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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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!