Search

Notices

Aircraft types

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-19-2014 | 02:32 PM
  #21  
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
Moderate Moderator
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
From: Curator at Static Display
Default

Originally Posted by Scrappy
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.
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.
Reply
Old 10-19-2014 | 07:38 PM
  #22  
CRM114's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by ReserveDog
I assume from the tone of the rest of the post that you actually "couldn't" care less.
No, I always keep some apathy in reserve just in case.
Reply
Old 10-19-2014 | 08:20 PM
  #23  
Don't say Guppy
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
Default

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.
Reply
Old 10-19-2014 | 09:52 PM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
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.
Dispatch reliability is better than the 777 at 2 years into the program. Fuel burn (-8) is approx 10.8K/ hour at 450K lbs. Within 2 hours your able FL 400 or better (assuming 10+ hour flight) Around the half way point or 2/3 your burning less than 10K / hour. Assuming .86M.

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
Reply
Old 10-19-2014 | 09:57 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Scrappy
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.
Very true statement
Reply
Old 10-20-2014 | 03:22 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 0
From: B-777 left
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
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.
It was very reliable when we did mx on them
Reply
Old 10-20-2014 | 07:05 AM
  #27  
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
From: next to chronic complainers...
Default

Originally Posted by LifeNtheFstLne
The new United will eventually be all Boeing, as it should be. That Airbus order is a joke. Time will tell...
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.
Reply
Old 10-20-2014 | 09:21 AM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
From: Gets weekends off
Default

Originally Posted by bearcat
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
Not to mention that there is pad built into the flights.
Reply
Old 10-20-2014 | 12:27 PM
  #29  
oldmako's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 3
From: The GF of FUPM
Default

Originally Posted by CRM114
No, I always keep some apathy in reserve just in case.
Nice!
Reply
Old 10-20-2014 | 01:12 PM
  #30  
LifeNtheFstLne's Avatar
Recommend Retention
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
From: Bigfoot
Default

Originally Posted by jetlink
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.
Wrong. And fwiw I enjoyed flying the bus, and probably will bid the 350 at some point. You need to relax sport!
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Guard Dude
Delta
201736
04-06-2022 06:59 AM
Sniper
Aviation Law
13
11-15-2009 08:16 PM
SrfNFly227
Regional
179
10-16-2009 10:12 PM
flyboyjake
Part 135
40
12-19-2008 12:20 PM
jetsetter44
Corporate
4
08-04-2008 03:52 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