Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? >

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Search
Notices

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-24-2011, 10:16 AM
  #62581  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy View Post
That sort of makes sense. I still think the MD90 is WIN. Its cheap and relatively efficient right now, and when we eventually do start to retire the older 88's, the more 90's we have makes the fleet that much more efficient (or that much less inefficient?) Anyway being able to pay cash for a cheap, reliable plane with a common fleet to what we already have in inventory is smart now and its smart later.

Boeing hasn't just dropped the ball WRT their fairy tail 797, they've been staring at it til the whistle almost blew, the other team walked up and asked them if they wanted it, they looked down on it with indifference and said "meh" so the other team casually picked it up and started skipping into the endzone.

Boeing could care less about the narrowbody market. They want foreign widebody revenue and self printing defense slush money. Anything else is beneath them. Sure they will eventually build and sell a 73 replacement, but they will be creamed by Airbus's refreshed 30 year old design and ambitious efforts from every corner of the world and Boeing won't really care.
Maybe Boeing ought to get in on the C-series, Boeing-it-up a bit and then have most of it built in Canada and the remainder in Renton? There was talk a while ago about Airbus trying to get Embraer and ATR to combine efforts on a large turboprop under an Airbus umbrella.

Last edited by forgot to bid; 03-24-2011 at 11:51 AM.
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 03-24-2011, 11:52 AM
  #62582  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
Maybe Boeing ought to get in on the C-series, Boeing-it-up a bit and then have most of it built in Canada and the remainder in Renton?
It would suprise me if they weren't already involved. Sell some design and logistics expertise as they become the outsource provider and let other companies sell the scoter trash while they focus on that sweet, sweet pentagon and Arab/Asia market widebody.

I think Boeing is involved in the Russian RJ, and probably several others as well.
gloopy is offline  
Old 03-24-2011, 11:53 AM
  #62583  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

It's all fun and games until Airbus wins the tanker award, then maybe Boeing builds a NB?
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 03-24-2011, 12:06 PM
  #62584  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
It's all fun and games until Airbus wins the tanker award, then maybe Boeing builds a NB?
I think they will win the tanker award but we'll see. In any case, who cares about scooter trash single isle airliners when every time we nationbuild some tin pot dictator they make more slush money from the taxpayer in replaced munitions inventory not to mention future new defense contracts and of course subsidized foreign widebodies.

They will build one eventually regardless. But they will drag their heels on it and even when its ready for market, according to Boeing themselves, it will be lucky to match the 320 NEO's fuel numbers and almost certainlly not price and absolutely without significant cockpit commonality. Oh, and bonus, new fleet type versus Airbus's seamless transition for most carriers.

Same effieciency, same or greater price, years later to market, significantly less commonality and all the hassles of ramping up a version 1.0 dash 100 A model airplane. Plus it wouldn't suprise me if they dumbed it down trying to bait the hook for SWA anyway.

Maybe it will have the forever pressure hull though, but the advantages of that won't be seen for decades (read: no current CEO/CFO will care) and in any case that won't nearly cancel out its inherent disadvantages anyway for most operators. Unless they pull a rabit out of their hat with some phenominal lifting body cold fusion zero carbon footprint masterpiece, they will be a minor player going forward in the narrowbody market, which IMO is fine with them.
gloopy is offline  
Old 03-24-2011, 12:28 PM
  #62585  
Gets Weekends Off
 
RoughLandings's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 310
Default

I think Boeing had some consulting on the E170/190.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
Maybe Boeing ought to get in on the C-series, Boeing-it-up a bit and then have most of it built in Canada and the remainder in Renton? There was talk a while ago about Airbus trying to get Embraer and ATR to combine efforts on a large turboprop under an Airbus umbrella.
Like the A400?

RoughLandings is offline  
Old 03-24-2011, 12:35 PM
  #62586  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: C-17A
Posts: 56
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy View Post
I think they will win the tanker award but we'll see. In any case, who cares about scooter trash single isle airliners when every time we nationbuild some tin pot dictator they make more slush money from the taxpayer in replaced munitions inventory not to mention future new defense contracts and of course subsidized foreign widebodies.

They will build one eventually regardless. But they will drag their heels on it and even when its ready for market, according to Boeing themselves, it will be lucky to match the 320 NEO's fuel numbers and almost certainlly not price and absolutely without significant cockpit commonality. Oh, and bonus, new fleet type versus Airbus's seamless transition for most carriers.

Same effieciency, same or greater price, years later to market, significantly less commonality and all the hassles of ramping up a version 1.0 dash 100 A model airplane. Plus it wouldn't suprise me if they dumbed it down trying to bait the hook for SWA anyway.

Maybe it will have the forever pressure hull though, but the advantages of that won't be seen for decades (read: no current CEO/CFO will care) and in any case that won't nearly cancel out its inherent disadvantages anyway for most operators. Unless they pull a rabit out of their hat with some phenominal lifting body cold fusion zero carbon footprint masterpiece, they will be a minor player going forward in the narrowbody market, which IMO is fine with them.

Boeing already won the tanker award, announced about 2 weeks ago.
Sawdog is offline  
Old 03-24-2011, 01:23 PM
  #62587  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hoser's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Recliner 105A
Posts: 225
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
This one was pretty low, it was over Georgia Tech's stadium in downtown ATL...
And this from AFA:



Too-Low Flyover Draws Referee's Flag: Maj. XXXXXX, a 25th Flying Training Squadron pilot at Vance, AFB, Okla., has received nonjudicial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violating altitude and speed restrictions when he led a four-ship of T-38s that overflew a University of Iowa football game in Iowa City last November. Kopacek is separating from the Air Force of his own accord, according to a release Wednesday from Vance's 71st Flying Training Wing. "While I understand that fans attending the game enjoyed the flyover, rules are in place to ensure everyone's safety," said Col. Russell Mack, 71st FTW commander. He added, "[T]his was a serious breach of flight discipline and it was necessary to take administrative action." Among the violations, the wing's command-directed investigation found that the pilots flew only 16 feet above the stadium's press box when the minimum height difference for a flyover is supposed to be 1,000 feet.
Hoser is offline  
Old 03-24-2011, 01:43 PM
  #62588  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy View Post
They say that makes masterdebating way more effective.
Practice, practice, practice.

I recently read "The Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. He looks at people that were considered geniuses in their field, and finds (surprise, surprise) that they are not successful because of raw talent alone, but also because of practice, practice, practice. In fact, interestingly enough, 10,000 hours seems to be the magic number before people become true experts. This was true for Bill gates, Mozart, etc.

So you've got 10,000 hours of masterdebating to log before you can be considered a true master debater, the same way Gates is a master in his field. But you have to be your own person, because it's certainly OK to look to Gates as an example in general terms, but it's not OK to think about Gates as you masterdebate.
Sink r8 is offline  
Old 03-24-2011, 02:03 PM
  #62589  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Gloopy, very interesting post.

Sink, yours too. I'll tell my wife that my time on the computer has tremendous master debating benefits.
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 03-24-2011, 02:48 PM
  #62590  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Default

I wouldn't do that: you'd be conceding some ground for no gains of your own. Anyone that's ever argued with their wife knows what skilled master debaters they are, and all of us suspect they practice masterdebating as much as we do. But you can never get one to admit that she masterdebates. So don't concede somethong she wouldn't ever volunteer, and keeep your masterdebating private, until your skills are such that you can bring it up from a position of strength.

Good luck.
Sink r8 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
On Autopilot
Regional
22594
11-05-2021 07:03 AM
AeroCrewSolut
Delta
153
08-14-2018 12:18 PM
Bill Lumberg
Major
71
06-13-2012 08:36 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
JiffyLube
Major
12
03-07-2008 04:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices