I wouldn't know about any of the legal or "following employee rules" aspects of this instance, but I - apparently as one of many- praise the pilot for standing his ground for the safety of all the people on board.

(Written on 2021年01月15日)(Permalink)

Let's see 24, 900 miles in circumference, 2 hours, so around 12,500 miles per hour. Oh yeah - THAT is surely practical!

(Written on 2020年12月07日)(Permalink)

"Primed for improvement?" As in "the only way to go is up????"

(Written on 2016年01月15日)(Permalink)

And if it did get damaged (which took a lot of doing), as I recall, weren't many of the parts ambidextrous, that is, the same (replacement) part could be used on either the right or left side- and often replaced on the spot in the field- further reducing the cost of keeping it flying??

(Written on 2015年07月03日)(Permalink)

There is an old axiom in the realty industry: "The cheapest house to buy is the own you already own". I suspect it would apply here as well. And what's a measly little ol' $4.2B over five whole years... that's less than a billion a year, chump change in the current budget that is figuring on a trillion over ten years for healthcare! Let's keep this strategically needed gem flying!

(Written on 2015年07月03日)(Permalink)

Maybe there is a "BOGO" special. (Bomb one, get one free). Then, we could fix ORD, too. :-)

(Written on 2015年07月02日)(Permalink)

Wildlife? Gee - and I was worried someone was going to drag one through a Jetway and hit me on the head with it. Silly me.

(Written on 2015年06月26日)(Permalink)

Notwithstanding the fact that the plane is a sharp little number, yes, I'd say this headline has some hyperbole! Curiosity at an Air Show? Quite likely. Another toy for the rich and famous? Probably. A plane in every driveway? Probably not. And, I'm getting really very weary of hearing about "zero emission this" and "zero emission that". Hello?!?!? Emissions are simply DISPLACED- moved elsewhere- and there is likely a certain amount of efficiency loss in the process of said displacement or movement.

(Written on 2015年06月17日)(Permalink)

I agree with "zero emissions": it's simply emissions shifting to somewhere- and sometime- else. And with every energy transformation, there is some energy loss. The piece did mention that the cost is 2¢ per hour. It also mentioned that the batteries, good for 0.5 hour, have 60kw. That puts its use at 120 kw per hour. At our local average of about 11¢ per kwh, that puts the cost at around $13.20 an hour, not 2¢. It IS a lot less than av-gas, etc, but I hope whoever did these calculations didn't also engineer the plane!

(Written on 2014年06月13日)(Permalink)

I greatly appreciate well-done parody and satire. However, I hope another venue is sought to distribute this fine piece of work. It just might give "the suits" an idea.

(Written on 2014年03月01日)(Permalink)