全部
← Back to Squawk list
United to replace ageing jumbo jets with 777s for Australia flights
United Airlines will replace its ageing Boeing 747-400 jumbos on the Australia-US route with Boeing 777 long-range aircraft early next year, in a move which will reduce capacity on one of this country's main international air routes. (www.smh.com.au) 更多...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Having flown with United Airlines since the 1980 s ,it has been increasingly more difficult to find available seating on the existing planes when you need it - although the existing planes are dated and ageing. Time for an upgrade certainly but don't see how downsizing the planes will address customer needs.
Sad! Having flown trans-Pacifc on both aircraft, nothing beats the 747.
I am now getting worried, please can someone tell me how one can be safe upon that route? I know certain carriers use the big twins over that big stretch of water but seriously, would you be comfortable in your seat?
I read that the B747 is getting rather old but what is wrong with retro fitting with newer more efficient engines and avionics? The B747-8 comes to mind! Many B707's are still flying under the Military EC135 tags and they are serving us all splendidly.
Tell me why losing half the redundancy is better by losing two engines? Aircraft were designed to use 4 engines for a very good reason at the time of creation and even though time has moved on, I am convinced in my own mind that trusting on computers alone to manage only two rather large engines in place of 4 well proven engines to do a job it was designed for is taking an unproven risk .
Okay, it may take 40 years or more before a twin long haul aircraft fails to arrive simply because of lack of redundancy, but how many aircraft last that long or how many lives could be lost based upon theory?
I read that the B747 is getting rather old but what is wrong with retro fitting with newer more efficient engines and avionics? The B747-8 comes to mind! Many B707's are still flying under the Military EC135 tags and they are serving us all splendidly.
Tell me why losing half the redundancy is better by losing two engines? Aircraft were designed to use 4 engines for a very good reason at the time of creation and even though time has moved on, I am convinced in my own mind that trusting on computers alone to manage only two rather large engines in place of 4 well proven engines to do a job it was designed for is taking an unproven risk .
Okay, it may take 40 years or more before a twin long haul aircraft fails to arrive simply because of lack of redundancy, but how many aircraft last that long or how many lives could be lost based upon theory?
