" names.
It seems they fail to consider the connotations to English speakers. One of
the most advanced ADSL providers in France is called "wannadoo" - The poor
souls who to subscribe to them have to have an e-mail address
- and be the object of ridicule throughout the English
speaking world.

"Airbus" doesn't sound like the most technologically advanced airliner in
the world. It sounds like something slow and uncomfortable, with a toilet
in the back.

G Faris