Huh?! Did I just see Peter Kämpf in The Hangar?! [shakes head, rubs eyes]

@TomMcW that's what a mod ping will do

If Lockheed didn't have an exclusivity deal on Rolls Royce for their L-1011 Tristars (and thus offered PW and GE engines), AND came out with a wide-body twin, both of which could effectively compete with a Boeing or Airbus plane today, might we see a "L-1011 TriStar NextGen" if the three engines can match the performance and cost characteristics of a comparable plane from B or A?

And, if McDonnell-Douglas also came out with a wide-body twinjet to supplement their MD-11, might we see an MD-11 Max / Neo / Next Generation?

@ElEctric the issue is when the designs were finalized before being offered and going to production, that was in the late 60's

the most powerful engines back then were the earlier versions of the CF6 and the other comparable engines, so they had to go for 3 engines for the airframe size they chose

the L-1011 and DC-10

going from DC-10 to a twin MD-11 would have been very costly

not knowing about ETOPS, it was a gamble, even Airbus in the late 80's went for A330/A340 to keep its chances equal

simply removing the tail assembly isn't easy, as the empennage design is the costliest part of a jetliner's design, see here: aviation.stackexchange.com/a/46903/14897

so having to redo that part is a scary proposition

@ElEctric MDC's demise is also in part due to the MD-90, with a wing carried over from the MD-80, it simply couldn't compete with the 737 and the A320, they couldn't attack both the narrow and widebody markets, maybe if Airbus hadn't shown up, Boeing wouldn't have made the 737NG, and MDC would still be selling MD-90s

like I commented, there would be 2 players still

almost always it boils down to two

@abelenky see here: law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.533 since it stresses twice on "during flight time", how about you expand the question a bit to encompass "on ground"?

@ymb1 sorry for rejecting that flag, did not see the latest edit.

Every time I hear the announcements, it sounds like the FAs are reading boilerplate text that sounds like it came from 14CFR. And the phrasing sounds a lot like 14CFR 121.571(a)(1)(i - iii). But its not quite the same.

They always present it as "passengers are required to comply with all instructions", and the CFRs actually say "all instructions related to seatbelts and smoking".

(now, honestly.... once they have the power to force someone to sit down and buckle their seatbelt... how much trouble can they really get into while seated and buckled?)

@Federico no problem :)

@abelenky one time i was seated by the emergency exit on a 777, and I had a non-sentient tall object that could have been destroyed if put in the overhead bin, the FA insisted I put it up there, but I calmly requested an alternative, there wasn't a place in the coat cabinet, finally he offered to place it behind the last row where it would be out of the way for anyone, but he won't be responsible if it got damaged--which was a good compromise

he also said when we arrive, i'd grab it once everyone deplaned

didn't mind the delay, i hate leaving the plane early, not keen on queueing

but maybe that was a special case since we had time to discuss it, weather radar was being replaced, so there was a 90 min wait

I'm sure being polite will always get further than arguing rules.

But I still want to know if theres a rule I'm missing.... or if the announcements are misleading (perhaps deliberately so?)

some people are one-way talkers, e.g. some customer service agents and by extension economy-class FA's--maybe that FA didn't even compute the "dog" part

tragic really

Although not widely reported in the media, I've read in some more indepth articles that the person with the dog had trouble with English, and couldn't clearly communicate that they didn't want to put their bag in the bin.

The flight attendant thought they were just telling a passenger to put a regular bag in, and didn't know there was a dog in it.

They're making a change where pet-carriers will be tagged with an easily visible tag.