Originally Posted by Regularguy
(Post 1521331)
Of course Jeff S. said the B747-400 was like a typewriter, "it had its day!" at a recent Standards Meeting. I wish the guy would stop talking, he's a national embarrassment.
Oh wait.....back on topic. Closing Seattle, those bastards! |
Originally Posted by Regularguy
(Post 1521331)
Of course Jeff S. said the B747-400 was like a typewriter...
|
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1521500)
And as such, never had to be rebooted, the ink ribbon lasted practically forever, and if a key jammed the typist just reached in and unjammed it.
|
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1521500)
And as such, never had to be rebooted, the ink ribbon lasted practically forever, and if a key jammed the typist just reached in and unjammed it.
|
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
(Post 1521134)
I hadn't heard anything negative in a while...is there a dispatch-reliability issue?
|
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1521500)
And as such, never had to be rebooted, the ink ribbon lasted practically forever, and if a key jammed the typist just reached in and unjammed it.
|
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1521500)
And as such, never had to be rebooted, the ink ribbon lasted practically forever, and if a key jammed the typist just reached in and unjammed it.
|
Originally Posted by Really
(Post 1521772)
Sounds Great! You should buy tons of new typewriters and open up a typewriter chain!! I think you could make millions off your new business!! :rolleyes:
|
"Then why aren't all the other carriers buying the new 747? There is rumors they are closing the line down. Do you have specific #'s to back up your post that the 787 isn't making the #'s? I heard 787 #'s are ahead of projection! (No proof, just articles I've read) Or is it more of an emotional post? "
Answer to #1 - The 747 - 800 is not the airplane for the future because of two simple facts; two extra engines. Boeing's real replacement for the 747-400 is the 777X, which has all the range and the weight capability. Question 2 - Are you serious! The 787 was over two years behind schedule, it was supposed to be able to fly IAH - AUK without a fuel stop but can't until the next version is delivered. It has been pulled from ETOPS status twice since it began flying service, multiple on-board fires during testing and service and more. And production woes are still being figured out. Let's see the wing failed in testing, the tail structure failed... Really? You actually are proud of the job Boeing has done? The concept of the 787 is a good one, but Boeing's crack management team not only chose new technology they outsourced their engineering control which has been at the heart of the problems. Will the 787 succeed eventually? Sure it will, just look at the 737, same basic airplane with a lot of improvements since 1968. |
Originally Posted by Regularguy
(Post 1521959)
The 787 was over two years behind schedule, it was supposed to be able to fly IAH - AUK without a fuel stop but can't until the next version is delivered. It has been pulled from ETOPS status twice since it began flying service, multiple on-board fires during testing and service and more.
It was kinda slick (not in a good way) how Smisek blamed the city of Houston's decision to support SWA's international expansion at HOU as the reason why IAH-AKL would not be UAL's 787 inaugural route when the 787 really couldn't fly it anyway. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:35 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands