What costs more on a transpac flight for a 777? Fuel or crew?

Since the chief motivator for an A350 and 787 is fuel consumption savings, perhaps any increase in pay for the crew would be off-set.

They dangle nicely, as a carrot dangles from a stick. That's the only actual use for them that I can see.

Freshairborne

I believe that it's fuel. I don't fly 777s, but it's so for the planes that I fly.

Freshairborne

I wish my future was as clear to me as it is to you! So does my wife :o

Freshairborne

With regards to the narrowbody order, I thought Boeing is supposed to develop a new generation that would interest UA, no?

LAX

The 737RS? That got moved to the back burner a couple years ago.

Neither Boeing or Airbus believe they can get the efficiency improvements they seek quite yet, the latest I've seen is it could be 2020 or so for the Boeing and Airbus next generation narrowbodies.

I'm not sure it's just fuel savings, there are other reasons as well.

The potential on flying Chicago to Sydney would open up more seats, meaning more revenue, for example.

That could also mean different RTW mapping for UA. Avoiding the EU completely even.

SYD-DXB-ORD-SYD
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=s...YLE=&ETOPS=180

Because the ORD-DXB route would be so lucrative? Just because one may posses the technology to fly from A to B nonstop does not make it a profitable route, no matter what size plane is flown. Feed into IAD from the entire US may work, including the local Washington population. Backwards/perpendicular feed from the east coast or gulf coast to ORD, only to fly back over the origin city seems less efficient, from both an airline cost model, as well as a passenger convenience/journey time model.

I also tend to think we will see 787s for the new widebody order and more Airbii when it comes time to order the narrowbodies.

Hopefully a few 747-8I as options as well.

Don't know about the cabin pressure but I did love showering on my four A380 F segments. :D

Anything else that glass ( I mean crystal) ball is telling you? Will my WL SWU clear this coming Thursday?

I agree, just because the possibility is there doesn't make it a certainty that it will happen. It makes for interesting discussion nonetheless.

Am I the only one here that is sick and tired of the constant talk that UA will do whatever CO does so CO can take them over easily? Is CO now some holy leader that UA must bow down to? Or the talk UA is on the verge of insolvency and can't order planes...none of which has any merit, just like the above CO talk?

It appears that a small shift would almost work. SYD-DXB-IAD-SYD. http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=S...YLE=&ETOPS=180

It appears that it's slightly undoable. But if ORD-SYD makes sense, then maybe IAD-SYD would make more sense. And if EK can do the SFO-DXB route, why not a SYD-DXB-SFO?

First of all, the analysis and simulation tools available today did not exist back in the 1950's. Additionally, two static test airframes are built for FAA certification testing of new airplanes today.

The first static test airframe is used to test the ultimate load to destruction of the wing. This allows the comparison of actual test data to validate the simulation and analysis tools.

The second static test airframe is used for fatigue testing, where the normal loads experienced by an airframe over its expected lifetime are tested in a compressed time scale to study the fatigue of the airframe structure. Again, this allows the validation of the analysis and simulation tools with actual test data.

I would fly on the new airframe in a heart beat... even on the first test flight.. :D

This is really where my concern lies. I would happily go on the inaugural flight... it's the structural integrity over time that has me more concerned. Because this kind of composite construction has never been used before in a workhorse like a commercial airliner, all they have is computer simulations to gauge this stuff. That just leaves me a little bit uneasy.