# Large plane discussion



## Trogdor

MARC Rider said:


> Hmmm... This thread is called "Small Plane Discussion," and the last few pages are about Boeing 767s and 787s. I hate to think of the size of the planes described in the thread "Large Plane Discussion." But maybe everyone will use that thread to debate the relative merits of Beechcraft vs. Piper aircraft.



To separate the large from the small, I'll add my comments here. The issues of window shades (and the electronic ones on the 787) are an argument that will never fully satisfy everyone. They do save weight, which is important, but practically, they are a compromise between those that want to look out the window no matter what, and those that want the cabin as dark as possible so they can sleep/watch in-flight entertainment, etc. The dimming feature does not go completely opaque, yet they do very heavily limit the amount of light that can enter. You can still see out (albeit with a very heavy dark blue tint), but the cabin remains dark.

The other half of the controversy is that, because they are electronic, the crew can control them centrally. So if they want the cabin to be dark, they can lock it out (and likewise if they want the windows transparent, such as for takeoff and landing). That, of course, bugs the folks that want full control of the window shade to the exclusion of anyone else.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Trogdor said:


> To separate the large from the small, I'll add my comments here. The issues of window shades (and the electronic ones on the 787) are an argument that will never fully satisfy everyone. They do save weight, which is important, but practically, they are a compromise between those that want to look out the window no matter what, and those that want the cabin as dark as possible so they can sleep/watch in-flight entertainment, etc. The dimming feature does not go completely opaque, yet they do very heavily limit the amount of light that can enter. You can still see out (albeit with a very heavy dark blue tint), but the cabin remains dark. The other half of the controversy is that, because they are electronic, the crew can control them centrally. So if they want the cabin to be dark, they can lock it out (and likewise if they want the windows transparent, such as for takeoff and landing). That, of course, bugs the folks that want full control of the window shade to the exclusion of anyone else.


On routes the 787 was designed to fly the usual experience was having shades open from takeoff until the first meal service, closed for the middle portion of the flight so people could rest or watch movies uninterrupted, and then open again after the pre-arrival service. This was something that happened naturally most of the time and gave passengers a useful middleground compromise to work with. Those who forgot or refused to go along were handled by the flight attendants. The problem with the new electronic shades is that they don't really help travelers regardless of their situation. Passengers who want darkness now get a weird blue glow that is apparently bad for restful sleeping while those who want to look outside are still prevented from doing so and for even more of the flight than before. The only people who seem to benefit from the new shades are bean counters, flight attendants, and gadget fans.


----------



## PVD

Are they the aviation equivalent of Viewliner Roomette toilets?


----------



## Dakota 400

Trogdor said:


> The issues of window shades (and the electronic ones on the 787) are an argument that will never fully satisfy everyone.



Absolutely correct! I have not yet flown on a 787, but I have flown on 777's, 767's, and 757's, etc. One of the reasons that I will book a Business Class seat on a plane that has single seats by a window is to be able to control the window shade. I like natural light. I like the ability to see--whatever there may be able to be seen--outside of the plane. It irritates me no end--but, being courteous--I never say "a word" when I am seated in an aisle seat and the guest that has the window seat shuts the window shade down--sometimes even before we have taken off. 

Even when it is dark, flying over areas such as Orlando en route to ATL on a flight from Argentina was very interesting to witness the size of that metropolitan area. Such provides a different perspective to one's thinking, I believe.


----------



## MARC Rider

PVD said:


> Are they the aviation equivalent of Viewliner Roomette toilets?


The thing I didn't like about them was that the touch controls didn't seem to give consistent results. Our technology has become too complicated. For similar reasons, I also hate touch-screen smartphones.

My experience on a IAD-PEK roundtrip was on the outbound, they darkened the windows a bit before it got dark outside, and then opened them up right after the "breakfast" service, and it was light out and I had a great view of the dry Chinese countryside on the approach to Beijing. On the way back, the whole flight was in darkness, so I didn't really care one way or the other. Anyway, I had an aisle seat and was not able to mess around with the windows in any case.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Dakota 400 said:


> It irritates me no end--but, being courteous--I never say "a word" when I am seated in an aisle seat and the guest that has the window seat shuts the window shade down--sometimes even before we have taken off.


When I'm flying to a new destination I usually pick the window so I can view the arrival. On repeat visits I tend to switch to the aisle because it's more comfortable and easier to reach my luggage or use the facilities. The only time I don't want the shade raised is when we're out over the ocean in the middle of the day with little to see but enough sun to bathe the cabin in a sudden blinding light. It's really jarring when people do that even in business class. Some aircraft have external camera feeds you can view on the PTV. They tend to be kind of fuzzy but maybe if they had better optics it would benefit everyone.


----------



## Dakota 400

Devil's Advocate said:


> The only time I don't want the shade raised is when we're out over the ocean in the middle of the day with little to see but enough sun to bathe the cabin in a sudden blinding light. It's really jarring when people do that even in business class.



I have experienced that! It's even worse if someone does so on an overnight flight and the cabin goes from semi-dark to bright light in seconds.


----------



## railiner

Dakota 400 said:


> I have experienced that! It's even worse if someone does so on an overnight flight and the cabin goes from semi-dark to bright light in seconds.


It's especially jarring on eastbound 'red-eyes'....just when you are finally getting into a deep sleep, someone will raise the shade, and BOOM! the blinding sun hits you. The dawn comes so unexpectedly quick on eastbounds....and the totally opaque shades do such a good job hiding that fact, that you don't expect it....


----------



## Dakota 400

American Airlines has announced non-stop service between Dayton, Ohio and Miami, Florida starting in early November. So, the headline read. Getting into the details: the flights will be once per week on a Saturday. Leaving DAY at 6:30 A.M. and returning from Miami that same day at 9:30 P. M. with an arrival at DAY at 12:20 A. M. Sunday morning. The aircraft to be used will be a 50 seat regional jet. 

According to AA PR's department, this flight will allow for people to have a day in "the Magic City" (AA's words, not mine) for a Winter respite.

Gee, thanks, American Airlines. No interest for such in this household!


----------



## Exvalley

There is a maintenance facility in Dayton. This flight has everything to do with shuttling airplanes from the MIA hub to DAY for maintenance and not much to do with a convenient flight for residents of Dayton. If they can sell some seats, so be it.

Air Canada has a similar flight between Montreal and Nashville. It's a pure maintenance run.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I was thinking along the same lines. A single weekly cycle that finishes after midnight is most likely a repositioning flight for maintenance or schedule reset purposes. The marketing and sales pitch is understandable but incidental to the primary purpose.


----------



## Asher

I’m not sure if this belongs in the Small or Large Plane forum. Bizarre!
A man flying a jetpack was reported by pilots above Los Angeles - CNN
1 day ago · An American Airlines flight was the first to report a "guy in a jetpack" at the plane's' altitude of 3,000 feet above Los ...


----------



## PVD

Maybe Shatner and Lithgow weren't crazy after all.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

ATC communication of the jetpack event has been released.


----------



## jiml

Dakota 400 said:


> American Airlines has announced non-stop service between Dayton, Ohio and Miami, Florida starting in early November. So, the headline read. Getting into the details: the flights will be once per week on a Saturday. Leaving DAY at 6:30 A.M. and returning from Miami that same day at 9:30 P. M. with an arrival at DAY at 12:20 A. M. Sunday morning. The aircraft to be used will be a 50 seat regional jet.
> 
> According to AA PR's department, this flight will allow for people to have a day in "the Magic City" (AA's words, not mine) for a Winter respite.
> 
> Gee, thanks, American Airlines. No interest for such in this household!


That's a long flight in an RJ!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

UA flew regional jets on a SFO-SAT/AUS routing that often exceeded 1,500 miles. Flying regional jets wasn't very fun but a nonstop flight helped cancel out the smaller seats, rougher turbulence, and limited service. What's funny is that UA would price these tiny jets like you were being fed fine caviar out of a crystal bowl on a silver platter with a nacre spoon while the actual meal was a box of stale pantry snacks handed out by a rookie flight attendant.


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> That's a long flight in an RJ!


I once took a flight from LGA to LAX with a change at XNA (Northwest Arkansas). Went from an ERJ-145 to a CRJ-700. The connection was easy, and the entire trip took only 6 hours. The reason I did that, was the nonstops were full, and I was traveling standby.....


----------



## PVD

There was a period of time when Eastern had a Kansas City hub, LGA-MCI and EWR-MCI /LAX-MCI and SFO-MCI in both directions. planes would come in at MCO next to each other, passengers would change based on destination, and as soon as baggage moved right back out. Very inexpensive, not too much lost time, and real planes A-300, B757, L1011.....did it once with my parents, when my sister lived in CA MCI-LGA return (A300) one scary night when the pilot said he thought there was an opening in a long line of storms, but if it didn't work out we would land in Cleveland, and spend the night, because they would be dead on hours. First time I was ever scared in a plane.


----------



## Exvalley

I actually seek out regional jet flights - no matter how long the flight. My company pays for me to fly in first class, and I really like the 1-2 seating because I can snag one seat that is both a window and aisle seat. I also prefer the 2-2 seating in coach compared to 3-3 seating on larger planes. The Embraer planes are especially comfortable.


----------



## PVD

That would depend on which Embraer, and who is flying them The E-Jets are pretty nice, the ERJ 135/45 can be real tight depending on the carrier. Also, UA embarked on a program to refit some CRJ with a much nicer layout recently.


----------



## railiner

PVD said:


> There was a period of time when Eastern had a Kansas City hub, LGA-MCI and EWR-MCI /LAX-MCI and SFO-MCI in both directions. planes would come in at MCO next to each other, passengers would change based on destination, and as soon as baggage moved right back out. Very inexpensive, not too much lost time, and real planes A-300, B757, L1011.....did it once with my parents, when my sister lived in CA MCI-LGA return (A300) one scary night when the pilot said he thought there was an opening in a long line of storms, but if it didn't work out we would land in Cleveland, and spend the night, because they would be dead on hours. First time I was ever scared in a plane.


If you want to fly from convenient LGA to the west coast, you have to make at least one stop, due to the old "Perimeter Rule" distance restriction. I believe the longest flight out of LGA is Denver....


----------



## jiml

PVD said:


> That would depend on which Embraer, and who is flying them The E-Jets are pretty nice, the ERJ 135/45 can be real tight depending on the carrier. Also, UA embarked on a program to refit some CRJ with a much nicer layout recently.


Agreed on all counts. AA had a lot of the earlier Embraer jets, making them hard to avoid. The 175 and 190 series are great airplanes, although some carriers are retiring the latter this year and they're not that old. Except for the oldest 100 and 200 models, CRJ's seem to have found new life. The last one I flew on pre-Covid had a sparkling new interior.


----------



## PVD

Yes, Denver was the exemption at LGA, it is slightly longer than the limit but was grandfathered. For some reasons, Saturdays are also exempt, but I don't think anyone bothered with a one day a week service....


----------



## Michigan Mom

Regarding the new nonstop DAY-MIA, I have doubts it's for scheduled maintenance in DAY. AA has a major hub and maintenance base in MIA. The flight times make me wonder if it's to connect cruise traffic in and out of south Florida. Many of AA's early morning departures to MIA are for that purpose. So it might be that the cruise industry is preparing to get going again in November, and the market research showed there are enough customers out of the Dayton OH area to justify service. Also the entire airline industry is depressed and capacity has been reduced to the point where some other smaller cities may lose service. Part of the coping strategy might be to identify markets where they can recoup some losses. The other reason for early MIA arrivals and late departures are connecting traffic from South America, but this seems less likely than potential cruising resurgence, because of ongoing restrictions. Maybe they're anticipating (or hoping) that situation will improve.

EDIT: I removed the word "daily" since OP had said it was Saturday only. That was the big cruising day for flights out of DTW to MIA early in the morning, so I'm still thinking that has something to do with it.


----------



## PVD

If the flight is an RJ not mainline, it might be operated by PSA as an American Eagle carrier, which I think does maintenance at Dayton, whereas MIA would be AA mainline.


----------



## Michigan Mom

PVD said:


> If the flight is an RJ not mainline, it might be operated by PSA as an American Eagle carrier, which I think does maintenance at Dayton, whereas MIA would be AA mainline.


There might be specialized mechanics in Dayton, but most anything can get done in Miami unless something has changed and they've moved people around or out sourced etc.


----------



## PVD

If it's PSA as Eagle, AA would rather have the subsidiary do it, I believe they make less money...


----------



## Trogdor

Michigan Mom said:


> Regarding the new nonstop DAY-MIA, I have doubts it's for scheduled maintenance in DAY. AA has a major hub and maintenance base in MIA. The flight times make me wonder if it's to connect cruise traffic in and out of south Florida. Many of AA's early morning departures to MIA are for that purpose. So it might be that the cruise industry is preparing to get going again in November, and the market research showed there are enough customers out of the Dayton OH area to justify service. Also the entire airline industry is depressed and capacity has been reduced to the point where some other smaller cities may lose service. Part of the coping strategy might be to identify markets where they can recoup some losses. The other reason for early MIA arrivals and late departures are connecting traffic from South America, but this seems less likely than potential cruising resurgence, because of ongoing restrictions. Maybe they're anticipating (or hoping) that situation will improve.
> 
> EDIT: I removed the word "daily" since OP had said it was Saturday only. That was the big cruising day for flights out of DTW to MIA early in the morning, so I'm still thinking that has something to do with it.



I can assure you that virtually nobody is doing anything to connect to cruise traffic right now, or in the near future.



Michigan Mom said:


> There might be specialized mechanics in Dayton, but most anything can get done in Miami unless something has changed and they've moved people around or out sourced etc.



Scheduled maintenance is often done at designated facilities where the airline has facilities dedicated specifically to such (or where a contractor has such facilities).

It's not a question of whether or not Miami can do "most anything." Unplanned breakdowns, sure, they can fix it. Routine stuff that has to be done every few days, definitely makes sense to have that capability at certain stations. But for stuff that has to be done less often, and needs to be scheduled in advance, they're going to route the plane to a specific facility. And the regional carrier, in this place, has its maintenance base in Dayton, and needs to send planes there regularly enough that they can schedule it through a regular revenue routing.

It's not really that different from Amtrak sending heavier maintenance to Beech Grove or Bear, DE, when Chicago, Sunnyside, Ivy City (DC), etc. can handle regular line maintenance.


----------



## Dakota 400

Exvalley said:


> There is a maintenance facility in Dayton. This flight has everything to do with shuttling airplanes from the MIA hub to DAY for maintenance and not much to do with a convenient flight for residents of Dayton. If they can sell some seats, so be it.
> 
> Air Canada has a similar flight between Montreal and Nashville. It's a pure maintenance run.



There is a PSA maintenance facility at DAY. As of October 1st, there will be some staff reductions at that facility.



Michigan Mom said:


> The flight times make me wonder if it's to connect cruise traffic in and out of south Florida. Many of AA's early morning departures to MIA are for that purpose. So it might be that the cruise industry is preparing to get going again in November, and the market research showed there are enough customers out of the Dayton OH area to justify service.



The flight time leaving DAY does make sense for making a same day cruise connection. The flight time leaving MIA does not make sense for returning cruise passengers. One's off the ship by no later than 10:00-10:30 A. M. A 9:30 P. M. departure from MIA would not be desirable. I have no doubt that AA's market research does show sufficient demand during the Fall and Winter for such a flight to MIA if cruising does return late 2020 or early 2021. 

But, to justify such a schedule for a "part of a one day getaway", the fares would have to be dirt cheap to make such a schedule attractive, I think.



jiml said:


> That's a long flight in an RJ!



That's what I thought!


----------



## Dakota 400

Exvalley said:


> My company pays for me to fly in first class, and I really like the 1-2 seating because I can snag one seat that is both a window and aisle seat.



Last August, I flew on a Delta regional jet from MSP-DAY in First Class with the 1-2 seating. Like you, I reserved the "A" seat. Decent leg room, wider and more comfortable seat, with better than expected First Class service on a regional jet experienced.


----------



## Dakota 400

anumberone said:


> I’m not sure if this belongs in the Small or Large Plane forum. Bizarre!
> A man flying a jetpack was reported by pilots above Los Angeles - CNN
> 1 day ago · An American Airlines flight was the first to report a "guy in a jetpack" at the plane's' altitude of 3,000 feet above Los ...



I am really becoming quite concerned about individuals who seem not to understand the danger they are posing by flying drones near airports and now this report of a human flying idiot. What is it going to take for the FAA and law enforcement to stop such actions? (And, I am afraid I think I know the answer.)


----------



## railiner

PVD said:


> Yes, Denver was the exemption at LGA, it is slightly longer than the limit but was grandfathered. For some reasons, Saturdays are also exempt, but I don't think anyone bothered with a one day a week service....


AA did....ran nonstop to Eagle/Vail during the ski season....


----------



## PVD

interesting I knew they went there, I never realized from LGA


----------



## trainman74

Just as long as people in Dayton realize the flight is to Miami, Florida, and not Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

And just as long as people in Miami realize the flight is to Dayton and not Dayton*a*.


----------



## Asher

Dakota 400 said:


> I am really becoming quite concerned about individuals who seem not to understand the danger they are posing by flying drones near airports and now this report of a human flying idiot. What is it going to take for the FAA and law enforcement to stop such actions? (And, I am afraid I think I know the answer.)


The FAA has already put big restrictions on drones, and most drones are programmed so they won't fly in certain airspaces. They are really a interesting piece of equipment and serve a lot of purposes. Lots of enemies though and I don't blame you for you're concerns.


----------



## jis

Maybe it is time to merge this thread back into the small jet thread except the first few articles in the thread perhaps. I came looking for large jets and did not find many


----------



## MARC Rider

Well, here's something about large jets:



Boeing grounds eight 787 Dreamliners over manufacturing problem



I hope none of them were the planes that I flew on when I went to Beijing in 2017.


----------



## jiml

MARC Rider said:


> Well, here's something about large jets:
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing grounds eight 787 Dreamliners over manufacturing problem
> 
> 
> 
> I hope none of them were the planes that I flew on when I went to Beijing in 2017.


There's been some "insider" stories about how 787's made in Renton have fewer problems than those having final assembly done in South Carolina. No idea if this is a factor with this latest issue, but I've enjoyed my limited flights on them. Nice airplane.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> There's been some "insider" stories about how 787's made in Renton have fewer problems than those having final assembly done in South Carolina. No idea if this is a factor with this latest issue, but I've enjoyed my limited flights on them. Nice airplane.


No 787s are made in Renton. If you have ever seen that factory, you'd know why. Renton is where 737MAXs are assembled these days. AFAIK no widebody has ever been manufactured at Renton.

787s are assembled in Everett.

The 8 787 frames with problems alluded to were all assembled in Charleston SC as per articles in industry publications like AvWeek. There is a (understandably) long thread on this subject at airliners.net.


----------



## PVD

It has always been a narrowbody plant, all the way back.... They did refurb a few of the first Everett built 747s, guessing the ones from flight testing, but not sure. Wouldn't be surprised if they worked outside, can't imagine they would fit. Certainly no new builds......


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> It has always been a narrowbody plant, all the way back.... They did refurb a few of the first Everett built 747s, guessing the ones from flight testing, but not sure. Wouldn't be surprised if they worked outside, can't imagine they would fit. Certainly no new builds......


Even if the somehow manage to get the front of a 747 into one of those buildings, there is no way they could get the tail in AFAIR.

Couple of years back we had a software standards meeting hosted by Boeing Research in a hotel next door to that plant. It was interesting to watch 737s coming out of the building at regular intervals. Also interesting to see the 737 fuselages come in on rail flats into the plant to be assembled into planes.

We tried to get a tour of that plant, but Boeing does not do that. No visitors to that plant. They instead organized a VIP tour for a small group to the Everett plant, where we had access to the manufacturing floor and were taken around on golf carts to various points of interest. That was a few days after the first 777X had been joined together. Got to see those folding wing tips at close range. Also go to see the manufacturing process for the CF wings for the 777X. Specifically they were working that day on the main spars for line number 7 as I seem to recall.


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> They instead organized a VIP tour for a small group to the Everett plant, where we had access to the manufacturing floor



Must have been at the Everett plant, but one of the most interesting industrial tours that I have taken was at the Boeing factory. So much to see and learn that it was difficult to absorb it all.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> No 787s are made in Renton. If you have ever seen that factory, you'd know why. Renton is where 737MAXs are assembled these days. AFAIK no widebody has ever been manufactured at Renton.
> 
> 787s are assembled in Everett.
> 
> The 8 787 frames with problems alluded to were all assembled in Charleston SC as per articles in industry publications like AvWeek. There is a (understandably) long thread on this subject at airliners.net.


Yeah thanks, brain cramp - 737MAX focus had me thinking of Renton. I've been to the Everett plant, but not Renton.


----------



## Michigan Mom

I actually used to work somewhere, that gave me first person experience with how flights are scheduled. That's why I'm skeptical of this notion of a city pair being created for maintenance. Does not make sense. It could be correct, it could be things have changed. And planes are definitely routed according to where they want the metal, and the crews, to end up that night. But the idea of a once a week scheduled maintenance run to Dayton, especially now, seems weird.


----------



## PVD

Depends on the plane, and the way the airlines does maintenance. Years ago, Continental inherited a group of 737-100 from People Express. Unlike the -200 which was pretty popular, there weren't very many anywhere (only 30 were built), and they used to do there best to get them back to Newark as often as possible.


----------



## railiner

Michigan Mom said:


> I actually used to work somewhere, that gave me first person experience with how flights are scheduled. That's why I'm skeptical of this notion of a city pair being created for maintenance. Does not make sense. It could be correct, it could be things have changed. And planes are definitely routed according to where they want the metal, and the crews, to end up that night. But the idea of a once a week scheduled maintenance run to Dayton, especially now, seems weird.


I believe we discussed this on an old thread about short flights...at one time United had flights from Oakland to San Francisco, to reach that maintenance base, and they would even sell you a ticket just for that flight. There are probably other examples. American Eagle used to have flights to Marquette, Michigan, where they had a maintenance base. It was formerly Sawyer AFB.


----------



## jis

Dakota 400 said:


> Must have been at the Everett plant, but one of the most interesting industrial tours that I have taken was at the Boeing factory. So much to see and learn that it was difficult to absorb it all.


Yes, even the non-VIP tour of the Everett Plant is amazing. I have taken it three or four times over a period of 40 years. The first time was when almost all the bays were used for 747s with only one or two ramping up for the 767. 

It was kind of amazing to realize this last time that in the declining days of 747s, over a period of over 40 years I have seen at least some number of 747s being manufactured there. The last time was of course the 747-8 which is a pretty impressive plane. But the place was dominated by 777s and 787s with a bit of 747 and 767 (Air Force contract),

Of course much has changed in the facilities too, the enormous new addition being the CF parts manufacturing facility which have these gian autoclaves that are big enough to bake and entire 777 wing, and if needed at some point, almost an entire 737 sized fuselage. And all this in a semiconductor clean room like environment with most of the work being done by robots.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

If money is no object our you just won the lottery... why not spend $32000 for a flight from Abu Dhabi to NYC! I've always been amazed by the elevated service of first class! The downside is that you can only eat so much because your stomach is the size of a human fist... and if you get tired and go to sleep you will literally be dreaming at the cost of thousands per hour!


----------



## MARC Rider

20th Century Rider said:


> If money is no object our you just won the lottery... why not spend $32000 for a flight from Abu Dhabi to NYC! I've always been amazed by the elevated service of first class! The downside is that you can only eat so much because your stomach is the size of a human fist... and if you get tired and go to sleep you will literally be dreaming at the cost of thousands per hour!



For all that money, I don't see any straps on the bed to keep you from rolling on to the floor if the pilot banks a little too steeply.


----------



## PVD

I saw straps on one of the beds in the video. Compliance might be another issue...


----------



## Michigan Mom

"The flight time leaving DAY does make sense for making a same day cruise connection. The flight time leaving MIA does not make sense for returning cruise passengers. One's off the ship by no later than 10:00-10:30 A. M. A 9:30 P. M. departure from MIA would not be desirable. I have no doubt that AA's market research does show sufficient demand during the Fall and Winter for such a flight to MIA if cruising does return late 2020 or early 2021."

The late night flight is a catch-all. It's less important to connect the cruise passengers home... than it is to get them to their departures. On return, if they are off the ship in the morning, there are many connecting options to get them home sooner. When stuff happens, weather or whatever, having a late night nonstop to get people home is useful. Traditionally these late night flights protect the misconnects and the nonrevs who have been unable to board a flight earlier. By that time, normally there are not a huge number of people to be stranded, so if the late night flight cancels, not too many people who have to stay overnight and try again in the morning.
Of course, there are hell nights such as rolling thunderstorms in Miami where a multitude of flights are affected and the experience becomes the stuff of people saying "I will never fly XX again" which goes out the window at the next fare sale.


----------



## Dakota 400

PVD said:


> I saw straps on one of the beds in the video. Compliance might be another issue...



I find trying to comfortably rest/sleep being strapped in with my seat belt to be difficult. I tend to do some "tossing and turning" during the night and the belt hinders my movement. On a Singapore Airlines Business Class flight, I initially fastened the belt over me. Uncomfortable; I debated should I or should I not unfasten it. I did unfasten the belt. During the night, a flight attendant saw that I was unbelted and she fastened me in again!


----------



## PVD

if the plane were to encounter turbulence and drop suddenly, they don't want to scrape people off the ceiling....


----------



## Asher

Looks like the 737 Max is about to return to service. Except for a lot of lip service, I haven't read any concrete evidence of what caused the problem, or what the fix is.


----------



## jis

anumberone said:


> Looks like the 737 Max is about to return to service. Except for a lot of lip service, I haven't read any concrete evidence of what caused the problem, or what the fix is.


I am surprised that you claim to be so uninformed. Are you sure you have been looking at the right places. Maybe those that are sufficiently interested in the subject should spend time reading the entire long thread on this subject on airliners.net. What happened and how Boeing got itself into this mess is very well understood, as are the reasons for how it is getting fixed.



Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread [Ungrounded by FAA 18NOV2020] - Airliners.net





Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020 - Airliners.net



It is all a tedious read, but what the problem was, how it was analyzed and what fixes were considered and finally what was actually done, are all to be found in there if one reads it patiently and weeds out the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## jis

Here in a nutshell is Boeing has to say, of course carefully avoiding anything that might suggest that they are quite culpable directly, though mentioneing several items designed to make it harder for them to play as fast and as loose in the future.









Boeing 737 MAX Updates


The official source for information on the 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes and their return to service. Get the most up-to-date and accurate information from Boeing.



www.boeing.com


----------



## jiml

Convincing people to fly at all is an uphill struggle for the airlines, without factoring in an airplane that has garnered so much attention.


----------



## Asher

jis said:


> I am surprised that you claim to be so uninformed. Are you sure you have been looking at the right places. Maybe those that are sufficiently interested in the subject should spend time reading the entire long thread on this subject on airliners.net. What happened and how Boeing got itself into this mess is very well understood, as are the reasons for how it is getting fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing 737MAX Grounding News and Reference Thread [Ungrounded by FAA 18NOV2020] - Airliners.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing 737MAX Grounding, General Discussion Thread, Q3 2020 - Airliners.net
> 
> 
> 
> It is all a tedious read, but what the problem was, how it was analyzed and what fioxes were considered and finally what was actually done, are all to be found in there if one reads it patiently and weeds out the wheat from the chaff.


You are so right, I do feel uninformed. All I’ve heard is a lot of if’s, how’s and when. Never why.
Boeing must be convinced.


----------



## Dakota 400

anumberone said:


> Boeing must be convinced.



It is the regulatory bodies on both sides of the Atlantic that need to be convinced that went wrong initially has been properly corrected. 

I don't care if Boeing is convinced. It's not relevant. The recent news about construction flaws with the 787 says to me--as a Boeing shareholder--the Company is still in "deep doo-doo" to use the phrase that President George Herbert Walker Bush once used.


----------



## jis

Dakota 400 said:


> It is the regulatory bodies on both sides of the Atlantic that need to be convinced that went wrong initially has been properly corrected.
> 
> I don't care if Boeing is convinced. It's not relevant. The recent news about construction flaws with the 787 says to me--as a Boeing shareholder--the Company is still in "deep doo-doo" to use the phrase that President George Herbert Walker Bush once used.


And in the US, the regulatory body first had to extract its head from a very dark abnormal place where it had gotten lodged for several years, for it and start behaving again like a regulatory body instead of as a cheer leader and rubber stamping outfit for the industry it is supposed to be regulating. If anything that was a significant part of the entire development of the problem and then also in the failure to ground the plane when trouble surfaced, and continuing to sing from Boeing's playbook (poorly trained pilots, yadda, yadda, yadda), until the rest of the world embarrassed them enough to cause them to finally act. Heck even India grounded those planes before the US regulatory body could manage to get around to it!









Boeing 737 MAX groundings - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Asher

jis said:


> And in the US, the regulatory body first had to extract its head from a very dark abnormal place where it had gotten lodged for several years, for it and start behaving again like a regulatory body instead of as a cheer leader and rubber stamping outfit for the industry it is supposed to be regulating. If anything that was a significant part of the entire development of the problem and then also in the failure to ground the plane when trouble surfaced, and continuing to sing from Boeing's playbook (poorly trained pilots, yadda, yadda, yadda), until the rest of the world embarrassed them enough to cause them to finally act. Heck even India grounded those planes before the US regulatory body could manage to get around to it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing 737 MAX groundings - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



9 factors contributed to the root cause of the accidents. Are all those attributed to the MCAS. Lack of training, uh- Er- oh. Who knows what they came up with. Somebody suggested, "maybe we should think about drawing from a pool of pilots to do the testing instead of using Boeing Test pilots". Because test pilots may too used to overcoming certain situations. 
I wonder if they wrote a new Manual now. Or like every other 737 including this one, just add revisions. 
It flys just like the last model except for rev. X Y Z AA AB and so on. Sounds to me like that plane is very peculiar. I'm hoping the thousands of pilots flying it understand it better now.


----------



## jiml

Link to Reuters story regarding House report posted in 737MAX thread if any haven't seen it.


----------



## jis

anumberone said:


> I'm hoping the thousands of pilots flying it understand it better now.


At least now they require model specific Flight Simulator based training, instead of just carrying a small cheat sheet on their electronic pad. This includes handling failure of AOA and handling such with or without MCAS active. Also MCAS does not have primary authority any more and is limited to attempting to correct things to just a couple of attempts, instead of being able to crash the plane in its over enthusiasm to correct a situation that pilots can mostly handle fine without its help apparently. I have read some experts wonder why the MCAS is even there anymore, but those I suspect are folks trying to stir the pot a bit more and see where it goes.


----------



## Asher

jis said:


> At least now they require model specific Flight Simulator based training, instead of just carrying a small cheat sheet on their electronic pad. This includes handling failure of AOA and handling such with or without MCAS active. Also MCAS does not have primary authority any more and is limited to attempting to correct things to just a couple of attempts, instead of being able to crash the plane in its over enthusiasm to correct a situation that pilots can mostly handle fine without its help apparently. I have read some experts wonder why the MCAS is even there anymore, but those I suspect are folks trying to stir the pot a bit more and see where it goes.


I really shouldn't have given an opinion on a subject I'm not remotely qualified in. Thanks for pointing out those upgrades.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

anumberone said:


> I really shouldn't have given an opinion on a subject I'm not remotely qualified in. Thanks for pointing out those upgrades.


No, you were fine. It's not your duty to convince anyone that the 73M is safe or unsafe. That responsibility is on the manufacturer, federal regulators, and the airlines that chose to presume safety over the warnings of whistleblowers and activists. Unfortunately the FAA (like most federal agencies) has been perverted into a loyalty-first regulator that cares more about keeping cozy business partners happy than keeping everyday Americans safe. I therefore recommend that we take same-source claims of safety with a healthy dose of earned skepticism and focus on how foreign regulators react to these changes instead.


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> No, you were fine. It's not your duty to convince anyone that the 73M is safe or unsafe. That responsibility is on the manufacturer, federal regulators, and the airlines that chose to presume safety over the warnings of whistleblowers and activists. Unfortunately the FAA (like most federal agencies) has been perverted into a loyalty-first regulator that cares more about keeping cozy business partners happy than keeping everyday Americans safe. I therefore recommend that we take same-source claims of safety with a healthy dose of earned skepticism and focus on how foreign regulators react to these changes instead.


Yes, I would tend to avoid the 73M until EASA re certifies it. The fixes are still suboptimal IMHO. Specifically this business about comparing 2 AoAs, instead of going with triple redundancy is another example of cutting corners and is provably failure prone. The argument to and fro is about probabilities and we know how that one worked out in the first round. As things stand I believe the 73M with MCAS will forever be a marginally less safe plane than equivalent planes from other manufacturers and will therefore be something to avoid - just IMHO of course. This will be hard to do in the US, but will not be that hard to do elsewhere, except in a few third world countries.


----------



## Dakota 400

Devil's Advocate said:


> I therefore recommend that we take same-source claims of safety with a healthy dose of earned skepticism and focus on how foreign regulators react to these changes instead.



I very much agree with you!



jis said:


> As things stand I believe the 73M with MCAS will forever be a marginally less safe plane than equivalent planes from other manufacturers and will there fore be something to avoid



That's my plan. But, as you said, it may be difficult to do. Sometimes, I have found, it is possible to determine the exact model of a plane that is scheduled for a flight. There could always be unplanned substitutions, however.


----------



## railiner

I finally took to the skies for the first time since March. Flew West Palm Beach to Charlotte, Charlotte to JFK both flights on A-319’s. The first flight was almost full, the second nearly so. So no “social distancing”. Everyone was wearing masks. There was no food or even beverage service, but they said that if anyone “wanted something”, to ring their call bell, and they would try to accommodate them. I saw one guy ask for coffee.
They did ask everyone when disembarking, to remain seated, until the row in front was cleared, to prevent congestion in the aisle. Both flights operated on time, and arrived early. The Charlotte airport was crowded, but JFK looked like a ghost town...11:00 AM is a quiet time there always.

Took a couple of MTA buses home, and they were 2/3 empty.
My first time in Queens since January 4th, so now I am supposed to quarantine for 14 days...


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> I finally took to the skies for the first time since March. Flew West Palm Beach to Charlotte, Charlotte to JFK both flights on A-319’s. The first flight was almost full, the second nearly so. So no “social distancing”. Everyone was wearing masks. There was no food or even beverage service, but they said that if anyone “wanted something”, to ring their call bell, and they would try to accommodate them. I saw one guy ask for coffee.
> They did ask everyone when disembarking, to remain seated, until the row in front was cleared, to prevent congestion in the aisle. Both flights operated on time, and arrived early. The Charlotte airport was crowded, but JFK looked like a ghost town...11:00 AM is a quiet time there always.
> 
> Took a couple of MTA buses home, and they were 2/3 empty.
> My first time in Queens since January 4th, so now I am supposed to quarantine for 14 days...


Stay Safe, the Third Wave is beginning!


----------



## Asher

railiner said:


> I finally took to the skies for the first time since March. Flew West Palm Beach to Charlotte, Charlotte to JFK both flights on A-319’s. The first flight was almost full, the second nearly so. So no “social distancing”. Everyone was wearing masks. There was no food or even beverage service, but they said that if anyone “wanted something”, to ring their call bell, and they would try to accommodate them. I saw one guy ask for coffee.
> They did ask everyone when disembarking, to remain seated, until the row in front was cleared, to prevent congestion in the aisle. Both flights operated on time, and arrived early. The Charlotte airport was crowded, but JFK looked like a ghost town...11:00 AM is a quiet time there always.
> 
> Took a couple of MTA buses home, and they were 2/3 empty.
> My first time in Queens since January 4th, so now I am supposed to quarantine for 14 days...


So if or how are you going to quarantine. What's the protocol.


----------



## railiner

anumberone said:


> So if or how are you going to quarantine. What's the protocol.


I suppose stay home, and have groceries delivered?...


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> I finally took to the skies for the first time since March. Flew West Palm Beach to Charlotte, Charlotte to JFK both flights on A-319’s.


I still can't tell if the A319 should be considered cute or ugly. The dimensions are so goofy it looks like a child's toy to me. There's an even tinier A318 but I don't think I've ever flown one in the flesh.



railiner said:


> The first flight was almost full, the second nearly so. So no “social distancing”.


I found a list of airlines that continue to block middle seats and was still current as of a couple weeks ago. I believe Southwest blocks tickets that would result in "C" group boarding passes.






railiner said:


> Everyone was wearing masks.


Was everyone wearing actual masks over the mouth _and_ nose? Where I live a lot of people use thin fabric instead of a real mask or put the top of the mask just below their nostrels. Full flights and booked middle seats are a turnoff but it's the quarantine at the end that makes air travel impractical for me. If I drive I can quarantine _before_ the trip, avoid stops that would risk contact with others, and still travel reasonably safe. Whereas if I fly I have no control over who sits near me and ignoring the quarantine would put the people I care about at risk.


----------



## PVD

railiner said:


> I suppose stay home, and have groceries delivered?...


Welcome home. We are lucky in that we have a couple of decent supermarkets that deliver. The Fairway in Douglaston became "Food Bazaar" and they have a first 3 deliveries free offer, and the Key food on 164th and 69th delivers online orders. Be safe The area adjacent to ours has had a recent surge, you are better off with deliveries!


----------



## jiml

Devil's Advocate said:


> I still can't tell if the A319 should be considered cute or ugly. The dimensions are so goofy it looks like a child's toy to me. There's an even tinier A318 but I don't think I've ever flown one in the flesh.


BA used 318's for their all-Business Class flights between NYC and LCY airport in London with its short runway, until recent discontinuance. Ironically they replaced the Concorde as Flights BA001 and BA002, which I've always found quite a contrast. With greatly reduced business travel the route was a logical casualty. Things are so bad that all operations at Heathrow are consolidated at 2 terminals and service was just starting to restore at Gatwick when Britain's latest Covid setback occurred. The other London airports are apparently ghost towns.


----------



## gwolfdog

PVD said:


> Welcome home. We are lucky in that we have a couple of decent supermarkets that deliver. The Fairway in Douglaston became "Food Bazaar" and they have a first 3 deliveries free offer, and the Key food on 164th and 69th delivers online orders. Be safe The area adjacent to ours has had a recent surge, you are better off with deliveries!


Being a skeptic, I would like to see some data regarding how many people actually go into Quarantine for 14 days after travel. It seems like Pandora's Box has been open and your only real safety involves finding a small rural town and never going anywhere, JMHO


----------



## gwolfdog

Bob Dylan said:


> Stay Safe, the Third Wave is beginning!


My Friend in Austin, healthy and late 30's is still in Hermit Mode.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> Was everyone wearing actual masks over the mouth _and_ nose? Where I live a lot of people use thin fabric instead of a real mask or put the top of the mask just below their nostrels. Full flights and booked middle seats are a turnoff but it's the quarantine at the end that makes air travel impractical for me. If I drive I can quarantine _before_ the trip, avoid stops that would risk contact with others, and still travel reasonably safe. Whereas if I fly I have no control over who sits near me and ignoring the quarantine would put the people I care about at risk.


Since they have no services rendered on the flight, the FA's had little else to do, than go up and down the aisle, and enforce the mask policy. I saw them doing that, a few times.

I am going to drive my car back to Florida, nonstop. I can do it with just two pit stops for fuel and rest room....


----------



## railiner

PVD said:


> Welcome home. We are lucky in that we have a couple of decent supermarkets that deliver. The Fairway in Douglaston became "Food Bazaar" and they have a first 3 deliveries free offer, and the Key food on 164th and 69th delivers online orders. Be safe The area adjacent to ours has had a recent surge, you are better off with deliveries!


Thanks! I'll probably use the Key Food. I wouldn't walk into Aron's, if you offered me free food, in line with what I've heard about the hotspot in that community...


----------



## railiner

gwolfdog said:


> Being a skeptic, I would like to see some data regarding how many people actually go into Quarantine for 14 days after travel. It seems like Pandora's Box has been open and your only real safety involves finding a small rural town and never going anywhere, JMHO


Haha....that's what my wife and I did, after returning to our home outside Okeechobee, from a cruise in March. Now we have moved into Palm Beach County, so we are not as isolated as before....


----------



## Alice

railiner said:


> Since they have no services rendered on the flight, the FA's had little else to do, than go up and down the aisle, and enforce the mask policy. I saw them doing that, a few times.
> 
> I am going to drive my car back to Florida, nonstop. I can do it with just two pit stops for fuel and rest room....


If you can manage to drive at night safely, you'll find less crowded pit stops making it easier to stay far away from any unmasked people.


----------



## gwolfdog

Alice said:


> If you can manage to drive at night safely, you'll find less crowded pit stops making it easier to stay far away from any unmasked people.


That's when all the sick people travel too avoid infecting more people. You can't win with the Covid.


----------



## Palmland

We just returned from a 2900 mile auto road trip to see our sons in the northeast, friends in northern Vermont, and check out a couple towns on lower eastern shore of MD. We never felt unsafe. We always followed Covid guidelines and as did most all we came in contact with. We always used outside restaurant dining or delivery to our room for several hotel nights where we had contactless check in and avoided common areas. We chose to venture out and accept the risks. Glad we did. I suspect the odds of an accident on an extended auto trip are greater than contracting Covid.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> I still can't tell if the A319 should be considered cute or ugly. The dimensions are so goofy it looks like a child's toy to me. There's an even tinier A318 but I don't think I've ever flown one in the flesh.


Funny you should mention never having flown in an A-318...I hadn't either. Last year, I returned to JFK from Bordeaux, France, and got my first flight in one of them to Paris....and then connected there to my first ever flight in an A-380....
Talk about extreme's....


----------



## Trogdor

I, just barely, managed to catch a ride on an A318 during the few minutes that Frontier operated them in the mid-2000s. I had a flight MDW-DEN to which, me being me back then, I arrived at the airport a bit late and got to the gate a few minutes after boarding was supposed to have ended. However, a delay (apparently related to removing an unruly passenger from the inbound) meant they hadn’t started boarding yet.

I think it was 2008 or so.


----------



## PVD

Very few A-318 were sold, akin to the 737-600. Frontier had some, all gone now, Air France still has some. Economics don't work for that size, weight, and price in either the 737 or Airbus. It is really the realm of the Embraer or Canadair, particularly the E-Jets and the BBD C series (now known as A-220) A few votes for crew and maintenance commonality, but rarely enough to make it worth it. I think WestJet might be the only 737-600s in North America.


----------



## Trogdor

PVD said:


> I think WestJet might be the only 737-600s in North America.



I believe there is one other operator of 737-600s, but if I told you how to fly on them, then I'd have to kill you.


----------



## jiml

Primary customers were SAS and Westjet. There were around 70 built, with most airlines preferring the slightly larger 700 and 800 variants. It was, as pointed out above, Boeing's answer to the A-318. Funny how neither were very successful, but wonder how newer versions would sell today with airlines looking for smaller, more efficient models.


----------



## jiml

British Airways retires the A318 "BabyBus" operating the London City-New York JFK route


Shortly after having announced the retirement of its Boeing 747 fleet, British Airways will now retire another iconic aircraft: the Airbus A318-112.




www.aviation24.be


----------



## railiner

Did you watch this video, offered in the above link? 








A318 LONDON CITY SERVICE


Credit: BA/Nick Morrish




mediacentre.britishairways.com


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Did you watch this video, offered in the above link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A318 LONDON CITY SERVICE
> 
> 
> Credit: BA/Nick Morrish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mediacentre.britishairways.com


I had not seen that one - thanks for posting. I have seen a number of other videos on the airport though. Most airlines use shorter-range regional jets to access it. Also of interest regarding the route: a fuel stop in Ireland was necessary so the 318 would have the range westbound only. The time required for servicing allowed for US Immigration pre-clearance to take place there (as is the case with most Ireland-originating flights). Definitely a "niche" route and airplane.


----------



## jis

Many years back Lufthansa had a J only 738BBJ flight flown for them by Privatair from Stuttgart to Newark. I flew on it once. It was, needless to say,, a wonderful flight with great service.


----------



## PVD

Trogdor said:


> I believe there is one other operator of 737-600s, but if I told you how to fly on them, then I'd have to kill you.


I was only referencing airlines, not gov't/military


----------



## NS VIA Fan

Air Canada had a couple of ETOPS A319s they used between St. John's Newfoundland and London Heathrow. A short flight taking about 4 1/2 hrs.

It got MAX'd (and we know what happened to those!!)......and then COVID hit. Now a St. John's to London passenger (if he can even travel) has to fly 3 hrs west to Toronto and allowing for connecting time there......about 7 hrs after first leaving St. John's he is now eastbound at 30,000' passing over Newfoundland again on his way to London. Total travel time: about 12 hrs vs: about 4 1/2 hrs!


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> Air Canada had a couple of ETOPS A319s they used between St. John's Newfoundland and London Heathrow. A short flight taking about 4 1/2 hrs.
> 
> It got MAX'd (and we know what happened to those!!)......and then COVID hit. Now a St. John's to London passenger (if he can even travel) has to fly 3 hrs west to Toronto and allowing for connecting time there......about 7 hrs after first leaving St. John's he is now at 30,000' passing over Newfoundland again on his way to London. Total travel time: about 12 hrs vs: about 4 1/2 hrs!



The only knock on those YYT-LHR flights was the limited seat recline and decidedly domestic meal service. Although a short flight, it was still overnight and it's not like AC reflected the distance in their pricing. Flights from Halifax on a 767 with flat beds in J and better catering were not more expensive, and in fact one could choose to fly from St. John's with a connection in Halifax for the same fare (with a slight additional tax component). Unless you were in a hurry and didn't mind sleeping upright, the latter made more sense. That having been said, there were usually seats available on the 319 that were popular with airline staff looking for a weekend in London.

If you're wondering what happened to the ETOPS A319's btw, pre-Covid they were flying YYZ-KEF - a route which I believe is now suspended.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> The only knock on those YYT-LHR flights was the limited seat recline and decidedly domestic meal service. Although a short flight, it was still overnight..........



The first year AC did the St. John's – Heathrow flight on the A319 (guessing around 2005 – '06) it was a daytime flight leaving St. John's around noon and with the time difference....arrived LHR around 9 in the evening effectively missing all onward connections to other European Cities. It did a quick turn and was back in St. John's before midnight......Newfoundland Time.

The following year.....it assumed the common TATL schedule: overnight eastbound and morning/early afternoon westbound. Allowing for much better connections in LHR.


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> The first year AC did the St. John's – Heathrow flight on the A319 (guessing around 2005 – '06) it was a daytime flight leaving St. John's around noon and with the time difference....arrived LHR around 9 in the evening effectively missing all onward connections to other European Cities. It did a quick turn and was back in St. John's before midnight......Newfoundland Time.
> 
> The following year.....it assumed the common TATL schedule: overnight eastbound and morning/early afternoon westbound. Allowing for much better connections in LHR.


AC made a lot of dumb decisions with TATL flights back then. I'm a big fan of daytime flights arriving in London in the evening, checking into a hotel and feeling relatively normal the next morning. They had a daytime out of Toronto around the same era, but would substitute a domestic-configured 762 regularly. I fell for this more than once. Cramped BC seat and a small galley provided a much lower class of service for the same premium price.

A funny aside was how AC shared Terminal 3 in LHR with Qantas and American back then. Although A319's were quite common at Heathrow, seeing AC's among all the jumbos at T3 was quite a contrast.


----------



## Dakota 400

NS VIA Fan said:


> Air Canada had a couple of ETOPS A319s they used between St. John's Newfoundland and London Heathrow. A short flight taking about 4 1/2 hrs.
> 
> It got MAX'd (and we know what happened to those!!)......and then COVID hit. Now a St. John's to London passenger (if he can even travel) has to fly 3 hrs west to Toronto and allowing for connecting time there......about 7 hrs after first leaving St. John's he is now eastbound at 30,000' passing over Newfoundland again on his way to London. Total travel time: about 12 hrs vs: about 4 1/2 hrs!




I enjoyed watching the video. Thanks for posting it!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

NS VIA Fan said:


> Air Canada had a couple of ETOPS A319s they used between St. John's Newfoundland and London Heathrow. A short flight taking about 4 1/2 hrs.





jiml said:


> The only knock on those YYT-LHR flights was the limited seat recline and decidedly domestic meal service. Although a short flight, it was still overnight and it's not like AC reflected the distance in their pricing.


I'd imagine a substantial portion of the fare came from "wasting" a prized LHR slot on one of the smallest aircraft in the fleet. We're talking about the airport that was most responsible for the introduction and purchase of the A380.



jiml said:


> I'm a big fan of daytime flights arriving in London in the evening, checking into a hotel and feeling relatively normal the next morning.


I agree that daytime flights to Europe are highly preferred but also surprisingly rare (at least in my limited experience).


----------



## jiml

Devil's Advocate said:


> I agree that daytime flights to Europe are highly preferred but also surprisingly rare (at least in my limited experience).


My flight of choice is AA90 (ORD-LHR) - currently suspended. More than a dozen flights over the years. Leaves Chicago at 9:00am, having a nightcap at London hotel by 11:00pm local. There was also a seasonal Boston-London, which was on a smaller plane - usually 757.


----------



## PVD

Not sure, but it might relate to the ability to connect to flights to other cities if you arrive in the morning....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

PVD said:


> Not sure, but it might relate to the ability to connect to flights to other cities if you arrive in the morning....


Connections are one reason. Slot scheduling and fleet availability is another. In my case even if I'm connecting I prefer to stop and rest after crossing an ocean. Flying overnight and arriving in the morning leaves me tired with nowhere to rest when I arrive. I'm dying for a real bed by the time we reach the Heathrow funnel. Morning departures and evening arrivals help mitigate jet lag and knowing you have a hotel ready on arrival makes for a much more relaxing trip.


----------



## railiner

But judging by the nightly convoy of red-eye's, the vast majority of people prefer to save the expense of one night's lodging. The upper class "arrival's lounge's", improve that experience, offering a nice shower on arrival....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> But judging by the nightly convoy of red-eye's, the vast majority of people prefer to save the expense of one night's lodging. The upper class "arrival's lounge's", improve that experience, offering a nice shower on arrival....


If you can afford a ticket with arrival lounge access the cost of an extra hotel night is unlikely to be a problem. It's hard to say if most travelers actually prefer a redeye flight since they rarely have much choice in the matter.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> If you can afford a ticket with arrival lounge access the cost of an extra hotel night is unlikely to be a problem. It's hard to say if most travelers actually prefer a redeye flight since they rarely have much choice in the matter.


Good points...
For retirees, it doesn't matter much, but for those on a limited vacation, flying overnight saves not only the expense of a hotel, but a day of precious vacation time. As for the extra expense of a seat offering arrival lounge access....many people pay for that on daylight flights as well, just for the comfort on the long flight...


----------



## jis

I think the preponderance of trans Atlantic flights eastbound being overnight has more to do with more efficient fleet utilization first and consumer convenience or not second, sort of similar to why most flights from/to Europe and the US to/from India arrive and depart India between 11pm and 4am IST..

The few daytime flights that are there from the US to Europe are all part of a multi-flight per day schedule for the airline running them. If an airline has just one or two flights it is overnight from the US to Europe, almost without exception.


----------



## jiml

I also recall something from years ago about more favorable air currents overnight, resulting in less fuel burn - probably less of a factor with today's aircraft.



Devil's Advocate said:


> It's hard to say if most travelers actually prefer a redeye flight since they rarely have much choice in the matter.


Exactly right. I believe you can count the number of daytime TATL flights on your fingers - even pre-Covid, as opposed to the hundreds of overnighters. In the current situation there's no easy way to check, but I think only BOS, JFK, EWR, IAD and YYZ ever had regular daytime service to Europe. AA tried one from both MIA and DFW, but they were just too long to guarantee a pre-midnight arrival in London (and Heathrow does have a curfew/quota for late arrivals). Even Delta doesn't have one from its Atlanta hub.


----------



## PVD

The planes need to be able to turn and come back in the other direction.....they don't schedule to optiomize for one way traffic, they schedule for what works best (for them) in both....


----------



## jiml

PVD said:


> The planes need to be able to turn and come back in the other direction.....they don't schedule to optiomize for one way traffic, they schedule for what works best (for them) in both....


You're right of course, but in the case of AA the late arrival provided the planes for their early morning departures from LHR.


----------



## WWW

To put this succinctly ever see Red Eye trips heading westbound ?
The westbound flights are a race with the sun - - -
Only the Concorde was able to keep up.
Eastbound flights are a hurry up to tomorrow - crossing the Pacific fly again another day (date line).

The EB has two 7's and two 8's running almost all the time.


----------



## railiner

WWW said:


> To put this succinctly ever see Red Eye trips heading westbound ?
> The westbound flights are a race with the sun - - -


The last westbound red-eye I flew, was Northwest #245, back in around 1969...
It departed JFK around midnight, stopped for about an hour each, at Detroit, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis, before ending in Seattle, around dawn. The Boeing 707 carried only about two dozen passengers, but was brimming with US Mail...


----------



## railiner

I forgot about the Cathay Pacific overnight flight on a 747 I flew from Hong Kong to London in around 2000...


----------



## B757Guy

Back when I was on the 75/76, my airline operated a day flight to London from the east coast. It was fantastic, as it gave me an entire rested day to sightsee, before flying home.


----------



## Willbridge

B757Guy said:


> Back when I was on the 75/76, my airline operated a day flight to London from the east coast. It was fantastic, as it gave me an entire rested day to sightsee, before flying home.


In 1969 I was flown from McGuire AFB to Rhein/Main on an all-day Saturday flight. The crew and C-141 were provided by a New Jersey USAF Reserve unit. It was a good flight, other than the ten-abreast seating. The crew would have the night in Frankfurt, then back to New Jersey, then back to work in their civilian jobs. At that time I looked up civilian flights and I only found a single PAA daylight flight, JFK to LHR.


----------



## railiner

Willbridge said:


> In 1969 I was flown from McGuire AFB to Rhein/Main on an all-day Saturday flight. The crew and C-141 were provided by a New Jersey USAF Reserve unit. It was a good flight, other than the ten-abreast seating. The crew would have the night in Frankfurt, then back to New Jersey, then back to work in their civilian jobs. At that time I looked up civilian flights and I only found a single PAA daylight flight, JFK to LHR.


Egads! 10 abreast in a Starlifter?


----------



## Asher

Back in the 50s I used to look forward getting the sports page left behind by passengers on the arriving morning flights. DC7, non stop from New York. It was the only way to get current MLB news during the World Series.


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> Egads! 10 abreast in a Starlifter?


Reminds me of the Laker Flights to London from New York back in the "Cattle Car Flight" Days!!


----------



## Willbridge

railiner said:


> Egads! 10 abreast in a Starlifter?


Yes. And I had a "window" seat. I knew what the pilot was doing because the cables next to me would move back and forth. The _S.S. United States_ was also used for military transfers but mainly for senior people. My dream was to finagle my trip home on that ship, but that operation ended during my time in Germany. Instead I came home on a Pan Am 747 that had a humidity problem.


----------



## Bob Dylan

American Airlines has announced they will start a Miami-New York Flight using the 737-MAXX.


----------



## jiml

Bob Dylan said:


> American Airlines has announced they will start a Miami-New York Flight using the 737-MAXX.


I saw that. It will be interesting to see if they eventually "hide it" in the schedule. They have said they won't in the short term and that it's a test of the public's willingness to book the model, but how long will it be before it's just another 737 in their fleet? They have well over 300 of various types. More importantly, if they need to use one to replace a bad-ordered A320 or other model, do they make an announcement and give people the option to change flights when they have connections or some place they have to be? It's going to be interesting and this is only the first airline to announce. Southwest and both Canadian carriers have a pile of them.


----------



## Dakota 400

Bob Dylan said:


> American Airlines has announced they will start a Miami-New York Flight using the 737-MAXX.



The FAA has yet to certify the plane.


----------



## jiml

Dakota 400 said:


> The FAA has yet to certify the plane.


That's why this is such a surprise. AA makes it sound like approval is anticipated shortly.


----------



## Dakota 400

jiml said:


> That's why this is such a surprise. AA makes it sound like approval is anticipated shortly.



Could be. Or wishful thinking on the part of AA?


----------



## jiml

The proposed test is a one-week period starting December 29, but it "could be extended" according to the airline.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

It could also be a ploy to push the FAA to move faster. From what I've seen neither the manufacturer or regulator have accepted full responsibility for their roles in undermining the testing and certification process, ignoring whistle blower warnings, and refusing to act until a second plane had crashed _and_ every other major regulator had already banned the aircraft from revenue service. The FAA has shown that it is open to being manipulated by business interests over consumer safety and would prefer to lead from behind. I would imagine AA knows better than us how far the FAA can be pushed before balking. The real question is how quickly foreign regulators will certify the "new and improved" 73M.


----------



## jiml

Interesting perspective:


----------



## Asher

Sometimes I think the 737max will be a museum piece before certification.


----------



## Dakota 400

I just read that the Executive Director of the European Aviation Safety Agency expressed confidence in the 737 MAX airworthiness. He said that the design changes make the plane safe to fly and expects it to be in European skies by December. Before that can happen, by international law, the FAA must certify its airworthiness first.


----------



## jis

FAA is very close tor recertifying the MAX, possibly by late November.









In key step for potential late-November ungrounding of Boeing’s 737 MAX, FAA details minimum pilot training


The FAA published its recommended pilot training for the Being 737 MAX and invited public comment on the details. The schedule indicates the jet could be ungrounded no sooner than mid-November.




www.seattletimes.com





They will be requiring pilots to undergo simulator training to handle MCAS idiosyncrasies, and the modified MCAS has lost its overriding priority. It cannot crash a plane all by itself anymore while pilots try to arm wrestle it.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> It cannot crash a plane all by itself anymore while pilots try to arm wrestle it.


That sounds reassuring.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

For those who want to avoid or seek out these aircraft, domestic airlines with substantial fleets include American, United, and Southwest. Delta has no Max models. United and Southwest previously used "MAX" tags on booking screens and boarding passes while AA sometimes used shorthand like "7M8." The oldest elements of the 737 design stretch all the way back to the 1960's but the new Max-specific engines, winglets, and APU are easily identified.








How to Tell If You're Flying on a Boeing 737 MAX in North America - The Points Guy


After two crashes in less than five months, we look at the most-common Boeing 737 MAX routes for US and Canadian airlines.




thepointsguy.com


----------



## jiml

Transport Canada has completed their testing and basically signed off, pending FAA approval. Air Canada and Westjet have far too many MAX's to ignore. They've recently been added to future schedules, including Montreal-Dublin.


----------



## railiner

Hopefully the issues for the MAX will soon be rectified, and overcome, like the older generation 737 rudder issues eventually were, and the airplane becomes solidly reliable...


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jiml said:


> .........Air Canada and Westjet have far too many MAX's to ignore. They've recently been added to future schedules, including Montreal-Dublin.



Prior to the Max8 groundings...WestJet was building a Transatlantic Max8 hub in Halifax with routes to Paris, Dublin, Glasgow, Manchester and London Gatwick. 

Air Canada had a Max8 to London Heathrow.....and Icelandair a Max8 to Keflavik.

It was the perfect aircraft for the short hop across the pond from here. The only TATL widebodies left in Halifax were Condor's 767-300s to Frankfurt & Munich

And then COVID hit. To go transatlantic now from Halifax......you have to back haul through Montreal or Toronto first before heading east again! 

Once the Max8 is re-certified.....I will have absolutely no problem flying on one. It will have to be one of the safest aircraft out there now!


----------



## Dakota 400

Devil's Advocate said:


> For those who want to avoid or seek out these aircraft, domestic airlines with substantial fleets include American, United, and Southwest. Delta has no Max models



Ever since this aircraft became unfortunately "newsworthy", I have wondered why Delta did not "invest" in this aircraft.


----------



## jis

Dakota 400 said:


> Ever since this aircraft became unfortunately "newsworthy", I have wondered why Delta did not "invest" in this aircraft.


Way before any of this happened Delta had chosen to focus on A32x as the foundation of its mid size fleet. They have hundreds of those on order, so it did not make any sense for them to get B73X class aircraft of any configuration. It has about 200 737-800 and 737-900ER but those are legacy part of their fleet for now.

In contrast, United chose a mixed fleet with about 175 73M on order as well as around 85 A32X on order including 50 A321XLRs which are slated to replace retiring 757s for longer range missions that Boeing was unable to provide a solution for in the 737-10MAX. The older A32X orders are mostly second hand planes to bolster domestic capacity, which were available for the right price at the right time to add onto its existing fleet of the same type.


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> Way before any of this happened Delta had chosen to focus on A3xx as the foundation of its mid size fleet. They have hundreds of those on order, so it did not make any sense for them to get B73X class aircraft of any configuration. It has about 200 t37-800 and 737-900ER but those are legacy part of their fleet for now.
> 
> In contrast, United chose a mixed fleet with about 175 73M on order as well as around 85 As2X on order including 50 A321XLRs which are slated to replace retiring 757s for longer range missions that Boeing was unable to provide a solution for in the 737-10MAX. The older A32X orders are mostly second hand planes to bolster domestic capacity, which were available for the right price at the right time to add onto its existing fleet of the same type.



Thank you. I appreciate this information!


----------



## Asher

NS VIA Fan said:


> Prior to the Max8 groundings...WestJet was building a Transatlantic Max8 hub in Halifax with routes to Paris,
> 
> Once the Max8 is re-certified.....I will have absolutely no problem flying on one. It will have to be one of the safest aircraft out there now!



I'm reminded of a story I read about the Lockheed Electra when it was re- certified after it was grounded for losing wings on a couple of flights. 

"I'd like a ticket on the Electra to New York!" the passenger reportedly said to the ticket
agent.
"We don't sell Electra tickets, we sell chances..." the agent answered, according to the story.

It did indeed return to be a really good airplane.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> Hopefully the issues for the MAX will soon be rectified, and overcome, like the older generation 737 rudder issues eventually were, and the airplane becomes solidly reliable...


I have little doubt the Max series will eventually reach generally accepted safety standards. Unfortunately I am equally convinced that the testing and certification process which allowed a major manufacturer to deliver hundreds of defective aircraft over the objections of those who knew better has probably not been fixed. We've seen similar oversights several times in the past and we didn't learn the right lesson back then either. Dependable safety must be baked into the system rather than allowed to rely on the people who manage it to act in the best interests of strangers.


----------



## Asher

Devil's Advocate said:


> I have little doubt the Max series will eventually reach generally accepted safety standards. Unfortunately I am equally convinced that the testing and certification process which allowed a major manufacturer to deliver hundreds of defective aircraft over the objections of those who knew better has probably not been fixed. We've seen similar oversights several times in the past and we didn't learn the right lesson back then either. Dependable safety must be baked into the system rather than allowed to rely on the people who manage it to act in the best interests of strangers.


It may fly and fly well. My issue is, it don't fly by the normal rules of flight.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

anumberone said:


> It may fly and fly well. My issue is, it don't fly by the normal rules of flight.


----------



## Asher

Devil's Advocate said:


>



Yeah, too low and too slow.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

anumberone said:


> Yeah, too low and too slow.


Too low and too slow was the result but the root cause was a lack of coordination and communication between designers and operators. A test pilot familiar with developmental flight rules attempted a restricted flight maneuver in production software with catastrophic results. Despite the crash and public relations disaster restrictive automation became a standard component of Airbus design with Boeing granting the pilots primary override power. Both methodologies can work if they stick to established rules and standards but when Boeing implemented MCAS they failed to give the pilots enough control or give the software enough information to make dependable decisions.


----------



## Asher

Devil's Advocate said:


> Too low and too slow was the result but the root cause was a lack of coordination and communication between designers and operators. A test pilot familiar with developmental flight rules attempted a restricted flight maneuver in production software with disastrous results. Despite the crash and public relations disaster restrictive automation became a standard component of Airbus design with Boeing granting the pilots primary override power. Both methodologies can work if they stick to established rules and standards but when Boeing implemented MCAS they failed to give the pilots enough control and give the software enough information to make dependable decisions.


Their manual revisions were a bit lean on information. I wonder how many hours in a simulator is it going to take to re- wire the pilots


----------



## Asher

American Airlines is so set on convincing passengers the beleaguered Boeing 737 Max planes are safe to fly, it plans to give tours and Q-and-A sessions.


----------



## jiml

For those of you who are 777 fans, Jeb Brooks just did a farewell video for Delta's fleet, flying on one only 11 years old that had recently had a $100M cabin renovation. Sad sign of the times.


----------



## Dakota 400

jiml said:


> For those of you who are 777 fans, Jeb Brooks just did a farewell video for Delta's fleet, flying on one only 11 years old that had recently had a $100M cabin renovation. Sad sign of the times.




Excellent video! I hit the sad button because of the loss of their 777s. I wish I could also hit the like button for the video!


----------



## west point

Having spent over 30 years in the airline industry have some thoughts. Believe Boeing picked the 737max because of tjhe desire to have a common type rating anow occurs with an endorsement of the 737-800, and 737-900. That really was the start of the problem. Due to the necessity of more powerful engines the mounting of the engines had to be mounted further forward than present 737s. That engine more forward makes the max more ustable. If the auto pilot fails it will take more concentration to hand fly the aircraft. I would suggest that pilots take some time on each flight to hand fly the aircraft.

Instead I would have used the 757 which has higher clearances due to taller landing gear.. That aircraft has a very good reliability and safety record. The engines on the max are so low thaat FOD damage has always been a problem even with early 737-200s and on upward to present -900s and now max.. 

No matter how good the MCAS is now it will never reach the stability of the 757s. If the cockpit layout of a 757 - (MAX) had the same cockpit layout as present 737s a 737 type rating would be easy and present 757 and 767 ( common type rating ) pilots could easily transition Fuselage is close to same and streaching has and is done now for 7667s.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

west point said:


> Boeing picked the 737max because of [the] desire to have a common type rating [that now] occurs with an endorsement of the 737-800, and 737-900. That really was the start of the problem.


The start of the problem was the rubber stamp policy which diverted much of the testing and qualification process away from regulators and into the hands of the vendors and manufacturers themselves. You reap what you sow.



west point said:


> Instead I would have used the 757 which has higher clearances due to taller landing gear.. That aircraft has a very good reliability and safety record. The engines on the max are so low thaat FOD damage has always been a problem even with early 737-200s and on upward to present -900s and now max.


The 757 has not been sold new in over fifteen years, it shares no type rating with any modern aircraft, and is extremely inefficient by today's standards. If you put a "new" 757 hack through the same _presumption of safety_ that Boeing and the FAA granted to the 737 Max program you end up right back where we started.


----------



## jis

I agree. Most 757s will be gone from passenger service within the '20s decade. They will be replaced by more modern planes with scant attention to common type rating. For example, United is replacing them with a mix of 737-10s (for domestic missions) and A321XLR (for transoceanic internatinal missions).


----------



## Dakota 400

Whatever happened to Boeing's 717?


----------



## jis

Dakota 400 said:


> Whatever happened to Boeing's 717?


There are still a few around. American had a large fleet which they rapidly decommissioned as they came up for some expensive upgrade requirements.


----------



## jiml

Dakota 400 said:


> Whatever happened to Boeing's 717?


Delta and Hawaiian Airlines have a bunch. They're perfect for the latter's operation. Excellent airplane - think an MD-80 with significant upgrades.


----------



## Trogdor

jis said:


> There are still a few around. American had a large fleet which they rapidly decommissioned as they came up for some expensive upgrade requirements.



AA’s fleet wasn’t due for upgrades. They were removed from the fleet in 2002 after only a couple of years in service. They were acquired through AA’s acquisition of TWA back in 2000/01, but were incompatible with AA’s own fleet of similarly sized F100s. Apparently the lease rates were too high (having been signed by TWA when they were financially struggling), and AA was able to drop the leases in favor of retaining their own F100s which, at the time, were less expensive to operate. I don’t recall all of the details, but I think the owner (Boeing Capital, IIRC) didn’t want to negotiate a lower rate for AA, and perhaps the lease was still technically in the name of bankrupt TWA, and thus eligible for rejection.

Had Boeing decided to agree to better lease rates, it’s possible AA would have kept them and retired the F100 instead.


----------



## jiml

Trogdor said:


> AA’s fleet wasn’t due for upgrades. They were removed from the fleet in 2002 after only a couple of years in service. They were acquired through AA’s acquisition of TWA back in 2000/01, but were incompatible with AA’s own fleet


That was my recollection as well, as both an AA FF and shareholder at the time. I think though that the incompatibility with the MD-80 fleet was more of an issue. A few of the 717's (aka the MD-95) survived as long as the F-100's - the last of which retired in 2003 IIRC. They were both great airplanes, based on my experience. The Fokker's had real galleys and were capable of generating a hot breakfast, unlike the regional jets that replaced them, and the 717's had amazing air quality. The DL 717's continue to serve Toronto and I choose them as often as I fly Delta.


----------



## Asher

jis said:


> I agree. Most 757s will be gone from passenger service within the '20s decade. They will be replaced by more modern planes with scant attention to common type rating. For example, United is replacing them with a mix of 737-10s (for domestic missions) and A321XLR (for transoceanic internatinal missions).


Trump has a clapped out 757 parked somewhere. Hopefully he'll have to dust it off soon.


----------



## Ryan

Was in Tampa in January of 2019.


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> That was my recollection as well, as both an AA FF and shareholder at the time. I think though that the incompatibility with the MD-80 fleet was more of an issue. A few of the 717's (aka the MD-95) survived as long as the F-100's - the last of which retired in 2003 IIRC. They were both great airplanes, based on my experience. The Fokker's had real galleys and were capable of generating a hot breakfast, unlike the regional jets that replaced them, and the 717's had amazing air quality. The DL 717's continue to serve Toronto and I choose them as often as I fly Delta.


I loved those "Super 100's" that AA used when competing with Southwest out of Love Field...they were reconfigured as 56 seaters, with an all business class type service, at regular coach fares to satisfy the Wright Amendment requirements, until they were amended and rescinded...


----------



## NS VIA Fan

If I had only known then!....I think I'd have been on the Pan Am Shuttle instead!


----------



## jis

Another of the numerous Trump business misadventures.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

jis said:


> Another of the numerous Trump business misadventures.


I was thinking the big hand is always on the 12 because they don’t know how to tell time.


----------



## PVD

Not an admirer of his business foibles, but in this case he have done some good by rescuing the staff of the shuttle from Frank Lorenzo and the destruction of Eastern. It didn't turn into a winner (shocker) but the default and lenders takeover led to the operation finding a home with USAir.


----------



## Rover

Trogdor said:


> To separate the large from the small, I'll add my comments here. The issues of window shades (and the electronic ones on the 787) are an argument that will never fully satisfy everyone. They do save weight, which is important, but practically, they are a compromise between those that want to look out the window no matter what, and those that want the cabin as dark as possible so they can sleep/watch in-flight entertainment, etc. The dimming feature does not go completely opaque, yet they do very heavily limit the amount of light that can enter. You can still see out (albeit with a very heavy dark blue tint), but the cabin remains dark.
> 
> The other half of the controversy is that, because they are electronic, the crew can control them centrally. So if they want the cabin to be dark, they can lock it out (and likewise if they want the windows transparent, such as for takeoff and landing). That, of course, bugs the folks that want full control of the window shade to the exclusion of anyone else.


So many planes now have digital screens on the back of every seat, that they can show you views outside the plane there. I even read about a plane that had virtual windows for a center section enclosed area.

I was on the wrong side of the plane, and not at window seat, when we flew near the Grand Canyon. I think I'd be for no windows, but with option to look at various views from the digital screen at my seat. Some day, when the super-rich fly hypersonic, they won't have windows either.


----------



## jis

If the flying wing ever becomes reality then the only choice will be to provide video views of the outside to individual passengers possibly on their own device.


----------



## Asher

jis said:


> Another of the numerous Trump business misadventures.


Total fiasco. He hired people that had no clue how to update the aircraft. He lost an unbelievable amount of money, plus what others got screwed out of.


----------



## VentureForth

New question on topic:

Who is buying Boeing anymore? I just read that with the 737-800 Max fiasco, even Southwest could break with 47 years of tradition and start buying A320 family jets.

My last several flights on AA have all been Airbus acquired from USAir. It seems hard-pressing to even call them "American" Airlines anymore.


----------



## jiml

VentureForth said:


> New question on topic:
> 
> Who is buying Boeing anymore? I just read that with the 737-800 Max fiasco, even Southwest could break with 47 years of tradition and start buying A320 family jets.
> 
> My last several flights on AA have all been Airbus acquired from USAir. It seems hard-pressing to even call them "American" Airlines anymore.


Actually AA has been a substantial Airbus customer _since_ the merger and already had some on-order before it. New acquisitions probably outnumber the inherited aircraft at this point. Their new A-321's are very nice airplanes, whereas the new 319's are horrible - even in the front cabin.


----------



## railiner

Recall that AA had a fleet of 35 A-300-600R’s, from 1988 until 2009.


----------



## railiner

They were ordered when AA and Boeing were disputing over the 767-300 order, and Airbus took advantage of that, and made AA a great offer, in an effort to get their foot in AA’s door.

Later, after the tragic crash of an A300 taking off from JFK, AA and Airbus pointed the finger at each other, and Boeing became the touted “exclusive provider” of AA aircraft, for a few years, anyway...


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Recall that AA had a fleet of 35 A-300-600R’s, from 1988 until 2009.


Now that was an interesting airplane. Passengers and crew either loved them or hated them. You'd get great service from both sides in the "throne seat" in First Class. They were common Transatlantic for awhile, then South American and Caribbean routes because of their huge cargo capacity. They'd be gone by now anyway, but would have lasted longer if not for the incident you mentioned above.


----------



## PVD

Many of the Transatlantic flights were actually the little sister the A-310. But it came in 2 versions, and the shorter range version used to make unscheduled fuel stops quite often when headwinds were strong. Delta inherited a bunch from Pan Am.


----------



## Trogdor

railiner said:


> They were ordered when AA and Boeing were disputing over the 767-300 order, and Airbus took advantage of that, and made AA a great offer, in an effort to get their foot in AA’s door.
> 
> Later, after the tragic crash of an A300 taking off from JFK, AA and Airbus pointed the finger at each other, and Boeing became the touted “exclusive provider” of AA aircraft, for a few years, anyway...



Boeing's "exclusive provider" status was established much earlier than the crash of AA587 in November 2001. The exclusivity agreement was signed in November 1996 (and similar agreements were also signed between Boeing and Delta and Continental Airlines around the same time).

However, these agreements were basically nullified as part of getting European approval for their McDonnell Douglas merger shortly afterwards.

For practical reasons, these airlines continued to buy only Boeing planes until a while later (for Delta and Continental, their mergers with Northwest and United introduced large numbers of Airbus planes in the fleet, and for American, they needed a large order of planes to replace the MD-80 fleet, and Airbus made the better offer for the bulk of that order). Incidentally, it was the AA Airbus order that forced Boeing's hand in offering the 737 MAX.


----------



## jiml

PVD said:


> Many of the Transatlantic flights were actually the little sister the A-310. But it came in 2 versions, and the shorter range version used to make unscheduled fuel stops quite often when headwinds were strong. Delta inherited a bunch from Pan Am.


I don't recall AA ever having any A310's. I have definitely flown on an A310 with other airlines, but have also been to London on an American A300-600.


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> I don't recall AA ever having any A310's. I have definitely flown on an A310 with other airlines, but have also been to London on an American A300-600.


I also flew on one them, across the Atlantic. I liked the double armrest separating the two center coach seats...
They were much appreciated on long flights for the little bit of extra space they provided....


----------



## PVD

AA did not fly the 310. But they (the A-300) were not great on range, London would be about it. The AA A300 were a little more capable than the first gens (like the ones I used to get on Eastern) but still not great. The A-300 had a 90 minute rule, which made longer runs into Europe harder due to less optimal routing than the A310 and 767 which were the first ETOPS 120


----------



## Asher

SpaceX launched their rocket powered 
RESILIENCE this evening
The 4 seater will complete the flight in
271/2 hrs. Meals are included. Future plans are for booking trips for the public.


----------



## railiner

anumberone said:


> SpaceX launched their rocket powered
> RESILIENCE this evening
> The 4 seater will complete the flight in
> 271/2 hrs. Meals are included. Future plans are for booking trips for the public.


27.5 hours? I would hope meals were included....
BTW, thats an awful long time to get to a station that could come as close as 200 miles from where you launched from...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> 27.5 hours? I would hope meals were included....
> BTW, thats an awful long time to get to a station that could come as close as 200 miles from where you launched from...


Low energy trajectories tend to be like that.

BTW, when it was launched from KSC on the 15th the ISS was almost exactly overhead. 

I was too busy watching the launch from my back porch, to bother looking for the ISS.


----------



## railiner

The Soyuz has made the trip in only 3 hours, recently...


----------



## railiner

The Resilience can carry 1/3rd more passengers (4 instead of 3), but thats only half of what the Space Shuttle could...


----------



## jiml

Air Canada has announced plans to convert most, if not all, of their currently stored 767 fleet to freighters and launch their own cargo carrier. This will be the airline's third attempt at this, although none have been recent. The conversions could total up to 30 aircraft.


----------



## Asher

FAA is set to certify the 737 MAX today.
The hoodoo voodoo software and MCAS System that even the chief engineer didn't understand is supposedly updated to provide a safe Aircraft. Until the next time!


----------



## PVD

The 767 seems to make an excellent freighter. The conversions are very popular. Lot of life left in some of those airframes in low cycle service.


----------



## railiner

737 Max...Cleared for take off.
It’s pilots have to first get updated training...


----------



## jis

The 737MAX is cleared to fly by the FAA, which means that they can fly wherever FAA is the ultimate authority to determine what can fly.









Boeing's 737 Max gets approval to fly passengers again


The Federal Aviation Administration issued an order Wednesday that paved the way for the troubled Boeing 737 Max to carry passengers again, ending the jet's 20-month grounding.




www.cnn.com





Now we await action by other certification authorities of the world to follow suit, allowing it to fly elsewhere in the world. Europe should follow in quick order as should Australia/NZ Japan, India and Brazil. What the Chinese will do is yet to be seen. Chinese airlines are a huge chunk of the 737MAX order base.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

How long did it take to "discover" the previous MCAS "mistake" from EIS? If I were a regulatory agency outside the five ayes echo chamber I'd consider slow walking the approval process until a similar amount of time had passed.


----------



## Asher

railiner said:


> 737 Max...Cleared for take off.
> It’s pilots have to first get updated training...


I feel that they may learn far more than what they think they know now after a large number take the training. After seeing the same wrong reaction to situations over and over they will make more changes.


----------



## jis

IMHO, the primary mistake was giving MCAS unlimited authority. That is what caused the crashes. At least that part does not exist any more. MCAS will now intervene once and then take itself out of the loop instead of insisting that the plane fly itself into the ground and making it so, unless the crew diagnosed the problem correctly in split second and spoke the proper incantation with the proper incense while pulling the proper circuit breakers, which somehow Boeing thought was a reasonable recovery procedure, and FAA concurred  And moreover both agreed that it was not necessary to even tell the pilots of the existence of this new fangled gzmo that would unpredictably take complete control away from them unless they did the precise dance that they did not even know existed for sure.

Considering back then Boeing and FAA thought that the procedure followed was great, and they feel similarly now in a self-congratulatory mood, it gives one a bit of a pause, I must admit. At least this time they have deigned to tell the pilots and require additional training to handle the situation that might be presented to them. Boeing probably is reluctantly OK with that since the Southwest order is already in the bag.


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> Considering back then Boeing and FAA thought that the procedure followed was great, and they feel similarly now in a self-congratulatory mood, it gives one a bit of a pause, I must admit



It's almost like 1912 again when Harland and Wolff and the White Star Line said that the Titanic was unsinkable.


----------



## jiml

Canada will not go go along with FAA decision. Count me among those who thought they'd "rubber-stamp" it to appease Air Canada, who have a bunch of them.








Boeing 737 Max to stay grounded in Canada for now despite FAA clearance in the U.S.


Transport Minister Marc Garneau says the aircraft won’t fly in this country until it receives the okay from Transport Canada; expects Canadian officials to finish their work ‘very soon’




www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## tgstubbs1

jiml said:


> Canada will not go go along with FAA decision. Count me among those who thought they'd "rubber-stamp" it to appease Air Canada, who have a bunch of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing 737 Max to stay grounded in Canada for now despite FAA clearance in the U.S.
> 
> 
> Transport Minister Marc Garneau says the aircraft won’t fly in this country until it receives the okay from Transport Canada; expects Canadian officials to finish their work ‘very soon’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com


Give them a few more days. I might bet money they will approve sometime this month.


----------



## Asher

The Dodger Baseball Team transition from Trains to Aircraft. The link below describes the evolution how they went from small to larger.



The Flight of the Dodgers | Think Blue LA


----------



## jiml

Update:



jiml said:


> Air Canada has announced plans to convert most, if not all, of their currently stored 767 fleet to freighters and launch their own cargo carrier. This will be the airline's third attempt at this, although none have been recent. The conversions could total up to 30 aircraft.





PVD said:


> The 767 seems to make an excellent freighter. The conversions are very popular. Lot of life left in some of those airframes in low cycle service.


The plan has been officially confirmed and the pilots have ratified agreement to fly the cargo-only routes.



Air Canada pilots approve new contract as carrier looks to grow cargo business


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Looks like more delays ahead for the Boeing 777-X after another "uncommanded pitch event."



> The FAA cited a long litany of concerns, including a serious flight control incident during a test flight on Dec. 8, 2020, when the plane experienced an “uncommanded pitch event” — meaning the nose of the aircraft pitched abruptly up or down without input from the pilots.











Citing a serious flight test incident and lack of design maturity, FAA slows Boeing 777X certification


The FAA has denied Boeing permission to move forward with a key step in certifying its forthcoming 777X jet. It cites a long litany of concerns, including a serious flight control incident on a December test flight.




www.seattletimes.com


----------



## jis

Now only if their (Boeing's) manned spacecraft would stop doing uncommanded stuff then we might have a successful (unmanned) flight of the craft to the space station and back soon! It flunked the last time because HAL decided to go off on its own for a bit.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

With narrowbody, widebody, military, and spacecraft lines experiencing design and/or manufacturing flaws it appears that Boeing is suffering a systemic fruit of the poisonous tree problem. Airbus looked to be falling behind after their A340 and A380 programs substantially misread market trends but thanks to Boeing's self-inflicted failures and Airbus' own segment-leading A32X & A35X designs they're currently eating McDonnell-Boeing's lunch. What a difference a decade makes. In other news the long A350 backlog means that I may have one final chance to ride an elusive A346.









Five Lufthansa A340-600s With First Class Return To Munich


Lufthansa will temporarily reactivate five Airbus A340-600s, to be based in Munich as of the summer of 2022. Here are all the details.




onemileatatime.com


----------



## railiner

Love the look of that long fuselage with the relatively small tail, only possible on a four engine airplane. It is sort of a wide-body version of my personal favorite airliner, the long retired Super DC-8-61 and -63....









Douglas DC-8 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> Love the look of that long fuselage with the relatively small tail, only possible on a four engine airplane. It is sort of a wide-body version of my personal favorite airliner, the long retired Super DC-8-61 and -63....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Douglas DC-8 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


I agree that DC-8-61 and A346 share a similar aesthetic appeal but I've never been able to fly either aircraft. It is therefore surprising and timely news that LH has decided to bring five airframes out of deep storage to serve the premium long haul market ex-MUC for a single season in 2022. The EU is already lifting restrictions on US citizens and by the time these aircraft can be restored to active status I expect vaccinated travel to be allowed in both directions.


----------



## Exvalley

Devil's Advocate said:


> In other news the long A350 backlog means that I may have one final chance to ride an elusive A346.


And Lufthansa's famous downstairs bathrooms!


----------



## Brian Battuello

Exvalley said:


> And Lufthansa's famous downstairs bathrooms!



I remember that you weren't allowed to line up on the stairs to wait, not because of some 9/11 thing but because there were no emergency masks over the stairs!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I've technically gone downstairs to use a lavatory on some B74X's and A388's but never into a sealed cargo module like on the LH A346. 



It would have been interesting to see the VS, CX, and TG versions as well but you snooze you lose.


----------



## jiml

Aussie Dennis Bunnik did a review of FC on the Lufthansa A340 on the Munich route pre-Covid, in anticipation of their retirement. Sounds like he liked it:



If I win the lottery before they're actually retired, this is high on my list.


----------



## Mailliw

Brian Battuello said:


> I remember that you weren't allowed to line up on the stairs to wait, not because of some 9/11 thing but because there were no emergency masks over the stairs!


I never thought about this, but do aircraft lavatories have oxygen madks?


----------



## Cal

Mailliw said:


> I never thought about this, but do aircraft lavatories have oxygen madks?


I think so...


----------



## Devil's Advocate

At one point the FAA ordered US airlines to remove emergency oxygen supplies from the lavatories of domestic aircraft but I believe they eventually changed their mind and now they’re back again.


----------



## PVD

It was 2011, a security issue was discovered with the oxygen generators. I do not know what year a solution was applied and they were put back into service.


----------



## Bob Dylan

The Bathrooms have gotten So Small, most people try not to use them unless it's a true Emergency!

I really felt uncomfortable in one on my last flight from BWI- AUS on Southwest , there was only One in Service @ the Front, and you had to sign up and wait your turn on the flight that was 2 Hours Late due to Weather!


----------



## railiner

Bob Dylan said:


> The Bathrooms have gotten So Small, most people try not to use them unless it's a true Emergency!


Indeed...even the lavs on buses are cavernous in comparison to most airliner lavs...


----------



## Mailliw

Bob Dylan said:


> The Bathrooms have gotten So Small, most people try not to use them unless it's a true Emergency!
> 
> I really felt uncomfortable in one on my last flight from BWI- AUS on Southwest , there was only One in Service @ the Front, and you had to sign up and wait your turn on the flight that was 2 Hours Late due to Weather!


Airsickness bags are waterproof, right?


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> The Bathrooms have gotten So Small, most people try not to use them unless it's a true Emergency!
> 
> I really felt uncomfortable in one on my last flight from BWI- AUS on Southwest , there was only One in Service @ the Front, and you had to sign up and wait your turn on the flight that was 2 Hours Late due to Weather!


Whatever happened to the usual two in the rear? Did they decide to embark on a flight with both of those out of service? Or did they both fail en route in such a short flight?


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> Whatever happened to the usual two in the rear? Did they decide to embark on a flight with both of those out of service? Or did they both fail en route in such a short flight?


That, the plane was Full and the rears failed right after take off!


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> That, the plane was Full and the rears failed right after take off!


I guess speaks volumes about Southwest maintenance of toilets eh? One could say it has gone down the toilet


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> I guess speaks volumes about Southwest maintenance of toilets eh? One could say it has gone down the toilet


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Mailliw said:


> Airsickness bags are waterproof, right?


They look like they might hold liquid for a few minutes at most so move fast. 



jis said:


> I guess speaks volumes about Southwest maintenance of toilets eh? One could say it has gone down the toilet


If only we had known what was coming. There are several potential reasons why Southwest keeps falling apart while other airlines seem to be functioning normally, but I think in some ways they're simply too big and too aggressively utilized for the operations software to recover from interruptions with a fleet of this size.


----------



## west point

About Air craft toilets. Even with multi toilets either front or back the blue fluid all comes out of one tank each front and back. So if the tank springs a leak ----------- !!!. What is worse if the leak does not happen at the service outlet but it leaks into the plane Not good at all as the fluid is or at least used to be corrosive. EAL had a L-1011 that front tank leaked into lower electrical compartment and then into the nose landing gear compartment. When the plane put landing gear down over lake Renton Washington the frozen glob came down into the water and Seattle 911 got several reports of a body falling off airplane into the lake.


----------



## Dakota 400

west point said:


> About Air craft toilets. Even with multi toilets either front or back the blue fluid all comes out of one tank each front and back. So if the tank springs a leak ----------- !!!. What is worse if the leak does not happen at the service outlet but it leaks into the plane Not good at all as the fluid is or at least used to be corrosive. EAL had a L-1011 that front tank leaked into lower electrical compartment and then into the nose landing gear compartment. When the plane put landing gear down over lake Renton Washington the frozen glob came down into the water and Seattle 911 got several reports of a body falling off airplane into the lake.



What is the "blue fluid"? Aren't aircraft toilets metal? If so, how can the liquid be corrosive?


----------



## Barb Stout

Dakota 400 said:


> What is the "blue fluid"? Aren't aircraft toilets metal? If so, how can the liquid be corrosive?


Bleach can be corrosive to metal, but I don't know what the blue fluid actually is.


----------



## jis

I think only older planes have blue fluid. New ones don’t.

Of the planes that I fly these days only the 757s seem to have blue fluid. Admittedly that is possibly the only old model plane that I have flown in of late.


----------



## Ziv

I love looking out the window as the aircraft is flying over land. Over the ocean? Not so much. I flew over what looked like a near perfect asteroid crater in North Central Montana and have spent hours trying to figure out where the crater is so I could see it from the ground. It is up near Browning but I can not find a map point that has the same road/town/creek patterns.
Flying over Canada on the Dulles to Narita route is very cool in the respect of just how wild that area is. And flying over the mid USA it is kind of interesting to see the 1 mile squares of the old homestead sections. The other thing that happens fairly often is seeing other aircraft zip by a couple thousand feet up or down from the aircraft you are on.


Dakota 400 said:


> ....
> 
> Even when it is dark, flying over areas such as Orlando en route to ATL on a flight from Argentina was very interesting to witness the size of that metropolitan area. Such provides a different perspective to one's thinking, I believe.


----------



## Trogdor

jis said:


> I think only older planes have blue fluid. New ones don’t.
> 
> Of the planes that I fly these days only the 757s seem to have blue fluid. Admittedly that is possibly the only old model plane that I have flown in of late.



I think everything designed after the mid 80s uses a vacuum system nowadays, which on “large” planes would be A320s, 737NG/MAX, and all currently in-production widebodies.

I don’t fly 767s enough to know what they use (first designed concurrently with the 757, but stayed in production a few years longer; it’s possible they got some kind of upgrade at some point).


----------



## Asher

west point said:


> About Air craft toilets. Even with multi toilets either front or back the blue fluid all comes out of one tank each front and back. So if the tank springs a leak ----------- !!!. What is worse if the leak does not happen at the service outlet but it leaks into the plane Not good at all as the fluid is or at least used to be corrosive. EAL had a L-1011 that front tank leaked into lower electrical compartment and then into the nose landing gear compartment. When the plane put landing gear down over lake Renton Washington the frozen glob came down into the water and Seattle 911 got several reports of a body falling off airplane into the lake.


redacted


----------



## WWW

west point said:


> About Air craft toilets. Even with multi toilets either front or back the blue fluid all comes out of one tank each front and back. So if the tank springs a leak ----------- !!!. What is worse if the leak does not happen at the service outlet but it leaks into the plane Not good at all as the fluid is or at least used to be corrosive. EAL had a L-1011 that front tank leaked into lower electrical compartment and then into the nose landing gear compartment. When the plane put landing gear down over lake Renton Washington the frozen glob came down into the water and Seattle 911 got several reports of a body falling off airplane into the lake.



Aircraft toilets 101
The older planes had an electric pump that flushed the blue fluid around the bowl - the metal bowl was of stainless steel therefore non staining
The typical recharge of blue fluid that goes into the aircraft blue room is composed of chemicals that turn ugly green when enough urine has
been mixed and the smell gets much worse without routine maintenance:
That Maintenance involves driving or pushing a de-germ wagon up to the aircraft - small planes have one service hatch - larger ones one - forward
somewhere on the external sheet metal fuselage and one aft.
The hatch is opened and hose is connected tightly to a fitting sealing the flow of the de-germ -
A valve handle is then pulled releasing the reservoir of the used fluid into the de-germ vehicle -
The handle is shut - and a small hose with new fluid is hooked up to a valve and filled -
NOW for cheap skate airlines that is it disconnect the hoses close the hatch and move on -
The real operation is fill the toilet again and then pull the valve handle again draining new fluid and any remaining particles into the holding tank -
Close the valve and disconnect the drain hose -
Then refill with the required amount of fluid that particular aircraft requires -
Disconnect the the filling hose and close and latch the hatch

ANY QUESTIONS - Seriously this job is important and NOT DONE IN A HURRY least one avoid have a blue bath

The newer planes have the same toilet system that is found on cruise ships - a vacuum flush using much less fluid -
AND CAN BE TEMPERMENTAL JUST LIKE THE CRUISE SHIPS WITH THE WRONG THINGS FLUSHED diapers paper towels napkins and pads !
Depending on the aircraft there maybe only one service point to a central reservoir - smaller planes only one - wide body large planes
having two separate systems so at least one is available

The change of fluid is only one part of the servicing - spiffing refreshing up the interior of the blue room top side is the other part.

The blue de-germ pin stripes on the side of the fuselage is due to a bad seals on the hatch covers -
Too much fluid collecting will ice up and chunk off falling to earth some harmlessly and others with amazing concern (i.e. body parts LOL !)

One of my 99 hat job changes working a small airline station was to service the overnight aircraft - and turn around aircraft needing
urgent care - oh and blue de-germ pin stripes wash off with a little elbow grease.


----------



## basketmaker

WWW said:


> Aircraft toilets 101
> The older planes had an electric pump that flushed the blue fluid around the bowl - the metal bowl was of stainless steel therefore non staining
> The typical recharge of blue fluid that goes into the aircraft blue room is composed of chemicals that turn ugly green when enough urine has
> been mixed and the smell gets much worse without routine maintenance:
> That Maintenance involves driving or pushing a de-germ wagon up to the aircraft - small planes have one service hatch - larger ones one - forward
> somewhere on the external sheet metal fuselage and one aft.
> The hatch is opened and hose is connected tightly to a fitting sealing the flow of the de-germ -
> A valve handle is then pulled releasing the reservoir of the used fluid into the de-germ vehicle -
> The handle is shut - and a small hose with new fluid is hooked up to a valve and filled -
> NOW for cheap skate airlines that is it disconnect the hoses close the hatch and move on -
> The real operation is fill the toilet again and then pull the valve handle again draining new fluid and any remaining particles into the holding tank -
> Close the valve and disconnect the drain hose -
> Then refill with the required amount of fluid that particular aircraft requires -
> Disconnect the the filling hose and close and latch the hatch
> 
> ANY QUESTIONS - Seriously this job is important and NOT DONE IN A HURRY least one avoid have a blue bath
> 
> The newer planes have the same toilet system that is found on cruise ships - a vacuum flush using much less fluid -
> AND CAN BE TEMPERMENTAL JUST LIKE THE CRUISE SHIPS WITH THE WRONG THINGS FLUSHED diapers paper towels napkins and pads !
> Depending on the aircraft there maybe only one service point to a central reservoir - smaller planes only one - wide body large planes
> having two separate systems so at least one is available
> 
> The change of fluid is only one part of the servicing - spiffing refreshing up the interior of the blue room top side is the other part.
> 
> The blue de-germ pin stripes on the side of the fuselage is due to a bad seals on the hatch covers -
> Too much fluid collecting will ice up and chunk off falling to earth some harmlessly and others with amazing concern (i.e. body parts LOL !)
> 
> One of my 99 hat job changes working a small airline station was to service the overnight aircraft - and turn around aircraft needing
> urgent care - oh and blue de-germ pin stripes wash off with a little elbow grease.


Excellent explanation. After many years in the industry and on the tarmac/ramp I have been told by several ramp agents that the best and easiest duties was working the "Honey Bucket". Just pay close attention to what your doing.


----------



## saxman

Trogdor said:


> I think everything designed after the mid 80s uses a vacuum system nowadays, which on “large” planes would be A320s, 737NG/MAX, and all currently in-production widebodies.
> 
> I don’t fly 767s enough to know what they use (first designed concurrently with the 757, but stayed in production a few years longer; it’s possible they got some kind of upgrade at some point).



The 767s I’m familiar with have the suction toilets. I’m sure they were updated over the years like everything on the 757/767 has been. Some have glass cockpits now too.


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> Flying over Canada on the Dulles to Narita route is very cool in the respect of just how wild that area is. And flying over the mid USA it is kind of interesting to see the 1 mile squares of the old homestead sections. The other thing that happens fairly often is seeing other aircraft zip by a couple thousand feet up or down from the aircraft you are on.


if you like to fly across wild and truly desolate areas take any non-stop flight from the North America to India. Flying across the Stans and then the Hindu Kush or the Pamirs and Karakoram (depending on the routing across the Karakoram/Pamir/Hindu Kush massifs, depending on how things are going in Afghanistan. Is always a fascinating experience for me.

Before the US left Afghanistan they used to fly right over Kabul or Kandahar on the south side of the Hindu Kush, but now they cross Afghanistan over the narrow Wakhan Corridor across the Pamirs. I am yet to fly that route, and am scheduled to do so in the latter half of January (EWR - DEL UA nonstop).

Of course on the way back flying across the Svalbard Archipelago far up north of the Arctic Circle is yet another different interesting experience. They often fly that far up north specially in the winter to avoid the more intense jet stream. Then again there is the EWR - SIN nonstop of SQ which sometimes (not always) flies right over the North Pole. I got to do that once, and also at a relatively low altitude because it was on a day with elevated Solar Flare activity.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

For interesting flight views over places I would likely never go I would add seeing Greenland on flights between BOS and KEF. Only drawback is there always seems to be turbulence over Greenland.


----------



## basketmaker

Mailliw said:


> Airsickness bags are waterproof, right?


That's funny! My dad did a test of airsickness bags for the FAA (I think it was the NAA then) back in the 50's. I remember our ding room table covered with about 50 of them with different levels of water cover it for a week or so. I don't remember if or how many actually leaked. But I was like 5 or 6 and really didn't care.


----------



## jis

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> For interesting flight views over places I would likely never go I would add seeing Greenland on flights between BOS and KEF. Only drawback is there always seems to be turbulence over Greenland.


Depending on the route they fly on a specific day, you could get to see most of Greenland on the non-stop flight to EWR from BOM or DEL. It is just that you can never be sure exactly which route they will fly on a specific day until they actually fly it.

The other thing that you get to see is vast expanses of Siberia as it traverses south to north. This is true of all the non stops from India on most days BOM-EWR, DEL-EWR, DEL-ORD, DEL-SFO.


----------

