I wonder why both UAL and AA are ordering both the 787 and A350? Aren't they just the same thing only different? i.e. don't they both do the same mission? Seems they would save a lot of maintenance training, pilot training, parts supply chain, etc. if they picked one or the other.

"American has inherited 22 A350 orders from US Airways, which operates the world's largest Airbus fleet. American will become the U.S. launch customer for the A350-900, with deliveries starting in 2017. Also, American has firm orders for 42 Dreamliners, with options for 58 more. The firm orders include both 787-800s and 787-900s. "

I heard that rumor, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. I couldn't sleep last night, so I got pretty deep into the interviews and human factors reports on this one. Lot's of angst from the Captain about being a minority and not supported by the CPO. Her post termination interview was particularly hostile, as would be expected. It sounded to me like she was working her way toward a lawsuit, so the silence since then is interesting. It should make for some interesting news stories if there are any reporters out there that are interested enough to read past the intro and summary.

I'm definitely not taking sides, and I haven't read as much about this, but do I understand correctly that this was the only the Capt's second time ever into LGA? That alone is kind of an interesting fact...

We had an 88 that left both gear on the stanchion on the approach end back in 1997 I believe it was... Ship 914...

Yep, said she had been there once before, 6 months earlier, and the FO did that landing. This was her first approach to rwy 4. The accident FO had been to LGA several times.

Bottom line...she pulled his throttles to idle at about 100 ft on a flaps 40 approach, before she said "I have the aircraft." I've never flown the 737, but that sounds like a really bad idea to me.

October 16, 1996 to be exact. He was using monovision contacts which were partly blamed for it.

Crash of Delta 554 at LaGuardia LGA, Monovision Contact Lens, Airline Safety

Pulling the throttles to idle at 20 feet is a bad idea. 100 feet is frikkin nuts.

Yep. I've had one of the FAA investigators from that accident on the jumpseat a couple of times. IIRC, the FO cobbing the power up near the end allowed them to just sheer the gear on the pier and she slid on her belly right onto the runway. Some of the passenger interviews stated that the landing was smooth. :eek: Without the boost, they might have caught the pier with the aft portion of the fuselage which would likely have had a much worse end result compared to the 3 minor injuries that occurred.

Good read, especially if you wear contacts! But there was some rain and fog, and the runway lights were AFU. Not trying to make excuses for him, but it was a little different situation than what the SWA Capt. did in clear weather.

From the article:

The inability of the captain, because of his use of monovision contact lenses, to overcome his misperception of the airplane's position relative to the runway during the visual portion of the approach. This misperception occurred because of visual illusions produced by the approach over water in limited light conditions, the absence of visible ground features, the rain and fog, and the irregular spacing of the runway lights. Contributing to the accident was the lack of instantaneous vertical speed information available to the pilot not flying, and the incomplete guidance available to optometrists, aviation medical examiners, and pilots regarding the prescription of unapproved monovision contact lenses for use by pilots. (NTSB Report AAR-97/03)[1]

Must be a b!tch to taxi that thing now... :eek::D

I think it could be done for open WS and GS awards.