Hey guys,
As it seems like airlines definitely have their announcements planned quite well, at least for that, to ruin our own publishing schedule! 😀 Although WizzAir has made an announcement, which you should know about. Here are the details!
On the 6th July, 2016. WizzAir has announced, that they are going to open a new route from Budapest, and at this time the destination is the Bulgarian sea side, Varna.
Just as usual, for the first time the route is going to be operated with two flights a week. And from the 3rd August, there is going to be one outbound, and one inbound flight on every Wednesday, and Sunday.
And even though the airline is hoping for the success of the route itself, in the booking system the last available flight is the one on Sunday, the 18th September, 2016. If this is only due to the changes between the summer and winter schedules, or that this route is only a one or so month long experiment, well we don’t have the information about that.
What we know for sure though, is that the flight to Varna will be flown by the airline’s Airbus A320s, and they’ll be flying under W62475/W62476 flight numbers. The outbound flight will depart from Budapest at 11:10, and it will arrive to Varna at 13:45 local time. The inbound flight will depart at 14:15, and will arrive back to Budapest at 14:40 local time.
When it comes to the ticket prices, they are going to be at around 18-23 thousand Hungarian Forints, without selecting any extra services, and travelling with a small size hand luggage only.
Thank you for tuning in to us today as well. We hope that we could have given you a bit of an encouragement to travel. Also guys, if you liked this content make sure to give it a thumbs up down below, and share it with your friends, especially the ones, who are planning their holidays now. If you wouldn’t want to miss out on our future articles, don’t forget to subscribe either here on WordPress or by following me on Facebook.
Until next time, if you have any questions, either about this, or any of our previous articles, please don’t hesitate to contact us, on one of our details below!
Hey guys, what is going on Mark here. Back with the 3rd instalment of this topic. And to be honest I wasn’t expecting that I’d be able to continue this series any further. But my colleagues are asking me questions, which might be a piece of interest for you as well. So I’d like to share a few of these with you.
But first. I’m actually seeing one video shared by most of my friends on social media, which has the cover picture of an animated Antonov An-148, with its right engine on fire. And even if it is animated this is not a pretty picture, I think we could agree on that. Although the interesting part of this video is not the actual catastrophe, but the countermeasures what Vladimir Tatarenko created.
The idea itself shown in the video is great. As most of the passengers / survivors might have minor injuries, but the fatality rate would drop considerably. Although think about another possibility. I think we all remember the movie classic ‘Independence Day’. And because of this I don’t think a spoiler alert is necessary. But I feel that I’m not giving too much away, if I write that one of the most important scenes in the movie, when the last rocket in the whole attack force above Area 51 wouldn’t fire, as the locking clamps are not releasing it, so our hero have to sacrifice himself.
I know it is kind of a strange example, or at least it seems like one, but on this late hour I couldn’t come up with anything else to be honest. And on the other hand it tells almost every problem about this method.
The structural integrity of today’s aircraft is really on and edge, if the manufacturers were to use a bit less aluminium, then the difference between the inside and outside pressure would lead to an explosion like decompression. Of course there are regulations in place, and if the manufacturers wanted to make their aircrafts lighter, there is always an option for choosing carbon-fibre, as that material is much stronger.
But we are talking about a this altogether. About a fuselage, which was planned, and constructed in a way, that the body, ailerons, engines, landing gear assembly, wings, etc. would hold the pieces together and make them stronger.
These parts are fixed to each other with that precision, and that tight, that to break these connections apart. You’d need to apply thousands, if not tens of thousands kg / square cm pressure. (For a more detailed explanation search for Air Crash Investigations, Queens Catastrophe, or have a look at the link below)
And don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticising the actual idea. I’m just saying that even though it is a good idea, there are still a few drawbacks, and possible failures. Such as:
The pieces holding the cabin, to the fuselage would have a much shorter lifetime, than the actual lifetime of the plane. So prices of manufacturing will go up, and with that ticket prices as well.
To sustain the cabin pressure, manufacturers would need to re-design the whole pressurization system, as the cockpit, and the cabin would need to be pressurized from two completely different systems. As these elements are not connected to each other any more.
The idea could only work with planes, which have their wings above the cabin, which is really rare nowadays.
The ejection system would need to have at least three kind of fail safe measures. So in a case of an emergency, that amount of security might actually lead to the destruction of the whole aircraft.
Also it is safe for the passengers, but pilots wouldn’t really be saved, would they?
This list of course is really not exhausted just yet. But I would want to deal with the other parts as well. And I’m still maintaining my opinion, that the idea is not bad, but it needs loads of improvement.
So let’s get on to the questions, what I recently had, and tried to answer. Most of them were about the two most popular aircraft in the world. The Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320 family.
So why do you dislike Airbus?
While I would be able to get many many reasons behind this as list. I would rather just explain. The most important one for me, is that the engineers of Airbus made this aircraft so called ‘pilot proof’. Which means, that these engineers and software developers, made a complex computer to think, and to act against people. Or in English, even in an emergency, the pilot doesn’t have full control over the aircraft. So for example if that particular accident could be avoided with a 45 degree pitch, or roll the software on board still wouldn’t let that happen.
The other reason is the connection between the two pilots, and their control surfaces. Or should I say the lack of connection? Most of the aircrafts of today, have a normal yoke, on either side of the cockpit, and these mechanically and hydraulically connected. While Airbus because of their idea of fly-by-wire, left this component out from their plans. My question is to you guys. If you were to walk in to any electronics store, how much would they charge you for a ‘force feedback’ joystick? £50 on an average? (Maybe even less). And even though that would be cheap, in an aircraft what costs somewhere between €69.1 and €105.7 million, they couldn’t build in two of these, so at least the pilots could have any kind of feedback.
And this leads me to the other problem, what I have with Airbus as well. The joystick. Its not just the fact, that whatever you do it would give full control to you. But it is not precise enough. Just think about it you move a much smaller survice, than a yoke, so it wouldn’t be able to deal as precisely with the manoeuvres, than an other aircraft.
Once again, the list of answers for this question is about infinite. But these are the main reasons why I dislike Airbus. And these are the reasons I’d usually say as an example, as these also are the most understandable ones. And I don’t want to use to much jargon.
Boeing B737-800NG
Airbus A320-200
With that being said, we have come to the second question what I usually get. It is much more connected to the previous articles in this series.
I’m afraid of flying. / I have a fear of heights, and I’ll have to fly / I’ve seen that… What is your advice?
Well as I said previously, from the accidents happened in the past, the aviation industry learned a lot. So their planes are much more stable, and safe, then they were. The computers, and the avionics is undergoing modernization on a day-by-day basis. More and more new ideas, and safety features are born. And sometimes they could be only as small, as a software update in the Tesla roadster. But sometimes we could speak of really huge improvements.
If you have a fear of flying, I couldn’t really help you too much. We all have fears of something, if yours is flying, that is not a rare occasion. I know it is not the best thing, to sit in the cabin, where you can’t see out to the front, and that you really have no control over the course of action. But most of the airlines you’re going to fly with (at least in Europe) would have to face really hard rules and regulations. And they can’t afford to fail on any of these checks, and not to provide a safe service on all of their routes. Pilots are being trained continuously at some of the major airlines, to practice emergency situations. As they became a rare occurrence, and airlines want to prepare crews for everything. I’m not saying of course, that in this century there isn’t going to be any accidents, or catastrophes, but the chances of one are less and less, as we speak.
Why are you against WizzAir?
First of all I’m not against them. I’m following their progress, and I could be happy sometimes, when I hear that a company with a more than 51% Hungarian ownership is successful, and when they make improvements. The only ever so slight problem is, that I had bad experience with them in the past, and that for me, their schedule, and list of destinations is just not ideal. (Not to mention, that they only have Airbus made aircrafts in their fleet)
I’ve seen a video lately…
As these videos have many variations, and many various questions connected to them. I would try to create only a summary, instead of listing every aspect. So for these types of questions I’m always trying to give the most diplomatic, and appropriate answer. As people’s fantasies could really get going, when they watch a video like this, and then they share it with me. Most of these videos, are either fake, or if they happened, than the person who’s telling me is some sort of a ‘bidder’. And they would only show / tell about videos, when my favoured manufacturers plane is plummeting to the ground, and with that one footage they try to prove that I’m not right, when I’m saying. ‘For me it is definitely Boeing.’
So I just wish to say, if you have a factual video, and want my opinion about that, by all means, send it, or show it to me. I’d be more than happy to comment on it.
Though let’s continue on, shall we?
My favourite (okay that might be exaggerated). I’d want to rent out a small plane, how far would I get? And how much would that cost?
My answer to that is. It depends on your wallet. While renting out a small Cessna 172 wouldn’t be such a horror for your bank account, as a small jet, capable of flying just as many people as the Cessna. But to be honest I don’t think, that you’d be able to spend more then 5-6 hours in the air. And these numbers could be shortened really easily by a 50-70 mile and hour headwind, to only 1-2 maybe 2-3 hours.
And right now we come to the point of renting out the plane, and using fuel. The actual wage of the pilot hasn’t even been taken into account, not to mention the various airport fees, (in the UK the Air Passenger Duty), and much more. And when I start to say these, most of them would drop the idea.
And to be honest. Right now I’m finished with this post as well. I hope you guys enjoyed it. If yes make sure to subscribe for more content. The previous two articles of this series are available on the following links.
M & D's Blog (EN) 