Hi,

near Alice springs.

777s, A380s and many more.......

Wonder if any are ever going to fly full loads of pax again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibryv-hf2DI

...... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote

> near Alice springs.
> 777s, A380s and many more.......
> Wonder if any are ever going to fly full loads of pax again.

Corse some of them will once the virus is no longer a problem.

And that is absolutely guarantee. Even the Spanish Flu
and the Black Death eventually were no longer a problem
and that was with far less medical capability than now.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibryv-hf2DI
>
>
>
> ..... Phil
>
>

On 20/4/21 9:50 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Hi,
>
> near Alice springs.
>
> 777s, A380s and many more.......
>
> Wonder if any are ever going to fly full loads of pax again.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibryv-hf2DI
>
>

Depends on demand and aircraft type, the 777's and the A380's were
already on the way out before Covid hit so it may be a long while before
any of those go anywhere.

--
Daryl

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 04:50:51 -0700, Phil Allison scribed:

> Hi,
>
> near Alice springs.
>
> 777s, A380s and many more.......
>
> Wonder if any are ever going to fly full loads of pax again.

Some will. It really depends on how quickly SloMo wants to endanger the
Australian population and open the borders, which has been his continual
refrain.

>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibryv-hf2DI

This should really come with a wanker warning.

On 20-Apr-21 9:50 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Hi,
>
> near Alice springs.
>
> 777s, A380s and many more.......
>
> Wonder if any are ever going to fly full loads of pax again.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibryv-hf2DI
>
>
>
> ..... Phil
>
>

A380's perhaps not, but I'd expect the twins to go flying again once the
pandemic has been dealt with in the western world.

Sylvia.

On 21/4/21 2:05 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 20-Apr-21 9:50 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> near Alice springs.
>>
>> 777s, A380s and many more.......
>>
>> Wonder if any are ever going to fly full loads of pax again.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibryv-hf2DI
>>
>>
>>
>> .....   Phil
>>
>>
>
> A380's perhaps not, but I'd expect the twins to go flying again once the
> pandemic has been dealt with in the western world.
>
Which is a shame from the point of view of passengers, I've flown in
777's and A380's (both Singapore Airlines) and I'd rather be in an A380
every time.

--
Daryl

Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
> Sylvia Else wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote

>>> near Alice springs.
>>>
>>> 777s, A380s and many more.......
>>>
>>> Wonder if any are ever going to fly full loads of pax again.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibryv-hf2DI
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ..... Phil
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A380's perhaps not, but I'd expect the twins to go flying again once the
>> pandemic has been dealt with in the western world.

> Which is a shame from the point of view of passengers, I've flown in 777's
> and A380's (both Singapore Airlines) and I'd rather be in an A380 every
> time.

Sure, but are you prepared to may that much more to ride in one ?

Interesting spectacular design fuckup that was.

Corse pulling off another spectacular success like the 747 is easier
said that done and its far from clear how much of that was a fluke.

On 22/4/21 2:52 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>> Phil Allison wrote
>
>>>> near Alice springs.
>>>>
>>>> 777s, A380s and many more.......
>>>>
>>>> Wonder if any are ever going to fly full loads of pax again.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibryv-hf2DI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .....   Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A380's perhaps not, but I'd expect the twins to go flying again once
>>> the pandemic has been dealt with in the western world.
>
>> Which is a shame from the point of view of passengers, I've flown in
>> 777's and A380's (both Singapore Airlines) and I'd rather be in an
>> A380  every time.
>
> Sure, but are you prepared to may that much more to ride in one ?

Probably not but if it was only a bit more I'd consider it.
I find long distance air travel to be very tiring mostly because of the
constant noise and IMHO the A380 is noticeably quieter.
>
> Interesting spectacular design fuckup that was.

Good design but bad timing being about 20yrs too late.
>
> Corse pulling off another spectacular success like the 747 is easier
> said that done and its far from clear how much of that was a fluke.

747 started life in a very different era than the A380, the timing of
the 747 couldn't have been more perfect.
I suspect that it would have suffered the same fate as the A380 if they
both started life about the same later time simply because both have 4
engines which are more expensive to run than a twin.

--
Daryl

Daryl wrote:
===========
>>
> 747 started life in a very different era than the A380, the timing of
> the 747 couldn't have been more perfect.
>
> I suspect that it would have suffered the same fate as the A380 if they
> both started life about the same later time simply because both have 4
> engines which are more expensive to run than a twin.
>

** The main problem with 380s is filling them with pax every time they take off.
Half filled ones don't pay the huge fuel bills.

BTW:

The issue with "twins", unit recent times, was their inability to legally and safely fly long distances over water and away from airports.
Three & four engine types have no such ( ETOPS) issue.

....... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> writes:

>BTW:

>The issue with "twins", unit recent times, was their inability
>to legally and safely fly long distances over water and away
>from airports. Three & four engine types have no such (ETOPS)
>issue.

A narrowed-averted ETOPS tragedy was UAL 1175.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"Daryl" <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote in message
news:iecfqmFglq9U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 22/4/21 2:52 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>
>>>>> near Alice springs.
>>>>>
>>>>> 777s, A380s and many more.......
>>>>>
>>>>> Wonder if any are ever going to fly full loads of pax again.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibryv-hf2DI
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ..... Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A380's perhaps not, but I'd expect the twins to go flying again once
>>>> the pandemic has been dealt with in the western world.
>>
>>> Which is a shame from the point of view of passengers, I've flown in
>>> 777's and A380's (both Singapore Airlines) and I'd rather be in an A380
>>> every time.
>>
>> Sure, but are you prepared to may that much more to ride in one ?
>
> Probably not but if it was only a bit more I'd consider it.
> I find long distance air travel to be very tiring mostly because of the
> constant noise and IMHO the A380 is noticeably quieter.
>>
>> Interesting spectacular design fuckup that was.
>
> Good design but bad timing being about 20yrs too late.

They actually fucked up even more spectacularly than they
did with Concorde. There was never going to be enough
routes where a plane that big was ever going to be viable
and it wasn’t ever going to be possible to do one that big
with twin engines.

>> Corse pulling off another spectacular success like the 747 is easier
>> said that done and its far from clear how much of that was a fluke.

> 747 started life in a very different era than the A380,

Yes, but it was clear that there was a decent market
for the 747 with the main unknown how many airports
would have the terminals rebuilt to handle it.

> the timing of the 747 couldn't have been more perfect.

And that wasn’t an accident.

> I suspect that it would have suffered the same fate as the A380 if they
> both started life about the same later time simply because both have 4
> engines which are more expensive to run than a twin.

That wasn’t the only problem with the A380, it was always finding
enough pax to fill it who wanted to fly that route at that time. It
was viable to places like here, but there are fuck all others like that.

David Lesher wrote:
===============
>BTW:
>
> >The issue with "twins", unit recent times, was their inability
> >to legally and safely fly long distances over water and away
> >from airports. Three & four engine types have no such (ETOPS)
> >issue.
>
> A narrowed-averted ETOPS tragedy was UAL 1175.

** Really ??

In 2018, a B777 flying from SFO lost one engine 30 mins out from Honolulu.

It could have flown on for hours.

...... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> writes:

>> A narrowed-averted ETOPS tragedy was UAL 1175.

>** Really ??

>In 2018, a B777 flying from SFO lost one engine 30 mins out from Honolulu.

>It could have flown on for hours.

NTSB: DCA18IA092
For some reason, I'm not finding a direct link to the NTSB report,
but the above number finds copies.

I found the captain's interview ...interesting.
<https://youtu.be/J7_lzeY23dI>

--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On 23/4/21 2:23 pm, David Lesher wrote:
> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> A narrowed-averted ETOPS tragedy was UAL 1175.
>
>> ** Really ??
>
>> In 2018, a B777 flying from SFO lost one engine 30 mins out from Honolulu.
>
>> It could have flown on for hours.
>
> NTSB: DCA18IA092
> For some reason, I'm not finding a direct link to the NTSB report,
> but the above number finds copies.
>
> I found the captain's interview ...interesting.
> <https://youtu.be/J7_lzeY23dI>
>
>
Great interview, saw it when it was first posted, what makes it so
interesting was that the interviewee and the interviewer and both 777
pilots so Juan knew the right questions to ask.

--
Daryl

On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 8:48:14 am UTC+10, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> David Lesher wrote:
> ==============> >BTW:
> >
> > >The issue with "twins", unit recent times, was their inability
> > >to legally and safely fly long distances over water and away
> > >from airports. Three & four engine types have no such (ETOPS)
> > >issue.
> >
> > A narrowed-averted ETOPS tragedy was UAL 1175.
> ** Really ??
>
> In 2018, a B777 flying from SFO lost one engine 30 mins out from Honolulu..
>
> It could have flown on for hours.
>
> ..... Phil

> It could have flown on for hours.
I suggest that you watch the interview that's linked in this in this conversation, specifically from the 23:15 mark. These are two highly experienced B777 drivers. The person who was there at the time doesn't seem to hold the same view as you about 'flown on for hours'.

Cheers,
Magani

Magani wrote:
===========
>
> > > >The issue with "twins", unit recent times, was their inability
> > > >to legally and safely fly long distances over water and away
> > > >from airports. Three & four engine types have no such (ETOPS)
> > > >issue.
> > >
> > > A narrowed-averted ETOPS tragedy was UAL 1175.
>
> > ** Really ??
> >
> > In 2018, a B777 flying from SFO lost one engine 30 mins out from Honolulu.
> >
> > It could have flown on for hours.
> >
>
> I suggest that you watch the interview that's linked in this in this conversation, specifically from the 23:15 mark.

** Saw that long ago, the same link was posted here.

> These are two highly experienced B777 drivers.

But the story is not a near " ETOPS tragedy " .
777s typically have a 5.5 hour ETOPS rating.

FYI

The 120 miles it flew on one engine is its gliding range from 36,000 feet.

...... Phil.

Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> writes:

>>
>Great interview, saw it when it was first posted, what makes it
>so interesting was that the interviewee and the interviewer and
>both 777 pilots so Juan knew the right questions to ask.

Agreed. It sounds like the crew did an amazing job turning a
sure tragedy into a safe landing. Further, I read he refused any
PR appearance lacking the jumpseater getting equal credit.

I hope his left hand and arm didn't suffer longterm damage from
holding the ailerons hard over for the flight's duration.

--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On 24/4/21 12:00 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Magani wrote:
> ===========
>>
>>>>> The issue with "twins", unit recent times, was their inability
>>>>> to legally and safely fly long distances over water and away
>>>> >from airports. Three & four engine types have no such (ETOPS)
>>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> A narrowed-averted ETOPS tragedy was UAL 1175.
>>
>>> ** Really ??
>>>
>>> In 2018, a B777 flying from SFO lost one engine 30 mins out from Honolulu.
>>>
>>> It could have flown on for hours.
>>>
>>
>> I suggest that you watch the interview that's linked in this in this conversation, specifically from the 23:15 mark.
>
> ** Saw that long ago, the same link was posted here.
>
>> These are two highly experienced B777 drivers.
>
> But the story is not a near " ETOPS tragedy " .
> 777s typically have a 5.5 hour ETOPS rating.
>
> FYI
>
> The 120 miles it flew on one engine is its gliding range from 36,000 feet.
>
>
Its gliding and ETOPS range was compromised by the damaged right engine
cowling which made a big difference to the aircraft's aerodynamics.
If the engine had just failed without doing any external damage it
should have been able to "flown on for hours" but I don't think that's
the case with the cowling missing.

--
Daryl

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 2:07:04 PM UTC+10, Daryl wrote:
> On 24/4/21 12:00 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> > Magani wrote:
> > ===========
> >>
> >>>>> The issue with "twins", unit recent times, was their inability
> >>>>> to legally and safely fly long distances over water and away
> >>>> >from airports. Three & four engine types have no such (ETOPS)
> >>>>> issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> A narrowed-averted ETOPS tragedy was UAL 1175.
> >>
> >>> ** Really ??
> >>>
> >>> In 2018, a B777 flying from SFO lost one engine 30 mins out from Honolulu.
> >>>
> >>> It could have flown on for hours.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I suggest that you watch the interview that's linked in this in this conversation, specifically from the 23:15 mark.
> >
> > ** Saw that long ago, the same link was posted here.
> >
> >> These are two highly experienced B777 drivers.
> >
> > But the story is not a near " ETOPS tragedy " .
> > 777s typically have a 5.5 hour ETOPS rating.
> >
> > FYI
> >
> > The 120 miles it flew on one engine is its gliding range from 36,000 feet.
> >
> >
> Its gliding and ETOPS range was compromised by the damaged right engine
> cowling which made a big difference to the aircraft's aerodynamics.
> If the engine had just failed without doing any external damage it
> should have been able to "flown on for hours" but I don't think that's
> the case with the cowling missing.
>

** But that is not an ETOPS range issue.

The destination being airport being 120 miles away made that a non issue.

...... Phil

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:00:57 -0700, Phil Allison scribed:

> Magani wrote:
> ===========
>>
>> > > >The issue with "twins", unit recent times, was their inability to
>> > > >legally and safely fly long distances over water and away from
>> > > >airports. Three & four engine types have no such (ETOPS) issue.
>> > >
>> > > A narrowed-averted ETOPS tragedy was UAL 1175.
>>
>> > ** Really ??
>> >
>> > In 2018, a B777 flying from SFO lost one engine 30 mins out from
>> > Honolulu.
>> >
>> > It could have flown on for hours.
>> >
>> >
>> I suggest that you watch the interview that's linked in this in this
>> conversation, specifically from the 23:15 mark.
>
> ** Saw that long ago, the same link was posted here.
>
>> These are two highly experienced B777 drivers.
>
> But the story is not a near " ETOPS tragedy " .
> 777s typically have a 5.5 hour ETOPS rating.
>
> FYI
>
> The 120 miles it flew on one engine is its gliding range from 36,000
> feet.

They why does it need engines if it can glide so well.

News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> writes:

>> The 120 miles it flew on one engine is its gliding range from 36,000
>> feet.

>They why does it need engines if it can glide so well.

Plus, the glide ratio spec is based on a clean airframe,
vs. one with a huge fan windmilling and large chunks missing.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On 23/04/2021 8:33 am, Rod Speed wrote:

> That wasn’t the only problem with the A380, it was always finding
> enough pax to fill it who wanted to fly that route at that time. It
> was viable to places like here, but there are fuck all others like that.

I've flown near to 3 dozen legs on 380s, none of them was less than 90%
full.

Here's what somebody who actually knows what he is talking about has to say

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emirates-tim-clark-slams-airlines-poor-use-a380/

On 25/4/21 4:46 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 23/04/2021 8:33 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> That wasn’t the only problem with the A380, it was always finding
>> enough pax to fill it who wanted to fly that route at that time. It
>> was viable to places like here, but there are fuck all others like that.
>
> I've flown near to 3 dozen legs on 380s, none of them was less than 90%
> full.

I've only done 3 legs in an A380 and all 3 seemed pretty full in economy.
>
> Here's what somebody who actually knows what he is talking about has to say
>
>
> https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emirates-tim-clark-slams-airlines-poor-use-a380/
>

Interesting take on the thing, he makes sense when he talks about
"slots" at airports, bigger planes carry twice as many passengers but
still only need the same number of slots as a smaller plane.
The article was pre Covid so the game has completely changed since then.

--
Daryl

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> That wasn’t the only problem with the A380, it was always finding
>> enough pax to fill it who wanted to fly that route at that time. It
>> was viable to places like here, but there are fuck all others like that.

> I've flown near to 3 dozen legs on 380s, none of them was less than 90%
> full.

Must be why everyone stopped buying them.

"Daryl" <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote in message
news:iekmeaF40ueU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 25/4/21 4:46 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 23/04/2021 8:33 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> That wasn’t the only problem with the A380, it was always finding
>>> enough pax to fill it who wanted to fly that route at that time. It
>>> was viable to places like here, but there are fuck all others like that.
>>
>> I've flown near to 3 dozen legs on 380s, none of them was less than 90%
>> full.
>
> I've only done 3 legs in an A380 and all 3 seemed pretty full in economy.
>>
>> Here's what somebody who actually knows what he is talking about has to
>> say
>>
>>
>> https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emirates-tim-clark-slams-airlines-poor-use-a380/

> Interesting take on the thing, he makes sense when he talks about "slots"
> at airports, bigger planes carry twice as many passengers but still only
> need the same number of slots as a smaller plane.

That was the rationale for the A380 but it turned out that fuck all
of the airlines that flew into those airports agreed that the A380
was in fact the right way to go. There's a reason why there is no
market even for used ones before the virus showed up.

> The article was pre Covid so the game has completely changed since then.