Boeing 787 Makes US Debut 317
thomas.kane writes "After years of delays, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is set to take off from Bush Intercontinental Airport this morning bound for O'Hare. Designed to make the flying experience 'revolutionary,' it is constructed from composite materials, has larger windows than previous jetliners, and high efficiency engines. United Airlines became the first U.S. carrier to take delivery; they've ordered 50, but due to processing delays, they only have 2 right now. Start looking for more to take to the skies early next year."
Awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd love to see United stop treating us all like shite.
HINT: Start with people, not with aircraft. Oh, and food service, too.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
funny, I go with the lowest bidder for airlines based in other parts of the world and the food, beer & wine, entertainment and courteous service are included. the US airlines *could* do it if money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
From United's Q3 financials: [google.com]
Net profit margin 0.06%
but having just flown SwissAir and Lufthansa, I have to agree about food and service being better in Europe.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
And yet there's RyanAir, which will sadly never work in the US because we lack an abundance of old military airfields an hour away from places that people actually want to go.
Re: (Score:2)
It's getting worse. Finnair has stopped offering free food on short haul flights, and they are in a battle with the unions to reduce their staff costs, too. The lowest bidders such as Norwegian and Flybe are expanding, though.
Re: (Score:3)
funny, I go with the lowest bidder for airlines based in other parts of the world and the food, beer & wine, entertainment and courteous service are included. the US airlines *could* do it if money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets
Just remember that customers are on that short list of "money-grubbing scum". Shop for those other criteria, if that's what you want and pay a little more like you do with those "lowest bidders" in other parts of the world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, the unions are killing the US airlines..
Except mysteriously for SWA which does just fine despite being union.
That doesn't really show anything. (Score:5, Insightful)
SWA may do fine as a business, but it doesn't do any better than other US carriers in terms of product or value for the customer.
If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because more bonus money for executives is more important than the notion of anybody wanting to work an honest living earning a decent wage. When did a strong middle-class become the bad guy? It seems to me that you poor-but-aspiring and middle-class have a case of Stockholm syndrome, identifying with your capitalist captors as a survival technique. Well, you've already lost the battle. Go back to your Foxconn dormitory.
Hey, maybe if I repeatedly vote against my best interests, I too can be rich someday. A
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.
That's a bizarre non sequitur. How does that keep foreign carriers from getting into a race to the bottom like we're seeing in the US? And why are you excluding the Europeans?
Re:That doesn't really show anything. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That doesn't really show anything. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.
Except that if you compare US airlines to foreign airlines including Europe, they have far better "soft products" despite labor costs..
I remember taking a coach flight from Glasgow to London with British Airlines, and thought they had upgraded me to business class, based on how much space I had at my seats, and having only experienced flight in the US up until that point. They don't cram twice as many seats as there should be in their planes. Good service too.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember taking a coach flight from Glasgow to London with British Airlines [...]
Note that British Airlines is a Flag Carrier [wikipedia.org], so there are various subsidies for the airline. Same with Air France.
Re:That doesn't really show anything. (Score:5, Informative)
A similar ticket in the US costs 1/3 less than in Europe
Really? Because I just compared ticket prices in expedia (round-trip, weekend trip, a few months out (February).
Cheapest flight from LA to San Francisco (distance 347 miles): $177, United Airlines, which I can attest has crappy service.
Cheapest flight from Glasgow to London (distance 343 miles): $166, British Airways, which I can attest has great service.
Re: (Score:3)
Cheapest (full service - Qantas) flight from Adelaide to Melbourne 700kms (Australia): $140 (Meal + Newspaper + 1 free alcoholic drink + minimum 1000 FF points compared to BA's measly 125.)
Cheapest flight from Adelaide to Melbourne: $48.
US has it bad, very bad. Australians don't realise how bad flying is until we leave Australia.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
In this country, executives get paid for performance-- or at least for tweaking the stock price. Unions, with their incessant demands for decent working conditions, interfere with the creation of totemic representations of shareholder value.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
In this country, executives get paid for performance-- or at least for tweaking the stock price. Unions, with their incessant demands for decent working conditions, interfere with the creation of totemic representations of shareholder value.
That was a joke right? "Shareholder value" when talking about passenger airlines is pretty much zero. The lifetime profit/loss of the industry is a loss. Every legacy US airline has declared bankruptcy at least once. Southwest has not gone belly up, but you would have been far better investing in the S&P 500 over the last five or ten year periods, perhaps longer.
The problem is that owning airlines is "sexy" and way too much money is invested in it. The result is that shareholders are completely and utterly screwed. The problem with airlines is not the execs, the unions, the corporate structure, or even fuel costs. The problem is the "sexy" factor has caused there to be way too much capacity built and no airline can operate at a long term profit because of it.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the unions are killing the US airlines.
Your concluding statement contains a doctrinary truism. This hypothesis is not borne out by the evidence.
Experience on European flag-carrier and private airlines is qualitatively better than US service and amenities, in general and overall.
Surely, you don't propose that, somehow, European workers are less unionized than their American counterparts? I laugh at the thought!
Of course Asian premiere carriers also shame the US - so perhaps unionization is a red-herring, and may not be germane to the argument. But don't let that stop you from your neo-objectivist claims. I understand that they are impervious to empiricism. ;-)
Re:Reality check (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.glassdoor.com/GD/Salary/United-Airlines-Flight-Attendant-Salaries-E683_D_KO16,32.htm?filter.experienceLevel=TEN_PLUS/ [glassdoor.com]
$84k:
try $48K at most.
12-15 days off per month (average):
not if you want that $48K: More like 10 days off...
free travel for you and your family:
There's never any "space available" for those pesky employees. It's nothing but an enormous waste of time to even try.
big discounts on rental cars and hotels
You get the same thing we do...
per diem of $3k-$5k per year:
What? Do you think dining on the road is cheap- you must not travel much. That doesn't even cover it. Take a look next time, most of them carry a cooler full of food with them.
tuition reimbursement, matching 401k:
YGTBSM. Maybe at Southwest, but even with them 401K's are the only retirement.
pensions:
GONE, GONE, GONE. After telling us to take MASSIVE paycuts to save them- tremendous bait and switch. We were totally suckered. Live and learn...
Of course, airline pilots making up to $200k per year and all the above is a pretty good deal too.:
IAAAP (I am an airline pilot) and I don't even make half that- after 17 years. From the devil itself:http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/06/16/pilot-pay-want-to-know-how-much-your-captain-earns/ [wsj.com]. Not everybody gets to be Captain, and it take years to make it. Oh yeah, they keep raising the retirement age: moving the line ever so further away...
Re: (Score:2)
That's what everybody says. Then they go to travelocity, and fly with the lowest bidder. If more people wanted to pay more for a better experience, there'd be more first class seats in airplanes.
Last month I flew on Jetblue and paid 10% less than anywhere else, got a huge seat and the best flight experience I'd ever had.
Oh, and I've been waiting for this:
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/787_dreamliner.html [what-is-what.com]
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, everyone says they want to be treated better. And have even lower fares. As well as full meals. And free movies. And no charge for baggage. But make it cheaper than it already is.
Do you see the problem?
HINT: If you want food service, pay more and fly first class.
Re: (Score:2)
that is just beyond unreasonable.
Then you need to have words with the people buying these tickets, not the airlines selling them.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the untaken business class seats are for people who needs to fly RIGHT NOW, and the 10x price is the price for being guaranteed a seat on the next flight. Note that the seats are handed out for free to frequent fliers as a perk for always flying the same airline.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a thought: how about charging me twice as much for twice the space? That means some extra legroom as well as wider seats (2-3-2 instead of 3-5-3 arrangement). Legroom is good not just for stretching your legs but also to let you out to go to the bathroom without disturbing your neighbor. Wider seats ensure that you actually can get some sleep instead of
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
United provides food service. It's just not "free." Of course, other airlines charge you for it too, they just include it in your ticket price whether you want the food or not.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The United "Tapas Box" is pretty awesome. Well, it was awesome last year when it was only $5, they've since raised the price to $7.50...
For the record, I actually like United and I have not tried this Tapas Box. However, do note that all US carriers are afraid of being saddled with food nobody wants to buy, so they actually have less food available on flights than then there are passengers on the plane. I do not live in a hub city for United, so essentially all they fly from my city is 50 or so seat small jets to get us to one of their hub cities. On such flights they would probably have between 10 and 15 Tapas Boxes available so you can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is an airplane, not a person ;-)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
A few years ago, I was in Seattle for a band trip. On the Sunday morning, a dozen of us went up to Everett to see the Boeing factory.
The first plane ready to get out the door was 787 #1, the FAA smasher, so we got to see it fairly close. We also got to see the Dreamcargo? whatever it's called take off. That's a funny looking plane.
They are very cool planes, and if you're ever in the PNW, I highly recommend heading to Everett and checking out the factory. It's incredible.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember landing in Seattle for the first time. I could just see miles of runways figuring out; there is the airport! It went on for a while before actually getting to the airport. It turns out they were Boeing factory runways.
Re: (Score:2)
Go to Ethiopia, where the first one was delivered 3 months ago.
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
Just saw one at Beijing in ANA colors - looked a lot like a mid-sized twin engine airliner.
I spend a lot of my life on airliners. The things that matter to me are:
Big overhead bins: 787 has them, but so do lat model 747s and 777s.
AC power sockets: These could be put on any plane, but usually airlines only have them in business.
Legroom: Entirely up to the airline to set the seat spacing, nothing to do with the airplane.
In seat video with a selection of movies: Again up to the airline for the interior configuration.
Sufficient restrooms: Again, an airline configuration issue.
The improved fuel efficiency will reduce costs some - which is nice, but that is an ongoing trend. Presumably the airbus A350 will be the next step, followed by a 797 or something. I occasionally look out the windows, but most of the time there isn't much to see - so big windows are only a minor change. If they really operate the plane at lower cabin altitude that would be nice, but the extra weight burns more fuel - I doubt they actually operate that way for long. I couldn't care less about the multi-colored lighting.
It looks like a nice plane, but not in any way a game changer. Give me a Mach 3 SST, or a sub-orbital that can do Shanghai to SFO in 40 minutes and we'll talk. We've had Mach .85 airliners for >50 years now.
US ? That's nothing. (Score:4, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, Boeing 787 Makes YOU Debut !
Meh ... (Score:4, Funny)
I was worried at first, until I saw that the airport was named after the at least somewhat sane one.
New feature (Score:4, Funny)
Re:New feature (Score:5, Funny)
You can't open Windows because the 787 runs on Linux.
Did I miss something? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Funny)
I think you're missing the point...the story here is that a US carrier can finally afford a new airplane.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"a US carrier can finally afford a new airplane."
Really? The Nomitz class carriers have been getting new versions of strike aircraft on a regular basis and soon they will be getting the naval version of the F35
(Unless we go 'off the cliff' of course
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and thanks for cancelling the SSC, Texans.
Please stop playing stupid on the internet. The SSC was just burning money. Canceling it was a great thing for US science (and everything else except the graft and corruption industry).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First American carrier to use an american-built plane made mostly of composite materials.
Don't get me wrong, Carbon Fiber is absurdly strong, and computer models help negate design flaws.... but CF's failure mode tends to be sudden and...explosive. Steel bends long before it breaks, and Aluminum is somewhere in the middle, but CF just.... goes when it fails. I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:4, Interesting)
ACtually, the difference is less than you think. 10-15%, to be exact. Modern airlines do not use plain aluminium. Most recently, Alumnium-Magnesium-Lithium alloys have been introduced, for example
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Informative)
You are getting old.
Modern engineering simulation using non-linear finite element software with appropriate calibrated fracture and failure material models can model the deformation and stresses accurately. When the structure is overloaded, the software can model the delamination of the individual plies, the damage that occurs and the residual strength and performance of the structure.
Disclaimer: I used to work for the company that writes the software that Boeing uses.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you appreciate just how bad aluminum's failure mode is. It's not like an airplane crashes and gets a few dents. It's usually torn apart into hundreds of pieces. There's no way carbon fiber could be worse, because structural failures are always catastrophic anyway. However, carbon fiber is less susceptible to fatigue, so it's less likely to fail in the first place. The point goes to carbon fiber. If we ever find a way to make these composites as cheaply as stamped metal, we'll probably make all
Re: (Score:2)
It's not nearly as simple as that. Yes, structural failure in general is often catastrophic, but material failure doesn't have to be with. Ever hear of cracks being found in metal structures? That material has failed locally, but it takes time for those cracks to propagate and eventually cause the structure to fail catastrophically. That's because metals including aluminum have a property called "toughness". Toughness is the ability to deform plastically in regions of local stress concentration, redistribut
Metal Fatigue (Score:2)
Those cracks you're describing are metal fatigue [wikipedia.org]. They occur during normal aircraft operations [wikipedia.org](high-cycle fatigue), as well as when a structure is stressed beyond what the material is able to tolerate [wikipedia.org] (low cycle fatigue). As you've noted, carbon fiber composites aren't susceptible to it [wikipedia.org]. This is a huge benefit! It means that any structural damage will be visible. It means that structural damage is less likely to occur and the overall structure won't become weaker over time. It doesn't mean that the whole pl
Re: (Score:2)
I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.
That concern came up ages ago when the 787 being mostly Carbon-Fiber was announced, people were worried about Boeing's 'lack of experience' with it. Boeing revealed that it had at least one aircraft with a US carrier that had a carbon fiber vertical on it so they could get experience.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the engineers at Boeing know how to account for CF's strength characteristics in their structural design.
I just wish they had consulted with the electrical design group about using a structural material that can melt/burn when the electrical folks deleted the differential bus protection that clears arcing faults.
Oh, and how do you repair the stuff when someone runs into it with a forklift? I mean in some third world country where all they have is a pop rivet gun and some scrap aluminum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA required a few tests specific to the 787 and its structure. I seem to recall a test where they took a fuselage and dropped it from a particular height to see how well it would deal with such a drop.
My recollection is that the FAA said that the test was passed. Not much information is available on it since they wanted to keep the information a trade secret.
Carbon fiber (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Planes aren't ever made from steel (too heavy). Aluminium bends for a while then goes with a very loud bang. (See the video of the 777 wing test). CF also bends for a while and eventually goes bang.
Gliders have been made out of composites for decades now, they have to be very strong and very light. Watch a 30m span glider in flight and see how the wing bends. The 787 head on looks very glider like with the graceful curve to the wings as they take the load.
Re: (Score:3)
First American carrier to use an american-built plane made mostly of composite materials.
Don't get me wrong, Carbon Fiber is absurdly strong, and computer models help negate design flaws.... but CF's failure mode tends to be sudden and...explosive. Steel bends long before it breaks, and Aluminum is somewhere in the middle, but CF just.... goes when it fails. I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.
Well, they do test these things, with built prototypes, not just computer models. For every plane Boeing builds, they do a wing break test where they bend the wings until they break. The wings on the 787 could be bent more than the wings on any of their aluminum built frames.
787's wing break test [youtu.be] and regular wing testing [youtu.be].
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, Anonymous Coward, we meet again! This is where I link to two very amusing CF stress test videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrjId0-K-Ts
Hooray for science and/or standardized testing based on Real Science.
On that first video, skip ahead to the 5 minute mark where they're just beating the frame against a concrete wall/corner.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Funny)
I really wish you software types would refrain from commenting on real science.
Why? I deal with terrible code written by science types all the time. Payback's a bitch.
Re: (Score:3)
Strange you should put it that way, since CFRP has essentially no plastic deformation at all. It's all elastic. The yield strength, or elastic limit, is essentially the same as the ultimate strength.
Re: (Score:2)
They do the same thing on TV. "World premier of MOVIE", "US premier of MOVIE", "Network premier", "Cable premier", "Season premier", and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
also the latest oxymoron "midseason premiere"
Ceiling Lighting (Score:4, Interesting)
Watching the "Passenger Experience" video it was almost obnoxious how much attention they kept giving the ceiling lighting, but looking at the different settings for the dynamic LED lighting it is actually pretty cool. I like that it not only changes the brightness but also the color of the cabin for things like meals and pre-landing.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think it should cost less to develop a smaller jumbo jet? Especially one using unconditional materials, bleed-less engines and so on. The 787 is Boeing's new flagship aircraft. Boeing doesn't expect to make a lot of money on each one, but by building a plane that's years ahead of what Airbus can produce, they're increasing the value of their brand. This is also a first step toward making their whole line more advanced. So releasing this plane is a tactical move, it's not intended to make them a l
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, well this I couldn't deny. Still, I suppose I like the idea so long as kinks such as you describe are sorted out.
Re: (Score:3)
But it's still United (Score:5, Funny)
Did they upgrade the staff with all new attitudes and customer service skills? Otherwise I'd rather be on another carrier's older plane.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Great; have the TSA on the aeroplane for full, in-flight molestation!
There goes another "feature" (Score:2, Interesting)
I always try to get a window as .. gasp .. I like looking out the window! But in a lot of US long haul domestic flights they "encourage" you to shut the window shades in the middle of the day. Generally you can "comply" with this by pulling the shade down 3/4 of the way and still give you some window to look out of. However with the Dreamliner's electronic dimming of the whole window you won't have a chance of balancing your desires with the cabin crew's requests.
And in a bit of conspiracy think
Re:There goes another "feature" (Score:5, Informative)
I actually work for the company that manufactures the windows (Gentex) and I only have a little experience working with the windows, but I do know that there is a master control for the dimming level. Also, there are 5 different dimming levels so it's not just full dark and full clear. I think with the master control there is also the ability to limit the selectable dimming levels. So the flight attendants or whoever gets to control it could require you to set it to at least dimming level 3 and you'd still be able to look out of the window.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw that there were multiple levels of dimness. But if I want to look out a dimmed window I'd wear sunglasses!
However my conspiracy theory was more aimed at the cabin crew forcing the shades down prior to the impending doom of the aircraft in order to reduce panic.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure you've thought this through. The dimming windows give you move control over the light level, not less. It's not an on or off setting. As with anything, you should really try it before you decide it's terrible.
Re: (Score:3)
I've had plenty of flight attendants ask me to close my shade when it was only open a crack. With the shade, the light is always at full brightness, so they have to tell you to close them so that others can sleep. This way, they can dim the windows to a lower setting, but you'll still be able to see out of them. It'll also be a lot easer on your eyes, since you won't have to stare into the blinding light from a dark cabin. This gives both you and the flight attendant more control.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what the Boeing website says about the flight attendant's control:
This is a better solution than having attendants going from passenger to passenger asking them to close their windows. Everyone can get what they want this way.
Re: (Score:3)
And in a bit of conspiracy thinking, I wonder if the cabin crew has a master switch to force the windows to darken when they want - Hello Zaphod's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses!
They always tell you to open the shades fully when taking off or landing because the cabin lights may fail and you need to see outside in the event of an accident. If anything the master switch would be for forcing them to fully transparent.
Re:There goes another "feature" (Score:4, Informative)
Are they afraid you might go blind from the sun or something?
Its so the passengers can better enjoy the in-flight entertainment. Especially on planes that don't have seat back monitors.
Re: (Score:2)
back when I was younger the in-flight entertainment was called "the mile-high club"
Re: (Score:2)
you are more embarrased to have sex in front of "them" (assuming you are right) moreso than taking a shit or piss or jacking off? if you're going to be on camera in there may as well have some great fun....
Re: (Score:2)
Have some consideration if 90% of the rest of the passengers are asleep, even if it is daytime outside.
This boils down to "why my needs and desires trump your needs and desires". So who are you to pass judgement in your favour as opposed to your window seat neighbour?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want darkness, wear this [goodhealthmatters.co.uk]
If you want silence wear these [esquire.com]
In fact, get both [singleportions.co.uk]
But don't tell me I can't look out the window
Odd priorities (Score:2)
From TFA:
Really? Those are the "passenger comforts" so significant they get a mention?
How about they just make the seats (ALL the seats) wide enough for normal Americans to sit comfortably without feeling they are intruding on the personal space of others?
I'd happily fly in slow, noisy, propeller-driven planes fired by coal if they'd just give us enough room to be comfortable on a long flight.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "first class."
Re: (Score:2)
How about they just make the seats (ALL the seats) wide enough for normal Americans to sit comfortably without feeling they are intruding on the personal space of others?
Perhaps Boeing figures that the international market is larger than the domestic one and that it would be cheaper to make normal Americans narrow enough to fit in the international airplane seats. :-) *ducks*
I'd happily fly in slow, noisy, propeller-driven planes fired by coal if they'd just give us enough room to be comfortable on a long flight.
There are such planes, only they fly at a really low altitudes and tend to crash into icebergs. But otherwise there is plenty of room in them.
Re:Odd priorities (Score:4, Informative)
Airplane manufacturers don't control seat width; the airlines are the ones who define that. The 787 is wider than other airplanes in its size class and Boeing had intended for that to be reflected in the seats. Instead, airlines chose to cram in two more passengers per row.
Re: (Score:3)
Business/first is an option, of course, but it's not available on the regional jets that have made such huge inroads in American air transpo
Processing delays? (Score:4, Funny)
It turns out there was some poor guy at United Airlines refreshing this web page for months:
What's worse, when the plane finally arrived, it was packed in a giant welded plastic clamshell. It took two weeks for a crew at the airline to extract the aircraft without damaging it.
I'd care more... (Score:4, Insightful)
,.. if flying hadn't become such a nightmare. I remember how excited I was the first time I flew as a kid. The last time I flew, the seat put my arse to sleep, and the guy in the next seat kept elbowing me as he worked on a PP presentation. The restroom was this tiny compartment I couldn't even stand up straight in.
I avoid flying at all costs. I'll probably never board a 787.
First commercial flight? (Score:2)
I find this odd because last month there was one sitting at the terminal in Phoenix as we pulled in.
Our pilot was on the intercom telling everyone to look out the window at it.
Maybe it was on a test run and not a regular commercial flight.
Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, etc. (Score:4, Interesting)
All I want is some godammed leg and elbow room.
Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e (Score:5, Insightful)
No you don't. If that's all you wanted, you'd fly first class or business class and get it. What you want is more leg and elbow room and the same amount of money left in your wallet after you buy the ticket.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
TFA didn't say "Debut with an American carrier", it said "US Debut".
Of course, since it is made here, it has been flying in the USA for years - but they ignore that fact as well.
Re: (Score:2)
757-300 makes 3,523,172th flight into Atlanta
Is anybody going to click it? No. And if they don't, how are you going to find out in the ad space on the side that Language Teachers Hate this guy that lived a Long Long time ago? You don't click it, CNN doesn't make bank. Pretty simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Seattle. Everytime I hear someone complain that nothing is made in the USA I think - are you kidding, look up in the sky those planes were made right here.
Sort of true (Boeing is huge and mostly in the US) - but in an effort to get international orders, YoYoDyne subcontracted the 787 to pretty much every country with an airport. That was one of the reasons that it fell so far behind (the other being that Boeing, like everyone else, can't hit a release target to save it's life). It became hugely difficult to monitor and integrate suppliers from damned near everywhere.
Sort of sounds like the Space Shuttle writ large.
Re: (Score:2)
The new plane is quieter, and the cabin appears more open because of the larger windows.
Re: (Score:2)