Comments by "John P" (@johnp139) on "Simple Flying" channel.

  1. No, it’s very similar to 777 and 787, with the addition of one display.
    2
  2. Not enough power
    2
  3. FAT person in back!
    2
  4. Only it was not a proposed option, probably because it would not have met the requirements.
    2
  5. It’s about generating enough electrical power.
    2
  6. Not enough power.
    2
  7.  @richarddastardly6845  not enough ELECTRICAL POWER!!!
    2
  8. No proposal was submitted for such a system, probably because it would not have met the requirements.
    2
  9. Thank you for doing your job. Too bad United can’t do that.
    2
  10. Red eye flights would most likely be from Hawaii.
    2
  11. Mostly pluses
    2
  12. 767’s are still being produced.
    2
  13. @ Irrelevant. It has to be TSOed.
    2
  14. Moving it so that two can be installed.
    2
  15. Only Airbus didn’t bid on the RFP.
    2
  16. Who exactly thinks that Boeing is right to complain?
    2
  17. KC-10’s are going away very soon.
    2
  18. Airbus never submitted a proposal. All submitted proposals need to be considered, with the first consideration being that all of the requirements were met.
    2
  19. The tail didn’t “tip backwards”, it tipped downwards!
    2
  20. None of those options were submitted as proposals and if they were, they would not have met the requirements.
    2
  21. Electrical power is more important.
    2
  22. It’s not dumb if you know the requirements.
    2
  23. It works on that aircraft.
    2
  24.  @jerryyang8046  they haven’t been painted yet and the cost of paint is like 0.0001% of the total acquisition cost.
    2
  25. Only Airbus didn’t submit a proposal!
    2
  26. Can’t generate enough electrical power.
    2
  27. It neither met the requirements nor was that a submitted proposal.
    2
  28. They didn’t even bid on the project.
    2
  29. It’s FIRST designed as a tanker, THEN as a cargo aircraft, THEN as Aeromedical Evacuation, and LASTLY as a troop transport aircraft!
    2
  30.  @benny9371  WRONG!!!! It is designed as a CARGO AIRCRAFT!!!!!!
    2
  31. Only it wouldn’t provide sufficient electrical power.
    2
  32. Well if you can tell me how they can produce 1.21 gigawats of power with just two engines, I’m sure a lot of people would be willing to hire you.
    2
  33. The actual AIRCRAFT has been wonderful, the SUBSYSTEMS not so much.
    2
  34. They’ll make up for it in the 30+ years of sustainment costs.
    2
  35. Trump negotiated to buy OLD aircraft.
    2
  36. The RFP didn’t ask for previously built aircraft.
    2
  37. Not to mention the money that Boeing is going to make by maintaining these aircraft!
    2
  38. Yes, it is.
    2
  39. What? You have NO SAY IN ANY OF THIS!!!!
    2
  40. Too bad that Airbus didn’t submit a proposal then.
    2
  41.  @andrewday3206  No ground weapons are looking in the visible color spectrum.
    2
  42. It was actually a new design based on the 200/300/400 series of 767’s.
    2
  43.  @craigbeatty8565  Exactly. What’s your point? I don’t remember seeing you at the design reviews!
    2
  44.  @KarmaFlight They don’t have to be new.
    2
  45. Not for connecting flights
    1
  46. The 787 didn’t meet the requirements.
    1
  47. That’s too long of a flight to be on that tiny of an aircraft.
    1
  48.    only it came from Europe.
    1
  49. Everything
    1
  50. EXACTLY!!!!
    1