Plus Tokyo's only 149 miles from Fukushima.
Nothing to worry about with that....

 

Erm you do know that Tokyo has recorded levels of Radiation lower than that of New York, Paris, Berlin, London, Singapore, Beijing and Seoul to name a few?....

 

That said, I'd watch where your food and water are coming from - although if you're only in Tokyo for 2 weeks I find it highly unlikely you'd take in enough radiation through low level radioactive food to cause any serious long term impacts.

Tokyo have this one in the bag;

After the problems that have plagued the Rio and Sochi games, the Olympic Committee is wanting a safe and reliable city to host the games.

 

Turkey have dashed any hopes after the recent treatment of protesters, also Turkey has political issues with some of its neighbors and there just happens to be the oh so small conflict in Syria which no one really knows how it will pan out.

 

Madrid is going for the cheap and cheerful approach to Olympic hosting, sounds great at first until you realise Olympic budgets nearly always balloon from the projections... Does Spain have the financial will to continue investing huge amounts in infrastructure and construction even after the budget is exceeded or will they end up doing a half-assed job?

 

I'd be wrong to say Japan didn't have political issues and problems of its own, radioactive water leaks being one of them, but it is the safest Olympic choice.

I know to beggin with some of you were saying it was photoshopped as a joke. But just to avoid any confusion arising from Ross's 2 week old web link. Here's a more recent article from the same source.
http://www.flightglo...acelles-385222/

I can remember having many a discussion in the past on this forum about whether it was possible to paint the 787's engine nacelles any other colour than the standard white/grey.

It would appear it is possible, just fuel-burn takes a hit... Obviously BA thought it was worth it 

http://www.airlinere...g-is-different/

increasing capacity although reducing frequency

 

Since when has frequency been important on any ultra long-haul route? Frequency is only important to business and connecting passengers, but the first thing you do when you get off the plane after an 11 hour flight is go straight to your hotel to let your body clock recover. If you have a meeting in LA, you'll probably arrive 1-2 days in advance just so you're well rested; by which time whether you arrived in the afternoon or evening is irrelevant. And with regard to connecting passengers, I doubt LAX is a hub for connections from Europe - they all transit on the East Coast. For instance my mum's been to America twice this year, once to Las Vegas (via Charlotte) and once to San Diego (via Newark).

 

So, bearing that in mind. It makes sense to replace 3 747s with 2 A380s. You keep the same number of seats, the passengers don't mind the loss in frequency but you save a hell of a lot of fuel. And as a cheeky bonus you've also freed up a slot at LHR to be used for another route 

as US Airways is buying American

 

As I said previously, US Airways are not buying out American. The two companies are simply merging, with 72% of the new company's shares going to AA creditors (in other words, AA is worth 72% of the combined airline). There is no way US Air could afford to buy AA outright.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-21454925

The trouble is the goons who update the social media sites for a lot of large corporations have very little idea of what's going on behind the scenes at the company and only know things on a need-to-know basis.

 

It may be the underpaid bachelor that updated the twitter and facebook was just regurgitating the information available to him (that information being no news on any new livery).

 

Although SB, I agree, it's better to say nothing than tell a lie to your customer base. It looks very unprofessional, just like when Qatar denied joining OW right up until the day they did...

Unfortunately I don't really see how it is moving along Ross, it's almost as if Iberia's moved backwards on this one. If anything it's worse than the current livery, and let's be honest, that takes some skill to do.

 

I'm guessing that livery will be going soon, Fox?

I have in the past laughed at some of the ridiculous creations some members on this site have created; but the new Iberia livery makes them all look like Monet on fuselage.
It all started with a rumour last month from airline insiders and this piece of crap; http://www.skyliner-...?LC=&picid=8198

I thought nothing of it, just some armchair enthusiast's crude photoshop job. But, this week, this photo was snapped of Iberia's latest A330... Zoom in a little closer on that engine cowling!
http://www.planespot....show?id=352689

Well, it made me laugh. Obviously the design budget matches their finances

You know, a merger between AA and US would be madness, right? The only people that are truly behind the merger are the unions, and seeing as the unions are being as uncooperative as possible to force the merger to go through puts me more firmly on Mr. Horton's side. Make AA succeed, sir. Keep US out of it.

 

I agree. I don't think a merger is in the long term interests of American. American's up to their necks with the unions as it stands - they'll be positively drowning if they merged with US (an airline who even to this day have issues with their America West crew contracts)!

 

If you're large enough and powerful enough (which I believe the new American will be), there are a lot of benefits from being a stand-alone airline.

but it cost more to a330 and 767 as well as 777

 

I don't think 3 types is necessarily too many long hauls, especially when you're the size US+AA would be. Many, smaller, airlines around the world have many types. BA, for example, will soon be operating the 747, 767, 777, 787 and A380 on long haul routes. What AA needs to do (and is committed to doing) is streamlining their short haul fleet - as that's where the largest losses are made.

 

The A350 will be replacing US's A330s and the 787 will be replacing AA's 767s soon anyway - again increasing efficiency. 64 NG wide-bodies are on order with the two airlines, if all were placed with a single manufacturer you're just extending your EIS completion. An assignment AA can ill afford.

There is room for another UK airline - but it can't just be the 'same-old-same-old' if it ever wants to break even.

 

U2 has been the most successful British airline of the last decade, so following their lead is probably the best course of action. Interestingly we don't have long-haul LCC travel here in the UK, I expect FR and U2 are looking anxiously at Norweigan to see how they get on with their £150 OSL-JFK return fares (it will quite easily make them either the richest or poorest airline in Europe depending on the quality of their accounting).

 

British Airways has seen record profits over the past couple of years, thanks to the growth in premium long-haul travel, so it will be interesting to see whether that could be tapped into by a new carrier. SilverJet never managed it, so all eyes now turn to Skymark when they launch NRT-LHR in 2014.

Scratch the 787 off of your aircraft lists (put a fork in 'er) because it is done (let the cancellations begin)

 

No-one will cancel unless something major crops up between now and the end of the FAA's review (e.g. they decide an overhaul of the design of the electronic systems is required, or similar. Highly unlikely).

 

The 787 is a fantastic aircraft and I'm sure the airlines know and appreciate its economics, to cancel orders over what I understand to be rectifiable issues would be stupid - especially seeing as so many airlines have pinned their future success to this one aircraft (JAL and ANA spring immediately to mind).

 

What this will do, however, is push the break-even marker on the project to above the recently projected 1,500 frames - although I'm sure that's achievable over the next 20+ years it's likely to be in production.

 

People were saying the same thing about the A380 when one of its engines exploded, instead of a surge in cancellations - they're now looking at a stream of huge orders about to roll in (Turkish, Emirates, 'unidentified' South American and South East Asian carriers. My money's on LATAM and Garuda Indonesia personally, I'm sure Garuda could come to an arrangement to buy A380s in return for lucrative EU flying rights - alas, I digress).

US Airways aren't buying anyone out, I'd like to find some source that states the contrary. What you're thinking of is a merger, something completely different.

 

And besides, if a merger between the two did go ahead, Doug Parker has said they will keep the American name and brand which he believes is the stronger of the two.

I've had to take leave of my hiatus to comment on this - I personally find this a far more interesting story than some fiery plastic pig.

 

I, for one, love the whole livery and slogan; "We're proud to bare the name American". Those tails, although look slightly out of place on their own, when placed side-by-side at a gate (where most passengers actually see them) look absolutely stunning. I was blown away by the AA CGI mock-up.

 

It'll be sad to see the old polished aluminium go - I always did love it, but I feel justice has been done to the new composite airframes.

 

I can't wait to fly on the new AA 77W this summer!

 

In reply to the Flying Dutchman, this is all part of their restructuring - the regulators wouldn't let AA spend any money they thought was unjustified.