Welcome to Cruise Talk the Internet's most popular discussion forum dedicated to cruising. Stop by Cruise Talk anytime to post a message or find out what your fellow passengers and industry insiders are saying about a particular ship, cruise line or destination.
>>> Reader Reviews >>> CruisePage.com Photo Gallery >>> Join Our Cruise Club.
Latest News...The Liverpool Waterfront will be the setting for an unforgettable celebration on June 3, as iconic Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli joins a stellar line-up of performers to celebrate Queen Anne's maiden call to its spiritual home.Bocelli will be joined by an impressive line-up of Liverpool's finest talent, including the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra and performers from the Liverpool..
Latest News...Oceania Cruises, the world's leading culinary- and destination-focused cruise line, has welcomed its 1,250-guest ship, Marina, back into service after undergoing an all-encompassing refurbishment, which includes the addition of three new dining options. Guests aboard Marina can now enjoy the culinary delights of Aquamar Kitchen, the new wellness-focused dining venue, which debuted to great acclaim on...
Latest News...Celebrity Cruises takes the suite life to new heights with new premium and personalized enhancements for The Retreat, providing the most elevated experience at sea. Offering more perks and amenities than ever before, The Retreat isn't just a suite. It's the most elevated experience at sea, period. "At The Retreat, the world really does revolve around our guests," said Laura Hodges Bethge..
A question Pam- wen will the balconies be used???...in taxi mode and as u board the plane and enter your room????LOLLOLlLOLLOLcruiseshipluver
quote:Originally posted by CGT:The 777 was NOT a correction of any errors made with the 767. Not at all.
The 777 was NOT a correction of any errors made with the 767. Not at all.
The sales figures back your assessment so I don't know where Ernst got that misinformed idea. As of March 31, 2005 Boeing had delivered 926 B767's to 66 different airlines with a further 20 on order.
The 767 (and 757) were designed to meet what Boeing's customers perceived to be their needs in the late 70's and the sales figure for both reflect Boeing's success in addressing those needs.
12 years after the 767 project started, Boeing inititiated the 777 project...a different plane for a different time and a different purpose using newer technology. As of the end of March 2005, 507 planes had been delivered to 38 airlines with another 174 on order.
Brian
quote:Originally posted by Brian_O:The sales figures back your assessment so I don't know where Ernst got that misinformed idea. As of March 31, 2005 Boeing had delivered 926 B767's to 66 different airlines with a further 20 on order. The 767 (and 757) were designed to meet what Boeing's customers perceived to be their needs in the late 70's and the sales figure for both reflect Boeing's success in addressing those needs. 12 years after the 767 project started, Boeing inititiated the 777 project...a different plane for a different time and a different purpose using newer technology. As of the end of March 2005, 507 planes had been delivered to 38 airlines with another 174 on order.Brian
The 767 has a too narrow hull for the standard cargo container introduced with/for the 747.
quote:Originally posted by Ernst:The 767 has a too narrow hull for the standard cargo container introduced with/for the 747.
So what? It wasn't designed to be substituted for a 747. It was designed in consultation with Boeing's customers to fill a certain segment of the market and it has done that admirably for over 20 years. The criticism is after the fact nonsense, pure and simple.
quote:Originally posted by Brian_O:So what? It wasn't designed to be substituted for a 747. It was designed in consultation with Boeing's customers to fill a certain segment of the market and it has done that admirably for over 20 years. The criticism is after the fact nonsense, pure and simple.Brian
But her competitors could/can carry such containers, which is not really a disadvantage.
I do look at what aircraft is supposed to be flying a route when I book a flight, but they often change schedules. I do not base whatever flight I book, on the aircraft [in general], and I don't think many would, except real plane nuts
I have once, chosen one flight over another, on aircraft choice, but as on the same route and same price, just different airlines, it made no difference, just 777s kill my ears [to screaming point], so I am told due to a faster rate of descent [whether this be the aircraft itself or just the flights I've been on I don't know, but after 3 it has put me off, as it never happens on anything else]. From a pax comfort point of view, I found the 777 better than the 767, but obviously that is also due to the specific airline as well as the aircraft, and I can only recall, the worst 767 flight, which was squashed in the middle of the middle row on Delta.
Nothing will ever beat the Tristar.. my last flight aboard was Delta again, TPA/ATL not long before they were finally withdrawn.. that was a nice roomy surprise, as I had no idea that was the aircraft until I saw it... bit OT here
Pam
quote:Originally posted by Ernst:One could say that the Lockheed Tristar was the last really well engineered civil plane from the United States.
though that may be tru the tristar was a rather slow arcraft in comparision to other aircraft.......eg Barbados to trinidad is 230 miles.......and takes an A-340-300 .......32mins.......... by the L-1011 it takes 55 mins. cruiseshipluver
quote:Originally posted by cruiseshipluver:though that may be tru the tristar was a rather slow arcraft in comparision to other aircraft.......eg Barbados to trinidad is 230 miles.......and takes an A-340-300 .......32mins.......... by the L-1011 it takes 55 mins. cruiseshipluver
Don`t take that too seriouse. I guess (only guess) the A340 is climbing quicker.
The now discontinued L1011 had a cruising speed of in the range of 882-893 kph depending on model, the A340-300 has a crusing speed 869 kph (figures courtesy of Air Canada). It isn't the cruising speed of the planes that causes the differences.
[ 05-01-2005: Message edited by: Brian_O ]
quote:Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:I think Concorde had plenty of appeal.
I think Concorde had plenty of appeal.
Qantas, and a number of US airlines had orders for Concorde - it was the US Government that killed it's orders with their anti-Concorde legislation to try and boost the US driven SST programme... After that the costs per aircraft increased and airlines like Qantas pulled out.
I am not aware of 787 holding more orders then A380 ?
quote:Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:Am I right in thinking that Airbus now sells more Aircraft than Boeing or am I dreaming?
Malcolm: You are correct - Airbus is currently the leading commercial airplane builder world wide.
quote:Originally posted by PamM:I came across this on the web.. Funship A380?Pam
Great Pam.
You now that Carnival also operate a airline Air Carnival ore Carnival airlines? So i would not surpriced iff they would order a 380 with balconies .
My favorit airliners is the Fokker commercial airliners F50 (prop) F100 and the F70 sadly as Fokker is no more but there airliners are stil flaying. And maybe in the near futere Fokker will return with the F70 and F100.
The long haul airliner is the DC 10 ore MDF 11 (same plane)
quote:SQ A380 delivery further delayedMay 3, 2005Delivery of Singapore Airlines’ first Airbus A380 aircraft has been further delayed by several months.It is now expected the airline will introduce the aircraft in October next year. Exact timing of delivery is still uncertain following a number of delays.The carrier had originally hoped to enter the aircraft into service during the second quarter of 2006. This was later revised to the middle of next year after delivery was pushed back to June.SQ ordered 10 A380s in 2000, with options for another 15. The airline intends to use a three-class configuration comprising 480 seats. The first A380 commercial flight in the world is expected to be on SQ’s Singapore-Sydney route.It is unclear how the delay will affect Qantas and Emirates, which were the two airlines after SQ originally scheduled to receive the new aircraft in October 2006. Reed Business Information
Delivery of Singapore Airlines’ first Airbus A380 aircraft has been further delayed by several months.
It is now expected the airline will introduce the aircraft in October next year. Exact timing of delivery is still uncertain following a number of delays.
The carrier had originally hoped to enter the aircraft into service during the second quarter of 2006. This was later revised to the middle of next year after delivery was pushed back to June.
SQ ordered 10 A380s in 2000, with options for another 15.
The airline intends to use a three-class configuration comprising 480 seats. The first A380 commercial flight in the world is expected to be on SQ’s Singapore-Sydney route.
It is unclear how the delay will affect Qantas and Emirates, which were the two airlines after SQ originally scheduled to receive the new aircraft in October 2006.
Reed Business Information
If I am not wrong Singapore Airlines was to be the first airline to receive the A380. Does this mean there will be delays flowing on to other operators?
******
Cheers
quote:Originally posted by CGT:No thank you.
Hey CGT, how's this for your worst nightmare:
One day not so far away, you will be able to fly on an A380 to a port and then cruise onboard a 'Freedom class' or the 'Pinnacle' project!
Airbus has lead commercial deliveries for 2 years, My guess is in a few years they will share the market nearly 50/50. One leading one year and the other the next. Boeing is more concerned about profitability, then sales leadership.
As for the L1011, I miss that plane. .the 727 as well, but I miss TWA too for that mater.
Personally I wish these companies would put their efforts into faster aircraft, rather than bigger or longer range. No matter what class or what airline flying is boring after the first 5 mins of take off, until the last 15 for landing. Nothing to see, nowhere to go and little to do.
quote:Originally posted by Matts:No matter what class or what airline flying is boring after the first 5 mins of take off, until the last 15 for landing. Nothing to see, nowhere to go and little to do.
I could not agree more! I'm not scared of the plane crashing I fear the boerdom.
If it really is not possible to design an economic supersonic plane, how about much faster sub-sonic ones? I though Boeing were researching this?
quote:Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:I could not agree more! I'm not scared of the plane crashing I fear the boerdom. If it really is not possible to design an economic supersonic plane, how about much faster sub-sonic ones? I though Boeing were researching this?
Much faster is not subsonic anymore. (The Boeing concept was a "little bit" faster)There were concepts for Concorde versions with by-pass engines which can be switch to jet engines, like used on some Saab fighter jets. This would have been more economic and silent. Does anyone know how far the Japanese supersonic project is?
P.S.: One must not forget that more direct flights with smaller aeroplanes might be nicer, but is for sure more expensive and also causing more pollution.
quote:Originally posted by bulbousbow:If I am not wrong Singapore Airlines was to be the first airline to receive the A380. Does this mean there will be delays flowing on to other operators?
I can well imagine Emirates and Qantas therefore deferring their deliveries themselves if SQ's deliveries are delayed.
quote:Originally posted by Matts:Personally I wish these companies would put their efforts into faster aircraft, rather than bigger or longer range. No matter what class or what airline flying is boring after the first 5 mins of take off, until the last 15 for landing. Nothing to see, nowhere to go and little to do.
quote:Originally posted by sunviking82:The oil crisis of the early 70's had more to do with the death of the concorde in the US and the rest of the world then anything else.Airbus has lead commercial deliveries for 2 years, My guess is in a few years they will share the market nearly 50/50. One leading one year and the other the next. Boeing is more concerned about profitability, then sales leadership.As for the L1011, I miss that plane. .the 727 as well, but I miss TWA too for that mater.
That is so true. Boeing being a private company needs to look at the profitability of any new equipment where as Airbus does not. As for faster passenger aircraft, the market is not there. Fuel prices are up 50% over last year and fares are flat. The average passenger wants to pay less no more for air travel. The very wealthy fly on private jets so this segment is not an issue for the commercial carriers. The speed of commercial passenger jets has remained approx. the same for the last 50 years and most likely will not change.
quote:Originally posted by sunviking82:As for the L1011, I miss that plane. .the 727 as well,
As for the L1011, I miss that plane. .the 727 as well,
It is a damn shame that the L-1011 was so set back by the Rolls Royce engine problems otherwise she may have been able to compete effectively with the DC-10. The L-1011 sure was a better engineered plane to DC-10. MDC really did not sort out the DC-10 problems 'till years later with the MD-11... Ofcourse by then it was too late to capture the market from Boeing's 767 and Airbus A300 models which could by then make the transAtlantic with two engines rather then three.
727 was fantasitc... Our last one left in 1997 after serving with Ansett Australia - now also gone.
Chris.
[ 05-04-2005: Message edited by: Chris ]
quote:Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:Boeing being a private company needs to look at the profitability of any new equipment where as Airbus does not.
If this myth is being put about in the US, it has the same status as the one about all those bloated State-subsidised European airlines against whom the lean, mean and efficient American carriers must compete.
Ultimate Bulletin BoardTM 6.1.0.3
More Vacation & Cruise Specials...