Quantcast

A Boeing airplane just 'drew' a Boeing airplane across the United States

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
6,966
Reaction score
1,427
Kudos to the programmers and/or GIS team that came up with that route!
 

Gary Byrum

Overstable By Design
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
6,330
Reaction score
195
Location
Lincolnton NC
Kudos to the programmers and/or GIS team that came up with that route!
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.
 

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
6,966
Reaction score
1,427
I don't own any Boeing stock, this advertising is far more interesting than most, and I appreciate a good technical challenge.
 

RocketGeekInFL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2013
Messages
2,371
Reaction score
912
I am sure that they are doing long duration flight testing on new hardware and decided to make it interesting. I don't see this as a waste at all.
 

Gary Byrum

Overstable By Design
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
6,330
Reaction score
195
Location
Lincolnton NC
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.
 

10fttall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
840
Reaction score
7
It's the Boeing company. They're testing the aircraft's endurance. They have to. Nothing wrong with making it fun.
 

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
6,966
Reaction score
1,427
Remind me again where to buy a ticket on Boeing Airways?
 

Zeus-cat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
4,584
Reaction score
788
It was a test of two new engines. The flight took 17 hours and 46 minutes and covered 15,766 miles.

So Gary, they were going to be in the air for a long time no matter what; somebody just figured out a good way to route the jet. Testing has to happen, and yes, the cost of testing is built into the cost of the aircraft when it is sold to the airlines. No way around that; it needs to be done.

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.
 

RocketGeekInFL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2013
Messages
2,371
Reaction score
912
Remind me again where to buy a ticket on Boeing Airways?
I would like to know that too. I am sure the seating with a fuselage full of test equipment is very spacious, lots of leg room.
 

Peartree

Cyborg Rocketeer
Staff member
Administrator
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
5,330
Reaction score
822
Location
Alliance, Ohio
It's the Boeing company. They're testing the aircraft's endurance. They have to. Nothing wrong with making it fun.
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.
 

dr wogz

Fly caster
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
6,085
Reaction score
1,266
Location
Land of Poutine!
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.
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..

maybe some industries require a little more regulating & supervision.. Along with better methods to hold them accountable..
 

Gary Byrum

Overstable By Design
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
6,330
Reaction score
195
Location
Lincolnton NC
OK 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"
 

Zeus-cat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
4,584
Reaction score
788
It was a test of two new engines. The flight took 17 hours and 46 minutes and covered 15,766 miles.
The report I referenced must be wrong. The average speed would have been 888 mph. Hmmm...
 

Mushtang

Premium Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
483
Location
Buford, Ga
... 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.
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.
 
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
536
Reaction score
175
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?
 

AlfaBrewer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
866
Reaction score
8
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.
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.
 

CPUTommy

Thrust cures All
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
122
Location
Massachusetts
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?

I remember when the 777 was being certified fo trans atlantic... FAA busted there chops due to only 2 engines. Boeing changed the game and it's only gotten better..in many ways.. boeing "2-thumbs up"
 

woferry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
805
Reaction score
27
Location
San Jose, CA
The report I referenced must be wrong. The average speed would have been 888 mph. Hmmm...
Maybe Boeing was also trying to time travel on that flight? :duck:

I feel sorry for anyone having to do economy for an 18h flight. I just did 14.5 hours a few weeks back, TLV->SFO, but it was in business class so I could lay flat and sleep most of the flight. :) Though what really sucks is the flight landed an hour before customs opened at SFO, so you get to spend an extra hour on the plane after it lands. :p
 

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
6,966
Reaction score
1,427
Long flights like these are a good match for sleeping pills and pillow collars. 18h, yech.
 

watheyak

Barnstormer
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
932
Reaction score
582
Location
Arizona
OK 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"
Take the train. Please.
 
Top