Yep. I happened to see this very event happen right in front of my eyes while I was a flight instructor at SNA airport. I was at the base of the old tower right alongside 19R (now 20R) and heard the BOOM and looked up just as the nose was coming back down to the ground. I thought there was NO WAY he was going to stop, but stop he did. I've never seen an airplane decelerate and come to a complete stop so quickly. It was unbelievable. He did stop slightly past the threshold, though - maybe 100-200 feet into the overrun.

They didn't move the airplane for a while, so we (the instructors and other employees of the FBO I worked for) decided to check it out up close. Dead seagulls were stuck in the nosegear and main gear, and one engine had little molten balls of metal in the tailpipe.

I will never forget that episode. The quick reaction by the captain to abort PAST Vr saved the day in this instance.

I'll take Airbus and the points. How much and how long does it take to develop the 322 vs 797?

And when they're done AB will still be common cockpit and BA will have another orphan. And probably be just as "American made" as the BA one.

Realistically:
Airbus, 5 years, and $2 billion maximum.

Boeing, 10 years, and $15 billion minimum.

We integrate nothing.

And we reject nature.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/wp-conten...r-extended.jpg

They decelerated so fast the Captain's comb-over made it nearly impossible to see the runway.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...488556e49.jpeg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyone who loves the 757 (or Boeing really for that matter) can thank Harry Stonechipher. He shut down the 757 with a big dick battle with Mullally. The 757 wasn't selling, Stonechipher called out Alan's cajones, challenged him that he didn't have the balls to shut down the 757 line - and Alan did, wanting the top job at Boeing Commercial. Such a shame. Imagine the 757 with a new wing and engines. The A321NEO is still a dog.

If you mean a cockpit with no commonality between the rest of the Boeing fleet when you wrote "orphan", I believe that it might not be completely true. The 787 and 777 are operated as a single fleet by several operators. It's safe to assume Boeing would design the 797 to have a common cockpit with the 787, the current and future 777. I think (and hope for Boeing and Boeing pilots) that the 737 is and will be the only "orphan" left in their line up.

It'd be an uncomfortable narrow cabin with a new wing and engines that matches the new wing and engines of the wider cabin competition.

Exactly. The 75 is as revered as it is because of its wing and engines and that's it. Its tube isn't anything special at all. The only reason a re-winged and re-engined 757 would make sense to anyone its because BA could save some money keeping the same POS tube yet still have to do the lion's share of the R&D for the harder and more expensive parts of it anyway, and then when they're done they'd still be half a step behind.

IOW its hardly the pent up panacea many are nostalgically pining over.

The 757 seems marginally nicer/wider than the 737-1000 or whatever 73 they try to replace it with. At least the 75 JS kicks the 737's JS butt daily and twice on Sundays.

Agree on the JS, but again we're talking about stuff literally no one cares about except us because it doesn't benefit the job/mission/cost of the plane at all.

As for the tube, I'm not sure if the 75 is even wider. The -200 is barely acceptable on longer flights and the -300 is awful especially at the gate. Even worse than the -900. Its too bad 2+ door deplaning is absolutely impossible from a spirit of ingenuity point of view with the limited technology we have in this day and age. Maybe some day.

Most of the cramped cockpit in the 73 is self induced by sadistic engineers who didn't care and just wanted to go home on a Friday. Early, because it was a 3 day weekend Friday. If they moved the breaker boxes back a bit (or just made them thinner), rerouted some of the fan ducts and did away with that huge bottom screen that only displays a couple things and literally doesn't need to be there and calmed down the buzz saw trim partial collider it wouldn't be that bad.

The sticker price on a new 757 would be significantly higher, than a new A322. Also, the Airbus wins on pax comfort hands down, it's not close either.

I'm not sure why this perception exists. Is it noise or seat width? According to seat guru, so check my source, please, the coach seat on a 320 is .2 inches wider than the 737 at the mothership, and the first class seat width is identical. Slightly more comfortable on a longer flight to be sure, but not that big of a difference. Not trying to start a huge Boeing vs. Airbus thing, just curious what the hands down part is all about.

I think, and this from hundreds of deadheads, that there is an optimal cabin width for a seating configuration. E.g. 2x2 is the E175, 2x3 is the Cseries, 3x3 is the Airbus.

7 inches wider is my understanding, seats ate same width as well, makes a bigger aisle. Which is nice. For wide flight attendants, boarding and kicking people off, staying away from therapy geese, and when two people try to pass each other in general.

Like mesabah says, I'll take the e jet cabin any day, then 2 seat side of 88, then Airbus,
then 737/757.

Don't judge me....

Goose poop and shiny aluminum is a very bad combo.

https://www.secrant.com/Images/Icons/IconLOL.gif

But. In 30 days and your goose is cooked.
https://srzone-fandroppingsllc.netdn...s/Iconpimp.gif

Did you all see that Wow Air subbed in a 321NEO for a 330 on KEF-LAX the other day?

https://thepointsguy.com/2018/01/rec...eo-wow-flight/

:eek:

Wow. I had no idea the plane was THAT capable. I’d be curious to know how many pax were on board.
And to think that’s not the LR.....

That sounds miserable!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUTRJMxX4AEMzR8.jpg:large

https://media.giphy.com/media/4TtUEa4oHavle/giphy.gif

How would that be any more miserable than a 757?

The food looks delicious!
http://i63.tinypic.com/w1tlvo.jpg

Equally? I assumed the pitch in our 75 would be better than an ULCC 321 - could easily be wrong.

I presumed the same airline's 321 vs their own 757 (if they had any) is what he was getting at.

Got it. Not familiar with WOW’s fleet. Just saw they normally fly that route with a 330.

Seatguru puts wow at 30-31 inches and our 757 at 31-33 and our 321 at 31.... That kind of blows. Because you're right about the ulcc part of Wow.

No bags or cargo apparently. Bags had to go on another flight.

Source?

....

The usual...

( . )


Or it could have been tongue in cheek, but that would be so far out of character for sailingfun. So I stand by the above.

If you look at the fuel burn the aircraft had to have gone with full fuel for 8:40 minutes. Using the lightest operating empty weight airbus publishes that leaves about 37,000 lbs of payload. The article I saw said aircraft was full. FAA winter weights are 195lbs per passenger. If it was full they had 225 onboard with crew. No matter how you slice the pie the numbers don’t allow much if anything in the belly.

Ooh... now we've gone to "not much."

He's shifting!

Actually the payload number I posted is wrong. I used a CEO weight. Should be around 50,000 with full fuel so the numbers are better. With 225 people they would have had between 3000 to 6000 lbs available in the belly or about 26lbs per passenger using best case. If the OEW is 3000 lbs heavier like most aircraft end up that drops in half. With their config it’s likely well above 107,000.