Slashdot Mirror
Boeing To Deliver First 787 Today
mosb1000 writes "The era of the plastic jumbo jet has finally arrived. Boeing is delivering their first Dreamliner to All Nippon Airways today. From the article: '"Comfort and cost are concerns of the business traveller and the 787 will deliver extreme advancements in fuel efficiency and many traveller features that will improve the journey," said Michael Qualantone, senior vice president & general manager, American Express Global Business Travel. Indeed, this twin-engine, bendy winged, widebody craft has raised the bar for fuel efficiency. Some 50 percent by weight of the 787 airframe is lightweight carbon-fibre composites that could, Boeing says, help reduce fuel costs by 20 percent.' I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one."
Well, you can already try the Airbus A380 - that has been available for a while now.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
it goes smoother than the delivery of the 747-8 a week or two ago. Sort of embarrassing to have your first delivery customer refuse delivery.
I'm sure that won't be the case, though, as Cargolux seems to have been acting at the behest of the new parent company in an effort to get further reduced rates on the 787; Japan has too much invested in the 787 project for ANA to play games like that.
wait, I thought calling them Nips was non-PC these days?!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This is like when a car manufacturer makes a new car!
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
The countless delays just lead me to think that there were too many problems with this new design or application of technology.
I'm not a materials chemist, but I'm pretty sure graphene doesn't quite meet the definition of "plastic." I guess the criteria aren't as well-established as I'd assumed. Long live the all-devouring synecdoche.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
No thanks, I will wait for the first crash/accident before I fly on one...
Well, you can already try the Airbus A380 - that has been available for a while now.
I've flown in a 747. That's been available for a while now, too. Like the A380, it's big and cool, but not meaningfully different from any other airliner made in the last forty years.
The 787 has higher cabin pressure and larger windows, which should make flying a little more comfortable. What was your point again?
If you knew anything about either plane, you would know that they have absolutely nothing in common. The A380 can carry nearly twice as many passengers, so if you're going to compare it to a Boeing plane it should be the 747.
A380 is 20% composites and B-787 is 29%.
Sorry, 787 is 50% composite.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html
You should feel obligated to fly american if you are american.
Hey it works for military contracts and getting elected
A great way to get innovative technology into use without delay is to test it too little.
Would you want to fly in the airplane equivalent of KDE 4.0 or the first Unity Ubuntu desktop?
Seeing as how Airbus has been selling a lot during the 787 development I get the feeling that Boeing actually gets lots of integrity points out of all this.
Yet it will probably still have the outdated "No Smoking Signs".
No thanks, I will wait for the first crash/accident before I fly on one...
Using your logic one is a guinea pig on *every* flight, new design or old, fresh off the manufacturing line or in the fleet for a while. More aircraft have probably gone down to pilot error, mechanic error, or management (ex lack of proper maintenance) than have gone down to designer error. That said, being a guinea pig for the airlines is safer than being a potential target for an idiot on the highway. Life is full of risks, one has to leave mom's basement sometimes. :-)
What about Quality?
In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
Some 50 percent by weight of the 787 airframe is lightweight carbon-fibre composites that could, Boeing says, help reduce fuel costs by 20 percent.
"Why, this thing is so dang light, I could prolly fly it with the engines off. I think I'll try..."
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
telecommunications and the internet, are these things really all that relevant to international business? I cant imagine they serve any other purpose than airborne cattle-cars for the unwashed in economy class, and exotic chariots of booze and decadence for wealthy elite.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Comfort is not a function of the plane but of the number of seats the airlines cram in. So, hands up anyone who thinks that, in a Dreamliner, as opposed to any other plane, you will actually be able to reach your economy class seat without advanced contortionism.
Yes, there is rushed development and then there is long delayed development where somehow they can't figure it out and someone decides to launch it just to get it out of the door. Like say, a shuttle launch. No matter what the engineers say.
Boeing has killed a lot of people with stupid design flaws and cost cuttings, most aircraft companies have. Lets wait a bit to see if this will be a turkey or an eagle.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
50% composite by weight, not volume. It was in the article.
for business class passengers, at least.
Can't be that All-Nippon if they buy their planes from the US...
Depends how you look at it - the A380 has some of the largest composite structures ever used in the aviation industry, and tonne-to-tonne each A380 contains more composites than a 787.
Both planes are of recent design and architecture.
The difference (compared to older planes) lies more into the passenger's comfort (see above), fuel consumption, noise etc... than into the size of the planes.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
I expect my costs to be 20% lower as well.
Is the seat pitch in Cattle (sorry Coach) Class more than 31in?
Remember that this thing can fly 8000miles on one tank full.
My thigh bones are 32.5 in long.
Guess what airlines, 32.5 does not fit into 31 especially on 12hr sectors. Now where's my lawyer? I need to make sure my DVT cover is up to date.
What does that mean? Do the wings bend (in the vertical axis I suppose) more than normal? Or are they curved along the front or trailing edge?
I once read somewhere that commercial jetliner wings are unbelievably strong, they can be bent almost till they touch at the top before breaking. I recall that they are tested this way, and that on occasion they are tested until failure (in a heavily shielded test facility I hope!).
Oh well, I'm hoping that the next generation of aircraft have transparent hulls like some forecasts I think some european group made. Then airlines could market their flights as entertainment like theme park rides.
I would rather remain in the conservative side. You know, I would rather avoid any de Havilland Comet.
I remember about six years ago sitting in JFK awaiting to board a plane home (3400 km). The Captain happened to sit down beside me. We got talking, and I mentioned that I come from a family of airline pilots, and helped build two home-built aircraft in my youth; both of which were the "Quickie" design by Burt Rutan.
"Oh," says the Captain, "I don't trust composites. That's why I won't fly Airbus aircraft -- they have composite tails. I want metal everywhere."
I wonder if this same Captain is about to retire, or if he's going to limit himself to legacy, short-haul routes?
No graphene anywhere in this (or any other) plane. You are confusing something.
The composite material are carbon fibers (essentially burned nylon), not graphene, nanotubes, buckyballs or anything similarly exotic. This is then drenched in polymer resin and backed. The polymer resin is the heaviest component in the overall composition.
Wonder if the Chinese subcontractors cut some corners ro quality to make a little more money? or the other foreign subcontractors who make up 30% of the craft?
The 787-8 is over-weight. That's understandable on a brand new design, but the 787-9 is in the wings (sorry) and will offer a longer airplane at the same weight. Many airlines are switching their orders from the -8 to the -9 since the 787 is supposed to be about efficiency, and the -9 is more so.
Speaking of which, as a bonus the 787 has a bleedless engine (more efficient), which means by side-effect that the cabin won't be filled with air that's been warmed by flowing through the engines. You can get all kinds of lovely solvents, lubes, and de-icers in the cabin air that way.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Actually it affects all passengers. The air is more humidified and pressurized to a lower altitude. Should reduce "jet lag" and allow passengers to arrive feeling less hypoxic.
Aren't you forgetting the whole carbon fiber thing?
Your statement is applicable to every commercial airliner designed in recent decades, going all the way back to the 707.
Graphite and other fibers are encapsulated in thermoset resin, typically epoxy. Hence, plastic.
Synecdoche is a cool word.
Holy crap!!! Someone designed a headrest that might actually be comfortable.
Forget carbon composites and fueling savings, that's an improvement I can really get behind!
A few ppl. here asked if this vehicle has a "No Smoking" sign - and yes, it does, by US .gov requirements - even for exports to heavily tobacco dependent France (Even with Airbus, France has ordered 36 787's, but I'm sure sure till will moderated and never see the light of day.)
Its about time we hear about great advancement in fuel efficiency for planes...now maybe we can start seeing cheaper fares
Aren't you forgetting the whole carbon fiber thing?
So you're saying the Dreamliner is the Sony Vaio Z to the A380's Macbook Air.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
"The 787's composite make-up also allows for more humidity in the cabin, which Emery says will 'reduce symptoms relating to dryness.'"
Yeah . . . that is what humidity will do . . .
Thank you for that explanation.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Some 50 percent by weight of the 787 airframe is lightweight carbon-fibre composites that could(*) Boeing says, help reduce fuel costs by 20 percent
(*) Could? Doesn't that mean won't?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
New modern airliners, only they are so slow compared to what was available in the 1970s...
If I'm flying a long distance, i'd rather get there in half the time than sit for hours, even if the environment is more comfortable. Time spent travelling is time wasted.
Bring back Concorde!
Or better yet, surely technology has improved since the 1970s that we could build something *faster* than Concorde.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
but only if it does not involve US airports.
I am not really here right now.
yikes.
"Though business-class seats in Air Nippon Airway's ANA.L initial configuration are at a not-quite horizontal 34-inch pitch..."
I would have thought they would have been as close to horizontal as humanly possible with that unfortunate configuration designation.
The non-US subcontractors are in Japan, Italy, Korea, France, Sweden, and India. Not China.
Obviously some components are going to be made in China, but that's true of every aircraft made today, including other Boeings, Airbusses, Bombardiers, and Embraers.
So you don't know much about airplanes...
The A380 is in a different weight class. It's like comparing a double decker city bus to an airport conversion van.
The Airbus A330 is the only comparable Airbus model which is 16 years into production and that far behind in features and fuel economy. Which is why they're making the A350, expected to reach production in 2013. It's Airbus's only Carbon fiber body and wing plane. Boeing already has the 777in production.
Does it have a separate exterior door for the pilots, so we can stop with the stupid "security" that is supposed to prevent another 9/11 style hijacking? At the very least does it have the lock for the interior door on the outside of the plane so that the cockpit can't be opened during flight?
Both the 787 and A380 pressurize to 6,000 feet instead of the usual 8,000 feet. But the cool part is that the 787 doesn't bleed hot air from the engines as is normal. It uses a variable speed electrically driven compressor with a humidifier, heater and filters.
The 787 also has bigger windows.
The A380 really didn't introduce much new in technology, mainly built what we had bigger. The 787 is pretty radical.
Looking at the two wiki pages, I'd say there's nothing 'nearly' about it -
787-8: 210-250(242 typical airline)
787-9: 250-290(280)
A380: 525-853(525)
Going by minimum seatings, the 787 carries less than half. Going by max cattle car arrangements, the A380 carries nearly 3 times the passangers.
Comparing new features is a good thing, but there are different structural issues between a single floor 787 and a two floor A380. That doesn't change that they're both targeting what are, in the end, very different markets. Not necessarily a bad thing. Airbus offers maximum seating for the highest density routes, Boeing offers a very affordable plane to handle the multitude of lower traffic routes.
While I'm sure the A380 is a very nice plane, my impression is that it's also a more conservative one than the 787,
I don't read AC A human right
Yeah good idea. We should seal the pilots in the flight deck like the Japanese did to their kamikaze pilots.
Oh wait....
If you're more than 4'11" tall and you aren't riding in business or first class you'll still be sitting with your knees under your chin and your neighbors elbows digging into your arms. Higher air pressure and humidity? BFD!
I would have to disagree with placing them in same category. They recent designs but both serve different purposes. That's like putting a Cadillac SUV in the same category as a Toyota Prius just because they have hybrid electric/gasoline engines. Also the 787 uses mostly carbon fiber which would require different architecture than a 380 which uses some carbon-fiber in certain areas.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Both the 787 and A380 pressurize to 6,000 feet instead of the usual 8,000 feet.
I heard this on the news today and paused to consider how, since my house is at 7,500 feet, the new pressurization is likely to leave me feeling *more* invigorated when I'm in the air than I'll feel when I land.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
About the only important place the A380 uses composites is in the wing box, and it's about 20% by weight overall. The rest is just bits here and there to save weight, a chunk of fuselage here, a chunk of wing there.
The 787 uses composites almost everywhere, and depends on them for complete structural integrity. , Composites in a 787 are 50% by weight, 80% by volume, so you look at a 787, only about 1/5 of what you see is metal.
The situation is understandable, since when Boeing started talking about making a mostly composite plane, Airbus was pretty much dismissing the idea. At the time they'd only gone as far with serious use as the vertical stabiliser and rudder and the A330.
This was a huge risk by Boeing that delayed the project several times. I'm glad to see it finally coming through.
The A380 really didn't introduce much new in technology, mainly built what we had bigger. The 787 is pretty radical.
I wonder if people who make comments like the above actually ever look into just what the A380 introduced... I think they would be surprised.
If the pilot can't leave the cockpit, what happens in the middle of a 13 hour flight when they need to use the restroom? All planes already have reinforced locking doors between the cockpit and the cabin that can only be unlocked from the pilots side.
Comets are still flying under the guise of Nimrod. Same design, just like US's tanker planes are still based on 707s (or to be exact, the other way around).
Now of the incredibly pro-union biased NLRB will just butt out of Boeing's legitimate business, Boeing might be able to get the second, third, fourth... planes out the door as well.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'd like to do a "borderline psychotic" rant based on your vices, or those you approve of.
No, I do not smoke.
How big of a screw-up not keeping your software versions consistent can cause? That was a world record.
But from memory, I know the revamped the cabin and avionics, but then everybody's been doing that for new aircraft versions. Generally I see things that Boeing was working on too, but the A380 beat due to Boeing's delays with the composites.
So got a list of really significant stuff in the A380 other than the size and record amount of cabling?
You forgot to mention an actual flaw in the idea. Because "the japs did it" doesn't count.
...You need only observe a discussion on aviation specs.
Boeing was working on the Mach 0.98 Sonic Cruiser, but the airlines shot it down, desiring lower operating costs instead of more speed. I doubt an SST is anywhere in the near future.
But at least a lot of tech for that went into the 787. So instead of getting more speed, we got the same speed but much more efficiency.
Let's hope it doesn't have unfirewalled telnet access like the 747. (See half way across that page)
See subject line.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Part of the concept of the 787 is that it will reduce travel time by offering more direct flights. Hence the plane holds just 250 people but has a range of 8000 miles.
Having auditted Boeing software, and their processes, I'd honestly prefer not to fly on this. I'm not saying I enjoy flying on Airbus either, but knowing the quality of software engineering, I'd really rather wait at least two or three years before real life conditions prove the systems out.
The guys that bend the metal are sound, but I'm unconvinced that CF in such huge sections are going to be reliable as well under workload, and as for repairing them, well, I just can't see how every depot around the globe will have CF repair experts.
The Nimrods were retired in June iirc
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
It was mainly supplier shortages. A big one was special fasteners for the composite airframe. Even worse was that to avoid disruption of supply lines they put regular fasteners on the parts for transit, which had to later be removed, replaced and the composites re-inspected.
They could use piddle packs, same as what fighter pilots use.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
No actually the main comfort features for the 787 are available to every passenger. These include higher cabin humidity and pressure (made possible by the higher strength of the composites), larger than normal windows which can be dimmed and the Boeing Sky interior. Also, the shape of the fuselage is an oval rather than circular which allows for more head room and overhead storage space.
Better yet, they could just go ahead and add a restroom to the cockpit area.
...for the 797now!
It beat the 787's planned launch date by a year, but the 787 was delayed more.
Airliners had been using more bits of composites for a while, and the A380 continues that trend. The 787 is the one making the daring move to a mostly composite airplane.
Remember, Airbus execs said the 787's extensive use of composites was "ridiculous" at the time. Sure, they were comfortable with bits here and there as in the A330 and some more in the A380, but they weren't willing to take the risk and jump in to really do something with composites.
Along with this thinking, for the A350 Airbus was just going to update the A330 and present it to customers, but they told Airbus to go back to the drawing board. In 2007, after most of the 787's composite design was known, Airbus came out with a composite A350 that by pure coincidence used almost the same ratio of composites to other materials as the 787 does.
The A380 has a reality distortion field around it. To residents of the USA it simply doesn't exist, they subconsciously block it from their thoughts.
No sig today...
Boeing will never be stupid as they were with this one. They outsourced loads which is exactly what created this situation. They think that they saved money from the unions. Not even. The delay alone will set back payback about 7-8 years. However, if anybody has outages (and they will), then Boeing is going to suffer all over. Worse, they spread around the technology. Boeing has slit their own throat.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It makes no difference. All Americans block the A380 from their minds when discussing aircraft. Same thing with Concord, etc.
No sig today...
So what if it wasn't due to design software issues, not really sure what you are pushing toward there.
The fastener issue was 100% Boeings cockup, as they were told by the fastener supplier that they could not produce quantities in the timescale Boeing desired, and they were told that when they placed the order - Boeing decided to push ahead for the 7/8/07 date regardless, and then acted all surprised when the supplier turned around and said "no".
Reworking that initial aircraft, and the subsequent four aircraft cost Boeing dearly, but it was never due to a fastener shortage, just a timescale cockup entirely if Boeings own concoction.
... a 380 which uses some carbon-fiber in certain areas.
Certain areas like the central wing box, the tail, the leading edges, the central fuselage, etc?
There's not much there that would need a "different architecture", right...? You talk like they just changed a couple of doors or something.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Airbus_A380#Advanced_materials
No sig today...
BS. My wife scheduled her LA to Sydney flight in sync with Quantas' use of the 380 over 747.
Writing "All X do Y" when talking about people is almost always wrong.
Put a bathroom in the cockpit. It's a brand new plane, and an airplane toilet doesn't take that much room. The toilet isn't that big of a problem. If a hijacker already can't get to the cockpit, how do hijacking happen?
The pilots are already sealed into the plane during flight. You can't just open a door and step outside as it is now. Denying the pilot access to the passenger area and passengers area to the pilot isn't some kind of suicide mission. If you put a bathroom in the cockpit, there is no reason the pilot should ever need to enter the passenger area.
Not entirely true, the Concord was super cool.
I'd love to fly on an A380 too, but it's a completely different kind jet.
Thats baloney.
It is called the locked flight deck door policy. The pilot/first officer can open the door anytime they like. Furthermore company employees, CAA ops inspectors, ATC visits are all considered "trusted" and can enter the cockpit during flight.
Fuck yeah. We had TV movies about it and everything.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
What is baloney? That the pilot cannot step out of the plane during flight? I'm pretty sure the airline would be in pretty serious trouble if pilots start doing that in flight.
The fact that people can now move between the cockpit and the passenger area is exactly the situation that our security theater is supposed to prevent. There is no compelling reason that any of the "trusted" visitors that you name need to be passing back and forth between the cockpit and the passenger area while in flight. None. Zip. Zero.
Good luck flying in storms.
It makes no difference. All Americans block the A380 from their minds when discussing aircraft. Same thing with Concord, etc.
Not really. It's more along the lines of Airbus claiming a few years ago that doing what the 787 is doing was "ridiculous". Now you're saying "we're already doing it"? To turn around now and say "we're doing it already" when just a few years ago you were claiming it was "ridiculous" makes it pretty obvious you've no idea what you're talking about, and are just trying to backpedal and spin.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
> Life is full of risks, one has to leave mom's basement sometimes. :-)
Yes, and someone has to be a dentist's or a surgeon's first patient, but nowhere is it written that it has to be me. Go ahead and call me socially irresponsible. I call it "survival of the fittest".
That is quite delusional, so much for nerds having a good and unbiased understanding of science. The timid and fearful are not the preferred human breeding partners. The number of less timid and less fearful people than yourself killed in airliner crashes of recently introduced designs, or crashes in general, is so infinitesimally small that your opportunities for breeding have not improved.
Your best strategy is to only express your true thought anonymously. Do not express these thoughts to a girl or in an environment where a girl may overhear you. Good luck.
If you knew anything about either plane, you would know that they have absolutely nothing in common. The A380 can carry nearly twice as many passengers, so if you're going to compare it to a Boeing plane it should be the 747.
I know the 787 has wings. Since you claim they have "absolutely nothing in common", I'm curious about what the A380 uses to generate lift.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I think part of the problem for Boeing was the decision to outsource so much of the 787 Dreamliner compared to their previous airplanes.
Well, there was that Boeing vs Airbus industrial espionage a few years ago that ended up being exposed in court. Maybe some of the technology really did come from Airbus?
Ragging on people using the words 'all' or 'everyone' when everyone knows it is a euphemism for 'most', is anal retentive.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
"Though business-class seats in Air Nippon Airway's ANA.L initial configuration..." haha anal.
DO you have to secure your tray-table when you land your house?
A non-smoker goes to a smoking bar voluntarily; thus, he breathes the smoke voluntarily. A smoker doesn't make him do it.
It was about the bids for the Air Force tanker contracts. It wasn't technical information like how to build a composite airplane.
I don't Boeing ever made it to court either. Some people were fired, one went to prison, and Boeing was heavily penalized.
A380 is just "Let's build it bigger." I really didn't think the Europeans would stoop to a pointless penis size contest, but there it is.
Let's increase boarding times, expand the cattle car theme. Let's make airports have to expand. Let's reinforce the annoying hub-and-spoke model.
Technically it is a decent aircraft that made moderate technological advances over its predecessors, but it never should have been built.
I wouldn't call that "first to really use." I'd call that just using a little bit more than the previous aircraft, evolutionary baby steps.
Now 50% by weight, 80% by volume, that's really using composites. If you look at a diagram of 787 construction with colors for materials, it looks almost all composite colors, with bits of color here and there for the metals (leading edges and engine pylons appear to be most of it). Composites lightened the plane so much, the 10% of weight that is steel is the landing gear.
fuck that for a game of soldiers
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I don't smoke. I want to go to a bar. I don't like being around smoke. Hmmm, I know, I think I'll go to a bar that allows smoking! Wait, no, that won't work, there's smoke there. Um...
What do I do? What do I do? Oh please nanny state, protect me! I'm too stupid to make basic decisions for myself.
This is baloney (from your original post):
>>> At the very least does it have the lock for the interior door on the outside of the plane so that the cockpit can't be opened during flight?
Really? you want the door between the flight deck and the rest of the cabin to be only unlockable from outside the plane? Are you aware of the many reasons why the pilot or first officer may need to leave the cockpit?
>>> There is no compelling reason that any of the "trusted" visitors that you name need to be passing back and forth between the cockpit and the passenger area while in flight. None. Zip. Zero. ...And you know this how? do you even have a pilots licence or work in the aviation industry? (Hint: I do)
A bar owner decides whether he wants smoking in his bar or not. Those who decide not by-definition have non-smoking bars.
If non-smoking bars do not exist in your area (provided the nanny state hasn't decided they all must be, and probably decided what time your mommy needs to wipe your butt), then non-smokers are free to start non-smoking bars. It's a ripe market ready to be plucked if so many are tired of the smoke.
And remember, I say this as a non-smoker. If I want to go to a bar where there's smoking, then I have absolutely no right to complain about the smoke. I'm the one who went in there of my own free will.
I wonder if people who make comments like the above actually ever look into just what the A380 introduced... I think they would be surprised.
Having flown in Lufthansa A380s, I didn't notice any difference between that and a generic 747/767. Having said that, Luftwaffe isn't exactly known for the quality of their economy-class travel, so maybe other airlines' versions are better.
Yeah, but at least the murphy bed takes care of itself.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
From TFA:
Economy class will see some luxury additions, with a bar, female-only lavatories and Panasonic entertainment on demand for every passenger.
Female-only lavatories? - How can that be a good thing - in general that is. There are at least 50% men on a flight, and unless they also add some men-only toilets, they actually reduce the number of toilets available to more than half the passengers. The women can use them all but the men can't. That's neither fair nor a good thing. Besides, unless it is done for purely androphobic reasons, they won't benefit much. Women can just as easily make a mess, throw up or whatever as men. The pee on the floor issue can easily be prevented by installing sensors that pick up if you pee on the floor and if triggered locks the door and summons a flight attendant. She'll let you out and you'll then be given the choice of cleaning up yourself or be billed for it.
Something completely different... I just watched the first episode of the new show "Pan Am" and really enjoyed the amazing recreation of the time period and its technology. What really struck me was the beautiful experience it seems to have been to fly back then. People dressed nice (both the passengers and the crew) and were treated with respect all the way, both at the airport and on the plane.
We so badly need that these days. It's a disaster that a few stupid terrorists have made us accept to be treated like 2nd grade cattle. After all, none of the security measures currently in place (the security theater) at the airports really work (they miss like 60-80% of test items) and the highly invasive porn scanners or the equally invasive grope-search doesn't change much. Security shouldn't be a last minute thing at the airport; potential terrorists should be stopped long before they even get near an airport. I mean, currently nothing prevents a suicide bomber from lining up in the security queue and then detonate his bomb at the checkpoint. He'll still kill a lot of people who are packed there exactly because morons like him should be deterred from trying to get the bomb on the plane. If we didn't search people there, but stopped the moron while he was assembling his bomb instead, only the bomber would be a casualty if he detonated early.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Government people who had worked on the tanker contract went to work for Boeing and gave them all sorts of proprietary Airbus bid information so that Boeing could win the contract. Boeing was fined, barred from bidding, people were fired, people went to jail.
You may be thinking of the Lockheed scandal around 2000 time relating to a bidding for an Air Force rocket contract. Boeing hired on a Lockheed employe who brought with him a lot of Lockheed proprietary data. Boeing fired him for show, having "discovered" he brought the documents with him, but they kept and read a lot more than they initially disclosed.