ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Haha, I meant will as in only LH is flying them on revenue passenger flights right now, so its future tense for all other airlines.When did they announce the 747-800 model?
Haha, I meant will as in only LH is flying them on revenue passenger flights right now, so its future tense for all other airlines.When did they announce the 747-800 model?
You mean 747-8Haha, I meant will as in only LH is flying them on revenue passenger flights right now, so its future tense for all other airlines.
When did they announce the 747-800 model?
My dad would always correct me when I said -800 because he was on the project a few years ago.Nice, thats the most vexxing comment in aviation today. Right above running oversquare.
The A-380 is proving to be a looser, this one would too.
As flow becomes a bigger and bigger issue, reducing the number of planes in the air will be the only thing that helps
WTF Scroll bar? WTF?Murdoughnut said...
Code:As flow becomes a bigger and bigger issue, reducing the number of planes in the air will be the only thing that helps
.
Maybe, I haven't seen any numbers, but I believe higher capacity a/c are the future. Fewer per/pax expenses than flying the same number of people on 4 737s. As flow becomes a bigger and bigger issue, reducing the number of planes in the air will be the only thing that helps (other than improving ATC technology).
Cuts down on maintenance and spares needed.But that would mean there isn't going to be a huge pilot shortage like we hear on TV!
On topic, would 2 massive engines like that really be that much better than 4 highly efficient engines? I guess the grounds I am thinking on is redundancy, if you lose 1 engine out of 4 it isn't as bad as losing 1 of your 2 engines. That is just one angle I have at looking at it. I am sure that the two massive engines could be more efficient than 4 modern efficient engines like the ones on the 748.
A big turboprop like a Bear would be awesome, and maybe even rational in the future world of $10/gallon Jet-A.