Comments on: Unintended Humor

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:43:40 +0000

Yes, the 737 is great for moving passengers in seats, but I want them palletized and delivered by drogue chute exstraction which requires a rear ramp, like the C-130, C-5, C-17. You don’t incur landing fees if you don’t actually land.

We used our chutes as the backrest and the survival gear as the seat in our aircraft if you had a position, or you had to use the sling seats [like beach chairs] along the side.

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:16:12 +0000

Here's a nice representational 'toon! ;) :D Be Quiet, Be Very Quiet. Tom has a few others there also! ;)

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 09:30:29 +0000

LOL Herc’s are almost infinitely configurable internally. Ask any vet who’s had to fly in one! You’d be amazed how many ppl can be crammed into one, with luggage (required to sit on). We had a bench w/ back webbing @ least, designed for paratroopers. Chute in a bum pack to sit on, backpack for back rest & insulation against the freezing air-frame! Insulated helmet w/ com’s muffled the noise well, but you could feel the drone in your bones!

My question is how much they’ll charge for the required ear plugs & thermal undies? (Or will they allow BYO?) LOL

By: Badtux

Badtux — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:16:40 +0000

C-17’s are too expensive to operate to make a profit compared to using 737’s. 737’s are *cheap* to operate, as the fact that they carry more people faster than a much smaller C-130 for the same cost per hour should make clear. Southwest Airlines really pushed Boeing *hard* on the cost per hour on the 737, pushing for better fuel economy, ease of maintenance, and redesigning major subsystems to need less maintenance. In the process they turned the 737 from a failure as a passenger jet, to the most widely sold passenger jet on the planet.

C-17’s, on the other hand, were bought on cost-plus contracts and the prime contractors have no motivation to reduce the amount of maintenance that it requires. As a result it costs a staggering $24,000 per hour to fly the thing — not very good by commercial standards, where a 767 freighter costs around $9,000 per hour to fly to haul 127,000 pounds of freight (versus 160,000 pounds of freight for the C-17). The 767 freighter has a faster cruising speed than the C-17 too…

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:39:50 +0000

They can stick the industry protection in an agriculture bill or a continuing resolution. They can go with the C-17 and use larger pallets – more speed, range, & capacity.

By: Badtux

Badtux — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 05:28:30 +0000

No no no, Brian. They’ll just have their Republican stooges in Congress write a law making it illegal to sue an airline. Presto, problem solved!

But a Herc isn’t the right airplane for this. It’s sort of expensive to fly, at $7100 per hour it’s about the same cost per hour as the 737-700 but the 737-700 carries more people faster so it’s less hours per passenger. Clearly the answer is a new model of the 737-700 with a cargo door suited for pallet module ejection :).

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:58:17 +0000

If they use Hercs they could install the passenger area on a pallet that could be pulled off with a drogue chute, like the MOAB or armor delivered in a war zone to avoid landing fees. Actually preloading the passengers in a pallet module would really speed things up and make deliveries to smaller airports possible.

The big cost will be for the lawyers who write the liability waiver. 😈

By: Kryten42

Kryten42 — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:44:25 +0000

Obviously, they plan to use refurbished Herc’s. Standing room near a hull area with no bullet holes is extra. *shrug*

By: Badtux

Badtux — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:54:08 +0000

Seats are a luxury frill. The passengers will be crammed into the jet standing upright, hanging onto straps like a subway rider. This will pass FAA muster because the people will be crammed into the airplane so tightly that they will cushion themselves upon each other in the event of a crash.