Ok, my turn...
**cracks knuckles and puts away another Martini**
There are three types of people that partake in conversations on this board. There are CHILDREN, there are AVIATION ENTHUSIASTS, and there are KNOWLEDGEABLE PROFESSIONALS who visit these forums quite often. Let me define all three of these terms...
Knowledgeable Professionals are those who work in the aviation industry, or who have worked in the industry. They can be pilots, attendants, baggage chuckers, ticket agents, travel agents, ground crew drivers, PR
agents, mechanics, dispatchers, administration, etc, etc, etc...
Aviation Enthusiasts are those of us who may or may not work for the airlines or any aviation related company, but we find it our hobby to learn more and to be fairly open minded about these sorts of things. Yes, once in a while, someone gets up on that old worn out soapbox and says "Boeing is Better," and then we just slap them with a nice big wet salami and they sit back down again, after remembering that we're all friends here, and in this together.
Children are the immature ones. The people who would say "I'm not flying on a DC-3 because they're older than Moses." Or, something like, "I think Airbus is better because their planes look COOLER." Or even "Hah, that plane is so old, it's gonna make that airline look completely stupid for using such third class flying tin." These are the people who can use a vinegar enema at times...and it doesn't matter WHAT AGE
that they are, because in the end, they all act and reply the same.
Moving on to the topic at hand...
Personally, as an Aviation Management graduate, I think it's neat to see someone at least trying to spring ahead and re-introduce jet service into Iraq. They'll end up needing it anyway. If the company is to be American based, with whatever aircraft, then it's gonna be a hell of a lot better than letting the Iraqis start it up all by themselves. With set matinance standards, pilot hiring standards, and a good business plan, it might just work.
Who cares what the planes will be? Sure, sounds great if it's gonna be a DC-8. From their website, they show a picture of a 747SP that's "coming soon." Maybe that's what they'll use first.
But consider this...
Iraq isn't exactly the garden spot for tourists, but they do need supplies shipped in now and then. So, a combi DC-8 or even a convertable one would seem to be just fine. They could fill their few seats onboard and then pack the rest in with cargo and off they'd go...a good match for what they need.
Fleet choices aren't about what's new and "cool." It's about utility. Why wait three months for that A300-600R to roll off the line when you can get a perfectly ship-shape bird at a fraction of the price and still you can get a few years service out of that airframe?
And, it's not like you'll be catering to a lot of Microsoft, Boeing, Nintendo, Sony, and Nordstrom corporate business-first markets. If anyone really wants to go there, they'll probably be journalists, relief workers, family of people who are in Iraq, and so forth. And, if any Iraqis wish to fly to a little place called Baltimore, it'll be a hell of a lot better than flogging around in a Tupolev 124 or whatever they were that they had years ago. I'm sorry, but I don't care what the plane is called, but as long as they are KEPT MAINTAINED, and are PROVEN to be a fairly safe carrier, like the afore mentioned Southwest Airlines, then yeah, I'd fly them.
Which would you pick: Flying coach class on an 8 hour flight in a DC-8 with some possible inflight service, such as food, drinks, etc, or would you rather be stuck in the middle of a Bangladash train at 8 AM
Come on out of your cave, and you'd find it to be quite an interesting world to learn about if you try.
And there's something I saw on a T-shirt here in Japan a few days ago:
"Stand up, you'd change"
I can't wait to see how many people I piss off today...