Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

What if it was a United or Usair Airbus today?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Singlecoil

I don't reMember
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Posts
1,273
Jetblue has a major mechanical failure. Lives are at risk. The airplane lands safely and everyone in the media and on this board says, "Way to GJblue!". I'm just curious, if it had been an aircraft owned by one of the bankrupt carriers, do you think everyone would be tooting the horn of that airline? Wouldn't the questions naturally be, "Jim, do you think the airline is cutting back on maintenance and that could be a factor here?"
I'm sure the papers tomorrow will be positive toward Jetblue as well.

Let me clearly state that neither I, or anyone else could have landed that airplane better than they did earlier today. I'm just trying to foster a discussion of the media/public/professional perception of that airline versus others.

P.S. the GJblue above is a result of the flightinfo censors. Apparently the word go and the word jet cannot appear next to eachother on this board for somewhat obvious reasons. I tried to say "Way to Go!" ....JetBlue".
 
Last edited:
I can't speculate on what those idiots would say. However I can speculate on what I would have done different and that would have been to touch down on the numbers instead of 4000 down the runway. But he did a hell of a job.
 
been to touch down on the numbers instead of 4000 down the runway

Me, too. And I would have thrown an eighty yard pass for the win in the SuperBowl, to boot...

Do I sound arrogant?
 
nosehair: I think it is a case of sarcasm not coming through in text. If not, I don't get it either.

And maybe they wanted to float a little to aid in a softer touchdown. It would definately give them more time for fine-tuning the flare. 12,000 feet is a lot of feet.
 
Gutenberg said:
nosehair: I think it is a case of sarcasm not coming through in text. If not, I don't get it either.

And maybe they wanted to float a little to aid in a softer touchdown. It would definately give them more time for fine-tuning the flare. 12,000 feet is a lot of feet.
what would fine tuning the flare have anthing to do with keeping the nose wheel off the runway? They could have thumped it in and still finesed the nose gear on.
 
That did sound arrogant. Sorry! But when I saw him pass the touchdown zone on the other side, I felt me heart skip a beat or four, and the first thing that popped in my head was his float. Like I said before, he did a hell of a job. Centerline and all.

I wonder if he used reverse thrust or just spoilers and differential braking.
 
what if it were NWA? instead of all the newscasters talking about how the a320 has a good safety record, they'd be talking about the strike
 
nosehair said:
Not obvious to me...I don't get it.???

The name of that alterego airline in the midwest is G.O.J.E.T. I guess there has been so much flaming over that word that they don't allow it. Must be the lawyers.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top