Jump to content

Ghost of LL

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    6628
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Ghost of LL

  1. This seems . . . not ideal. eta: Oh, fun--it looks like "Cuban Missile Crisis II: Nukes in Space" is coming. I kinda think I'm not going to like this sequel.
  2. How long until the Ukrainians start launching these drones up north and taking out the Baltic Fleet?
  3. Ok. But they just changed the admission rules on the Centurion Lounge. I can't remember what the deal is exactly, but they've imposed some spending requirements to get the access you used to have just by being a member. But if you meet those spending requirements, then you also have access to the Delta SkyClub. So that's nice.
  4. The polls are broken because there's a bunch of people who only fucking come out when Donald Trump is on the ballot. They view politics as entertainment. And they're not going to go to the show if Bette Midler isn't going to be on stage that night. They're showing up for the star, not the fucking understudy. Polls of "likely voters" can't account for that. So you're saying you voted in 2016 and 2020? Well, you're probably a likely voter for purposes of the likely-voter screen. But--and stay with me here--that person really isn't a likely voter in a special election in the middle of February if he didn't vote in 2022 or 2018 or any fucking presidential election before 2016. But is he a likely voter in November with Trump on the ballot? My guess is "yes." So, Donald, you fucking moron, here's the real scoop: Souzzi won by the margin he did entirely BECAUSE OF YOU! Pilip went out and toed the GQP line in favor of killing the (formerly bipartisan) border deal. And Souzzi fucking hung her with that. He argued that immigration is a clusterfuck and the border is in crisis, and it is Republicans like Pilip who refuse to do anything about it. They're imperiling national security for perceived political gain. "Blame me," said Trump, and the voters fucking did. I don't think Souzzi could turn immigration into a positive for Democrats. But he sure showed the gameplan for how to neuter the issue. And the gameplan exists entirely because of Trump. He's the one who took his own best issue off the field. It's like having Reggie Bush on the fucking sideline for 4th and 2. Fucking unbelievable (thanks, Sark).
  5. I suspect they don't have a real good whip count because . . . well, they just really suck at it. But even if they were good at it, this would be a challenging situation given the flight schedules and the weather.
  6. On track to be the greatest.
  7. Ghost of LL

    Burgers

    I can now confirm that the burger at Bill's Oyster (3rd & Colorado) is very, very good.
  8. My local grocery store is the Westlake HEB. So there's no fucking way I'm getting my groceries curbside--I'd miss all the hot Westlake mom ass parading around inside.
  9. That's not true at all. It's definitely the case in the Senate. And it's also the case in the House. Wyoming has one member of the House for its 580,000 people. A congressional district in Texas has, on average, 790,000 people. The fact that individual small-state voters' voters count for more across the entire federal government has been a feature of the Constitution since the beginning.
  10. Honestly, probably Gavin Newsom. Maybe Andy Beshear. I would like to say Gretchen Whitmer. She's nice. I really like her. But then I remember the inherent misogyny of the American electorate, and I think "nah."
  11. Ok--I guess I'll bite. Fuck . . . I know I'm going to regret this. Dammit. Who is Toria Nuland?
  12. So infer that this means that the allegations have at least some truth to them, right?
  13. Following a military strategy to the exclusion of political considerations doesn't work out, either. See, e.g., Germany 1918.
  14. I promise to do better--i.e., more muledick--in the future.
  15. Minnesota is pretty safe so long as the Cities continue growing and the rest of the state continues shrinking.
  16. You know--at the risk of going full CRT, this is the correct answer.
  17. Ok--we need to flesh this bit of language out right now. And I love you, @horn4life, but you and everyone else who espouses the "we're a republic, not a democracy" line of shit needs to go and slap the elementary-school teacher who taught them that. Because "democracy" and "republic" literally mean the same thing; the only difference is whether you prefer Ancient Greek or Latin to name your form of government. "Democracy" comes from the ancient Greek: "Demos"=people and "kratos"=rule. So literally "rule by the people." "Republic" comes from Latin: "Res"=the thing and "publica"=the people. So literally "the affair of the people." The dichotomy that people think they're ascribing between "democracy" and "republicanism" is actually between "direct democracy" and "representative democracy." In a direct democracy (e.g., ancient Athens), all of the voters get together in the town square and vote on individual pieces of legislation. In a representative democracy (e.g., the UK), the people vote for representatives, who then vote on legislation. The Roman Republic had aspects of both representative and direct democracy. The Senate was a representative body. And constitutionally, matters of treasury and foreign affairs were handled exclusively by the Senate (until the Gracchi upset that constitutional order, but that's a discussion for another thread). But then there was the Assembly (which were actually three different Assemblies, but that's not important right now), which were convened in the Forum and in which every citizen voted on individual propositions. So even the Roman Republic--from which the term "republic" derives--was not a purely representative democracy. So please, please, please, for the love of God, Zeus, Jupiter, and for good measure Odin and Horus, please stop drawing a false distinction between a "democracy" and a "republic." We live in both a democracy and a Republic. For now.
  18. No, because AA was never a huge 737 customer. AA was primarily an MD-80 Family operator. Only when the MD-80s came to be retired did AA start to buy the 737 in large numbers. But even then, AA was never exclusive to Boeing in the way Southwest was. Owing largely to its various mergers, AA has operated the A320 for as long as it has operated the 737. And that's important for Boeing when it has to go to the banks to get financing for the development of a new aircraft model. Whether AA is going to buy the new model (rather than switch to Airbus) is pretty speculative. But Southwest--that's a different story. Southwest is going to give you the firmest of firm orders pretty damned quickly so long as the new model shares the 737 certification. But if it's not a 737? If that new model is a 7X7? That Southwest business looks a lot more speculative. Southwest may place orders for a 7X7, but we all know that orders can get canceled. And that makes the debt Boeing has to take on to develop the 7X7 a lot more expensive. And that makes the 7X7 less economically viable and a lot less economically attractive than just figuring out how to put the CFM LEAP engine on that low-ass 737 wing.
  19. I honestly can't pin that blame on Boeing. That is what its customers demanded. And by "customers," I really mean "Southwest Airlines." Southwest is the largest 737 customer, and it's not even particularly close. Southwest has ordered nearly 900 of the 737-Max; the next largest airline order is United for 666 (not making that up). Southwest alone accounts for about 15% of the 737's order book. So here's the thing: Boeing does what Southwest wants. And Southwest wants the 737. There are some significant cost benefits associated with flying one aircraft type. We can argue whether those benefits outweigh the costs for an airline of Southwest's current size and system complexity; I would argue that its one-type fixation has outlived its usefulness. But regardless, flying both the 737 and some other aircraft type (whether it be the A320 or a new 7X7) would come with some significant costs. There's the obvious cost in spare parts and maintenance, but the real cost is in labor. Union contracts would have to be completely overhauled. New mechanics would have to be hired (or mechanics qualified on both airframes would have to be paid more). And it would impair flight-crew flexibility for dispatch purposes. Oh, and here's the real fun thing--Southwest's flight-dispatch software isn't set up to allow for that. That's not to say that it couldn't be changed. It is to say that such a change would add cost. So Southwest wants the 737. And so Boeing is very keen to keep the 737 certified. But that's a real challenge. Because engine design has evolved a bit over the past 60 years. The original 737 was powered by the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine. It's a low-bypass, two-spool design on a four-stage turbine, all of which leads to a very long, slim engine design. So the great thing about this design is that it allows for a very short landing gear. And that's nice, because it's super simple. The main landing gear retracts right up into the fuselage without any extension or rotation. In 1983, Boeing developed the 737-300 series, which was powered by the CFM-56 engine. This was a much higher-bypass design than the JT8D, leading to a fatter, but shorter engine. Boeing was able to deal with this by mounting it slightly forward of the wing. And that allowed Boeing to retain the main landing gear. But to come up with the next generation--the MAX--Boeing was going to need to plan for a newer, larger engine. It is powered by the CFM LEAP, which is significantly more fuel-efficient. The trouble with it is, though, that it is wider than the CFM-56. So Boeing here had a problem. The CFM LEAP is too big to fit under the 737 wing with the landing gear. And you can't just slap on a new main landing gear, because that completely fucks up the design of the fuselage and the wing spar. It could come up with a brand new aircraft, which is what it did with the 787. There's no way to keep the 737 certification with a complete redesign of the mid-fuselage and wing spar. And that's going to piss off Southwest. But more importantly, it's going to create an opening for Airbus. "Hey, Southwest--since you're going to have to have two different aircraft types anyway, why not buy the A320?". So Boeing needed to do whatever it could to keep the 737 family going. To do that. it moved the engine even further forward of the wing to allow part of the engine to actually be above the leading edge of the wing. Compare the picture of the 737-800 above with the MAX: Now this is really a cool design. It wildly shifts the center of gravity forward, which is just fine because of the modern avionics (assuming you get the computer programming right). I mean, look--there are some things I like a lot more about the A320 family, particularly from the passenger perspective. But the 737 is still a pretty good design. And when considering what the engineers have had to do to satisfy the business considerations, it's pretty damned impressive. But bottom line here--let's not put those business considerations on McDonnell Douglas or the accountants. It doesn't take an MBA to tell you that you need to do what you can to keep your largest customer tied to you, particularly when that customer is 15% of your order book. This is entirely about Southwest, the limitations inherent in its model, and its refusal to invest on the front-end to get a better plane on the back end. This isn't a fuck-up conceived in Chicago or even Seattle; it started on Love Field Drive.
  20. Yeah, but with the filibuster, he is controlling what passes.
  21. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but I think the true record-holder for the largest gap between office held and ability to hold such office is Mike Johnson. That guy is (maybe) qualified to be a clueless backbencher who does exactly what the party whip tells him to do. He has absolutely no business being within a hundred miles of the speakership--a fact he confirms every day.
×
×
  • Create New...