Yet another aviation thread.

March 17th, 2017 at 11:49:37 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 648
Posts: 7417
Quote: Nareed
But with the use these planes get, composites, lower-altitude pressurization and other innovations found on the 787 and A350 ought to be incorporated to the former. And that's easier to do with a new design.

The 737-Max10 seems to be greeted with a collective yawn. Almost, but not quite as loud as yawn greeting the 737-Max7.

Will the Mexican airlines invest in these long range narrowbody aircraft? Right now they can fly to MEX to Lima Peru @ 2,629 mi, and all destinations in the USA and Canada are closer. Considering that Mexico City is high and dry airport, the long range narrowbodies might bring Santiago Chile within range, but not likely Brazil and Argentina. Aeromexico will serve the long range South American destinations with widebody Dreamliners, so it would be a big deal to try and challenge them with a narrowbody. Europe is too far, with only Iceland just barely within the potential range.

I would say no airline in Mexico will purchase a long range narrowbody.


March 22nd, 2017 at 9:02:02 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 9997
So, the Golden Boy's skinny budget appears to contain a provision for privatizing America's ATC (Air Traffic Control).

According to the buzz on the aviation blogs, the scheme would involve a self-funding (ie not relying on government money) non-profit corporation. Kind of like the one that handles domains and domain names (ICANN).

In itself this is not necessarily a terrible idea, and some European countries have privatized their ATC.

But.

Most airlines are for it, with Delta as the big exception. The ATC unions are way for it.

The public at large knows little about it and doesn't care much. But going by past experiences, the cost of air fares would go up to fund the private ATC. That's going to prove unpopular.

But, hey, the measure still has to survive Congress.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
March 27th, 2017 at 3:33:59 PM permalink
terapined
Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 34
Posts: 2618
https://gma.yahoo.com/stricter-dress-codes-employees-guests-not-uncommon-among-211704764--abc-news-travel.html?hl=1&noRedirect=1


I see some teens were denied boarding due to wearing leggings
I agree with UA
I travel on free tickets and I travel on tickets I paid for
If travelling for free, I dress up a bit. Its a requirement for travelling for free and I am well aware of the rule
Now if I buy a ticket, I don't dress up but make sure I don't bring attention to myself due to my what I am wearing.
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World"
March 27th, 2017 at 4:06:45 PM permalink
DRich
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 18
Posts: 621
Quote: terapined
https://gma.yahoo.com/stricter-dress-codes-employees-guests-not-uncommon-among-211704764--abc-news-travel.html?hl=1&noRedirect=1


I see some teens were denied boarding due to wearing leggings
I agree with UA
I travel on free tickets and I travel on tickets I paid for
If travelling for free, I dress up a bit. Its a requirement for travelling for free and I am well aware of the rule
Now if I buy a ticket, I don't dress up but make sure I don't bring attention to myself due to my what I am wearing.


I did not know there was a different dress code for the free tickets, I travel a lot and had no idea. Thankfully on Wednesday I have paid tickets so I will be able to wear my leggings. :)
March 27th, 2017 at 4:13:34 PM permalink
terapined
Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 34
Posts: 2618
Quote: DRich
I did not know there was a different dress code for the free tickets, I travel a lot and had no idea. Thankfully on Wednesday I have paid tickets so I will be able to wear my leggings. :)


Your free tickets are due to your miles and Frequent Flyer status

Different rules for free tickets for airline employees, their friends and travel agents
In the old days, business attire was required to use a free ticket awarded for simply being in the industry , they have relaxed that a lot but not down to leggings.
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World"
March 27th, 2017 at 8:54:49 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 648
Posts: 7417
Quote: Pacomartin
There seems to be considerable disagreement about the range of the Boom aircraft. My understanding was that it would only be capable of very limited transpacific nonstops (like Vancouver to Narita) .


Yet another article that is talking about SFO to NRT and ranges of 9000 nm.

Quote: ibtimes

With a 9,000 nautical mile (17,000km) range, Boom says its plane will fly between
London and New York in 3h15 (compared to seven hours today),
Tokyo and San Francisco in 5h30 (compared to 11 hours), and
Sydney to Los Angeles less than half of the 15 hours it currently takes.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/concorde-2-0-edges-closer-startup-boom-completes-33m-funding-round-1613920?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rss-related&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news


JFK LHR 3,451 mi
SFO NRT 5,124 mi
SYD LAX 7,488 mi
March 27th, 2017 at 9:17:35 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 9997
Quote: Pacomartin
Yet another article that is talking about SFO to NRT and ranges of 9000 nm.


Articles about highly technical subjects like science, aviation and desktop PC operating systems, tend to get many things wrong and to convey a lot of misunderstandings to the audience.

Example: i can imagine a Boom engineer, even the CEO, say "If we had the range, we'd do LAX-SYD in half the time it currently takes." And a reporter translating that into "LAX-SYD in 7.5 hours."

Though the cynic in me wants to say: A paper airplane can do things real planes won't even dare dream about! :)

I'm more interested in the implication of "business class seats." These days this means lie-flat beds. That's trikes me as excessive for a 3.5 hour JFK-LHR jaunt. Luxurious for SFO-NRT, and just necessary for LAX-SYD (assuming any of the latter two ever flies).

IMO, the seats will have 32-34" pitch, maybe seat-back screens, and maybe a shell to allow for recline. But if there were room for lie-flat beds, we'd be reading about a two-class design.

I believe the price might come to around a business class equivalent today. And I've raised concerns about it where time is not of the essence.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
March 27th, 2017 at 10:14:31 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 648
Posts: 7417
Quote: Nareed
Articles about highly technical subjects like science, aviation and desktop PC operating systems, tend to get many things wrong and to convey a lot of misunderstandings to the audience.

Example: i can imagine a Boom engineer, even the CEO, say "If we had the range, we'd do LAX-SYD in half the time it currently takes." And a reporter translating that into "LAX-SYD in 7.5 hours."


Since 5 February 2017, the longest non-stop scheduled airline flight (by great circle distance) is Qatar Airways Flight 921 from Auckland, New Zealand to Doha, Qatar, and its return Flight 920, at 14,534 kilometres (7,848 nmi). Those flights use a Boeing 777-200LR.

The full-scale airliner will be 170 feet long and have a wingspan of 60 feet. It is expected to carry 45 to 55 passengers and six crewmembers to a max range of 9,000 nm (4,500 nm = 5178 miles unrefueled).
http://www.flyingmag.com/boom-unveils-supersonic-baby-boom#page-2


SFO NRT is 5,124 mi, and the hypothetical range of an aircraft is never close to actual mileage

So it is possible that it will fly from Seattle or Vancouver to Tokyo
YVR NRT 4,674 mi
SEA NRT 4,769 mi
SFO NRT 5,124 mi



While it might seem like an editing issue, a supersonic plane that can cross the Atlantic has radically different business opportunities than one that can cross the Pacific

Still, 5178 miles is a pretty good distance
BOS LHR 3,265 mi
BOS MAD 3,410 mi
BOS OSL 3,504 mi
BOS FRA 3,670 mi
ORD LHR 3,953 mi

March 27th, 2017 at 10:33:46 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 9997
IN an interview published in Real Clear Future, Boom's CEO stated he expects what happened with UBER to repeat itself with his plane. In short, while Uber might not have been clearly permitted under the law in most places, once it operated anyway, people with power and influence found it most convenient. Ergo they made it legal or at least allowed.

So if government officials, Congress-dwellers, etc. get to fly supersonic across the Atlantic, they'll resent having to take longer on a transcon flight and will, perhaps, make it legal to break the sound barrier over land.

The advertised range is excellent for travel within the US.

It makes for a good story.

But I wonder whether Boom will have to launch an app first.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
March 28th, 2017 at 4:34:50 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 648
Posts: 7417
Quote: Nareed
So if government officials, Congress-dwellers, etc. get to fly supersonic across the Atlantic, they'll resent having to take longer on a transcon flight and will, perhaps, make it legal to break the sound barrier over land.
The advertised range is excellent for travel within the US.


Now that makes a lot of sense.

There are also those exclusive weekend trips for the ultra rich from Long Island to Nassau which would only involve about an hour of flying time.


I can fly 1000 miles to FT Lauderdale for as little as $97 each way on Wednesday on Allegiant Air. But what would New Yorkers who own those fancy mansions in Ft Lauderdale pay to save 90 minutes of flying time? I suppose we are conditioned to thinking that supersonic is only for transoceanic travel, but NYC to Ft Lauderdale is almost all over water as well.