Will US Airlines Ever Enjoy VLAs In Their Fleet?

747400sp · Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:56 am

I know that we have a ton of large cities here in the States, which make it hard to fill a VLA, since there so many different airports to fly to. But, it make uneasy, to think of all these foreign airlines taxing there giant A380s and 747-8I, while US pilots are taxing these inferior twin jets, on the worlds tarmacs. Do you ever see DL, UA or AA flying VLAs, or will our pilot and F/A fly in shame?

PS: Thankfully DL and UA still have 744, for now.

DeltaMD90 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:08 am

I usually don't nit-pick grammar/spelling, but please proofread your post! It was kind of confusing. I don't see US airlines getting A380s or 747-8Is. IIRC correctly, DL was thinking about retiring their 747 fleet early (but decided against it.) 747s, even the newest ones, burn more fuel than 777-300s but only carry a few more passengers. A380s are just too big for the US airlines IMO

STT757 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:11 am

UA , the largest carrier in the US has hubs at EWR, CLE, ORD, DEN, IAH, LAX, SFO, GUM and NRT. Now compare that to some of the VLA operators:

EK 1 hub
AF 1 hub
KE 1 hub
SQ 1 hub

etc..

If all the air traffic in the US were funneled out of one airport the current offerings of VLA's would be considered regional aircraft.

catiii · Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:32 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
or will our pilot and F/A fly in shame?

What a statement. I think our pilots and F/A's would rather fly in profitability, which is why for US carriers I doubt you'll see the 380 or 748i. The market here doesn't support them. So many on this board like airplanes because they are shiny new objects, but don't take into account factors like how they fit into the business plan or fleet plan. Those are emotional, and not rational, statements. Comments like the one above further that mentality.

airbazar · Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:13 am

Some of us consider the 77W a VLA aircraft so the answer is yes.

mogandoCI · Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:23 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):

UA , the largest carrier in the US has hubs at EWR, CLE, ORD, DEN, IAH, LAX, SFO, GUM and NRT.

Add IAD. They call NRT a hub but the scale of operation indicates more a focus city.

Jpax · Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:39 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
US pilots are taxing these inferior twin jets

Please, share with the group what makes our twins......inferior?

irshava · Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:45 am

Delta and even American have 77W potential, the latter already has orders for it....

Personally, I don't think we'll see a U.S. airline flying the A380 for some time but hey!, who knows?

United Airline · Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:12 am

AA=unlikely. I think UA will. DL maybe

United Airline · Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:15 am

UA should just order the A380 and come up with a top top product overall and win back all customers

OA412 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:21 am

Quoting United Airline (Reply 9):
UA should just order the A380 and come up with a top top product overall and win back all customers

Help us out here. Are you joking, or are you actually serious here?

747400sp · Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:27 am

[quote=United Airline,reply=9]UA should just order the A380 and come up with a top top product overall and win back all customers

I like your thinking.

747400sp · Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:48 am

Quoting jpax (Reply 6):
Please, share with the group what makes our twins......inferior?

Well, thank for asking, twins are boring and not a plane to have pride in. With the exception of the 787 and A350XWB, twin are slower and in no way an icon of travel. Yes, twin are better at burning fuel, but let us tell the truth. Who here on A-net, really want to fly a twin across the Pacific?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
I usually don't nit-pick grammar/spelling, but please proofread your post! It was kind of confusing.

I did, but I made the post during my math class and I was rushing though it, when I proofread it.

PS: I am for big quads, and I am going to stay that way hopefully, until I die!

BlueSky1976 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:21 am

The business model all US network carriers does not require them to operate any VLAs. The 777-300ER/"-9X" or the A350-1000 will be the biggest aircraft in their fleet.

That being said, I expect FedEx and UPS to eventually order 747-8F.

christao17 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:36 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):
Who here on A-net, really want to fly a twin across the Pacific?

I love flying the 777-300ER across the Pacific. It is a fantastic plane from the perspective of crew members, customers, and the bottom-line business. No shame in flying it at all.

There is a "polls and preferences" forum on this website if you want to have a conversation based on likes/dislikes. If you want to have a serious discussion about your original question, then let's have that discussion based on facts. As others have said, the marketplace dynamics in the US plus the costs of flying quad jets versus twins make it unlikely that US airlines will purchase any after the current generation of 747s is retired.

Jpax · Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:14 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):
Well, thank for asking, twins are boring and not a plane to have pride in. With the exception of the 787 and A350XWB, twin are slower and in no way an icon of travel. Yes, twin are better at burning fuel, but let us tell the truth. Who here on A-net, really want to fly a twin across the Pacific?

I fly an 'inferior' twin transport category aircraft. I have great pride in these planes. Slower? No. An icon of travel? You bet! The 777-200LR, many would say, is iconic for it's world-dominating flight. And boring? Heck, if we lose an engine, that's more exciting when you only have one remaining engine spinning and not three!

[Edited 2011-11-16 01:05:01]

United Airline · Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:20 am

UA aims to be the top US airline and UA's 'top' isn't really top compare to SQ, CX, BA, QF etc which offer top top quality service, products, food etc. SQ, BA, QF have all come up with innovative products on their A380s. So if UA wants to compete with these airlines I think they should look at the A380/B747-8 and come up with something really top.

I believe UA will eventually go for the A380/B747-8 especially now they are a bigger airline. DL=maybe. Others=unlikely

My 2 cents.

DeltaMD90 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:37 am

Quoting United Airline (Reply 16):
I believe UA will eventually go for the A380/B747-8 especially now they are a bigger airline. DL=maybe. Others=unlikely

What does size have to do with anything? They're only slightly larger than DL. Was DL supposed to have bought A380s/747s when they merged with NW because they were the "bigger airline"?? I mean I don't see it as inconceivable that UA or DL will order 747s or A380s (even if I don't think they will) but your reasons don't make much sense. How is buying an A380 going to magically make UA the top US airline? They could do that with or without A380s. Look at the success WN has, and all they have are 737s. UA will buy VLAs if it makes business sense, not because it's "cool"

CairnterriAIR · Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:17 pm

Jetblue and Southwest all fly inferior twins.....and make a whole lot of inferior profits.

ORDJOE · Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:54 pm

The united states is one of the few countries with out an official or unofficial flag carriers, so the airlines do not care about prestige. They only care about money which a 748 or A380 probably would not accomplish this goal. Airlines made that mistake in the 60-70 when everyone had to have a 747.

MD-90 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:20 pm

Quoting jpax (Reply 15):
And boring? Heck, if we lose an engine, that's more exciting when you only have one remaining engine spinning and not three!

Haha that is definitely true.

flipdewaf · Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:30 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):
twins are boring

Maybe to some when thats all you see all day.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):
and not a plane to have pride in

I'd love a DA42 let alone a T7.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):
With the exception of the 787 and A350XWB, twin are slower

Typhoone is fairly fast.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):
Yes, twin are better at burning fuel

The A380 has the lowest CASM out there I believe.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):
Who here on A-net, really want to fly a twin across the Pacific?

ME!! I'll fly anything accross the pacific, that means I'll have to go on holiday!

Quoting catiii (Reply 3):
I think our pilots and F/A's would rather fly in profitability

When is this going to start?

Fred

airproxx · Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:34 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Do you ever see DL, UA or AA flying VLAs, or will our pilot and F/A fly in shame?

From a pilot point of view, there's no shame at all flying a 737, 757, 767, or worse (!) a 777....!!!!

I'd even prefer fly a 777 than a A380... But that's just my personnal point of view..

vhtje · Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:38 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
I usually don't nit-pick grammar/spelling, but please proofread your post!

I agree. And whilst you're at it, please learn the difference between "their", "there" and "they're".

I do not mean to sound harsh or to cause any offence, but really, your post is difficult to read.

trigged · Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:49 pm

Until you find an airline which places image over profits in the US, you will probably not see a VLA (by your standards) in the US fleets. Airlines are run by these pesky things like CEO's, COO's, Boards of Directors, and stockholders. Without exception, everyone of those entities choose profits over image because an airline is a business. They decide what fleet to utilize based on what is most profitable for them, not what is glitzy or glamorous. It is true that airlines will emphasize the "glamour" of an aircraft and use it to their advantage, but I assure you that the aircraft was purchased/leased because it was the most profitable for their particular route or circumstance.

BTW, not to be a grammar cop, but the proper spelling is "their", not "there."

Also, I would consider a DL 744 that seats 393 people in 3 classes a VLA.

AA777223 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:53 pm

Dude, are you kidding me, SP? I understand you like the look of certain aircraft, and you think that quads are more attractive, etc., etc. However, choosing to lament your disdain for the aesthetics of certain aircraft on the forum of the world's largest aviation website is just unwise. Firstly, most people on here don't have a sense of humor or take themselves very seriously. Secondly, they are going to assume, if you postulate a theory, it is going to have some facts behind it and not mere opinions, emotions or preferences. Thirdly, you are really, really not smart to start spouting off words like "shame" and "inferior" in reference to market leading aircraft - again - especially in light of the fact that you are posting in the world's largest aviation website. People here are generally a little more informed than your average public flier and they are gonna call BS on these (subjective) characterizations that are based on nothing more than looks. Plug in, man...

I see from your profile you're "26-35" which I find unlikely based on your grammar, spelling and syntax, as well as your claim you posted during math class. I do hope that the other members here will recognize you were just sharing an opinion and not intending to start a legitimate discussion on the merits of certain aircraft purely based on their looks.

[Edited 2011-11-16 05:55:28]

YULWinterSkies · Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:24 pm

UA and DL kind of do, via LH and AF in their respective JV. When AF decides to send the A380 to SFO or IAD, DL has a word to say to this as they share costs and revenues, and so forth. I guess DL was in favor of it.
So, basically, DL and UA seem to be ok with VLAs as long as others operate them. This way, they are getting some feedback from their European partners, and that can help them make an educated decision later on for their own fleet plans.
I personally think that both UA and DL will eventually operate some 748I or perhaps even A380 under their own colors, maybe 10 or so for each airline. AA: forget about it for now.

Quoting ordjoe (Reply 19):
Airlines made that mistake in the 60-70 when everyone had to have a 747.

They also had not many other options.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 21):
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):
Yes, twin are better at burning fuel

The A380 has the lowest CASM out there I believe.

For a given size and load, yes, twins have a better fuel economy. See the A340-300 vs the 777-200, or even closer in size, the A346 vs the 77W. But the A380 still has a much better CASM, because it is much bigger and only one airplane is needed where 1 1/2 smaller twins would otherwise be needed. So, if, one day, we become capable of building a twin VLA, then the A380 may look like a gas guzzler. But that's not about to happen. The 77W will hold the largest twin record for a while, and it will be a longer while until twins close the size gap to approach the A380 in size!

Rdh3e · Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:35 pm

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 26):
For a given size and load, yes, twins have a better fuel economy. See the A340-300 vs the 777-200, or even closer in size, the A346 vs the 77W. But the A380 still has a much better CASM, because it is much bigger and only one airplane is needed where 1 1/2 smaller twins would otherwise be needed.

Yeah, thank god we no longer measure airplanes based purely on CASM. Then we'd be flying A380's on ORD-MKE. It's all about putting butts in seats. If you can send a 77W 95% full, you're going to make a lot more money than a 75% full A380.

flipdewaf · Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:55 pm

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 27):
Yeah, thank god we no longer measure airplanes based purely on CASM. Then we'd be flying A380's on ORD-MKE.

CASM is just a nice guide number, like L/D or BPR. We do still measure aircraft purely on CASM but that is purely for a nice comparison between aircraft.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 27):
It's all about putting butts in seats. If you can send a 77W 95% full, you're going to make a lot more money than a 75% full A380.

But Imagine if you had a route where you sent 2 or 3 77W/day?

Fred

PlaneAdmirer · Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:22 pm

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 21):
The A380 has the lowest CASM out there I believe.

CASM's evil twin RASM also factors into the equation. Having to give away seats to fill an A380 or 747 or flying it half empty will make a flight unprofitable.

Airlines have to make money to survive and American airlines (as opposed to AA) must focus on that. Yes, a quad is beautiful, but I have never felt disappointed looking at a 777 or even a A330.

UPNYGuy · Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:27 pm

with this mindset I can see it now...

B6 will purchase A380 to travel from BUF to JFK just because it is the latest and greatest. After all, they wanted to ditch those inferior twins and increase capacity.

Same can be said for LUV. They will purchase 748 to utilize on the ALB-MCO routing, all Y class.

cmf · Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:27 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):
twins are boring and not a plane to have pride in.

That kind of pride is misplaced. Take pride in using the right tool instead.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 13):
The business model all US network carriers does not require them to operate any VLAs. The 777-300ER/"-9X" or the A350-1000 will be the biggest aircraft in their fleet.

Yet somehow I think we would see plenty of orders if Boeing went ahead with a 600 seat BWB.

I agree that with current business models things are as they are. But the question really is if these are the best models or just are there because changing means someone needs to take a risk and be OK to take the abuse that undoubtedly comes with it in this risk averse environment.

radicaldudejom · Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:42 pm

I think math class might be the wrong time to be posting something on here that will be read by thousands of people. Take your time and write your post out correctly. English is not everyone's first language and writing it out poorly makes it tougher for them to decipher. Imagine trying to read French or German when there are misplaced commas, misspellings, and poor syntax. Posts that seem to be written by a small child will normally be viewed as the inconsequential thoughts of a small child.

Give me a 777-300 or an A340-600 over a 747-400 or A380 any day.

Flyglobal · Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:51 pm

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 26):
So, if, one day, we become capable of building a twin VLA, then the A380 may look like a gas guzzler. But that's not about to happen. The 77W will hold the largest twin record for a while, and it will be a longer while until twins close the size gap to approach the A380 in size!

I doubt that we will see more growth on larger twin jets, lets say a 749i with 2 very big engines.

The reason is that they need a very specific engine and it will be hard given the rather low volumes to keep the engines updated with latest technology, not even allowing new ones.

If they use 4 engines, engine technology will benefit from smaller jets which are produced in much higher volumes.

They just need 4 engines then 2 of the same type (so to say).

If the 787 wouldn't be a bleedless engine plane , it would have worked already and still the 748I is a bleed derivative of the bleedless 787 version, just different PIP status so to say.

For an extended (lets say extended to 80m) 777-12 or so, a 4 engine version based on a 60-70 klbs 787 further PIPed variant could be alternative to an exclusive further pumped upGE90-125++ or so, saving development money for a special solution.

regards

Flyglobal

mayor · Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:01 pm

Quoting trigged (Reply 24):
Until you find an airline which places image over profits in the US

I believe this is one reason that got PanAm in trouble.

This may be the most absurd thread I've ever read on here. Let me get this straight......the U.S. airlines should be VLA's just because they're pretty and they have more "prestige"? I think STT757 hit the nail on the head when he said:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
UA , the largest carrier in the US has hubs at EWR, CLE, ORD, DEN, IAH, LAX, SFO, GUM and NRT. Now compare that to some of the VLA operators:

EK 1 hub
AF 1 hub
KE 1 hub
SQ 1 hub

etc..

If all the air traffic in the US were funneled out of one airport the current offerings of VLA's would be considered regional aircraft.

The foreign carriers don't have multiple hubs or even huge domestic markets as the U.S. legacies do, so the VLAs are necessary for them to fly, but not so for the U.S. carriers.

747400sp · Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:32 pm

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 25):
I do hope that the other members here will recognize you were just sharing an opinion and not intending to start a legitimate discussion on the merits of certain aircraft purely based on their looks.

[Edited 2011-11-16 05:55:28]

Of course this is an opinion, look, I am not pilot, and I do not run an airline. As an American, it sadden me, how my countries airlines will not have mainline VLAs, after DL and UA retire their 744s. For the people who works in the airline industry, I can not see why they would not want to lighten up, when they come on A-net. This form is supposed to be for FUN, and I thought people was free to post their feeling on the aviation industry, as well as fact. As for grammar and spelling, I will tell the truth, I messed up on that part, with this post. Most of the time, I do a better job at proofreading my post, but lately been making my old mistakes, by proofreading my post too quickly or not paying attention to what I posted, and I apology about that. Spelling and Grammar has always been a problem for me. As for calling twin boring, again, that is my opinion. I would rather fly QF to SYD then DL or VA, because I know if I fly QF, I am going to fly on an A380 or at least at 744. Do I have a right to my opinion? Please tell me if I do not!

mayor · Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:46 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 35):
Do I have a right to my opinion? Please tell me if I do not!

Yes, your opinion is your own as are the reasons that you want to fly a VLA. However, those reasons do NOT also apply as to why the U.S. legacies should buy VLAs. Sorry, but the economics just won't work.

LordMontenegro · Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:48 pm

The impression I always got, and please do correct me if I'm wrong here, is that the aviation market in America much prefers to cater to smaller planes with higher frequencies to a lot of different cities. Add to that the fact that the country is huge and we have dozens of airlines with several hubs (or focus cities) each, and it's not really surprising that, even with the size of our cities and large geographical area, we don't see many 4-engine planes on anything but long-haul international routes. If we only had 2 or 3 airlines and extremely limited competition, it might be a different story.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 25):
I see from your profile you're "26-35" which I find unlikely based on your grammar, spelling and syntax, as well as your claim you posted during math class. .

You'd be surprised how many nontraditional students there are in colleges nowadays. I had several classes in undergraduate where a majority of the class was over the age of 30. Poor spelling and grammar, alas, is ageless

.

United Airline · Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:14 pm

UA has been doing very well with the B 747s for a long time. Also NW I believe

flymia · Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:22 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):
Well, thank for asking, twins are boring and not a plane to have pride in. With the exception of the 787 and A350XWB, twin are slower and in no way an icon of travel. Yes, twin are better at burning fuel, but let us tell the truth. Who here on A-net, really want to fly a twin across the Pacific?

I will take a 777 over anything. Best aircraft in the sky IMO and the amount of orders for it being a long haul aircraft show this. Also arguably the safest airliner in the sky. The 777 was a revolutionary aircraft from its design stages to flying, and now to the 777-200LR.

cargolex · Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:45 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 35):
Do I have a right to my opinion? Please tell me if I do not!

Of course you do. But Airlines don't succeed if they don't fly the types that suit their needs or don't adapt to the times. Orders for new A380s and 747-8i's don't make much sense for the US domestic airlines (or those of Canada or even Mexico). Yeah, they could buy them, but the cost is huge and there is no appreciable benefit for the airline.

I like quads and triples. I like interesting types. I want to see more of them. But I also want the domestic airlines I fly most often (AS, UA/CO) to thrive. I don't want them to end up like Braniff, Pan-Am, or Eastern. Or, for that matter, going in the direction that Kingfisher seems to be - an airline that has cool stuff but isn't sustainable.

Many American carriers tried the 747 in the 1970s and found that they couldn't make it work for them profitably. It didn't fit their route structures. Even Alaska had an order for a 747-200 at one time. Today's landscape is very different - and even less conducive to really big planes at domestic carriers, who can now do a TATL flight with a 757 or tracon on a 737-800 - where it would have had to be a 707, DC-8, 747, or DC-10 back in the day.

The American carriers aren't the only airlines, btw, who aren't buying VLAs. EVA Air is standardizing on the 77W/A330 and V Australia has done very well with the 77W. Avianca gave up VLAs long ago and is now standardized on the A330. LAN doesn't have any and isn't aiming to. In fact, I don't think any carrier in the Americas has ordered the A380 and I know none have ordered the 748. They don't need them, and aren't going to go to the expense of getting them only for prestige value. You look at the airlines who have ordered these things and the list contains only airlines with structures that can use these aircraft profitably, with a couple of potential exceptions.

spchamp1 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:49 pm

OT, you may be an American but English has to be your second language. The above was your third post and grammatical errors are still present (despite alleged proofreading).

I am an employee of jetBlue and while I wish I could see a 747 or A380 with one of our several tail schemes, it just doesnt make sense. Keep to aircraft that work with the business plan. Why would you expect an airline to fly a wide body domestically in our current market? It makes absolutely zero business sense.

To call single aisle twin jets inferior because you prefer VLA's is just idiotic and to claim that our Pilots and F/A's are flying in shame is disrespectful to the people that have put their hard work into doing something they enjoy and love.

Next time think about what you are posting and if you are going to give your opinion do so objectively and courteously. Most of us on A-net would love to go back and forth with you all day about our opinions on a/c but the majority would do it with a little more class and tact than your original post.

spchamp1 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:53 pm

Quoting cargolex (Reply 40):
Many American carriers tried the 747 in the 1970s and found that they couldn't make it work for them profitably.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 40):
Alaska had an order for a 747-200 at one time

HaHaHa, I remember the America West 747. Flew on that one time from LAX to PHX.

AirlineCritic · Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:56 pm

This is a weird thread, but here goes:

Quoting catiii (Reply 3):
I think our pilots and F/A's would rather fly in profitability

How is it working out for you?

(I mean outside JetBlue and Southwest, who are regional airlines with obviously regional aircraft.)

Quoting ordjoe (Reply 19):
The united states is one of the few countries with out an official or unofficial flag carriers, so the airlines do not care about prestige.

I don't think prestige has much to do with anything, either in the US or elsewhere in the world...

Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
UA , the largest carrier in the US has hubs at EWR, CLE, ORD, DEN, IAH, LAX, SFO, GUM and NRT. Now compare that to some of the VLA operators:

EK 1 hub
AF 1 hub
KE 1 hub
SQ 1 hub

... but traffic patterns certainly do. No current A380 or 748 in the fleets can be explained by a combination of:

* Traffic more spread out per above
* No much role as a way point, given geography. Cf with Heathrow, Helsinki, Dubai, Singapore. There is not much point in flying anywhere through the US (except maybe Canada and Mexico). It would be a huge detour.
* Perhaps more focus on domestic traffic than international. Cf. Singapore Airlines, for instance.
* Bad financial state of the big airlines, e.g., American Airlines.

That being said, I think it is possible that something happens in the future. I think a gigantic bus between JFK and a few European cities would make sense. And SFO and a few Asian cities. Not in large numbers, but there's certainly enough traffic on this routes, and as long as the couple of times that make scheduling sense could be filled, it would make economic sense.

BMIFlyer · Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:11 pm

If the various airlines in the USA didn't run "bus frequency" flights then maybe VLA's 'would' be a thing to use. Alas that will never happen in the current climate.

SEA · Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:16 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):

So true. Companies like AN, CX, and EK are certainly inferior and shameful of their fleets of twin WBs.

AA777223 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:18 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 35):
Of course this is an opinion, look, I am not pilot, and I do not run an airline. As an American, it sadden me, how my countries airlines will not have mainline VLAs, after DL and UA retire their 744s. For the people who works in the airline industry, I can not see why they would not want to lighten up, when they come on A-net. This form is supposed to be for FUN, and I thought people was free to post their feeling on the aviation industry, as well as fact. As for grammar and spelling, I will tell the truth, I messed up on that part, with this post. Most of the time, I do a better job at proofreading my post, but lately been making my old mistakes, by proofreading my post too quickly or not paying attention to what I posted, and I apology about that. Spelling and Grammar has always been a problem for me. As for calling twin boring, again, that is my opinion. I would rather fly QF to SYD then DL or VA, because I know if I fly QF, I am going to fly on an A380 or at least at 744. Do I have a right to my opinion? Please tell me if I do not!

You are more than welcome to have an opinion, but if you are going to share it (especially if it is not based on any semblence of fact), you better make damn sure you frame it as such. You will often see threads started with OPINION, JUST FOR FUN or HYPOTHETICAL. When you start using denigrating adjectives in your post (shame, inferior, etc. - especially when referencing what are proven to be superior, reliable machines), that is purely based on opinion, you are opening yourself up to a world of hurt.

777STL · Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:22 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12):
Who here on A-net, really want to fly a twin across the Pacific?

I don't give a crap how many engines the aircraft I'm flying on has. I'm more interested in the product, and that has little to do with the aircraft involved, more so the airline operating said aircraft.

windy95 · Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:22 pm

Quoting United Airline (Reply 9):
UA should just order the A380 and come up with a top top product overall and win back all customers

That is why they merged with CAL. Do not need an overgrown plane for that.

ASA · Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:58 pm

Quoting airproxx (Reply 22):
I'd even prefer fly a 777 than a A380... But that's just my personnal point of view..

Absolutely ... 77W or 346 anyday over 747 or 388 ...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net