Well, at least they willingly took them out of service, unlike some other airline with a lot of 737s... And not all McDonnel-Douglass aircraft are old pieces of junk. IIRC, the MD-90 series was made into this decade through Boeing. The 717 continued as a new name for the MD-80 as well. AA just doesn't take good care of their domestic fleet.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What airline(s) do you usually fly (and do you like them?)
- Thread starter iMacZealot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's true about Southwest; that news story gave me another reason to not fly them. I suppose not all McDonnell-Douglas aircraft are bad; it's just the DC-10 that's left a sour taste in everyone's mouth.
Except the DC-10 is an outstanding airframe, and most are still in service--just not passenger. The problems (and accidents) were not aircraft related, but rather predominately engine related. Greatest media hatchet job in history.
Duff-Man says...I've heard (and read) people complaining about Air Canada countless times. I've flown well over 100 times with them and never had my luggage lost, never had rude employees, and the one time there was a long delay (Zurich - Toronto-Vancouver-Victoria...the plane was delayed 8 hours leaving Delhi for Zurich) they rebooked me and I got home *sooner* than on my scheduled flights...oh yeah!
I'm glad for you if you've had positive experiences with Air Canada
.I just got back from Ireland and they lost two of my bags. (Won't even go into how utterly useless they're compensation plan is).
I think the main thing I notice about them is that alot of the plains they use are rather threadbare, even in business class.
Yikes!
Well, at least all of the times I've flown with British Airways I've had a really nice experience/
All of LHR does... not just terminal 5.Gives you great hope for the 2012 Olympics doesn't it?
mmmm.... no.
The O'Hare crash was a failed pylon (structural/design issue) and since hydraulic lines were in a vulnerable place (design issue) they were damaged, the aircraft lost primary & secondary controls, and crashed.
The Turkish crash was a failed baggage door due to the piece-of-shiat latching mechanism (design/structural issue). The 'fix' for that issue was equally lame.
The Sioux City crash was a turbine blade separation (engine issue), but that should have been an annoyance EXCEPT that it severed hydraulic lines (sound familiar?) which led to loss of control....
In those, and every other major DC-10 incident, it was all design/structural issues. NOT a 'media hatchet job'.
For the three cases I cited above, there are equivalent examples with Boeing and Lockheed aircraft that did NOT lead to catastrophic loss of the airframe.
I generally don't notice what kind of plane it is until I get around to reading the emergency card before takeoff or when they do the emergency demo and mention the model of the plane. Unless it is an iconic plane like the 747 and A380. But, the smaller planes like the 737 and A320 I probably wouldn't take notice.
Can you distinguish between a 777 and A330?
Try it:
Whomever answers correctly gets a cookie.
don't fly air china... man was my plane ghetto... It still had the RGB projector for the movies
the bottom one has more exits
A330 is the top one, 777 is the bottom one.
I've noticed that Airbuses tend to look wider than their Boeing counterparts, which I can tell from that picture. Lets see if that's the case here
I've noticed that Airbuses tend to look wider than their Boeing counterparts, which I can tell from that picture. Lets see if that's the case here
Airbus and Boeing seem to have their own unique cockpit/nose design that generally extends to all their models. Plus, I remember the engines on the 777 are huge( or at least the housing).
Someone here on MR told me that the easiest way to distinguish between an Airbus and Boeing is by looking at the horizontal stabilizers. Airbuses always have a metal patch where they join the body, whereas Boeing never do.
Here's a photo:
![tailfindv7.jpg]()
Also, I knew the difference between the A330 and 777 because 777's never have winglets.
You were right, but your reasoning doesn't make sense. The A330's fuselage diameter is narrower than the 777's.
Here's a photo:
Also, I knew the difference between the A330 and 777 because 777's never have winglets.
You were right, but your reasoning doesn't make sense. The A330's fuselage diameter is narrower than the 777's.
On the slight topic of Airbus vs Boeing in a sense, as much as people and the media are clamoring over the A380, in a competitive sense, the A380 has royally screwed Airbus over. It gave Boeing a huge window between the 787's debut and Airbus's answer, the A350. By the time the A350 comes out, Boeing will be well under way in developing a replacement for the 737. Right now, it's Boeings game to lose as Airbus tries to pick it self up after the A380 program.
Ahhh....must be the angles the photo was taken at then...the A330 looks a bit chubbier
Oh, definitely. Boeing has it made for the next decade or two. They've already sold 920 787's, the best selling aircraft upon launch in history. It's what airlines want; a smaller, efficient, 21st century aircraft. Airbus' reaction to it is rather funny; initially, they claimed it was just a copy of the A330, then when they saw everyone buying one, they introduced the A350, which was an A330 with an updated cockpit and wings. However, nobody was impressed, so it was back to the drawing board.
I read an article recently about replacing the 737's and A320's, and while both companies are looking into it, there's no advantage in developing one now until the engine manufacturers can produce new engines significantly more efficient than the current ones.
Oh, definitely. Boeing has it made for the next decade or two. They've already sold 920 787's, the best selling aircraft upon launch in history. It's what airlines want; a smaller, efficient, 21st century aircraft. Airbus' reaction to it is rather funny; initially, they claimed it was just a copy of the A330, then when they saw everyone buying one, they introduced the A350, which was an A330 with an updated cockpit and wings. However, nobody was impressed, so it was back to the drawing board.
I read an article recently about replacing the 737's and A320's, and while both companies are looking into it, there's no advantage in developing one now until the engine manufacturers can produce new engines significantly more efficient than the current ones.
The A350 has been redesigned 3 times to my knowledge. The current concept is the carbon fiber is in panels unlike the 787's whole fuselage being one slab of carbon fiber( I might be mixing up the two, but I am fairly certain I have it correct).
Still, Boeing has a pretty sizable window to get a 737 replacement program going.
my buddy goes to ucsd and flys back to san jose also like every other month and he loves it. I have yet to fly it, because I fly skybus most of the time. They stopped going through san diego, so I'm gonna go up to burbank for my next flight home, which is about a 2 1/2 hour train ride. :/
