WN new price policy

Mr Travel wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro wrote:

"Chilly8" wrote in :




Vegas only has ONE runway, that could handle 747-400 or
A340 aircraft, needed for flights between vegas and China.
7L/25R, with a length of 14495 ft, is the only runway long
enough to handle 747 or A340 aircraft. A 747 needs at least
11,000 feet of runway for takeoff, so all the other runways
are not long enough.





Nonsense.

Instead of using your silly game, why don't you try looking
at the
runway specifications for the 747 as provided by Boeing. If you had,
you would have known that a 747-400 can use a runway under 6,000' in
some conditions. You only need 7L/25R under max load and very high
density altitude conditions.

At SFO, you can watch 747's take off from 28L (10,602') and
1R
(8,646'). A friend took a great picture of one lifting off on 1R as
I overflew SFO at 3,500'. He was airborn by the middle of the
intersection of 1R with 28L and 28R, under 5,000' from the 1R
threshold.

Zero wind, standard temperature, 0 gradient, 0' pressure
altitude, a
747-400 with the CF6-80C2B1 engines can use a 6,500' runway at
700,000 lbs



Do you expect a flight from LAS to PEK would be flying a minimum
weight?


Please go back and read what the OP said - "A 747 needs at least
11,000 feet of runway for takeoff, so all the other runways are not long
enough" That statement is utter nonsense, as the Boeing specs for the 747-
400 clearly show.

As for KLAS to ZBAA, that would depend on 1) how much freight, 2) how
many passengers, and 3) the weather conditions (wind, pressure altitude,
and temperature). 25R/7L will almost always be required in the summer at
KLAS. The Boeing tables on their web site are all based on 0 wind and 0
runway slope. Increase the wind, and you need less runway. Up slope needs
more, down slope needs less.

Not all flights take off at max weight. You don't put more fuel
onboard than is necessary to meet your required reserves, as it costs fuel
to fly fuel.

Oh, 700,000 lbs is NOT minimum weight.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Larry in AZ wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, (John L) said:


I couldn't find any good stats, but what I can tell you is that in
Alberta (Canada, for the geographically challenged), gas at the pump was
probably around $0.90 in the spring, rose to $1.10 or so, and is back to
$0.95 right now.

Not quite on topic, but hopefully a useful stat.

It'd be more useful for US readers if they knew that the price is per
litre.


And that's pretty high, considering that Canada is a net exporter of oil.

Up until pretty recently, so was the UK, and Norway still is. Both of
'em charge way more than Canada for gasoline.
--
dgs

dgs wrote:

Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, (John L) said:


I couldn't find any good stats, but what I can tell you is that in
Alberta (Canada, for the geographically challenged), gas at the pump
was
probably around $0.90 in the spring, rose to $1.10 or so, and is
back to
$0.95 right now.

Not quite on topic, but hopefully a useful stat.


It'd be more useful for US readers if they knew that the price is per
litre.



And that's pretty high, considering that Canada is a net exporter of oil.


Up until pretty recently, so was the UK, and Norway still is. Both of
'em charge way more than Canada for gasoline.


Yes, but this is because their gas taxes are higher

Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, dgs said:


Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, (John L) said:



I couldn't find any good stats, but what I can tell you is that in
Alberta (Canada, for the geographically challenged), gas at the pump was
probably around $0.90 in the spring, rose to $1.10 or so, and is back to
$0.95 right now.

Not quite on topic, but hopefully a useful stat.

It'd be more useful for US readers if they knew that the price is per
litre.


And that's pretty high, considering that Canada is a net exporter of oil.

Up until pretty recently, so was the UK, and Norway still is. Both of
'em charge way more than Canada for gasoline.


High taxes.

Which is the reason gas prices are higher in Canada, too. They just
aren't as high as in the UK and Norway.
--
dgs

Damb, Marty Shapiro , do I have to
'splain EVERYTHING to your dumn ass????


Zero wind, standard temperature, 0 gradient, 0' pressure altitude,
a
747-400 with the CF6-80C2B1 engines can use a 6,500' runway at
700,000 lbs

Not according to Wikipedia. The specifications at Wikipedia say that a
747-400 needs 3018 meters for its takeoff run, and thats around
10,000 feet, so 6,500 feet would not nearly be enough. And 700,000
lbs would exceed MTOW. If I take off in a 747-400 at that weight,
FSPassengers will dock me points for exceeding MTOW. I can take
off safely at that weight level, but FSPassengers will dock me points
for exceeding MTOW.
.

Sim boi - try looking at the Boeing web pages. Or is your simulated
brain so dead that you really think that Wikipedia knows more than Boeing
about the performance of a 747-400?

We got us a real, bona-fide airplane geek-fight going here!

Sweet!


--

Andrew -- is it OCTOOBER yet?


"Going to Vegas is not about nicer, it's about getting down and dirty, losing
your paycheque shooting craps, and getting the clap from an ugly prostitute."

-- "Visaman" in AVLV

Andrew In Alabama wrote:
Damb, Marty Shapiro , do I have to
'splain EVERYTHING to your dumn ass????



Zero wind, standard temperature, 0 gradient, 0' pressure altitude,
a
747-400 with the CF6-80C2B1 engines can use a 6,500' runway at
700,000 lbs

Not according to Wikipedia. The specifications at Wikipedia say that a
747-400 needs 3018 meters for its takeoff run, and thats around
10,000 feet, so 6,500 feet would not nearly be enough. And 700,000
lbs would exceed MTOW. If I take off in a 747-400 at that weight,
FSPassengers will dock me points for exceeding MTOW. I can take
off safely at that weight level, but FSPassengers will dock me points
for exceeding MTOW.
.

Sim boi - try looking at the Boeing web pages. Or is your simulated
brain so dead that you really think that Wikipedia knows more than Boeing
about the performance of a 747-400?


We got us a real, bona-fide airplane geek-fight going here!

Sweet!


With a participant who actually thinks Wiipedia is the final authority
on anything other than Sigma Derby.
Denny in Mass

While I was dreaming about my next Hawaii visit 018bcc30$0$19136$c3e8d
,
wrote

With a participant who actually thinks Wiipedia is the final authority
on anything other than Sigma Derby.

And Lucky Ned!

On 11/18/2007 3:02 AM Chilly8 yammered:

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
"Chilly8" wrote in :

Zero wind, standard temperature, 0 gradient, 0' pressure altitude, a
747-400 with the CF6-80C2B1 engines can use a 6,500' runway at 700,000 lbs

Not according to Wikipedia.

I just looked you up in Wikipedia, and it says you're a brain-dead
dip**** who doesn't know how to look something up on Boeing's web site.

I managed to contain my surprise. Were you born this stupid, or did
you have your brain removed after birth?
--
dgs

"d.g.s." wrote in
:

On 11/18/2007 3:02 AM Chilly8 yammered:

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
"Chilly8" wrote in :

Zero wind, standard temperature, 0 gradient, 0' pressure
altitude, a
747-400 with the CF6-80C2B1 engines can use a 6,500' runway at
700,000 lbs

Not according to Wikipedia.

I just looked you up in Wikipedia, and it says you're a brain-dead
dip**** who doesn't know how to look something up on Boeing's web
site.

I managed to contain my surprise. Were you born this stupid, or did
you have your brain removed after birth?

You can find a picture of Chilly8 studying take off requirements for
the 747-400 at http://tinyurl.com/2zxtrq

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

In message "Chilly8"
wrote:

That picture is ILLEGAL porn.

Illegal how, under what jurisdiction?