Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

General aviation/airplane news and chat

perhaps of interest.
CW: he praises up SpaceX

I’m all in favour of nationalisation on general principle, but if it doesn’t happen anymore in the UK, I’d imagine it’d be a cold day in hell before a company like Boeing was nationalised in the US.

The thing is it doesn’t even need to be from a purely business sense. Plenty of public corporations, including arch-rival Airbus, are perfectly able to fulfill their obligations to shareholders whilst ensuring corners are not cut and quality compromised so shareholder dividends are maximised at any cost.

Judging by countless posts and links to news stories I’ve seen on the Airliners forum, one gets the impression share prices are the overwhelming and primary concern whenever Boeing is discussed. In countless American news outlets, the first time the word Boeing appears in the article, the outlet seems necessary to add its Dow Jones two-letter denominator (BA) and a live link showing its latest share price. I could understand that in a business article, but not if anything else is being discussed.

And at ordinary peep level, a lot of American posters on the Airliners forum routinely refer to Boeing as BA. I couldn’t give you a single stock company’s denominator if you held a gun to my head. But it seems to be so ingrained in American life, companies’ stock exchange monikers are common knowledge. Never mind the fact that in the commercial aviation world, ‘BA’ stands for British Airways, which causes confusion whenever any sad twat refers to Boeing as BA in a discussion.

Anyways, tl;dr summary of the above: fuck shareholders.
 
Free vintage fighter bomber:


That's the infamous ZG509. It spent its life on No.3 Squadron so I never flew that particular example. It was a new build GR7 with LERX that was written off fairly early in its life by massively over-g'ing it. That ripped all the pylons off it and bent the fuselage. I don't why the fuck you'd want it in your garden as it must be full of hazardous materials and will eventually sink into the ground as the tyres degrade.
 
Interesting article I thought on planes that disappear. Gives the impression that technology (such as mobile phones) is giving inexperienced pilots too much confidence, making them do things that are the opposite of proper operating procedure.

 
Interesting article I thought on planes that disappear. Gives the impression that technology (such as mobile phones) is giving inexperienced pilots too much confidence, making them do things that are the opposite of proper operating procedure.


Light aviation scares the shit out of me. When you consider how insubstantial most of the aircraft are and how little experience it takes for people to be allowed to fly them, I'm surprised that accidents aren't far more common.
 
A bit of an obscure question, but has any one heard any rumours Boeing might re introduce the B757 ?

Given the problems they have recently had trying to stretch the b737 design there seems a logic to it. Some of the oldest planes up there do tend to be these, so clearly some operators are hanging onto these niche planes still as there no direct replacement.🤔
 
A bit of an obscure question, but has any one heard any rumours Boeing might re introduce the B757 ?

Given the problems they have recently had trying to stretch the b737 design there seems a logic to it. Some of the oldest planes up there do tend to be these, so clearly some operators are hanging onto these niche planes still as there no direct replacement.🤔
According to the much more knowledgeable nerds than me that populate the Airliners message boards, the 757 being brought back is basically a pipe dream (though a quite reasonable answer to the A321, to be fair). It seems there will never be a next generation 757 simply because the tools and assembly line for that model are long gone, and the cost of restarting the program would be far too high.

A clean-sheet replacement is what Boeing would need if they decide to end their 737-Max line (which is looking a more of a logical move by the week) and offer a worthy alternative to the NEO. A great many of the orders the Max has logged in only came to be because Airbus is sold out of NEOs for nearly a decade.

Both Boeing and its key supplier Spirit AeroSystems, which pretty much builds their 737 frames to nearly completion and ships them by train for final fitting, are in massive debt at the moment, which makes any prospect of a 757 relaunch a non-starter.

Boeing will not be allowed to collapse because it’s so big and emblematic in both the civilian and military markets in America, not to mention its formidable political lobbying in Washington. So it will come to either relinquishing more market share to
Airbus in the short to medium term, or launching an all-new narrowbody plane heavily subsidised by undoubtedly WTO-busting government grants. Which would be more likely than not if Trump wins office again.
 
Last edited:
According to the much more knowledgeable nerds than me that populate the Airliners message boards, the 757 being brought back is basically a pipe dream (though a quite reasonable answer to the A321, to be fair). It seems there will never be a next generation 757 simply because the tools and assembly line for that model are long gone, and the cost of restarting the program would be far too high.

A clean-sheet replacement is what Boeing would need if they decide to end their 737-Max line (which is looking a more of a logical move by the week) and offer a worthy alternative to the NEO. A great many of the orders the Max has logged in only came to be because Airbus is sold out of NEOs for nearly a decade.

Both Boeing and its key supplier Spirit AeroSystems, which pretty much builds their 737 frames to nearly completion and ships them by train for final fitting, are in massive debt at the moment, which makes any prospect of a 757 relaunch a non-starter.

Boeing will not be allowed to collapse because it’s so big and emblematic in both the civilian and military markets in America, not to mention its formidable political lobbying in Washington. So it will come to either relinquishing more market share to
Airbus in the short to medium term, or launching an all-new narrowbody plane heavily subsidised by undoubtedly WTO-busting government grants. Which would be more likely than not if Trump wins office again.
Boeing is/was the US largest exporter
 
According to the much more knowledgeable nerds than me that populate the Airliners message boards, the 757 being brought back is basically a pipe dream (though a quite reasonable answer to the A321, to be fair). It seems there will never be a next generation 757 simply because the tools and assembly line for that model are long gone, and the cost of restarting the program would be far too high.

A clean-sheet replacement is what Boeing would need if they decide to end their 737-Max line (which is looking a more of a logical move by the week) and offer a worthy alternative to the NEO. A great many of the orders the Max has logged in only came to be because Airbus is sold out of NEOs for nearly a decade.

Both Boeing and its key supplier Spirit AeroSystems, which pretty much builds their 737 frames to nearly completion and ships them by train for final fitting, are in massive debt at the moment, which makes any prospect of a 757 relaunch a non-starter.

Boeing will not be allowed to collapse because it’s so big and emblematic in both the civilian and military markets in America, not to mention its formidable political lobbying in Washington. So it will come to either relinquishing more market share to
Airbus in the short to medium term, or launching an all-new narrowbody plane heavily subsidised by undoubtedly WTO-busting government grants. Which would be more likely than not if Trump wins office again.
Thanks. Yeah, I heard the lack of production line and tools was the big obstacle.
It's it odd how the 757/767/A310 size bracket is so neglected now, any idea why?
 
Thanks. Yeah, I heard the lack of production line and tools was the big obstacle.
It's it odd how the 757/767/A310 size bracket is so neglected now, any idea why?
If it weren’t for fuel prices and airline competition, there wouldn’t be a need for so many aircraft subtypes. Nowadays the viability of many city pairs is finely balanced on whether you operate it with exactly the right size aircraft for the route. Which is ridiculous when you think about it. In the early days of commercial jet aviation, a given model being 5% more fuel efficient meant fuck all other than making a bit more profit for the airline. Nowadays we have countless routes that can only be profitable if you own a 787/ A330, but not so if your fleet has the slightly larger 777/ A350. So airlines have to either operate multiple aircraft types with the increased maintenance & pilot training costs, or forfeit certain routes because their extremely efficient 350-seat planes are great for 8,000-mile routes, but not competitive enough on a 5,000-mile route against an airline that has a 280-seat plane. I’m sure in the old days airlines competed on service and reputation rather than whether they had enough money to own a wide range of planes with minor capacity and range characteristics.
 
If it weren’t for fuel prices and airline competition, there wouldn’t be a need for so many aircraft subtypes. Nowadays the viability of many city pairs is finely balanced on whether you operate it with exactly the right size aircraft for the route. Which is ridiculous when you think about it. In the early days of commercial jet aviation, a given model being 5% more fuel efficient meant fuck all other than making a bit more profit for the airline. Nowadays we have countless routes that can only be profitable if you own a 787/ A330, but not so if your fleet has the slightly larger 777/ A350. So airlines have to either operate multiple aircraft types with the increased maintenance & pilot training costs, or forfeit certain routes because their extremely efficient 350-seat planes are great for 8,000-mile routes, but not competitive enough on a 5,000-mile route against an airline that has a 280-seat plane. I’m sure in the old days airlines competed on service and reputation rather than whether they had enough money to own a wide range of planes with minor capacity and range characteristics.
It is crazy yes but in that craziness you would imagine there some 6/7hr routes a 250seater would be well suited given none presently exist.
 
A bit of an obscure question, but has any one heard any rumours Boeing might re introduce the B757 ?

Given the problems they have recently had trying to stretch the b737 design there seems a logic to it. Some of the oldest planes up there do tend to be these, so clearly some operators are hanging onto these niche planes still as there no direct replacement.🤔

The 757 did very well on long, narrow (relatively low passenger numbers) routes which made it a bit of a niche product. It was a good freighter though and a very sporty ride when it was empty.

To the extent that market is viable, it is now served by the slightly smaller A321/MAX10.

Boeing will do their new "NMA" aircraft eventually, but at the moment the MAX prints money so they are in no rush. The same applies to Airbus with their new A360 (or whatever it'll be called). Barring a breakthrough in technology that will make a totally new airframe cheaper to operate there is not really an commercially compelling motivation to do a new "middle-of-the-market" aircraft.
 
Two pleasant experiences with low cost carriers this week due to sudden funeral plans in Paris. Outbound leg with Easyjet, which was my go-to airline during my early years here but had not used for nearly a decade. Ultimately Ms T & P and I don’t care much if we end up seated separately on short flights, but I find the recent trend by some airlines to split your party up on purpose if you refuse to pay for seat allocation a particular vile move. So I was pleasantly surprised when Easyjet stated during the check in process that if we didn’t want to pay for seat allocation they couldn’t guarantee they would seat us together but would try their best to do so. Unlike a certain pile of manure airline from Ireland I can think of. And they did indeed seat us together.

For the return leg we flew with Vueling for the first time. I had always assumed it was just another independent low cost operator, so was surprised when I saw they are part of the IAG family and you can even collect Avios.

As first impressions go, a far better experience for European hops than her premium, flag-carrying siblings BA & IB. Brand new A321 NEO that puts BA’s ageing short-haul fleet to shame, literally half the price of all the BA offerings on the day for the same route, and if you are feeling flush and want to travel comfortably, they have up four different pitch options (extra roomy first row, 8-10 premium space rows, emergency exit pitch and standard economy pitch. which pisses all over BA’s pisspoor Club Europe seats that just leave the middle seat empty.
 
Camouflage?


Looking at the story it quotes the Navy here:
"The paint on E-6B aircraft 164387 is not adhering to the primer," Naval Air Systems Command's (NAVAIR) Airborne Strategic Command, Control, and Communications Program Office (PMA-271) told The War Zone in response to our queries about this Mercury. "We are investigating this issue and an appropriate solution."

But ends with:

In the meantime, the E-6B Mercury fleet, including BuNo 164387 with its paint peeling for still unclear reasons, will continue to provide essential strategic nuclear command and control capabilities.

You (the author) said why a few paragraphs above; and the solution is to use the correctly formulated solution*

* or is that emulsion?
 
My times on B757s were on busy short haul routes where a B737/a320 wasnt quite big enough which influenced my puzzling of why a 'big' B737 no longer exists and I vaguely remember the airlines route map included some longer routes presumably served by the same plane. My first time in B767 was also a busy short haul route, and another an less busy atlantic route.
 
Most of the 767 flights I ever took were on the Manchester shuttle. A 40 min flight with at best 12 passengers. It was slightly surreal, especially as they were mostly the same 12 passengers each week.
 
I flew 767s a lot to Cyprus when I used to go out every few years weeks in 2016. Believe they were often used on the Edinburgh / Glasgow routes Monday morning / Friday night
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom