FWIW the outsourcing of all the 787 work it is basically built in Asia/Europe and assembled in the US. Not much better than what Airbus is going to be doing with the 320s in MOB.texasreb said:Yes, i am from America and am proud of it.
texasreb said:Let's see an Airbus airframe hit the San Francisco sea wall and almost every one survives. Not going to happen in an Airbus fuselage with popsicle stringers.
nycbusdriver said:At any rate, we can get into a limitless pissing contest over which airplanes survived what. (I think an A320 did very well in the Hudson River.)
The Airbus aircraft meet every engineering parameter required by the certification process. You will never know if that had been an A330 in SFO whether there would have been the same result. Unless you have at least a Master Degree in Aerospace Engineering (from other than DeVry Tech), your opinion on the integrity of airliners is just that. Opinion.
Landing in a river is a little different than crashing into a concrete seawall.dariencc said:AC's 320 held together pretty well considering. Fuel tanks not breached and no fire. Everyone got out.
Looks like nycbusdriver knew what he was talking about. Just sayin'.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1910954/investigators-get-to-work-at-air-canada-plane-crash-site/
texasreb said:Landing in a river is a little different than crashing into a concrete seawall.
dariencc said:
AC is Air Canada. They landed 1000 feet short of the runway. Took out the localizer antenna and approach lights and the airplane did quite well under the circumstances.
FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
I wonder why a certain poster hasn't commented yet as to whether the AC crew 'configured' the aircraft correctly for landing ... ... ...
![]()