Planes: Frequent Flyers & Enthusiasts Welcome

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

LuckyNumber7

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
19,707
Location
Washington, DC
Who here loves flight? Travels a lot? Go to air shows? Who do you fly with? Share your takes on aviation here.

I'm just completing near my 30th flight of the year across dozens of airlines, so it's kind of been a part of my monthly routine!
 
what do you do for a living, if you don't mind me asking?

i fly a fair bit by some standards, but definitely nowhere near as much as you do.

personally, i don't like it. but i do love getting to far off places quickly, so...
 
Aviation is a passion of mine. I have about 10 hours of flight time under my belt and am working on getting my Private Pilot's License. I train in a Cessna 152, but my favorite aircraft is the Beech Bonanza.

I'm seriously considering making a career change to airline dispatcher.
 
what do you do for a living, if you don't mind me asking?

i fly a fair bit by some standards, but definitely nowhere near as much as you do.

personally, i don't like it. but i do love getting to far off places quickly, so...



Well, my flying around was a combination of living overseas and studying in an international program where I lived in a few different countries over the summer. So, no rich fancy executive job, but I did get to see a lot of places!

And trust me, I get not liking it. I like the idea of it. The actual execution can sometimes be miserable.

I just got off an Air New Zealand flight from Auckland to Singapore. It's 7:20 AM and I can't check into my hotel for like forever. But it's my first time in Asia, so I'll tind some caffeine somewhere!
 
Aviation is a passion of mine. I have about 10 hours of flight time under my belt and am working on getting my Private Pilot's License. I train in a Cessna 152, but my favorite aircraft is the Beech Bonanza.

I'm seriously considering making a career change to airline dispatcher.



That's awesome! Is flight training super expensive? I hear so.
 
I've been flying bloody heaps the past year (in fact I think my most recent flight was my 30th of the year too), but if there's a train alternative I'll take it. For any sort of long distance: trains > planes > ships/ferries >>>>>>>>>>>>>> buses. Depending on who I'm travelling with (since I can't drive), a car could be ahead of planes or worse than a bus.

But a lot of my gripes are with airports rather than flight. I like flying domestically on New Zealand's regional routes (not the main jet-operated trunk routes) because there's no security, like the good old days of flying. It's much more relaxed.

I also don't know why commercial airlines persist with safety demonstrations. Such a waste of time and I always feel rude for ignoring the flight attendants. It's not as if you get a safety demonstration on a bus - when you're far more likely to be in an accident on a bus than a plane. If you're a fully grown adult and you don't know how to buckle a seatbelt on a plane, that's on you really.
 
Planes: Frequent Flyers & Enthusiasts Welcome

How about going commercial? Do you know? Aside from the degree.



Very expensive and long process. Process is:

Private pilots license $8k-$10k
Instrument Rating $10k
Commercial $10k
Multi Engine Ratings - probably $20k

Then you get your CFI, or Certified Flight Instructor ratings which allows you to teach and get paid (peanuts) while you are building time and applying for the regionals. Typically you need 1000 to 1500 flight hours, 250 of which are multi engine, and a certain portion have to be instrument flight rules or 'instrument flying'. Then you have to take the ATP exam to get that rating to be considered for most regional airlines.

My brother did it and flew for United. Pay is AWFUL when you start. You typically start at the regional airlines that are subsidiaries of the majors like United. My brother flew for an airline called ExpressJet...they fly United routes and pilots are lucky to make $30k a year. See, your not mainline your a contract employee and non-union. Eventually after a few years you can try and make the switch to mainline United or a major and try and get paid more - but it's no guarantee. There are seniority lists, union contracts, furloughs, mergers which stand in your way of getting a mainline job.

The glamour went out of flying decades ago. At the commercial level everything is automated and controlled by FMC - the flight management system or computer. The airline preprograms the route, selects the cost factor which controls the speed at which the flight segments are flown to maximize revenue, and sometimes the pilot doesn't even get to land manually - they use a system called autoland which couples an ILS approach localizer and glideslope to the autopilot so that even down to the flare you are not manually flying the plane. My brother couldn't make ends meet flying for ExpressJet, so he's driving a truck now.

I am studying for the ATP exam right now because it's the same exam to become an airline dispatcher...that's a ground based job but you are basically assigned flights and you monitor their progress, update pilots with weather enroute, plan the flight route and fuel calculations, etc.
 
Last edited:
Planes: Frequent Flyers & Enthusiasts Welcome

I feel like you're describing my general outlook on pay.

40k debt and 7 years to get my undergrads and masters. Likely looking at a new grad job if I'm lucky, which is an internship-to-position. I'll get paid peanuts. Or if I do a phd, ill get paid the same peanuts, but for 5-6 years instead of just 1. Then...then I'll make the money when I'm burnt to a crisp [emoji23]

I applied for an ATC position out of undergrad for shits and giggles. I didn't get in, but I met all the technical qualifications (did aerospace engineering). But my resume is all about Mars, so, I'm sure they were puzzled as to why I applied.
 
Just remember....next time you board one of the smaller regional jets or your airline ticket says something like "Delta Flight #### operated by Republic Airlines" or United Flt ### operated by ExpressJet....the guys in charge of getting you safely to Tulsa or wherever are making like $12 an hour.
 
Just remember....next time you board one of the smaller regional jets or your airline ticket says something like "Delta Flight #### operated by Republic Airlines" or United Flt ### operated by ExpressJet....the guys in charge of getting you safely to Tulsa or wherever are making like $12 an hour.



Niiiiice. I have most aircraft model safety records memorized in my head. This just adds to the fun of "modes of failure" scenarios I can make up! [emoji23]
 
While I don't fly a lot, usually less than 10 flights a year, I have done the longhaul from NZ to Europe a few times in the last few years.
I love planes, love flying, but am eagerly watching the rollout and development of new airliners like the 350 and 787.
Partly I just love development, but with the longhaul (17-18 hours from embark to disembark) it's the air that gets me. So dry, so thin.
My understanding is the 787 and 350 etc allow cabin humidity to be greater than 777/380. Bring it on! Getting to your destination while feeling hungover isn't nice.

LN7, that's a 777 AirNZ fly to Singapore? I hate the 777. Too loud, feels less comfy and polished than the 380.
 
While I don't fly a lot, usually less than 10 flights a year, I have done the longhaul from NZ to Europe a few times in the last few years.
I love planes, love flying, but am eagerly watching the rollout and development of new airliners like the 350 and 787.
Partly I just love development, but with the longhaul (17-18 hours from embark to disembark) it's the air that gets me. So dry, so thin.
My understanding is the 787 and 350 etc allow cabin humidity to be greater than 777/380. Bring it on! Getting to your destination while feeling hungover isn't nice.

LN7, that's a 777 AirNZ fly to Singapore? I hate the 777. Too loud, feels less comfy and polished than the 380.



777 was a milestone in its own right, and has absolutely the most phenomenal track record (along with its less flashy A330 competitor).

I've never noticed the humidity thing, but that is something the said A350 and 787 do advertise.

The Auckland-Singapore route is serviced by a few aircraft. I think three, but might only be two. More often is a 777, but I was on the 787.

Air New Zealand domestic seemed really far behind (though their fleet of A320s all have modified wingtips, so technologically they're ahead in that regard), but the international route sort of made up for it. Then again, I think I was being critical of Virgin Australia domestic as well. I had incredibly high expectations, as the long hauls absolutely shit all over US long hauls.
 
I remember my uncle, who was a 380 captain at Emirates (he trains the pilots now) telling me the next frontier for commercial airliners was altitude. Get high enough and resistance lowers so much flight times are reduced massively. Obviously you'll know the science of this way more than I do.
The issue he said wss propulsion. You'd need rockets, not jets but the safety/financials don't work yet.
But that cracking that puzzle was where the boffins were working....

Your thoughts?
 
Planes: Frequent Flyers & Enthusiasts Welcome

Well, high altitude aviation isn't really next gen, so to say. Since the pressurization of aircraft, they've pretty much always operated between 32,000 and 42,000 ft (depending on model, weather, ops, etc.).

In commercial aviation specifically, most aircraft use turbofan engines (and turbo prop, which really is just a turbofan without a casing). But that doesn't mean other tech doesn't exist. Certain military craft, for example, use typically turbojet or ramjet/scramjet technology. No point in really getting down to the differences - but for reference, the Concorde was a turbojet engine.

Higher altitude is always a better thing for a drag profile, if you're trying to decrease flight time. But it's far worse for lift. There's less "stuff" to push your wings on. There's two important relationships for aviation: lift to drag (how much are you staying afloat versus how much you're being dragged down) and power to fuel consumption (how much umph are you getting versus how much fuel you're gobbling up). Now, to complicate matters, for commercial aviation has to look at everything as "per person" and again "per day."

Things like Concorde didn't go away because they were dangerous. They went away because they were dramatically fuel inefficient and expensive to maintain. There was just no market for them. And I doubt there ever really will be a market for high altitude flight... the math typically never adds up. The fuel consumption per person per day means little when, for the same rate of fuel consumption, you can probably get 5x the amount of customers on a bigger, slower aircraft.

Amywho. Rocketry isn't really the same principle as aviation, but it is the way of the future. You can skip Concorde's 60,000 ft cruising altitude, and forget the 120,000 ft of a paper thin U2 dragon lady. But, you can also throw the idea of lift out the door. Rockets utilize escaping the earth's atmosphere entirely. Much like an ICBM, you can just launch a missile into space and put in on a trajectory where it's expected to land on a target. If you're interested in reading more about that, definitely check out Elon Musk's BFR plans. Travel times of 30 minutes anywhere in the world, really. Green technology, as well.
 
Not crash records [emoji23]

But I'm morbid enough to be well aware of most of those, too [emoji23]
Was the best example there was though.

You would have liked talking with my Dad if he were still alive. Worked for the FAA most of his life, started as an air traffic controller, was operations officer at Logan for a long time before moving to the regional FAA office in Burlington. My siblings and I were the first children in the Logan control tower when it was new a million years ago.
 
Awesome. Being around that growing up, did you have a favorite plane? :D

If we're talking model it would have been the 747.
Grew up across the harbor from Logan, one of my friends and I would sometimes hang at the beach at the end of our street, watching the approaching incoming planes and see who could identify the airline first from the tail markings/colorings. Aer Lingus was always the easiest, as soon as you could see green you knew that one.
 
Well, my flying around was a combination of living overseas and studying in an international program where I lived in a few different countries over the summer. So, no rich fancy executive job, but I did get to see a lot of places!

And trust me, I get not liking it. I like the idea of it. The actual execution can sometimes be miserable.

I just got off an Air New Zealand flight from Auckland to Singapore. It's 7:20 AM and I can't check into my hotel for like forever. But it's my first time in Asia, so I'll tind some caffeine somewhere!
Provided you have the right documentation, Changi airport offers a five-hour tour of Singapore and then brings you back. You won't need a visa and it's great for long layovers.
 
Provided you have the right documentation, Changi airport offers a five-hour tour of Singapore and then brings you back. You won't need a visa and it's great for long layovers.

Holy shit I didn't know that! What documentation? Perhaps I'll fly via Singapore instead (the horrifically overcrowded airport of) Dubai next time...
 
If we're talking model it would have been the 747.

Grew up across the harbor from Logan, one of my friends and I would sometimes hang at the beach at the end of our street, watching the approaching incoming planes and see who could identify the airline first from the tail markings/colorings. Aer Lingus was always the easiest, as soon as you could see green you knew that one.



The haaabah. The Harbaugh. This sounds like what my friend Billy and I were doing in Nice. Much more nerdily of course... we were trying airline+model from across a bay.
 
Provided you have the right documentation, Changi airport offers a five-hour tour of Singapore and then brings you back. You won't need a visa and it's great for long layovers.



Yeah Changi is quite awesome. I'm already gone, though. I opted to do an extended layover and stay a night in the city. Since I served as somewhat of a travel liaison for about six of my colleagues for six months abroad, I racked up tons of hotels.com rewards nights. I used my most expensive one to book a five stare hotel (only paid like $90 for a $350 room :3).

Singapore is a really interesting place, to say the least. And for visiting, I claim a cool little accolade: I've been to every city-state this year.
 
. I used my most expensive one to book a five stare hotel
.

GettyImages-159626661-56ce05a13df78cfb37a37c81.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom