How is this "new guidance" when it's based on a study conducted in 2017? Oh, and in the study the subjects (mannequins apparently) were not wearing masks. How we can take anything these people say seriously anymore?

(Written on 15/04/2021)(Permalink)

In this case I don't mind the "anonymous sources" because they're not making unfounded accusations, they're simply people who are not authorized to make public statements on behalf of a company and doing so would probably put their job(s) at risk. The information they revealed is not exactly earth shattering, it's just something SWA may not want to state publicly themselves because it could be seen as a slight towards Airbus and could negatively impact future business. Not many people think there was ever really a chance of SWA buying Airbus planes, as the article mentions the economics of a single type fleet are just too great at the moment.

(Written on 08/04/2021)(Permalink)

Some of those planes are sold, but airlines have deferred delivery due to the pandemic. Also between the grounding and the pandemic there have been a lot of cancellations. As part of this order SWA converted 70 Max8 firm orders into Max7 firm orders, so there might be a few extra 8s sitting around because of it. At least for a while Boeing kept making planes when they weren't selling any new ones because of supply chain logistics and other economic factors.

(Written on 30/03/2021)(Permalink)

If people are willing to get on a plane with 175 people and no blocked seats I really don’t think boarding is going to be a huge concern. Not to mention airports are packed now in a lot of places.

(Written on 25/03/2021)(Permalink)

So let me get this straight: the plane can be at full capacity, 143 or 175 people sitting in close proximity. But boarding in groups of more than 10 is somehow too much? Do you ever stop and think before you speak (post)? Do you have to wear a helmet when you leave the house?

(Written on 25/03/2021)(Permalink)

A new single aisle aircraft would have to be a clean sheet design, there’s just no more efficiency to squeeze out of the 737. My guess is it would be more of a scaled down 787 using materials (composites) and technologies (avionics, systems, etc) from that program. I don’t see why they can’t come up with new designs that mimic the 757/767 where you’d have both single and double aisle aircraft that share enough commonality to have a single type rating.

(Written on 10/03/2021)(Permalink)

At my airline, not the one featured here, we do not visually inspect the wings after deicing unless a holdover time is exceeded or there is heavy snow present. In that case one pilot will go back to the cabin and look through an exit row window to check. Otherwise we accept the deice crew's word that the aircraft is clean, and just before takeoff we verify that parts we can see - windshield wipers, wing tips, or leading edge(s) are free of contamination.

(Written on 04/03/2021)(Permalink)

Well actually, if you exclude the 100, 200, 200C, 300, 400, and 500 series aircraft all that’s left is the NG and Max. So in effect the article did identify the models affected. They could’ve been redundant and mentioned the AD doesn’t apply to earlier model aircraft, but then that would be redundant.

(Written on 26/02/2021)(Permalink)

Not that it matters but do we know they landed overweight? In any case an engine exploded leaving them with only one, and from passenger accounts the failed engine was on fire all the way to the ground. So I'd say landing overweight would be a perfectly reasonable action! Airliners are required by certification to be able to land safely at max structural takeoff weight. Depending on conditions that may result in overheated brakes and/or blown tires. Landing above max landing weight just requires an inspection unless there was a hard landing or damage to previously mentioned brakes and tires.

(Written on 21/02/2021)(Permalink)

You must've had a really bad experience! I flew it for just shy of 10 years, and while my back is still recovering I loved flying it. It was well built, Part 25 certified vs Part 23 like a lot of competitors so the systems redundancy and stuff was nice. The runway performance wasn't the best but the dual mains and robust brakes meant stopping was never an issue even when wet/contaminated and I don't recall ever being brake energy limited like the 60. If you flew it at FL430 or 450 the fuel burn was relatively low if you flew it at .78 vs trying to max it out at .80, and if you slowed to LRC was still .75 or .76 so you could extend the range a bit. I didn't spend a lot of time riding in the back but seated I thought it was comfortable though not overly spacious. You don't need a stand up cabin when the designed mission profile is under 2 hour legs. It had its quirks but no major issues with reliability. I will say the early 45s with -AR engines and no APU made life a little less comforta

(Written on 12/02/2021)(Permalink)