I don't think it's greedy to expect to receive the service you've paid for.

(Written on 12/30/2022)(Permalink)

Not that it would matter, but I'd counter by pointing out that all the other airlines experienced the same weather, and none experienced the failure that Southwest just did.

(Written on 12/30/2022)(Permalink)

Only the pilots are unionized, so they're the only ones that matter. ;)

(Written on 12/30/2022)(Permalink)

DOT has declared they're investigating the incident, and as transportation secretary, he's head of DOT, correct?

(Written on 12/30/2022)(Permalink)

I'll give them a pass on 12,000 being pretty close to 12,600, but the next sentence was definitely a head-scratcher - I assume they meant to say "1 w*h is the ability to power 1 Watt for 1 hour" and just mistyped 1 kg of fuel instead of 1 w*h. I have no idea where the author then calculated 13.5 hours and 6200 miles of range without knowing how much power it takes the 747 to sustain the assumed cruising speed and altitude, but those numbers do more or less match Boeing's claimed specs. So, what ultimately matters (and how the author should have presented it) is how much usable energy is in 1 kg of LiIon batteries vs jet fuel. Using the author's assumptions, we get 4000 w*h (12,000 w*h/kg potential times ~1/3 efficiency) for jet fuel and 125 w*h/kg (250 w*h/kg potential times 1/2 efficiency) for LiIon batteries, or about 3% as much. Thus, the hypothetical electric airplane's range is 3% that of the 747, or... about 24 minutes and 186 miles (300 km), which is about what the other said.

(Written on 12/26/2022)(Permalink)

Sure, it's possible a battery that packs the energy density of today's fossil fuels and can safely "refuel" (recharge) just as quickly will be invented tomorrow. But to bet on a breakthrough that's far from guaranteed without any sort of contingency plan is unwise. It's good to push the envelope, but it's also good to be realistic and not bet on snake oil.

(Written on 12/26/2022)(Permalink)

Sorry, started revising my first sentence and got sidetracked mid-way through - Before someone pounces on that and ignores the rest, that should have been "Woke is what its adherents originally called themselves".

(Written on 12/26/2022)(Permalink)

"Woke" is the its adherents originally called themselves that (starting nearly a century ago, in fact) - a play on "awakened" as a euphemism for enlightened (as in, alert and paying attention). More recently, those same people pushed further and further into the realm of every racial/ethnic/gender-identity minority being oppressed (and everyone not part of said minorities being oppressors) that the term became a punchline in pop culture, and subsequently a stand-in for other leftist views as well (e.g., electric vehicles as savior of the environment). Ergo, it seems the usage here was appropriate. The idea that criticizing EVs is akin to opposing progress and being a Luddite is part of the problem, since it just shuts down legitimate discourse. There's no denying electric cars are significantly heavier than their ICE counterparts because of their batteries. In automotive, this isn't a dealbreaker, but in the weight-sensitive realm of aviation, it is. Anyone who looks at these sorts o

(Written on 12/26/2022)(Permalink)

It's good to push the envelope of what's viable, but when a proposal violates the laws of physics, it would be wise to recognize that and not waste time on it.

(Written on 12/26/2022)(Permalink)

I don't get it... the airplane was built and sent for interior modification in 2012, and its buyer "died unexpectedly in October 2021, around nine months before the scheduled delivery"? Where was it in the interim, and why didn't it have a buyer already when it was built? Did the original deal fall through, or something?

(Written on 12/26/2022)(Permalink)