-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
Cubdriver usenet AT danford.net writes:

Astonishing figures in that article, for example, the 737 outsells the
747 by such a huge margin; that the A320 outsells the 737 and indeed
is the only commercially viable aircraft in the Airbus lineup; that a
new P&W engine will make a 737 replacement profitable may -- the 797,
by golly! It's good to see Boeing getting back on its feet. I have
flown 7*7s since 1964 and have always preferred them to the 'bus.

I like Boeing because they are conservative as compared to Airbus.
Airbus will throw any kind of gadget on an aircraft just to have
something to differentiate them from Boeing.

How wrong can you be?!?

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

However, when it comes
to aviation and safety, I tend to prefer tried and true solutions in
most cases. Years of experience with computers also makes me
extraordinarily wary of anything that is run by them; I know what kind
of garbage they put inside.

Then I suggest you learn a bit more about computers, because
they run a lot more things than you realize.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFOBRfyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhmSAKDfcU7tYHj8InNOIdNQaF nttCO+ngCg2lDK
fqWl04fNeXh95RktShLG9wc=
=mfCF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----