The Truth Is Out There
February 8th, 2008
The X-Files wasn’t just a cult TV show - nor was it solely the name of a blog entry done by Randy Baseler either. It created a worldwide phenomenon searching for the truth behind so-called Government cover-ups and various other conspiracies.
The show won five Golden Globes and was nominated for no less than 142 other significant television awards.
Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny as FBI agents Dana Scully and Fox Mulder
As time goes on, people tend to forget just how good things used to be and not just what was on TV either.
There are quite a few people out there that have this problem with “memory loss”. Could even be a short term thing…
Particularly those on various other aviation forums and the like that relished laying into Randy Tinseth’s latest blog entry here.
Some have described Tinseth as lacking intellect, or is seen as a laptop wielding salesman. One asinine comment goes on to state that he is like Airbus’ John Leahy. Go figure.
Image courtesy of Boeing - Randys Baseler (left) & Tinseth (right)
Whats worse is that some have previously commented on how much better Randy Baseler was - perhaps some of those suffering short term memory loss would be wise to see the sheer candidness of Baseler?
Lest they think Tinseth is “harsh”…
Like it or not, Baseler was far more brutal in his commentary yet people seem to have conveniently overlooked that.
In no particular order and a few personal favorites of mine:
Click here.
So Airbus has officially launched the A350. Nobody should be at all surprised. Well, maybe there is one surprising aspect to all this. The fact that it took them so long to respond to the 787.
I suppose 23 airlines signing up for 273 Dreamliners finally got their attention.
[...]
The A350 is an endorsement of Boeing’s philosophy of using efficient twin-engines for long-range flight. The problem for Airbus is, by adopting our approach, they’re abandoning their own deep, long-held, but mistaken, view - that four engines were required for long-haul routes. Now, their strategy is in disarray. 4 engines for too long, you might say!
Click here.
So if Airbus is willing to pay customers to buy an airplane with significantly added fuel burn and emissions, just how green are they?
Click here.
Bottom line: with the A380F, you’re flying around over 40% more airplane structural weight for only 5% more revenue payload!
[...]
This has nothing to do with “Boeing PR.” And has everything to do with simple math.
Click here.
It’s interesting to note that two out of the three proposed A350 models are presented as taking on the 777. But the 777 cabin is over 10 inches wider than the latest A350. What happens then to the “extra wide body” claim?
[...]
I suppose the reason they don’t do the more comparable comparison is that the “6% advantage per seat” would probably end up being in favor of the 787-9…
Click here.
Yet the A350 still seems to fall short. One might question whether they can do all those things and also produce an efficient airplane, given that they have not incorporated all the breakthrough technologies of the 787 Dreamliner.
Click here.
And one of the important things to keep in mind as you hear about the A350: Airbus compares each A350XWB model with a Boeing airplane that is significantly smaller, rather than comparing like-sizes. This has the effect of distorting the per-seat efficiency comparisons to their advantage.
It would have been a distinct pleasure to have posted more of Randy Baseler’s views - but you can access his entire archive by clicking here. Alas, he has since retired and with it, the short memories of those who were unable to contest his excellent bloggery.
Was Tinseth’s entry a truth too far? Well, having met Mr. T, I certainly do not think so.
Not in the least - in gaining a better understanding of the end of year numbers by its European rival, all he has done is use what truth there was out there to illustrate his point.
People - the truth is out there…
Sphere: Related Content
Entry Filed under: Aeroplane, Aerospace, Air Transport, Air Travel, Airbus, Airbus A350, Airbus A380, Airlines, Airplane, Airplane Order, Airplanes, Airport, Airports, Aviation, Boeing, Boeing 777, Boeing 787, Randy Baseler, Randy Tinseth, Richard Aboulafia, The X Files, Travel
3 Comments Add your own
1. Jacobin777 | February 8th, 2008 at 8:35 am
..they both have different approaches as to how they want to present themselves, and most can appreciate that….
…..I’ve disagreed with both of them on a few items, but for the most part, I’ve learned quite a bit also…they both share the same qualities of genuinely liking what they do, and it reflects on their blogs….
..as for the people who make asinine comments..its a reflection of their intellectual capabilities…or lack there of….
…finally, I went to college with Gillian Anderson (or same university I should say)..a few of my friends/classmates were her classmate…
2. Chris Wallace | February 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
The reason the “Two Randys” and John get some of us bent out of shape is because we have strong understandings of how the industry works, so their speeches come across as patronizing.
However, they’re not talking to people like us in these blogs and other public statements. They’re talking to people who don’t have our depth or breadth of experience and if only get our aerospace information through a few quick sound-bites on the radio/tv or a paragraph in our local papers.
It should be clear that they don’t speak like this to the airlines.
I am sure John Leahy never called the 787 a “cheap Chinese copy” when countering an RFP to China Southern, China Eastern, or any of the other Chinese airlines that have ordered the 787.
And I am sure Randy Baseler has never told an airline he was pitching the 747-8I that the idea of “four engines for long haul” was an out of date concept.
So I think we need to be a bit more understanding that if they were speak to us, person to person, and knew our background, they would be telling us a different message that we’d likely find more “professional”.
As such, we shouldn’t get too bent out of shape when they…simplify…their message for an audience that doesn’t have our background.
3. sageward2000 | February 9th, 2008 at 5:36 am
“As such, we shouldn’t get too bent out of shape when they…simplify…their message for an audience that doesn’t have our background.:
Yes, Chris. We are all idiots.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed