RootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4186 posts, RR: 41 Posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1609 times:
Well we have seen the press making huge errors when it comes to talking about airlines and airliners(eg confusing a 737 with a DC9 ) Since many aren't really in the aviation business it can still be forgiven.
But the President of Air Madrid should start getting things right...as I am very worried about his knowledge of airplanes! These are his words taken from a newspaper website
Actualmente la flota de Air Madrid se compone de seis aviones Airbus, tres A330-200, un A330-300, un A340 y un A310, "máquinas que gastan un tercio de lo que gasta un Jumbo y pueden llevar el mismo número de pasajeros", dijo.
If you translate it gives Air Madrid's actual fleet is composed of six airbus aircrafts : 3 A332, 1 A333, one A340 and one A310. These burn 1/3 less fuel than a jumbo jet whilst they can handle the same number of passengers !!
This is either ignorance or just a way to lie and mislead the general public that knows less bout aviation.
Have you heard of any other Airline director saying such nonsense ?
[Edited 2005-06-09 10:02:22]
A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1597 times:
Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter): These burn 1/3 less fuel than a jumbo jet whilst they can handle the same number of passengers
Maybe his definition of "jumbo" includes the likes of planes the size of a DC-10, and if so, he wouldn't be so far off. Remember the phrase "jumbo" is passé, and really belongs to the first generation of widebody jets.
BCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
I doubt if many airline CEOs or presidents could state with certainty, without first being briefed, fleet numbers, seat/mile costs of each model and other technical data.
Lord King was influential in paving the way for BA to privatisation. When interviewed he was asked how many 747s did BA have. I seem to recall Lord King's reply was something along the lines "How many is it? 41? 42? 47?"
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
Baw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2027 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1527 times:
I think he is exaggerating for the purposes of making his point. In marketing we call that "puffing". You "puff" up your product to make it look and or sound better than it actually is. In this case, he was making the point that the fuel burn on the Airbuses is 1/3 that of a 747.
I do not know what the fuel burn is on those aircraft compared to a 747-200 or a 747-400; however, I doubt seriously that it is 1/3 the fuel burn. 1/2 to 2/3 might be a better number, but 1/3 the fuel burn I think is a real stretch.
Is there someone who can verify those numbers?
A mi parece, a los novedades ni a los pasajeros no los fueran importante los datos sobre cuanto gastan en petrol los aviones Airbus contra cuanto gastan en petrol un jumbo. A ellos lo mas importante seria la comodidad del avion y el precio del boleto.
The problem is, he was "puffing" about the wrong aspect of the product!"
Oh well, just another airline CEO?
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21458 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1442 times:
The 747 is the only "Jumbo" jet. It was given that nickname by the press and public at launch.
No other jet is a jumbo other than the 747. Others are only "widebody." This term was coined with the DC-10 and L1011s, to describe their type. But they were never anointed with the name Jumbo. Stretching an A340 or 777 to almost equal capacity to a 747 doesn't make it a Jumbo in that way.
I learned this from my parents and uncle, who were alive at the time of the 747 launch. I was still a few years away. Jumbo comes from the name of the first elephant outside of Africa, and came to mean anything "huge." The 747, so much larger than any other pax jet of the time, fit that description. Later planes that followed, all smaller than the 747, did not meet the Jumbo criteria, being merely large.
So, I would venture to guess the fleet does average 1/3 less fuel use than the Jumbo 747, depending of course on which models and how you compare them.
Which model 747 did Air Madrid fly in the past (if any)?
Also, people like to call the A380 the "whale" jet. Wonder if that name will catch on, or if some other term will be used. Super Jumbo? Goliath?
PS - Jumbo is a misspelling of the word Jambo, meaning "hello" in Swahili. It was thought that the zoo keepers in London who first got the elephant (PT Barnum later bought her) wanted to give her an African name, but the only word they knew was "Jumbo" since that's all they ever heard!
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
M404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2222 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1312 times:
With Jumbo a generic first generation term I would worry far more about any airline that only has six ships but four models/types. He's certainly not worried about parts inventory and the pluses of fleet commonality beyond the single manufacturer.
If you wanted to take him to task lets see if his routes are against the "jumbos" he compares his fleet to. Otherwise thats a pretty useless statement.
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding