Quote:
Air India will be ending its passenger service on October 19th. Last flight will be AI962 on the DEL-COK via CCJ.
Printable View
Quote:
Air India will be ending its passenger service on October 19th. Last flight will be AI962 on the DEL-COK via CCJ.
wow that's crazy news :shock: :( We are "progressing" backwards, who would've thought back in 1970 when the 747s and Concorde were new in service that 40 years later most transatlantic flights would be taking place on smaller, and slower jets. It's all 767s and even some 757s lately!
Loved how the old livery they had looked on their 747s. Probably one of classiest looking 747s around. A symbol of commercial aviation.
Won't Air India be getting A380s ?
This really is a sign of the times. I remember when the 747s, DC-10s and L1011s were first put into service. You routinely flew these heavies on trans-continental flights, as well as flights from New York to Chicago, Miami, St. Louis, and Dallas among others. American's DC-10 was the norm to Aruba for years in the 70s. We enjoyed that until the late-80s or early 90s when things started to reverse themselves. Instead of the jumbos you found yourself on much smaller aircraft doing the long haul routes. From a 747 out of SEA into New York to a 738. From a DC-10 out of LAX into New York to an A319. On our last trip abroad our first flight was on a Continental 757 from EWR to AMS. EWR to STL really changed after TWA died. It went from L1011 service between the two cities in the 80s and early 90s to EMBRAER service after the merger. It seems that nowadays to get on a jumbo you have to be going halfway around the world.
I remember the first time Anne and I saw a Pan Am 74 just after she was delivered. What an ugly airplane I thought. That great big lump over the nose was so distracting at first, but it kind of grew on you as the years passed. It added character and a distinction to the 747 that no other airplane has, setting it apart from everything else. We'll miss them when they are gone for sure, and I'm afraid that day is fast approaching.
Art
AI has and is replacing the 747s with the 772 and 773 which are far superior planes then the 747. We are not going backwards...you didn't have long haul twin engine planes in the 70s..the technology wasn't there, today it is. The 777 and the 787 are vastly more modern then the 747 and the Concorde and represent ideal economic solutions for today's markets.
That's true Tom, not arguing the point about efficency and economy, the newer planes are more modern and economical, but they do lack the capacity of the 747. So it seems to me, with more people traveling than ever before, capacity should be up on the more popular routes and not down. I remember when it started to change back. Every airline began touting frequency and convenience of schedule. They were selling the smaller aircraft using convenience as the catch phrase. It resulted in more flights being scheduled and increasing traffic between the airports. Where there was a single DC-10 scheduled between EWR and DFW it was replaced with two or three MD-80s. Perhaps it offered more frequent service, but it certainly crowed the skies and airports also contributing to delays.
The frequency of flights is down today due to the economic situation that exists in the country. When the economy rebounds and people start to travel again, the frequency of flights will increase and so will the delays. I remember back in the early to mid-90s I'd go to EWR for a flight on a Sunday afternoon. I'd schedule the flight for about 6 p.m. giving me most of the day at home. I'd arrive at the airport, go to the Admiral's Club until my flight's boarding time, and then board the aircraft. After we left the gate we'd get the good news that there would be a 40 plus minute wait in the departure queue because of all the departing aircraft. Not fun. When the heavies were flying those routes I don't remember those long wait times on the ground. Of course more people fly today than did then, and I'm sure there are some other arguments as well to justify the situation today. Just remembering the good ole days :D
Art
Art your statement is very true but the increasing of frequency is a direct result of our "NOW" society. The large companies have created a culture of instant gratification and therefore have given us choices like flying to DFW from LGA at 2Pm, 2:30Pm, and 3:00Pm...why because we want to do things on our schedule. However as we all know there are consequences to our desires that we have all seen.
There's no reason an airline like AA can't run a domestic 777 from LGA to DFW at 2:30 and removing two other flights they by cutting down on air traffic, delays, customers dissatisfaction, and green house pollution....however we want choices..
I agree to an extent as technology moves on and things get better.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Over the years the 747 was upgraded to 747-400 series not sure if it could have been upgraded any further but with the advent of the A380 it feels like Boeing some how gave up and on most fleets which used the 747 will now be getting A380s.
Not sure about 2 engines, personaly for long range travel i trust 4, so if one or two stop working you still have 2 to get you home, with 2 engines you're stuck if both stop working.
If Concorde B had been made we would have seen a plane which would have made Concorde look old as it would have used modern technology to make it.
Sorry but we are going backwards, Until the 707 it took days to get from A to B by propellor plane but the 707 reduced it to hrs (as it was faster than any propellor engine) but now 50-60 years later apart from Concorde aircraft still fly at the same-ish speed as the 707.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Concorde and the TU144 where machines years ahead of their time, Concorde has technology like supercruise which are only now being used in new "state of the art" fighter planes (F22 and Euro fighter), but Concorde had supercruise for 40 years and used it every day.
Believe it or not Concorde was more fuel efficient at mach 2 than she was at subsonic speed, at subsonic speed there was no way she could ever fly from LHR to JFK or LHR to Barbados.
At mach 2 Concorde flew LHR to JFK or LHR to Barbados with no worries.
There was a plan for Concorde model B with more fuel efficient engines which didn't need afterburners to brake the sound barrier and had longer range but the UK government of the 1980s scrapped it all.
If Concorde B had been made we could have easily shut up the tree huggers and "doom and gloom" merchants with their "make sense it will never fly" arguments as the plane would have exceeded all their arguments.
But the UK government of the 1980s listened to the "doom and gloom" merchants and scrapped Concorde B, since then no one has had the guts to move forward.
Like the USAF keep on re-engineering and updating the B52 by giving it the latest engines, systems and equipment, Concorde could have had the same done to it and she would have had todays state of the technology and engines, all this is possible but again no one had the guts to do it, they all listened to the "doom and gloom" merchants with their "make sense it will never fly" statements.
If Christopher Columbus had listened to these guys then America would have never been discovered.
Boeing had the Sonic Cruiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser which was a step in Concorde's direction but as usual the "doom and gloom" merchants won and the Sonic cruiser never got off the drawing board.
Now we have subsonic planes which are no faster than ones of the 1960s, so technology has stood still or has gone backwards, depends on which side you view it from.
If Air India don't buy A380s then i feel their air fares will rise as you need more planes to do the same job as one A380 or one 747.
BA have plans to buy A380s to replace their 747s.
To build on what you said Jetinder,
On the whole planes now are GENERALLY slower than what they used to be. Unfortunately many lacked the range. Somehow they haven't been able to market efficiency and speed in one package or DON"T want to. Companies and manufacturers are settling with the notion that Efficiency = less stops which = "speed" and not considering the true speed factor. The A345 can make it to JFK is what 16 hours? - or Whatever it was. But yea who cares if its non stop it still 16 or whatever hours.
This issue plagues all technology it seems at some point.
Senga
It truly is.Quote:
Originally Posted by AAGold
Why does Thomas always have to be hating on Concorde? Whilst 777 and 787 are more modern, lest us not forget that the technology, even the air speeds ramps on Concorde's intake, are still classified and were all drawn on calculations from slide rules. That is hardcore.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Yet, while blaming it on the economy, they have cut routes cut capacity and caused fuller planes. Its a shell game.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Thomas, you awoke the Jetinder. I have to agree, Jet makes some seriously solid points. IN every other industry, there has been gradual improvement. Faster, higher, etc. The aviation industry has stagnated and instead directed its evolution towards efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetinder