Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4887 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3088 times:
"No spin, no bias"
Lol. Anybody why he permanently uses French expressions during his text? It's his way to belittle Airbus ("the dumb Frogs") and even ignoring the fact that Airbus is not French. But no spin, no bias. God bless the 777.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2918 times:
"Of course without bothering to look at how it finally turned out; What would have been the fun in that...?"
And how has it "finally turned out"? Did I miss something, did Airbus and Boeing suddenly declare the game over? The one thing about this business is that there is no beginning, nor end. It's a continuous battle.
Seriously, though, Boeing has had a hell of a time selling those A340-300s. In fact, two of the carriers that agreed to buy them have collapsed - Khalifa and Air Switzerland. However, the A340's value is also sh**-poor at the moment, and the fact that these nearly new A340-300s are available have not only contributed to the quad's lackluster value, but forced Airbus to sell new A343s at minimum prices. So it seems, both Boeing and Airbus are being f***ed over by the A340.
Ktliem@yvr From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2894 times:
As somebody mentioned, the article is rather stale as it was written in 1999. I wouldn't call the article "brilliant" as it is no more than PlaneBusiness Banter. I think Airbus decided to support Boeing A340s after all, correct me if I'm wrong on this one. Anyway, with 10 unsold A340s, I wonder who has the last laugh.
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11159 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2706 times:
The difference between you and me is I am open minded, while you are rigid minded.
You've developped this ideology that twins are better than quads because the 777 is cool and has 2 enormous engines. The 777 is great, I'm not denying that. But I don't like how you've become so critical of quads when they have dominated the large aircraft industry over the years and will CONTINUE to dominate the large aircraft industry over the years to come because of their many advantages such as better wing efficiency factor, and better high altitude performance and higher velocity performance.
Remember, the 777 was built as a twin because airlines were looking for a large widebody aircraft with lower operating costs.
There's no denying that twins are more economical and more efficient than quads, but remember, we're not talking about performance. We're talking about aeronautics and actual aircraft performances and quads are still better in this manner for many reasons. That is why Airbus opted 4-engines on the A340. Operating costs was less of an issue for them.
Sadly nowadays airlines are trying to minimize costs because of the general shape of the industry and the reform it's currently going through (low fares). So that's to Boeings advantage, but that's now why I brought up this discussion.
The A340 is a good aircraft, and the A340-500/600 will be a huge improvement and will greatly solve the A340's main problems.
Now, you're going to ramble on and on about what I'm going to say Concordeboy, but you simply cannot deny that in a dangerous moment, quads are safer than twins. You simply can't deny that. Yes, it's old ideology that 4 is safer than 2, but it's a realistic ideology. If you lose 1 engine on a twin-engined aircraft, you've got only 1 left. If you lose 1 on a quad, you've got 3 left.
On most twins, if 1 engine fails, it usually means disaster. Now I know that the 777 can stay up in the air with 1 engine which is great, but still, you've only got 1 engine left.
Now I am by no means saying twins are unsafe. I fly on twins much more than quads and have no problem with flying on them. If I'm going to die in a plane crash, I'll accept my fate. No use living a life in paranoia.
Anyways, the point is quads are obviously safer than twins in the case of an engine failure and you simply can't deny it. It's old ideology and may sound silly with today's reliable engines, but it's an ideology that will continue to be valid.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran