All I wanted to do is try to fly on a 747!!!

On Jan 30, 11:24*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:767a019c-11bb-401d-9e25-1ed848f1acd7
@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:



Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
a 747? *First class is nice, but coach just
plain sucks. *I've flown to Tokyo and London
in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
I've ever flown in.

I agree.
Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +), that
hurts.
The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And the
onboard food is better too)

Try getting a Cessna 150 from Houston to Amsterdam.
It takes a loooooooonnng time.

Bertie

In a container onboard a 747, 8+ hours I think.

-Kees

wrote in news:966fa6fd-c33c-45ff-8ffd-289a18279e16
@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Jan 30, 11:24*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:767a019c-11bb-401d-9e25-
1ed848f1acd7
@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:



Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
a 747? *First class is nice, but coach just
plain sucks. *I've flown to Tokyo and London
in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
I've ever flown in.

I agree.
Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +), that
hurts.
The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And the
onboard food is better too)

Try getting a Cessna 150 from Houston to Amsterdam.
It takes a loooooooonnng time.

Bertie

In a container onboard a 747, 8+ hours I think.

He he!

Probably cheaper than flying it yourself.

Let's see. With tanks, you could probably get about 1100 miles range out
of one with a bit of reserve. So, Houston to, say, Columbus Ohio, about
500 bucks Ohio to Sept Isle Quebec, another 500. Sept Isle to Goose,
about 750 ( fuel price) Goose to Narsarsuaq another 750. Narsarsuaq to
Rejkavik about 2000 ( you will have to buy an entire 200 litre barrel
of avgas there at about 25 bucks a gallon) Rejkavik to Stornaway,
another 750 or therabouts and then on to Amsterdam for another 750 or
so.

I make that $5500 off the top of my head.

Oh yeah, this would be asingle seat airplane as you would have to stick
a tank in the right seat and remove the right hand stick!

Oh, and before you ask Larry, Yes, you would be overweight and yes it
would be legal.


Bertie



Bertie
..

On Jan 30, 1:18*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:966fa6fd-c33c-45ff-8ffd-289a18279e16
@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:







On Jan 30, 11:24*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:767a019c-11bb-401d-9e25-
1ed848f1acd7
@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
a 747? *First class is nice, but coach just
plain sucks. *I've flown to Tokyo and London
in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
I've ever flown in.

I agree.
Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +), that
hurts.
The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And the
onboard food is better too)

Try getting a Cessna 150 from Houston to Amsterdam.
It takes a loooooooonnng time.

Bertie

In a container onboard a 747, 8+ hours I think.

He he!

Probably cheaper than flying it yourself.

Let's see. With tanks, you could probably get about 1100 miles range out
of one with a bit of reserve. So, Houston to, say, Columbus Ohio, about
500 bucks Ohio to Sept Isle Quebec, another 500. Sept Isle to Goose,
about 750 ( fuel price) Goose to Narsarsuaq another 750. Narsarsuaq to
Rejkavik about *2000 ( you will have to buy an entire 200 litre barrel
of avgas there at about 25 bucks a gallon) Rejkavik to Stornaway,
another 750 or therabouts and then on to Amsterdam for another 750 or
so.

I make that $5500 off the top of my head.

With todays dollar that is about....hmmm...340 euro?


-Kees

wrote in news:d19cf71b-5703-460e-971e-a12a7f2ffee4
@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

On Jan 30, 1:18*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:966fa6fd-c33c-45ff-8ffd-
289a18279e16
@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:







On Jan 30, 11:24*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:767a019c-11bb-401d-9e25-
1ed848f1acd7
@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

Why would anyone want to fly as SLF in a
a 747? *First class is nice, but coach just
plain sucks. *I've flown to Tokyo and London
in one and it was the least tolerable jetliner
I've ever flown in.

I agree.
Last weekend from Houston to Amsterdam in a 747 (8 hours +),
that
hurts.
The seating in my C150 is less cramped than in that thing.(And
the
onboard food is better too)

Try getting a Cessna 150 from Houston to Amsterdam.
It takes a loooooooonnng time.

Bertie

In a container onboard a 747, 8+ hours I think.

He he!

Probably cheaper than flying it yourself.

Let's see. With tanks, you could probably get about 1100 miles range
out
of one with a bit of reserve. So, Houston to, say, Columbus Ohio,
about
500 bucks Ohio to Sept Isle Quebec, another 500. Sept Isle to Goose,
about 750 ( fuel price) Goose to Narsarsuaq another 750. Narsarsuaq
to
Rejkavik about *2000 ( you will have to buy an entire 200 litre
barrel
of avgas there at about 25 bucks a gallon) Rejkavik to Stornaway,
another 750 or therabouts and then on to Amsterdam for another 750 or
so.

I make that $5500 off the top of my head.

With todays dollar that is about....hmmm...340 euro?


-Kees





Prolly!


Add to that landing fees and fitting out the airplane for the trip and
it'd be a lot cheaper to ship it in a container. You could fit two..


Bertie

John writes:

Except for the minor detail that a 777 is significantly greener then a 747
and will output less greenhouse gas per passenger mile so running more of
them benefits the environment as well as the needs of the passengers.

Most of the flights today are 737s.

Exactly how do you define "greener," and how much "greener" is a 777?

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

If there was only one carrier in the world you would probably see just
exactly what you want. One big ass plane flying from A to B as few times
per period as possible. Fortunately we don't have a monopoly on flight
in this country so one of the variable that comes up in the equation is
when do the passengers want to fly. Some want to leave at 0700 some at
0900 some at 1300 some at 1700 some at 2000.

So vast numbers of aircraft wait in line to take off and land with 60% load
factors instead of a handful of large aircraft fully loaded. Yes, that will
work wonders for society in the long run.

Is it any surprise that airspace is crowded?

No it isn't. A lot of people need to go places.

Fewer aircraft would allow them to go places with less traffic.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John writes:

Except for the minor detail that a 777 is significantly greener then
a 747 and will output less greenhouse gas per passenger mile so
running more of them benefits the environment as well as the needs of
the passengers.

Most of the flights today are 737s.


So waht fjukkwt?



Exactly how do you define "greener,"


Less purple.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

If there was only one carrier in the world you would probably see
just exactly what you want. One big ass plane flying from A to B as
few times per period as possible. Fortunately we don't have a
monopoly on flight in this country so one of the variable that comes
up in the equation is when do the passengers want to fly. Some want
to leave at 0700 some at 0900 some at 1300 some at 1700 some at 2000.

So vast numbers of aircraft wait in line to take off and land with 60%
load factors instead of a handful of large aircraft fully loaded.
Yes, that will work wonders for society in the long run.

Is it any surprise that airspace is crowded?

No it isn't. A lot of people need to go places.

Fewer aircraft would allow them to go places with less traffic.


Yes, let's everybody, the intire East Coast, go to Buttfjukk Iowa for the
weekend.

We'll meet up at 7:45 by the Pretzel place at the airport.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

If there was only one carrier in the world you would probably see just
exactly what you want. One big ass plane flying from A to B as few times
per period as possible. Fortunately we don't have a monopoly on flight
in this country so one of the variable that comes up in the equation is
when do the passengers want to fly. Some want to leave at 0700 some at
0900 some at 1300 some at 1700 some at 2000.

So vast numbers of aircraft wait in line to take off and land with 60% load
factors instead of a handful of large aircraft fully loaded. Yes, that will
work wonders for society in the long run.


As usual you are wrong right off the bat because the average load factor
is over 79%.

Load factors 2007 2006 Change
AirTran 77.8% 67.3% 10.5
Alaska 71.6% 71.6% 0.0
American 80.6% 77.6% 3.0
Continental 79.8% 79.5% 0.2
Delta 79.9% 77.2% 2.7
JetBlue 75.9% 78.8% (2.9)
Northwest 84.3% 83.6% 0.7
Southwest 70.5% 70.1% 0.4
United 81.1% 80.6% 0.4
US Airways 80.5% 77.2% 3.3
Average load factors 79.2% 77.6% 1.5



Is it any surprise that airspace is crowded?
No it isn't. A lot of people need to go places.

Fewer aircraft would allow them to go places with less traffic.

But not when they needed to be there.

Mxsmanic wrote:
John writes:

Except for the minor detail that a 777 is significantly greener then a 747
and will output less greenhouse gas per passenger mile so running more of
them benefits the environment as well as the needs of the passengers.

Most of the flights today are 737s.

If you think really, really, hard, you might understand why that is.

Or, if you went to a real airport with real people and real airplanes
it would become obvious.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.