Boeing's 787 on schedule, demand strong

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | Wednesday, December 6, 2006 | DAVE CARPENTER

[skeptoid]

Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner remains on schedule for its first test flight next summer and for delivery to airlines in 2008 despite the ongoing challenge to make it lighter, the new head of the company's commercial airplanes unit said Wednesday.

Scott Carson told an investment conference in New York that Boeing has 435 firm orders for the new jet from 35 customers along with another 21 nonbinding commitments. The continuing demand makes it "the very strongest product launch in the history of this industry," he maintained.

[July 4th]

No, but pretty close though.

http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/minerals/titanium/titanium_table15.html

[Proud_USA_Republican]

and unlike Airbust, Boeing only counts each air plane order once, which makes it all the more impressive because that number is real.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

guess were the largest deposits of titanium are now located and being produced.

Russia.

[tom h]

"Do away with the flight crew and the passengers. Make it a drone. "

I like that idea. Will get rid of fat, surly, overweight, 50-ish stewardesses. Will save me money. I can just bring a sack lunch on board.

[I make no apologies for using the un-PC term for female flight attendants.]

[TChris]

It was interesting to read in the Wikipedia article that the USA was able to purchase as much titanium as it wanted from the USSR during the Cold War by using a front corporation in Europe.

* snicker *

[Proud_USA_Republican]

correction:

Get rid of the UNIONIZED stewardesses on US airlines.

If you ever fly a airlines like Singapore or JAL, you'll understand what we are missing.

[tom h]

"correction: Get rid of the UNIONIZED stewardesses on US airlines. If you ever fly a airlines like Singapore or JAL, you'll understand what we are missing."

While I agree with you in principle, I disagree on your blaming the unions. The problem is deeper than that.

I have been flying on business for 25 years, since I was a young pup. I have seen major transformations in the airline industry.

But I hadn't really thought about them until I was having dinner with a buddy of mine from college and his family -- I turned rock-hard conservative, he was always a leaning leftist -- and his wife, an attorney and law school professor. Mike and I were laughing about how we used to flirt wildly with the stewardesses on PSA back in the late 1970s. The gals wore multicolored hot pants and every one of them was a knockout. Mike's wife, the professor, then read us chapter and verse from the lawsuit that changed all that.

You see, in the past, airlines were allowed to hire ladies based on their age, their weight, their physical attractiveness, and their marital status. Why? Because it was good for business, and a stewardess job was considered only an entry-level job for girls. E.g., be a stewardess while you're figuring out what to do with your life, have fun, get marriage proposals from prosperous businessmen, and free airline tickets. I think there was a joke running around about stewardesses -- a gal can't be overweight, over 30, married, or pregnant.

But some disgruntled gals sued, and won. No more age, marital status, appearance, and weight restrictions. So now losers with no other job prospects could get jobs as stewardesses. They could be fat and ugly, have zero personality or graciousness, and still get work. They would get union benefits and pensions. They would get union protections against getting fired for unladylike behavior. They could work on airlines for 40 years if they wanted to. And now, even men could get the job. [Pilot friends of mine tell me that most male "flight attendants" are homosexual.]

That's why America's airlines have such dumpy flight attendants.

But there is one silver lining. The current business model of the airlines being what it is, "flight attendants" do not get pensions anymore. Pay and other benefits are being cut. This means the job might well morph back into being an entry-level job again, for youthful women who are still figuring out what to do with their lives. Look at how attractive and vivacious the Southwest Airlines flight attendants are these days. No hot pants, of course, but at least they are youthful and fun to talk with and look at.

For a taste of how things used to be: [SIGH ... ]

[Proud_USA_Republican]

"They would get union protections against getting fired for unladylike behavior."

Well there you go.

What you describe about how all the girls are young, beautiful, gracious, etc... are all the qualities you find on those foreign airlines like I talked about. Airlines like JAL and Singapore, these women are handpicked for their looks and attitude, and they are the front line representation of the airlines. No unions! They act like crap and they will be FIRED.
Fly united and you get a bunch of bitchy bitter fat hags who wouldnt know the first thing about customer service. They have the unions to protect them so they can act anyway they want.

[tom h]

But don't blame the unions for the change in job requirements. Blame the radical feminist attorneys at the NLRB.

At least you could've complimented me on the photos I found.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

nice photos. ;)