Whoosh - The Airplane and Airline Thread

[OJTheAviator]

30 minutes ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

What a horrible thing to even suggest or consider, the A220 is a proper 717 replacement.

 

I could see them maybe replacing older 737s with the Max maybe but it seems like they're going towards Airbus and won't change that.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/04/22/the-717-is-delta-air-lines-biggest-small-problem-can-it-swap-them-for-100-737-max-aircraft/#163dba544165

If Boeing had made more, what about the 737-600 to supplement 717s?

[handymanshandle]

5 minutes ago, OJTheAviator said:

If Boeing had made more, what about the 737-600 to supplement 717s?

Still probably no lol

 

the A220 has the benefit of being a clean sheet design. Boeing has effectively said piss off to that market so.

 

I don't have any issue against a re-certified max after a year of service but not as a 717 replacement.

 

In my mind the A220 can be the only 717 replacement for several reasons that I think make the most sense.

 

 

But that being said the 717 should remain in service for 5-10 more years.
4-6 if they want to hurry things a long a little sooner if fuel prices shoot up quicker than expected/

[handymanshandle]

Just now, Kaloob said:

It seems the problem is that they're leasing the 717s, from a glance at the article. The solution here would be to buy them from WN, instead of a lease. 

yeah which wouldn't make a lot of sense so I can get why maybe they're looking into changing the ownership status of that part of their fleet but that being said, they could just get more A220s that'd make more sense to me

[handymanshandle]

On 4/28/2020 at 8:40 AM, Kaloob said:

If they get A220s, I wonder where the 717s will go.

Potentially Hawaiian could snatch them up, or maybe Qantas.
 

 

On another note, I've been very intrigued by Long Beach and the old DC jets plant, I wonder how they got the planes from the factory to the runway because there's kind of a road in the way and that road looks like it was there when the factory was in use

[handymanshandle]

2 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

Potentially. I'd like to see them used by the US regional carriers.

 

On a satirical note,

Railroad crossings for planes.

Same lol

 

If Delta took their 91 B712s out of service and I had the opportunity to do it, I'd love to start an airline off with those. But those costs would be a challenge to get funding to support until the airline was bringing money in and well proposing a business in this current situation would be to say the least, really tough to sell.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, Kaloob said:

I'd probably try the same thing (not right now, lol). 

I'd kinda set it up as a Northeast Corridor (which I'd hate to kill) competitor that runs up and down the east coast. 

I'd probably try to arrange something where I can use the international gates at BWI for domestic flights, but that would probably go nowhere. It's a shame too, I don't think their international traffic is very high while domestic travel out of there is in high demand (not rn).

Yeah the area I’d wanna focus in is tricky because it’s in a similar area to where Deltas based out of lol

[handymanshandle]

29 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

Southwest has a stranglehold on BWI, and AA and United have a presence at DCA and IAD. In the Northeast there probably wouldn't be much competition for what I'm thinking of, but in the Southeast, I'd have the same problem, lol.

Yep lol

I do think there's room in the US market for one or two more bigger airlines once the industry recovers but you have to definitely walk on your toes due to domestic and international competitors.
That's why if I could ever start my own airline it's fleet would be like and unlike a lot of airlines, it'd have A220s, A321s, A350s and 787s (unless Airbus could give a better deal on A330neos but I think I'd like at least one Boeing family in the fleet).

As much as I'd like to try and make a passenger 747 make sense I think if the airline also did cargo operations,  maybe beg boeing for a combi 747-8 where the passengers get the front half of the plane and cargo gets the back half unless for CG purposes it'd be better to have the cargo up front and the passengers in the back. But I've read that combi AC kind of have more regulatory issues so maybe try and solve that?

[handymanshandle]

4 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

I probably wouldn't even try international, except Canada.  I'd probably go for the 737 replacement+Embrair E jets (hoping Boeing does something with them) and some 717s for a while. I think the Northeast is really a market to be captured (aside from bigger cities which are already claimed).

Sounds like the Boeing and Embraer deal is completely withdrawn now so yeah lol

 

in the SSG 747-8 for Xplane 11 it's interesting to see what occupies the old flight engineer station lol
it's sort of obvious what used to be there

a real world 747 flight engineer station

[handymanshandle]

5 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

I probably wouldn't even try international, except Canada.  I'd probably go for the 737 replacement+Embrair E jets (hoping Boeing does something with them) and some 717s for a while. I think the Northeast is really a market to be captured (aside from bigger cities which are already claimed).

also yeah international would be really tough so I'm not even sure if that would even be a focus lol

 

Maybe just start off with A220s and eventually get A321neos and A321XLRs for longer routes, the A220-300 almost defeats the need of an A320 so that would be taken into heavy consideration.

The A321neos would have the Pratt and Whitney engines since that's the same series of engine on the A220s. Love how quiet P&Ws GTF engines are from the videos I've seen. I mean I love the buzz of the CFM56 on the A321 and the CFM Leap seems to have a similar buzz but man it's fantastic that you can have related engines on two entirely different planes, which I'm sure would make maintaining the engines easier because then the maintenance doesn't have to be trained on more engine types and rather certified for the A220 family or the A320 family with both being able to work on the engines.

[handymanshandle]

3 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

This goes from sad to funny.

lol

3 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

Well, the A320 has the case of being similar to the 321.

The LEAPs on the 737 MAX-8 were quiet when I flew on one, but I'll have to watch some videos of the P&Ws. 

yeah it's just funny how the A320 and A220-300 are almost overlapping in capacity and the A220-300 can basically replace the A319 for most applications

[Mr.Meerkat]

4 hours ago, Kaloob said:

Railroad crossings for planes.

Take a look at Gibraltar's Airport

[GDRRiley]

aw common the right way to start an airline is with old 737-200 in southwests people face each other interior.

[Mr.Meerkat]

4 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

yeah it's just funny how the A320 and A220-300 are almost overlapping in capacity and the A220-300 can basically replace the A319 for most applications

But there are significant advantages on the A319Neo over A220s...

- Higher max range

- Can be ULD loaded (4 LD3s plus one half sized) 

- Shares a type rating with the the all the classic A320-family (A318, A319, A320, A321) and NEOs (A319NEO, A320NEO, A321NEO/LR/XLR)

- CCQ means it's a very easy transition with minimal training to other airbus types (some pilots here in the EU does mixed fleet flying on the A320 and A330)

So yes, the A220-300 undoubtedly is the cheaper to buy and "run" (fuel and efficiency wise) aeroplane but the A319 is significantly more flexible plus savings can be made on crew training, crew costs (due to CCQ) ect.

 

On the topic of CCQ, gotta love common type ratings! Who doesn't love flying three different jets under one type rating? Airbus has their "thicc" common type rating consisting of the A330, A340 and A350 (Lufthansa was last reported to having pilots flying all three out of Munich under the common type rating). Then the 777 and 787 also share a common type rating so airlines like KLM are getting their 777 pilots mixed fleet flying the 787 as well  

 

Edit: AFAIK, under FAA rules, none of these 5 aircrafts share a common type rating so I guess it only applies to the rest of the world.

[Mr.Meerkat]

41 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

That's really cool! And dangerous.

It's still easier to go from an A319 to an A321 than from an A220-300, the time required is shorter AFAIK.

Oh, wasn't talking about the A320-family for FAA land. They all fall under a single type rating. Was more talking about the 777/787 and A330/340/350 common type ratings  

[OJTheAviator]

8 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

That's why if I could ever start my own airline it's fleet would be like and unlike a lot of airlines, it'd have A220s, A321s, A350s and 787s (unless Airbus could give a better deal on A330neos but I think I'd like at least one Boeing family in the fleet).

I like it lot, but I think having just one Boeing model in with three Airbus models would be a pain. Probably a lot of maintenance overlap on the Airbus side, while entirely different plane and design on the Boeing. I believe flying a Boeing vs an Airbus is very different as well. Pilot training would probably be easier if it's all one company.

Even more cost effective to have one family of aircraft in the fleet. One group of pilots can fly anything in the fleet, and one group of maintenance can fix any airplane. That's why Southwest, Ryanair, and Norwegian Air only use the 737 family, while Frontier, Allegiant, Spirit, EasyJet, and Eurowings only use the A320 family.

 

But, one type or even one manufacturer is boring. So I like the idea.

[handymanshandle]

3 hours ago, OJTheAviator said:

I like it lot, but I think having just one Boeing model in with three Airbus models would be a pain. Probably a lot of maintenance overlap on the Airbus side, while entirely different plane and design on the Boeing. I believe flying a Boeing vs an Airbus is very different as well. Pilot training would probably be easier if it's all one company.

Even more cost effective to have one family of aircraft in the fleet. One group of pilots can fly anything in the fleet, and one group of maintenance can fix any airplane. That's why Southwest, Ryanair, and Norwegian Air only use the 737 family, while Frontier, Allegiant, Spirit, EasyJet, and Eurowings only use the A320 family.

 

But, one type or even one manufacturer is boring. So I like the idea.

oh yeah I bet it'd be easier to have an A330neo for cross training and moving pilots around because well it's more like the A320 than the 787 than anything, and even the CSeries/A220 family has its own similarities (despite not being designed by Airbus) but it's still an entirely different type but I think an A320 pilot would be able to speed through getting type rated on an A330 because of familiarity.

 

Also yup one family does make things a lot easier but that's why I think the A220 makes it a little easier to have two families because if you have some A320s with the same type of engine that the A220 has you can maybe cut down costs a little bit to make up in having to pay for maintaining and training for two different aircraft types.

 

I'd wager Airbus would give a better deal on an A330neo than Boeing would a 787 because the neo hasn't gotten a whole bunch of orders and if the airline was already an Airbus customer, well even better.

Boeing's only interest in making a competitive deal might be the Fly US Support US Manufacturing jobs. Which I wished Airbus had us production of more than just the A320 family and A220 family lol but there just isn't enough demand I don't think to support that.

[vf1000ride]

On 4/23/2020 at 10:47 AM, iBabySlapper said:

An old screenshot from WT.

 

Mmmmm The P61 is such a sexy thicc arachnid, isn't she.

 

There is a museum rebuilding a P-61 from the ground up here in the states.  They eventually hope to have it airworthy.  http://www.maam.org/p61.html

[handymanshandle]

When you hear your passengers screaming in the back because the approach into Innsbruck is apparently a challenge because of terrain

 

[Letgomyleghoe]

On 7/9/2018 at 8:43 PM, pinksnowbirdie said:

C130

You don’t realize quite how massive these are until you’ve seen one in person, no image can actually capture just how large the horizontal and vertical control surfaces are.

[handymanshandle]

2 hours ago, scuff gang said:

You don’t realize quite how massive these are until you’ve seen one in person, no image can actually capture just how large the horizontal and vertical control surfaces are.

yeah those things are quite massive lol
Haven't seen one in person
but I don't doubt their sheer size, love the T-Tail on the C17

[OJTheAviator]

If the C130 and C17 seem massive, which they are, just imagine witnessing a C5 in person! I was able to walk through the cargo section at Oshkosh 2018, unfortunately no pictures from that close. Still impressive from afar though. T-6s in front for scale.

[handymanshandle]

found some vintage photos of an early 717

has the MSN 55000 and line number 5001 so I presume that is the first production 717?

That BMW logo and Rolls Royce logo appearing together on a jet engine is weird but if memory serves that engine was technically called "BMW Rolls Royce" and then some model letters and numbers.

[handymanshandle]

also I've been trying to figure out how they got planes from here to the airport because there's a couple roads in the way

But street view from 2008 is giving me a hint

[Letgomyleghoe]

19 hours ago, vf1000ride said:

There is a museum rebuilding a P-61 from the ground up here in the states.  They eventually hope to have it airworthy.  http://www.maam.org/p61.html

P61 is one of my favorite planes by far, and the second I saw that nose cone I knew exactly what it was

[OJTheAviator]

19 hours ago, vf1000ride said:

There is a museum rebuilding a P-61 from the ground up here in the states.  They eventually hope to have it airworthy.  http://www.maam.org/p61.html

I just realized that I know that airport. I've actually flown there before on cross-countries, though I didn't know they were rebuilding a P61! I'll have to check it out sometime.