Boeing 787 Makes US Debut

thomas.kane writes "After years of delays, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is set to take off from Bush Intercontinental Airport this morning bound for O'Hare. Designed to make the flying experience 'revolutionary,' it is constructed from composite materials, has larger windows than previous jetliners, and high efficiency engines. United Airlines became the first U.S. carrier to take delivery; they've ordered 50, but due to processing delays, they only have 2 right now. Start looking for more to take to the skies early next year."

Comments

Awesome

[diemuzi]

Would love to see this in person!

Re:Awesome

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I'd love to see United stop treating us all like shite.

HINT: Start with people, not with aircraft. Oh, and food service, too.

Re:Awesome

[ls671]

It is an airplane, not a person ;-)

Re:Awesome

[Beardo the Bearded]

A few years ago, I was in Seattle for a band trip. On the Sunday morning, a dozen of us went up to Everett to see the Boeing factory.

The first plane ready to get out the door was 787 #1, the FAA smasher, so we got to see it fairly close. We also got to see the Dreamcargo? whatever it's called take off. That's a funny looking plane.

They are very cool planes, and if you're ever in the PNW, I highly recommend heading to Everett and checking out the factory. It's incredible.

Re:Awesome

[Dr. Tom]

Go to Ethiopia, where the first one was delivered 3 months ago.

Re:Awesome

[localman57]

That's what everybody says. Then they go to travelocity, and fly with the lowest bidder. If more people wanted to pay more for a better experience, there'd be more first class seats in airplanes.

Re:Awesome

[kiwimate]

Yep, everyone says they want to be treated better. And have even lower fares. As well as full meals. And free movies. And no charge for baggage. But make it cheaper than it already is.

Do you see the problem?

HINT: If you want food service, pay more and fly first class.

Re:Awesome

[rubycodez]

funny, I go with the lowest bidder for airlines based in other parts of the world and the food, beer & wine, entertainment and courteous service are included. the US airlines *could* do it if money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets

Re:Awesome

[mosb1000]

United provides food service. It's just not "free." Of course, other airlines charge you for it too, they just include it in your ticket price whether you want the food or not.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets

Yeah, the unions are killing the US airlines..

Re:Awesome

[StarWreck]

The United "Tapas Box" is pretty awesome. Well, it was awesome last year when it was only $5, they've since raised the price to $7.50...

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the unions are killing the US airlines..

Except mysteriously for SWA which does just fine despite being union.

Re:Awesome

[ls671]

I remember landing in Seattle for the first time. I could just see miles of runways figuring out; there is the airport! It went on for a while before actually getting to the airport. It turns out they were Boeing factory runways.

Re:Awesome

[Smallpond]

From United's Q3 financials:

Net profit margin 0.06%

but having just flown SwissAir and Lufthansa, I have to agree about food and service being better in Europe.

Re:Awesome

[wonkey_monkey]

that is just beyond unreasonable.

Then you need to have words with the people buying these tickets, not the airlines selling them.

Re:Awesome

[21mhz]

It's getting worse. Finnair has stopped offering free food on short haul flights, and they are in a battle with the unions to reduce their staff costs, too. The lowest bidders such as Norwegian and Flybe are expanding, though.

Re:Awesome

[puto]

I work all over Latin America, and it literally costs me the same to go from Bogota to Medellin in Colombia round trip that I can fly from Orlando to NYC. Though my experience is germane to Latin America, I prefer to fly in the US, and it is cheaper. International flights tend to have a little better service but third world flights are sorely lacking. The US is head and tails above.

Re:Awesome

[davester666]

They raised the price because you told them it was awesome.

If you merely said it was "OK" or "Well, I could just tolerate it", they probably wouldn't have upped the price.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Boeing 747 dreamlifter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter

Re:Awesome

[dotancohen]

That's what everybody says. Then they go to travelocity, and fly with the lowest bidder. If more people wanted to pay more for a better experience, there'd be more first class seats in airplanes.

Last month I flew on Jetblue and paid 10% less than anywhere else, got a huge seat and the best flight experience I'd ever had.

Oh, and I've been waiting for this:
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/787_dreamliner.html

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet there's RyanAir, which will sadly never work in the US because we lack an abundance of old military airfields an hour away from places that people actually want to go.

Re:Awesome

[Jeremy Erwin]

In this country, executives get paid for performance-- or at least for tweaking the stock price. Unions, with their incessant demands for decent working conditions, interfere with the creation of totemic representations of shareholder value.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot wrong with unions, but workers have to somehow protect their ability to work. Unlike the higher-ups, they have to keep working for most of their adult lives and could not retire on a few years' income and capital gains if they wanted to. If workers gave employers everything they asked for, even "reasonable" employers would end up "riding the horse to death" under the pressures of the market. Unions serve a critical function in society. It's a marathon, not a sprint.

Re:Awesome

[khallow]

funny, I go with the lowest bidder for airlines based in other parts of the world and the food, beer & wine, entertainment and courteous service are included. the US airlines *could* do it if money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets

Just remember that customers are on that short list of "money-grubbing scum". Shop for those other criteria, if that's what you want and pay a little more like you do with those "lowest bidders" in other parts of the world.

Re:Awesome

[JaredOfEuropa]

Economy plus is rubbish, you get the same for far less by reserving an exit seat (which is possible on many airlines, by paying a little extra).

Here's a thought: how about charging me twice as much for twice the space? That means some extra legroom as well as wider seats (2-3-2 instead of 3-5-3 arrangement). Legroom is good not just for stretching your legs but also to let you out to go to the bathroom without disturbing your neighbor. Wider seats ensure that you actually can get some sleep instead of having to fight that neighbor for the armrest (and god forbid they book an obese person in the seat next to you). Business class doesn't make economic sense or is plain out of reach for people traveling on their own dime. But to get some real comfort at twice the price of economy... I'd go for that, certainly on transatlantic flights.

Re:Awesome

[StarWreck]

... actually... at the same time they raised the price they got rid of the awesome ouzo flavored candy from italy and replaced it with a regular peppermint

Re:Awesome

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yeah, the unions are killing the US airlines.

Your concluding statement contains a doctrinary truism. This hypothesis is not borne out by the evidence.

Experience on European flag-carrier and private airlines is qualitatively better than US service and amenities, in general and overall.

Surely, you don't propose that, somehow, European workers are less unionized than their American counterparts? I laugh at the thought!

Of course Asian premiere carriers also shame the US - so perhaps unionization is a red-herring, and may not be germane to the argument. But don't let that stop you from your neo-objectivist claims. I understand that they are impervious to empiricism. ;-)

Re:Awesome

[joe_frisch]

Just saw one at Beijing in ANA colors - looked a lot like a mid-sized twin engine airliner.

I spend a lot of my life on airliners. The things that matter to me are:
Big overhead bins: 787 has them, but so do lat model 747s and 777s.
AC power sockets: These could be put on any plane, but usually airlines only have them in business.
Legroom: Entirely up to the airline to set the seat spacing, nothing to do with the airplane.
In seat video with a selection of movies: Again up to the airline for the interior configuration.
Sufficient restrooms: Again, an airline configuration issue.

The improved fuel efficiency will reduce costs some - which is nice, but that is an ongoing trend. Presumably the airbus A350 will be the next step, followed by a 797 or something. I occasionally look out the windows, but most of the time there isn't much to see - so big windows are only a minor change. If they really operate the plane at lower cabin altitude that would be nice, but the extra weight burns more fuel - I doubt they actually operate that way for long. I couldn't care less about the multi-colored lighting.

It looks like a nice plane, but not in any way a game changer. Give me a Mach 3 SST, or a sub-orbital that can do Shanghai to SFO in 40 minutes and we'll talk. We've had Mach .85 airliners for >50 years now.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

But Finnair have already stated that they wish to emulate Ryanair, except that Finnair still want to charge high prices for a crap product. Very little leg room, no food, no hot drinks (not that Finnair ever gave you a lot of coffee ever!), no human assistance at check-in, diety help families fly together and the grumpiest cabin crew in the world.

Finnair used to be my airline of choice, now I fly with Norgwegian and Blue1 because they have an overall better product: more leg room, cheerful staff, customer service and low prices.

Finnair are on a race to the bottom while their board of directors pockets cash, houses and whatever other benefits they believe they deserve

Cabin crew, pilots, aircraft, maintenance and especially customers are an inconvenience to Finnairs primary business....what that is you'd have to ask the board of directors because I am bloody well mystified if I knew what it was....

Re:Awesome

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The United "Tapas Box" is pretty awesome. Well, it was awesome last year when it was only $5, they've since raised the price to $7.50...

For the record, I actually like United and I have not tried this Tapas Box. However, do note that all US carriers are afraid of being saddled with food nobody wants to buy, so they actually have less food available on flights than then there are passengers on the plane. I do not live in a hub city for United, so essentially all they fly from my city is 50 or so seat small jets to get us to one of their hub cities. On such flights they would probably have between 10 and 15 Tapas Boxes available so you can do the math and see that this could well be sold out before they even get halfway down the plane. United would certainly have some other food offers available, but they would be less desirable like a simple turkey sandwich with apples or something similar. And if you sit in the back of the plane, everything they have may be sold out before they reach you. I have been on flights where this happened.

Re:Awesome

[Mike_EE_U_of_I]

In this country, executives get paid for performance-- or at least for tweaking the stock price. Unions, with their incessant demands for decent working conditions, interfere with the creation of totemic representations of shareholder value.

That was a joke right? "Shareholder value" when talking about passenger airlines is pretty much zero. The lifetime profit/loss of the industry is a loss. Every legacy US airline has declared bankruptcy at least once. Southwest has not gone belly up, but you would have been far better investing in the S&P 500 over the last five or ten year periods, perhaps longer.

    The problem is that owning airlines is "sexy" and way too much money is invested in it. The result is that shareholders are completely and utterly screwed. The problem with airlines is not the execs, the unions, the corporate structure, or even fuel costs. The problem is the "sexy" factor has caused there to be way too much capacity built and no airline can operate at a long term profit because of it.

Re:Awesome

[Beardo the Bearded]

Dreamlifter! Yes, thank you, I couldn't remember the name!

Re:Awesome

[Carewolf]

No, the untaken business class seats are for people who needs to fly RIGHT NOW, and the 10x price is the price for being guaranteed a seat on the next flight. Note that the seats are handed out for free to frequent fliers as a perk for always flying the same airline.

Re:Awesome

[Carewolf]

Economy plus is 5x the price but with no useful benefits over a normal economy. Usually I just gives you the right to cancel or move your flight, neat when you need it, pointless 99% of the time, and 400% is a lot to pay for a cancel insurance.

Re:Awesome

[Provocateur]

Hmm Looks like the Prince of Nigeria finally got around to his objective, by way of Ethiopia...

Re:Awesome

[jbwolfe]

Net profit margin 0.06%

Not as bad as you think.: "2012 - Special items Labor Agreement Costs: On Aug. 3, 2012, the company announced it had reached an agreement in principle with respect to a new joint collective bargaining agreement with the Air Line Pilots Association, representing pilots at United and Continental. The company recorded $454 million of expense in the third quarter associated with lump sum cash payments that would be made in conjunction with the ratification of the contract and the completion of the integrated pilot seniority list. This charge also includes costs associated with changes to existing pilot disability plans negotiated in connection with the agreement in principle. The lump sum payments are not in lieu of future pay increases and were accrued in the third quarter as a result of the payments becoming probable, primarily due to reaching the agreement in principle. The agreement in principle is subject to definitive documentation, and any such definitive documentation is subject to approvals by each of the United and Continental ALPA master executive councils and ratification by the company's pilots. The company currently expects to make cash payments of approximately $250 million in late 2012 or early 2013 relating to these charges and the balance in subsequent periods."

That turns out to be about what the profit was for the quarter. It appears that they have finally agreed to pay us, though not nearly enough after 10 years of bankruptcy wages and work rules...

It should likely be closer to $1B so as not to reward them for dragging out the negotiations past the amendable date. OTOH, from what I hear, it might not even pass the ratification vote.

Re:Awesome

[drwho]

Not true, there's plenty of old US military airfields. Hanscom, near Boston, would be a perfect second airport for the city, but the problem is that NIMBYs shut it down, they said it was because of noise. I guess the civilian airliners don't make enough noise, because those military jets sure make an awful racket.

RyanAir just sucks...I mean, it is so horrible, it shouldn't even be allowed to fly. Lufthansa is great, and I'd spend $100 to fly them over Air France. But not $500, which was the difference, last time I checked.

The problem with transatlantic flights is that there is no rational system set up to transport efficiently. I thought of one, floated the idea, and was roundly ignored. Oh well. I'll just join the mob of cynical people and find someone else to charge my flights to (business expense).

Re:Awesome

[unkiereamus]

I dunno, I really liked TACA, when I was living in Honduras, mostly though, I was flying in and out of the US.

The flights were usually pretty comparable in price to continental and delta, (plus or minus 10% or so), the planes were relatively comfortable (If you fly on their newer planes, the older ones were so-so), and you gotta love the open bar :)

The biggest advantage was the customer service though, multiple times I wound up missing a connection for one reason or another, and they always got me on the next flight, if it was the next day they would put me up in a hotel and pay for my meals (including one time that I was actually flying on separate tickets, the system wouldn't let me combine them because it was supposed to be impossible to make the connection, but the ticket agent assured me the second flight was always late, which it was, it's just the first flight was later.). There's no way in hell any of the US carriers would do the same.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember landing in Seattle for the first time. I could just see miles of runways figuring out; there is the airport! It went on for a while before actually getting to the airport. It turns out they were Boeing factory runways.

Um....Boeing doesn't have facilities at SEATAC aka Seattle Airport (SEA). The 747/767/777/787 are assembled up at the Everett airport (north of Seattle) while the 737 is made at Boeing Field near downtown Seattle. Boeing Field is small enough (single runway) that you can see almost the entire thing from any point.

So no, you didn't see any Boeing factory runways. ;)

Re:Awesome

[karnal]

That's happening less and less. United in the last couple of years has bumped their requirements to be able to do this; now since I don't fly as much they obviously will prefer the people flying a lot more to fill those seats. Not that I care too much; most of my flights are puddle jumpers (cmh to ord)

Re:Awesome

[mjwx]

funny, I go with the lowest bidder for airlines based in other parts of the world and the food, beer & wine, entertainment and courteous service are included. the US airlines *could* do it if money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets

I go with whoever has the best value.

Air Asia's standard fare was A$600, MAS (Malaysian Airlines) had a sale on for A$800 for the same trip. I went with MAS. I'd happily pay $200 extra to get better service. Then again, Air Asia has better service than most US airlines and Air Asia is pretty unashamed of being a budget airline (they really are a good budget airline but they're still a budget airline). Singapore and Malaysian are a world apart from Air Asia when it comes to service.

Re:Awesome

[Kyusaku Natsume]

In my experience, the cabin crew at United/Continental is nice, the counter people at Houston is even nicer, but the sales people, at least here in Mexico, deserve to be sent to the most Taliban infested places of Afghanistan or Pakistan dressed like christian preachers wrapped in the USA's flag, or sent to New York's ground 0 with T-shirts praising Osama bin Laden. What I disliked was that the plane wasn't that clean and the ticket price was 2 times more expensive than the first time I traveled with them that route despite the fact oil was 15% cheaper and USD was only 10% up; but even more disgusting was how they tried to weasel out to not provide service to a friend that cancelled his trip to Japan due the march's 11th 2011 quake and tsunami.

Re:Awesome

[demonlapin]

You're thinking about it backward. You put in as many business/first as you can sell. Then you fill the rest with cattle class, because people who care will shell out for business or first and people who don't, won't. People always say they'll pay more but almost never do.

Re:Awesome

[RandomFactor]

To be fair, what other airline provides music like this for us? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo

Re:Awesome

[darkmeridian]

You can get a Mach 3 SST if you want to pay $15,000 for a one-way ticket. The Concorde tried that business model, and well, it didn't work. Passengers like to claim that they will pay more for service, for more legroom, to get to the destination early, etc., but when it comes time to put their money where their mouths are, well, there's a reason we have had Mach 0.85 airliners for over fifty years.

Re:Awesome

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Virgin America let me sling my bass in the overhead. Pretty cool...

Re:Awesome

[TheRaven64]

The problem is, most people who fly frequently don't have the option. For example, my travel is paid by the US government and so I have to follow their rules, which includes the Fly America Act (a ludicrous piece of protectionist legislation that meant that I had to fly from London to Ottawa via the USA instead of directly, and at a higher cost), I can only fly economy class, and I must take the cheapest quote. Most companies have similar rules on the cost, except for management. This is why business class exists at all: a lot of companies had a rule saying that people weren't allowed to fly first class, so the airlines introduced a tier that was almost exactly the same but with a different name (since then, they've eroded what you get in first class quite considerably).

Re:Awesome

[xaxa]

I've flown with Ryanair and Easyjet for crazy-cheap prices -- all inclusive, the least I've paid has been £5 (1p + £4.99 "fee") from Bratislava to London, and I've paid between £30 and £50 a few times. In places where they fly to a "real" airport (e.g. London) they leave really early in the morning, elsewhere it's often a long way to get to the city.

Look up what you're getting, and it can be a very good deal. For example, Gothenburg City airport (used only by Ryanair) is closer to the city centre than the main airport, and has so few flights that the shuttle buses are timed to the flight arrivals, so there's no waiting -- everyone gets off the plane and onto the buses, which drive to the centre of the city in 15 minutes. The budget airport supposedly in Stockholm is a 90-minute bus journey away from Stockholm, however. In Eastern Europe it's often the real airport of a non-capital city, so there are plenty of serious airlines with flights to Russia, Ukraine etc, and good public transport.

I've been served a free drink on a 45-minute nice-airline flight (from an island) before, and seriously wondered what the point was.

Re:Awesome

[serviscope_minor]

Hanscom, near Boston

Yeah that's the problem, right there. Too close for Ryanair.

Re:Awesome

[thegarbz]

HINT: If you want food service, pay more and fly first class.

Or just don't fly with an American airline? Seriously just because everyone says they want better service, meals, movies and lower fairs doesn't mean these are all mutually exclusive. Sure there's a point where one or several must give, but given my experience the US airliners have a long way to go before they reach that point.

Re:Awesome

[stdarg]

One thing in particular makes me think there are fewer labor protections for some non-US airline workers: the difference in age and beauty of the staff. It's quite clear that some airlines are not faced with restrictions about who they fire and why because they maintain a staff of model-like stewardesses. As for the US flights I've been on in my entire life (I'm 30), the staff has tended to be more normal -- older, not very pretty, not very friendly but decent at doing their jobs. Do an image search for something like "delta stewardesses" and you'll see pictures from 40-50 years ago with attractive flight attendants, and then modern pictures where they are largely unattractive. Then do an image search for "korean air stewardesses."

It's less blatant but still true for Western countries. The attractiveness of the staff on Air France seems higher than in US companies.

I'm assuming that if it's easier for companies to hire an attractive young female workforce, that's because they have more leeway with who they hire and fire than US airlines. That translates into lower costs because they aren't paying more for experience and probably have very low health care costs and no retirement issues to worry about. Of course another aspect is that they are passing on some of those costs to the government.. maybe that makes it more socially permissible to be more discriminatory in business, because the older or less attractive workers are taken care of already.

Re:Awesome

[stdarg]

If ticketing sites had comparison info about leg room, I would pay more for more leg room on any long flight. I can't afford to pay 5x more for business or first class though. It has to be somewhere in between -- a little more leg room for a little more money.

Re:Awesome

[stdarg]

Be serious.. paying 30x more for a faster flight and more leg room is not a realistic proposition for people with budgets. For a $1000 round trip ticket, I would definitely pay $1100 to get 10% more total space. No question. I'd pay $1150 to get 10% more space.

It has to be advertised -- travelocity etc have to know that certain seats have more space.
It has to be reasonable -- paying 15% more for 10% more space is reasonable, paying 100% or 1000% more is not.
It has to make a difference -- I won't pay more for "extra space" in terms of head room or how far your seat leans back or a different configuration for your food tray.

Re:Awesome

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

That's not Unionization - it's Federal law for discrimination.

Re:Awesome

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

And good-looking women can get themselves better jobs than air-waitress.

Really, the whole industry REALLY sucks for the employees. They are generally in it for fringe-travel benefit. Flying for your profession has lost the glamour of its first 60 decades, and even pilots are now more like Greyhound operators with more braid.

They are paid about the same, too.

Re:Awesome

[X0563511]

They can stop breaking guitars, too.

Re:Awesome

[cthulhu11]

Agreed, I'd rather not pay for food that can't eat anyway.

Re:Awesome

[ChrisMaple]

Most airlines run at quite high utilization factors: above 80%. That does not agree with your claim of overbuilding.

Re:Awesome

[demonlapin]

You should be looking at "Economy Plus" seats. They're what you want.

Re:Awesome

[v6stang]

Boeing doesn't have it's own runway exactly; what they do have is property right next-door to both Paine Field and Boeing Field. You probably saw Boeing Field since it's only about 3 miles north of SeaTac, but I've come in on approaches to SeaTac where you can see both of the other fields.

Re:Awesome

[strikethree]

Oh really? First Class in the civilized world is incredibly and insanely overpriced. A ticket that would cost me about a thousand dollars balloons to well over 8 thousand dollars when it is first class. Outside of the civilized world, a similar ticket might be 2 thousand for coach and 35 hundred for first class. I pay the $3,500 but not the $8,000+.

Re:Boston Already?

[sensei moreh]

ANA isn't an American carrier (or wasn't last time I flew on them)

US ? That's nothing.

[ballpoint]

In Soviet Russia, Boeing 787 Makes YOU Debut !

Meh ...

[lennier1]

I was worried at first, until I saw that the airport was named after the at least somewhat sane one.

Re:Meh ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, that 5% average unemployment and not covering up attacks on Amricans really did suck. I perfer 8% unemployment and lies and coverups when Ambassadors or border agents get killed due to Federal government incompentence.

Re:Boston Already?

[sunderland56]

TFA didn't say "Debut with an American carrier", it said "US Debut".

Of course, since it is made here, it has been flying in the USA for years - but they ignore that fact as well.

New feature

[freeasinrealale]

But do the windows open?

Re:New feature

[ArcadeMan]

You can't open Windows because the 787 runs on Linux.

Did I miss something?

[Russ1642]

Getting a bit of deja vu here. Looks like they'll be counting it as a first everytime this plane takes off. First for an American carrier, first time at night, first time with a special guest aboard, first flight with ground fog, etc.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing the point...the story here is that a US carrier can finally afford a new airplane.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Hadlock]

First American carrier to use an american-built plane made mostly of composite materials.
 
Don't get me wrong, Carbon Fiber is absurdly strong, and computer models help negate design flaws.... but CF's failure mode tends to be sudden and...explosive. Steel bends long before it breaks, and Aluminum is somewhere in the middle, but CF just.... goes when it fails. I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Re:Did I miss something?

[fustakrakich]

Aluminum had a long history of catastrophic failures for many years. Carbon fiber is off to a pretty good start. Flying is amazingly safe right now. Pilot error is the remaining concern at this point.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Amorymeltzer]

They do the same thing on TV. "World premier of MOVIE", "US premier of MOVIE", "Network premier", "Cable premier", "Season premier", and so on.

Re:Did I miss something?

[interval1066]

Aluminum has nothing on Cf for strength and lightness though.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are getting old.

Modern engineering simulation using non-linear finite element software with appropriate calibrated fracture and failure material models can model the deformation and stresses accurately. When the structure is overloaded, the software can model the delamination of the individual plies, the damage that occurs and the residual strength and performance of the structure.

Disclaimer: I used to work for the company that writes the software that Boeing uses.

Re:Did I miss something?

[rossdee]

"a US carrier can finally afford a new airplane."

Really? The Nomitz class carriers have been getting new versions of strike aircraft on a regular basis and soon they will be getting the naval version of the F35
(Unless we go 'off the cliff' of course

Re:Did I miss something?

[Hadlock]

Ah, Anonymous Coward, we meet again! This is where I link to two very amusing CF stress test videos
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrjId0-K-Ts
 
Hooray for science and/or standardized testing based on Real Science.
 
On that first video, skip ahead to the 5 minute mark where they're just beating the frame against a concrete wall/corner.

Re:Did I miss something?

[localman57]

I really wish you software types would refrain from commenting on real science.

Why? I deal with terrible code written by science types all the time. Payback's a bitch.

Re:Did I miss something?

[iRommel]

FTFY Nimitz.

Re:Did I miss something?

[mosb1000]

I don't think you appreciate just how bad aluminum's failure mode is. It's not like an airplane crashes and gets a few dents. It's usually torn apart into hundreds of pieces. There's no way carbon fiber could be worse, because structural failures are always catastrophic anyway. However, carbon fiber is less susceptible to fatigue, so it's less likely to fail in the first place. The point goes to carbon fiber. If we ever find a way to make these composites as cheaply as stamped metal, we'll probably make all our vehicles (and a lot of other things) from them.

Re:Did I miss something?

[toolie]

I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.

That concern came up ages ago when the 787 being mostly Carbon-Fiber was announced, people were worried about Boeing's 'lack of experience' with it. Boeing revealed that it had at least one aircraft with a US carrier that had a carbon fiber vertical on it so they could get experience.

Re:Did I miss something?

[PPH]

I think the engineers at Boeing know how to account for CF's strength characteristics in their structural design.

I just wish they had consulted with the electrical design group about using a structural material that can melt/burn when the electrical folks deleted the differential bus protection that clears arcing faults.

Oh, and how do you repair the stuff when someone runs into it with a forklift? I mean in some third world country where all they have is a pop rivet gun and some scrap aluminum.

Re:Did I miss something?

[imsabbel]

ACtually, the difference is less than you think. 10-15%, to be exact. Modern airlines do not use plain aluminium. Most recently, Alumnium-Magnesium-Lithium alloys have been introduced, for example

Re:Did I miss something?

[JimBobJoe]

The FAA required a few tests specific to the 787 and its structure. I seem to recall a test where they took a fuselage and dropped it from a particular height to see how well it would deal with such a drop.

My recollection is that the FAA said that the test was passed. Not much information is available on it since they wanted to keep the information a trade secret.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Smallpond]

also the latest oxymoron "midseason premiere"

Re:Did I miss something?

[fnj]

You make it sound like engineers are clueless of a concept called "elastic limit", and that boeing's people are so inept at nonlinear structural analysis to be completely oblivious to how to design structures to work safely in elastic limits.

Strange you should put it that way, since CFRP has essentially no plastic deformation at all. It's all elastic. The yield strength, or elastic limit, is essentially the same as the ultimate strength.

Re:Did I miss something?

[fnj]

It's not nearly as simple as that. Yes, structural failure in general is often catastrophic, but material failure doesn't have to be with. Ever hear of cracks being found in metal structures? That material has failed locally, but it takes time for those cracks to propagate and eventually cause the structure to fail catastrophically. That's because metals including aluminum have a property called "toughness". Toughness is the ability to deform plastically in regions of local stress concentration, redistributing stress so that the entire structure doesn't progressively rupture. Cracks are found and repaired all the time, and the airframe goes on to have a long life.

CFRP has practically no plastic deformation. Everything looks just fine right up to the ultimate limit, and then there is an sudden explosive failure.

It's not what the structure looks like after a crash. Who cares what it looks like after the thing is totaled and everybody inside has been rent asunder or burned to a crisp? It's what the structure looks like after it has been through some rough and tumble use. If metal has been stressed near the breaking point, there will be evidence of it. CFRP, not so much. So you better hope every nook and cranny of the CFRP structure is amply strong, because if you've been coming within a gnat's eyelash of ultimate strength repeatedly, you'll never see it.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Kupfernigk]

Assuming the forklift causes damage, the answer is that you send out a technician with the proper equipment, and they make a patch good enough to get the aircraft back for a fully assessed repair. Unlike steel or aluminum, the repair process itself does not affect surrounding material. Welding steel or aluminum is a real problem when the metal has been heat treated - as are almost all aircraft alloys.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Alioth]

Planes aren't ever made from steel (too heavy). Aluminium bends for a while then goes with a very loud bang. (See the video of the 777 wing test). CF also bends for a while and eventually goes bang.

Gliders have been made out of composites for decades now, they have to be very strong and very light. Watch a 30m span glider in flight and see how the wing bends. The 787 head on looks very glider like with the graceful curve to the wings as they take the load.

Re:Did I miss something?

[khallow]

Oh, and thanks for cancelling the SSC, Texans.

Please stop playing stupid on the internet. The SSC was just burning money. Canceling it was a great thing for US science (and everything else except the graft and corruption industry).

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

10%-15% would be huge for an airlines though. They're not going to go for stronger, just lighter for the same strength. That means much less fuel to carry, which also means less fuel to carry that fuel, and so on. They can also use any extra strength and lower weight to build larger planes with more passengers. Both ways your ticket price goes down.

Re:Did I miss something?

[LateArthurDent]

First American carrier to use an american-built plane made mostly of composite materials.

Don't get me wrong, Carbon Fiber is absurdly strong, and computer models help negate design flaws.... but CF's failure mode tends to be sudden and...explosive. Steel bends long before it breaks, and Aluminum is somewhere in the middle, but CF just.... goes when it fails. I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Well, they do test these things, with built prototypes, not just computer models. For every plane Boeing builds, they do a wing break test where they bend the wings until they break. The wings on the 787 could be bent more than the wings on any of their aluminum built frames.

787's wing break test and regular wing testing.

Re:Did I miss something?

[bossk538]

Absolute fucking bullshit.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Knoman]

You are assuming the forklift driver reports the damage, and risks his 10 peso a day job! Let's say he just "bumps" the side of the fuselage, no visible damage,no report!, micro-cracks form and allow moist warm air into the cracks which turns to ice at 35.000 ft , the ice expands causing delamination and a "pocket" to form, after 20-50 cycles structural strength is compromised, all of which is still NOT visible to the naked eye! When it becomes a catastrophic failure over an Atlantic or Pacific route there will be no clue about what happened to Aeroperú Flight 603! (name chosen to illustrate problems caused by 3rd world Maintenance!) Someone earlier stated CF/CREP is easier to repair, bullshit! First, you need NDI / X-ray to even tell the extent of the damage! Second, you have to scarf back beyond the damaged area both beneath it and to the sides, Third, you have to re-lay every ply you have removed along with attention to the orientation of the plys removed, each and every layer has to be "cooked" in place WHILE under Vacuum until that ply is cured! Estimate 8-12 hours PER ply depending on how deep the damage goes and how far across! This means that the Aircraft is out of revenue-producing service for up to or over a week!!! Meanwhile an Aluminum aircraft with a similar dent or crack can be repaired and back into service in under 8-12 hours! Look up American Airlines Flight 587 to see what happens when a CF/GREP tail is overstressed! I'm certain that eventually I'll have to fly on a "Plastic" plane, but I won't like it and I'll be insured to the hilt!!!

Re:Did I miss something?

[khallow]

How big a factor over budget was this project again? Almost a factor of three by the time it was canceled and construction had been underway for a short while. And these sorts of huge science projects are always way over budget in the US.

Re:Did I miss something?

[timeOday]

One other fact that usually gets tossed into this discussion is that military aircraft have been pushing the envelope in using composites for decades. (Whether comparable in application or duty cycle I do not know).

Re:Did I miss something?

[PPH]

You rivet a doubler plate to the back of the damaged section. Or ship out a new panel and replace the damaged one. Again with rivets. Aircraft skins are rarely welded.

Re:Did I miss something?

[toolie]

American Airlines used fork lifts to perform routine maintenance on DC-10 engines despite being told not to by McDonnell Douglas. Well, they did until one of 'em fell off during takeoff.

The issue wasn't that they used forklifts for the engine repair. The problem was that against policy the driver left the forklift holding the engine with it only partially attached because of a shift change. The forklift lost a bit of hydraulic pressure causing the engine to shift and put strain on the pylon. MD didn't care about using a forklift, they cared about leaving an engine partially attached if an unattended forklift lost some pressure.

Re:Did I miss something?

[silly_sysiphus]

Dassault?

Re:Did I miss something?

[GumphMaster]

There's no way carbon fiber could be worse, ...

In terms of the outcome of a high speed impact on passengers and aircraft, no, I guess not. In terms what happens when that composite material catches fire pre- or post-impact and the resulting toxic brew of gas and fibres that survivors, rescuers, and investigators will breathe in or handle, I'm not so sure. I hope we do not find out.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Aviation Pete]

First American carrier to use an american-built plane made mostly of composite materials. Don't get me wrong, Carbon Fiber is absurdly strong, and computer models help negate design flaws.... but CF's failure mode tends to be sudden and...explosive. Steel bends long before it breaks, and Aluminum is somewhere in the middle, but CF just.... goes when it fails. I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.

The true beauty of carbon fiber is the behavior in repeated cyclic loads. Cracks in aluminum grow at even the lowest stress levels, reducing the total strength of the part over time, but in CF the cracks do not grow at all. Think of the many fibers as multiple redundant load paths - this makes CF extremely safe if you stay below the maximum possible stress. And reduces the insane inspection overhead which the use of aluminum incurs.

Your aluminum part will have long snapped due to fatigue when that oh so nasty CF failure occurs eventually.

Re:Did I miss something?

[toolie]

The FAA required a few tests specific to the 787 and its structure. I seem to recall a test where they took a fuselage and dropped it from a particular height to see how well it would deal with such a drop.

Drop tests are fairly common, you do them on fuel bladders, you do them on airframes. A new airframe requiring a drop test isn't anything special at all.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Hadlock]

Alternately, a visual inspection is impossible to see any cracks except those on the surface (without specialized x-ray equipment). Second, these are giant parts that must be baked at high temperatures. While I'm sure they're quite good at it, the total number of commercial jetliners flying around using this technology is under a thousand - problems in the construction can crop up over time. As I said, this is the first model. I'm sure the second, and particularly third family of jets will be particularly safe and well designed - for exactly the reasons you pointed out.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Waccoon]

Just yesterday, I saw a crash video of a supercar made mostly from CF. The engineers said that the CF was actually reinforced with titanium fibers that allow the CF to deform and bend without breaking, as demonstrated in the crash footage.

Very, very impressive, and I assume that while your typical sedan won't be made out of that material any time soon, an aircraft can afford to be made out of similar stuff.

Re:Did I miss something?

[RandomFactor]

Well, that and Canadian Geese... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-geese-caused-plane-to-ditch-in-hudson-1419202.html

Re:Did I miss something?

[darkmeridian]

Carbon fiber is new for passenger jets but it has been extensively used in the latest generation of fighter jets. Boeing submitted the YF-23 as an unsuccessful bid for the USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter Program, which was built substantially from carbon fibers. Of all the problems with the F-22 (another carbon fiber airplane), none have been with the carbon fiber exploding.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Legion303]

"Both ways your ticket price goes down."

That's so adorable!

Re:Did I miss something?

[bossk538]

Great idea, asshole. Just let's eliminate all big science projects in America. They do nothing but the Devil's work and lead people into heresies like evolution and the big bang. BTW, I know personally a number of scientists, engineers, and administrators who worked on the SSC; the slimy innuendos you made in your first post couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

Re:Did I miss something?

[drinkypoo]

Disclaimer: I used to work for the company that writes the software that Boeing uses.

I am not all that sanguine about the software that Boeing uses being developed by people who are anonymous and cowardly.

Re:Did I miss something?

[khallow]

Great idea, asshole. Just let's eliminate all big science projects in America.

I didn't say we should eliminate big science projects. My view on that is that we should eliminate all public funding for big science projects. If you can't find private funding for your big science project, then it wasn't worth doing.

BTW, I know personally a number of scientists, engineers, and administrators who worked on the SSC; the slimy innuendos you made in your first post couldn't be farther from the truth.

They're bought. It's easy to look the other way and ignore the vast amounts squandered, when your livelihood depends on the con going through.

But that didn't kill the SSC. Poor execution did. All the SSC had to do to survive was stay close to budget and below the radar. Most of Congress didn't care. They get kickbacks and votes after all.

Ceiling Lighting

[Riddler Sensei]

Watching the "Passenger Experience" video it was almost obnoxious how much attention they kept giving the ceiling lighting, but looking at the different settings for the dynamic LED lighting it is actually pretty cool. I like that it not only changes the brightness but also the color of the cabin for things like meals and pre-landing.

Re:Ceiling Lighting

[Anonymous Coward]

They need every possible gimmick they can use. According to this, http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/news/airbus-vs-boeing-battle-for-air-space, the it cost 10billion to develop, while the airbus a380 was 13 billion, and only half the seats an airbus has.

They have a lot of orders pending though.

Still, I don't see why they're compared, since they're completely different classes.

@losers above, stop dissing aluminum

Re:Ceiling Lighting

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you have not ridden on a Boeing plane with this "Blue Sky Interior". It is horrid. They chose low frequency LED drivers - meaning the lights flicker when you move your head quickly. Very nauseating to those who notice it. (I build LED driver ICs so perhaps I'm more sensitive than most). Epic fail Boeing. Epic fail.

-AC for good reasons.

Re:Ceiling Lighting

[mosb1000]

Why do you think it should cost less to develop a smaller jumbo jet? Especially one using unconditional materials, bleed-less engines and so on. The 787 is Boeing's new flagship aircraft. Boeing doesn't expect to make a lot of money on each one, but by building a plane that's years ahead of what Airbus can produce, they're increasing the value of their brand. This is also a first step toward making their whole line more advanced. So releasing this plane is a tactical move, it's not intended to make them a lot of money right away.

Re:Ceiling Lighting

[Riddler Sensei]

Clearly you have not ridden on a Boeing plane with this "Blue Sky Interior".

Ah, well this I couldn't deny. Still, I suppose I like the idea so long as kinks such as you describe are sorted out.

Re:Ceiling Lighting

[Solandri]

The manufacturers don't control the seats - the airlines do. Both Boeing and Airbus try to choose cabin widths which maximize the width of each seat, while not quite providing enough room for the airlines to squeeze in an extra seat. But they can't do anything if an airline chooses to forgo 2-4-2 seating (8 across), shrinks the aisles and seat widths, and makes it 3-3-3 seating (9 across).

Re:Ceiling Lighting

[Pulzar]

but by building a plane that's years ahead of what Airbus can produce, they're increasing the value of their brand.

Yes, all of two years. Of course, A350 could run late, but that's the current plan -- late 2014.

Re:Ceiling Lighting

[mosb1000]

787s have been flying for two years already.

But it's still United

[magarity]

Did they upgrade the staff with all new attitudes and customer service skills? Otherwise I'd rather be on another carrier's older plane.

Re:But it's still United

[interval1066]

I'll take 100 old dc-11's with crotichity old men as stewards if they'd abolish the TSA.

Re:But it's still United

[Mikkeles]

Great; have the TSA on the aeroplane for full, in-flight molestation!

Re:But it's still United

[drinkypoo]

I'll take 100 old dc-11's with crotichity old men as stewards if they'd abolish the TSA.

The word you want is "crotchety". I read "crotichity" as "crotchity" which, of course, is what the TSA actually is.

make the flying experience 'revolutionary,'...

[fustakrakich]

You mean they have spacious seats, and the back of the plane is as quite as the front, and no more TSA?

Re:make the flying experience 'revolutionary,'...

[fustakrakich]

It's not nice to mock the disabled...

Re:make the flying experience 'revolutionary,'...

[mosb1000]

The new plane is quieter, and the cabin appears more open because of the larger windows.

Re:make the flying experience 'revolutionary,'...

[fustakrakich]

Larger windows for larger people

A more spacious cabin is nice, but let's not overdo it

Re:make the flying experience 'revolutionary,'...

[vikingpower]

Flying experience ???? Bullshit from marketing people, just like "drinking experience" with Coca-Cola. Bullshit.

There goes another "feature"

[OzPeter]

I always try to get a window as .. gasp .. I like looking out the window! But in a lot of US long haul domestic flights they "encourage" you to shut the window shades in the middle of the day. Generally you can "comply" with this by pulling the shade down 3/4 of the way and still give you some window to look out of. However with the Dreamliner's electronic dimming of the whole window you won't have a chance of balancing your desires with the cabin crew's requests.
 
And in a bit of conspiracy thinking, I wonder if the cabin crew has a master switch to force the windows to darken when they want - Hello Zaphod's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses!

Re:There goes another "feature"

[fustakrakich]

Well that stinks! I fly for the view. I don't want to have to stare at some stupid monitor that the pilot can shut down. I guess the next generation of planes won't bother with windows, as the structure needed for them only adds weight. Yuck!

Re:There goes another "feature"

[OzPeter]

Are they afraid you might go blind from the sun or something?

Its so the passengers can better enjoy the in-flight entertainment. Especially on planes that don't have seat back monitors.

Re:There goes another "feature"

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually work for the company that manufactures the windows (Gentex) and I only have a little experience working with the windows, but I do know that there is a master control for the dimming level. Also, there are 5 different dimming levels so it's not just full dark and full clear. I think with the master control there is also the ability to limit the selectable dimming levels. So the flight attendants or whoever gets to control it could require you to set it to at least dimming level 3 and you'd still be able to look out of the window.

Re:There goes another "feature"

[rubycodez]

back when I was younger the in-flight entertainment was called "the mile-high club"

Re:There goes another "feature"

[OzPeter]

Have some consideration if 90% of the rest of the passengers are asleep, even if it is daytime outside.

This boils down to "why my needs and desires trump your needs and desires". So who are you to pass judgement in your favour as opposed to your window seat neighbour?

Re:There goes another "feature"

[OzPeter]

I saw that there were multiple levels of dimness. But if I want to look out a dimmed window I'd wear sunglasses!
 
However my conspiracy theory was more aimed at the cabin crew forcing the shades down prior to the impending doom of the aircraft in order to reduce panic.

Re:There goes another "feature"

[rally2xs]

Aw, they should just make the planes without windows, so we can all have claustrophobia attacks all the way from DC to Sydney, Austrailia. No need to look out the window when someone wants to sleep in the daytime, anyway.

Re:There goes another "feature"

[rally2xs]

And this is the sort of nonsense that makes mass transit of any sort the largest PITA on the planet. I've given up flying completely because of the TSA nonsense, which incidentally is 100% unconstitutional, and drive everywhere I go. The irritants to flying are endless: Paying to park in a lot that is still a 10 minute bus ride from the terminal, overpriced everything in the terminal, having to do a mini-marathon to get between planes on a connecting flight, lost bags, bags pilfered by TSA, never being 100% sure you can take this or that on the plane because the TSA doesn't really follow the website, having the things you pack in bubble wrap 'cuz they're fragile unwrapped by TSA so maybe they break and maybe they don't, tiny airline seats, no legroom, having to arrive 2 hours before the plane, "gotcha" pricing for everthing such as bags, overweight bags, oversize bags, and the 50 lb limit on the bags that used to be 70 - I have trouble with that 'cuz some of my equipment uses heavy batteries. 45 minute waits to get bags at the carousel, and then maybe 45 minutes to rent a car including another 10 minute ride to the rental car off-site office. Expensive airline tickets that I can often beat in terms of gasoline and motels, even without having a passenger sharing expenses.

Get the D TSA out of the formula and I _might_ get back on airplanes, but nonsense like this doesn't help.

Re:There goes another "feature"

[mosb1000]

I'm not sure you've thought this through. The dimming windows give you move control over the light level, not less. It's not an on or off setting. As with anything, you should really try it before you decide it's terrible.

Re:There goes another "feature"

[Anonymous Coward]

I am generally considerate, but on a flight from the US to Asia the flight map showed we were passing over Siberia. This brought up images of Dr. Zhivago and passages from Solzhenitsyn, so I had to sneak a peek. I was greeted by desolate snow-swept peaks (enjoyed from my comfy seat in a room temperature cabin). After several minutes the glare was too much, so I returned to the gloom of the shuttered cabin. I didn't see a single other person open a window, kind of sad really, passing over regions I certainly never thought I would get to, and not even bothering to look.

Re:There goes another "feature"

[rubycodez]

you are more embarrased to have sex in front of "them" (assuming you are right) moreso than taking a shit or piss or jacking off? if you're going to be on camera in there may as well have some great fun....

Re:There goes another "feature"

[fustakrakich]

If you want darkness, wear this

If you want silence wear these

In fact, get both

But don't tell me I can't look out the window

Re:There goes another "feature"

[mosb1000]

I've had plenty of flight attendants ask me to close my shade when it was only open a crack. With the shade, the light is always at full brightness, so they have to tell you to close them so that others can sleep. This way, they can dim the windows to a lower setting, but you'll still be able to see out of them. It'll also be a lot easer on your eyes, since you won't have to stare into the blinding light from a dark cabin. This gives both you and the flight attendant more control.

Re:There goes another "feature"

[mosb1000]

Here's what the Boeing website says about the flight attendant's control:

Even with the overall cabin lighting completely dimmed, passengers will be able to enjoy the view through a deeply tinted window-without disturbing others who may be sleeping or watching a movie.

This is a better solution than having attendants going from passenger to passenger asking them to close their windows. Everyone can get what they want this way.

Re:There goes another "feature"

[AmiMoJo]

And in a bit of conspiracy thinking, I wonder if the cabin crew has a master switch to force the windows to darken when they want - Hello Zaphod's Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses!

They always tell you to open the shades fully when taking off or landing because the cabin lights may fail and you need to see outside in the event of an accident. If anything the master switch would be for forcing them to fully transparent.

Re:There goes another "feature"

[Solandri]

Since you work for the company that makes the windows, a question: Is there a failsafe to turn the windows to clear in an emergency? In an accident, there's typically a fire on just one side, or only forward or only aft. With physical shades, there are usually enough shades open to quickly determine from inside if/where there's a fire outside. Are there safeguards in place to make sure there's never a situation where there's an accident, a fire outside, and nobody inside can see where the fire is because all the windows are stuck on full dark?

Re:There goes another "feature"

[Skater]

If there's impending doom, why does it matter that there's panic?

Re:There goes another "feature"

[trooper9]

There is a knob just under the window. You can "undim" them. Don't panic.

Re:Flash much?

[interval1066]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787

Go Boeing!

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Seattle. Everytime I hear someone complain that nothing is made in the USA I think - are you kidding, look up in the sky those planes were made right here.

Re:Go Boeing!

[ColdWetDog]

I live in Seattle. Everytime I hear someone complain that nothing is made in the USA I think - are you kidding, look up in the sky those planes were made right here.

Sort of true (Boeing is huge and mostly in the US) - but in an effort to get international orders, YoYoDyne subcontracted the 787 to pretty much every country with an airport. That was one of the reasons that it fell so far behind (the other being that Boeing, like everyone else, can't hit a release target to save it's life). It became hugely difficult to monitor and integrate suppliers from damned near everywhere.

Sort of sounds like the Space Shuttle writ large.

Odd priorities

[BenEnglishAtHome]

From TFA:

It features passenger comforts such as bigger windows, larger overhead bins and better ventilation.

Really? Those are the "passenger comforts" so significant they get a mention?

How about they just make the seats (ALL the seats) wide enough for normal Americans to sit comfortably without feeling they are intruding on the personal space of others?

I'd happily fly in slow, noisy, propeller-driven planes fired by coal if they'd just give us enough room to be comfortable on a long flight.

Re:Odd priorities

[mosb1000]

It's called "first class."

Re:Odd priorities

[K. S. Kyosuke]

How about they just make the seats (ALL the seats) wide enough for normal Americans to sit comfortably without feeling they are intruding on the personal space of others?

Perhaps Boeing figures that the international market is larger than the domestic one and that it would be cheaper to make normal Americans narrow enough to fit in the international airplane seats. :-) *ducks*

I'd happily fly in slow, noisy, propeller-driven planes fired by coal if they'd just give us enough room to be comfortable on a long flight.

There are such planes, only they fly at a really low altitudes and tend to crash into icebergs. But otherwise there is plenty of room in them.

Re:Odd priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Airplane manufacturers don't control seat width; the airlines are the ones who define that. The 787 is wider than other airplanes in its size class and Boeing had intended for that to be reflected in the seats. Instead, airlines chose to cram in two more passengers per row.

Re:Odd priorities

[demonlapin]

Unless you're very overweight, the span of your shoulders is the widest part of the human body. There's only so much that can be accomplished when seats are made narrower than the average shoulder width, and seat pitch is so short that even modestly tall people (I'm 6'0") have their knees touching the seat in front of them even when seats are upright and fully locked.

Business/first is an option, of course, but it's not available on the regional jets that have made such huge inroads in American air transport.

Re:Odd priorities

[antifoidulus]

That's sort of accurate, the manufacturers offer a couple of different seat configurations of which the airlines can choose one, but it's not like the airlines can just arbitrarily cram seats in there.

Processing delays?

[Waffle Iron]

It turns out there was some poor guy at United Airlines refreshing this web page for months:

Tracking results for order 18293387382484758342093837439382:
  Seattle, WA 2012-07-02 13:43:23 In Transit.
  The item has left the seller's facility.
  Estimated delivery time: NA
  No further information available, please check again later.

What's worse, when the plane finally arrived, it was packed in a giant welded plastic clamshell. It took two weeks for a crew at the airline to extract the aircraft without damaging it.

Re:Processing delays?

[6Yankee]

What's worse, when the plane finally arrived, it was packed in a giant welded plastic clamshell. It took two weeks for a crew at the airline to extract the aircraft without damaging it.

Unfortunately for them, they soon discovered that the giant welded plastic clamshell was the aircraft....

That doesn't really show anything.

[raehl]

SWA may do fine as a business, but it doesn't do any better than other US carriers in terms of product or value for the customer.

If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because more bonus money for executives is more important than the notion of anybody wanting to work an honest living earning a decent wage. When did a strong middle-class become the bad guy? It seems to me that you poor-but-aspiring and middle-class have a case of Stockholm syndrome, identifying with your capitalist captors as a survival technique. Well, you've already lost the battle. Go back to your Foxconn dormitory.

Hey, maybe if I repeatedly vote against my best interests, I too can be rich someday. A rich guy in a suit told me so on T.V!

Oh, and fuck you.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

>not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.

That's a bizarre non sequitur. How does that keep foreign carriers from getting into a race to the bottom like we're seeing in the US? And why are you excluding the Europeans?

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[gomiam]

It's called cherry-picking: he only picks the data that support his hypothesis.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[LateArthurDent]

If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.

Except that if you compare US airlines to foreign airlines including Europe, they have far better "soft products" despite labor costs..

I remember taking a coach flight from Glasgow to London with British Airlines, and thought they had upgraded me to business class, based on how much space I had at my seats, and having only experienced flight in the US up until that point. They don't cram twice as many seats as there should be in their planes. Good service too.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[Eunuchswear]

Hey, Air France economy gives you free booze.

Which US airline does that?

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[dlevitan]

Except that if you compare US airlines to foreign airlines including Europe, they have far better "soft products" despite labor costs.

They may have better soft products, but that's because of increased costs. A similar ticket in the US costs 1/3 less than in Europe (e.g. LAX-SFO vs AMS-LHR). Want to fly cheaper in Europe? Then you get stuck with low cost carriers, who are efficient and make their money by stuffing more people into airplanes than anyone else (my knees are still complaining from an Iberia express flight a few days ago).

Moreover, in the US, if you fly a decent amount, you get status quickly. In Europe, it's several times harder (e.g. discount economy gives you only 1/2 miles and the number of miles you need is higher). I fly enough, and use United for every trip. I get a lot of small perks, including more legroom, priority security, etc... And I don't pay much more than the low cost carriers in Europe. So, for me, US carriers are much better than elsewhere.

Now, if you have the opportunity to fly on a legacy from Europe, or, particularly, from Asia, then that will be much nicer. But you'll pay for it.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[LateArthurDent]

A similar ticket in the US costs 1/3 less than in Europe

Really? Because I just compared ticket prices in expedia (round-trip, weekend trip, a few months out (February).

Cheapest flight from LA to San Francisco (distance 347 miles): $177, United Airlines, which I can attest has crappy service.

Cheapest flight from Glasgow to London (distance 343 miles): $166, British Airways, which I can attest has great service.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[R3d M3rcury]

I remember taking a coach flight from Glasgow to London with British Airlines [...]

Note that British Airlines is a Flag Carrier, so there are various subsidies for the airline. Same with Air France.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[Solandri]

United and Lufthansa are codeshare partners. One trip a few years ago, I was on a Lufthansa flight to Germany, and a United flight back to the U.S.

On the Lufthansa flight, the stewardesses were constantly roaming around the cabin. In addition to the two meal and drink services plus one hot towel service, they were passing out snacks, drink refills, drinking water and orange juice, magazines, toys, shuffling around pillows and blankets. It actually got annoying (I had an aisle seat), and people couldn't get to the lavatory without having to squeeze around one of them. But I really appreciated the work they were putting in.

On the United flight, we got two meal services, two drink services, and one hot towel service. That's it. Most of the 8 hour flight, the stewardesses were sitting in empty seats chatting with each other.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[Smauler]

Really? I thought they'd got rid of those a while back.

Note that lots of things have changed recently - Easyjet carried more UK passengers than BA last year, for example.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[mjwx]

SWA may do fine as a business, but it doesn't do any better than other US carriers in terms of product or value for the customer.

If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American business leadership.

There, fixed that for you.

But it could be worse, they could have an Irish CEO.

The idea that first world wages are the problem is preposterous. QANTAS (QF) for years was one of the mos profitable airlines in the world whilst paying Australian wages for pilots and ground staff. This changed when Alan Joyce came into power and started trying to get rid of Australian staff. QF posted it's first loss in decades this year, it all comes down to the incompetent leadership of Joyce and his arrogant campaign against his own staff.

Cheaper staff wont improve airline profitability if strategic direction is lacking. Another example from Australia, Strategic Airlines (later re-branded to Air Australia) used Turkish pilots and Asian flight attendants but went out of business due to a series of high profile failures (basically flights cancelled and passengers left stranded, a big no-no in hospitality). QF did the same thing when Joyce chose to shut down the airline last October, the difference between Strategic and QANTAS is that Strategic didn't plan it's failure, QF under Joyce shot themselves in the foot.

Like many Australians, I refuse to fly QANTAS (or it's subsidiary DeathStar, sorry, JetStar) until Joyce is replaced. Replacing CEO's does fix problems another example from Australia is Telstra, when David Theody replaced Solomon Trujilo as CEO the business improved even though the price remained uncompetitive (compared to Vodafone and Optus).

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[demachina]

I'm pretty sure America's completely out of control health insurance costs are a bigger problem than the unions. Most of the perks people miss were probably aced to pay the health insurance premiums.

Unions are a no win situation to argue either way. Not having them lets employers massively exploit workers. Having them allows lazy and incompetent people to massively exploit their employers and customers.

The U.S. has pretty much reached a magic zone where most of its corporations completely suck. so does most of its unions and work force, and so does nearly every politician. Chances are this is a mix that wont end well.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[Waccoon]

I think it has more to do with American culture. Take a look at bus travel, like Greyhound, and the conditions are the same. Horrible seats, overcrowded, lousy service, etc. Does the US bus industry have the same economic/labor/maintenance issues as the airline industry, or is that just the way that Americans tolerate transportation? Do we even have reasonable public transportation at all?

Americans are the people of personal transportation. We buy gigantic SUVs that get sub 20MPG to buy groceries because we can, and then demand to pay $5 for a seat on an airline.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[sr180]

Cheapest (full service - Qantas) flight from Adelaide to Melbourne 700kms (Australia): $140 (Meal + Newspaper + 1 free alcoholic drink + minimum 1000 FF points compared to BA's measly 125.)
Cheapest flight from Adelaide to Melbourne: $48.

US has it bad, very bad. Australians don't realise how bad flying is until we leave Australia.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[Matt]

Horizon Airlines, apparently even though Alaska Airlines assimilated them. I got a good winter seasonal beer on one of their flights a couple years ago.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[xaxa]

There's competition by rail for Glasgow - London, which probably helps keep the air fare competitive. I won't guess the proportions, but many people on those flights will be getting a connecting flight at Heathrow.

A cheap (I haven't tried to find the cheapest) one-way train fare on 15 January is a little under £30 (arriving at 16:30, so that's why it's cheap). Arriving around lunchtime is £40-50, so roughly the same as your flights.

The trip is 4h32m, and takes you from central Glasgow to central London (and with the walk to the street/metro being not much more than the length of the train, say 300m). Onward travel to an office shouldn't take more than 15 minutes, and will cost less than £2.

From the plane at Heathrow it will be a long walk (huge airport), then either £18 + £2 (20 minutes + 20 minutes), or £5-ish and about an hour. (Or you can take a taxi, but that's £70 and well over an hour.)

There are no security checks for the train (no ID, no x-ray) and you don't need to be at the station early, so long as you're on the train 1 minute before the departure time. Flexible train tickets are £120 (off-peak) and £160 (peak), which let you take any train without booking, and return on any train within the next 30 days. There's a train every hour.

(Hopefully they'll build the high-speed line from London via Birmingham and Manchester to Glasgow, which will reduce the journey times.)

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[Ed Avis]

I don't believe those airlines are subsidized directly by their respective governments. Certainly BA is a private company and is no longer particularly British (it merged with the also-privatized Iberia). It's true that national airlines or 'flag carriers' have often enjoyed special privileges, but those are usually of the kind which tend to *increase* ticket prices, not reduce them.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[thegarbz]

Wow really? I stopped flying BA when I could avoid it because of their uncomfortable planes and poor customer service. Your comment really doesn't sell American airliners well, and I'm glad not to be there.

If you want to experience a fantastic flying experience for a very cheap cost you should try flying JAL or Emirates. Lufthansa isn't bad either except their plane decor is stale and unwelcoming. The staff are nice though.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[Seeteufel]

I always though that was the rule, only the cheap airlines like Air Berlin don't. You don't pay for soft drinks on a flight.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[rioki]

What is with the 90 EUR (115 USD) cross Europe deal you get with Lufthansa? If you book in advance, you can almost always get that deal and they don't downgrade you in anyway. Sure it may be FRA - TLS or FRA - LHS, because they don't fly AMS-LHR, but I have never seen US airlines being cheaper; more like price parity.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[Eunuchswear]

Soft drinks? I said booze - wine, whisky and so on.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[cthulhu11]

When did a strong middle-class become the bad guy?

The same time that labor unions went from fighting abusive management practices to downright extortion.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[ChrisMaple]

The combined pay for the top 4 executives of Southwest Airlines is 0.026% of the total revenue, which is on the order of 3 cents per passenger per flight. Quite simply, it is not significant. It is swamped by airport fees, fuel costs, and flight crew wages.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[raehl]

Because more bonus money for executives is more important than the notion of anybody wanting to work an honest living earning a decent wage.

False dichotomy. Executive compensation is completely unrelated to front-line employee wages.

Now, had you said, "Because more profits for the shareholders is more important..." then you might have something.

The problem with unions in the airline industry is they drive costs up while simultaneously driving customer value down. My flights would be a lot more pleasant overall if underperforming employees could be fired more easily. But the unions protect them, which makes me, as a customer, not support airline employee unions.

My opinion would be different if unions paired better compensation with better performance.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[DigiTechGuy]

They don't cram twice as many seats as there should be in their planes.

Personally I'd be fine with standing room only for flights up to 6 hours or so, if it meant cheaper ticket prices. My preferences are fairly irrelevant though, as I won't fly anymore. I do not want to be harassed by the TSA and other government thugs to fly on a private airline. My business is between me and the airline I choose to pay for their service, not the government. For me it's drive or take a train (when possible), at least before they expand the TSA further into rail stations and hubs.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[hairyfish]

Australians don't realise how bad flying is until we leave Australia.

Unless you go to Asia. Scoot and Air Asia fly everywhere throughout Asia with equal or better service than Qantas or Virgin. My last trip Sydney to Singapore 6300kms (3900miles) was $300. The same flight on Qantas is about $900. Once there I could take flights pretty much anywhere for under $100.

Re:That doesn't really show anything.

[strikethree]

I can attest to United having crappy service and British Airways having very good (maybe not quite great but the people are awesome) service. Qatar Airways is another very good airline, especially first class (long story but I was absolutely drop dead impressed. Free medical services? Unheard of.).

I'd care more...

[fm6]

,.. if flying hadn't become such a nightmare. I remember how excited I was the first time I flew as a kid. The last time I flew, the seat put my arse to sleep, and the guy in the next seat kept elbowing me as he worked on a PP presentation. The restroom was this tiny compartment I couldn't even stand up straight in.

I avoid flying at all costs. I'll probably never board a 787.

Re:I'd care more...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just fly drunk, then you don't really care about all those minor problems.

Re:I'd care more...

[drinkypoo]

Get groped, fly in a kiddie seat. Or SCREEE SCREEE and take days on a slow, antique train. Or drive, and magnify your risk. Land of the free, home of the brave.

Re:I'd care more...

[fm6]

Meanwhile, them socialistic Europeans lounge on their fancy high-speed trains. So unfair.

Re:I'd care more...

[norminator]

I doubt the planes themselves have changed that much... When you were a kid, everything around you was bigger, and flying was more novel and planes seemed more *shiny*. Also, people probably didn't travel with laptops when you were a kid (depending on how long ago that was). Now that you're older/taller/fatter, you're more uncomfortable just about anywhere, especially in a tight space, and especially when you have to stay in one spot for hours at a time. Restrooms on planes depend a lot on the type of plane. Small planes have tiny restrooms that are extremely uncomfortable for sitting, standing, or anything else you might do in a bathroom. A 747 or 777, has much more comfortable bathrooms.

I remember being super-excited to fly as a kid, but my parents didn't seem to think it was nearly as amazing... they seemed to dread it. Now that I'm in my 30's and I fly 2-5 times per year (usually one trans-oceanic trip per year) there are a lot of parts I dread, but I still get a little bit excited about getting to the airport, seeing the planes, boarding (even if I do feel like a part of the herd in the process), and taking off/landing. There's something about a giant aluminum tube with wings lifting off the ground that still gives me a little thrill. Hopefully the 787 can take some of the edge off of the more uncomfortable parts of air travel.

Re:I'd care more...

[fm6]

I doubt the planes themselves have changed that much

Right, because I'm the only one complaining about the fact that planes have turned into cattle cars.

Re:I'd care more...

[isorox]

,.. if flying hadn't become such a nightmare. I remember how excited I was the first time I flew as a kid. The last time I flew, the seat put my arse to sleep, and the guy in the next seat kept elbowing me as he worked on a PP presentation. The restroom was this tiny compartment I couldn't even stand up straight in.

I avoid flying at all costs. I'll probably never board a 787.

You choose to fly coach. In the race for the bottom people at the back have sacrificed comfort.

TSA can't be helped

Re:I'd care more...

[fm6]

Right, I can't spare an extra $1000 for a business class ticket, and that means I want to be miserable. If I could pay a little extra and get a slightly more comfortable seat, I would. But I don't have that option.

Re:Boston Already?

[localman57]

Give the guys a break. They gotta sensationalize to sell ads. I mean, seriously, if they ran a story

757-300 makes 3,523,172th flight into Atlanta

Is anybody going to click it? No. And if they don't, how are you going to find out in the ad space on the side that Language Teachers Hate this guy that lived a Long Long time ago? You don't click it, CNN doesn't make bank. Pretty simple.

Carbon fiber

[Kupfernigk]

It is not absurdly strong. Unlike aluminum and alloy steel, composites do not have a fatigue life. The issue is not with elongation of the metal, but the cracking caused by repeated application of stress. This is why constant inspection is needed for metal aircraft around high stress areas. Composites, if protected from chemical and radiation attack, last virtually forever if they are operated within the defined stress envelope, while metals typically have a maximum fatigue life for any level of repetitive stress, including engine vibration as well as actual deformation doe to load.

I don't know exactly what Boeing use but I would assume it was carbon/aramid composite because aramids are better at energy absorbtion and do not have such a high Young's modulus, which is why modern boat hulls are made of aramid/epoxy composite with carbon fiber reinforcement to reduce deformation in areas that need stiffness.

As an example of the fatigue life of these composites, consider Ben Ainslie's boat in the last three Olympics. It has been the same one...before carbon/aramid, boats used for one Olympics had to be replaced because of the damage caused by the stresses. Yet the carbon/aramid hull is lighter.

Guess what I'm making my new boat hull out of?

Re:Carbon fiber

[styrotech]

As an example of the fatigue life of these composites, consider Ben Ainslie's boat in the last three Olympics. It has been the same one...before carbon/aramid, boats used for one Olympics had to be replaced because of the damage caused by the stresses. Yet the carbon/aramid hull is lighter.

Guess what I'm making my new boat hull out of?

Another great marine example is modern windsurfing gear. Nearly all boards and masts these days have a high carbon content, and now have the highest strength to weight ratios ever.

Early carbon gear (15-20yrs ago) was a quite fragile, but more experience and newer construction techniques mean it's very tough and more UV resistant now without getting any heavier. Breakages are not as common as they used to be - even for 6kg boards that regularly plummet from 40ft up with 80-90kg of rider standing on them.

Metal Fatigue

[mosb1000]

Those cracks you're describing are metal fatigue. They occur during normal aircraft operations(high-cycle fatigue), as well as when a structure is stressed beyond what the material is able to tolerate (low cycle fatigue). As you've noted, carbon fiber composites aren't susceptible to it. This is a huge benefit! It means that any structural damage will be visible. It means that structural damage is less likely to occur and the overall structure won't become weaker over time. It doesn't mean that the whole plane will explode whenever a part of it is damaged. You still need to apply more stress to the plane's structure than it was designed to handle in order to break it. Don't imagine that aluminum is not susceptible to this kind of failure simply because it will undergo plastic deformation before it breaks. If you put too much stress on an aluminum wing, it will break all the same.

First commercial flight?

[Pontiac]

I find this odd because last month there was one sitting at the terminal in Phoenix as we pulled in.
Our pilot was on the intercom telling everyone to look out the window at it.

Maybe it was on a test run and not a regular commercial flight.

Re:First commercial flight?

[91degrees]

Seems it's just the first commercial flight with an American operator.

Which doesn't strike me as a particularly important milestone, to be honest.

Reality check

[Mike_EE_U_of_I]

funny, I go with the lowest bidder for airlines based in other parts of the world and the food, beer & wine, entertainment and courteous service are included. the US airlines *could* do it if money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets

Right now, the aviation industry has a net loss for the lifetime of the industry. The stockholders certainly don't see any money, and they keep getting totally wiped out. Compare executive compensation of airline companies and other companies. Airline execs make far less on average than execs at companies of similar sizes. Who is left? Who are the "money-grubbing scum"?

Re:Reality check

[KingMotley]

Hmm... I'd have to go with stewardess's making ~$40k-$84k per year in salary as being pretty good before benefits. $84k is a lot of money for handing out drinks. Toss in some nice benefits like 12-15 days off per month (average), medical, dental, free travel for you and your family, big discounts on rental cars and hotels, per diem of $3k-$5k per year, tuition reimbursement, matching 401k, pensions, etc and it is a pretty sweet deal.

Of course, airline pilots making up to $200k per year and all the above is a pretty good deal too.

Re:Reality check

[jbwolfe]

You are grossly misinformed:

http://www.glassdoor.com/GD/Salary/United-Airlines-Flight-Attendant-Salaries-E683_D_KO16,32.htm?filter.experienceLevel=TEN_PLUS/

$84k:

try $48K at most.

12-15 days off per month (average):

not if you want that $48K: More like 10 days off...

free travel for you and your family:

There's never any "space available" for those pesky employees. It's nothing but an enormous waste of time to even try.

big discounts on rental cars and hotels

You get the same thing we do...

per diem of $3k-$5k per year:

What? Do you think dining on the road is cheap- you must not travel much. That doesn't even cover it. Take a look next time, most of them carry a cooler full of food with them.

tuition reimbursement, matching 401k:

YGTBSM. Maybe at Southwest, but even with them 401K's are the only retirement.

pensions:

GONE, GONE, GONE. After telling us to take MASSIVE paycuts to save them- tremendous bait and switch. We were totally suckered. Live and learn...

Of course, airline pilots making up to $200k per year and all the above is a pretty good deal too.:

IAAAP (I am an airline pilot) and I don't even make half that- after 17 years. From the devil itself:http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/06/16/pilot-pay-want-to-know-how-much-your-captain-earns/. Not everybody gets to be Captain, and it take years to make it. Oh yeah, they keep raising the retirement age: moving the line ever so further away...

Re:Reality check

[KingMotley]

Taken from YOUR links:

Southwest Airline Attendant: Up to $103k.

Guess, I was a little bit off, sorry.

Again, from YOUR link:

Their captains max out at a minimum of more than $200,000 a year.

Whoops. Guess I was spot on, although I listed the minimum for their top tier captains. They didn't list how high their maximum was.

Re:Reality check

[jbwolfe]

Southwest Airline Attendant: Up to $103k.

Their captains max out at a minimum of more than $200,000 a year.

So are we talking typical or upper end? Your post was of a general nature and makes it sound like all or most flight attendants and pilots are all rolling cigars with $50 notes. Yeah, Southwest employees are doing well- particularly those at the top end. And so is Southwest for that matter. Perhaps because Southwest treats their employees well or their management is more talented. The typical airline crew employee is not so fortunate, particularly at the contract carriers (feeders). The relevant statistic is the average- just as all CEOs aren't paid like John H. Hammergren. BTW, take a look at how much their management compensation compares to the rest of this industry: Airline CEO Compensation Roundup (dated, I know but things haven't changed all that much). Odd how my company wants to use Southwest as a benchmark for PRASM, CASM and other operating costs- EXCEPT when the cost of compensation of the employees is at hand. Then it's apples and oranges...

I'm on a personal campaign to educate anyone and everyone about the myths of pilot pay. Pilots are perceived as on the same level as doctors and lawyers, but that's not the case anymore. Please pardon my passion, and thanks for being civil- hard to find on slashdot these days...

Re:Reality check

[jbwolfe]

Odd, because my best friend from my college years and his wife seemed to have no problems. Sure, you may wait a couple hours for a flight, but they go everywhere. Free. It's pretty easy to find out which flights are booked solid and which aren't. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't. They don't care, they had a list of places they wanted to go, and they'd fly to one of them (whichever) was the least solid booked flight. Of course, they were with United out of Chicago, perhaps that makes it a bit easier since they have a ton of flights going everywhere.

My guess is they're young and childless. With kids in school, working wife, etc., it's nearly impossible to hit those popular destinations when we are all available. OTOH, if I don't care where or when, sure I can find some place to go- maybe even a nice place if it's off season. Flexibility is the key and I don't have enough to make pass travel an attractive benefit. BTW, I'm Chicago based too. Is your college friend a crew member? No names necessary, just curious.

My sympathies to you.

You're kind to offer sympathies. I was bitter, but have come to accept it. However, due to how they went about terminating my pension, I will forever mistrust them, and my sense of loyalty and desire to "pull on the same end of the rope" are significantly diminished. I have learned it's just business to them and they do not value employee morale in any way- just cogs in the wheel.

Re:Reality check

[KingMotley]

My guess is they're young and childless. With kids in school, working wife, etc., it's nearly impossible to hit those popular destinations when we are all available. OTOH, if I don't care where or when, sure I can find some place to go- maybe even a nice place if it's off season. Flexibility is the key and I don't have enough to make pass travel an attractive benefit. BTW, I'm Chicago based too. Is your college friend a crew member? No names necessary, just curious.

Yes, they were young and childless at the time. She worked as a flight attendant for a bit and transferred to food services. I haven't spoken to them in detail in years however.

You're kind to offer sympathies. I was bitter, but have come to accept it. However, due to how [pbs.org] they went about terminating my pension, I will forever mistrust them, and my sense of loyalty and desire to "pull on the same end of the rope" are significantly diminished. I have learned it's just business to them and they do not value employee morale in any way- just cogs in the wheel.

I've never been a fan of corporations having pensions and prefer the 401k route. Retirement funds should be unlinked from the company and untouchable. That said, while I do believe that there are companies that are being driven to near bankruptcy because of prior pension commitments, I also don't think it is fair that they wipe those out completely. It's neither fair to have a company go bankrupt (maybe it is actually) nor is it fair to take away what was promised to employees either. You may not have been depending on that pension to retire, but I'm sure there are others who have. All this just reinforces my beliefs that 401k plans are the appropriate way to go. At the very least, instead of wiping the pensions out, they should have coverted them over to 401k plans instead -- donating proportionally based on seniority etc. It's not perfect either, but it's much better than leaving people with nothing and still would have allowed the airlines to move forward with a fixed cost already behind them.

Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, etc.

[mark_reh]

All I want is some godammed leg and elbow room.

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[Phanatic1a]

No you don't. If that's all you wanted, you'd fly first class or business class and get it. What you want is more leg and elbow room and the same amount of money left in your wallet after you buy the ticket.

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[joe_frisch]

I wonder if the airlines will use the higher cabin pressure. The extra weight of the air will decrease fuel efficiency and increase operating costs (both direct and in aircraft pressurization lifetime).

You can easily get slightly more leg room, (but not more width), for modestly more money, and I do that. On United at least, if you want significantly more space, or better food, or electrical outlets, or in-seat video the price is very much higher (~10X) - much more than the extra aircraft interior space taken up by the large seat.

Airlines are of course free to sell their services at whatever price they want, but I'm not going to get excited (give them flying preference) for minor issues like exactly which model aircraft they are flying. From inside a 767, 777, 747, A330, A340 all are so similar that if you don't count seats its hard to tell which you are on.

As a frequent passenger, the 787 looks like a slightly more efficient 767 to me.

Sigh!

[CaptainZapp]

If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.

Citation needed..

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[serviscope_minor]

No you don't. If that's all you wanted, you'd fly first class or business class and get it.

Business class is VASTLY more expensive than standard class. I, for instance simply can't afford it.

Some airlines like BA offer economy+ or whatever they call it where you pay a bit more and get a bit more room. Guess what? I can afford that and I do pay!

Saying "oh clearly you don't want a bit more room because you're not prepared to pay 5x for a lot more room and different food" is reall, really silly.

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[thegarbz]

Then complain about United not Boeing. The planes get ordered with a specified number of seats and my experience with various airliners is that for completely identical planes (I fly in Boeing 777-300ERs quite often) there is a wide variety of different seat layouts.

International flights

[citygetaway]

Will there be any overseas flights to Europe? Thanks

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[mark_reh]

You have me there. I want more room and no more cost. I want to be treated like a human being.

Of course, the free market solves all problems in the most efficient manner, so only people with adequate net worth are worthy of being treated like humans. The rest of us are no different than cattle and deserve no better treatment.

Perhaps I should pull myself up by my bootstraps, start a small business (maybe I can borrow some money from my parents!), and who knows, with years of hard work and the success guaranteed by the free market, some day I too, may be able to fly first class, or, if I dream just a little bigger, maybe even travel between my homes and off-shore banks in my private jet. The only thing stopping me from achieving that dream is my laziness and sense of entitlement.

Gosh darn it, you've shown me the error of my thinking- I'm going to turn over a new leaf. Tomorrow I'll vote republican as the first step in my self-remake and I'll be on my way to untold wealth! I hope everyone will join me!

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[drinkypoo]

What about those of us who want to take a train, but can't because our government helped the auto and air companies take a shit on rail in order to sell cars and oil? I mean, we can take a train, but it's a pile of crap. We put our time, effort and money into supporting the least potentially economical options.

Re:Unions Killed GM

[ChrisMaple]

...under the self-dilusion that more and more...

Is that delusion or dilution?

Re:False

[ChrisMaple]

Airplanes like the 747 reach EOL when customers stop buying.

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[evilviper]

I'd be happy to pay more for extra arm and leg room, but not the billionaire tax for first-class fare. Business-class is often not available.

Passenger promos show a guy playing drumsticks?

[SomePoorSchmuck]

http://www.newairplane.com/welcome/

I'm looking forward to sitting next to the guy in Boeing's "Passenger Experience" video/stills wearing headphones with his drumsticks out. What, is he gonna be drumming on the armrests or something? Even if he's only playing "air drums" and not making noise, how totally obnoxious is that visual gonna be?

This old man
he played 4
he played knick-knack on the emergency exit door.
before the rest of the passengers beat the everloving crap out of him for bringing out drumsticks on a freaking plane ferchrissakes! Jeez!

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[ChrisMaple]

So you wish to return to the times when the government gave thousands of square miles of land to railroad companies?

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[PintoPiman]

Are you sure that trains are more viable? The US is pretty big. We have a lot of rail, but we use it for freight. We could use it for transport too, but we'd probably have to lay more (and better) track. That means buying land and building track. What land, and track where? Should we build up the route from Detroit to Pittsburgh? Would have made sense 40 years ago, but probably not today. California wants to build a route between SF (and Silicon Valley) and LA. That seems to make sense now, but will it make sense in 20 years if/when the rail is actually complete?

By comparison, say you wanted to increase the routes between SF and LA by air. You'd just fly more planes. Maybe SFO or LAX would need to build an extension to a terminal or add a parking garage, but the cost of that should be nothing compared with 500 miles of high-speed rail, right? You probably don't even need new runways - just run the route with larger planes.

Trains are awesome and they're obviously a major part of transit in high-density areas like NYC and most of Europe. Air travel has advantages though. You don't need to build jetways in the sky to add capacity. If you want to get from NYC to London or LA to Sydney, trains just don't seem like a good decision. Planes fly around mountains, but rail has to go (expensively) through them. Etc, etc.

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[ChrisMaple]

Air in the 787 weighs about 340 pounds at sea level, about 255 pounds with typical pressurization at altitude. That 85 pound difference isn't a big deal.

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[drinkypoo]

Nope, there's already railways, sometimes even with rail, and established right-of-ways. But I do take your point that there's room for abuse anywhere if we permit abuse.

Re:Who cares about carbon fiber, bigger windows, e

[strikethree]

No you don't. If that's all you wanted, you'd fly first class or business class and get it. What you want is more leg and elbow room and the same amount of money left in your wallet after you buy the ticket.

No. What I want is more leg and elbow room while paying a reasonably higher amount. Paying 8 to 10 times the original ticket cost for 2 more inches in all directions is patently absurd. The pricing model is all fucked up.