| |
MarkC
|
Quote: from sanook269 on 10:31 am on Oct. 10, 2004
...Well, quality is NOT the reason. Airbus is supported by a consortium of 3 or 4 European Countries, and can, and does, build aircraft and park them on the tarmac waiting for someone to come along, "kick the tires" and buy one or more. Airbus has also been selling at or below cost to capture a share of the market. Boeing is a private corporation and NOT supported, i.e., subsidized, by the U.S. Govt.
Forgetting for a minute the usual comebacks--"The Europeans have countered that Boeing is receiving U.S. government subsidies through its defense contracts and that Washington state provided US$3.2 billion in tax breaks and other subsidies for Boeing's Everett, Washington, plant, where the new 7E7 airliner will be built" and of course the old "The Europeans, however, believe 'overpriced' defense contracts have provided billions of dollars in indirect subsidies to Boeing..."--I actually agree with you!
I don't know if it's the fly-by-wire or what, but flying on an Airbus always seems 'uncomfortable'. Like a very rigid train with no suspension (even in the expensive comfortable seats up front). By comparison a good old 747 (and newer Boeings) always feels much smoother.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:13 am on Oct. 10, 2004
|
|
|
|
mt
|
Good and valid points. Although, Boeing does indeed get US government subsidies in the form of lucractive government/military contracts, such as the one that Uncle Sam threw their way for refueling tankers when Boeing lost the JSF contract to Lockheed.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 6:41 am on Oct. 10, 2004
|
|
|
|
mt
|
The tanker version of the DC-10 is the KC-10. True, the US didn't have too many options. Lockheed still makes the versatile C130, with the tanker version being the KC130. Lockheed was also bidding for the tanker biz, and submitted a design for an aircraft that had yet to be built (I recall reading this in Forbes magazine). And the third bidder was, of course, the maker that we all know and love......Airbus. 
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 5:26 pm on Oct. 10, 2004
|
|
hzink
|
Just from the point of view of an airline brat, and frequent flier who's been on both, I was originally pleasantly surprised by the Airbus - though smaller bodied that the 747, still a comfortable ride (though noticeably smaller bodied).
The reason for the 747's 'smoother' ride lies simply in its size - lumbering giants fly smoother
Then again, I've hit my fair share of turbulences with the 747, and when you hit good ones (the kind that make passengers curse and tremble in fear), you do tend to get more of your money's worth in the 747.
Harry
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 6:41 pm on Oct. 10, 2004
|
|
sanook269
|
Lockheed is still building the C-130?! Good for them. I've always liked Lockheed. They made some great aircraft, at least in the looks department, in the past. Added, 5:10PM, 11 October: I've been reading the history of the C-130, and it has been an amazing aircraft. Its maiden flight was 50 years ago this last August!! 50 YEARS AGO!! And, apparently, it is still in production! The Navy even successfully landed one on an aircraft carrier and launch the same over 20 times. Here is link to the story and videos of the take off and landing.
http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp#videos
Isn't amazing that something as big as a 747-400ER, that weighs about 963,000 lbs. at take off, can get thown around like a toy
when in the air? But, as you said, even in turbulent weather it remains relatively stable, as compared to some other aircraft.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 7:19 pm on Oct. 10, 2004
|
|
mt
|
I was at an airshow many years ago and they had a C130 on display. The bird rolled down the runway for takeoff and when it fired its JATO rockets, everyone got a shock! That thing literally leaped into the sky. It was a spectacular sight and the whole crowd cheered.
For a long time, NWA used the 747-200 on its DTW to NRT route, followed by the 747-400 from NRT to BKK. They've switched to the 747-400 from DTW to NRT and the A330-200 from NRT to BKK. I enquired about this, and was told that this was done because passenger volume to BKK could not sustain the use of the 747.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 3:25 pm on Oct. 11, 2004
|
|
MarkC
|
Quote: from mt on 3:40 am on Oct. 12, 2004
I was at an airshow many years ago and they had a C130 on display. The bird rolled down the runway for takeoff and when it fired its JATO rockets, everyone got a shock!
Since we're all being rather nerdy talking about in-flight refuelling tankers and the like, can I just be even nerdier and point out that if it fired its rockets it would have RATO, not JATO?
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 9:48 pm on Oct. 11, 2004
|
|
sanook269
|
mt wrote:
For a long time, NWA used the 747-200 on its DTW to NRT route, followed by the 747-400 from NRT to BKK. They've switched to the 747-400 from DTW to NRT and the A330-200 from NRT to BKK. I enquired about this, and was told that this was done because passenger volume to BKK could not sustain the use of the 747.
****************
Yes, almost all the Airlines have done something similiar, based on their traffic volume to BKK. Almost all my trips, except 2, have been on 747-400s to whatever hub, Taipei, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul, where ever, and then a smaller aircraft to BKK, such as a 737, 757, 777, or an Airbus product. Korean Air flies a 777-200 to Seoul from SFO. Asiana flies 747s from Seoul to BKK. Cathay Pacific uses a 747 to BKK from HKG, but a 777 for the return to Hong Kong, and so on, and so on, and so on...
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 10:08 pm on Oct. 11, 2004
|
|
| |
|
