Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 16:59:53 GMT
It seems they cannot get a break.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 28, 2020 17:57:09 GMT
Couldn't happen to a nicer company.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 19:54:19 GMT
A pity really, the only things flying from the factory get removed.......
|
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Jan 28, 2020 20:03:59 GMT
I have to confess that I haven't really flown in a modern Boeing. My last few flights have been with Easyjet and they use Airbus almost exclusively. I have no complaints - they seem a thoroughly modern and very quiet aircraft.
By contrast, the last Boeing I flew on was a decrepit ex Chinese 757 with Jet2. It was uncomfortable and noisy by comparison. The buzz saw takeoff power noise from the twin RR RB211s is a lovely noise though.
I would like to fly on a 787 Dreamliner for comparison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 20:36:29 GMT
Last time I flew was on a Saudia 747. First trip out there something fell off one of the port side engines as we took off, circled and landed again. A three day wait for parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Jan 28, 2020 20:52:35 GMT
To be honest, I still have fond memories of the screaming BAC-111s and Lockheed L-1011 Tristars (with aforementioned RR RB-211s of my annual family holidays as a child.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy C on Jan 28, 2020 20:59:16 GMT
The new easyjet planes (neo?) are really nice - quiet, and comfy recaro seats.
Going to Dublin last Friday must've been a brand new 737 Ryanair jet, as it had similar slim recaro style seats. Coming back was the chunky uncomfortable ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Jan 28, 2020 21:39:24 GMT
The new easyjet planes (neo?) are really nice - quiet, and comfy recaro seats. Going to Dublin last Friday must've been a brand new 737 Ryanair jet, as it had similar slim recaro style seats. Coming back was the chunky uncomfortable ones. The new seats are much better. The 787 Dreamliner is nice to fly on, much quieter than the smaller stuff like the 737 and A319/320 but I think the A350 has a slight edge. The A380 is still my favourite to fly on, its stable and quiet (upstairs). |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 29, 2020 13:06:32 GMT
Despite being a reasonably regular flyer, I've not been on a Dreamliner or an A380 as yet. That's because they are both long-haul aircraft and most of my travel is short haul with some medium haul (eg Moscow or Cairo). In fact, I've flown long-haul just seven times in the last decade (six times for work and only once for holiday - to Mexico in 2012).
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jan 29, 2020 13:28:26 GMT
An A380 is about the best ride I've ever had on a plane - smooth and quiet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jan 29, 2020 14:55:05 GMT
To be honest, I still have fond memories of the screaming BAC-111s and Lockheed L-1011 Tristars (with aforementioned RR RB-211s of my annual family holidays as a child. +1 Loads of flights on L-1011's to and from the US on these. The other one I recall most was the 727: a few hops to Germany in the late '80s and early '90s on these planes which seemed to take off almost vertically! Re: Boeing: first loss for 20 years reported today. I think they're along way from the old 707 and 747 era when the phrase was "I'm not going if it ain't a Boeing". |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 29, 2020 16:01:12 GMT
To be honest, I still have fond memories of the screaming BAC-111s and Lockheed L-1011 Tristars (with aforementioned RR RB-211s of my annual family holidays as a child. +1 Loads of flights on L-1011's to and from the US on these. The other one I recall most was the 727: a few hops to Germany in the late '80s and early '90s on these planes which seemed to take off almost vertically! Re: Boeing: first loss for 20 years reported today. I think they're along way from the old 707 and 747 era when the phrase was "I'm not going if it ain't a Boeing". Despite that their shares are up! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 16:04:13 GMT
We never flew anywhere as kids but we did go to Canvey island in my dads bosses Roller. A big old thing which must have been 50's vintage or early 60's. My biggest memory is of a very hot day and having to find something to put on the leather seats, they wos bloody hot....... No, only a one off, the family Hillman minx was snafu'd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 29, 2020 18:09:12 GMT
My last Boeing experience was the BA 737s that used to do the domestic flights before they replaced them with A319. Most flights I’ve been on since have been either A319 or A320 with BA and EasyJet. The neo models are noticeably quieter.
I don’t fly long haul for business and as my wife hates flying it’s unlikely I’ll do so for leisure purposes anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Jan 29, 2020 20:55:17 GMT
I loathe the 737, but it is an ancient design. Most of my flying now to to and from Germany. Usually on an A310/320. I made the mistake of going on a Flybe Dash 8 once. Never again.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 29, 2020 22:28:40 GMT
I loathe the 737, but it is an ancient design. Which is the entire heart of the problem - Boeing seems to be belatedly learning that there are only so many tricks you can teach a dog so old that the basic hull/airframe design first flew over half a century ago. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 22:39:55 GMT
The big problem was that the centre of lift changed drastically because they moved much larger engines further forward and higher up than the airframe was designed for. The change induced a nose up effect. the software change was to move the nose downwards by a computer controlled pitch down. The sensors were both faulty but the Boeing management refused to certify it as it should have done and forced a situation where pilots were NOT required to be familiarised in a simulator to account for the change and disable the MCAS system when there was a false pitch down maneuver. The FAA allowed Boeing to self certify the aircraft with it's embedded staff. Basically Boeing were given a bye, the airlines refused the choice of a new aircraft preferring to keep the 737 and save money so everyone involved was at fault.
If your pilot of the 747 you are flying in has only ever flown a Cessna you would be rightly PO'd and refuse to fly. Same situation different gravy.
Of course, the Max will never crash and the Titanic safely served for decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by clunes on Jan 29, 2020 22:40:30 GMT
I pick the Dreamliner over almost any other option when flying long haul. I don't fly a huge amount but on the 4-6 flights a year back and forth to San Jose I'll avoid the older options as the 787 (789) is so much more pleasant - quieter, better air quality, more comfortable etc
I'm no die hard Boeing fan and would admittedly be more nervous than normal if I get on a 737-Max in future but the manufacturer of the aircraft I get on is still pretty low on the list of priorities
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 30, 2020 9:21:14 GMT
After Christmas I went out to Czech on an Easyjet A320 and came back on a Ryanair 737.
I don't remember noticing any significant differences.
Not sure that was helped by being on the back row in the A320 and row 8 on the 737 though.
Neither were particularly comfortable and I wouldn't want to go any further then 2 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Jan 30, 2020 9:27:27 GMT
After Christmas I went out to Czech on an Easyjet A320 and came back on a Ryanair 737. I don't remember noticing any significant differences. Not sure that was helped by being on the back row in the A320 and row 8 on the 737 though. Neither were particularly comfortable and I wouldn't want to go any further then 2 hours. Didn’t you notice the particularly terrible seats and even less legroom on the Ryanair plane? I refuse to fly with them. EasyJet is OK for short flights, but I always book an extra legroom seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 30, 2020 9:39:33 GMT
After Christmas I went out to Czech on an Easyjet A320 and came back on a Ryanair 737. I don't remember noticing any significant differences. Not sure that was helped by being on the back row in the A320 and row 8 on the 737 though. Neither were particularly comfortable and I wouldn't want to go any further then 2 hours. Didn’t you notice the particularly terrible seats and even less legroom on the Ryanair plane? I refuse to fly with them. EasyJet is OK for short flights, but I always book an extra legroom seat. It was probably a little worse with the Paddys but as a short-arse there was enough room for me, albeit only just. I put the discomfort down to the volume of clothing I was wearing what with it having been cold in Prague. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 30, 2020 10:19:11 GMT
After Christmas I went out to Czech on an Easyjet A320 and came back on a Ryanair 737. I don't remember noticing any significant differences. Not sure that was helped by being on the back row in the A320 and row 8 on the 737 though. Neither were particularly comfortable and I wouldn't want to go any further then 2 hours. Didn’t you notice the particularly terrible seats and even less legroom on the Ryanair plane? I refuse to fly with them. EasyJet is OK for short flights, but I always book an extra legroom seat. I don't often fly Ryanair or Easyjet anymore. We went through a period of doing so, but these days by the time you've added back baggage, speedy boarding, allocated seating...oxygen.....it's rarely materially cheaper than flying BA. Plus we live a 25 minute drive/Uber ride from Heathrow, whereas Ryanair involves a very lengthy trek to Stansted, usually at very awkward times of day, and Easyjet requires either Gatwick which is also an hour away and generally a hateful airport, or Luton which is worse on all counts than Gatwick. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Jan 30, 2020 10:36:54 GMT
Didn’t you notice the particularly terrible seats and even less legroom on the Ryanair plane? I refuse to fly with them. EasyJet is OK for short flights, but I always book an extra legroom seat. I don't often fly Ryanair or Easyjet anymore. We went through a period of doing so, but these days by the time you've added back baggage, speedy boarding, allocated seating...oxygen.....it's rarely materially cheaper than flying BA. Plus we live a 25 minute drive/Uber ride from Heathrow, whereas Ryanair involves a very lengthy trek to Stansted, usually at very awkward times of day, and Easyjet requires either Gatwick which is also an hour away and generally a hateful airport, or Luton which is worse on all counts than Gatwick. I'm not a big fan of BA either, but you're right about the costs ending up broadly the same. I generally use Easyjet for short flights for the same reason you use BA, closer airports. I can get to Luton in under an hour and Stanstead in about an hour but Heathrow is 1.5hours in the very early hours and usually more like 2-2.5hours. Luton is still being worked on, but they have made huge improvements over the last couple of years including 2 x multi story short term car parks and security is a much less painful experience, although I still get the fasttrack ticket just in case. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 30, 2020 10:57:25 GMT
The big problem was that the centre of lift changed drastically because they moved much larger engines further forward and higher up than the airframe was designed for. The change induced a nose up effect. the software change was to move the nose downwards by a computer controlled pitch down. The sensors were both faulty but the Boeing management refused to certify it as it should have done and forced a situation where pilots were NOT required to be familiarised in a simulator to account for the change and disable the MCAS system when there was a false pitch down maneuver. The FAA allowed Boeing to self certify the aircraft with it's embedded staff. Basically Boeing were given a bye, the airlines refused the choice of a new aircraft preferring to keep the 737 and save money so everyone involved was at fault. If your pilot of the 747 you are flying in has only ever flown a Cessna you would be rightly PO'd and refuse to fly. Same situation different gravy. Of course, the Max will never crash and the Titanic safely served for decades. Pretty much right. The 737 Max came about following a courtesy call from the head of American Airlines to the head of Boeing telling him their next order of planes (200 or so) would be with Airbus for their 320 Neo. American Airlines had been an exclusive operator of Boeings, hence the call, but the saving of 20% on fuel were too big to ignore. Boeing asked American to hold off as they could get a 737 to them that would match the Airbus on fuel efficiency and with minimal re-training of pilots. They did that in about 10 months and eventually American split the order. The 737 is an old design from the days when many airports didn't have luggage handling equipment and bags were loaded by hand - hence it was low to the ground. As the size of the engines were increased to accommodate more load they had to be moved forward to maintain the minimum 18" of ground clearance inducing, as Mike says, the nose up effect that had to be countered by software. It's much easier for a manufacturer and cheaper for the airlines if generations of aircraft are just updated as the pilots can just download the training file onto their iPads and review them as they fly during normal work hours, which is what happened with the various versions of the 737 through to the Max. If it's a completely new aircraft they have to go on the simulators for more formal training, which is time consuming and expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Jan 30, 2020 14:53:54 GMT
I loathe the 737, but it is an ancient design. Which is the entire heart of the problem - Boeing seems to be belatedly learning that there are only so many tricks you can teach a dog so old that the basic hull/airframe design first flew over half a century ago. From what I can gather, pilots generally really like the 737. It is apparently a nice plane to fly. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jan 30, 2020 15:08:08 GMT
Probably because the basic design is around 50 years old, so "non-computerised", and the pilots have a greater "feel" for the plane. Surprising and unexpected actions by a computer to "do things" that the pilots were not expecting is basically what caused the 2 MAX's to crash
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 30, 2020 15:31:41 GMT
Probably because the basic design is around 50 years old, so "non-computerised", and the pilots have a greater "feel" for the plane. Surprising and unexpected actions by a computer to "do things" that the pilots were not expecting is basically what caused the 2 MAX's to crash The age thing is funny as I always think they're pretty new but things like the F15, F16 have been in service since the mid-70s. The F-18 is now pretty much out of service and being replaced by the 'Super Hornet' which, confusingly, looks identical (to my eyes). However, all these things have had airframe work to extend their life and are regularly upgraded for flight systems, as also happens with jet airliners - they'll all have a 'glass' cockpit (computer screens to you and me) and the latest safety systems fitted. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 30, 2020 15:57:57 GMT
Probably because the basic design is around 50 years old, so "non-computerised", and the pilots have a greater "feel" for the plane. Surprising and unexpected actions by a computer to "do things" that the pilots were not expecting is basically what caused the 2 MAX's to crash The age thing is funny as I always think they're pretty new but things like the F15, F16 have been in service since the mid-70s. The F-18 is now pretty much out of service and being replaced by the 'Super Hornet' which, confusingly, looks identical (to my eyes). However, all these things have had airframe work to extend their life and are regularly upgraded for flight systems, as also happens with jet airliners - they'll all have a 'glass' cockpit (computer screens to you and me) and the latest safety systems fitted. The service life of the B52 bombers is being extended so they will be 100 years old when they are finally retired! |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jan 30, 2020 20:47:07 GMT
The 737 being such an old design is at the root of the MAX issues..... it's apparently very low to the ground because it's from the days before proper luggage handling equipment was commonplace, and from a time when baggage was placed by hand in the hold by the baggage handlers. That's why larger engines could not easily be fitted in the "right" place and had to be moved so far forward of the wing, causing the CoG issues
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 31, 2020 7:38:51 GMT
Let's hope that when we finally get autonomous cars that they don't make the same mistakes. The thought that the car might want to take a 90 degree right on the cliff top road, when it should be taking a 90 degree left and no amount of wrestling with the wheel is going to stop it, is a worrying thought. I really hope I am either pushing up daisies or confined to my go faster mobility scooter when that day comes.
|
|
