JAL Flies Its Last Classic 747

[Mulboyne]

[Bucky]

. . . meanwhile back at the Lazy B in Seattle, Boeing seems to be having problems with their "next generation" aircraft, the 787.

Stress tests on the wings seem to show serious design flaws that were revealed with the first aircraft underwent testing on the ground.

The wing damage that grounded Boeing's new composite 787 Dreamliner occurred under less stress than previously reported — and is more extensive.

It seems that the aircraft has some problems where the wings meet the fuselage.

The Seattle Times article points out that the wings and "wing box" were made in Japan by Fuji Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi Heavy industries.

Boeing is on the hook for the design flaw

[Tsuru]

Nice try Mr. B.

Meanwhile it has taken them over a month to determine whether the first flight will be delayed by either three months or a year and no estimate has been given as yet. I'm hearing they have to completely redo the CFRP wing and center-wing-box structure.

If you compare it to when the A380 was suffering its wiring setbacks this is already much worse, and this bloody thing hasn't even been off the ground yet. Oh how they laughed...

Looks like over-ambitious sales teams, lack of supplier oversight (look up how they had to buy out Vought to save the project) and blatant project mismanagement is now starting to bite them in the ass.

Drop your Boeing stock if you still have it.

[Coligny]

Nice try Mr. B.

Drop your Boeing stock if you still have it.

Not sure...

I'm an Airbus fan... (because of me passport, because I really don't care a lot about flying tourist bus... beside Cesna and stuff you can actually enjoy, not just suffer for hours inside when you need to go far).

But for boeing it look like engineering screwups. Kick, some asses give a little more time, get the right people. ANd usually it can go better (unless you are called V22 Osprey, in this case you are as fucked as a schoolgirl in a strangers van). But for airbus it look like the whole company is a clusterfuck. Every country make some parts with different work ethics, there is more politics than engineering going on... You never know if the plane will fly, blow up or go on strike. Example for the pitot tubes... The failing one are from Thales (ex Thomson) French company... Traditionnaly neck deep in every political scandal since... the birth of humanity. Execs at Thomson were already greasing paws when jesus was still riding dinausaurs.
They are prefered over the goodrich ones (amurikin) either because the goodrich never had any recorded failure, or just because they are american... I don't know, but i think it's the second one...

[Tsuru]

Don't forget the choice of equipment on a new aircraft is up to the customer and not the manufacturer, them being Air France and all...

Let me put it like this: If I had to go on an A330 with Thales probes tomorrow I would do it without thinking twice. The 787 however, from what I've read in a certain open letter to the FAA dated July 24th 2007, I'm not so sure.

There is never, ever any excuse to backtrack on safety when implementing new technology... and from what I've seen in this business the airline world is at a turning point, safety wise... the downward spiral has only just begun. The biggest threat by far are being underpaid, overworked and inexperienced crews, the best examples of what I'm talking about are the Colgan crash in Buffalo and the Emirates tailstrike in Melbourne. A lot more people will be killed if nothing is done.

[Mulboyne]

Here's a video. It's pretty poor quality but gets a little more stable after a shaky start:

[YT]Ip_FfXiG7Uw[/YT]

[Tsuru]

Most beautiful aircraft in the world.

[yt]ki-OwQXYdjM[/yt]

[Coligny]

Most beautiful aircraft in the world.

Dude...



If only we could have used one as presidentiul plane... even for Naboleon Sarkozy...


(hint, in french nabo is a slang for midget...)

[Tsuru]

It's matter of taste I guess, but I always thought the 747 was the better looking one, both in flight and on the ground. Besides that, to me the workhorse that brought aviation to the common man will always be more appealing than an expensive one-trick pony prestige project that just did one thing and one thing only for rich people. I think even the Spitfire is more appealing than Concorde.

My choice in cars is no different... if money was no factor I'd rather have a BMW M5 Touring estate car than a Ferrari Enzo. It's still very very fast but a bit more practical.

[Mike Oxlong]

If aircraft were women, Geji'd be trying to sweet-talk one of these...

[Cyka UchuuJin]

Most beautiful aircraft in the world.

[yt]ki-OwQXYdjM[/yt]

i'm quite enjoying the 777-300ER lately. i got to have a look around at the A380 emirates has while it was parked at heathrow a couple weeks ago, gotta admit, a spa shower on an airplane is quite the novelty.

we're doing our first A380 in sept on singapore air.

then again, i'll always love my little cessna 206. may not get me to japan and back, but it sure it fun to fly it over the rift valley.

[IkemenTommy]

It's more like JAL flies its last plane... period.
When will that sorry excuse for a flight service ever go out of existence for good?

[FG Lurker]

My choice in cars is no different... if money was no factor I'd rather have a BMW M5 Touring estate car than a Ferrari Enzo. It's still very very fast but a bit more practical.

If money was truly no object you'd have both.

What I want though is a 458 Italia.

[waruta]

Tsuru, thats actually quite a beautiful landing as well. Too bad about the cross chatter just as they were touching down.

JAL really does need to get its shit together though....

[Cyka UchuuJin]

dammit, i had hoped my 777 post would have been in this one.

i do so enjoy that plane though...

[IkemenTommy]

dammit, i had hoped my 777 post would have been in this one.

i do so enjoy that plane though...

787 > 777 > A380

in that order

[Cyka UchuuJin]

787 > 777 > A380

in that order

haven't done the A380 yet. that'll be next month singapore to tokyo on singapore air.

[thumper]

Most beautiful aircraft in the world.

[yt]ki-OwQXYdjM[/yt]

I've flown on countless 747's over the past 39 years and it's the safest and most comfortable commercial airliner ever built. (I'm not an American and never had anything to do with Boeing - I just love 747's despite at least one "near death" experience.)

The Airbus by comparison doesn't measure up - the seating is very cramped regardless of carrier, and there are the serious safety issues. Basically, the Airbus is just an enlarged Caravelle...

And as for the MD80...

[Mock Cockpit]

The seating is determined by the carrier so it can be as cramped or as spacious as the carrier specifies. I'd be interested to know the specific safety issues with Airbus aircraft. Was it uncontrolled rudder movements...no wait that was the 737.
For the record my favourite plane is the T7.

[Greji]

then again, i'll always love my little cessna 206. may not get me to japan and back, but it sure it fun to fly it over the rift valley.

and you probably got air to air missiles hung under it as well.....

[Cyka UchuuJin]

and you probably got air to air missiles hung under it as well.....

where do you think all those poached animal skins come from?

[FG Lurker]

where do you think all those poached animal skins come from?

Not sure, but probably not from an air to air missile.

[thumper]

The seating is determined by the carrier so it can be as cramped or as spacious as the carrier specifies. I'd be interested to know the specific safety issues with Airbus aircraft. Was it uncontrolled rudder movements...no wait that was the 737.
For the record my favourite plane is the T7.

-------------------------------
I'm 186cm tall and have a 93cm waist. ALL Airbus ECONOMY seats were very cramped for me (shoe-horn job). Virgin's were the worst because of a stupidly positioned in-flight entertainment bridle stuck at lower leg of the seat belt, which further narrowed seat width.

It's difficult to directly compare a 747 with an Airbus product - perhaps the A300, A310, A330 and A340 are the nearest Airbus equivalents. According to Wikipedia:

Boeing 747:

- Commercial service started in 1970. 1,416 aircraft built until June 2009

- Held the passenger capacity record for 37 years

- Involved in 122 incidents, including 48 hull-loss accidents, resulting in 2,850 fatalities until October 2008.

My comments:
1) Nearly all of those fatalities were due to terrorism (Air India Flight 182, 1985; Pan Am Flight 103, 1988), pilot error (KLM Flight 4805, 1977) and improper maintenance/repair (Japan Airlines Flight 123, 1985).
2) Nine of 355 passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 811 died in 1989 when a cargo door blew out. A design defect was blamed.
3) Two hundred thirty passengers died aboard TWA Flight 800 in 1996. Although a spark from a wire in the center fuel tank was supposed to be the culprit, many bloggers suggest the accident had nothing to do with a design defect.

- Few crashes have been attributed to design flaws of the 747.

Airbus A300:
- Involved in 52 accidents and incidents including 25 hull-losses. Of the 25 hull losses only 9 involved fatalities. Investigators of the American Airlines Flight 587 crash, 2001 were particularly concerned about how the tail fin had separated.

Airbus A310:
- Hull-loss Accidents: 9 with a total of 825 fatalities.

Airbus A330:
- Involved in 10 incidents, including two confirmed hull-loss accidents and three other losses, for a total of 235 fatalities.

- Documented problems include false stall and overspeed warnings; loss of attitude information on the Captain's primary flight display; erratic Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring (ECAM) system warnings; malfunctioning pitot tubes. (228 died aboard Air France Flight 447 on June 1, 2009 and the cause is attributed to defective French pitot tubes - now being replaced with US products.)

Airbus A340:
- No fatal incidents so far, but there have been five hull-loss accidents.

[Cyka UchuuJin]

[quote="FG Lurker"]Not sure, but probably not from an air to air missile. ]

well now an air to air missile would just be silly. no one is interested in flamingo skins.

you might be right though about missles as an animal hunting tactic. people on the other hand...

[Tsuru]

[quote="thumper"]-------------------------------
I'm 186cm tall and have a 93cm waist. ALL Airbus ECONOMY seats were very cramped for me (shoe-horn job). Virgin's were the worst because of a stupidly positioned in-flight entertainment bridle stuck at lower leg of the seat belt, which further narrowed seat width.

It's difficult to directly compare a 747 with an Airbus product - perhaps the A300, A310, A330 and A340 are the nearest Airbus equivalents. According to Wikipedia:

Boeing 747:

- Commercial service started in 1970. 1,416 aircraft built until June 2009

- Held the passenger capacity record for 37 years

- Involved in 122 incidents, including 48 hull-loss accidents, resulting in 2,850 fatalities until October 2008.

My comments:
1) Nearly all of those fatalities were due to terrorism (Air India Flight 182, 1985]May I suggest you go and actually read the reports of some of the airbus accidents you pass off as being the airplane's fault? Particularly the AA A300 at JFK.

I refrain from giving a typical cop-out reply where I drag the problems with the 737PG's rudder actuator hardovers in, or the crash earlier this year of the Turkish 737 at Amsterdam which has IT professors roasting the aircraft's autoflight logic, but what a way to give a one-sided account of facts... do you work for Fox News?
Don't believe your own hype... the only thing Airbus made that compares to a 747 is the 747's worthy successor, the A380. The A300 and A310 were the first twin-engine widebody and later competed with the 757/767 series, and the A330/A340 competes directly with the 777. Before the A380 came about Boeing was top dog and had no competitor for the 747 to worry about, except maybe on continental US and atlantic routes where the DC-10 was an easier plane to turn a profit with.

I'm actually surprised you didn't bring the Qantas A330 hardover in there, which was caused by a US brand of ADIRU gyro unit. On airplane forums they go back and forth all day sniping A as well as B, but the fact of the matter is no one is (un)safer than the other... For what it's worth, my experience with A vs. B as self-loading freight are distinctly opposite to yours. The 777's wider hull is only an advantage in business, in eco it is just used to cram in an extra row of seats (typically 9 abreast in 3-3-3 or 2-5-2), making the seats narrower. The equivalent on the thinner A330 or A340 is much more comfortable with only 8 abreast with a bigger chance of having a window seat, which you must understand is a must for an airplane buff like myself.

Go easy.

[thumper]

May I suggest you go and actually read the reports of some of the airbus accidents you pass off as being the airplane's fault? Particularly the AA A300 at JFK.

I refrain from giving a typical cop-out reply where I drag the problems with the 737PG's rudder actuator hardovers in, or the crash earlier this year of the Turkish 737 at Amsterdam which has IT professors roasting the aircraft's autoflight logic, but what a way to give a one-sided account of facts... do you work for Fox News?
Don't believe your own hype... the only thing Airbus made that compares to a 747 is the 747's worthy successor, the A380. The A300 and A310 were the first twin-engine widebody and later competed with the 757/767 series, and the A330/A340 competes directly with the 777. Before the A380 came about Boeing was top dog and had no competitor for the 747 to worry about, except maybe on continental US and atlantic routes where the DC-10 was an easier plane to turn a profit with.

I'm actually surprised you didn't bring the Qantas A330 hardover in there, which was caused by a US brand of ADIRU gyro unit. On airplane forums they go back and forth all day sniping A as well as B, but the fact of the matter is no one is (un)safer than the other... For what it's worth, my experience with A vs. B as self-loading freight are distinctly opposite to yours. The 777's wider hull is only an advantage in business, in eco it is just used to cram in an extra row of seats (typically 9 abreast in 3-3-3 or 2-5-2), making the seats narrower. The equivalent on the thinner A330 or A340 is much more comfortable with only 8 abreast with a bigger chance of having a window seat, which you must understand is a must for an airplane buff like myself.

Go easy.

------------------------------
Tsuru:

1. I was just replying to Mock Cockpit's request for more info about specific safety issues with Airbus aircraft.
2. There is no hype involved. The A380 has about 18 month's service with THREE carriers, and only 17 planes were delivered. So, how could I make any meaningful comparison with a 747?
3. If you like Airbus and are happy flying with them, fine! I am a European but like 747's...

End of story.

[Mock Cockpit]

http://www.seatguru.com will give you info on the dimensions of seats on any number of airlines, I fail to see any real difference between Airbus and Boeing here.
Tsuru, you mention the 2-5-2 seating versus the 3-3-3 seating on the T7. Most seem to go 3-3-3 but I kind of like 2-5-2, the middle of the 5 would suck but like you I'm a window man so climbing over two people in a 3-3-3 set up also sucks, at least in a 2-5-2 set up only one person per row is 2 seats from the aisle. Emirates cram 10 abreast into their T7s I believe, that'd be a shoe horn job I reckon.

[Cyka UchuuJin]

http://www.seatguru.com will give you info on the dimensions of seats on any number of airlines, I fail to see any real difference between Airbus and Boeing here.
Tsuru, you mention the 2-5-2 seating versus the 3-3-3 seating on the T7. Most seem to go 3-3-3 but I kind of like 2-5-2, the middle of the 5 would suck but like you I'm a window man so climbing over two people in a 3-3-3 set up also sucks, at least in a 2-5-2 set up only one person per row is 2 seats from the aisle. Emirates cram 10 abreast into their T7s I believe, that'd be a shoe horn job I reckon.

hmmm, not sure about that with emirates. i fly 100.000 base miles minimum a year with them. the airbus that flies between nairobi and dubai is 2-4-2 in economy and 2-3-2 in business. the 777 between dubai and osaka, i have to admit, i don't know what it is in economy but business is 2-3-2. dubai-london, they have several aircraft that fly, i've been on the 777 and the AB330 and economy is 3-4-3, business 2-3-2.

don't know what flight you were on that had 10 abreast, but i've never been on one. but then again, i don't fly the dubai-hyderbad/mumbai/kolkata routes, so i could for sure see that kind of configuration on those routes because of all of the workers coming and going.

say what you will about the middle east, but the 'new' emirates is definitely rivalling singapore and thai air in comfort and onboard amenities.

[IkemenTommy]

say what you will about the middle east, but the 'new' emirates is definitely rivalling singapore and thai air in comfort and onboard amenities.

I always thought the sliding privacy door in the first class was sick.

[Mock Cockpit]

hmmm, not sure about that with emirates. i fly 100.000 base miles minimum a year with them. the airbus that flies between nairobi and dubai is 2-4-2 in economy and 2-3-2 in business. the 777 between dubai and osaka, i have to admit, i don't know what it is in economy but business is 2-3-2. dubai-london, they have several aircraft that fly, i've been on the 777 and the AB330 and economy is 3-4-3, business 2-3-2.

don't know what flight you were on that had 10 abreast, but i've never been on one. but then again, i don't fly the dubai-hyderbad/mumbai/kolkata routes, so i could for sure see that kind of configuration on those routes because of all of the workers coming and going.

say what you will about the middle east, but the 'new' emirates is definitely rivalling singapore and thai air in comfort and onboard amenities.

According to seatguru all Emirates T7s are 3-4-3 but the pitch is 33" or 34" in economy which is a little more than usual nowadays. Swings and roundabout I suppose.