Exactly my thoughts as well.

Why not stay in ATL on the MD?

60%? I thought you were junior to me... Just remember, NYC SUX DO NOT COME HERE! BTW, my LOE is today. Any words of wisdom?

Satch;
No he is not. He is one of the most senior "newer" hires. :rolleyes:

Do we have crews in HECA? Hope not. Hope they got out and we have cnx'd the flights.

I'd be surprised if you got any real disagreement on your post.

Last week I was discussing the next-gen airliner with one of my co-workers (in the aircraft design and test business). We were both in agreement on two factors.
1. For real fuel efficiency, the unducted turbofan is the engine of choice and it meets stage 3 noise requirements. A pusher configuratoin is probably overall the most efficient.
2. A lifting body design enhances airframe efficiency and load capacity. Dont think B-2, think more of a blended wing and body.

The resultant aircraft for people carrying airlines would have some relatively minor design issues in regard to gate and parking space. Speed would be limited to about 450kts. However, fuel efficiency would probably be about 40% better than anything flying today. I dont know if anyone really has the foresight to build something like this as the immediate next gen, I do think it would be the generation after.

I think when talking about the 737NG pilots forget its a all new wing from the old 737. That is one of the reasons it is so efficient. It also has a very low overall maintenance cost. I non rev on both. The A320 is 7 inches wider and that makes a nice difference in coach. The A320 however does not have the range payload options the 737 NG has and burns more fuel.
The NG has had a amazing sales run. To say Boeing screwed it up would fly in the face of its sales success.
The A320 NEO is still a paper aircraft and contrary to some posts on here will take a major engineering effort to get flying. It requires at a minimum all new nacelles, pylons, main landing gear and a complete wing box redesign. The engines themselves have yet to be proved to make their fuel burn targets. Airbus is only promising a "Up to 15 percent fuel burn improvement". It will cost 8 million more per copy then a standard A320. If that up to 15 percent becomes more like 8 or 9 percent then airbus has big issues. Boeing delivered the 777 in 55 months from launch. If they have learned by their mistakes with the 787 they can easily have a all new aircraft out by 2020. Even if it slipped a few years as long as they have it available for sale before the NEO hits the street it could be a game changer for Boeing.

I'm sure you've heard about how the Terrorism threat levels are going away, here's how they are doing it in Europe...

John Cleese on Terrorism

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated," or even "A Bit Cross."

The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since "The Blitz" in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.

Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "****ed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is canceled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

Hate to say it, but I have to agree with you. I am a big boeing fan but hands down 320 beats the 737 for pax comfort and pax satisfaction.:o

Sailing,

I'm headed out the door in a few minutes for a four-day trip. So I don't really have time to properly address your post.

With that said, my recollection is the 757 came out in roughly 1982. The A-320 about five years later and the 737 10 years after that.

Have you ever flown the 737 NG?

When the 757 came out it had electronic circuitry that automatically put the generators on line when the engines were started. Fifteen years later the NG still requires the generators be manually selected. Granted that's one example, but there are plenty.

As I mentioned in my earlier post the 777 came out roughly the same time as the NG. That was an evolutionary aircraft and what 12 or so years later the marketplace is not screaming for a clean-sheet design. They are however screaming (loudly) for a 737 replacement.

Instead of the 737 NG series, what if Boeing had come out with a scaled down 757? I think that would have been world class!

Finally, the 737 is the only aircraft that I can recall on which Delta has taken (several different times) income statement write offs to the tune of tens of millions of dollars to not take delivery of the aircraft.

So Delta would rather lose several million bucks per airplane than operate them. To me anyway, that says a lot.

Sorry I can't respond more thoroughly.