|
Originally Posted by Scrappy
(Post 1749433)
I'm assuming based on fourth or fifth hand you don't know if those are factual or not. Didn't you know...80% of all statistics are made up? In all seriousness I think the 78 is going much better now, but it did have its growing pains initially...like every new jet.
I think the A-350 and 777-X will be near-parity in performance and efficiency. I think the nod will go the jet with the estimated best reliability, lowest logistics cost, or lowest initial cost. I always thought the 777 very reliable. friend of mine just did 9.5 hours IAD-IAD because the lavs crapped-out (pun intended) over the Pole. |
Originally Posted by ReserveDog
(Post 1749449)
I assume from the tone of the rest of the post that you actually "couldn't" care less.
|
350 vs 777X? Unfortunately Boeing finally threw in the towel with airbus's marketing BS and now they both engage in the same mud slinging.
Airbus claims theirs is better by X amount. But Airbus is assuming 9 across seating on the 777. Over 80% of 777's are being ordered and delivered with 10 across seating. Boeing's numbers use the 10 across cost per seat mile number. I have had the displeasure to ride in a 10 row 777 a couple of times and it sucks. But who cares. I bought the cheapest tickets just like the other wankers riding in the cheap seats with me. |
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
(Post 1749285)
Told to me, fourth and fifth-hand:
1. 787 burns gas like a 757, but carries pax like a 777 (or 767-400). Good. 2. 787 dispatch reliability: 40% of flights go out 30 or minutes late for mx. Bad. Problem isn't broke jet. Problems with delays are pluggin computers into the jet and figuring out how to fix the little stuff 40 mins late is nothing. Can easily make that up. Departed CTU 4 hours late, planned a 500 CI, programmed 787 CI. .89M. Made up an additional 45 mins off the 500 CI planned and landed with better than planned fuel......FWIW |
Originally Posted by Scrappy
(Post 1749268)
Strange, all the 78 guys I know absolutely love it and say it's the best airplane we have hands down. I guess the large screens don't distract from their cross check but I know everyone is diff. Looking forward to going to training for it when I come off mil leave.
|
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
(Post 1749481)
Hence my disclaimer...I don't know the actual numbers, but true as you say. I have seen the "improvement" numbers...but they don't tell us where that leaves us standing....
I think the A-350 and 777-X will be near-parity in performance and efficiency. I think the nod will go the jet with the estimated best reliability, lowest logistics cost, or lowest initial cost. I always thought the 777 very reliable. friend of mine just did 9.5 hours IAD-IAD because the lavs crapped-out (pun intended) over the Pole. |
Originally Posted by LifeNtheFstLne
(Post 842981)
The new United will eventually be all Boeing, as it should be. That Airbus order is a joke. Time will tell...
Saying "...United will eventually be all Boeing, as it should be" is like saying; we should all drive Ford Model T. Personally I don't give a $h...t what we fly as long as the airline is profitable, I'm employed, and making good money till I retire. |
Originally Posted by bearcat
(Post 1749613)
40 mins late is nothing. Can easily make that up. Departed CTU 4 hours late, planned a 500 CI, programmed 787 CI. .89M. Made up an additional 45 mins off the 500 CI planned and landed with better than planned fuel......FWIW
|
Originally Posted by CRM114
(Post 1749590)
No, I always keep some apathy in reserve just in case.
:D |
Originally Posted by jetlink
(Post 1749717)
I bet you have never flown any of the Airbus planes.
Saying "...United will eventually be all Boeing, as it should be" is like saying; we should all drive Ford Model T. Personally I don't give a $h...t what we fly as long as the airline is profitable, I'm employed, and making good money till I retire. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:04 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands