Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/21/2017 9:01:23 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: BenLurkin

The bumbling Euros, they ache so badly to replicate America on their terms, all the bluster about their currency, oblivious to the fact that they’re killing exports with a currency valuation above the dollar. Same with this plane. They want so badly to rule the skies as Boeing has, but overshot the mark again. They don’t get it. Such things do not occur due to diktat, but that’s all they have.


2 posted on 06/21/2017 9:06:32 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Biggest problem is it doesn’t fit in existing terminals. That’s why Boeing didn’t go for the jump to super-duper jumbo jet. They’ve gone through those growing pains before and saw the market wasn’t good for doing it. A plane you can’t actually use (at least not conveniently, who really wants to ground load a plane that big) doesn’t have a market.


3 posted on 06/21/2017 9:09:40 AM PDT by discostu (You are what you is, and that's all it is, you ain't what you're not, so see what you got.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin; haiku

Larger capacity planes.
Less flights per route.
More profit? Think not.

Hiaku?


4 posted on 06/21/2017 9:10:34 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic, Anthropogenic Climate Alterations: The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
The winglets stand 15 feet tall.....

That's not a 'winglet', that's a WING!...................

5 posted on 06/21/2017 9:13:06 AM PDT by Red Badger (Unless you eat The Bread of Life, you are toast!.......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

6 posted on 06/21/2017 9:14:13 AM PDT by Red Badger (Unless you eat The Bread of Life, you are toast!.......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

A380 vs. Boeing 737.

8 posted on 06/21/2017 9:19:59 AM PDT by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Pack em in!

There’s the answer.

Let’s make flying as miserable as possible!

They’ll be begging to fly!


10 posted on 06/21/2017 9:25:26 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Won’t ride on an Airbus. Any airbus. A few years ago it seemed like any time there was some airplane non muslim caused issue it was an Airbus. I don’t trust them.


11 posted on 06/21/2017 9:26:59 AM PDT by bk1000 (A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

The A380 looks ugly as planes go.


16 posted on 06/21/2017 9:34:13 AM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

I’m surprised the Libs don’t install winglets on their Prius’s. That’s the way their logic works.


18 posted on 06/21/2017 9:36:18 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
I've flown the 380 four or five times..always in coach! ;-) It's a nice aircraft for sure.I've yet to fly the 787 or the A350 but I'd wager that they're nice aircraft as well.Both Boeing *and* Airbus are producing nice aircraft today.

But now that I've satisfied my curiosity about the 380 I wouldn't be heartbroken if I never flew it again.The 777 and the *new* 747 (and presumably the 787) are just fine for me.

20 posted on 06/21/2017 9:42:45 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Comey = The Swamp Fighting Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Couldn’t they save a lot of fuel by lowering the landing gear 30 seconds later than they currently do? Seems they deploy the gear really early in the landing sequence.

Or would it make no difference when they are already configured for landing?


33 posted on 06/21/2017 9:59:08 AM PDT by Carlucci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

> “They could improve fuel efficiency by a significant 4 percent and—along with other improvements—cut operating expenses by 13 percent.”

If it could do that, they should have done it years ago.


39 posted on 06/21/2017 10:16:53 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

I have been a frequent flier for over 30 years. I have seen the airports become chaotic and the airlines become a miserable experience. I can’t imagine 575 passengers from one plane trying to pass through immigration and security and make their connections in US airports. It has become a nightmare even when flying 737s.


44 posted on 06/21/2017 11:10:29 AM PDT by okie 54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson