# Meeting my new love - The Boeing 777



## B757Guy

Well, after 12 years and almost 9800 hours of time in the 757/767, it's time to say goodbye... I'm moving up to the 777, and off to school and sim work in 2 weeks. Looking into possibly taking Amtrak to get to our training base, but so far that doesn't seem to be working out! 

This will be my third Boeing type rating, having started my career on the 737 some 24 years ago! I'll get some pics and share when able...


----------



## snvboy

Jackpot!


----------



## railiner

B757Guy said:


> Well, after 12 years and almost 9800 hours of time in the 757/767, it's time to say goodbye... I'm moving up to the 777, and off to school and sim work in 2 weeks. Looking into possibly taking Amtrak to get to our training base, but so far that doesn't seem to be working out!
> 
> This will be my third Boeing type rating, having started my career on the 737 some 24 years ago! I'll get some pics and share when able...


Wow...another airline pilot in our midst....Welcome to AU!!!

Very nice 'signature', too.... 

Edit...well I now see that you've been with us for a while, but welcome anyway, and congratulations on 'graduation' to Triple Seven's....


----------



## Bob Dylan

COOL!!!!


----------



## trainman74

Time to change the user name?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

B757Guy said:


> Meeting my new love - The Boeing 777


Um...



B757Guy said:


> I fondly recall GG1's zipping along the NEC, and sleeping in a slumbercoach on the Montrealer as a kid. I miss the old heritage cars, the GG1 and the original Budd Metroliners. The new equipment today simply doesn't have the same personality and elegance...


There is no disputing that the 777 has an impressive technical design and best-in-class operational record. It's one of the safest, most successful, and longest range commercial passenger aircraft ever built. But when I look at a 777 from the boarding gate I see very little personality or elegance. In fact it looks little different than a 767 on steroids. Which itself looks similar to a fattened up 737. I miss the days of L-1011's, DC-10's/MD-11's, and 727's in routine passenger service. The end of the 747 passenger era appears to be quickly approaching as well. The A340 line is already dead and if the A380 line continues its present course toward accelerated obsolescence it won't be long before we are stuck with legions of barely distinguishable twins employed in nearly every role and purpose. The original design for the 787 was actually kind of amazing. Unfortunately after it underwent manufacturing and maintenance standardizing revisions it looked just like any other twin.


----------



## railiner

Have to agree, but airliner's are designed for maximum efficiency, and not variety for the pleasure of us enthusiast's....

That said, there is still lot's of variety out there, and if nothing else, different color scheme's to enjoy..

When SST or HST or whatever finally reappears then we will see new variety...


----------



## jis

While I like the 777, the 787, the 350 and the 380, the 747 will always hold a very special place in my thoughts as will the 707. The latter because it was my first flight and in my opinion still is one of the sleekest looking jets specially in its later models.


----------



## B757Guy

Devil's Advocate said:


> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meeting my new love - The Boeing 777
> 
> 
> 
> Um...
> 
> 
> 
> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fondly recall GG1's zipping along the NEC, and sleeping in a slumbercoach on the Montrealer as a kid. I miss the old heritage cars, the GG1 and the original Budd Metroliners. The new equipment today simply doesn't have the same personality and elegance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no disputing that the 777 has an impressive technical design and best-in-class operational record. It's one of the safest, most successful, and longest range commercial passenger aircraft ever built. But when I look at a 777 from the boarding gate I see very little personality or elegance. In fact it looks little different than a 767 on steroids. Which itself looks similar to a fattened up 737. I miss the days of L-1011's, DC-10's/MD-11's, and 727's in routine passenger service. The end of the 747 passenger era appears to be quickly approaching as well. The A340 line is already dead and if the A380 line continues its present course toward accelerated obsolescence it won't be long before we are stuck with legions of barely distinguishable twins employed in nearly every role and purpose. The original design for the 787 was actually kind of amazing. Unfortunately after it underwent manufacturing and maintenance standardizing revisions it looked just like any other twin.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for pissing in my cheerios!  Although I am with you on the MD-11, it was a sweet plane, but an a squirrely beast to land at times! I've got 300 hours in the MD-11 as an FO, way back when, and while I loved it, it could be a challenge to land, especially in a crosswind.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> While I like the 777, the 787, the 350 and the 380, the 747 will always hold a very special place in my thoughts as will the 707. The latter because it was my first flight and in my opinion still is one of the sleekest looking jets specially in its later models.


Ditto! Still remember climbing the spiral staircase up to the Lounge in the 747!
My first real Jet Flight was in the 707 When the Friendly Skies really were Friendly!


----------



## railiner

Bob Dylan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I like the 777, the 787, the 350 and the 380, the 747 will always hold a very special place in my thoughts as will the 707. The latter because it was my first flight and in my opinion still is one of the sleekest looking jets specially in its later models.
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto! Still remember climbing the spiral staircase up to the Lounge in the 747!
> My first real Jet Flight was in the 707 When the Friendly Skies really were Friendly!
Click to expand...

Except that in the "Friendly Skies", you were more likely flying in a DC-8...  UAL did not operate B-707's (they did have the smaller and similar B-720's)...


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I like the 777, the 787, the 350 and the 380, the 747 will always hold a very special place in my thoughts as will the 707. The latter because it was my first flight and in my opinion still is one of the sleekest looking jets specially in its later models.
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto! Still remember climbing the spiral staircase up to the Lounge in the 747!
> My first real Jet Flight was in the 707 When the Friendly Skies really were Friendly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that in the "Friendly Skies", you were more likely flying in a DC-8...  UAL did not operate B-707's (they did have the smaller and similar B-720's)...
Click to expand...

Nope, it was a 707, I just used the Slogan as an example to recall the days when Airline Flying really was Fun!!!


----------



## jis

By the time I flew on United the first time DC-8s were on their very last leg at United. The last time I flew a 707 was before the 80s. Lots and lots of 727s back in the 80s and 90s though. And 737s and 320s of course.


----------



## railiner

My first airline flight, (courtesy of 'Uncle Sam'), was on a Braniff 707 on a one stop flight from JFK to San Antonio via Dallas Love Field.

Very memorable...especially the lovely "Stew's" that served us. 

Later, when I lived in Denver, UAL became my airline of choice. My favorite was the Super DC-8-61 and 63's....

Closest thing to being on a train, with those looong cabins


----------



## jis

The 757-300s remind me a bit of the DC 8-6xs.

On my fourth flight on a 707, an Air India 707 (Dhaulagiri) BOM - DEL we got hit by a lightning on the left wing, as we were taking off from Bombay Santa Cruz Airport in the middle of a torrential Monsoon downpour. That was quite memorable in and of itself.

My first flight on anything was on an Air India 707 (Lhotse) DEL - SVO - LHR. It was a rather uncommon route back in those days with a flight only on AI twice a week. The flight across the Hindu Kush over Afghanistan was spectacular. I even remember the routing from Delhi. It was Rawalpindi, Kabul, Termez, Tashkent, Aralsk, Moscow. The Soviets forced the flight on a very narrow predefined corridor, unlike today.


----------



## B757Guy

Cool fact, the DC8 with four P/W JTD3's created a total of 72,000 pounds of thrust. The 777 with 2 engines, generates almost 3X that, as 196,000 pounds of thrust.

It's not nearly as impressive in terms of size and performance, but I'm going to miss the 757/767 greatly. My last trip is this weekend, to Paris.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I honestly have no idea what aircraft my first flight was on. I was too young to notice and my family didn't keep track of such details. -_-



B757Guy said:


> Cool fact, the DC8 with four P/W JTD3's created a total of 72,000 pounds of thrust. The 777 with 2 engines, generates almost 3X that, as 196,000 pounds of thrust. It's not nearly as impressive in terms of size and performance, but I'm going to miss the 757/767 greatly. My last trip is this weekend, to Paris.


The 777 is amazingly powerful but it's also so big you don't really notice the speed from within the passenger cabin. The 757 always seemed to have a bit of a kick to it though. Out of the aircraft I've flown the only one that I can remember really pushing it during takeoff was an old NW DC-9. It was a small load, short flight, and late push. Felt like we were wheels up halfway down and 45% on the climb. That's probably way off from reality but it certainly felt like no other flight I'd ever experienced. I wish I could have seen what it looked like from ground level.


----------



## B757Guy

Devil's Advocate said:


> I honestly have no idea what aircraft my first flight was on. I was too young to notice and my family didn't keep track of such details. -_-
> 
> 
> 
> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool fact, the DC8 with four P/W JTD3's created a total of 72,000 pounds of thrust. The 777 with 2 engines, generates almost 3X that, as 196,000 pounds of thrust. It's not nearly as impressive in terms of size and performance, but I'm going to miss the 757/767 greatly. My last trip is this weekend, to Paris.
> 
> 
> 
> The 777 is amazingly powerful but it's also so big you don't really notice the speed from within the passenger cabin. The 757 always seemed to have a bit of a kick to it though. Out of the aircraft I've flown the only one that I can remember really pushing it during takeoff was an old NW DC-9. It was a small load, short flight, and late push. Felt like we were wheels up halfway down and 45% on the climb. That's probably way off from reality but it certainly felt like no other flight I'd ever experienced. I wish I could have seen what it looked like from ground level.
Click to expand...

Yep, the DC-9 was one heck of a climber, especially the Series 20 variant, which was often times called the DC-9 Sport. The 757 is a great climber too. I've had the opportunity to fly a few empties for re-positioning, and have gotten 4700 FPM and a 22 degree nose up pitch angle at times! It was a blast!


----------



## saxman

B757Guy said:


> Well, after 12 years and almost 9800 hours of time in the 757/767, it's time to say goodbye... I'm moving up to the 777, and off to school and sim work in 2 weeks. Looking into possibly taking Amtrak to get to our training base, but so far that doesn't seem to be working out!
> 
> This will be my third Boeing type rating, having started my career on the 737 some 24 years ago! I'll get some pics and share when able...


Nice. Hopefully I'll be joining the Boeing club shortly!


----------



## B757Guy

saxman said:


> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, after 12 years and almost 9800 hours of time in the 757/767, it's time to say goodbye... I'm moving up to the 777, and off to school and sim work in 2 weeks. Looking into possibly taking Amtrak to get to our training base, but so far that doesn't seem to be working out!
> 
> This will be my third Boeing type rating, having started my career on the 737 some 24 years ago! I'll get some pics and share when able...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice. Hopefully I'll be joining the Boeing club shortly!
Click to expand...

Nice! Let me know if I can help in any way!


----------



## railiner

Flew in and out of some neat places like Hayden, Eagle, Montrose, and Gunnison, Co.; and Jackson, Wy., on AA 757's. The pilots called them "Hot Rods".


----------



## Devil's Advocate

B757Guy said:


> Well thanks for pissing in my cheerios!  Although I am with you on the MD-11, it was a sweet plane, but [] a squirrely beast to land at times! I've got 300 hours in the MD-11 as an FO, way back when, and while I loved it, it could be a challenge to land, especially in a crosswind.


Sorry about that. ^_^ The honest truth is that I'm slightly envious of commercial pilots. You have a career that is more interesting and respected among laymen and is probably a lot more fun once you’re past the initial training/rating/proving stages. That being said, if I was a commercial pilot myself I’d probably be a lot more stressed and a lot more burned out on travel in general. The only DC-10's and MD-11's we receive now are from FedEx (freight) and UPS (maintenance). Once upon a time Northwest sent their DC-10's here for D-checks but that feels like ages ago now.



B757Guy said:


> Yep, the DC-9 was one heck of a climber, especially the Series 20 variant, which was often times called the DC-9 Sport. The 757 is a great climber too. I've had the opportunity to fly a few empties for re-positioning, and have gotten 4700 FPM and a 22 degree nose up pitch angle at times! It was a blast!


I'm not entirely sure which version it was. I always forget to check the door plate and prior to that flight I never would have assumed a DC-9 was anything special anyway. I suppose I could have asked the staff for details but that flight was shortly after 9-11 and people were getting really weird about anything that sounded like technical questions. Actually, they're almost as weird about it today as they were a decade ago. I thought about starting a log book to document my travels but then I thought about trying to explain such a thing to a flight attendant or TSA agent and I lost all interest.


----------



## B757Guy

No worries my friend, and thank you for the comments. I wouldn't worry about TSA or a flight attendant giving you grief over a logbook. I've had passengers that collect tail numbers literally come on board with binoculars to spot other planes while we taxi. That one did get a FA upset, but we worked it out with no issue.

Are you an A&P?? Work in aviation?


----------



## BCL

B757Guy said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meeting my new love - The Boeing 777
> 
> 
> 
> Um...
> 
> 
> 
> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fondly recall GG1's zipping along the NEC, and sleeping in a slumbercoach on the Montrealer as a kid. I miss the old heritage cars, the GG1 and the original Budd Metroliners. The new equipment today simply doesn't have the same personality and elegance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no disputing that the 777 has an impressive technical design and best-in-class operational record. It's one of the safest, most successful, and longest range commercial passenger aircraft ever built. But when I look at a 777 from the boarding gate I see very little personality or elegance. In fact it looks little different than a 767 on steroids. Which itself looks similar to a fattened up 737. I miss the days of L-1011's, DC-10's/MD-11's, and 727's in routine passenger service. The end of the 747 passenger era appears to be quickly approaching as well. The A340 line is already dead and if the A380 line continues its present course toward accelerated obsolescence it won't be long before we are stuck with legions of barely distinguishable twins employed in nearly every role and purpose. The original design for the 787 was actually kind of amazing. Unfortunately after it underwent manufacturing and maintenance standardizing revisions it looked just like any other twin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thanks for pissing in my cheerios!  Although I am with you on the MD-11, it was a sweet plane, but an a squirrely beast to land at times! I've got 300 hours in the MD-11 as an FO, way back when, and while I loved it, it could be a challenge to land, especially in a crosswind.
Click to expand...

The only time I've ever been in first class was on an MD-11. I do remember taking my kid to an airshow at an Air Force base where we did a tour of a KC-10 and my 3 year old kid got to be at the controls along with a photo with a pilot (who might have been younger than the plane). What was really odd was someone else touring the plane who claimed to be a flight attendant. She looked at the coffee maker and said it was the same as the kind she used on MD-11s and DC-10s.

Isn't getting rated for a 787 just a little bit more work once you're rated on the 777?

I guess the next thing you'll be working on is Airbus and getting used to stick controls.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

B757Guy said:


> No worries my friend, and thank you for the comments. I wouldn't worry about TSA or a flight attendant giving you grief over a logbook. I've had passengers that collect tail numbers literally come on board with binoculars to spot other planes while we taxi. That one did get a FA upset, but we worked it out with no issue. Are you an A&P?? Work in aviation?


My work has nothing to do with aviation of any sort unfortunately. When I say "we" I just mean the local airport (KSAT) and maintenance areas. My job is in technical support and sysadmin work. I just happen to find commercial flying and aircraft design/operation interesting topics. When I was a little boy I loved flying despite knowing next to nothing about how it actually worked. Over time my passion for flying dimmed and waned as other interests began to dominate my life. Many years later I got a job working in a building overlooking the airport and something about that experience rekindled my interest. I've been watching planes and following the industry ever since. There's a comedian named Bill Burr who talks about flying helicopters as a hobby on his podcast, and although I have no interest in helicopters he keeps reminding me that I need to look into a private pilot license before I get too old to make it happen.


----------



## B757Guy

Devil's Advocate said:


> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No worries my friend, and thank you for the comments. I wouldn't worry about TSA or a flight attendant giving you grief over a logbook. I've had passengers that collect tail numbers literally come on board with binoculars to spot other planes while we taxi. That one did get a FA upset, but we worked it out with no issue. Are you an A&P?? Work in aviation?
> 
> 
> 
> My work has nothing to do with aviation of any sort unfortunately. When I say "we" I just mean the local airport (KSAT) and maintenance areas. My job is in technical support and sysadmin work. I just happen to find commercial flying and aircraft design/operation interesting topics. When I was a little boy I loved flying despite knowing next to nothing about how it actually worked. Over time my passion for flying dimmed and waned as other interests began to dominate my life. Many years later I got a job working in a building overlooking the airport and something about that experience rekindled my interest. I've been watching planes and following the industry ever since. There's a comedian named Bill Burr who talks about flying helicopters as a hobby on his podcast, and although I have no interest in helicopters he keeps reminding me that I need to look into a private pilot license before I get too old to make it happen.
Click to expand...

I hope you do. If you were in NJ, I'd take you flying!


----------



## gswager

Interesting discussion! As far as I remember which airplanes I've flown- Lockheed 1011(?), 737, 757, 6 seat Cessna, sailplane (it's really awesome and I thought about taking class but never got a chance ), varieties of Bombadiers (Skywest), Folkiers (AA and Continental), 19 seat props by Mesa airline, another tiny prop by Horizon between Boise and Twin Falls, ID, 32 seat props (made in Brazil?) by Skywest prior being replaced by Bombadiers, and some more I can't remember. Oh, add one of Airbus fleet. It's like naming the cars and trucks over the years!


----------



## BCL

gswager said:


> Interesting discussion! As far as I remember which airplanes I've flown- Lockheed 1011(?), 737, 757, 6 seat Cessna, sailplane (it's really awesome and I thought about taking class but never got a chance ), varieties of Bombadiers (Skywest), Folkiers (AA and Continental), 19 seat props by Mesa airline, another tiny prop by Horizon between Boise and Twin Falls, ID, 32 seat props (made in Brazil?) by Skywest prior being replaced by Bombadiers, and some more I can't remember. Oh, add one of Airbus fleet. It's like naming the cars and trucks over the years!


No Embraers?


----------



## railiner

BCL said:


> The only time I've ever been in first class was on an MD-11. I do remember taking my kid to an airshow at an Air Force base where we did a tour of a KC-10 and my 3 year old kid got to be at the controls along with a photo with a pilot (who might have been younger than the plane). What was really odd was someone else touring the plane who claimed to be a flight attendant. She looked at the coffee maker and said it was the same as the kind she used on MD-11s and DC-10s.


I recall the Amfleet cafe's as having the exact same Grimes coffee makers as you'd see in most airliner galley's...not sure what they use nowadays....

As for KC-10's...I had a friend who retired flying them for the USAF, and then scored a job with UAL as a DC-10 simulator instructor at the old Stapleton Field in Denver. For years I teased him about taking me for a "flight" in one. Finally, just before he retired from UAL, he took me in after hours, and told me he could not operate the full motion, as it was too costly, but did let me do one IFR take off and landing from 35 Left, and back on 26 Left....

Let me tell you...even though it was just a simulator, and he talked me thru the whole 'flight'...I was sweating profusely like it was the real thing.....


----------



## BCL

railiner said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only time I've ever been in first class was on an MD-11. I do remember taking my kid to an airshow at an Air Force base where we did a tour of a KC-10 and my 3 year old kid got to be at the controls along with a photo with a pilot (who might have been younger than the plane). What was really odd was someone else touring the plane who claimed to be a flight attendant. She looked at the coffee maker and said it was the same as the kind she used on MD-11s and DC-10s.
> 
> 
> 
> I recall the Amfleet cafe's as having the exact same Grimes coffee makers as you'd see in most airliner galley's...not sure what they use nowadays....
> 
> As for KC-10's...I had a friend who retired flying them for the USAF, and then scored a job with UAL as a DC-10 simulator instructor at the old Stapleton Field in Denver. For years I teased him about taking me for a "flight" in one. Finally, just before he retired from UAL, he took me in after hours, and told me he could not operate the full motion, as it was too costly, but did let me do one IFR take off and landing from 35 Left, and back on 26 Left....
> 
> Let me tell you...even though it was just a simulator, and he talked me thru the whole 'flight'...I was sweating profusely like it was the real thing.....
Click to expand...

The coffee maker was of course this modular stainless steel box that slid into a slot in the galley. It was kind of old looking like it was designed in the 60s. And in the US Air Force they have uniformed personnel who are essentially just flight attendants. I've mostly heard of the VIP transports (like Air Force One and the ones used to transport Cabinet Secretaries and Congressional delegations) but I think even the tanker/transports get flight attendants since the passengers/crew still need to eat on long flights. The one we toured was set up at least 30 seats, although I think they can arrange seating as needed or even place seating in the entire cargo area if they need to move people.

I was taking photos so I didn't slide into the cockpit seats. That thing had all those ancient dials and switches everywhere. I'm not sure how flying a plane like that translates to a modern plane with a glass cockpit. I sat in the cockpit of a Civil Air Patrol Cessna 172, and that cockpit was more modern than the KC-10.

I did get to sit in at the refueling boom controls.


----------



## B757Guy

I flew the F-111 in the Air Force, and the variant I flew was still mostly analog. The conversion to MFD's and glass in the F16 was actually not that difficult, and a welcomed upgrade! I love the glass flightdeck we have in the 757/767, as it reduced our workload and allowed us better situational awareness. The 777 ups that another notch, which is fantastic. Still, I love flying my 1986 Beechcraft with it's steam gauges and HSI, but do use Foreflight on my iPad too!


----------



## jis

Some of the older planes that I have flown in back in the '60s included such famous types as the Caravelle, the Viscount, the Lockheed Super Constellation, the Lockheed Electra, the BAC-111, the Vickers Super VC-10. Somehow I missed getting on any of the Convairs. I guess my age is showing


----------



## ehbowen

Devil's Advocate said:


> When I was a little boy I loved flying despite knowing next to nothing about how it actually worked. Over time my passion for flying dimmed and waned as other interests began to dominate my life....he keeps reminding me that I need to look into a private pilot license before I get too old to make it happen.


Do it. I had wanted to learn to fly from childhood. Finally, at age 34, I started taking lessons at Fletcher Aviation while I had an HVAC maintenance job at KHOU. Get a paycheck, take a lesson. Took me exactly one year to earn my private ticket; I soloed and took my check ride in a Super Decathlon. My checkride prep was spins and recovery, under the hood, at night.

I was an active pilot for one year and was working on commercial and instrument tickets. The very next summer, the doctor put me on one of the FAA's prohibited medications and I lost my medical. I've been grounded ever since. Don't put it off.


----------



## gswager

BCL said:


> No Embraers?


That's it! It's Embraers. Thanks BCL!
Beechcraft is pretty comfortable props due to high head clearance in aisle.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Did you miss out on the joys of the Gooney Bird ( aka DC-3) also jis?

I flew alot on Braniff and TTA( we called it Tree Top Airlines!)when they still flew DC-3s and Convairs.

I also got to ride on the Concorde when Air France had a working agreement with Braniff, and flew Sub-Sonic from Dallas to Mexico City! Very uncomfortable plane due to the lack of room in the cabin!

My age is showing for sure!


----------



## jis

I have been in a Dakota (DC-3) but never flown in one.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

I'm taking an AA domestic 757 (75W) into New York next week. Only 8 of them left. Maybe it still has the old Eisenhower interior. I got a window seat, too.

Do you get common type rating with the 787 as well?


----------



## railiner

I went for a "fantrip" aboard PBA's famous DC-3, N136PB....at the time it held the world's record for highest time airliner..

I also had the extreme good fortune to fly on BA's Concorde from LHR to JFK....amazing that the world's fastest airliner still had "steam gauges" and a flight engineer. The bird that I flew on was G-BOAD...the one now on display at the Intrepid Sea Air and Space Museum.


----------



## B757Guy

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I'm taking an AA domestic 757 (75W) into New York next week. Only 8 of them left. Maybe it still has the old Eisenhower interior. I got a window seat, too.
> 
> Do you get common type rating with the 787 as well?


I believe in Europe it is a common type rating, but the FAA issues separate type ratings for both, here in the US, which appear on an Airman's Certificate.


----------



## BCL

B757Guy said:


> I flew the F-111 in the Air Force, and the variant I flew was still mostly analog. The conversion to MFD's and glass in the F16 was actually not that difficult, and a welcomed upgrade! I love the glass flightdeck we have in the 757/767, as it reduced our workload and allowed us better situational awareness. The 777 ups that another notch, which is fantastic. Still, I love flying my 1986 Beechcraft with it's steam gauges and HSI, but do use Foreflight on my iPad too!


All I remember about the F-111 was that the F-111B variant turned out to be a disaster.


----------



## Bob Dylan

BCL said:


> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I flew the F-111 in the Air Force, and the variant I flew was still mostly analog. The conversion to MFD's and glass in the F16 was actually not that difficult, and a welcomed upgrade! I love the glass flightdeck we have in the 757/767, as it reduced our workload and allowed us better situational awareness. The 777 ups that another notch, which is fantastic. Still, I love flying my 1986 Beechcraft with it's steam gauges and HSI, but do use Foreflight on my iPad too!
> 
> 
> 
> All I remember about the F-111 was that the F-111B variant turned out to be a disaster.
Click to expand...

My memories of the F-111 include the huge amount of money spent on it, ( for the times) The political horsetrading that LBJ and McNamara used to get it built in Fort Worth, and the Pilots that told me how much they hated flying it! YMMV


----------



## B757Guy

Bob Dylan said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I flew the F-111 in the Air Force, and the variant I flew was still mostly analog. The conversion to MFD's and glass in the F16 was actually not that difficult, and a welcomed upgrade! I love the glass flightdeck we have in the 757/767, as it reduced our workload and allowed us better situational awareness. The 777 ups that another notch, which is fantastic. Still, I love flying my 1986 Beechcraft with it's steam gauges and HSI, but do use Foreflight on my iPad too!
> 
> 
> 
> All I remember about the F-111 was that the F-111B variant turned out to be a disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My memories of the F-111 include the huge amount of money spent on it, ( for the times) The political horsetrading that LBJ and McNamara used to get it built in Fort Worth, and the Pilots that told me how much they hated flying it! YMMV
Click to expand...

I loved flying the F-111. It was always an exciting airplane to fly, especially flying very fast, very low to the ground. She was a good plane, and always got myself and my WSO home safe.


----------



## BCL

Bob Dylan said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I flew the F-111 in the Air Force, and the variant I flew was still mostly analog. The conversion to MFD's and glass in the F16 was actually not that difficult, and a welcomed upgrade! I love the glass flightdeck we have in the 757/767, as it reduced our workload and allowed us better situational awareness. The 777 ups that another notch, which is fantastic. Still, I love flying my 1986 Beechcraft with it's steam gauges and HSI, but do use Foreflight on my iPad too!
> 
> 
> 
> All I remember about the F-111 was that the F-111B variant turned out to be a disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My memories of the F-111 include the huge amount of money spent on it, ( for the times) The political horsetrading that LBJ and McNamara used to get it built in Fort Worth, and the Pilots that told me how much they hated flying it! YMMV
Click to expand...

It wasn't a dogfighter, which is why the US Navy didn't particularly want it. They apparently thought that they'd save money with a common platform, but I thought in the end it was really designed to USAF requirements and way too big to land on a carrier even though the F-111B was shortened. I don't know if the lessons were learned with the F-35 program. Strangely enough the F-35C is larger for more lift.







http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=23126

The F-14 turned out fairly well and that was from learning what went wrong.


----------



## Seaboard92

The first aircraft I have ever flown in was a LH A330-300. But I have flown in by now LH A380-800, A340-600, B737-600. A variety of operators for A319-A321, ERJ models, and a CRJ700. My most recent flight was a B737-900 for AS which was lovely.

I'm hoping to get on as a flight attendant with United in the next year. I'll take whichever airline offers but UA is a favorite of mine.


----------



## CCC1007

Seaboard92 said:


> The first aircraft I have ever flown in was a LH A330-300. But I have flown in by now LH A380-800, A340-600, B737-600. A variety of operators for A319-A321, ERJ models, and a CRJ700. My most recent flight was a B737-900 for AS which was lovely.
> 
> I'm hoping to get on as a flight attendant with United in the next year. I'll take whichever airline offers but UA is a favorite of mine.


Don't knock the regionals like SkyWest.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The vast majority of my flights were in boring 737's and MD-80's. I've never flown a B707, L-1011, DC-10, MD-11, Concorde, or any of the A34X series.

Here's what I have managed to fly though…

A300 Airbus A300-000

A319 Airbus A319-000

A320 Airbus A320-000

A321 Airbus A321-000

A330 Airbus A330-300

A388 Airbus A380-800

B727 Boeing B727-000

B732 Boeing B737-200

B733 Boeing B737-300

B735 Boeing B737-500

B737 Boeing B737-700

B738 Boeing B737-800

B739 Boeing B737-900

B742 Boeing B747-200

B743 Boeing B747-300

B744 Boeing B747-400

B752 Boeing B757-200

B753 Boeing B757-300

B763 Boeing B767-300

B764 Boeing B767-400

B772 Boeing B777-200

B772 Boeing B777-200ER

B77L Boeing B777-200LR

B773 Boeing B777-300

B77W Boeing B777-300ER

B788 Boeing B787-8

B789 Boeing B787-9

C200 Bombardier CRJ-200

C700 Bombardier CRJ-700

C900 Bombardier CRJ-900

DHC2 de Havilland DHC-2

DC-9 Douglas DC-9

E090 Embraer ERJ-090

E145 Embraer ERJ-145

E170 Embraer ERJ-170

E175 Embraer ERJ-175

MD81 McDonnell Douglas MD-81

MD82 McDonnell Douglas MD-82

MD83 McDonnell Douglas MD-83

MD87 McDonnell Douglas MD-87

MD88 McDonnell Douglas MD-88

MD90 McDonnell Douglas MD-90


----------



## jis

I started from the excellent list provided by DA and just edited a few things that I have been on in addition to those in, and edited a few out, to get to my list 

There may be a few errors, but it is more or less correct....

A300 Airbus A300-000

A319 Airbus A319-000

A320 Airbus A320-000

A321 Airbus A321-000

A330 Airbus A330-300

A342 Airbus A340-200

A345 Airbus A340-500

A388 Airbus A380-800

B703 Boeing B707-320

B704 Boeing B707-420

B721 Boeing B727-100

B722 Boeing B727-200

B731 Boeing B737-100

B732 Boeing B737-200

B733 Boeing B737-300

B735 Boeing B737-500

B737 Boeing B737-700

B738 Boeing B737-800

B73B Boeing B737-800BBJ

B739 Boeing B737-900

B739E Boeing B737-900ER

B741 Boeing B747-100

B742 Boeing B747-200

B743 Boeing B747-300

B744 Boeing B747-400

B752 Boeing B757-200 both RR and PW

B753 Boeing B757-300

B762 Boeing B767-200

B763 Boeing B767-300

B764 Boeing B767-400

B772 Boeing B777-200 A & B PW

B772 Boeing B777-200ER both GE, PW

B77L Boeing B777-200LR

B773 Boeing B777-300

B77W Boeing B777-300ER

B788 Boeing B787-8

B789 Boeing B787-9

C200 Bombardier CRJ-200

C700 Bombardier CRJ-700

C900 Bombardier CRJ-900

de Haviland Comet IV

DC-8 Douglas DC-8

DC-8-6 Douglas DC-8-6x

DC-9 Douglas DC-9

DC-101 Douglas DC-10-10

DC-103 Douglas DC-10-30

E090 Embraer ERJ-090

E145 Embraer ERJ-145

E170 Embraer ERJ-170

E175 Embraer ERJ-175

General Dynamics Convair 880

Hawker Siddeley HS-748

Lockheed Electra

Lockheed L-1011

Lockheed Super Constellation

MD11 McDonnell Douglas MD-11

MD87 McDonnell Douglas MD-87

MD88 McDonnell Douglas MD-88

MD90 McDonnell Douglas MD-90

Sud Aviation Caravelle

Vickers Super VC-10

Vickers Viscount


----------



## Devil's Advocate

That's a mighty impressive list Jis.

Especially these items...



jis said:


> B73B Boeing B737-800BBJ
> 
> de Haviland Comet IV
> 
> DC-8-6 Douglas DC-8-6x
> 
> DC-101 Douglas DC-10-10
> 
> General Dynamics Convair 880
> 
> Hawker Siddeley HS-748
> 
> Lockheed Electra
> 
> Lockheed L-1011
> 
> Lockheed Super Constellation
> 
> Sud Aviation Caravelle
> 
> Vickers Super VC-10
> 
> Vickers Viscount


I feel bad for people who are just now growing up and will mainly travel in a sea of cramped regional jets devoid of any unique passenger visible quirks or personality. It's crazy to think that first class on a regional twin is worse than coach used to be on a long range quad.


----------



## jis

Yeah, those (except the DC-8s and 10s, the L-1011 and BBJ) are mostly from the mid-60s when I traveled to the US and spent a year in Cambridge MA, and then traveled for a month and a half in the US and Europe, mostly by air. I was a freshly minted teenager then and of course traveled with my parents and younger sister.


----------



## fairviewroad

I can't match the lists that were posted. Will only say that I've been on a total of 6 flights on a 747 and I'll never forget the long takeoff roll. An amazing aircraft...one which I probably won't ever fly on again, given the state of the industry.

I've also enjoyed my 777 flights...but my most memorable 777 experience was arriving (and later departing) on a Kenya Airways 777 in NBO. Both flights used an external stairways to the tarmac. Getting the chance to walk on the ground near that enormous aircraft was a real treat.

Of course, I've boarded using external stairs countless times on other aircraft, mostly Dash-8's used by Horizon in the PNW. That's fun (except when it's raining in PDX or SEA) but not nearly the same thing.


----------



## jis

Surprisingly, recently I have done a lot of disembarkation down stairways to the tarmac from 777s at Frankfurt Rhein-Main Airport (FRA). Yes, being that close to one at ground level is very impressive.

There was a time when it was almost routine doing the stairway drill at London Heathrow, even from 747s when T3 was under refurbishment. And of course at Hong Kong Kai Tak, one seldom if ever, had the good fortune of getting a gate. It was always stairway both on arrival and departure for me, all on 747s. It was double treat on arrivals, first shooting the Checkerboard Approach for the landing and then being disgorged onto the tarmac next to the enormous plane waiting for a bus in the humid hot air.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

I'm impressed that two folks have managed to fly on an ERJ-090. I've never heard of that type.

For my list.

Airbus:

A318

A319

A320

A321

A330-300

A340-300 / -600

(A380-800 scheduled for October)

Boeing:

KC135

717-200

727-200

737-100 / -200 / -300 / -400 / -500 / -600 / -700 / -800 / -900 / -900ER

747-200 / -400 / -8

757-200 / -300

767-300

777-200 / -200LR / -300ER

787-8

(McDonnell-)Douglas:

DC-9-10 / -30 / -40 / -50

MD-80 (not sure of sub-model, but something in the -81/82/83 series)

MD-90

DC-10-30 / -40

Bombardier:

CRJ-200 / -700 / -900

DHC-8-100 / -200 / -300 / Q400

Beech:

1900D

Avro:

RJ100

Fairchild-Dornier (or whatever they were called at the end):

328JET

Embraer:

EMB-120

EMB-135 / -145

ERJ-170 / -175 / -190

Ford:

Tri-Motor

Other random stuff:

DHC-3 (float plane)

DHC-6 (float plane)

Cessna (various single-engine types, don't even remember the full set)

Piper Cherokee

(plus some other stuff I've either forgotten or don't know the specific model)


----------



## jis

Hotblack Desiato said:


> I'm impressed that two folks have managed to fly on an ERJ-090. I've never heard of that type.


Ah yes, typo copy pasted mindlessly by me  
I also missed one. I flew on a Trident on a BEA flight from London to Paris Orly.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Hotblack Desiato said:


> (plus some other stuff I've either forgotten or don't know the specific model)


There were a few other models that I was scheduled or ticketed on but were lost to cancellations, equipment swaps, and misconnects. I have some vague memories of a Saab prop and a Fokker jet but other than that I think I have everything I ever flew on there.



jis said:


> Hotblack Desiato said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm impressed that two folks have managed to fly on an ERJ-090. I've never heard of that type.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, type copy pasted mindlessly
Click to expand...

The shortened/abbreviated name for the E190 is E90. Not sure why but that's what I wrote down originally and then my OCD turned it into E090. If anyone was under any allusion that my list is error free I can assure you that is not the case. h34r:


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

Devil's Advocate said:


> Hotblack Desiato said:
> 
> 
> 
> (plus some other stuff I've either forgotten or don't know the specific model)
> 
> 
> 
> There were a few other models that I was scheduled or ticketed on but were lost to cancellations, equipment swaps, and misconnects. I have some vague memories of a Saab prop and a Fokker jet but other than that I think I have everything I ever flew on there.
Click to expand...

I was supposed to have an F100 on my list, but it got changed due to an equipment swap a month or so before the flight.

Also missed an RJ85 due to a misconnect. Such is life.


----------



## MARC Rider

My first flight was an Eastern DC-7, BAL (Friendship) - MIA. The trip home was my first Jet flight, Northeast or National (I forget exactly which) Convair 880.

Some years later, I was on a Boy Scout charter on a Johnson Flying Services DC-4 from Spokane to Philadelphia. I don't think the pilot had ever been east of the Mississippi, and when we landed in Philly, the airport was a bit bigger than the ones he was used to, and we taxied to a few different places before he found where he was supposed to let us off.

My favorite jets from the 70s and 80s were the DC-10 (flew it JFK to Narita) and the L1011 (BWI to Heathrow.) You were never more than one person from the aisle.


----------



## Bob Dylan

My first flight was on a MATS ( Military Transport)C-47/DC-3.

First Jet Flight was on the Historic 707. I remember it like it was yesterday, just like my First Flight on a 747 and my one and only flight on the Concorde SST!


----------



## JRR

I flew to Vietnam and back on a stretch 707 (courtesy of the U. S. Government), Kennedy to Zurich in the first class section of a 747, and Heathrow to Dulles on the Concorde. All memorable flights!


----------



## GBNorman

777; the most beautifully proportioned aircraft Mr. Boeing put on this earth.

Was it ever an experience to fly on a one month old United 777-300 ORD-MUC last August. It still smelt new. Their Polaris Business Class is a superb product. One having "been there", hard to go back to "The Gulag" on an overseas flight.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

GBNorman said:


> 777; the most beautifully proportioned aircraft Mr. Boeing put on this earth. Was it ever an experience to fly on a one month old United 777-300 ORD-MUC last August. It still smelt new. Their Polaris Business Class is a superb product. One having "been there", hard to go back to "The Gulag" on an overseas flight.


I'd agree that the 773 is a sexy well proportioned aircraft, but the original 772 version was short and stubby to my eyes, especially when viewed head-on from a boarding gate. The funny thing about international coach is that it didn't always suck this bad. For several decades it was simple but still perfectly functional, even for tall people like me. These days coach cabins seem to be sized for children with adult sized coach now being called "premium economy".


----------



## GBNorman

Without getting into a "who knew who", during Aug '16 I found myself MUC-ORD on.a UA 772 upgraded to Global First from paid for Business. The new Polaris is superior to even that.

With the inward facing seats, flightseeing was difficult. Not so with Polaris as it has some modules facing straight forward (all seats are forward facing). There is storage space for your "personal bag" within the module, not so with either a 772's Business or Global.

Oh but meanwhile back in "The Gulag", I did take a hike back there. An Attendant asked what I thought of Polaris. As I walking forward, there was unexpected turbulence so I grabbed the first open Econoseat and buckled up. With 3-4-3 configuration, they're even tighter. How the Attendants get the carts down the asile escapes me. How one can survive an overseas "back there" also escapes me. All I know is that nowadays, if "no dough for Business", it's a "no go".


----------



## jis

The Business Class seats in the ex-UA 3 Class 772s were absolutely hideous, about the worst lie flat Business Class seats I have seen anywhere. Good thing they will eventually get replaced by Polaris seats. They couldn't do so too soon.

Compared to those the Business First seats on the ex-Con 772ERs are much better, as are the Lufthansa Business Class seats.

Of course Polaris Business First seats are better than any of those.

in the 773 Economy, they have the narrowest seats in their entire mainline fleet. At exactly 17" those seats are 0.2" to 0.3" narrower than those on the 737s. Unfortunately though, that is not out of line with general practice in the intercontinental fleet on 777s these days.

For that reason, while traveling in Coach I try to avoid 777s and prefer to lean towards A380s wherever I can. The way 777s are laid out in the back, they are just not particularly attractive. The A380s have wider seats and while at it, they are much much quieter than the 777 too. Indeed if I have to choose a Boeing aircraft for intercontinental flights in the back, my choice today would be the 747-8i or 787s, not the 777.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> While traveling in Coach I try to avoid 777s and prefer to lean towards A380s wherever I can. The way 777s are laid out in the back, they are just not particularly attractive. The A380s have wider seats and while at it, they are much much quieter than the 777 too. Indeed if I have to choose a Boeing aircraft for intercontinental flights in the back, my choice today would be the 747-8i or 787s, not the 777.


That was my plan as well, and for a few years I focused on booking A388's and B788's almost exclusively. There was always a risk that I'd miss a connection or suffer an equipment swap and get bumped into a sardine pitch B777, but for the most part it worked out well. Then one day I was boarding a B789 and ended up with a seat that felt surprisingly similar in to a 777. I wasn't stuck in the last few rows of the cabin where measurements tend to get sloppy so I was surprised at how confining it felt. It wasn't _quite_ as bad as a 777, but still bad enough to make the flight really uncomfortable. At that point I realized the gig was up. If 789's can't be counted on to provide decent pitch then it's only a matter of time before the 788's are reconditioned to match. A388's still have decent width and pitch, last I checked anyway, but they're largely limited to a handful of slot restricted airports. Supposedly the A350 still has good seat width, but every time an airline widens the passenger cabin cross section the interior fabricators get busy looking for ways to shove more seats inside.


----------



## jis

350 is down to 17.1" on many airlines now. So no dice there either.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Maybe the airlines need to put those height measurement things @ Gates that are used @ Amusement Parks to measure kids to determine if adults will fit into the cattlecar,er seat they are ticketed for?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> 350 is down to 17.1" on many airlines now. So no dice there either.


Looks like SQ, CX, OZ, and TG are all 32/18 in Y, which can be workable with some slimline seats. LH is 31/17, so I won't be flying them regardless of seat design.



Bob Dylan said:


> Maybe the airlines need to put those height measurement things @ Gates that are used @ Amusement Parks to measure kids to determine if adults will fit into the cattlecar,er seat they are ticketed for?


If someone hasn't flown in a few years they probably have no idea just how bad the coach cabin has become. Airlines should be forced to place demo seats and rows in the airport so you can test fly their shitty economy class product _before_ you buy.


----------



## XHRTSP

Devil's Advocate said:


> Airlines should be forced to place demo seats and rows in the airport so you can test fly their shitty economy class product _before_ you buy.


I have a better idea. Amtrak should rent advertising space at airports in cities they serve, and place demos of their seats side by side with airline seats.

Oh, and just to stay on topic, congrats on the upgrade. See you on 123.45.


----------



## MARC Rider

GBNorman said:


> . How one can survive an overseas "back there" also escapes me.


I'm booked on a IAD - PEK round trip on a government fare, which means I'll probably get to experience it and report back, unless I can find an upgrade (out of my own pocket) for a reasonable cost.

But I've flown 12 hours from JFK - TLV in a 707 and lived to tell the tale, so surely I can deal with this.


----------



## jis

I have flown EWR - TLV in the back of ex-Con 777-200ERs, and that was not too bad in United Y+. But then again I am short enough to be able to sleep comfortably in those seats.

But still for my trips to India (either MCO - EWR - DEL/BOM nonstop - CCU or EWR/MCO - FRA - DEL/BOM - CCU) I pony up the Business-First fare and in principle consider the difference between it and Coach fare as investment in my health and quality of life.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MARC Rider said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How one can survive an overseas "back there" also escapes me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm booked on a IAD - PEK round trip on a government fare, which means I'll probably get to experience it and report back, unless I can find an upgrade (out of my own pocket) for a reasonable cost. But I've flown 12 hours from JFK - TLV in a 707 and lived to tell the tale, so surely I can deal with this.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a bit like saying you're sure you'll be fine in a Fiat 500 seat because you once drove a 1960's Mercedes long distance? I haven't flown IAD-PEK but I have flown JFK-NRT (14hr vs 14.5hr) and it's nothing to scoff at with today's knee crushing economy seats, indifferent hands tied staff, and angry recline-mashing passengers.


----------



## XHRTSP

Let's see if I can compete in the 'whose trip in coach sucked the most' contest.

XJD-MHZ-BGR-DYS, 7123nm, middle seat on an Omni DC-10, between two fat guys the whole way.


----------



## railiner

Until you've ridden from New York to Fairbanks on a bus....(5 days




)...you have little to complain about..





But I was 47 years younger in 1970...



.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

XHRTSP said:


> Let's see if I can compete in the 'whose trip in coach sucked the most' contest. XJD-MHZ-BGR-DYS, 7123nm, middle seat on an Omni DC-10, between two fat guys the whole way.


I know you intended for this to be a tale of despair and disgust, but all I can think is where can I get a ride on a DC-10 today?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Devil's Advocate said:


> XHRTSP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see if I can compete in the 'whose trip in coach sucked the most' contest. XJD-MHZ-BGR-DYS, 7123nm, middle seat on an Omni DC-10, between two fat guys the whole way.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you intended for this to be a tale of despair and disgust, but all I can think is where can I get a ride on a DC-10 today?
Click to expand...

IINM Fed-EX is still flying some DC-10s, and perhaps some Banana Republic Airlines might be also???


----------



## jis

Also Banana Republic outfits like US Air Force too


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> Also Banana Republic outfits like US Air Force too


ROTFLMAO!!


----------



## PRR 60

The last DC10 passenger flight was operated last February by Biman Bangladesh Airlines from Dhaka to Birmingham (England) via Kuwait. They operated some trip to nowhere fan flights out of BHX before sending the old bird back to Bangladesh with no passengers and a date with the scrapper.

Daily Mail


----------



## MARC Rider

Devil's Advocate said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How one can survive an overseas "back there" also escapes me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm booked on a IAD - PEK round trip on a government fare, which means I'll probably get to experience it and report back, unless I can find an upgrade (out of my own pocket) for a reasonable cost. But I've flown 12 hours from JFK - TLV in a 707 and lived to tell the tale, so surely I can deal with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that a bit like saying you're sure you'll be fine in a Fiat 500 seat because you once drove a 1960's Mercedes long distance? I haven't flown IAD-PEK but I have flown JFK-NRT (14hr vs 14.5hr) and it's nothing to scoff at with today's knee crushing economy seats, indifferent hands tied staff, and angry recline-mashing passengers.
Click to expand...

Hey man, I have no choice. This is a business trip, and if I want more than economy, I can pay for it on my own dime.

In fact, our travel guru found out that if the trip is more than 14 hours, we can be reimbursed for business class! Unfortunately, we found this out too late, as there were no business class upgrades available once we were ticketed. But there were economy plus upgrades, at $200 a pop. (We are paying about $2,000 for the round trip, reimbursable government contract fare). So we went to our mangers who said OK, but then we found that our agency policy requires some high muckety-muck political appointee sign off on it, and there was no time to circulate the request to get approval. So we're stuck with economy.

Now I bought myself an economy plus seat out to PEK on my own dime, and so far, it looks like I have the whole row to myself. But when I looked at the seating chart for the trip mack, the only Economy plus seats were middle seats, and I really prefer an aisle seat. Also, so far. the middle seat where I'm sitting is empty, so if I'm lucky, I might have a little more room anyway. The other goofy thing is that IAD-PEK is 14 hrs 5 minute, but PEK - IAD is 13 hrs.35 min, so we wouldn't be reimbursed for business class or economy plus anyway on the return trip. If I have to go out there again, you can be sure that I'm going to insist that I take a connecting flight, which will definitely exceed the 14 hour mark. I think BWI - PEK on United involves a change in Chicago, which is fine with me. Leaving from Dulles is going to be a pain in the neck, involving a 2 hour drive on both ends (I live in Baltimore, right?), which is particularly nasty thing to consider after a nonstop flight from Beijing. In fact, when I come in, I'm going to just crash at the hotel at Dulles and drive home the next morning. (The flight leaves Beijing at 1825 and arrives in Dulles at 1900. It will be the longest half hour of my life.



)

Oh, and it looks like we're flying a 787, not a 777. So maybe we should start a different thread.


----------



## MARC Rider

MARC Rider said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How one can survive an overseas "back there" also escapes me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm booked on a IAD - PEK round trip on a government fare, which means I'll probably get to experience it and report back, unless I can find an upgrade (out of my own pocket) for a reasonable cost. But I've flown 12 hours from JFK - TLV in a 707 and lived to tell the tale, so surely I can deal with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that a bit like saying you're sure you'll be fine in a Fiat 500 seat because you once drove a 1960's Mercedes long distance? I haven't flown IAD-PEK but I have flown JFK-NRT (14hr vs 14.5hr) and it's nothing to scoff at with today's knee crushing economy seats, indifferent hands tied staff, and angry recline-mashing passengers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey man, I have no choice. This is a business trip, and if I want more than economy, I can pay for it on my own dime.
> 
> In fact, our travel guru found out that if the trip is more than 14 hours, we can be reimbursed for business class! Unfortunately, we found this out too late, as there were no business class upgrades available once we were ticketed. But there were economy plus upgrades, at $200 a pop. (We are paying about $2,000 for the round trip, reimbursable government contract fare). So we went to our managers who said OK, but then we found that our agency policy requires some high muckety-muck political appointee sign off on it, and there was no time to circulate the request to get approval. So we're stuck with economy.
> 
> Now I bought myself an economy plus seat out to PEK on my own dime, and so far, it looks like I have the whole row to myself. But when I looked at the seating chart for the trip back, the only Economy plus seats were middle seats, and I really prefer an aisle seat. Also, so far. the middle seat where I'm sitting is empty, so if I'm lucky, I might have a little more room anyway. The other goofy thing is that IAD-PEK is 14 hrs 5 minute, but PEK - IAD is 13 hrs.35 min, so we wouldn't be reimbursed for business class or economy plus anyway on the return trip. If I have to go out there again, you can be sure that I'm going to insist that I take a connecting flight, which will definitely exceed the 14 hour mark. I think BWI - PEK on United involves a change in Chicago, which is fine with me. Leaving from Dulles is going to be a pain in the neck, involving a 2 hour drive on both ends (I live in Baltimore, right?), which is particularly nasty thing to consider after a nonstop flight from Beijing. In fact, when I come in, I'm going to just crash at the hotel at Dulles and drive home the next morning. (The flight leaves Beijing at 1825 and arrives in Dulles at 1900. It will be the longest half hour of my life.
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> Oh, and it looks like we're flying a 787, not a 777. So maybe we should start a different thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## jis

Emirates just placed an order for 40 787-10s at the Dubai Air Show.


----------



## the_traveler

Back in the 70’s, 80’s & 90’s when ALB was called Albany County Airport (before they renovated and built jetways and renamed it Albany International Airport), all access was via the stairs. So I have used stairs on many aircraft including DC-8, DC-9, L-1011, 707, 727, 737, B-1900, Piper Navajo and others.


----------



## jis

the_traveler said:


> Back in the 70’s, 80’s & 90’s when ALB was called Albany County Airport (before they renovated and built jetways and renamed it Albany International Airport), all access was via the stairs. So I have used stairs on many aircraft including DC-8, DC-9, L-1011, 707, 727, 737, B-1900, Piper Navajo and others.


I had regularly used stairs on 747s at Hong Kong Kai Tak, at which I never boarded or disembarked from a 747 at a jetway. Always stairs and then bus to the terminal or back.

My very first flight on a 707 involved stairs at Delhi Palam International. The first jetway that I ever used was at Moscow Sheremetyevo in 1965.

London Heathrow has often given us the stair treatment on 777s and 747s as has Frankfurt Rhein-Main. Fortunately A380s always got jetways.


----------



## railiner

Stairs and Jetway's....lots of those....but how many of you used one of these to get on or off an airliner? I have at IAD...

And where in the world are they still in regular use?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Plane+Mate&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS739US739&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=JppXLm9fF3YInM%253A%252CZ0_qRJ0bY1tySM%252C_&usg=__FC_JddxoGPE_j9M2aCXIAS1MB9Q%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisxbmJ7r7XAhVKKyYKHauHCFsQ9QEINDAB#imgrc=4-86MbAKjrTmYM:


----------



## Bob Dylan

Don't know where they're still used (jis??) but I remember them @ Dulles and in Acapulco when Acapulco was still Cool!


----------



## railiner

Here's a blow up of one of those photo's.....did you see who built it?





https://www.google.com/search?q=Plane+Mate&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS739US739&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=JppXLm9fF3YInM%253A%252CZ0_qRJ0bY1tySM%252C_&usg=__FC_JddxoGPE_j9M2aCXIAS1MB9Q%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisxbmJ7r7XAhVKKyYKHauHCFsQ9QEINDAB#imgrc=z7dIDc3GYlIpLM:

It looks more like an artist's rendering, rather than a photo.....


----------



## Maglev

Kona (Ellison Onizuka Kona International Airport at Keāhole) uses stairs. Hilo has had a world-class airport for many years, but beyond extending the runway the taxpayers have not seen fit to expand the passenger facilities at Kona.

My first (late) wife's daughter was a United Airlines flight attendant, and around 1981 there was a family emergency and they held the plane for her at the end of the runway in Kahului. She was driven out in a truck with stairs on top, and boarded the DC-8 there. I kind of doubt airlines or other operational entities would allow this nowadays, not to mention that the Kahului runway is now too busy for a plane to sit waiting for one passenger.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MARC Rider said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How one can survive an overseas "back there" also escapes me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm booked on a IAD - PEK round trip on a government fare, which means I'll probably get to experience it and report back, unless I can find an upgrade (out of my own pocket) for a reasonable cost. But I've flown 12 hours from JFK - TLV in a 707 and lived to tell the tale, so surely I can deal with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that a bit like saying you're sure you'll be fine in a Fiat 500 seat because you once drove a 1960's Mercedes long distance? I haven't flown IAD-PEK but I have flown JFK-NRT (14hr vs 14.5hr) and it's nothing to scoff at with today's knee crushing economy seats, indifferent hands tied staff, and angry recline-mashing passengers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey man, I have no choice. This is a business trip, and if I want more than economy, I can pay for it on my own dime. In fact, our travel guru found out that if the trip is more than 14 hours, we can be reimbursed for business class! Unfortunately, we found this out too late, as there were no business class upgrades available once we were ticketed. But there were economy plus upgrades, at $200 a pop. (We are paying about $2,000 for the round trip, reimbursable government contract fare). So we went to our mangers who said OK, but then we found that our agency policy requires some high muckety-muck political appointee sign off on it, and there was no time to circulate the request to get approval. So we're stuck with economy. Now I bought myself an economy plus seat out to PEK on my own dime, and so far, it looks like I have the whole row to myself. But when I looked at the seating chart for the trip mack, the only Economy plus seats were middle seats, and I really prefer an aisle seat. Also, so far. the middle seat where I'm sitting is empty, so if I'm lucky, I might have a little more room anyway. The other goofy thing is that IAD-PEK is 14 hrs 5 minute, but PEK - IAD is 13 hrs.35 min, so we wouldn't be reimbursed for business class or economy plus anyway on the return trip. If I have to go out there again, you can be sure that I'm going to insist that I take a connecting flight, which will definitely exceed the 14 hour mark. I think BWI - PEK on United involves a change in Chicago, which is fine with me. Leaving from Dulles is going to be a pain in the neck, involving a 2 hour drive on both ends (I live in Baltimore, right?), which is particularly nasty thing to consider after a nonstop flight from Beijing. In fact, when I come in, I'm going to just crash at the hotel at Dulles and drive home the next morning. (The flight leaves Beijing at 1825 and arrives in Dulles at 1900. It will be the longest half hour of my life.
> 
> 
> 
> ) Oh, and it looks like we're flying a 787, not a 777. So maybe we should start a different thread.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've had a rough start to a long trip. Hopefully you can switch your ticket to an aisle/window seat before departure. I'm not crazy about the 787's electronic shades and air nozzle design, but other than that I strongly prefer the 787 over the 777. Larger windows, lower ambient noise, reduced air pressure, higher humidity, softer lighting, larger/sharper AVOD, fewer under seat obstructions, more power connections, etc. I have my own long haul flight coming up that's blocked at 16.5 hours in a 777. I'm booked into premium economy, which sounds like the ultimate oxymoron, and the closer I get to departure the more I begin to wonder if I'm some sort of delusional masochist.


----------



## the_traveler

I’ve used the Plane-Mate at IAD. Including the last time I was there, but that was 7-10 years ago. But I think they now have a subway to reach the mid-field terminals.

When I arrived IAD from LHR, the jet parked at the gate at the mid-field terminal. You exited the jet but diverted directly to the Plane-Mate which went to the C&I terminal. I do not know what they do now.


----------



## railiner

For some reason, my post #85, on the laptop did not show the photo, (my phone did [?]), so I edited it, and put in the link....


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> Don't know where they're still used (jis??) but I remember them @ Dulles and in Acapulco when Acapulco was still Cool!


They are still used at IAD, but only for inter terminal transport for areas that are not fully served by the APM yet. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railiner

Not sure if they are still used at JFK anymore....I believe DL terminal had some, and the Port Authority also had some parked to be used for emergency evacuation's...again, it's been a long time since I worked on the airside at JFK....


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> Stairs and Jetway's....lots of those....but how many of you used one of these to get on or off an airliner? I have at IAD...
> 
> And where in the world are they still in regular use?
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=Plane+Mate&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS739US739&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=JppXLm9fF3YInM%253A%252CZ0_qRJ0bY1tySM%252C_&usg=__FC_JddxoGPE_j9M2aCXIAS1MB9Q%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisxbmJ7r7XAhVKKyYKHauHCFsQ9QEINDAB#imgrc=4-86MbAKjrTmYM:


International arrivals at Dulles still use these. You disembark via a jet way to the lower level of the conciurse, then walk down a long corridor and board one of the mobile lounges that takes you to the international arrivals builfing.


----------



## MARC Rider

Devil's Advocate said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How one can survive an overseas "back there" also escapes me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm booked on a IAD - PEK round trip on a government fare, which means I'll probably get to experience it and report back, unless I can find an upgrade (out of my own pocket) for a reasonable cost. But I've flown 12 hours from JFK - TLV in a 707 and lived to tell the tale, so surely I can deal with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that a bit like saying you're sure you'll be fine in a Fiat 500 seat because you once drove a 1960's Mercedes long distance? I haven't flown IAD-PEK but I have flown JFK-NRT (14hr vs 14.5hr) and it's nothing to scoff at with today's knee crushing economy seats, indifferent hands tied staff, and angry recline-mashing passengers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey man, I have no choice. This is a business trip, and if I want more than economy, I can pay for it on my own dime. In fact, our travel guru found out that if the trip is more than 14 hours, we can be reimbursed for business class! Unfortunately, we found this out too late, as there were no business class upgrades available once we were ticketed. But there were economy plus upgrades, at $200 a pop. (We are paying about $2,000 for the round trip, reimbursable government contract fare). So we went to our mangers who said OK, but then we found that our agency policy requires some high muckety-muck political appointee sign off on it, and there was no time to circulate the request to get approval. So we're stuck with economy. Now I bought myself an economy plus seat out to PEK on my own dime, and so far, it looks like I have the whole row to myself. But when I looked at the seating chart for the trip mack, the only Economy plus seats were middle seats, and I really prefer an aisle seat. Also, so far. the middle seat where I'm sitting is empty, so if I'm lucky, I might have a little more room anyway. The other goofy thing is that IAD-PEK is 14 hrs 5 minute, but PEK - IAD is 13 hrs.35 min, so we wouldn't be reimbursed for business class or economy plus anyway on the return trip. If I have to go out there again, you can be sure that I'm going to insist that I take a connecting flight, which will definitely exceed the 14 hour mark. I think BWI - PEK on United involves a change in Chicago, which is fine with me. Leaving from Dulles is going to be a pain in the neck, involving a 2 hour drive on both ends (I live in Baltimore, right?), which is particularly nasty thing to consider after a nonstop flight from Beijing. In fact, when I come in, I'm going to just crash at the hotel at Dulles and drive home the next morning. (The flight leaves Beijing at 1825 and arrives in Dulles at 1900. It will be the longest half hour of my life.
> 
> 
> 
> ) Oh, and it looks like we're flying a 787, not a 777. So maybe we should start a different thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you've had a rough start to a long trip. Hopefully you can switch your ticket to an aisle/window seat before departure. I'm not crazy about the 787's electronic shades and air nozzle design, but other than that I strongly prefer the 787 over the 777. Larger windows, lower ambient noise, reduced air pressure, higher humidity, softer lighting, larger/sharper AVOD, fewer under seat obstructions, more power connections, etc. I have my own long haul flight coming up that's blocked at 16.5 hours in a 777. I'm booked into premium economy, which sounds like the ultimate oxymoron, and the closer I get to departure the more I begin to wonder if I'm some sort of delusional masochist.
Click to expand...

Got back from my trip last Friday. It wasn't as bad as I feared. The Economy Plus seats were fine for legroom, I had a row to myself on the way out, and an empty center seat on the way back. By the way, the last two rows in the United 787 economy plus cabin are sold as regular economy class seats.

I liked the plane in general. I think the increased cabin pressure and better humidity control made the flight more bearable. I'm not really impressed with the fancy electronic window shades, more complicated stuff that needs to be maintained. I was a little disppointed that the United audio entertainment didn't include music or a feed from the flight deck, like they used to have. On the other hand there were a lot of movies and TV shows to help pass the time.


----------



## jis

I will get to experience United's new Polaris Business service on a 767-400 on my flight from Newark to Heathrow today. My upgrade request came through. We'll see how it goes.

So far, I have experienced Polaris service on a ex-United 777 and that was not that great due to the inferior hard product in the ex-United Business Class with those exceedingly narrow lie flat seats. It was much much better in an ex-Continental 777. The BF flights that I tookon 787s were before Polaris was introduced.

I wish that for its intercontinental fleet, United would get the map software that Lufthansa uses on its A380s and 747-8is.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MARC Rider said:


> Got back from my trip last Friday. It wasn't as bad as I feared. The Economy Plus seats were fine for legroom, I had a row to myself on the way out, and an empty center seat on the way back. I liked the plane in general. I think the increased cabin pressure and better humidity control made the flight more bearable. I'm not really impressed with the fancy electronic window shades, more complicated stuff that needs to be maintained. I was a little disppointed that the United audio entertainment didn't include music or a feed from the flight deck, like they used to have. On the other hand there were a lot of movies and TV shows to help pass the time.


My own long haul flight lived up to the scheduled block time but also went better than I anticipated. The upgrade cost nearly twice the price of coach, which seems rather steep to be honest, but in addition to more pitch/width/recline it also came with priority checkin/baggage/boarding/disembarking, larger IFE, full 110AC power, more food, separate bathrooms, etc. I was only able to sleep 2-3 hours at a time but almost the entire 16.5 hour flight was at night and several naps later most of the trip was over. The main meal service was actually a lot better than I was expecting, leading to only the third non-F/J meal I ever found genuinely appetizing. The two previous winners being a cheese pizza on AA and green curry with beef on TG.



jis said:


> I wish that for its intercontinental fleet, United would get the map software that Lufthansa uses on its A380s and 747-8is.


Is that the one where a massively oversized aircraft model flies across the surface of a featureless ball between two spinning circles? Or the one that inexplicably moves the camera angle every time there's even the slightest change in direction? Or the one that tries to create a fake "pilot's view" from low resolution satellite imagery? The older airshow software lacked a lot of the spit and polish of newer versions, and the low resolution video was both grainy and fuzzy, but there was something pure about their purpose and motivation for inclusion. These days the airshow seems to more about showcasing computationally tedious modeling rather than exploring actual geography.


----------



## jis

The ones that I liked had a relatively high resolution version of the terrain and provided both a simulated cockpit view and I guess one that would be characterized as "god's vies" or something like that. But what I liked more than the terrain stuff is the amount of detail about the close by features, villages and town that one is flying over.


----------



## railiner

How do the airline maps compare to using wifi and watching your progress on a Flightaware map?

Oops...guess that only works over land....


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Whats wrong with the windows?


----------



## railiner

Nothing,,,if you get a window seat, not over a wing...





I used to love to fly the old "red eye" flights from California to NYC....they usually flew in clear skies, the Captain would tell us our flight plan route, I would take the inflight magazine and draw our route on the map found at the rear. I would then put our departure and arrival times at each end, and then divide the map up into eighth's, and compute approximate time points for each segment. Using that, and my watch, I was usually able look out the window, and figure out where we were and recognize the lights of the various cities we passed, as well as obvious landmarks like the great lakes, etc.

It was also nice when the Captain would leave the ATC channel on the whole way, if they weren't showing a movie....being handed off from the Los Angeles to Salt Lake City to Denver to Minneapolis to Chicago to Cleveland to New York Centers, enroute to the New York Tracon and finally JFK Tower and Ground...


----------



## jis

With the broader use of ARINC digital links ATC communication is becoming less exciting and informative too. Sort of like the way the usefulness of scanners have gone on routes that are fully PTC and then some, like the NEC.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railiner

That's a shame, as it was always fascinating to hearing the comforting sound of humans that were taking care of you as you were handed off as you made your way across the country, and being wished a "good day", or "good night".....

And the same listening to block tower's and dispatcher's while riding the long distance trains....and hearing the differences in regional accent's of the voices...and finally hearing the familiar "New York" accent as I got close to home....

Ah, but that's progress.....I guess....


----------



## XHRTSP

I doubt that's going away any time soon. CPDLC in the US for enroute purposes is probably going to take a little while longer. Even in Europe you still have to check in between centers regardless of CPDLC login status.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> How do the airline maps compare to using wifi and watching your progress on a Flightaware map?


They're similar in purpose but the on board maps come with a lot of extraneous visuals involving virtual flybys, broad noodle flight trajectories, and massive rotating destination targets.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Whats wrong with the windows?


Flying across an ocean at 35,000 feet doesn't really look like anything. All you see is a vaguely bluish hue below you. Occasionally you may see clouds and storms below you or another aircraft passing along a nearby flight path but that's about it. If you're able to see islands or ships or other features then you're either nearing your destination or something terribly important has gone horrible wrong.



railiner said:


> That's a shame, as it was always fascinating to [hear] the comforting sound of humans that were taking care of you as you were handed off as you made your way across the country, and being wished a "good day", or "good night"...And the same listening to block tower's and dispatcher's while riding the long distance trains....and hearing the differences in regional accent's of the voices...and finally hearing the familiar "New York" accent as I got close to home...


I wouldn't call JFK approach "comforting" so much as flippant and abrasive. I'm sure they're convinced their way is the only way to run a busy airport in a very busy neighborhood, but if that were the case the 18 or so airports with more movements per day would have adopted JFK's adversarial attitude a long time ago.


----------



## railiner

Ouch! That's the attitude by outsider's that I am used to hearing about New Yorker's, that judge us without really knowing us...

We live in a tough, fast paced environment, that results in developing certain traits that others perceive as being rude, when the complete opposite is true...many of us are the most generous individuals on earth, that will give you the shirt off their back to help you, but at the same time expect professional competency 'on-the-air'....

Which TRACONS are busier than the New York one?


----------



## railiner

XHRTSP said:


> I doubt that's going away any time soon. CPDLC in the US for enroute purposes is probably going to take a little while longer. Even in Europe you still have to check in between centers regardless of CPDLC login status.


I wasn't aware of this new technology....(I just Googled it)....sort of an expansion of ACARS, eh?


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Ouch! That's the attitude by outsider's that I am used to hearing about New Yorker's, that judge us without really knowing us...
> 
> We live in a tough, fast paced environment, that results in developing certain traits that others perceive as being rude, when the complete opposite is true...many of us are the most generous individuals on earth, that will give you the shirt off their back to help you, but at the same time expect professional competency 'on-the-air'....
> 
> Which TRACONS are busier than the New York one?


I thought DA was talking about JFK Tower. How did New York Tracon become relevant to that?





Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Bob Dylan

Hopefully you're safe on London and everything is back to Normal!!!

Terrible scene in Egypt too!

Only thing I agree with Trump about is that Terrorist Religious Zealots ( NOT just Muslims) need to be eliminated from this earth!


----------



## jis

Nothing out of the ordinary in the UK. I was riding trains all day, and there is absolutely zero security theater at least on trains as far as I can tell. Anyway I could not see anything here that deviated from the normal.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch! That's the attitude by outsider's that I am used to hearing about New Yorker's, that judge us without really knowing us...
> 
> We live in a tough, fast paced environment, that results in developing certain traits that others perceive as being rude, when the complete opposite is true...many of us are the most generous individuals on earth, that will give you the shirt off their back to help you, but at the same time expect professional competency 'on-the-air'....
> 
> Which TRACONS are busier than the New York one?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought DA was talking about JFK Tower. How did New York Tracon become relevant to that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

I thought "JFK approach" was handled by the TRACON....?


----------



## jis

Not the approach to the runways. That is JFK tower. I think his point was that there are several airports in the world with higher traffic throughput than JFK, but the JFK folks still think they are it. [emoji57]

New York Tracon handles arrivals into all three major New York Area airports. It hands flights over to the towers for final approach, and ground control.

The other big control center in the New York area is the New York En-route Center at Islip. That is a busy place. I have been there a couple of times.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railiner

Okay....but when you listen to the ATC frequencies, they refer to The TRACON as Approach (or Departures) and JFK tower as Kennedy Tower....IIRC..its been a while since I listened in.

By the way, I have also visited the New York Center, as well as the (old) Kennedy Tower.....also visited the Denver Center. Could not get a visit at the NY TRACON, which is located in Westbury.....

Also visited the LGA (old 'lighthouse)' tower, and the Stapleton tower....

ALL of them were staffed by pro's, who really knew and performed their jobs well....


----------



## B757Guy

railiner said:


> Okay....but when you listen to the ATC frequencies, they refer to The TRACON as Approach (or Departures) and JFK tower as Kennedy Tower....IIRC..its been a while since I listened in.
> 
> By the way, I have also visited the New York Center, as well as the (old) Kennedy Tower.....also visited the Denver Center. Could not get a visit at the NY TRACON, which is located in Westbury.....
> 
> Also visited the LGA (old 'lighthouse)' tower, and the Stapleton tower....
> 
> ALL of them were staffed by pro's, who really knew and performed their jobs well....


100% agree. I spend loads of time working with the controllers in the metro NYC airspace, and they are some of the best, most professional ATC personnel anywhere. In the old days, I flew out of JFK often, but my airline has since consolidated to EWR. I miss it sometimes, but EWR is a much better commute for me! No more Belt parkway!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> Ouch! That's the attitude by outsider's that I am used to hearing about New Yorker's, that judge us without really knowing us. We live in a tough, fast paced environment, that results in developing certain traits that others perceive as being rude, when the complete opposite is true...many of us are the most generous individuals on earth, that will give you the shirt off their back to help you, but at the same time expect professional competency 'on-the-air'. Which TRACONS are busier than the New York one?


There are tough, fast paced environments all over the world, not just in New York.

So why don't they all devolve into similar NYC style attitudes? From what I understand LON has more total traffic than NYC, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. These days many major airports have exceeded the traffic levels in effect when JFK first earned their reputation. If a tough workload and fast paced action in any way necessitated or benefited from the New Yorker attitude then presumably JFK would become the standard all over the world by now. In my view the main issue wasn't that JFK did it "wrong" so much as they did it different, which sometimes lead to unintended consequences when dealing with disparate cultures from far flung locations.

These days it's less of a problem, due in part to changes in pilot training and industry homogenization, but there was a time when it had the serious potential to contribute to major incidents and accidents. Also, just for the record, you can be rude while also being generous and professional. There is nothing that makes any of those traits fundamentally exclusive to the others. Which is kind of my point. You can be professional without getting snippy toward each other. For proof you only need to look _outside_ New York.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

New Yorkers are rude on the surface. So? It gives life a little geschmack.


----------



## B757Guy

Guys, not sure how many of you are professional pilots, but as one based in the NY area, I can tell you, the controllers in this space are some of the best in the world. Very helpful, and professional. I can also agree that the folks in Europe and the UK, where I fly almost every week, are fantastic as well.

New Yorkers may get a bad rep, but it's really no different than any other metropolitan area with regards to attitude. I've encountered pretty much an equal amount of "attitude" in the UK/Europe as well.

Just my 2 cents, from someone who's career takes me to those places just about every week.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Green Maned Lion said:


> New Yorkers are rude on the surface. So? It gives life a little geschmack.


As other posters say, rudeness can occur anywhere, but the rudest people I have met in my 73+ years of traveling the World have been in Chicago where "'Tude" seems to be a way of life among lots of people working in Customer service occupations. YMMV


----------



## Devil's Advocate

B757Guy said:


> Guys, not sure how many of you are professional pilots, but as one based in the NY area, I can tell you, the controllers in this space are some of the best in the world. Very helpful, and professional. I can also agree that the folks in Europe and the UK, where I fly almost every week, are fantastic as well. New Yorkers may get a bad rep, but it's really no different than any other metropolitan area with regards to attitude. I've encountered pretty much an equal amount of "attitude" in the UK/Europe as well. Just my 2 cents, from someone who's career takes me to those places just about every week.


The issue isn't about how a NYC based pilot feels about talking to an ATC from the same region. Why would that be a problem? The potential problem revolves around how someone from Asia/Europe/Africa/South America feels about being snapped at in a secondary language by New York's infamous ATC. Did it merely help them get where they needed to go or did it also create unnecessary tension or otherwise provoke a extraneous emotional response? If you believe there's another major airport with JFK's infamous ATC attitude then I'd be willing to listen to the audio feed with open ears, but so far I've never encountered it anywhere else.


----------



## jis

New Yorkers rise together in fierce defense of New Yorkers [emoji41][emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> New Yorkers rise together in fierce defense of New Yorkers [emoji41][emoji57]
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum








Actually, we don't have to....when you're "A Number One .....", everywhere else looks up to you in envy....and they all want to come here...to the Capital of The World....

It's a "love-hate" relationship....like with the former "America's Team", the Dallas Cowboys...now "America's Team" seems to be the New England Patriots (sorry about that, Jerry Jones)...






..


----------



## jis

ROTFL. Capital of the world and yet such a dump





Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## AmtrakBlue

jis said:


> ROTFL. Capital of the world and yet such a dump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Wait. Does this mean that the Gathering is going from the "City of Roses" to "The Dump"? Oh, my!


----------



## Bob Dylan

Yep, but for every horror such as NYP, there is a great counterpoint like GCT!

Cue Sinatra singing "New York,New York"!


----------



## railiner

Okay, then....


----------



## B757Guy

Devil's Advocate said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch! That's the attitude by outsider's that I am used to hearing about New Yorker's, that judge us without really knowing us. We live in a tough, fast paced environment, that results in developing certain traits that others perceive as being rude, when the complete opposite is true...many of us are the most generous individuals on earth, that will give you the shirt off their back to help you, but at the same time expect professional competency 'on-the-air'. Which TRACONS are busier than the New York one?
> 
> 
> 
> There are tough, fast paced environments all over the world, not just in New York.
> 
> So why don't they all devolve into similar NYC style attitudes? From what I understand LON has more total traffic than NYC, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. These days many major airports have exceeded the traffic levels in effect when JFK first earned their reputation. If a tough workload and fast paced action in any way necessitated or benefited from the New Yorker attitude then presumably JFK would become the standard all over the world by now. In my view the main issue wasn't that JFK did it "wrong" so much as they did it different, which sometimes lead to unintended consequences when dealing with disparate cultures from far flung locations.
> 
> These days it's less of a problem, due in part to changes in pilot training and industry homogenization, but there was a time when it had the serious potential to contribute to major incidents and accidents. Also, just for the record, you can be rude while also being generous and professional. There is nothing that makes any of those traits fundamentally exclusive to the others. Which is kind of my point. You can be professional without getting snippy toward each other. For proof you only need to look _outside_ New York.
Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree, and not defending NYC.



Most of my flying is from the US to europe and the middle east. I can tell you, Mumbai has some very testy ATC people, so does Frankfurt, Paris and Rome. It's certainly not isolated to any one part of the world/city, and to single any one place out. and suggest that is the worst, is unfair.


----------



## GBNorman

Capt 57, possibly this is a matter not to be addressed at a public forum, but I've always wondered if a loaded for takeoff 72 or 3, was right at V1, and lost an engine, could it still do so and gain enough altitude to safely return?


----------



## B757Guy

Yep, it certainly can, and we train over and over again for just that sort of emergency.

Happy to answer any 777 or 757/767 questions. Fire away!


----------



## railiner

Any question?

How many rivets in a 777-300?

Naaah,,,,just kidding......


----------



## B757Guy

More than 60,000!


----------



## GBNorman

The 777-300 is the most beautifully proportioned aircraft God and Mr. Boeing ever put on this planet.

To be positioned and holding for takeoff on KORD 28L and those massive engines are putting G-forces on me is quite sensational.

While I don't know which of the "big three" you are with, if United, your Polaris Business Class I think is superb.

Congratulations Captain on your promotion. I presume you are Senior enough to hold a Captaincy on the 777.


----------



## B757Guy

GBNorman said:


> The 777-300 is the most beautifully proportioned aircraft God and Mr. Boeing ever put on this planet.
> 
> To be positioned and holding for takeoff on KORD 28L and those massive engines are putting G-forces on me is quite sensational.
> 
> While I don't know which of the "big three" you are with, if United, your Polaris Business Class I think is superb.
> 
> Congratulations Captain on your promotion. I presume you are Senior enough to hold a Captaincy on the 777.


Thank you, and yeah, it's been 24 years with the airline, and one survived merger, and my 3rd Boeing type rating. Lots of miles, and water under the bridge. Still not senior enough to get most of the holidays off, but getting closer!

The 777 is beautiful, but my heart still flutters when I see the 747. Sadly, we retired them recently. Got to sit in the jump seat a bunch of times, and fly the sim a few as well.


----------



## railiner

B757Guy, this one's for you....





https://youtu.be/aDHBbUhh9OM


----------



## Bob Dylan

I'm a 747 and Concorde Fan myself, but for durability, one can't beat the DC-3/C-47, still Soldiering on after 80+ years.


----------



## B757Guy

railiner said:


> B757Guy, this one's for you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/aDHBbUhh9OM


Love it!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

B757Guy said:


> Respectfully disagree, and not defending NYC.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my flying is from the US to europe and the middle east. I can tell you, Mumbai has some very testy ATC people, so does Frankfurt, Paris and Rome. It's certainly not isolated to any one part of the world/city, and to single any one place out. and suggest that is the worst, is unfair.


 I'll add FRA, CDG, and FCO to my ATC feed list and see if any of them strike me as being similar to JFK.



GBNorman said:


> The 777-300 is the most beautifully proportioned aircraft...


 For me it's the A346.



B757Guy said:


> Still not senior enough to get most of the holidays off, but getting closer!


There are some downsides to having a corporate desk job, but on the plus side I can't remember the last time I had to be at work for the holidays.


----------



## B757Guy

Devil's Advocate said:


> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully disagree, and not defending NYC.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my flying is from the US to europe and the middle east. I can tell you, Mumbai has some very testy ATC people, so does Frankfurt, Paris and Rome. It's certainly not isolated to any one part of the world/city, and to single any one place out. and suggest that is the worst, is unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll add FRA, CDG, and FCO to my ATC feed list and see if any of them strike me as being similar to JFK.
> 
> LOL, we need to get you a new hobby! You actually listen to ATC? I guess it can be interesting, but I love when I'm over the ocean, and don't have all that noise in my ears!
> 
> 
> 
> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 777-300 is the most beautifully proportioned aircraft...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For me it's the A346.
> 
> 
> 
> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not senior enough to get most of the holidays off, but getting closer!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are some downsides to having a corporate desk job, but on the plus side I can't remember the last time I had to be at work for the holidays.
Click to expand...


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully disagree, and not defending NYC.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my flying is from the US to europe and the middle east. I can tell you, Mumbai has some very testy ATC people, so does Frankfurt, Paris and Rome. It's certainly not isolated to any one part of the world/city, and to single any one place out. and suggest that is the worst, is unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll add FRA, CDG, and FCO to my ATC feed list and see if any of them strike me as being similar to JFK.
Click to expand...

It should also be noted that the BOM guys have to work under conditions that makes NYC look like utter luxury too. They are actually way more overloaded for the facilities available to them than NYC ever is.



DEL can get pretty bad too, but I understand that BOM is usually worse.


----------



## B757Guy

jis said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully disagree, and not defending NYC.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my flying is from the US to europe and the middle east. I can tell you, Mumbai has some very testy ATC people, so does Frankfurt, Paris and Rome. It's certainly not isolated to any one part of the world/city, and to single any one place out. and suggest that is the worst, is unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll add FRA, CDG, and FCO to my ATC feed list and see if any of them strike me as being similar to JFK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should also be noted that the BOM guys have to work under conditions that makes NYC look like utter luxury too. They are actually way more overloaded for the facilities available to them than NYC ever is.
> 
> 
> 
> DEL can get pretty bad too, but I understand that BOM is usually worse.
Click to expand...

Was just in BOM last week. Long flight... They do a great job, given the limitations they have


----------



## Devil's Advocate

B757Guy said:


> LOL, we need to get you a new hobby! You actually listen to ATC? I guess it can be interesting, but I love when I'm over the ocean, and don't have all that noise in my ears!


Sometimes I'll listen to ATC when I have a big trip coming up to get me in the mood for the long journey ahead. Or if I'm feeling sluggish I'll sometimes use ATC as a sort of background noise feed at work. The audio chatter puts me in the mood to be busy and the conversations are so short they're rarely distracting. I was originally exposed to ATC communications by UA's CH9. Back in the day it was mentioned in printed materials and on the public address system. Over time the flight deck seemed to enable it less and less often. After the merger with CO I began to lose track of which aircraft still had CH9 functionality and the newer IFE systems didn't seem to have it enabled in any obvious way.



jis said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully disagree, and not defending NYC.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my flying is from the US to europe and the middle east. I can tell you, Mumbai has some very testy ATC people, so does Frankfurt, Paris and Rome. It's certainly not isolated to any one part of the world/city, and to single any one place out. and suggest that is the worst, is unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll add FRA, CDG, and FCO to my ATC feed list and see if any of them strike me as being similar to JFK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should also be noted that the BOM guys have to work under conditions that makes NYC look like utter luxury too. They are actually way more overloaded for the facilities available to them than NYC ever is.
> 
> 
> 
> DEL can get pretty bad too, but I understand that BOM is usually worse.
Click to expand...


I recently read a brief article on Mumbai's aircraft movements...



> Mumbai's Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport hosted 969 take-offs and landings over 24 hours, the most ever for a single-runway airport and surpassing its previous high of 935.


Although I respect the level of effort involved I personally find hyper dense runway configurations at major airports to be a traveler turnoff.


----------



## jis

B757Guy said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully disagree, and not defending NYC.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my flying is from the US to europe and the middle east. I can tell you, Mumbai has some very testy ATC people, so does Frankfurt, Paris and Rome. It's certainly not isolated to any one part of the world/city, and to single any one place out. and suggest that is the worst, is unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll add FRA, CDG, and FCO to my ATC feed list and see if any of them strike me as being similar to JFK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should also be noted that the BOM guys have to work under conditions that makes NYC look like utter luxury too. They are actually way more overloaded for the facilities available to them than NYC ever is.
> 
> 
> 
> DEL can get pretty bad too, but I understand that BOM is usually worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was just in BOM last week. Long flight... They do a great job, given the limitations they have
Click to expand...

I will be passing through BOM transiting United to Jet Airways, second week of Jan, and then Jet to United end of Jan on the way back.

At BOM ATC, I got the feeling that the Indian Pilots can be much worse pains in the rear end than anything I have heard in the US too.


----------



## B757Guy

jis said:


> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B757Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully disagree, and not defending NYC.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my flying is from the US to europe and the middle east. I can tell you, Mumbai has some very testy ATC people, so does Frankfurt, Paris and Rome. It's certainly not isolated to any one part of the world/city, and to single any one place out. and suggest that is the worst, is unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll add FRA, CDG, and FCO to my ATC feed list and see if any of them strike me as being similar to JFK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should also be noted that the BOM guys have to work under conditions that makes NYC look like utter luxury too. They are actually way more overloaded for the facilities available to them than NYC ever is.
> 
> 
> 
> DEL can get pretty bad too, but I understand that BOM is usually worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was just in BOM last week. Long flight... They do a great job, given the limitations they have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will be passing through BOM transiting United to Jet Airways, second week of Jan, and then Jet to United end of Jan on the way back.
> 
> At BOM ATC, I got the feeling that the Indian Pilots can be much worse pains in the rear end than anything I have heard in the US too.
Click to expand...

Are you doing EWR-BOM?? I may be your pilot


----------



## jis

See PM for details


----------



## saxman

GBNorman said:


> Capt 57, possibly this is a matter not to be addressed at a public forum, but I've always wondered if a loaded for takeoff 72 or 3, was right at V1, and lost an engine, could it still do so and gain enough altitude to safely return?


V1 is the the speed every flight is predicated on. As long as the aircraft is below a certain calculated weight for any particular runway the aircraft can loose an engine at its worst possible moment, V1, and still climb on a single engine to clear the opposite end of the runway by at least 35 feet. It's also designed to clear any obstacles beyond the runway and climb to a safe altitude on one engine.

V1 is takeoff decision speed. During the takeoff roll if any engines fail or other emergency arises we can abort the takeoff and still have enough runway to stop if it happens before that V1 speed. If we've gone past that speed, it's a go no matter what. So we practice loosing and engine right after V1 and continuing the climb out in the simulator, known as "V1 Cuts." This is something I'll be practicing tomorrow and the next day in my new aircraft, the Embraer-175.


----------



## B757Guy

saxman said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capt 57, possibly this is a matter not to be addressed at a public forum, but I've always wondered if a loaded for takeoff 72 or 3, was right at V1, and lost an engine, could it still do so and gain enough altitude to safely return?
> 
> 
> 
> V1 is the the speed every flight is predicated on. As long as the aircraft is below a certain calculated weight for any particular runway the aircraft can loose an engine at its worst possible moment, V1, and still climb on a single engine to clear the opposite end of the runway by at least 35 feet. It's also designed to clear any obstacles beyond the runway and climb to a safe altitude on one engine.
> 
> V1 is takeoff decision speed. During the takeoff roll if any engines fail or other emergency arises we can abort the takeoff and still have enough runway to stop if it happens before that V1 speed. If we've gone past that speed, it's a go no matter what. So we practice loosing and engine right after V1 and continuing the climb out in the simulator, known as "V1 Cuts." This is something I'll be practicing tomorrow and the next day in my new aircraft, the Embraer-175.
Click to expand...

Congrats on the upgrade to the 175!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

B757Guy said:


> Happy to answer any 777 or 757/767 questions. Fire away!


Was there a specific incident or event that brought the 757 under the "heavy" class designation? Do you believe the 757 and 767 would have featured substantially increased efficiency and operational flexibility (at the expense of crew commonality) if they were designed independently without sharing resources and design decisions during active development? Can a 777 measure its weight while on the ground? How much does a 777's satellite communication dome impact fuel consumption? If a 757 passenger aircraft suffers a fault that prevents it from depressurizing and I attempt to open one of the plug doors after the aircraft has landed what happens? Let's assume the flight reached FL350 before the fault occurred, we landed near sea level, the door is disarmed, and I have infinite leverage to bear on the door handle.


----------



## B757Guy

Typically, the FAA designates any aircraft with a Max Takeoff Weight (MTOW) of 300,000lbs or greater as a "heavy" due to the wake turbulence they generate. The 757 is unique, in that it it's MTOW is around 256,000lbs, But, a series of incidents with smaller aircraft, that unfortunately crashed after encountering a 757's wake, caused the FAA to designate the 757 as a "heavy" so as to ensure proper separation.

With regards to the 757 and 767 being developed separately, I think it's best to look at the state of the industry when the 757 especially was being developed. It was designed to replace the 727, and with regards to that mission, it was a success. The 767 was Boeing's first CRT/2 person aircraft, and was also a direct response to Airbus and their A300. Collectively, over 2000 of the types were built, and are considered a success. Both provided technologies and design elements that led to the 787 and 777.

The 777 FMC like any Boeing, afaik, needs the ZFW (zero fuel weight) manually entered or uplinked. Then it knows the fuel weight so then it knows it’s actual weight. With regards to the SAT dome fuel question. I actually have no idea! I'd have to look at the engineering manuals.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Thank you for your answers. I kept hoping you'd eventually remark on the pressurized plug door manipulation inquiry. For most of my life I believed it was virtually impossible to open a plug door while the cabin was still pressurized. My understanding was that even if you were infinitely strong you'd simply end up breaking the door's massive handle long before you could force the rest of the mechanism to actuate. But I've also heard there have been instances of defective depressurization valves leading to staff being thrown out onto the tarmac after operating the door of an unintentionally pressurized cabin. That seems to throw a bit of a monkey wrench into the original understanding, and leaves me wondering if the critical factor is that the cabin was not fully pressurized or that it didn't have any fast moving air mass along the outer skin.


----------



## fanjet

Hi B757Guy

Congrats on your upgrade to the B777.

Having recently retired from aircraft maintenance, I would have to say that the triple was my favorite plane to work on. I was a technician until June, 2001 & then went to work in maintenance planning.

Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum


----------



## XHRTSP

railiner said:


> XHRTSP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that's going away any time soon. CPDLC in the US for enroute purposes is probably going to take a little while longer. Even in Europe you still have to check in between centers regardless of CPDLC login status.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware of this new technology....(I just Googled it)....sort of an expansion of ACARS, eh?
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% on the nuts and bolts, but that'd be like saying text messaging is an expansion of email. From just a flat out user perspective, in can kind of appear that that is the case.

Our interaction with ATC via ACARS is basically limited to retrieving ATIS and our departure clearance at participating airports, and retrieving our oceanic clearance before crossing the North Atlantic. Most ACARS functions involve communicating with the company.

CPDLC essentially replaces talking over the radio with ATC. They can give us frequency changes, headings, altitude changes, direct to fixes, reroutes, a warning that a North Korean ballistic missile was heading in our direction, etc. And we too can communicate back with them. This is especially useful over the water where otherwise we'd have to talk over varying qualities of HF frequencies.


----------



## railiner

Thanks for that explanation....so you still use HF over the ocean, and not satcom voice?


----------



## XHRTSP

railiner said:


> Thanks for that explanation....so you still use HF over the ocean, and not satcom voice?


Before coast out we will tune up the appropriate facility on HF and ensure we can establish comms with them. If one of our two HF radios is deferred, then the procedure would be to use the sat phone as a backup. In addition to the HF check, we would need to dial up the facility and make sure they have our phone number and we can make calls both ways.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Thanks for the information XHRTSP. Do satellite phones sound any clearer than conventional high frequency radio transmissions? I've always wondered why it seems little has been done to improve the audio clarity of aircraft communications. Most if not all of my personal audio sources have improved substantially over my lifetime while commercial truck and aircraft communications still sound much as they did the very first time I heard them.


----------



## railiner

XHRTSP said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that explanation....so you still use HF over the ocean, and not satcom voice?
> 
> 
> 
> Before coast out we will tune up the appropriate facility on HF and ensure we can establish comms with them. If one of our two HF radios is deferred, then the procedure would be to use the sat phone as a backup. In addition to the HF check, we would need to dial up the facility and make sure they have our phone number and we can make calls both ways.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for that response...


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> Thanks for the information XHRTSP. Do satellite phones sound any clearer than conventional high frequency radio transmissions? I've always wondered why it seems little has been done to improve the audio clarity of aircraft communications. Most if not all of my personal audio sources have improved substantially over my lifetime while commercial truck and aircraft communications still sound much as they did the very first time I heard them.


I am by no means an expert on communications, always like to learn more....

I do think part of the sound quality is due to aircraft using AM rather than FM due to other properties...otoh, railroads use FM in the VHF band

Not sure about what truck communications you are referring to, but if it's Citizen Band...that also uses AM, with its sound limitations, (not to mention interference issues)....


----------



## ehbowen

Although they have added channels (by slicing the frequency allocations of pre-existing channels), a tube-and-crystal radio from the 1940s would still "work" in todays ATC environment (as long as you had exactly the right crystals). While, technically speaking, the system is indeed due for an overhaul from the ground up (pardon the pun), any sweeping structural changes are going to be met by stiff resistance from aircraft owners, especially those who only operate part-time or in VFR conditions. Aircraft radios Are Not Cheap.


----------



## Blackwolf

ehbowen said:


> Aircraft radios Are Not Cheap.


Aircraft ANYTHING is not cheap!


----------



## ehbowen

Blackwolf said:


> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aircraft radios Are Not Cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> Aircraft ANYTHING is not cheap!
Click to expand...

Definite +1 to that!


----------



## GBNorman

Fortunately for United Airlines, the tragic event occurring in Parkland FL yesterday kept the media otherwise occupied and away from the incident near Hawaii yesterday.

There is no mention of such in either The Times or Journal print editions today.


----------



## PRR 60

GBNorman said:


> Fortunately for United Airlines, the tragic event occurring in Parkland FL yesterday kept the media otherwise occupied and away from the incident near Hawaii yesterday.
> 
> There is no mention of such in either The Times or Journal print editions today.


This was a loss of engine cowling in flight. The incident happened on Tuesday (2/13) and was covered by the main stream media and industry news.

New York Times

Aviation Herald


----------



## AmtrakBlue

GBNorman said:


> Fortunately for United Airlines, the tragic event occurring in Parkland FL yesterday kept the media otherwise occupied and away from the incident near Hawaii yesterday.
> 
> There is no mention of such in either The Times or Journal print editions today.


I’ve seen multiple mentions of the engine problem on my local station.But I’m not surprised that a mass murder takes precedent over a failed engine when the plane made a safe landing.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

Dunno. I learned about it within hours of it happening. I guess some need to broaden their horizon of news sources.




Besides why would anyone give precedence to a story of a well managed mechanical failure over 17 people dead? Things going right is seldom news anyway.

Incidentally this aircraft is the 4th delivered 777, a 777A with Pratt and Whitney engines. I have actually flown in this very aircraft from London Heathrow to Newark soon after it was delivered some 20 or so, years back.

Looks like there was a failure of a fan blade leading to its detachment and then damage to the nacelle causing it to disintegrate, or well that is the current learned prognostication.

BTW, there was another emergency landing of an A320 with P&W engines in Las Vegas on the same day too. People were joking that P&W needs to bathe their office in salt water or something to remove the curse from it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> Why would anyone give precedence to a story of a well-managed mechanical failure over 17 people dead?


Well, for starters we're still concerned about plane crashes and we remain convinced they can be stopped.


----------



## Trogdor

jis said:


> BTW, there was another emergency landing of an A320 with P&W engines in Las Vegas on the same day too. People were joking that P&W needs to bathe their office in salt water or something to remove the curse from it.


One digit and one airport code character off. The plane was an A330, and it was in Lagos, Nigeria (LOS).

Unless there was an A320neo that had an emergency landing in Vegas, too. That plane has had more than its share of engine problems of late.


----------



## jis

Trogdor said:


> Unless there was an A320neo that had an emergency landing in Vegas, too. That plane has had more than its share of engine problems of late.


So much so that Airbus has stopped accepting any further P&W Engines until they fix the known problems, and that is holding up A320neo deliveries, and everyone is marginally pissed off about it.

More on this aircraft. Tail # N773UA with 89720 hours and 16340 cycles. although this says nothing about the engine or the nacelle, since it has probably been changed/replaced several times in 20+ years.


----------



## railiner

Are there any published stats on whether P&W, RR, or GE engines have been more reliable in the 777?


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Are there any published stats on whether P&W, RR, or GE engines have been more reliable in the 777?


I haven't found any.But that is not to say it does not exist.

One will recall that GE90's had a pretty rough going the first year of introduction and BA (first GE powered 777 customer) had to withdraw its 777s for several months until problems were fixed. Kind of similar to the problems that PW is having with 320neos.

BTW, Beyond 777-200ER, and 777-300 (not ER) the only engine available is various versions of GE90/9X. That is 777-200LR/F, 777-300ER and 777X versions have only GE90 or GE9X variants. No RR or PW engines for them.


----------



## railiner

That GE90-115B is awesome!


----------



## GBNorman

GBNorman said:


> 777; the most beautifully proportioned aircraft Mr. Boeing put on this earth.
> 
> Was it ever an experience to fly on a one month old United 777-300 ORD-MUC last August. It still smelt new. Their Polaris Business Class is a superb product. One having "been there", hard to go back to "The Gulag" on an overseas flight.


Well, I went over again this year, but it was back to a 772(Q) I got 6A, which is nice because United does not sell 6B. It is for pilot rest, but if something is open in First, that's where they will go.
It seems that Polaris just "petered out". United got fifteen 773(W)'s new and they were so configured. But they are in no rush to reconfigure any existing 763's or 772's, save reportedly one each. Who knows the A-350's on order will be configured.

But an Attendant friend of mine with thirty five years says to me "hardly the first time they've made a big splash over something, then it just fades away".


----------



## railiner

GBNorman said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "hardly the first time they've made a big splash over something, then it just fades away".
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I find that statement, all too true...the 'bright idea people', in a company's marketing department will push for some innovation or improvement, and then have it quashed by the company's 'bean-counter's', before it even gets a fair chance to prove itself. With advance sales algorithm's, they quickly determine that it may not be the success it was hyped to be, and put an early end to it before too much is invested...


----------



## jis

At least I will have Polaris on 77W on my EWR - BOM - EWR later this year [emoji4]


----------



## Trogdor

GBNorman said:


> It seems that Polaris just "petered out". United got fifteen 773's new and they were so configured. But they are in no rush to reconfigure any existing 763's or 772's, save reportedly one each.


Not sure where you're getting this idea from, but 11 767s have already been converted to Polaris, with two more currently in mod. In fact, there is only one 767 with "old UA" business class left, and it will go in for mods pretty soon. After that, three 767s that UA just bought from Hawaiian will go in for mods, along with, reportedly, some of the 767s that were initially modified to Continental-style business class shortly after the merger.

On the 777 front, they have 17 777-300ERs in service, with an 18th on the way soon. One has already been modified to include their new premium economy product, and the rest should supposedly get converted in short order. They also have five 777-200ERs with Polaris (and premium economy), with four more out of service for mods.

Boeing 787s with Polaris show up this fall, and the existing 787 fleet is supposedly going to go in for modifications by the end of next year.

Polaris did get off to a slow start, but it's moving along just fine now.


----------



## GBNorman

Interesting to learn from member Trogdor.

My Attendant friend Maureen has yet to work a "W", although some of her "galpals" have. Looking way ahead to next August (not sure if I'm going again; I'll be 78 yo and "it just might be too much") but UA952/3 ORD-MUC-ORD is showing three class "Q" configuration.

But pleased to hear UA is moving ahead -especially with the 789's.


----------



## Trogdor

United seat maps for flights far into the future, especially for fleets undergoing reconfiguration, don't mean much. It's just a placeholder.


----------



## B757Guy

railiner said:


> That GE90-115B is awesome!


Yes they are, make me smile every time I line up on the runway. Excellent to have all that performance as needed, especially when during a go-around. I've only done one real-life GA so far in the 777, and it was even better than the 75/76, which had plenty of power to get you out of just about anything.


----------



## GBNorman

Time to update your handle to, say, "Triple Seven Guy"?

I agree, a beautiful aircraft; the best one Mr. Boeing's successors ever built (much as I hate to say it, the latter day 737 varietals take second place).

I'm sure to be up forward is even more exciting than for me "back there", but to "feel the Generals or Mr. Pratt and Mr. Whitney doing their stuff", as well as knowing if you lost one right at V1, there would be a successful take off and return.


----------



## B757Guy

GBNorman said:


> Time to update your handle to, say, "Triple Seven Guy"?
> 
> I agree, a beautiful aircraft; the best one Mr. Boeing's successors ever built (much as I hate to say it, the latter day 737 varietals take second place).
> 
> I'm sure to be up forward is even more exciting than for me "back there", but to "feel the Generals or Mr. Pratt and Mr. Whitney doing their stuff", as well as knowing if you lost one right at V1, there would be a successful take off and return.


Yes! Even at MTOW, a V1 cut, while nerve wracking, is a bit less so, with all that power, and a few features the engineers at Boeing designed to help reduce the workload!


----------



## Dakota 400

As a passenger, I agree that the 777 is a very nice plane and is comfortable. (I really like the changing ceiling light feature.) But, on such a large plane, couldn't they have made the restrooms just a bit larger?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Dakota 400 said:


> As a passenger, I agree that the 777 is a very nice plane and is comfortable. (I really like the changing ceiling light feature.) But, on such a large plane, couldn't they have made the restrooms just a bit larger?


Restrooms aren't Revenue Generators!


----------



## jis

There is at least one, maybe two larger restrooms at least on the 777s that I have been on. It is of course an airline specific thing, so it depends on the airline you were on. Even the smaller restrooms appear to be larger than the ones on 737s.


----------



## cpotisch

Bob Dylan said:


> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a passenger, I agree that the 777 is a very nice plane and is comfortable. (I really like the changing ceiling light feature.) But, on such a large plane, couldn't they have made the restrooms just a bit larger?
> 
> 
> 
> Restrooms aren't Revenue Generators!
Click to expand...

Yup. If they can sell maybe two more seats by having small restrooms, it makes sense to have small restrooms! Annoying but true.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Dakota 400 said:


> As a passenger, I agree that the 777 is a very nice plane and is comfortable. (I really like the changing ceiling light feature.) But, on such a large plane, couldn't they have made the restrooms just a bit larger?


These days airlines are busy reducing the total number of lavatories and shrinking those that remain.

Link: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airplane-bathrooms-smaller-20180710-story.html



jis said:


> There is at least one, maybe two larger restrooms at least on the 777s that I have been on. It is of course an airline specific thing, so it depends on the airline you were on. Even the smaller restrooms appear to be larger than the ones on 737s.


In the early days of the 772 there used to be at least one coach class lavatory large enough for washing up and changing clothes, but I haven't seen one of those in many years now.


----------



## jis

Maybe just an ex-Con United thing. I thought the LH 8i also had it too but can’t vouch for it. Will see in Dec if the UA 77Ws have it.


----------



## GBNorman

If I go again to the Salzburg Festival

next August (and at age 78, you don't make such plans that much in advance), hopefully United will have enough 77-W's around for the ORD-MUC flights.

BTW, my attachment to United is simply because I know my way around their terminal 1 at ORD - also might I say their area at MUC. At year's end, my point balance will be 0 - I give 'em all away to a veterans support group - Fisher House.


----------



## Dakota 400

My most memorable 777 restroom visit was one in Business Class on Air New Zealand. Honestly, I think the restroom was smaller than on any other Boeing aircraft that I have needed to use. However, having closed the door and sitting on the "pot", viewing the cartoon pilot on the door "looking at me" was an unexpected, but a pleasant surprise.

I still would have preferred a slightly larger restroom for such a long distance flight.

Air New Zealand seems to have a sense of humor that U. S. airlines lack.


----------



## AutoTrDvr

I used to do the Continental flight from Newark NJ <----> Hong Kong. or Tokyo 16 hours EWR--->HKG taking the polar route. Tokyo was slightly less polar, but the cool thing about Tokyo -->EWR is that you would be scheduled to arrive 20 minutes before you departed Japan (by crossing the Intl. Date Line).

All of these travels were in B777-200ERs with GE 90 94B engines. Man can they put out some power! And very quiet once they spool up to full idle. Of course, "ignition to idle" is very much within the resonance range of the aircraft, but....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Dakota 400 said:


> My most memorable 777 restroom visit was one in Business Class on Air New Zealand. Honestly, I think the restroom was smaller than on any other Boeing aircraft that I have needed to use.


Have you flown a recently delivered B73X or A32X? The newest lavatories are surprisingly compact. If you're a taller guy you might have to twist, bend, and/or lean at an awkward angle just to finish your business. It's ridiculous to me but I guess unless and until people stop flying it will only get worse from here.



AutoTrDvr said:


> I used to do the Continental flight from Newark NJ <----> Hong Kong. or Tokyo 16 hours EWR--->HKG taking the polar route. Tokyo was slightly less polar, but the cool thing about Tokyo -->EWR is that you would be scheduled to arrive 20 minutes before you departed Japan (by crossing the Intl. Date Line). All of these travels were in B777-200ERs with GE 90 94B engines. Man can they put out some power! And very quiet once they spool up to full idle. Of course, "ignition to idle" is very much within the resonance range of the aircraft, but....


Are there many Eastbound TPAC's that do _not_ arrive before they leave? Early model 772's are by far the loudest wide body jet aircraft I've ever ridden. That constant drone really wore me down and made it hard to sleep restfully. The newest 773's seem to be substantially quieter though. Not sure what exactly changed but I'm very thankful nonetheless.


----------



## jis

Yeah, the new gen narrow body toilets are really cramped.

The sound of a 90 spooling up is music to my ears, in the same league as an EMD revving up. [emoji51]


----------



## GBNorman

It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's  announced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.


----------



## BCL

jis said:


> The sound of a 90 spooling up is music to my ears, in the same league as an EMD revving up. [emoji51]


Looking forward to the 9X?


----------



## cpotisch

GBNorman said:


> It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/united-airlines-extends-dreamliner-bet-with-2-5-billion-order'> annoinced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.


The 767s' days are definitely number, but I disagree about the 777s. The 777 is significantly larger than any 787, and they are not particularly old either, so I don't think that the airlines are in any hurry to get rid of them. JMO.


----------



## railiner

Have to agree about the ever-shrinking airliner lav. Heck, even the ones on a bus are cavernous in comparison...


----------



## CCC1007

cpotisch said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/united-airlines-extends-dreamliner-bet-with-2-5-billion-order'> annoinced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The 767s' days are definitely number, but I disagree about the 777s. The 777 is significantly larger than any 787, and they are not particularly old either, so I don't think that the airlines are in any hurry to get rid of them. JMO.
Click to expand...

Aren’t the 772’s in the United fleet close to 20 years old?


----------



## cpotisch

CCC1007 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/united-airlines-extends-dreamliner-bet-with-2-5-billion-order'> annoinced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The 767s' days are definitely number, but I disagree about the 777s. The 777 is significantly larger than any 787, and they are not particularly old either, so I don't think that the airlines are in any hurry to get rid of them. JMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren’t the 772’s in the United fleet close to 20 years old?
Click to expand...

True, but the 767s are more than 10 years older. And while a 787 or A350 can easily fit as many people as a 767, 777s are bigger than all three of those.


----------



## AutoTrDvr

CCC1007 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/united-airlines-extends-dreamliner-bet-with-2-5-billion-order'> annoinced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The 767s' days are definitely number, but I disagree about the 777s. The 777 is significantly larger than any 787, and they are not particularly old either, so I don't think that the airlines are in any hurry to get rid of them. JMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren’t the 772’s in the United fleet close to 20 years old?
Click to expand...

Some are. But I think the one's that came with Continental Airlines are fairly new (the ones that have GE 90 engines - I think the older United 777's had PW's)...


----------



## Trogdor

cpotisch said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly appears that United is getting ready to send many of their 772's to the "land of the 744". With the order for additional 789's https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/united-airlines-extends-dreamliner-bet-with-2-5-billion-order'> annoinced yesterday, as well as the A-350's, on order, it would appear that the 763 could have "numbered days" in the fleet as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The 767s' days are definitely number, but I disagree about the 777s. The 777 is significantly larger than any 787, and they are not particularly old either, so I don't think that the airlines are in any hurry to get rid of them. JMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren’t the 772’s in the United fleet close to 20 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the 767s are more than 10 years older. And while a 787 or A350 can easily fit as many people as a 767, 777s are bigger than all three of those.
Click to expand...

United's oldest 767s are from 1991. Their oldest 777s are from 1995.

Approximately half of United's 767 (including all of the -400s) are younger than their oldest 777s.

In terms of capacity, the 787-9 is only 15 seats smaller than the current seating configuration for the ex-Continental 777-200ERs. Granted, once they get reconfigured with higher-density economy seating, that difference will increase a bit.

On the other hand, airline fleet replacements aren't a 1-for-1, like-for-like deal. For example, UA used to have a couple dozen 747-400s (don't know how many at the peak of the fleet), and right now they only have 18 777-300ERs. The rest were replaced by smaller planes (including the 787), offering more frequency, more nonstop service, etc. For example, they now fly 787s on multiple nonstop routes between the US and Australia and New Zealand, rather than funneling everyone through a SFO-SYD nonstop 747. They do SFO-SIN nonstop rather than needing a 747 to connect those passengers through Tokyo or Hong Kong.

To say that they need to replace a big plane with another one with exactly the same, or more, capacity, is to misunderstand how these types of decisions are made.


----------



## jis

We won’t know the exact shape of things at United until (and if) the 350s, which were the original 747 replacements, arrive (or not). Until then it is all interim.

But I do agree with Trog’s basic thesis.


----------



## Trogdor

jis said:


> We wont know the exact shape of things at United until (and if) the 350s, which were the original 747 replacements, arrive (or not). Until then it is all interim.
> 
> But I do agree with Trogs basic thesis.


Well, if you want to be technical, its always going to be interim. When they replace the oldest 767s, then theyll have to look to start retiring their A320s which are almost as old. Not to mention the PW-powered 757s which are living on borrowed time.

Once they have that figured out, itll be time to retire the rest of their 757s. Then, before you know it, the oldest 737NGs will be aging out (whether thats before or after the 767-400s, who knows?). Since nobody has yet figured out how to economically convert a passenger 777 to cargo, one would expect the bulk of the 777ER fleet to stay at UA until they either age out or become economical unsustainable due to fuel costs. But those retirements will likely have to begin within a decade. But that process will probably take a decade in itself to complete, during which time more 737s will be aging out. That would take you into the mid-2030s, when the 787s start hitting 20+ years old...

A large airline will never be done with fleet renewal.

As for the A350s, there is a contingent of folks who claim they will never see a day in service for UA, and the recent order change was more of a stall tactic to avoid contractual penalties while they negotiate an agreement with both Airbus and Rolls Royce to get out of taking planes for which they no longer foresee a need.


----------



## Seaboard92

I will say when I play the game online Airline Empires the B767-400ER is one of my favorites to use. Generally in the beginning I've tended to use the Airbus aircraft because they are far cheaper upfront. But once the company matures I generally replace all of my A330 aircraft with a B767-400ER. I'll replace A340 and B747-400 with various 777 variants.

I believe one time on the game I had a fleet of over 300 767/777 variants. For my regional operations I tend to use CRJ200s. Domestic short range I try to stick with B737-900 but occasionally I retain some A321


----------



## jis

I just flew EWR - ATH - EWR on UA 767-400ER in the front (GPU upgrade on ex-Con BF hard product with Polaris soft product). Got a singleton “D” seat both ways. They were wonderful flight. Crew, food and beverage were top quality. I think UA is finally getting out of its rut at least on international routes. We’ll see if this is consistent or a one shot deal.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> I just flew EWR - ATH - EWR on UA 767-400ER in the front (GPU upgrade on ex-Con BF hard product with Polaris soft product). Got a singleton “D” seat both ways. They were wonderful flight. Crew, food and beverage were top quality. I think UA is finally getting out of its rut at least on international routes. We’ll see if this is consistent or a one shot deal.


And you weren't even dragged screaming off the plane to make room for a few employees! Nice!


----------



## jis

I am not aware of anyone being dragged off an international or mainline flight, specially from BC or FC. Are you? [emoji12]


----------



## GBNorman

cpotisch said:


> And you weren't even dragged screaming off the plane to make room for a few employees! Nice!


Again, back to the earlier Regionals flying under their own colors discussion.

The incident referred to within the caption did not occur on "Mainline" United.


----------



## jis

GBNorman said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you weren't even dragged screaming off the plane to make room for a few employees! Nice!
> 
> 
> 
> Again, back to the earlier Regionals flying under their own colors discussion.
> 
> The incident referred to within the caption did not occur on "Mainline" United.
Click to expand...

Also since then Munoz changed the policy regarding release of seats for staff, even on United Express flights, so it is unlikely to happen again. In short, a passenger who has already boarded cannot be pulled off to accommodate a staff. There were all kinds of essentially anti-passenger silliness that came in under Smisek and Tilton that needs to go. This was apparently one of them.


----------



## PVD

Wasn't there something in the FAA Reauth bill that just passed that severely limits the ability of an airline to remove a passenger for the purpose of boarding someone else once they have been boarded?


----------



## jis

Maybe. United changed its policy about a week after that incident.


----------



## cpotisch

PVD said:


> Wasn't there something in the FAA Reauth bill that just passed that severely limits the ability of an airline to remove a passenger for the purpose of boarding someone else once they have been boarded?


I'm about 99% sure this is correct. About time.


----------



## Dakota 400

PVD said:


> Wasn't there something in the FAA Reauth bill that just passed that severely limits the ability of an airline to remove a passenger for the purpose of boarding someone else once they have been boarded?


Yes, this provision was included in the FAA Authorization Renewal Bill very recently passed by Congress. And, it was done with a bipartisan vote if what I have read is correct.


----------

