Blown By The Wake Turbulence

ANA

2011-08-12T21:40:00.000-07:00

I have always been a big fan of ANA ever since I watched the Japanese drama “Good Luck!!”, ever since they introduced Pokemon colour schemes on their aircrafts, and ever since I’ve seen absolutely mesmerizing commercial ads like this:

When I was told that we would be taking ANA to Tokyo, I was absolutely excited. I love ANA even though I've never taken it before and I can say that no other airlines have that sort of impact on me. They have certainly over succeeded in their marketing attempts! But this trip was the chance that I could try in the flesh what ANA was really like and I can say that I was not disappointed the slightest bit!

First thing that matters to me most: leg room! Even though I'm 1.73m, I was surprised that there was still so much gap between my knees and the sit in front of me! The best part is that if the person in front chooses to recline his seat, it will not affect me because the seat slides forward!! So if he wants to sit in a reclined position, he would only sacrifice his own leg room and not the one sitting behind him!

Next is the entertainment system. Singapore to Tokyo is a 6 hour flight and I couldn't get to sleep at all because there was so many interesting channels to watch! Firstly, they have an external camera, so if you're wondering what the pilot is seeing, you can switch to that channel! Very handy if you're not sitting on the window seat and wondering what's going on outside! They also have a very wide selection of movies, from Thor to Rio to I am Number 4. They also have their own exclusive ANA programs which are interesting documentaries on Japanese people! In fact I was so entertained I wished the flight would be slightly longer!!

Another thing that mattered to me was the food. This part of the airline I have to say was slightly disappointing. But then again it is not ANA's fault. I have a very bad reputation as a mighty fussy eater and the range of food that I eat is highly limited. For someone who isn't fussy with his meal however, I am pretty sure the food was satisfying.

Lastly, the service onboard. Many people judge an airline by the service of the cabin attendances but to me, it really doesn't matter. Just get me my food and my drink and I don't really care if you do it with a smile or with an angry face. But of course, with good service, it would be a bonus and dare I say, ANA's service was so excellent I'm forced to wonder why is it not in the same league as the other supposedly prestigous airlines.. *cough cough* Singapore cough* cough*

On the return journey, I was a little restless so I took a stroll along the aisle and decided to hang out at the back galley. There, a cabin attendant made small talk with me, asking me how long I stayed in Japan. When I told her that I was there to do volunteering work in Tohoku, she thanked me with so much expression as if Tohoku was personally hers. From there I could really sense the unitedness of the Japanese people. However the conversation was cut short when her superior called for her to do her duties. I don't get this kind of friendliness from our local prestigeous airline.... *cough cough* I don't know why. Maybe because I'm not *cough cough* caucasian *cough cough*

In all, ANA is definitely now my favourite airline and justifiably so. If I have to travel to Japan and onwards to places USA or South America, no questions about it, I will definitely be flying with ANA.

Back from Japan

2011-08-08T10:30:00.001-07:00

I just came back from Japan. I have about a million words to say about the trip but I'm going to hold it back for another time very soon. I'm extremely tired right now. Good night! こんばんは！

Landing and Taking Off

2011-06-29T02:01:00.000-07:00

I was at Changi Beach one fine day when I had no lessons and all I did was to film planes landing right over my head. Almost.

If you watched all the way till the end, you'll see the boss, a Singapore Airlines A380 landing.

But my favourite one of all is to watch planes taking off. Nothing quite like the sound of jet engines powering up to full rev. And I was lucky that day because I caught, by accident, one of the super rare Singapore Airlines Airbus A340-500. That, followed by a Qatar Airways Boeing 777-200. I wish I could stay a little longer to film a few more aircrafts taking off, but you know Singapore... The authorities are a paranoid bunch, I think they suspect that my innocent Olympus E-PL2 is some sort of a bomb or something. Which is why I left fast, before some police car comes to take my name down or something.

I still think that the Airbus A340-500 is the best looking, most proportional looking aircraft. 4 Engines 4 Long Haul!

I'm Going to Japan!

2011-06-29T01:46:00.000-07:00

Some time ago, I was given a mailer from my uni's Japanese club, offering a free trip to Japan as ambassadors from Singapore. The idea of this trip is for foreigners to visit Japan, take a tour of Japan, particularly Sendai, and then come back to our respective countries to dispel the notion that Japan is unsafe to visit due to the nuclear radiation that might be emitting from the power plants.

Now, we all know that Japan is notoriously expensive. To plan for a trip to Japan, one needs to have a lot of money first, which is why Japan has never been in my radar as far as a summer holiday trip is concerned. For a grad trip with bigger budgets, yes, but not for a lowly summer vacation trip. For starters, no budget carrier flies to Tokyo, the cost of a night in a decent hotel room there can be mind blowing, and the cost of transport from the airport to the city is about the same as a budget flight from Singapore to Bangkok.

So when this offer came, knowing that my chances were slim with surely thousands of applicants signing up, I just had a go at my luck at it. And guess what! I got it!

Yes, although the trip is sponsored, I am still going to stay as objective as possible. I ain't gonna start blindly singing praises of Japan and of course I'm not going to knit pick at the minor details either.

Being interested in transportation as well as photography, I'd focus my attention there. As of right now, I have no idea what airline we are taking there, but I really pray that it's either Japan Airlines or All Nippon Airways, because I've never taken either. If it has to be on Singapore Airlines, then I hope that it'll be an Airbus A380. Finally, I can also take my newly bought camera, the Olympus Pen E-PL2 for a spin, taking pictures of sceneries and all that.

Although Japan is an expensive country, I was told, however I am unsure if it is a myth or not, that cameras and lenses there are way cheap, because it's made there. If it's true, and if I have the opportunity to shop, I really want to get myself a lens there, and maybe a nice small camera for my girlfriend.

I've never been to Japan before and just as luck would have it, I am right in the middle of taking a Japanese language elective right now. The exam is somewhere in late July. How nice, right after the exam, my Japanese language skills would be immediately put to the test, in where else, but Japan!

The Prayer

2008-08-18T20:41:00.001-07:00

If you've taken Royal Brunei Airlines, like I did not too long ago, you'd know that before take off, on top of showing the safety video, it is customary for a prayer to take place. Does this happen in other airlines of middle eastern countries as well, like Emirates, Gulf Air or Qatar Airways?

I read the English subtitle to the Arabic prayer and I must say some of the phrases are most truly beautiful.

I found this video off youtube. Apparently the English translation here in this video isn't clear, but I remember when I was in the plane myself, I saw sentences like "Bless our family (that we left behind)... May the journey be easy... May we be blocked from seeing ugly things..." Yeah something like that.

If there is any Arabian around, kindly do translate it to English for me! I'd be eternally grateful!

Me and a friend

Me and another friend

Here's why my updates are so meagre lately.

A380 Irony

2008-03-26T02:59:00.000-07:00

Sorry I haven't updated for so long. I've been busy with the army life, which will end pretty soon!

Anyway I was on Yahoo and I saw something rather ironic.

An advertisement on "A Class Beyond First", sharing the same page of a news of the A380 fuel pump defect.

More On Singapore Airlines

2007-04-21T09:31:00.000-07:00

I noticed that I've got quite a handful of comments regarding the new Singapore Airlines livery.

Not too long ago, I emailed Singapore Airlines regarding the new livery and perhaps you might find this very interesting.

Good day! My name is XXX from Singapore and I travel with Singapore Airlines almost once a year and am very proud of our national airline.

Here I have are very simple and straightforward questions regarding some changes with the airline over the course of 3 years.

Firstly, why did Singapore Airlines scrape the dubbing of its aircrafts ie, Jubilee for the 777, LeaderShip for the A340, and most prominently, Megatop for the 747. The Megatop in particular, strikes a chord with many and I find it a shame that it has been dropped. I've even heard of people referring to a NorthWest 747 as a Megatop!

Secondly, why did the management decide to not complete painting the tail of the new aircrafts, leaving a white "stripe" at the bottom of it? The white stripe at the bottom gives an illusion that the back of the fuselage is thicker than it really is. Is it in line with the modernization of its fleet, hence the minor changes to the colors? Or is it for some other technical reasons such as weight/fuel savings?

Lastly, why did the management decide to drop its legendary "Raffles Class" name, renaming it Business Class just like most other airlines? Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles is the modern founder of Singapore and many prestigeous commodities/goods/services are named after him, ie Raffles Hotel, Raffles Institution, Raffles Girls' School, Raffles Junior College, Raffles City, Raffles Place. It would be most appropriate for business class to continue with its name of "Raffles Class".

These questions do not challenge the management's decisions, instead they are merely trivial questions I'd like to know behind these subtle changes that in a way, changes the course of how Singapore Airlines will be perceived and remembered by in the future.

Their reply

Dear Mr Liau,

I refer to your earlier email queries.

The main reason why we stopped giving our aircrafts specific names is so that we can streamline our brands. As you rightly pointed out, different aircraft types were given various names, like MegaTop, Jubilee etc. What we found was that these names ran the risk of becoming more "remembered" than the SIA brand. While we recognise the affiliation many have towards the MegaTop, it was a necessary change that had to be made from a branding perspective.

As for why Raffles Class has been renamed Business Class, the logic is simple -- the best way to let a customer know what product he's buying is to call it what it is. Afterall, First Class and Economy class are known as what they are.

The decision to change the paint design of the tail is to acheive a visual effect, so as to make the tail of the A380 less heavy in proportion to the rest of the plane.

Thank you for taking such a strong interest in Singapore Airlines; we certainly owe our success to customers such as yourself.

Mabel Lee
Public Affairs Department
Singapore Airlines Limited

And then I asked again

Good Day! Thank you so much for taking the time to reply my queries.

However I do have one more question that I left out in my previous email, I am just curious where the word "Kris" is derived from in "Krisworld", "Krisflyer", "SilverKris", etc.

Once again, thank you so much for the answers!

And their reply

Dear Mr XXX,

SilverKris is named after the kris, a fabled Malay weapon used in the 14th century. Legend has it that the kris possessed many qualities, the greatest was its ability to anticipate danger and protect its owner. The kris was treated with utmost respect and often became a family heirloom. Today, its function is purely ceremonial. In choosing a kris made of silver as the symbol of our service, we acknowledge both the quality and reputation of Malay silverware and our roots in Malayan Airways, which began operations in 1947.

Thank you for writing to Singapore Airlines.

Mabel Lee
Public Affairs Department

I hope you found that quite insightful!

Changi Plane Spotting

2006-11-02T09:00:00.000-08:00

if you happen to drop by Singapore and want to do some great plane spotting, you would like to pay the factory area near Changi east a visit.

i drove there today (by chance) and saw some low flying jets. unfortunately i did not have the luxury of time, otherwise i would have stayed longer and taken better pictures.

my car, a Lexus ES300. i blured out the number plate since every website seems to do that.

a picture taken from the car when i was driving with the camera on my right hand and steering wheel on my left. very dangerous, do not try this at home! but i was so excited that i took the risk anyway, a landing Lufthansa 747.

an Approaching Tiger Airways A320

A Singapore Airlines Boeing 747-400. and 20 seconds later, my hair was messed up due to the wake turbulence.

the pictures do not really tell the actual story, perhaps because there are no other objects to compare its height with. believe me, the aircrafts were flying much lower than it looks! and the sound of the engines was deafening right under it. one either love it or hate it. i'm for the former.

Singapore Airlines Ugly Livery

2006-10-24T09:00:00.000-07:00

on the new Boeing 777-300ER, i've come to terms with the bigger "Singapore Airlines" title. the tiny circular Singapore Airlines logo being moved to the centre of the engine is fine too.

but what i still find utterly unaccaptable and extremely annoying is the tail! i don't think that this sentiment of mine will change anytime soon!

My GOD i've never seen anything more hideous than that!

why. Why. WHY can't they just paint the dark blue background all the way down to the fuselage!! is it for any technical reasons? are they going to save some cash with less weight of blue-paint? is that white thing there going to make the aircraft more aerodynamic? I DON'T THINK SO!

the thing now looks incomplete with that white "stripe", don't you think? i really reeally hope that somebody do something about it! whoever suggested this new design truly deserves a beating!

Boeing 787 Technology

2006-10-23T09:00:00.000-07:00

i was browsing through some aviation forum and came across this funny picture.

for some background knowledge, the DC-9 is an extremely old aircraft model that was prevalant in the 70s and 80s. now the company that produces the DC-9, McDonell Douglas no longer even exists.

the Airbus A320 on the other hand, is the pioneer of technologically-advanced civilian aircraft developed in the late 80s to early 90s and is still popular with many airlines today. it harnesses "fly-by-wire" technology and most of the flying is done automatically.

THEN i decided to make a cartoon of my own using some picture editing!

if you're wondering what my picture means, since the Boeing 787 (due to enter passenger service in 2009) is supposed to be EVEN MORE technologically-advanced where everything is automatic, i think that there'll be a dog in every cockpit, where the pilot will be there to feed the dog and the dog will there in the cockpit to bite the pilot if he touches any button.

Changes

2006-10-21T09:00:00.000-07:00

sometimes, changes are welcomed. sometimes, not very much.

a few days ago, this came in the mail.

"The Romance of Travel Lives On"
the new Singapore Airlines product brochure

the new first class

the new business class. it seems like they designed the seats with extremely wide people in mind indeed

other new changes

the last page showing the aircraft that will introduce the new products

other impressive pictures from the Singapore Airlines website...

so i see that Singapore Airlines have decided to go orange. their current fleet consists of mainly blue and purple seats with the exception of first class, being brown.

old blue and purple seats

there are some other changes that were made along with the introduction of the new products.

firstly, notice that its no longer called Raffles Class anymore? it's unfortunate that they have decided to conform and call it Business Class just like every other airline.

secondly, they no longer dub their aircrafts anymore. remember the Jubilee and Megatop? that was how people identified Singapore Airlines aircrafts with but they have decided to drop that.

lastly, the subtle changes to the livery, some of which are not exactly very pleasing to the eye.

this is the "old" Singapore Airlines livery, nearing perfect.

this is the "new" Singapore Airlines colour, in my opinion moving backwards from perfect.

notice that the new "Singapore Airlines" title is much bigger and more forward to the front than the old one? its totally copying the other airlines that have also increased the size of their titles on their fuselage. i think huge titles are ugly, they make the plane look smaller and disproportionate.

other changes include the missing "Jubilee" title near the front of the aircraft. the tiny circular Singapore Airlines logo on the engine is now on the centre of the engine instead of the corner. that is fine.

but the ugliest change has got to be the tail! if you notice, the dark blue background on the new tail doesn't go all the way down to the fuselage anymore unlike the old one. instead, there is a white stripe there, making the back of the new fuselage look bigger than the actual svelte figure that the back of the B777 has.

the new seats are an improvement across all classes but there are some changes that have been made that i wish they rather not. Singapore Airlines is supposed to be "originators", not imitators!

Superstitious

2006-09-05T21:00:00.000-07:00

the 19 Boeing 777-300ER that Singapore Airlines ordered last year (and due to arrive later this year) have already been given designated registrations. i was looking at the list and found something rather odd.

the B777-300ERs have been given the "SW" series

if you look at the table, its 9V-SWA, 9V-SWB and then on to 9V-SWD and so on... why did they skip 9V-SWC?

i seeked to find out the reason behind this mysterious phenomena and the information i got is bent more towards the superstitious side than a practical one.

Singapore Airlines is extremely superstitious. i also noted that no aircraft has "X' in its registration, and that there is no row 13 on any aircraft on its sitting plans. of course SIA is not the only airline that does this. China Airlines' registration do not have the number 4 or 13 on any of their aircrafts, for example.

so what does WC stand for that is considered such a taboo? based on wild speculations, if you consider the fact that it's standard practice for SIA to paint the last two letters of the registration on the nosegear doors, then painting WC would imply that the entire aircraft is...

nosegear of 9V-SMA

A TOILET!!!

WC is short for "wash closet" and to paint WC on something which the airline spent nearly $200 million for would be extremely degrading.

or worse, WC can also stand for "wash chamber" (a place to clean/wash up dead bodies), and painting WC on the aircraft would imply that the aircraft is flying a planefull of dead people!

this practice of avoiding the acronym "WC" is mostly exercised in Western countries where it is considered bad luck.

Big Deal

2006-08-13T09:00:00.000-07:00

this article came out in the Today newspaper, as well as the Straits Times.

SINGAPORE : A Singapore Airlines plane which was about to land had to pull up again and move into a circling pattern in order to avoid hitting another plane on the runway.

The incident happened at Changi Airport on Friday when the plane was flying back from Tokyo.

The plane then circled for about 15 minutes before making a landing.

The pilot had announced to passengers that the other aircraft "was too close" and he "had to take off again to avoid any incident," recounted one passenger.

Responding to a query from MediaCorp's TODAY newspaper, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) clarified that safety was not compromised and no procedures were breached during the landing of SQ11.

CAAS said: "When the aircraft was about 2km from touchdown, Changi Control Tower controller who was monitoring the landing decided to instruct the aircraft to do a go-around because there was a preceding arrival which was slow in vacating the runway. This is a standard procedure of air traffic control to ensure safety of aircraft operations, in this case to keep the two aircraft well apart. There was no error on the part of the pilot or the controller."

An SIA spokesperson said: "When the go-around was initiated, there was ample separation between SQ11 and the other aircraft. And at 500 feet, this procedure can be done safely without compromising safety. This is a normal manoeuvre and pilots are thoroughly trained in the execution of a go-around."

i think that its absolutely sensationalising! things like this happen almost everyday! in London Heathrow it happens an average of at least once a day!

the SIA flight was on 1DME final where the tower needed to give a landing clearance and the leading aircraft wasn't quite off the runway, so the tower exercised judgement and sent the SIA aircraft around. its textbook stuff!

any 2 planes must be at least 2Nm apart at all times. the minimum separation is 1 runway's length or 2400m if the reduced runway separation is in use. these are ICAO standards, so i don't see a problem there. seperation shouldn't be an issue.

i suspect Changi may have a strict rule making it COMPULSORY to give a landing clearance by 1DME or issue a go-around. it's preferrable to give a landing clearance by 1DME but Heathrow frequently clears approaching aircrafts to land between 0-0.5DME.

with given spacings that is as little as 2.5Nm, it is simply not possible to issue a landing clearance at 1DME since the leading aircraft would only have crossed the threshold 30-40sec before and certainly still rolling on the runway.

the most efficient ops is achieved when arrival spacing is equals to the leader runway occupancy plus whatever landing clearance margin the follower needs. so the tower should clear the aircraft to land at a minimum margin from the threshold when the leader vacates the runway.

depending on the airport and its operating procedures, a standard 3Nm gap is about 70-80sec, 4Nm = 90-105s, 5Nm = 115-130s. different aircraft type pairs have different speed profiles so there is always a range. runway occupancy depends on the config. of the runway, where the exits are, what types of exit, decceleration and speeds of the aircraft and crew familiarity with the aerodrome, which is usually the problem. which is why like i said, go arounds at London Heathrow average about 1 a day. things like this happening is really no big deal.

but of course it's a very costly thing to do - the fuel needed and the delays to other aircrafts due to the domino effect of lost slots etc. so the tower does everything it can to minimise the likelyhood of one happening while ensuring safety.

Singapore Airlines Airbus A350

2006-07-21T09:00:00.000-07:00

when Singapore Airlines ordered the Boeing 787-9, it was a news that was very much expected. it wasn't a matter of "if", but a matter of "when" will the order be announced.

the announcement made in june was met with a rather lukewarm response generally. it wasn't written in the papers and there were no comments made from Boeing's PR guy, Randy Baseler, who usually likes to gloat whenever an airline makes a Boeing order.

SIA had a massive Request for Proposal (RFP) in december last year and a lot of people thought that they would make a firm order of at least 50 Boeing aircrafts, including the B777-200LR and B747-8i, leaving no room for any Airbus orders. an order for 20 Boeing aircrafts seemed a little too small, which is the reason behind the lukewarm media response i believe.

for Airbus, the timing of the announcement for the 20 Boeing 787s was not exactly very sweet. it was a time when Airbus was in a slump and facing very bad publicity from the media.

their "former" A350 was harshly criticised by both the ILFC and the SIA CEO for not being competitive enough against its bitter rival, the Boeing 787.

the A380 delays also caused much uproar amongst many airlines and there were threats by several airlines, including SIA, to sue Airbus and even cancel their orders.

EADS was selling off its Airbus' stakes and the price of Airbus' shares in the market dipped significantly.

the SIA order for 20 Boeing 787s was like salt to a wound, or a nail in the coffin for Airbus.

but who would have thought that a month later, the very same airline that nailed Airbus' coffin would be the very same airline that nailed it for Airbus!

a blue-chip carrier like Singapore Airlines endorsing the A350 would mean that many other airlines which are currently considering the Boeing 787 over the Airbus A350 would think twice, even putting the A350 in favour, leading to a sales domino effect for the A350!

very little people saw this order coming. i was pleaing for Singapore Airlines to go with the A350 and had a comment that said "You are nuts! SQ is way to clever to do that."

my heart (hopes) wanted SIA to go with the A350. but my head (logic) knows that SIA will go with the B787. i guess now both my head and heart is completely satisfied.

when SIA ordered the Boeing 787s, it was hardly publicised in the newspaper. now, the order for the Airbus planes is published on the FRONT PAGE of the Straits Times and Airbus truly deserves this extremely positive publicity!

of course, the group of people who really wins are the Changi Airport plane spotters who will soon see Singapore Airlines in a variety of aircrafts other than the usual Boeing 777s that we see today.

i can't wait till the day when i visit Changi Airport to see the A340, A350, A380, B747, B777 and B787 in SIA colors! the A350 in SIA colours will look nothing short of magnificent.

that'll be around 2012, and i'll probably be the first batch of SIA pilots flying these new planes!

i know lots of Boeing cheerleaders who were in glee with Airbus' demise a month ago. well.

"he who has the last laugh, laughs the loudest"

Surprise Order

2006-07-21T07:06:00.000-07:00

This news just came in from the Airbus website, Singapore Airlines had just ordered 20 A350-900XWB and exercised its options for 9 more Airbus A380s, meaning they'll have 19 A380s on firm order.

Rumors have always tipped towards Boeing's scale but this extremely surprising Airbus order is surely the light at the end of the tunnel for the A350!

Looks like my plea for Singapore Airlines to order the A350 turns out to be answered! The A350 in Singapore Airlines color will surely look nothing short of magnificent.

Now, the question mark is at the Boeing 787-10 and the 747-8i.

SQ orders 20 Boeing 787-9s

2006-06-17T09:00:00.000-07:00

i'm quite surprised by the general lukewarm response of the Singapore Airlines order for 20 Boeing 787-9s. usually when SIA makes an order, there would be a lot of hype following it but this time it's not the case.

it doesn't take the front page of the local newspapers, there are no comments from randy baseler, there are no comments from airbus, this whole "much anticipated order" turns out to be pretty much a non-event. leads me to wonder if the order is real at all. (yes i know it is! but it just leads me to wonder...)

i myself am quite surprised that the much anticipated SIA order was only good for 20 aircrafts. i was thinking of... oh i don't know... 50 to 60 aircrafts at least? maybe adding somemore aircrafts in the 400+ passenger range (ie 748i vs A380) and somemore to complement their A345s (with more A345s or 77Ws) and perhaps a few copies of the B783 to be the new A310 replacements?

surely there will be more orders to come in the foreseeable future? or are they done with their shopping?

Singapore Airlines Boeing 787-9

Singapore Airlines TV Commercial

2006-06-09T09:00:00.001-07:00

Singapore-Los Angeles non stop on the A345Leadership.

my favourite Singapore Airlines commercial of all time! love the song, love the graphics, love the sequences! i've been looking for it for 2 years and thank goodness some Singapore Airlines enthusiast puts it up on youtube, though i still wish i could find the original high quality video...

Aviation Mistakes in Toy Story 2

2006-06-06T21:00:00.000-07:00

in the words of my physics lecturer, i've spotted some physics mistake when i was watching a movie. this time it's toy story 2. a very nasty ass physics mistake indeed!

the error is near the ending of the movie when woody and that cowgirl jumped off the nose gear (in laymans term: front tire) of the plane. if you watched the movie and recalled, the plane then took off just at the moment they jumped off and both characters somehow managed to stay lying on the runway.

this shouldn't be the case! when the plane is at take off speed, there is wake turbulence created behind the fuselage and the wings, not forgetting the tens of thousands pounds of thrust from the engine. the plane looked like the size of an A330-200 and it definitely doesn't have sissy engines.

what should really happen is that the toys should have been hurled away and be thrown either sideways or backwards by the wake turbulence.

then in the movie, around 10 seconds later another plane is seen landing right in front of them. another mistake! in real life situations, there should have been at least a 3 minute allowance before the next plane can take off or land. even busy airports like London Heathrow (LHR) or New York (JFK) have at least a 2 minute allowance between 2 successive planes. (i may be wrong about the 2 minutes here, i'll need to check)

if the take off and landing schedule was as close as the movie showed, then what the tower should have done is to allow the approaching plane to land first before letting the departing plane take off.

again, the plane landing right in front of them should have blown them away due to the wake turbulence.

and finally, the point where both woody and the cowgirl jumped off is the point of rotation. (laymen's term: take off point) it is very rare that a plane touches down at the point of rotation. the approaching plane should have landed much closer to the start of the runway.

in Singapore, it is not impossible to experience wake turbulences. i know a rather secluded place near the changi airport runway where approaching planes fly barely 10 stories above you! (maybe this is why the factories there are 3 stories max)

what happens when you sit below a landing plane is that after 30 seconds it flies over your head, you will feel a very strong gush of wind. there is a monsoon drain across it and you can see violent ripples created because of the wind. the wind and the noise itself feels very awe-inducing. if the plane flies any lower, you'll really get blown away by the wake turbulence and your ears will burst from the engine noise. i'll remember to take pictures the next time i cycle there. really cool stuff.

Peugeot

2006-05-28T09:00:00.000-07:00

the new Peugeot designs are really ultra cool!

307:

407:

the new Peugeots really look like aeroplanes! the smiley face kinda reminds me of fighter jets with under-cockpit air intakes...

the F-16 in particular.

with cars looking like that, who needs funny and witty advertisements to be cool? not that i'm complaining about it since it cracks me up everytime!

and with cars looking like that, people with good tastes will know what to spend their money on! (if they're looking for a new car)

Airbus Vs Boeing

2006-05-26T09:00:00.000-07:00

In today's marketplace, distinct differences in the way competitive products work have become increasingly rare. But functional product differentiation is exactly what the rivalry between the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is all about: Two companies with fundamentally different products, based on diametrically opposite visions of the future, engaged in a Hatfields versus McCoys battle with billions of dollars at stake.

Each company has made a series of big bets.

The Airbus A380 super-jumbo is a plane for the annals of aviation history. When it goes into service later this year, it will be the biggest, baddest airliner around, capable of ferrying from 550 to 800 passengers (depending on configuration). With its two full-length decks and the promise of amenities such as sleeper cabins, cocktail lounges and a gym, it is sure to capture the public's imagination.

But for all its promise of innovation, the A380 represents a bet-the-house wager on one of the most disliked same-old models of air travel: the hub-and-spoke. The A380 is built around the assumption that airlines will continue to fly smaller planes on shorter routes (spokes) into a few large hubs, then onward to the next hub on giant airplanes. It also presumes that passengers will want to put up with the hassles of changing planes in exchange for the privilege of traveling in a jet-powered cruise liner.

Whether the A380 will live up to the hype remains very much to be seen. Passengers may become disenchanted with the plane if it turns out to be a freighter rather than a luxury liner. When airlines can choose between more seats and a gym, out goes the gym. Sound cynical? Not to those of us who fondly remember the upstairs first-class lounge in the early 747s.

Second, and even more importantly, Boeing's (nyse: BA - news - people ) 787 represents an appealing alternative. It's based on a fundamentally different vision, and it is radically different by design.

Boeing doesn't take the current hub-and-spoke model as a given. Marty Bentrott, vice president of sales, marketing and in-service support for the 787, says that since 1990, the number of city pairs more than 3,000 nautical miles apart served by the world's airlines have doubled, the number of frequencies offered by the airlines have doubled, and the number of available seat-kilometers (seating capacity times miles flown) have doubled. None of these trends show any signs of abating; meanwhile, the average airplane size has actually declined slightly. Clearly, customers prefer more point-to-point flights, flown more frequently, on smaller airplanes.

Marketplace insight is at the core of 787 product development. "Our strategy has been to design and build an airplane that will take passengers where they want to go, when they want to go, without intermediate stops; do it efficiently while providing the utmost comfort to passengers; and make it simple and cost-effective for airlines to operate," Bentrott says.

Rather than seek economies through scale, the 787 will deliver economy through technological innovation, making the most of newly designed, fuel-efficient twin engines and lightweight composite materials. The 787 offers a very different take on the flying experience, too, focusing on comfort rather than perks that could be eliminated by airlines: more standing headroom, larger windows and bathrooms, and higher humidity--all features that will benefit passengers regardless of seat configuration.

If Airbus appears to covet recognition in the Guinness Book of World Records, Boeing seems predisposed to making a favorable impression in airlines' inventories. To date, carriers have ordered 159 A380s, and almost twice as many 787s.

Both Airbus and Boeing have a hedge in their back pocket. To compete directly with the A380, Boeing's 747-8 uses fuel-efficient engines like the 787 to carry 450 passengers. To counter the 787, Airbus is offering a white elephant called the A350, which has been widely derided as out of step with the changing times.

According to Boeing, the 787 is the result of over a decade of focus groups and scientific studies to gain a better understanding of passenger comfort and how the design of airplane interiors can make flying a more pleasant experience. If Airbus made comparable efforts, we are hard-pressed to find the evidence.

The ordeals of air travel after Sept. 11, 2001, make even short flights feel like long hauls. Did people really tell Airbus that they are perfectly happy to stand in more lines in exchange for a cocktail lounge? Airbus could not be reached for comment.

Boeing versus Airbus is one of the most hard-fought, closely watched marketing battles out there. It's also one of the most fascinating. Not long ago, it appeared as if Airbus had gained the upper hand. If Boeing succeeds in winning this battle --and it appears to be well on its way--it will amount to one of the great reversals of business fortunes. It will also serve as proof of the wisdom of understanding the marketplace well enough to lead, rather than follow.

-Forbes

Airbus should redesign A350: SIA

2006-04-11T09:00:00.000-07:00

Airbus may need to redesign its A350, the long-range wide-body model the European maker is offering against Boeing Co's new 787, if it hopes to match Boeing on sales in that area, said Singapore Airlines, the world's second-biggest carrier by market value.

After Boeing put on offer in December 2003 the new Dreamliner aircraft, using 50-percent composite materials to make the plane lighter and more fuel-efficient, it took Airbus four attempts to come up with a competitive response.

That plane, the A350, is based on Airbus' existing A330, although it will use more composites, have a new tail and 90-percent new parts.

"Having gone to the trouble of designing a new tail, and introducing a lot of new composites and everything else, they might as well go the whole way and design a whole new fuselage as well, instead of using something old," Singapore Airlines chief executive officer Chew Choon Seng said in an interview in Zurich on Friday, where he was attending a Star Alliance event. "It would make it more directly competitive with the 787."

Airbus still lags behind Boeing in the A350-787 contest, and key industry executives including Mr Steven Udvar-Hazy, chief executive officer of International Lease Finance Corp (ILFC), the world's largest aircraft lessor as measured by the value of its plane portfolio, said on Maech 28 at an industry conference in Florida that Airbus should spend US$8 billion to US$10 billion more to redesign its A350 to compete with Boeing's 787.

Airbus has said it would cost 4.3 billion for its current version of the A350 based on the A330.

As of March 30, Boeing had won 298 orders for its 787 while Airbus had won 100 firm orders and 92 commitments.

"This removes any possible doubt that Airbus needs a new plane," said consulting company Teal Group's vice-president Richard Aboulafia. "When the most prestigious airline in the world and the biggest leasing company in the world both send you the same message, you need to listen."

Mr Chew said SIA would decide on whether to buy as many as 80 new aircraft at a board meeting next month.

"We still have an open mind," Mr Chew said. "It's not so much price, but a question of economics, and what each manufacturer would stand by and guarantee in terms of delivery."

If Airbus redesigns the A350, that might put the aircraft price "in a whole new ballpark, so it's a bit sticky".

Airbus' A350s are now priced at US$170 million to US$190 million each, depending on the model, while Boeing's 787 has a catalogue price of between US$142 million and US$150 million.

Mr Udvar-Hazy said at the conference last week that AIrbus should scrap its current design for the aircraft and design an all-new fuselage and wing to make it bigger and faster.

He also said Airbus needs to decide on a redesign before the Farnborough, England, airshow in July. ILFC has orders for the A350 and the 787. Unless Airbus changes the plane's design, oeing will dominate market share in the category, he said.

Mr Aboulafia said that Airbus parent European Aeronautics Defence & Space Co (EADS) is now under double financial pressure because of a redesign of the A350 might cost several billion dollars, and EADS also needs to come up with cash to purchase BAE Systems' minority stake in Airbus. BAE said on Friday that it would start negotiations to sell that stake to EADS.

"It's not just paying for a new plane. It's paying for BAE's share of the company as well. They're under serious financial pressure," Mr Aboulafia said.

BAE's 20 percent holding is valued at 3.5 billion Euros in EADS' books though the final price to be paid by EADS to BAE will be subject to negotiations.
-Bloomberg

Outfixed by a kangaroo

2006-03-01T09:00:00.000-08:00

from the Today newspaper (March 1, 2006)

VETERAN parliamentarian Tan Soo Khoon has lambasted the Australian government for its decision to deny trans-Pacific routes to SIA.

Noting that the Singapore brand was strong and it struck fear in those who compete with the country, he said in Parliament yesterday: "Sometimes, it's just a case of pure envy on how far the country has come."

"That sums up the recent episode when the Australian government finally decided to tell Singapore Airlines that it's not getting a slice of the lucrative trans-Pacific Route. This, especially when there is a shortage of seats on this route and prices have been kept artificially high for the consumer."

One of the arguments the Australian cabinet had used to reject SIA's bid was that it would cause its own national carrier Qantas to cut jobs and even go bankrupt.

"Yet, as has been reported, the Australians are quite happy to allow their own budget carrier Virgin Blue to fly this route instead," said Mr Tan. "One must therefore presume that the Australians have in the same breadth concluded suddenly that Qantas can now survive competition as long as it comes from one of their own."

All this boiled down to the Australians wanting to look after their own parochial interests, he said. When Qantas was feeling the heat from the competition, the Australian government put up barriers.

It was easy for the Australians to tell Singapore that the SIA issue would not affect broader ties, Mr Tan argued, but "Singaporeans are angry with the outcome".

"For a long time, their position dangled between reticence to giving us an occasional dash of hope. But in the end having got all the fifth freedom rights they wanted from us and knowing that we have no more bargaining chips on the table, they led us on a 10-year run around.

"The Singapore Lion was simply outfoxed by the wily Australian kangaroo. Maybe we were not canny enough," he said.

Flight Path

2006-02-23T22:58:00.000-08:00

everytime i walk towards the bus stop from my house i'd always see aeroplanes flying across on its way to the runway, which is pretty close.

it was around 1:20pm when i was walking out and i saw a Singapore Airlines B777 flying across followed by the sound of the engines coming from IN FRONT. pretty normal stuff.

then i walked further down. suddenly there was a sound coming from BEHIND.

weird!? why is there a sound coming from behind, i thought.

so i turned around and guess what i saw!?

BLOODY HELL! A LOW FLYING A380 FLYING ACROSS MY VERY EYES!!

contrary to the picture, the A380 WAS HUGE in real life!! i wasn't prepared so i didn't take any picture of the actual thing, but this was how it looked like. it was flying towards my neighbourhood and then turned 180 degrees RIGHT ABOVE THAT HOUSE at an altitude no higher than 300 feet!

at point R i could hear the engines powering up, i guess on its way and preparing to land.

had i left my house 30 seconds earlier or 30 seconds later, i would have missed the entire thing! imagine how surprised i was when i saw that thing flying just above me!

to have ANY aircraft flying that path is rare enough. to have the A380 flying it is a gem.

the benefits of living near the airport during the airshow... :)

Plea

2006-01-25T09:00:00.000-08:00

Dearest anyone who is in charge of Singapore Airlines,

please. go with the A350.

What's Going On, Eh?

2006-01-21T21:00:00.000-08:00

somewhere in November last year, Thai Airways inaugurated flights from Bangkok to Russia (DME).

come March this year, Singapore Airlines will also start serving Moscow (via Dubai) on their 777s.

with both of them constantly competing, have you ever wondered why both airlines are in the same alliance (star) at all?

Flying On The Friday the 13th

2006-01-09T09:00:00.000-08:00

anyone who's afraid of flying on the friday the 13th, here's something for you.

A complete list of airline accidents that have occurred on Friday the 13th:

13 May 1959 / Transportes Aereos Peruanas /Curtiss C-46/Toumavista, Peru 12:12

13 November 1966/All Nippon Airways/NAMC YS-11/Matsuyama, Japan 50:50

13 October 1972 /Aeroflot/Ilyushin IL-14/Krasnaya Polyana, USSR 174:174

13 October 1972 /TAMU/Fairchild FH-227D /San Fernando, Chile 29:45

13 July 1973/Delta Air Lines/McDonnell Douglas DC-9-31/Boston, Massachusetts, USA 89:89

13 August 2004/Air Tahoma (DHL)/Convair CV-580/Hebron, Kentucky, USA/1:2

only 6 in total, certainly statistically no more than any other day!

even if you're talking of days of the month (i.e. the 13th, whether a Friday or not) it's statistically one of the safest days:

a statistics graph showing the number of crashes that happened on the day of the month here.

statistically, the 8th is the worst day of the month, with the 20th, 7th and 13th being the safest!

oh yes and of course, i flew on SQ SIN-LHR on a friday the 13th.

the plane was half empty, i had a row all to myself, and this was by far my best flight ever.

Quote Of The Year

2005-12-29T09:00:00.000-08:00

"somehow airbus managed to fool some airlines into buying the A350"

WTF?^^

2005-12-24T09:00:00.000-08:00

According to Dow Jones:

14:32 23Dec2005 OBI-DJ Singapore Airlines Likely To Tap Boeing For New Order-SourcesSI>

By Abdul Hadhi Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

SINGAPORE (Dow Jones)--Boeing Co. (BA) looks set to beat arch-rival Airbus (ABI.YY) in a contest valued at upwards of US$10 billion to supply Singapore Airlines Ltd. (S55.SG) with new long-range passenger planes, according to people familiar with the airline's plans.

SIA, the world's second-biggest airline by market capitalization, is mulling a firm order for 66 to 80 Boeing aircraft, with an option for up to another 30, these people said. "The indication is an order made up mostly of the 777-200LRs and a significant number of the 787 Dreamliners. A few, 5 or 6, of the 747-Advance freighters may also be part of the order," one of the sources said.

At this point, SIA isn't considering including any Airbus planes in the order, he and two other people said.

Other notes include total firm orders for 66 to 80 airplanes plus 30 options with majority to be 772LR.

Source: Dow Jones

--

majority = 33 or more B772LRs?!?! even Emirates didn't make such a huge order!

i'm like doubleyoo-tee-eff (wtf) mate?^^

The 787 Will Be Lean And Green

2005-12-10T09:00:00.000-08:00

EVERETT - The Boeing Co. is taking great pains to make sure its new airplane will be "green and clean" as it flies through the sky, the executive in charge of 787 development said Thursday.

"A huge focus in this program is making this an environmentally friendly airplane," Boeing vice president Mike Bair said.

"You know you're on to something," added John Howell, the group's chairman, "when the world's largest aircraft maker comes to speak at a conservation breakfast."

Bair said the new 787 will be easier on the environment in several ways:

* It will burn less fuel, leading to less air pollution, he said. "Some of the emissions will be 50 percent lower than today's best."

* The plane's main structures will be built from composites, which can be produced using less than 10 percent of the electricity needed to make comparable parts from aluminum.

* Some of the processes used to make aluminum jet parts require the metal to be dipped in "really interesting chemicals," which won't be used in making the 787's composite parts.

* And at the end of the jet's life span, it will be "a very simple thing" to dispose of the 787's composite pieces, he said. They could be ground up and reused for things such as roadbeds. Aircraft metal, on the other hand, is not so easy to recycle, Bair said, because the aluminum alloys used in jets contain elements that are "not the sort of things you want in your beer cans."

Wings

2005-11-30T21:00:00.000-08:00

birds insects pterodactyls angels dragons aeroplanes are capable of flying and i realised that they hav 1 thing in common, they all hav wings. if its not using powerful upward thrusts lik a rocket, helicopter or the harrier which are capable of verticle take offs, or if its not lighter than air lik a hot air balloon, then it probably needs wings to fly.

for the aeroplane there are generally 4 types of wings. (that i kno of) the wings are designed by the engineers to allow for the most aerodynamic airflow depending on the type of aircraft, its size and its intended range.

normal conventional wings look lik this

conventional wings

this wing is common on most Boeing planes lik some 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 models.

normal wings on the Boeing 777-200

some hav winglet that looks lik this

winglets

winglets are pretty common on many Airbus aircrafts lik the A330 and the A340. the Boeing 747-400 and some 737 models hav winglets too.

the Airbus A340-500 with winglets

and then there is the wing fence

wing fence

as far as i kno, only Airbus aircrafts hav the wing tip fences, namely the A300, A310, A320 family and of course, the A380.

the Airbus A380-800 and the wingtip fences

and this wing is quite rare, the raked wingtip where the tip of the wing is slightly tilted to the back

raked wingtips

the Boeing 777-300ER and the Boeing 767-400 uses this type of wings. its generally for aircrafts that fly over very long distances.

the Boeing 777-300ER with raked wingtips

of course there are many aircraft models that i missed, i can't possibly name them all.

whatever westlife sang about in "flying without wings" is also possible, but that is for another type of "flying", achievable by drugs or love. ok i hav to go now i really need to pee very badly

The Best Beach In The World

2005-11-16T21:00:00.000-08:00

KLM Boeing 747-400

Air Canada Boeing 767

Delta Air Lines Boeing 757

Corsair Boeing 747-300 (no winglets)

swimming in that pool will be very lovely wouldnt it? an Air France A340-300. this aircraft is very well known for its gay puny engines.

and afterwards, a beach full of sand-covered people

US Airways Boeing 757

Air France on final approach

those 4 engines on the A340-300s are not really engines. they're surplus hairdryers from General Electric.

lovely... (the plane)

sorry this is a very bad pun

(all pictures except the last one courtesy of airliners.net)

Doomed For Delay

2005-11-04T09:00:00.000-08:00

"please be informed that airbus has deferred the airbus A380 (MSN001) visit to singapore on 8th november due to rolls-royce engine change considerations. airbus is in the process of rescheduling the visit to friday, 11th november 2005.

for more information, please refer to the airbus website at www.airbus.com"

from first delivery to first flight to first international flight.

The Imperial Russian Ballet

2005-10-30T21:00:00.000-08:00

i wonder which is more exciting, the ballet itself or the fact that there's an easier connection to moscow from singapore.

then there's the news that Singapore Airlines will be introducing services to Moscow as well, from june of 2006. (i wonder which airport, sheremetyevo or domodedovo?)

ooh boy, transaero will be one very pissed off airline.

A350?

2005-10-15T21:00:00.000-07:00

some people's birth certificate is an apology letter from durex, the condom company.

do you think that the Airbus A350 is an apology "letter" for all A340 operators?

The Family Guy Cockpit Joke

2005-09-16T21:10:00.000-07:00

Brian (to girl): Oh yeah Peter does stupid stuff to get himself in trouble all the time. That's why he doesn't work for that airline anymore

*the scene cuts to where Peter is in a captain's uniform with a copilot, piloting an airplane*

(F/A walks in with coffee)
Captain Peter: Thank you stewardess. Can you tell me where we are right now?
F/A: Um, on an airplane?
Captain Peter: No what is this room we're in?
F/A: The flight deck?
Captain Peter: No
F/A: The control room?
Captain Peter: (giggles) No!
F/A: The command center?
Captain Peter: (giggles) NO!
F/A: The cockpit?
Captain Peter (to copilot): HAHAHAHAHAHAHA see I told you I could get her to say it!
Captain Peter (to F/A): Ok get out of here

Mix And Match

2005-07-29T17:49:00.000-07:00

as you all know, Singapore Airlines has a history of dubbing its fleet according to aircraft types. just for fun, try guessing and matching which name belonged to which aircraft type!

Names:
a) LeaderShip
b) Jubilee
c) MegaArk
d) Celestar
e) 3TEN
f) Megatop
g) Superbus
h) Big Top
i) Super B

Aircraft Types:
1) Boeing 747-400
2) Airbus A340-500
3) Boeing 777-200/300
4) Airbus A340-300
5) Airbus A300
6) Boeing 747-300
7) Boeing 747-400F
8) Airbus A310-300
9) Boeing 747-200B

happy guessing and have fun!

Zheng He

2005-07-17T10:49:00.000-07:00

the Boeing 777-200LR (Longer Range) is the longest range commercial aircraft in the world. boeing claims that it can fly between any 2 city pairs and gave it the nickname "The Worldliner". its closest rival is the Airbus A340-500 which can fly ultra-long ranges as well.

the Boeing 777-200LR is not in commercial service yet as the aircraft is still in its testing stage. it is making a round-the-world visit and currently, the aircraft is in Singapore Changi Airport being parked at gate C1.

Singapore Airlines is one of their targeted customers for this aircraft and whether SIA decides to order this aircraft will be known in the distant future.

Chinese airliners are also prime targets and boeing have aptly named it "Zheng He", after an ancient Chinese eunuch who was famous for traveling all over the world.

how did i know of Zheng He and is adventures all over the world? there was a chapter in my chinese textbook about him.. boeing is really very clever in giving it this chinese name.. truly a very deep and profound meaning..

The Water Cannon Salute

2005-07-16T21:09:00.000-07:00

decided to talk a bit on the water cannon salute since this is this blog's very first official entry.. the earlier entries before this were all copied and pasted from the mother blog. this blog will be about 100% aviation and nothing else but aviation.

in the aviation industry, water cannon salutes are usually held for a significant event. it could be for

-a retiring pilot's last flight
-an aircraft's last revenue flight
-an aircraft's first revenue flight
-marking an anniversary
-and maybe because of engine fire.. hahhahah..

marking TWA's retirement of the L1011s..

the water cannons salute the captain and the aircraft on their retirement.

the concorde's last flight out of JFK. the blue, white and red water making the color of the french flag.

saluting the captain's last flight with southwest airlines.

saluting pakistan's brand new aircraft.

saluting United's first commercial flight to zurich

the captain gets the water cannon salute for his last flight before his retirement.

saluting the airline's first aircraft..

i cannot confirm this, but i am pretty sure that this year's inaugural historic flights between china and taiwan had a water cannon salute as well. but i can't find any pictures of it.

i'm not exactly sure why they use water cannons to salute the aircraft. for starters, i think that gun salutes would not exactly calm the passengers or do the aircraft any good.

in ancient india, there was a belief that when you are stepping out to do a major task and if someone passes your way with a bucket or a container of water, then it would bring you good luck and you would be successful in doing whatever you have planned.

there have been times, when kings setting out for war, did not prepare for the war itself. instead, they had a lot of maids with pitchers full of water on his way to the battlefield.

i don't know, but this may have a distant connection?

Iberia A346 In SIN

2005-07-03T14:49:00.000-07:00

tomorrow i must go to the airport! Iberia is one airline that doesn't fly to Changi so it's an extremely rare event when they do land here. the aircraft that they will be using is the Airbus A340-600. the A340-600 is also one aircraft that is a rare sight in changi.

rare airline plus rare aircraft, you tell me.. how to miss this opportunity to see it face to face?! they will be carrying Spanish delegates, in conjuction with the 117th IOC event that singapore is hosting.

an Iberia A340-600

i'm sure that there'll be russian jetliners and other rare aircrafts/airlines at changi tomorrow as well!

its all relative, so do you wanna know just how rare it is to see an Iberia A346 in Changi?

for an economist, it is as rare as seeing Adam Smith.

for a physicist, it is as rare as seeing Isaac Newton.

for a mathematician, it is as rare as seeing Albert Einstein.

for a pokemon master, it is as rare as seeing mew.

for a CJCian, it is as rare as seeing Brother Paul walking around in a singlet.

oh my goodness! i'm loving the olympics! i hope that moscow wins the bid. i really do. but my bet proves otherwise.

Airline Names

2005-07-01T23:40:00.000-07:00

just out of boredom, i've made a list of all the airlines with interesting names. typical airline names such as those with the name of the country followed by "airlines" do not make the list, so airlines like Singapore Airlines and British Airways are out. the airline listed has to be one of that country's major flag carrier, so airlines like Silk Air and Valuair is also out.

some of the airlines listed no longer exists but are worth mentioning as they were great airlines of their time.

Australia: 1. QANTAS 2. Ansett*
Austria: 1. Lauda* 2. Tyrolean*
Bangladesh: Biman
Brazil: Varig
Germany: 1. Lufthansa 2. LTU
Greece: Olympic
Hawaii: Aloha
Hong Kong: Cathay Pacific
Indonesia: Garuda
Ireland: Aer Lingus
Israel: El Al
Italy: Alitalia
Japan: All Nippon
The Netherlands: KLM
Nigeria: Virgin Nigeria
Poland: LOT
Portugal: TAP
Russia: 1. Aeroflot 2. Transaero
South Korea: Asiana
Spain: Iberia
Taiwan: EVA
UAE: Etihad
UK: Virgin Atlantic
USA: 1. Continental 2. Delta 3. NorthWest 4. Pan Am* 5. TWA*

*no longer exists

Music From The Airline Ads

2005-06-25T21:28:00.000-07:00

i'm soo addicted to Qantas' and Garuda's TV commercial!! kept watching it over and over again.

Qantas
(I Still Call Australia Home)

I've been to cities that never close down,
From New York to Rome and old London town,
But no matter how far or how wide I roam,
I still call Australia home.

I'm always travelling,
I love being free,
And so I keep leaving the sun and the sea,
But my heart lies waiting - over the foam,
I still call Australia home.

All the sons and daughters spinning 'round the world,
Away from their family and friends,
But as the world gets older and older and colder,
It's good to know where the journey ends.

But someday we'll all be together once more,
When all of the ships come back to the shore,
I realise something I've always known,
I still call Australia, I still call Australia,
I still call Australia home.

Garuda Indonesia
(Tanah Air-Ku)

tanah air-ku, tidak ku lupa kan
(my motherland, i'll never forget you)
akan ku ingat selama hidup ku
(i'll remember you for as long as i live)
biar pun saya pergi jauh
(even if i go far away)
tidak kan hilang dari jingatan ku
(you'll never disappear from my memory)
tanah ku yang ku cintai
(the land that i love)
engkau ku hargai
(you are what i value)

trust me. the video advertisement is far more colorful and hair-stand inducing than the pictures here.

Flight Fun

2005-06-22T02:34:00.000-07:00

the moment i see any topic with words that have something to do with aviation, words like 'flight', 'boeing', 'air hostess', 'general electric', just any word at all, i'll sure to be reading the entire article.

i don't usually open my friendster bulletins cause i am really damn afraid of chain letters. hahhaha.. but this one had the topic "Excuses to press the Call Attendant button" and i HAD to open it!

Excuses to press the Call Attendant button:

*ding* Could you repeat the safety procedure please? I wasnt listening.

*ding* Are we there yet?

*ding* *snore*

*ding* Can you rewind the in-flight movie? I missed that bit.

*ding* Can you open a window?

*ding* Are we there yet?

*ding* Ive never had any friends. Youre special. Will you be my friend?
(As the flight attendant leaves) Where you are going? Come back!! I LOVE YOU!!

*ding* Will you make sure we dont hit any birds. Please ask the pilot to swerve if we come close?

*ding* #Come fly with me, lets fly, lets fly away

*ding* Are we there yet?

*ding* (When sitting next to nervous flier) Is the wing meant to move like that? Are you sure?

*ding* (Once the nervous flier has calmed down) Are the engines meant to make that noise? Are you certain?

*ding* (Once the nervous flier has once again settled) Is it just me, or can no one here the engines anymore?

*ding* Are we there yet?

*ding* Do you think we could go back, only, Ive left the back door unlocked?

*ding* I see dead people. They dont like you.

*ding* *ding* *ding* Oh, so THATS what this does?!

*ding* Just checking if it still worked

*ding* Are we there yet?

*ding* I think I may have brought the wrong suitcase. Can you smell rotting corpse?

*ding* I never pressed it.

*ding* Are we there yet?

*ding* So, when do we get the parachutes?

*ding* Can I stroke you?

*ding* I think I may be on the wrong flight. This doesnt look southbound.

*ding* Are we there yet?

Annoying things to do in-flight:

+ Sing loudly and out of tune. Try and encourage other passengers into a sing-a-long. Use old classics such as Kum-By-Ah.

+ Inflate your lifejacket. Request a new one. Repeat several times. Works extremely effectively on long-haul.

+ Lead your fellow passengers in aerobics. Insist that this is to avoid DVT and that if the flight attendants attempted to stop you, they would be sued for endangering your health.

+ Scream during turbulence. The more people that scream with you, the better.

+ Throw peanuts at the flight attendants. The prize goes to the one that can hit them the most before being told off.

+ Cry. Speak in high-pitched, inaudible voice when trying to explain your tears. Bonus points for exaggerated hand movements.

+ Order items from the menu. Deny all knowledge when they arrive. Repeat. Once flight attendants become suspicious, explain that you suffer from multiple personalities. If they dont believe you, cry.

+ Encourage those around you, particularly flight attendants to speak to your invisible friend.

+ Ring your call bell. Ignore the flight attendant. Repeat.

+ Organise a mid-air sance

+ Pace the aeroplane. Make notes on the number of steps taken, time taken, etc.

+ Randomly shout Brace! The more people react, the better. Most effective during turbulence. If questioned, deny all knowledge. Refer back to multiple personality disorder.

+ During turbulence, recite the Hail Mary.

+ Play baseball down the gangway.

+ Play ten pin bowling down the gangway.

+ Lock yourself in toilet for entire flight. Hit the walls and generally make a lot of noise. Scream "its got me" and "You dont away that easily" periodically.

+ Speak in a different voice each time the flight attendant speaks to you. If possible, use different languages.

+ Sit on the floor and rock. This is even more effective if you have some kind of childs item, eg a teddy or a safety blanket. Cry (again)

+ Imitate gunfire.

+ Quote Top Gun at every opportunity.

+ Put your ear to the floor of the cabin. If anyone attempts to stop you, hush them. After a period of silence, get up and announce that the Indians are coming.

+ Hum loudly, and continuously.

+ Refuse to give any rubbish to the flight attendant. Hoard your own rubbish, and that of your neighbours. Make statues. If anyone questions you, declare loudly
that your art is misunderstood, and sulk. Where possible, wear a beret and grow a goatee for this exercise.

+ Whenever a flight attendant attempts to help you, scream, YOURE IN MY BUBBLE! GET OUT! OUT!! Adopt the brace position and rock until they leave.

The Sultan Of Brunei

2005-06-20T15:19:00.000-07:00

his aircraft...

an Airbus A340-200

his desk...

state of the art communication...

the lounge...

the hall...

the bedroom...

what's with the mirror on the ceiling?

another bedroom...

guess he wants to see what he looks like when he's asleep.

the bathroom...

why? whhyyy?? WHHYYYYYYYYY is his aircraft soo much uglier than mine? ha ha ha.

happy (belated) father's day.

Rhapsody In Blue

2005-06-15T23:42:00.000-07:00

i am sooo grateful to tristan!! i mentioned a few days ago that i would literally die to get my hands on one of these legendary airline commercials, namely Singapore Airline's "Singapore-Los Angeles non stop", American Airline's "Way Of Life" and "Engine" and United Airline's "Rhapsody In Blue."

he managed to find United Airline's "Rhapsody In Blue" for me!!! good to see it again!! thanks dudee.

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=5437

here are some cool ad slogans from Continental Airlines.

- You're a professional. So fly like one.
- We have to put up with our competitors. You don't.
- Don't set your watch by us. Sometimes we're early.
- Three words every frequent flyer love to hear: Bigger overhead bins.
- Visit Antiquity. Don’t fly on it. Continental Airlines has the youngest jet fleet in the U.S.
- Why you fly is your business. How you fly is ours. (obviously a slap at American Airline's "We Know Why You Fly" slogan)

Continental, by the way, is the closest thing in the US to SIA's standard. one of the best airline is the US.

here's a funny complaint by a passenger who took Continental. happy laughing!

http://www.mikeskaggs.com/COComplaint/COcomplaint.html

Le Bourget

2005-06-14T00:57:00.000-07:00

hoorah! the much awaited paris airshow at Le Bourget have already started! Le Bourget is pronounced as "ler-ba-gu." yes, even i am baffled myself, the french have completely disobeyed the laws of the english alphabet. the french airport Toulouse is pronounced as "too-loose." singapore in french is singapour, pronounced as singaPOO. see what i mean?

the highlight of today's show is Qatar Airways' announcement of its intention to order 60 Airbus A350 and 20 Boeing B777. a very big shopping list by any standards.

i'd like to put up some pictures from the airshow here but my computer is currently half hung. if i open another window, the computer would just freeze, shut down or even worse! explode!

Airline Ads

2005-06-12T21:09:00.000-07:00

currently i am crazy over watching airline advertisements! i've downloaded/seen the video advertisement for gulf air, korean air, garuda indonesia, czech airlines, british airways, qantas, jetBlue airways, SAS, frontier airlines, southwest airlines, all nippon airways and many many more!

all nippon airways ad is soo full of crap! dancing 747s! hilarious i tell you! if those aeroplanes can really do that then i wouldn't dare fly with ANA!!

virgin atlantic's ads are very very witty and funny! whole day insulting AA/BA. one of their quotes said "still hanging out with BA?" and there was a picture of someone who looks like he's under constipation. SAS one was quite vulgar. their slogan was something like "to copanhagen in 35 minutes... that's fucking fast." no kidding!

i love the ad for gulf air, garuda indonesia and qantas. the music and visuals are very enthralling! the visuals are extremely colorful and the music plays to a completely catchy tune! kept watching it over and over again. it's highly addictive! those advertisers are so damn creative. if you want to watch the video, just message me or something and i'll send it to you.

i remember watching the advertisement for singapore airlines' "singapore - los angeles non-stop" and liked it very much. the music and graphics were soo nice until your hair can stand. united airlines also had one advertisement, the "rhapsody in blue". whoa that one really rocks! ooh! and american airlines' "way of life" and "engine" commercials were really the most powerful, beautiful airline commercials ever produced. these are really THE legendary ads but i can't seem to find them now.

here are the funnier ones...
frontier airlines:
http://www.frontierairlines.com/about/commercials.asp
jetBlue airways:
http://www.jetblue.com/havefun/media/media.asp

So Pretty!!

2005-06-03T00:56:00.000-07:00

nahh

nope.

naww!!

not my type

nono

no way hossay

boring!

(speaking like that crazy australian crocodile guy) WOOOOOWEEEEE!!! WHAT A TRUE BEAUTY!!! the A340-600!! (eh three forty six hundred)

and here's another one, just as pretty! her shorter sister ship, the A340-500. look at all those 4 seductive engines... *slurp*

Reporter Asks Pilot Stupid Questions

2005-05-22T16:30:00.000-07:00

taken from Men's Health Magazine.

Let's start with a question on everyone's mind these days: Do pilots and flight attendants still have sex in the cockpit?

If so, I haven't been included. It's a myth, I think, that stems from the heyday of flying, when pilots were the rock stars of the sky.

Now that that's settled, what's the best way to choose an airline? Can I trust my life to Air Baltic, for example?

Choose by comparing schedules, service, and price. Don't base your decision on safety. It gets into real statistical hairsplitting. Say you have an airline that's had one crash over 10 years and another that's had two crashes over 10 years; to say that airline A is safer than airline B is kind of silly. All airlines are regulated by a higher agency, whether it's the FAA in the United States or the JAA in Europe, and all must meet similar safety requirements.

But aren't some U.S. airlines repeatedly slapped with maintenance violations?

Those can be really misleading. You'll find that the vast majority of maintenance infractions are paperwork snafus. Also, don't choose an airline based on the age of its planes. Some airlines advertise the newness of their fleets, but it's somewhat meaningless-except maybe to calm the unjustified fears of fliers remembering stories about jet engines dropping into cornfields. The reality is, airplanes are built to last more or less indefinitely. On average, U.S. airlines have pretty much the oldest fleets in the world. Newer planes have better air-conditioning and are more fuel efficient, but they're not necessarily safer.

But aren't newer planes a sign of a financially healthy airline, one that's less likely to cut corners?

It's difficult to make that correlation. Look at Sabena and Swiss Air, two of the most recent bankruptcies. They were in business for 7 decades and had some of the newest fleets in the sky. Fleet turnover among the large U.S. airlines is less frequent, because the infrastructure surrounding their planes is so immense. You wouldn't be retiring just a plane, but the parts, the loaders, the training that mechanics receive.

Is it possible to escape through the toilet like Leo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can?

I saw that movie on a plane. I don't know. I'd have to investigate the nooks, crannies, and crawl spaces of every type of plane.

So what's changed, securitywise, since 9/11?

Um . . . I'm not really supposed to say.

Can you give us a hint?

Some of the things that sprang up after 9/11 were valuable, useful ideas. Screening all checked baggage for explosives, which is new, and making sure every checked bag matches up with a passenger onboard. A side note: Avoid packing Cheddar logs and fruitcakes. They're so dense they can set off explosives scanners.

Do I really have to keep my window shade open for takeoff? Some of us would prefer not to watch the world whiz by at 150 mph.

If the shades are open, passengers can keep track of which way is up during an emergency. Windows are also a source of light if the cabin goes dark. The crew dims the lights during takeoff so, if the plane loses power, your eyes won't have a hard time adjusting to the dark.

Fair enough, but will using my BlackBerry crash the plane?

People have this idea that if you're using a cellphone and you hit the "send" button, the plane is going to flip over. The effects would be more subtle, but it's not a scam to get you to splurge on the onboard satellite phones. There have been cases with cellphones interfering with cockpit equipment-in one case, a ringing cellphone caused a fire alarm to go off. As for iPods and CD players, the crew wants you to hear their instructions, so they don't want you to have headphones on during takeoff. A laptop can't be used during takeoff and landing because it could become a projectile.

Do airlines really think we don't know how to fasten our seatbelts?

The preflight safety briefing strikes me as a whole lot of legalspeak turned into really bad performance art. It needs to be shorter and cleaned up, and then people will pay more attention. Here's what you do need to know: the location of and how to operate the doors and the flotation equipment.

In the event of a water landing, won't we sink before we can grab our seat cushions?

When you think water landing, you picture crashing into the middle of the ocean, with ships coming to rescue you. But don't forget that if you're at a coastal airport, there's water right there. There have been several cases where passengers have made use of the safety cushions.

And don't inflate your life vest until you're out of a plane. It's designed to float-even deflated-in the event you're knocked unconscious. By inflating a life vest, you make it more difficult to maneuver out of the plane. There were passengers on a hijacked Ethiopian Air Lines 767 who were trapped in the plane as it sank because they inflated those vests too early.

At the end of Say Anything, Lloyd Dobler tells Diane Court that after takeoff, once the "fasten your seatbelt" sign turns off, you're in the clear as far as accidents go. True or false?

True, pretty much. Statistically, most accidents happen during takeoff or landing. [According to Safe Skies International, less than 10 percent occur at cruising altitude.]

How does my pilot on Lufthansa communicate with the tower at O'Hare?

English is the official language of the skies in North America and, for the most part, overseas.

If the engines fail, will we fall from the sky? Because sometimes after takeoff or before a landing, it sounds as if the engines have stalled.

If the engines failed at cruising altitude, the plane would become a glider. Airplanes glide all the time. It's routine during descents to set up zero-thrust conditions where the engines are at idle, which is more or less the same as having no power. They're still providing electricity and pressurization, but there's zero push.

After takeoff, you often feel a reduction in thrust. It's standard practice. You're past the most critical point of flight, and all that thrust is no longer necessary. Or it could be a noise-abatement procedure.

Don't let landings scare you, either. They may be intentionally firm or crooked to compensate for weather or runway conditions. Judging a flight by the landing is like judging a surgery by the sutures.

What's with all the scary noises planes make during the descent?

The landing process is like a stairway-you step down one segment at a time. There are a lot of power changes, and sometimes the air brakes are deployed, giving off vibration. Where exactly these things occur depends on a bunch of things, but you'll hear the engines roll back, accelerate, roll back, accelerate. It's normal.

Airbus keeps promising planes with dance floors and swimming pools; U.S. airlines barely let you out of your seat. What gives?

When the 747 debuted, they had upper-deck lounges with pianos. It was exciting for a while, then they crammed in more seats. Whether that happens with the Airbus A380 remains to be seen. On its superlong hauls, Singapore Airlines has a buffet zone with heated floors so you can walk around barefoot, and a lounge area where you can stretch your legs. On 18-hour flights, you don't want people to develop deep-vein thrombosis.

Pilots carry guns now. What kind of damage could a gunshot do to a plane?

It depends. The idea of having the guns onboard is to use them only for absolute, last-ditch efforts. So you have to assume, if a gun is fired, that the situation is pretty deadly to begin with. The pilot wouldn't be concerned about knocking out equipment.

Can we assume there's a federal air marshal sitting in first class?

If you're flying into Washington, D.C., or New York or Los Angeles, then there's a good chance. But only about 5 percent of flights have them.

So what are some insider tricks for surviving airport security?

It's common sense. Show up early and leave your suicidal tendencies at home.

So Long SkyHawk!

2005-05-16T21:11:00.000-07:00

don't know much about military airplanes and fighter jets, i was reading the papers today and there was an article on the RSAF retiring their "Super SkyHawks" next month. its about time, don't you think? they're so old that they're falling off from the sky, literally. 4 of them had crashed during its service in RSAF.

i hope they order the F-15 instead of the French Rafale to replace those SkyHawks! malaysia uses Russian Sukhoi and anyone with some basic knowledge of military airplanes know that the F-15s were designed specifically to be anti-Sukhois. but singapore will never have a war with malaysia so there may not be a need for them.

if singapore do order the french planes, it COULD BE because of diplomatic and MAYBE even undertable reasons. "hey! buy some of our planes and SIA will get somemore landing slots in Charles de Gaulle!" or "bonjour! buy 50 of our planes and SIA can fly transatlantic --- what you've always wanted for a long time! from good old Paree to New York!!"

plus President Jacque Chirac wouldn't look too good if the RSAF had ordered otherwise, would he? he personally came down to singapore last year promoting the french aircrafts to the RSAF among other agendas.

but hey! like i said, i don't know much about military aircrafts, those fighter jets specifications and their politics. these are just my 2 cents worth of thoughts and this entry is totally unreliable. who knows? those Rafales may be really good and should deservingly win RSAF's order?

Sacre Bleu! Airbus Behaves Badly

2005-05-13T16:42:00.000-07:00

Robespierre writes this week on a recent event that has left him breathles, not to mention speechless: Airbus's announcement that it won't support the A340 aircraft that Boeing has recently agreed to take back from Singapore Airlines.

People can be irrational when they're humiliated. Airbus has just done something that is irrational, awful and likely to cost Airbus dearly in the long run if it doesn't change its mind quickly. It has just announced that it won't support the A340 aircraft that Boeing agreed to take back from Singapore Airlines last month.

Huh? What is Boeing doing with Airbus aircraft?

Let's back up a month or two. Airbus is having the time of its life. It's burying Boeing in the order race. For the first six months of 1999, Airbus outsold Boeing almost two to one. It's not even close.

There's just one problem. It's almost all narrowbodies. The A320 is the hottest aircraft around at the moment, but Airbus hasn't had as much success with their widebodies. The A340 and the A330-300 have had lackluster sales ever since the B777 was launched. Then again, ever since the Asian contagion, widebody sales in general have been slow.

But imagine the shock, horror and rage in Toulouse last month when Boeing scored an undeniable coup, displacing the nearly-new A340-300s already at SQ with B777-200ERs. Mon dieu! Some of the A340-300s haven't even been delivered yet! Merde!

A Portentous Order

Singapore has always been a bellwether, but what is especially significant is the history of the A340-300 orders at Singapore. You see, they were once MD-11 orders. Yes, Singapore put in an early order for the MD-11, but when McDonnell Douglas admitted that the aircraft was likely to fall short of its promised range, Singapore summarily cancelled the order and turned instead to the A340. The MD-11 program never really recovered, and the failure of the MD-11 dates from that cancellation.

The Trijet MD-11

The A340, on the other hand, received a tremendous boost, and collected almost all the orders for that class of aircraft from that point on, until the B777 was finally offered. So there's tremendous historic resonance in Singapore now turning over their A340 fleet, after only a few years, for the B777-200IGW. One of the world's great airlines, which effectively killed the MD-11, has now turned its back on the A340-300.

Why did Singapore do this? Well, as reported in the world's aviation press, one reason is that Singapore is unhappy with the A340. First of all, it's slow. On a nonstop flight to Europe from Singapore, the A340 will get there up to 45 minutes after a B747 (or B777) departing at the same time. Airbus will tell you that an A340 can fly faster than Singapore flies it, but they tend to leave out the fact that if you push it that fast, it burns up fuel too quickly.

Secondly, its performance isn't all that great. It can't get high enough fast enough, and consequently apparently ends up flying low across some turbulence-prone areas just after leaving Singapore. Passengers, for some reason, don't like this. There are also apparently performance-related air traffic control issues (the aircraft gets less attractive routings because it doesn't have the performance to accept better ones).

Lastly, passengers don't like the cabin. Huh? But what about all those Airbus ads saying that in A340 business class, you never get a middle seat. Well, apparently this isn't nearly as significant to most passengers (only one-in-seven is a middle seat anyway) as the fact that the A340's ceiling is low, and passengers feel claustrophobic compared with the B747 (this is a problem for Airbus going forward, as the forthcoming new generation A340-500/600 has the same cross section and will fly even longer routes).

The Airbus A340-300 with engines no bigger than a hairdryer.

The long-range B777-200IGW doesn't have these problems. It's as fast as a B747 and as a twin-engined aircraft it is massively overpowered and so can achieve much higher altitudes immediately (all aircraft have to be able to fly with one engine out, which means one engine on a B777 but three on an A340, so the B777 has to be at least 100% overpowered, while the A340 must only be at least 33% overpowered). And the B777 has a much higher ceiling than the A340, giving it a great feeling of spaciousness.

But it's expensive to ditch a fleet of aircraft just after you've bought them (think of the training, the advertising, the spares). And Singapore always plays the hardest of hardballs with manufacturers. It knows what its endorsement is worth. So Boeing has agreed to take back the A340s from Singappore as a trade in for the B777-200ER.

Sacre Bleu!

Such things are not unprecedented, what is really shocking is the fact that the A340 has only been in the Singapore fleet a few years. In fact, two A340-300s have yet to be delivered from Airbus. It's humiliating for your long-range flagship to be disposed of that way.

It's so humiliating that Airbus is incapable of accepting it. The only reason, they claim, that Boeing was able to pull this off, is that Boeing is giving away the B777s. Perhaps. Of course, that's Boeing's right.

There may be some subtleties here. One interesting thing that has been reported is that the agreement by Boeing to take back the A340s was part of Singapore's original order for B777s, under which these new aircraft are being ordered (as exercised options). Singapore already owns B777s, but the ones they have are used for short to medium-haul flights (Singapore's order for B777s for this mission, rather than the A340's shorter-legged sister, the A330, was at the time, a tremendous blow as Singapore turned its nose up at the A330 despite the commonality between it and the A340).

If it is true that the agreement to take back A340s was part of the original Singapore order for B777s back in the mid 1990s, then this little time bomb has been sitting in that contract all these years. Singapore has tested the A340 and found it wanting. If Boeing gave away the store, as Airbus claims, then it happened back then, not today. Moreover, it is never cheap to turn over one fleet for another, and it is hard to watch this drama unfold without coming to the conclusion that Singapore has at least some reasons to be unhappy with the A340.

Toulouse Goes Nonlinear

The level of rhetoric at Toulouse against Boeing, never soft, has now reached dangerous levels. Airbus on Monday announced that it will not support the aircraft taken back in trade by Boeing. It will not provide spares for them to airlines that might buy them from Boeing, it will not provide after market support for them.

This is an unimaginably stupid response.

First of all, as much as Airbus might not like it, the agreement between Singapore and Boeing is between two unrelated third parties and apparently breaches no laws or contracts (one can imagine Airbus has had its lawyers searching night and day to find such a breach). It is a perfectly legitimate business arrangement, just one that is horribly humiliating to Airbus.

The refusal to sell spares is a clear attempt to interfere with this agreement. Boeing is a standup company, and it is hard to imagine it going back on the agreement, come what may. Singapore, however, must be livid at this blatant interference in its business. This is no way to make friends with perhaps the single-most influential customer in the world.

Such interference could have serious legal consequences. American anti-trust laws are quite strict, and this smacks of restraint of trade. Robespierre hastens to add that he is not (thank heavens) a lawyer, but this seems like an open invitation for Boeing to file suit against Airbus using such laws.

More Support than a Wonderbra

A bigger issue, however, is that Airbus has just thrown into question what must always remain sacrosanct: the degree of manufacturer support for its aircraft.

Boeing has a reputation as an arrogant company. One thing everyone in the industry will tell you, however, is they support their product like no one else. You might be the 2nd or 5th owner, you may never have bought an aircraft new from Boeing, and never plan to. If you have a problem with one of their aircraft they are all over it like white on rice. Doesn't matter if you just gave your last order to Airbus, they are there for the airplane.

The reason is simple. The better you support your products, the better they maintain their value, the cheaper the cost of ownership, the easier it is to sell those aircraft. It's a very long-term view, and it's a very wise policy.

Support was historically spotty at Airbus, and it's something they have worked hard to bring up to snuff. Now they've just brought the whole issue of support into question again. Wait a minute, Airbus is going to pick and choose which aircraft they support? Screw that, I'll buy something else. After all, if Airbus doesn't like this deal, they might not like others. Geez, I didn't know support was contingent on their approval. Who the hell are they to tell me I can't sell my aircraft to someone?

This sort of thinking percolates down the line. For instance, if I'm a financier, I now have something else to worry about. If I'm an aircraft lessor, I've got a new concern about the residual value of the aircraft.

Further, it wouldn't be hard to call Airbus's bluff. Suppose Boeing were to lease one of these ex-Singapore aircraft to Cathay Pacific, for instance, and Cathay were to call Airbus for support of the aircraft. What is Airbus going to do, leave Cathay in the lurch and risk angering another of their customers?

Lastly, there's the plain (plane?) embarrassment factor. The unmitigated petulance and childishness of Airbus's response is breathtaking. Is this a company run by adults? Good grief, they've been kicking Boeing's butt. So Boeing finally won one. Good for them, they need a bit of good news.

The only reasonable thing to do after a business defeat is to smile, pretend you're OK, square your shoulders and redouble your efforts. Airbus has demonstrated to the whole world that Boeing has hit them where it hurts, and in so doing Airbus has taken square aim at its own foot.

It's time for Airbus management to cool the rhetoric, make an abject apology to its customers and competitor and move on. Otherwise Robespierre will surely send the tumbrils for them... La guillotine!

The Boeing 777-200.

Sing Along!!

2005-05-08T14:46:00.000-07:00

Tonight We Fly

tonight we fly,
over the houses, the streets and the trees
over the dogs down below
that bark at our shadows
as we float by on a breeze
tonight we fly...

(song file here)

Imbécile (Part Deaux)

2005-04-30T00:08:00.000-07:00

and here is another apparent A380-bashing article from the same person. this one was written earlier than the previous one. the analyst is from the The Boyd Group, an aviation consulting & forecasting firm, obviously an American company.

both articles somewhat makes sense, don't you think? this one will set you thinking.

More Fallout
The A-380. Facility Reality Coming Home To Roost.

Big is nice.

But big takes up space. And that's the reality beginning to cloud the euphoria in Europe surrounding the A-380. Flying from one point to another isn't the issue. The problem starts when this sucker heads for the terminal.

Your First Connection Is Getting To The Front Door. The iffy news just keeps on coming. From Airport Magazine, January/February Issue: "ThyssenKrupp contends a conservative stand layout with two bridges (note: a 747-type gate arrangement) ... will take 45 minutes..." to deplane passengers.

Groovy.

That oughta set real well with the poor clown sitting back there in seat 89F. The A-380 pulls into the gate, and the minutes elapsed between when it stops and when he finally reaches the door of the airplane is roughly the equivalent of the flight time between LGA and Boston. That's nearly 200 miles. But this guy's only going several dozen yards. Great for enhancing hubsite connectivity. Airline planners will be thrilled to pad in an additional 45 minutes of minimum connect time specifically for passengers going to or from an A-380 flight. Great hub efficiency.

But not to worry, WhaleJet fans. ThyssenKrupp goes on to note that the A-380 can be deplaned or enplaned in as little as 24 minutes. All it would take is the installation of just four - count them - four, boarding bridges, including "...a cantilever, over-the-wing bridge (COB) connecting to the lower rear door, (plus) a forward lower deck connection, (plus) another forward bridge connecting to the upper deck..."

Sounds sorta like instructions for do-it-yourself heart bypass surgery.

Operators Are Standing By. If you fervently believe in the Easter Bunny, you'll no doubt buy into the fantasy that lots of airports are now going to just rush out and start constructing lots of four-bridge gate facilities. No doubt phone lines at ThyssenKrupp and other suppliers are jammed, with airports calling in to order one of them-there-newfangled COB contraptions, not to mention a "forward lower deck connection" - just to handle what may be only a couple of A-380 flights a day.

We noted that one US airline CEO told us that if some other airline wanted to fly an A-380 into a hub airport, great. But let that airline pick up the tab for the major facility construction that would be required. He wasn't alone. The chief executive of Air New Zealand last week in no uncertain terms told the folks who run Auckland International Airport that his carrier "has no intention" of subsidizing competitors flying WhaleJets into that airport.

What Airbus is facing, and what they need to tumble to, is that the A-380 is not going to be a ubiquitous part of the airline scene. This isn't the early 1970s when airports had to prepare for an onslaught of new widebody airliners, like the 747, the DC-10, and the L-1011. The A-380 is different. It's a one-off airplane, which will have only limited mission applications. That'd be no problem if it weren't for the fact that the size, weight, and capacity of this thing requires that airports invest millions of dollars in new facilities. At JFK, LHR, FRA, TPE, SHA, that's probably not a problem.

But get much below these airports in terms of future traffic demand, and the cost-benefit ratio for such facilities will be running neck-and-neck with building a deep water seaport in Nebraska.

Get Your Invite To The Inaugural Flight Party. Watch for more airlines and airports to be party-poopers in regard to the A-380. Nevertheless, its first flight is due in March. So plan for another giant media event, replete with Euro luminaries again making lots of gooey jingoistic speeches. Heads of state will be there again, of course, vying for photo ops and time at the microphone. No doubt, Jacques Chirac will again mount the podium to extol all the great achievements of France.

Then, thirty seconds later, somebody else'll take the microphone.

And so on.

A Hot Rod's Final Delivery

2005-04-29T23:08:00.000-07:00

this has been a very "newsful" week for those interested in aviation. first, Air Canada announced that they're selecting the B777s and B787s to renew their fleet. then Air India also announced that they're selecting the B777s and B787s to replace their older planes.

then Airbus started making noise and complained that Boeing didn't play fair in the competition for Air India's deal, saying that Air India ordered the Boeing planes when Airbus didn't even get the chance to present their planes and demanded that they get the chance to do so.

talk about sore losers.

then the B787 adopted a new look without its shark-tail. then you throw in the A380 first-flight hoopla. then came the shocking news that tony blair's plane got struck by lightning.

so much action.

but i cannot let the week go by without announcing one very sad news coming from Seattle. the very last Boeing-757 in production departed Boeing Field in Seattle on wednesday. this final delivery almost got lost in all the other news going on.

this very last 757 went to Shanghai Airlines. the 757 line thus, was formally "completed". and being the 1050th 757 to roll out of the factory, it sure was a successful line at that.

the newest, the youngest and the last 757 taking off from Boeing Field.

going to Shanghai Airlines, taken on an appropriately dark and gloomy day

pilots like to call the 757 the "hot rod of the skies", mainly because it's a very powerful aeroplane, and it almost literally jumps into the air. i've been on a 757 once with Brunei Airlines and i can tell you, "it just took off!"

the 757 flew for SIA in the 1980s and didn't stay in their fleet for long, but long enough to take on the new colours introduced in 1987.

considering that nearly all of the 757s that Boeing ever built are still flying today, and the last one in production just took off on wednesday, i think this "hot rod" will still be soaring into the skies for a long, long time to come. 30 more years at least.

on another note related to events this week, you might want to take a moment to click over to BBC News for a really good, balanced mix of views on the A380 and its potential impact on travel. interesting reading.

Imbécile

2005-04-29T22:08:00.000-07:00

do you remember that in my previous entry, just 1 before this, i mentioned something about an airbus official saying that the guy who wrote the latest pro-Boeing study was an idiot ("imbécile")?

don't remember? well thats ok. i shall copy and paste it for you.

"...in his ultra thick french accent, he also said that the guy who wrote the latest pro-Boeing study was an idiot ("imbécile")."

do you remember now?

anyway, here is exactly what the person who wrote the pro-Boeing study said:

The Airbus A-380 Roll-Out
Strong Indications Of Purple Kool-Aid
And, Don Corleone As Sales Director

Airbus rolled out the A-380 last week, with one heck of a welcoming party. Judging by what went on, the late Reverend Jim Jones was manning the cocktail bar.

In what appeared to be the biggest political circus since Monica's blue dress came back from the dry cleaners, the Europeans all joined together to celebrate, nay, worship, the A-380 WhaleJet. Sort of like a coming-out party for a five-ton overweight debutante. Over 5,000 people were reportedly there. Lots of speeches. Enough dry-ice fog to look like an outtake from Saturday Night Fever. Confetti falling from the ceiling. Music. The heads of state from all over the Continent - enough political suits to fill the Big 'n Tall section at Men's Wearhouse.

And everybody, apparently, was drinking Rev. Jim's Purple Kool-Aid. You just gotta dig some of the grand pronouncements at the gala...

"Under the name of Airbus, Europe has written one of the most beautiful pages of its history," gushed Airbus chief Noel Forgeard.

Jacques Chirac, entertaining all, added to global warming with jingoistic speeches about all the grand achievements of France, which probably took at least 90 seconds.

"We need many other projects of this size and of this ambition," Chirac gurgled, as he called for "a great European effort based on the strength of our businesses and of our laboratories that allows our industries to be at the forefront of innovation and at the heart of tomorrow's markets."

All-in-all, a gutsy demand from a guy running a country with an enforced 35-hour limit on the work week and a legislated month of vacation time. It's a wonder this thing ever got out of the hangar. A gutsy statement, too, about an airplane that is essentially not much more than a composite 747 on steroids.

The Glory of France, England, and Europe First. Market Analyses Second. The whole show looked like a junior high pep-rally that got way over budget. The real story wasn't the airplane. It was the high-level politicos and various other luminaries that surrounded it, and what they really said. Aside from all the gush, the message seemed to be some adolescent chant, "Golly-gee, we got one bigger than Boeing."

We Heard All This 40 Years Ago. Take all those quotes, and it sounds distantly familiar. Just replace "Airbus" with "Concorde" and you've just done a time-trip back to the 1960s, when the whiz-kids of Europe announced a supersonic jet program that was aimed at one thing: Showing the US that Europe could build really fancy machinery. Economic viability wasn't the issue - just the dream was enough. They wanted to show the US that they were big boys, too.

And they did - heck, the Concorde was an airplane that even by today's technology would be tough to build. A 1.5 mach airplane is possible right now. But a 2.0 rocket like the Concorde is a geometric jump. Trust us - we've done the feasibility studies for aircraft manufacturers - the Concorde is a technological wonder for today, let alone the 1960s.

Yessir, the Europeans achieved their goal. They built a supersonic airliner before the US did. In fact, the US never built one. The Russians did - the TU-144, which is best remembered for coming completely unglued in the sky over the 1973 Paris Air Show.

Unfortunately, just building the Concorde was the alpha and the omega of the program. Market demand, mission viability, and economic realities weren't addressed. The result was what is now considered one of history's greatest planning disasters.

See, the Concorde had the operational economics of a flying brick. Far from being the 707 replacement they predicted, the Euros got just 16 of these contraptions built before they tossed in the towel - something that at least the French seem to excel at doing, by the way. Britain and France then effectively gave the airplanes to their respective state carriers, and dropped the whole thing.

So here we are 30 years later, and notwithstanding the success of the superb A-320 and A-340 programs, the Euros still have a bad case of US-envy. So, they went ahead and built a jet that was bigger, taller, longer than anything the US has put out. Voila! The A-380. They want to out-do the 747. What they missed is that the 747 is a 1970s concept that may not have much viability in the 21st century.

Some Reality Please. But back to the roll-out gala. The purple Kool-Aid was flowing, jumbojet fans. See, this A-380 sucker is big. Really big. So big that Virgin Airways' CEO declared that he's thinking of installing exercise rooms and casinos and all sorts of other stuff on his A-380s. Just what premium passengers want. A roll of the dice at the crap table, a spin on the Lifecycle, and a trip to the massage parlor, all surrounded by comely female flight attendants in designer uniforms.

Wow, can't wait. It'll kinda be like a party at the Playboy Mansion, 'cept that it flies and won't have Hef wandering around in pajamas looking for a Viagra tablet. Gee that'll really do wonders to the ASM costs of the A-380. (Remember the piano lounges on American Airlines' 747's in the early 1970s? There's a reason they're not there anymore. Come to think of it, there's a reason there's no 747s, period, at AA anymore.)

Let's Get Back To Reality. There's no doubt that the A-380 will be a technological marvel. But the open question is whether Airbus can sell enough of them to make economic sense. They say gazillions. But looking at traffic flows and airport facilities, we can see, best case, 350-400 A-380s over the next 15 years. As for the initial sales announced, nobody knows what the terms were, and when over 25% of the sales are to one carrier - Emirates - one has to question how firm these sales are.

EU: Making Offers Other Nations Can't Refuse? Then we have the issue of the European Union doing the Don Corleone routine on foreign nations to buy the A-380. It's been reported that Thailand has been strong-armed, with an offer they can't refuse. Buy some A-380s, and you won't have any tariff problems with some Thai imports into the EU. Or, China. Remember that arms embargo resulting from the 1989 Tien An Men Square affair? Well, just sign on the dotted line for a fleet of WhaleJets, and everything will be okay, by and by. Don't think for one second these types of EU-government shake-downs aren't in the cards to peddle these A-380s. Remember, it isn't an airplane. It's the honor, the glory, and the reputation of all Europe that's on the line.

In the interests of historical perspective, virtually every new airliner that's come on the market since Wilbur and Orville was declared "too big" by one or more sections of the Luddite community. "Hey, how ya going to fill 21 seats? That DC-3'll never make it..." It was certainly said about the 747, and the years immediately after its introduction seemed to initially prove it. But things are very different now. The R&D costs, the total sector expenses, the capital required, not to mention the issue of airport facilities, all point to a much more limited demand for the A-380 than Mr. Chirac and his buddies seem to think.

"...the A380 superjumbo -- overweight, overbudget and still on the ground, but hailed by its makers as a major European feat that will reshape aviation..."
Reuters, January 20, 2005.

The Concorde was supposed to reshape aviation, too.

Tony Blair's Plane Hit By Lightning

2005-04-28T21:28:00.000-07:00

yesterday, Tony Blair's plane got hit by lightning. basically, the plane was on approach to london heathrow when it happened. it landed normally.

when ian told me about it, he sounded quite panicky and all hyped up, like its a big deal.

what is so shocking? lightning striking a plane is quite common and it happens all the time. a plane is... one big lightning rod, isn't it?

it was the exact same thing i asked him: why is a plane being struck by lightning so shocking?? it happens all the time. a plane is... one big lightning rod, isn't it?

ian: because it's electricity.

hahahahaha sooo corny!

talking about the prospects of the A380; during a ceremony after the A380's maiden flight, an Airbus official made a bold prediction that there would at least be another 50 orders for the A380 by the end of this year. in his ultra thick french accent, he also said that the guy who wrote the latest pro-Boeing study was an idiot ("imbécile").

its quite easy to predict or pin-point which are some of the airlines that may order the A380 during the course of the year to meet Airbus' target.

but first, here are some airline's colours that you will NEVER see on an A380 (at least in the foreseeable future):

Any US airline - even if they had viable routes, none have any viable cash. plus the "not invented here" sentiments. (Airbus is European)
Japan Airlines - Japan is now the 52nd or is it the 53rd state, so unlikely.
Alitalia - not enough cash for a PA-38 let alone A380.
Garuda - will Bali ever recover? (i hope so)

and here are some of the POSSIBLE customers:

Air China - regardless of economics, they will buy 10 on the basis of national pride and prestige and all that.
Air India - the A380 can carry up to 800 passengers in a 1 class all-economy configuration, they might transport their passengers the same way they transport animals. (have you seen Indian trains?)
Emirates - seems like they can never get enough of the A380s... anyway, money is of no issues to them. they will find some cash lying around in the bathtub or find some spare change stuck in between the sofa cushions and order 40 more.
Cathay Pacific - the board will look across the south china sea in misery and jealousy to some large blue SIA tails parked at Changi and order 10.

you might even see some budget airlines ordering the A380. 800 passengers results in lower seat-mile-cost, which makes sense for Low-Cost Carriers. its an economies of scale thing, the same amount of fuel and same number of pilots carrying so many more passengers.

AND, if anyone wants to lend me $230 million, i'll buy one.

It Flies!

2005-04-27T23:56:00.000-07:00

the A380 has taken off and landed! and i'm really honored to be among the first in the world to witness this event "live". congrats to airbus!

and on the same day, boeing decided to announce that air canada has ordered 96 (YES 96! NO TYPO THERE) B777 (36) and B787 (60) aircrafts all together.

also, a few days back i did mention that the B787 was dropping its shark-tail, sharp nose and porpoise-like features for a more conventional look due to some engineering and aerodynamics issues.

today, Boeing officially released computer images of the newly modified design of the B787.

how timely.

an early 787 design. looking distinctive, like a porpoise or a shark gliding through the sky. unfortunately, there were some engineering constraints with this design.

a more conventional looking 787. notice that the nose is not as sharp and the tail is not so curvy anymore.

here are some breath-taking pictures of the A380's maiden flight. i'm sure the airbus engineers were all relieved. knowing that it could fly is very different from actually seeing it fly, don't you think?

even up till yesterday, there were critics (idiots at that) who still doubted that something that "fat" could actually lift off the ground.

behold! pictures of the A380's maiden flight!

(note: if a blank field with a cross on the top left corner appears instead of a picture, right click and select "show picture" until the picture loads.)

with so much attention revolving around the A380 today, certain blunders or comments made by the media were funny or plain ridiculous, the kind that makes you smile. take them light-heartedly at some of these!

- BBC News: "the test pilots... those men... and women..." - there were no women.

- CNBC: "... while Boeing believes more in the hub and spoke model" - you should have looked on the analyst's pained and embarrassed face when the anchor told him that its the opposite. Airbus is the one who believes in the hub and spoke model! hahaha!

- BBC News: "rolling down the runway" - that would be the taxiway, my dear...

- BBC News: "if, at any time during this takeoff, something should go wrong, they will slam on the brakes" - no comments.

- BBC News: "world's biggest plane to take to the skies" - and the An-225 is what, chopped liver?

- CNN Interview: "the pilot's pulled on that thing-a-magic." (reporter pretends to pull on a yoke) then the guy from Airbus corrected him and said "here at Airbus we use a side stick not a yoke" hahhaha!!

in the live video, the A380 rotated and then lifted off. the commentator was really wondering why the engines weren't retracted. he even repeated himself! (to those who don't get the joke, aeroplanes only retract their gears, or tires, not the engines!)

and here are some of the best from the Italian SKY news! in thick Italian accent:

"this aircraft has four engines!"

"it certainly will use almost the whole runway for getting airborne!"

"I can see air moving behind the plane, this means the engines are at full power!"

after take off:

"the gear is not coming up! obviously there is already some problems happening!"

"and we remember you, that this plane needs 4 engines to fly"

hahaha the italian one was the funniest!

anyway once again, congrats to Airbus! i'm already starting to save up to buy tickets to be the first to fly the A380 with SIA next year!

Crazy Over "A Three Eighty"

2005-04-26T16:07:00.000-07:00

its official! after much speculations, the date of the A380's first flight is confirmed! it will be on wednesday 27 april... which is tomorrow! if weather conditions are right, it will take off from Toulouse in the morning. they would broadcast their first flight "live" on its website. since Toulouse is GMT+2, it would be afternoon in singapore by then and hopefully i would be able to reach home in time to catch the clip!

http://www.airbus.com/a380/seeing/prehome.asp

the A380 in a taxying test

the last time something this phenomenal took place dates way back to over 30 years ago when the first Boeing 747 took flight. now, we are moving into the A380Generation.

and who can blame singapore airlines for being just a little bit more excited than the others when they would be the first airline to fly the A380! already in singapore airlines' colors, a 2nd A380 that is currently being built would enter commercial service in 2006.

the vertical tailplane alone measures 14.1 metres high – roughly the height of a 4-storey building! further paintwork and drying required 11 days – about twice the time required to assemble a regular passenger jet.

QANTAS

2005-04-17T09:45:00.000-07:00

here's something interesting that i noted. when you search for QANTAS on google.com, you'll get 1,090,000 results. however, if you search for the commonly misspelled QUANTAS instead, you'll get more results, 1,270,000 in total!

it means that more people (or over 53% of them) have misspelled the original word!

thankfully, QANTAS still do care for their, err, orthographically challenged customers:

http://www.quantas.com

funny that the misspelled website is directly linked to the QANTAS US site. its like they're subtly trying to imply that the americans are the ones who commonly misspell the word. hahha..

just in case you didn't know, QANTAS is Australia's national carrier and is an acronym for Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services.

this brand name has been around since the 1930s, making it the 2nd oldest airline in the world. but today, it stands for nothing as Qantas is no longer an acronym. its just Qantas Airways Limited.

most people i know always wonder why QANTAS is pronounced as "kuan-tas" when there is no 'U' after the 'Q'. why shouldn't it be pronounced as "can-ters" or "kant-tars" instead?

well for one, most people are forgetting the fact that pronouncing a 'Q' without following it by a 'U' is practically unheard of in English. so next time, say QUANTAS, i mean QANTAS with more confidence!

now that's "The Spirit Of Australia" for you.

From Randy's Journal

2005-04-14T20:05:00.000-07:00

About Randy

randy baseler is the lucky guy who gets to travel the world talking about Boeing’s perspective on commercial aviation. as vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes in seattle, randy is always meeting with experts, analysts, and airline customers, and talking with aviation and business media.

and here is a particularly insightful entry in his journal that i would like to share! its about the issues between Boeing vs Airbus:

Five card draw

I'm not a poker player. But I know enough about the game to realize that the way Airbus might play it would get them thrown out of any Las Vegas casino.

What I'm taking about is the government "launch aid" Airbus receives to develop new airplanes. It's just not a fair way to play the game. And that's why the U.S. Trade Representative and the European Union have been trying to reach an agreement to end those subsidies. Monday, a 90-day negotiation period expired, with no agreement.

It's a complicated issue, but it has caught the attention of some commenters who feel that I sometimes steer clear of certain topics like this in the news.

It's not that I expect you to trash Boeing and drag all the skeletons out of the closet. At the same time, when the word is out on some story and there is silence .. the story becomes the elephant in the room.

Great case in point: I'd really like to hear your take on what is going on between Airbus, the EU, and Boeing. It appears that this is going to the WTO. However, many are suggesting that Boeing benefits just as much from government help as Airbus does and that you'd be better off negotiating directly with them rather than taking a hard line at the WTO.

You have a knack for making things like this clear, and interesting. Here's hoping you'll share a little bit about this case.

Brian
Louisville, Kentucky

It's an excellent point. I haven't been trying to avoid the subject. But it's true, I haven't mentioned it here. Although it does come up frequently when I'm out talking to airlines, analysts, investors, and the media.

So, here's my take.

Success in business is partly about taking risks. And in the airplane business, it is expensive risk-taking. When Boeing produces a new airplane model we invest our own money, and sometimes borrow funds to finance the project.

Airbus does that too, but gets a distinct advantage that we don't have. Since the early 1990s, they have been getting up to a third of their development funding up-front and "risk-free" from European governments. That's "launch aid."

Prior to 1992, Airbus received as much as 100% of its new airplane funding from European governments! And considering the cost of developing a new plane, that equates to a multi-billion dollar (or euro) head start.

So, what do I mean by "risk-free?" That means, if the airplane does not make its sales target, Airbus simply does not have to pay back the loans. For them, it's just an "oops." Or, for you golfers, a mulligan.

Boeing accepts full commercial risk for every new airplane we build. But Airbus shifts its risk onto the backs of European taxpayers. Now, maybe this made sense 35 years ago when Airbus was an infant company trying to break into the commercial airplane business. But today, they're mature, and claim to be more efficient and profitable than Boeing.

Airbus now has a full product line, and governments have invested heavily to get them there. And the hard fact is, for the past few years, they've been delivering more airplanes and winning more orders than we have. So why on earth do they still need government subsidies to compete?

Airbus defends its subsidies by claiming that Boeing benefits from Pentagon and NASA contracts. But Airbus' parent companies, EADS and BAE Systems, have combined defense and space revenues that exceed Boeing's. So, if there is a benefit from having space and defense in the corporate portfolio, Airbus benefits equally from these kinds of contracts.

Another Airbus claim is that Boeing gets "tax breaks" from the state of Washington. But these state incentives are available to all commercial aerospace companies, not just Boeing, and even to Airbus if they choose to set up an operation in our beautiful state. There are already a number of Airbus suppliers here, and they benefit too.

Now, what I don't get is why the state and local incentives Airbus and EADS get in Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana apparently don't count - not to mention incentives they get in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain. Somebody should ask them.

Finally, Airbus complains that Boeing's Japanese suppliers get government support. Well, similar government support goes to Airbus suppliers in Belgium, Sweden, Italy, and other countries. Boeing and Airbus can do business with any suppliers they choose, and pay market rates for parts and equipment. So what's the complaint, really?

The bottom line in this fracas is launch aid. These risk-free loans distort the commercial airplane market. Airbus gets them from European governments. Boeing doesn't get any. Period. It's really long past due for Airbus to drop it.

With the help of launch aid, they've built the A380, the most heavily subsidized airplane in history. Airbus chose to go with a very large airplane. Fine. But now they also want to go after the middle of the market with the A350. And they want yet another handout to help launch it. Did they maybe choose poorly the first time, going after a very small market in the over-500 seat category?

Look, Boeing is out there every day competing for every possible order. We know our airplanes are the best, in both performance and value. We've got no problem with tough competition. As I've said before, this is a tough business. But let's all just compete on a level playing field.

According to the rules of the poker game of five card draw, first you get dealt a set of cards. And then you get one opportunity to discard unwanted cards and draw new ones. Airbus got dealt a set of cards. They took their draw. And they got a good hand. But now they want another new set of cards. That's against the rules.

It's time for the dealer to say, play the cards you have. No more handouts.

787 Loses Shark Tail

2005-04-14T19:39:00.000-07:00

early on, the 787, then known as the 7E7, was shown in computer images with a distinctive design that included a shark-like tail, long nose and narrower wings.

Boeing wanted its new jet to be instantly recognized in the same way that the 747 is because of the hump just behind the cockpit. the 787 did look different and ultrasleek, as if it were a shark or porpoise gliding through the sky.

but Boeing also warned that the shape could change as the final design was refined by engineers.

AND IT HAS.

mike bair, the vice president of the Boeing 787 program, said the outside design lines of the plane have been frozen. the nose and wings look pretty much as the previous images showed, he said. but the 787 will have a more conventional looking tail.

"it's a really good-looking airplane," bair said.

Boeing is expected to soon release the first computer images of what the 787 will really look like.

original B787 outline with its distinctive shark-like tail.

I Can't Wait!

2005-04-10T17:55:00.000-07:00

the Paris Air Show, the biennial showcase of the world's aerospace industry, starts on June 13.

the event is intended to be a showcase of the new Airbus A380. however, it will just remain as a static display and may not be flying. the A380 has yet to make its first flight - originally this was forecast for the end of april.

there would not be enough time between the first flight at the end of april and the airshow that starts in june to certify and fully guarantee the safety, reliability and ability of the aircraft to fly in a display setting. much more tests, such as the taxying test, emergency aborted take off test, engine failure test, would need to be done before the A380 can be approved by the FAA (federal aviation authority) to fly.

Airbus A380 is slated to be the limelight of the event. rumors of the stretched version being announced, Emirates' rumored plan to order another 40 A380s would be unfold.

A380 aside, the question of whether Singapore Airlines would replace their Airbus A340-500s with the newer and more efficient Boeing 777-200LR would also be answered, airlines ordering for more aircrafts would also be announced, among many others.

also, Boeing had recently concluded that it could not leave Airbus to exploit a large part of the commercial aviation market unchallenged. currently, they are doing an in-depth review of its plans to rival the A380, which is to develop their current 747s, the 747Advanced.

whether or not the 747Advanced plan takes off would also be announced at the Paris Air Show. if it does announce the going-ahead of its 747ADV, it would be a nice touch at the end for Boeing - ambushing the A380!

with so much drama and controversy, how can one be patient!?

for now, i just seriously and simply cannot get enough of the A380! it looks like a beast... but a beautiful beast, and i am in love with it!

1st engine run.

look at how puny the A340-600 looks next to the A380! the A340-600 by the way, is the longest commercial aircraft in the world.. just look at how long that thing is!!!

not really overweight... the bridge didn't collapse now, did it?

Before The A380 And The B747

2005-04-06T18:35:00.000-07:00

for a long time, aircraft manufacturers have always wanted to solve the problem of over-congestion. so they designed ultra-high capacity planes or jumbo jets. for well over 30 years, the Boeing 747 serve this high density market. the 747, an iconic aircraft also known as the queen of the skies, is capable of carrying well over 400 passengers.

an All Nippon Airways Boeing 747-400 in a special Pokemon livery.

only up till recently did airbus develop and produce a competitor for the 747, the Airbus A380. it can carry up to 550 passengers in a three-class configuration.

The Airbus A380, first commercial flight due in 2006 with SIA as the launch airline.

this idea of a "monster" plane is not entirely new. there were many interesting concepts and designs before the 747 and the A380, and here were some of them!

an ultra-wide body with only 1 deck. not very feasible. or smart.

the A380, as we know today, evolved from several studies by different Airbus partners, especially the Deutsche Airbus A2000.

and the ASX600...

and here's what the A380 (then A3XX) looked like by 1994. notice the much smaller engines compared to the current version.

here are a couple of early 747s and a Mcdonnel Douglas MD-12:

the anteater.

the mid-wing double decker.

the double deck MD-12 which never materialised. Mcdonnel Douglas later merged with Boeing due to financial difficulties.

however, Boeing and Airbus have totally different predictions for the future. Boeing believes the future will continue to follow the trend of more point-to-point, non-stop flights with more frequencies and more choices for passengers, which is why their commercial focus is now more on the B777 and the B787, both a single deck twin-engine planes carrying only 200-300 passengers.

the B777. SIA has 77 in its fleet, including the firm orders, making it the largest "triple seven" operator.

the B787. first commercial flight due in 2009.

Airbus, on the other hand, believes in the superjumbo and a future dominated by more hub-to-hub traffic with more connecting flights for passengers.

the debate will continue, and the verdict will be decided in the years to come. the judges will be the airlines and all of us, the flying public.

so how do you want to fly?

Here Comes Bombardier

2005-04-02T15:09:00.000-08:00

The Airbus A318.

The Boeing 737.

both aircrafts are directly competing against each other in the 110-130 seater segment.

with the announcement on march 16 that Bombardier will produce a 110-130-seat jetliner, the canadian aircraft manufacturer is moving into the big leagues. Bombardier has long been a successful manufacturer of turboprops and regional jets, all but inventing the latter market. the 110-130-seat market puts Bombardier at the lower end of the big-jet marketplace dominated by Boeing and Airbus.

Bombardier plans to seek government support for up to one-third of the development costs for the new jet.

both "legacy" manufacturers have airplanes in the small-jet category: the Airbus A318 and the Boeing 737. neither has been a commercial success and neither company makes much effort to sell these planes. The aircraft are known in the industry as "shrinks" of the basic models (a double shrink in the case of the A318), and they simply aren't efficient.

Bombardier's entry into the big-jet field, a fresh design, may well only be the beginning. if successful, there will certainly be pressure to expand the product line with larger jets, a family of jets. this process may take decades, but it has happened twice before to the detriment of the dominant manufacturers.

Boeing pulled this maneuver on Douglas (later McDonnell Douglas). Boeing was a nobody in the commercial airliner business in the 1950s when the 707 was introduced. Douglas and Lockheed shared the big-airliner market. Lockheed made the decision to produce a turboprop instead of a jet, and took itself out of the game.

Douglas went head-to-head with Boeing — the DC-8 vs. the 707. but the strategies diverged from there. Boeing produced a family of planes: the 707, 720, 727, 737 and 747. Douglas had the DC-8, DC-9 and DC-10. by the time the DC-10 and 747 entered service, Boeing had already surpassed Douglas to be the dominant supplier.

the process took a mere 15 years. Douglas didn't have by then the financial wherewithal to offer a family of airplanes and was forced to merge in 1967 with the McDonnell Co. to form McDonnell Douglas. The McDonnell family didn't understand the commercial aviation market and didn't want to invest in this side of the business.

Airbus offered its first airliner, the A300, in the early 1970s. After a slow start and many early missteps, Airbus began producing a family of airliners: the A300, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340 and now the super jumbo A380.

McDonnell Douglas, hobbled by bad management, all but ceded the airliner business to Boeing and Airbus. By the time McDonnell Douglas and Boeing merged in 1997, Douglas had only about 7 percent of the market.

Boeing still dominated, but now the McDonnell Douglas management ran Boeing and the anti-commercial mentality permeated the once-proud company. new aircraft development all but came to a grinding halt.

today, Bombardier is poised to move up on Boeing as Boeing did on Douglas and as Airbus did on Boeing. Bombardier has a family of airplanes: the Dash 8 turboprop, the 50-, 70- and 90-seat regional jet and soon the 110-130-seat "C-Series" jet.

Boeing's family of jets is dominated by the 737, whose basic design dates to the 1950s. the 747, brilliant as it was, is old and tired. the 777 is a great jet but struggles against the A330-A340 family market segment. the jury is still out on the new 787, and will be until well after this plane enters service.

Boeing needs a new commitment from its leadership to the next quarter century instead of the next fiscal quarter. a replacement for the sturdy, but aging 737 product line is needed. so, too, is an attitude that investment in its airliners is necessary to keep Boeing as a premier leader in commercial aviation, not a grudging make-do with derivatives of old, out-of-date planes (757-300, 767-400 and the 737-900).

Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas, made the mistake of dismissing Airbus for decades as a flash in the pan. Boeing better not make the same mistake with Bombardier, or it could find itself becoming the new McDonnell Douglas, with an insignificant market share in the next 20 years. and America could find itself an also-ran in the commercial airplane business.

Bombardier is already the world's third-largest aircraft manufacturer. if Boeing isn't careful, Bombardier could surpass it to become No. 2.

The Aviator Speaks

2005-03-14T21:58:00.000-08:00

sometimes some people don't know what they are talking about and they really embarrass themselves but i find great humor and amusement in their attempts to sound like they are aviation experts.

"you know rolls royce use the aeroplane engine to put inside the car".

i don't know how that sounds to you but it sounds absolutely humorous to me. let me illustrate to you why so.

in case you don't know, thats a picture of a silhouette of the front view of an aeroplane and a car. come to think of it, it can be the back view as well hahhaha..

the 2 smaller circles are the aeroplane engines and the brown object is the size of a typical car. when put side by side, the relative size of an aeroplane engine is so many times bigger than the size of a car.

now i really wonder how the people at rolls royce shove those engines in the front of the car. (marcus would've said "up its ass" hahahha)

"rolls royce engines are the most powerful"

what nonsense. just because the name is rolls royce, the perception is that they produce the best and most powerful engines.

the truth is, the most powerful commercial aircraft engine is not a Rolls Royce but a General Electric product. the GE90-115B, which is the world's most powerful turbofan engine, holds the record for achieving up to 127,900 pounds of thrust!

this engine powers the Boeing 772LR and the 773ER. by the way, the Boeing 772LR holds the world record for being capable of flying the longest range of well over 9420 Nautical Miles (=17 446km!!) all this would not have been possible without the GE engine.

"Rolls Royce is the only engine that all aeroplanes use"

Rolls Royce is NOT a monopoly for plane engines. its main competitors are General Electric and Pratt & Whitney.

whole day rolls royce, why not just go and marry them.

"the Boeing 747 is capable of doing 120 knots in a 30 degree roll"

who else wants to laugh with me? Show me a 747 doing 120 knots and I will show you a hole in the ground.

that's physically impossible, the roll would cause the wing to be less efficient in lifting the plane (which is why when you turn an aircraft in flight you also pull back on the yoke to give it a slightly noze-high angle of attack), thus the aircraft would have fallen to the ground in a nice sliding corkscrew action.

ok, so maybe it's possible for an empty 747 to be doing 120kts in flight, provided it's the phase of flight known as "flare" and the thing is inches above the runway. but come on, a 747 loaded with 350 PAX (=passengers) doing a 30 degree bank at 120kts, no way!

haha i'm not saying that i am an expert in aviation, but all these are just kinda general knowledge stuff, don't you agree?

The Obnoxious Passenger

2005-03-10T00:20:00.000-08:00

scene took place on a BA (British Airways) flight between Johannesburg and London. a white woman, about 50 years old, was seated next to a black man. obviously disturbed by this, she called the air hostess.

"madam, what is the matter," the hostess asked.

"you obviously do not see it then?" she responded.

"you placed me next to a black man. i do not agree sitting next to someone from such a repugnant group. give me an alternative seat."

"be calm please," the hostess replied. "almost all the seats on this flight are taken. i will check if another seat is available."

the hostess went away and then came back a few minutes later.

"madam, just as i thought, there are no other available seats in the economy class. i spoke to the captain and he informed me that there is also no seat in the business class. however, we do have one remaining seat in the first class."

before the woman could say anything, the hostess continued, "it is not usual for our company to permit someone from the economy class to sit in the first class. however, given the circumstances, the captain feels that it would be scandalous to make someone sit next to someone so disgusting."

the air hostess then turned to the black man and said "therefore, sir, if you would like to, please collect your hand luggage, a seat awaits you in first class."

at that moment, the other passengers who were shocked by what they had just witnessed stood up and applauded.

true story that happened in a British Airways flight.

The Lonely Aviator

2005-03-05T00:13:00.000-08:00

aeroplanes and aviation stuff are just soo nice to talk about.. i can go on and on talking about it but its so hard to find someone else with a similar interest.. i try telling people about it but you know what? the reaction i get is no different from talking to a rock.

i pity all those who are crazy over busess.. i bet these people have a harder time finding someone else who are crazy over busses. most people would find people who are crazy over busses a bit crazy.

today i shall just tell you something about aviation.. general knowledge stuff.. and i think it is quite funny also..

china has a new budget airline and its name is OK air.

now, what's funny about it is that China's national carriers such as China Airlines and China Eastern, that is supposedly prestige, is by the industry's standard, substandard. now by their "OK" standard, i wonder how much lower it can go.

Painting Error

2005-03-03T20:39:00.000-08:00

a normal British Airways logo..

something's not quite right..

A Little Something About Boeing

2005-02-22T22:15:00.000-08:00

today, i shall tell u a little something about Boeing! like Airbus, it is an aircraft manufacturer. Boeing develops military aircraft at the same time but i shall not go into that.

boeing's passenger aircraft models have the prefix "7", so the main family of boeing's passenger aircraft are the 707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 and 787. each family has their own derivatives as well. for the Boeing 747 for example, there's the 747-300 and 747-400 (seven four seven four hundred). for convenience sake, they are usually referred to as the 744 for the 747-400 and the 773 for the 777-300 (triple seven three hundred).

each "family member" has the same looks and body. they differ merely by length, performance or other insignificant details. the B744 for example have winglets at the tip of its wings whilst the 743 does not.

boeing, the company, is based in seattle. so if there's any new developments or any new aircraft being rolled out, the ceremony would be held there.

wow boeing has so many aircrafts! you exclaim. no worries! u dun need to noe all. most of them are obselete. i will only tell u the major aircrafts that are currently being operated by many modern airliners, next time!

The A345

2005-02-17T21:30:00.000-08:00

today i am going to talk about a prominent Airbus aircraft, the A345. what's so special about it is that it has an ultra-long range capability and currently, it is the longest range commercial aircraft in the world, being able to fly between singapore and new york non stop (=9000 nautical miles!!!).

it belongs to the 240-380 passenger seat category and its position was not contested until its direct competitor, the Boeing 777-200LR, rolled out on the 15 Feb 05. i shall talk more about the Boeing 777 next time.

the only 3 airlines that currently operate the A345 are Emirates (EK), Singapore Airlines (SQ) and Air Canada (AC). note that not many airlines are willing to purchase the A345 as most of them do not have the need for such long range aircrafts, considering the country's geographical position.

however, for SQ, having an ultra-long range in its fleet means that it is able to take advantage of its open skies agreement with the US. open skies agreement means that any singapore airliner can fly as many times in and out of the US as it wants, provided that the airport runway slot allows for it.

before the A345 was rolled out in 2004, SQ had to operate under many restrictions in and out of the US as it was forced to make stopovers to refuel in japan or taiwan. under their laws (and most country's for that matter), the number of flights between these countries to the US by a foreign carrier was restricted to a certain number daily, obviously to protect the interest of their own national carriers.

this is where the A345 comes in handy, where SQ can fly as many times as it wants without having to be restricted by a 3rd country's laws and regulations.

how to identify an A345? since only 3 airlines operate the A345, it would be extremely easy to identify one. for SQ, just spot any planes with 2 engines on each wing, meaning there is a total of 4 engines all together. do not mix this with the Boeing 747 which also has 4 engines. the 747 has a double deck at the front half of its body while the A345 is entirely a single deck.

the A345 is quite a rare aircraft, appearing only early in the morning or late at night in Changi Airport. if you see one, make sure you take a good picture of it!

next time i shall tell you more about Boeing and then i can start filling you in with the childish politics that is going on, commonly known as "a vs b" or airbus vs boeing.

Airbus A340-500... 4 Engines 4 Long Haul!

About Airbus

2005-02-16T22:17:00.000-08:00

today, i am going to tell you more about Airbus. basically Airbus is a company that manufactures commercial aircrafts. it is based in Toulouse in France, meaning that the aircraft is built there and everytime a new aircraft is rolled out, the rolling out ceremony would be held there. (roll out = release, like an artiste "releasing" a new album)

all Airbus' models have the prefix "3". so they are named A310, A320, A330, A340 etc.. currently their family of aircrafts consists of the A310, A320, A330, A340 and A380. each model is like a family name and each family has its own derivatives.

take the Airbus A340 (commonly pronounced as "eh three forty") family for example. in the A340 family, there is the A340-200 (eh three forty - two hundred), A340-300, the more well known A340-500 and finally the A340-600. for convenience, they are usually referred to as A342, A343, A345 (eh three four five) etc, retaining the first 3 prefix and the first number of its derivative as the last digit.

they defer by their performances, meaning their "bodies" and "looks" are similar, but their engines and lengths would vary.

that's basically airbus in a nutshell. next time i shall go into detail about these airbus aircrafts, their flying range and sizes and how you can identify them like a pro! after that, i will be introducing Boeing to you!

A vs B

2005-02-13T23:40:00.000-08:00

have you all read about the commotion going on between Airbus and Boeing lately? airbus has just unveiled their new double deck A380 recently in Toulouse while boeing launched the development of their new aircraft not too long ago, the B787, slated to fly in 2008.

both companies are attacking each other to the point where it gets quite a little childish. you should read up a little! quite hilarious.. shall write and elaborate more on it maybe tomorrow if i have the time.

Can't Wait

2005-01-10T17:30:00.000-08:00

damn i can't wait to get my ass on board one of those.. 1 more year to go to 2006 and SIA will receive its first Airbus A380 and i swear i'm gonna be one of the first few to fly one of them for sure!

First VF A320

2004-03-22T00:15:00.000-08:00

the first A320 aircraft for ValuAir has arrived in Singapore and you know what!? I HATE IT! I RESENT IT!!! it's soo ugly!!! the name... the livery... makes it look and sound like some cheap supermarket airline...

wouldn't you agree with me??

Singapore Ads

2004-03-19T16:35:00.000-08:00

the 2 new singapore airlines advertisement really rock!

the first one was for the new Airbus 345Leadership aircraft... it has this "forrest gump" feel where the camera follows a flake of snow similar to the drifting feather in forrest gump...

then came a scene where the flake of snow landed on the roof of a church, with the moon at the background and suddenly the camera zooms out of the building and out of america straight into the sky with the moon still at the background and you can see the aircraft flying across the clouds... it's really very beautiful! plus, the accompanying music sounding so nice that it sent goosebumps down my skin!

the second one is the singapore girl advertisement... nothing special. but the song "you're always there... across the world... singapore girl, you're a great way to fly" is stuck in my head... it keeps ringing over and over again...

A345 Inaugural Flight

2004-02-03T22:45:00.000-08:00

today marks a special day for Singapore Airlines! their newest aircraft, the Airbus 345LeaderShip, embarked on its first non-stop flight to Los Angeles from Singapore (7,937 nautical miles!!!)

the 16 hour flight sets a new record for the longest commercial flight... the previous record was held by Cathay Pacific for flights between HongKong and New York that lasted 15 hours..

but the wonder of the worlds longest flight also begs the question: whats the worlds shortest regularly scheduled flight?

the answer: a route between the Scottish Islands of Westray and Papa Westray with a scheduled flight time of two minutes... however, it was once flown in 58 seconds (its amazing what a strong tail wind can do to get you to your destination ahead of time!!).. the flights are operated by Loganair for British Airways and utilise a Pilatus Islander prop plane... there is no beverage service, since even coffee takes three minutes to brew.. ha ha...