Liedetectors From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 360 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3627 times:
Lets see if any AL.netters know the reason as to why WD002 (777-200LR) was taken to the Paris Airshow and not WD001. I know the answer and am just curious as to how reliable/deep other .netters' sources are.
AirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3717 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3559 times:
This question is like when you're in the woods with your buddies. All of the sudden one of them will say "twenty bucks to the man who knows how to get back to the car." "What me? Of course I know where the car is, I'm testing your navigation skills."
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2152 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3426 times:
Quoting Wunala (Reply 2): You sound like an old boss of mine, who was always trying to sound smart, and loved to try and feel superior to everyone, by saying "I know the answer, do you?" Don't ask the f#cking question then.
AbirdA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 305 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3140 times:
Oh my God. How deep the sources go on this forum? Let's see. WD001 contains nothing but ugly test equipment. WD002 was specifically configured with a truly beautiful interior meant to sell the thing. I guess if they had wanted people to see what the innards of the aircraft look like, they would have sent WD001.
Anyone with access to an internet browser can tell you that, too.
Bad attitude? I am just glad I don't feel the need to come on the board and try to sound pompous and all-knowing while being as vague as possible in an attempt to cover up the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about. You'll probably find that you are better received around here if you are just straight-forward with everyone.
Tornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3099 times:
Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 4): All of the sudden one of them will say "twenty bucks to the man who knows how to get back to the car." "What me? Of course I know where the car is, I'm testing your navigation skills."
I think you kinda asked for it. Anyhoo, I don't know what incident you're referring to. But it doesn't seem like your source is correct if your source led you to believe WD002 was assigned for the Going the Distance Tour after a WD001 incident. AFAIK, the WD002 had long been the planned aircraft for the Going the Distance tour. You said you wanted to how accurate the sources are on this forum. I think you need to test the accuracy of your source first.
United737522 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2913 times:
I am curious as to what purpose this thread serves. There are several people with information in different areas. There is not just one person who you can test on anything aviation related. This is the point of forums, discussion on what we know, not an inquisition on how accurate the stuff we know is. Really, you did not phrase it wrong at all. You meant it, just look at the thread title.