Yet another aviation thread.

Quote: Nareed

Maybe not in Britain, so i might give that a pass. Perhaps there was a period of transition between sea and air long distance travel. But the DC-7 was quite capable of transatlantic flight.

The royal yacht could handle over 500 people between staff and guests. It's function as transportation was very secondary.

On October 11, 1910, Theodore Roosevelt became the first U.S. President to fly in an airplane. On his way to visit to St. Louis, a year and a half after he left office, he stopped at an aviation field in Kinloch, MO. A pilot named Alex Hoxsey had just descended from a flight and soon was introduced to the former president. "Colonel," Hoxsey said, " I'd like to have you for a passenger." Roosevelt lost no time, climbing into the plane. At this point it was still less than 7 years since the first airplane flight, and many of the 10,000 people watching the three mile flight thought that Roosevelt was risking his life.



11-29 Jan-1943 FDR flew to Casablance by way of Brazil and Africa (first Presidential flight in office)

King Edward VIII became the first British monarch to fly in 1936. So it is debatable who won that race, the US president or the British King

Quote: Nareed

I suppose the royals never used a De Havilland Comet...

In 1936 the "King's Flight" operated a single twin-engine Dragon Rapide, G-ADDD, formerly King Edward VIII's private aircraft. The Dragon Rapide was replaced in May 1937 by an Airspeed Envoy III, G-AEXX, the first aircraft purchased specifically for The King's Flight. The Second World War saw The King's Flight temporarily disbanded, although members of the Royal Family continued to fly using military aircraft. In 1946 The King's Flight was reformed, in greater strength, at RAF Benson with four Vickers Vikings. The following year all were heavily used during the Royal Tour of South Africa.

QEII flew in the aforementioned Vickers Viking, but also an Avro York, de Havilland Heron and Devon, Westland Whirlwind, Westland Wessex HCC.4, Douglas Dakota (for Royal Visit to Nepal 1960), de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk, Beagle Basset and Hawker Siddeley Andover aircraft. On 2 November 1977, Queen Elizabeth II traveled for the first time aboard Concorde.

In the early 1980's the VIP versions of the BAE-146 were acquired (a topic we discussed earlier).

In recent years her expenditures on charter aircraft have been relatively minor, as she hasn't left Europe in several years. Prince Charles usually leases the fancy trans-oceanic aircraft.

The Queen is regarded as very thrifty, and not given to ostentation regarding transportation (Compared to most heads of state).

Quote: Pacomartin

The Queen is regarded as very thrifty, and not given to ostentation regarding transportation (Compared to most heads of state).

That would ring more true had she not thrown fit when some commoner dared to use her private train, don't you think?

As for heads of state, IMO, in the West, most don't choose their means of transportation, but rather go along with existing security protocols and vehicles. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the WH budget includes money for remodeling Air Force 1...

Quote: Nareed

As for heads of state, IMO, in the West, most don't choose their means of transportation, but rather go along with existing security protocols and vehicles,

Rumor has it that Nieto didn't think it was dignified to stop for fuel on his way across the ocean.

Quote: Nareed

Though I wouldn't be surprised if the WH budget includes money for remodeling Air Force 1...

I don't think so. They spend a fortune redesigning the private rooms of the WH, but I think the plane still has the sme designs spcified by Nancy Reagan.

Quote: Pacomartin

Rumor has it that Nieto didn't think it was dignified to stop for fuel on his way across the ocean.

He might very well have said so. But fact has it the Dreamliner was ordered and approved in the prior administration. So Calderon is the one who should answer for the cost.

Finally, after several weeks, I sighted the vaunted AF A380.

I was impressed. For one thing it's a lot quieter than I expected. The really impressive part, though, is that HUGE wing. Not the length, the area. It's quite bigger at the root than for comparable planes like the 747-8.

On the other hand, it makes the wing fences look so tiny, they seem like decorations.

BTW, I think the Wright's first flight ever could have taken place well within the wingtips of an A380 :)

Quote: Nareed

Finally, after several weeks, I sighted the vaunted AF A380.

14,203 km Dubai Intl Arpt, to Auckland, NZ began flights on 2 March 2016 Emirates (EK 449) using a Boeing 777-200LR. This flight was introduced with four days notice and is currently the longest commercial flight in the world.

I don't know if the slightly longer flight to the high and dry MEX is possible. Perhaps they can do it with a stop in MTY on the return
14,300 km Dubai Intl Arpt, Dubai, AE (DXB) to Juarez Intl, Mexico City, MX (MEX)

13,804 km is currently the record for an A380. But Emirates is up to 74 A380s now, and they are still supposed to receive 16 more with the current Engine Alliance engines, then another 50 with the Rolls Royce engines. Range at design load is supposed to be 15,200 km

Maybe Emirates will expand to include Mexico City. They are still supposed to start service to Panama City this month.

Airbus announced its own brand of interior design, akin to Boeing's "Sky interiors."

The press release is long on release and short on specifics, other that it will debut on the A330neo. The aviation blogs have more info. Pretty much:

1) Bigger overhead bins (Boeing's done that)
2) LED mood lighting (same)
3) 18" wide seats (Boeing's MIA on this)

I've flown only once in a plane with Sky interior. Yes, the mood is nice, but that helps only so much on a long flight. An 18" seat, though, is a better idea.

But partly this comes down to airlines. I don't know what the seating configuration is on an A330. I'm assuming at least 3-3-3. Reducing all seats to 17" won't add up to another seat per row. But reducing them to 16.2" does. I don't see that kind of reduction as likely, but also not as impossible. Remember the 777 was supposed to be 3-3-3 and many airlines now have 3-4-3. Also the 787 gets some complaints in coach at 3-3-3 with a 17" seat width.

The Royal Yacht is actually a hospital ship in wartime and is a pre-retirement gig for many sailors in the Royal Navy or Royal Australian Navy and some other Commonwealth nations. Even if the official arrival is by yacht the Queen is often merely helicoptered to the yacht immediately prior to the Royal Visit.

The additional four hours of operation for British pubs during the mid June "official birthday" will mean twenty million pounds for the bars... do you think bar owners will ever object to the Royal Yacht?

American is due to begin offering premium economy seats on international flights sometimes this year. These are not just more legroom seats, but rather a near-throwback to the old-style business class that existed in the 90s. Briefly, they'll be arrayed 2-3-2 on a Dreamliner, have more leg room, have foot rests (more on this later), have some personal storage space, power ports, individual screens, and better meals and service. This is something some European airlines already offer, but it's new to a US airline.

As I've said, the problem with air travel is that business and first classes became more luxurious (business in fact ahs replaced first on some airlines on long haul routes) and more expensive, while economy became more Spartan and less expensive. A middle ground has been needed for some time. The common economy plus with a regular economy seat and more leg room was a good idea, but as I've also said before, it fell far short for the price.

Since airlines are not about to bring back meals on domestic flights and some international flights (some planes even lack the galley equipment and space for it), and since leg room will get smaller, and since people keep looking for lower fares, one thing might help: foot rests.

On most trips, I place my laptop bag under the seat in front, which does restrict the space where I can place my feet. I know this and still did it (besides the laptop, I carry money, passport and documents there; I don't ever want to have it out of my sight). But on a trip last November I placed it under the middle seat in front, as the seat on my row was empty. I expected a more comfortable ride this time.

I didn't get it.

Sure, there was more room for my feet and lower legs, but the improvement was very marginal. It was then I realized it would be more relaxing if I could put my feet up. I don't mean I need a footrest like that in a reclining chair (though that would be very nice). Any kind of footrest would greatly improve comfort regardless of leg room.

See, when seated you are resting your legs. but if you use up the leg room in front by extending your legs, now you need to exert muscle force to keep them extended, and that's not relaxing at all. A footrest would solve this by holding your legs for you. Try it. Seat on a chair and extend your legs so only your heels make contact with the floor. Next place a small box, or a brick a few inches high and rest your feet on it. You'll see the difference.