- Jan 6, 2009
- Reaction score
- Alliance, Ohio
Kudos? Looks like a complete waste of fuel to me. That's pilot's getting paid too, right? Got Passengers? Yes, No, Maybe? If not, then who is paying for that fuel usage and flight time? You and Me that's who.Kudos to the programmers and/or GIS team that came up with that route!
That was my guess. A number of years ago it was a big deal when airliners could fly more than 12 hours. Then it was 14, then 16, and now it's close to 18. That sort of endurance will make some seriously long hops possible in one flight instead of two or three.It's the Boeing company. They're testing the aircraft's endurance. They have to. Nothing wrong with making it fun.
I thought it had to do with massive unions & their demands, the stock holders demanding an annual 10% return, and the local airports / civil ports also requiring a bigger percentage.. Not to mention fuel costs..It's likely you're missing my point. Airlines, like power companies, are always banging at the door to raise pricing. This stunt sets a bad example. I doubt seriously there is any advertising here at all. They could have pulled this off 25 years ago if they had thought of doing it.
Here's a case and point example. Duke power wants to raise pricing because of the coal ash clean-up they have been required to address here in the Mid Eastern states. THEY are at fault for the spill and the water pollution, THEY decided where to store the coal ash, THEY are now having to pay for the clean-up and re-disposal, but THEY want to pass the buck on to the consumer. They are also responsible for distributing bottled water to people whose drinking water has been poisoned by their bad practices to which they continue to deny having been at fault. Smell permeating yet?
When are the airlines going to start charging us for having fresh air aboard their flights? They're charging us for everything else. Their little think tanks are working their butts off trying to find ways to dig our pockets. Smaller seating, charging for luggage and now carry-on luggage. Aisle seat or window pricing came up not long ago. Did that get implemented too? Bottom line is this. As far as they are concerned, it's OK to do whatever they want to providing they can make us pay for it. Greed and stupidity neatly packaged with a shiny bow on top.
Just remember : United Breaks GuitarsOK OK....my bad. Just when I thought I could point my grubby finger at the airlines AGAIN for gouging us.
Muttley would have said..."rizzle frufum zirgle friddle diddle shazm frizzum"
I've been on a LOT of flights and as far as I know, no airline has ever MADE me pay to take a trip, or anyone else for that matter. This is how free enterprise works - you don't like what the price is, you don't pay it and find an alternative that you do like. Enough people don't pay, someone will come up with an acceptable alternative for you that you can afford.... it's OK to do whatever they want to providing they can make us pay for it. Greed and stupidity neatly packaged with a shiny bow on top.
And this is why I fly Japan Airlines from Dallas to Tokyo instead of American. It costs more (sometimes), but I get a decent seat with some legroom (even in economy) and honest to God service.As far as the airlines nickel and diming you for every little thing, some would argue it is the most efficient pricing model. You only pay for what you want. Personally, I prefer the pay a little more and get decent service model.
To those that are saying this was a waste of time, money, and fuel, I have a question for you: How do you recommend Boeing and Rolls Royce certify the endurance of the engine? The aircraft that made the 18 hour flight is 787 #4, and it is currently testing the new Rolls Royce Trent 1000TEN for the new 787-10. Part of the testing involves long duration testing to prove that the engine meets the performance that both Rolls and Boeing claim for FAA ETOPS certification. Oh, and how do I know? I work for Boeing in Flight Test Operations, and was actually talking with several of the engineers that were on board the flight after they landed. In the past, Boeing has done this type of testing in conjunction with other tests, such as when they flew the then new 777-300ER nonstop from Everett to Easter Island, a distance of 5,500 miles, or when the first 787 flew from Dhaka to Everett, a distance of 7,000 miles. Were those flights a waste of money as well?
Yeah, but a picture is worth a thousand wordsWhile very cool, not entirely original. Gulfstream spelled out G5 many years ago.
View attachment 324994
Maybe Boeing was also trying to time travel on that flight? :duck:The report I referenced must be wrong. The average speed would have been 888 mph. Hmmm...