Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Brilliant Article Discussing The Famous "SQ-F.U."  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2837 times:

Wow!

This has to be one of the most brilliantly-conceived articles ever written on the topic of Aviation. No spin, no bias... great subject!

http://www.planebusiness.com/perspectives/p072899airbus.html

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2806 times:

Boeing has had more than it's fair share of sour grapes moves, such as the recent Iberia press release.

Let's be realistic here, with so much at stake, the insults fly both directions.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineAerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4681 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

Wow, I'm both speachless and laughing at the same time. If I didn't support my products here at my office I would be chased out of the business.


"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Well... welcome to four years ago...

Of course without bothering to look at how it finally turned out; What would have been the fun in that...?  Insane


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2742 times:

Very good article!

And what does SQ-F.U. mean in full?



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2716 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.


User currently offlineJj From Algeria, joined Jun 2001, 1227 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2686 times:

and he goes by the name Robespierre, which I believe is also french?

Anyway, Airbus is the last manufacturer that can say boeing is giving it's aicraft for free!!!!! Gosh, al these subsidies they have, and they say that Boeing is giving them awya for free! lol!


User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5294 posts, RR: 61
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Isn't that article rather old. 1999?

Jeremiah



Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2648 times:

And what does SQ-F.U. mean in full?

Little term that was coined at Airwise.com standing for SQ's F^ck You (to the A343)  Big grin


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2638 times:

ConcordeBoy,

I really don't understand your ideology of 2 engined aircraft being better than 4.

When it comes to aeronautics, it's actually the opposite. I won't go there though......



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

Okay, let me clarify a bit.

I don't like the A340-300 much to be honest.

But I am having the impression that you think 2-engined aircraft are the way to go and anything more is bad. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I am, then I deeply apologize.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineMarcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1790 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2587 times:

Indeed that article is very very dated......as for the Robespierre name of the author....I think he is trying to make a refference to Maximilien Robespierre.



There is a pun in there................................

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/robespierre.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/robespierre-terror.html



Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
User currently offlineAvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/robespierre.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/robespierre-terror.html



Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

BA,

When it comes to aeronautics, it's actually the opposite

I completely disagree





I won't go there though

If you'd like to discuss this free of A.net flame, you need only email me.  Big grin


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2546 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.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineKtliem@yvr From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2522 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.

User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 2477 times:

Quite,

Yes Airbus did support the Boeing A340 in the end.

Rumour is Boeing bought the aircraft for c.75-80m each, and sold SQ B777 at 110-115 each.

As Boeing haven't been able to resell the A340, that effectively means they only got 30-40m USD per B777 on this deal

Not one of their best business decisions


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 2469 times:

After the usual saber-rattling, Airbus did indeed revoke their initial threat. But as I said, mentioning that would apparently have spoilt the "fun".  Insane

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 2457 times:

As Boeing haven't been able to resell the A340, that effectively means they only got 30-40m USD per B777 on this deal

Not one of their best business decisions



You're forgetting about their leasing out of those A340s....


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2434 times:

I completely disagree

You completely disagree with the law of physics, huh?

You should take an aeronautics class or two.

An aircraft will fly more efficiently if the thrust is distributed along the entire wing. That's a very basic description for you.

That's one of the reasons why just about every large military aircraft (cargo transports of bombers) have 4 engines and not 2.

I won't go there though

Why do you think I was going flame you? I just said that I'm not going to explain aeronautics for you even though I just gave you a very brief description.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

You completely disagree with the law of physics, huh?

no, I completely disagree with your anecdotal interpretation thereof... to the exclusion of several other factors which also affect said aernautical performance  Insane Laugh out loud



Why do you think I was going flame you?

I couldnt care less what you attempt to do to me, but rather thought I'd extend the offer out of courtesy for your aversion to delve into it


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

no, I completely disagree with your anecdotal interpretation thereof... to the exclusion of several other factors which also affect said aernautical performance

Wing efficiency is increased when the thrust is spread out along the wing.

This is why most large aircraft are powered with 4-engines. The 777 was powered with 2-engines to cut down costs and that is what the airlines had requested.

But if you are competing to build the best large aircraft, you will definately have 4-engines.

Not saying that the A340 is better than the 777 (I don't think it is). But 4-engined aircraft have so much more flexibility and so many advantages.

You're love for twin-engined aircraft is blinding you to see that and it's really quite sad.

Well, since it's no use carrying this any further, I'll leave it at that.

Good day.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Well, since it's no use carrying this any further, I'll leave it at that.

Seems we'll have to agree to disagree on some aspects of aeronautics  Big grin


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2334 times:

ConcordeBoy,

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
User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4489 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

On most twins, if 1 engine fails, it usually means disaster.

Can you back that up?

Engines fail on commercial twinjets QUITE A BIT. Give me examples of ending in disaster.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
25 BA : JBirdAV8r, We're talking about during take-offs such as a bird strike. Not cruising. Hell, an aircraft can lose all it's engines while in flight and s
26 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : 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. Awfully pre
27 BA : This is cute. Sure the DC8s, 707s, Concordes, Comets, etc gave quads a decent boost.... but you're saying that the failing 747 line, the A340 line (wh
28 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : 757, 767, A300, A310, 707s, DC-8s, etc. are not exactly the size I was talking about Way to specify then! We're talking about in general. I'm not... I
29 Sllevin : Most twins do not have a high enough thrust to weight ratio to be able to stabilize if they lose one of there engines during take-off. Excuse me? Not
30 Scottb : Saying that quads "dominated the large aircraft industry" for many years because they are more reliable or provide better performance is simply hogwas
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
WJ Article From The National Post.. "Mischievous" posted Tue May 21 2002 04:52:12 by TheHangarCat
Article "nwa At The Controls " posted Tue Aug 3 2004 21:57:54 by SEANWAS
"Emirates And The Dot" - Article Source? posted Tue Aug 5 2003 01:39:54 by 747-600X
"If Deal Is Done, Continental Is Seen The Boss" posted Fri Dec 15 2006 22:30:39 by STT757
G-REDX, The Ultimate Personal "Starship"? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 07:18:45 by DEVILFISH
CO "Order Of The Golden Dragon" Card? posted Mon Nov 20 2006 16:19:12 by Chase
"LCCs; Where'd The Love Go?" posted Mon Aug 28 2006 16:36:24 by BigPhilNYC
"The 787 Family" posted Wed Jun 21 2006 05:42:09 by NWDC10
"The Red Tail" Movie posted Sun Apr 23 2006 15:10:26 by DTW757
"So I Called The Elite Line" posted Sun Mar 19 2006 23:30:55 by Airlinelover