"Hello! My name is Japanese F***ing B***h," the transvestite screamed down the microphone at Chinese restaurant come raucous karaoke bar, Lucky Cheng's, in New York. At this point I knew that my choice of seating, behind a long table, against the wall, was a wise choice to avoid any "audience participation" the 6ft wig-wearing drag queens aiding Japanese F***ing B***h (JFB) dreamt up for this Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Galactic press trip dinner.
And audience "participation" there was with Virgin Atlantic's corporate comms chief being stripped half naked, simulated sex acts and the airline's chief pilot having to give a lap dance and my RBI (our publishing company) colleague from Travel Weekly having his head trapped between JFB's thighs while she, he, gyrated above him. Twelve hours earlier, on Wednesday morning, I had woken up in my room, for want of a better word, in the "trendy" Hudson Hotel on 58th street.
September 2006 Archives
Sea food is well and truly off the menu at EADS this week, following the embarrassing loss of its Barracuda unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) demonstrator to an accident. The 3t air vehicle - named after a long, slender fish - returned to the sea in a so-far unexplained ditching near the end of a weekend test flight from San Javier air base in southern Spain.
Although it can console itself with meat - and weissbier - galore in the beer halls of Munich's Oktoberfest, this is seriously bad news for EADS, which looked to be lagging behind its European rivals in flying advanced unmanned systems even before the Barracuda mishap. Alenia Aeronautica of Italy, BAE Systems of the UK, Dassault of France and Saab of Sweden all held significant bragging rights over the manufacturer, having each flown company-funded UCAV-like demonstrators over the last couple of years: respectively the Sky-X; Raven; Petit Duc; and Filur designs.
Europe's unmanned air vehicle sector is a congested place, with several of the continent's big five military airframers jostling to lead collaborative demonstrations of their combined know-how. The loss of EADS's showpiece aircraft - which was developed under a project worth around 40 million ($50 million) - confirms what we already knew: Dassault is in pole position to conduct such work, as the lead company on Europe's French-led Neuron UCAV project. BAE also appears well placed to lead development work in the UK, which seems set to go it alone.
Pardon the pun, but there was something a bit fishy about the Barracuda programme's achievements to date. EADS refused to comment on the effort for many months, before releasing sketchy details of an initial flight test campaign - also conducted from San Javier - just before April's Berlin air show, where the design was formally unveiled. Sources from rival manufacturers suggested that something had not gone to plan during this process, as the UCAV flew just once for 20min, but EADS played this down, attributing the lone sortie to "inclement weather".
The new Barracuda campaign - which I reported on for this week's print edition of Flight International from EADS Military Air Systems' technology forum in Munich on 19-20 September - also sounded to be of limited ambition, with the company saying that only two or three flights were planned, to expand the air vehicle's flight envelope through changes to its altitude and speed. The accident is believed to have happened during the first of these sorties, on 23 September, destroying EADS's lone Barracuda, which was manufactured around two years ago.
As ever, it's too early to speculate on what might have happened, but an EADS official said last week that windtunnel tests of the so-called Spiral 0 Barracuda proved that the design was "absolutely stable". Powered by a Pratt & Whitney Canada JT15D-5C turbofan engine, the air vehicle was controlled without using a joystick on the ground, but by around 10 high-level commands, such as start, go around, and land. Navigation was provided using EGNOS and GPS satellites, with the air vehicle also equipped with a laser altimeter; clever stuff all round, but equally, lots to go wrong.
Regardless of the cause of the Barracuda's loss, perhaps EADS should steer clear of marine life next time it decides to name one of its projects: let's not forget that its proposed Mako advanced jet trainer (named after a stealthy species of shark) has also vanished silently into the depths over the last couple of years, following a lukewarm market response. Luckily for the company, as military operators are maybe 15 years away from fielding operational UCAVs, perhaps it has time to recover from this mishap.
It was good news and bad news for Orbiter provider Boeing this week with another successful Space Shuttle mission but a gloomy horizon for the company's hopes of gaining work on NASA's Orion crew vehicle launcher Ares I.
Shuttle Atlantis's STS-115 assembly mission to the International Space Station (ISS) is the first in four years and 2006 is the first year since 2002 that NASA has flown more than one mission in a year.
The last assembly mission was to install the Port one truss, which STS-115's Port three, Port four truss was attached to last week.
If NASA successfully launches Shuttle Discovery on 14 December for STS-116 the space agency can face 2007 with renewed vigour.
Considering NASA regularly launched shuttles six or seven times a year in the 1990s the schedule for the reusable spaceplane's last four years, of about four missions a year, is achievable.
While retirement for Shuttle is beginning to look like a smooth wind down Boeing's hopes of winning NASA's Ares I upper stage contract must have withered when they heard about the competition.
The announcement of the team of Ares I first stage integrator ATK, Orion crew and service module prime contractor Lockheed Martin and upper stage main engine provider Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne must have had Boeing executives putting their heads in their hands.
The ATK led Lockheed, P&W dream team simply isn't going to be beaten by anyone. Two of the companies already have contracts with NASA for Ares I and the space agency announced earlier this year that its Lockheed managed Michoud Assembly Facility will build Ares I upper stage structures.
Despite the pride Boeing can feel about its Orbiter its longer term place in the space industry is looking decidedly weak.
Having been reporting on the A380 and its predecessor the A3XX for a decade, it was with much anticipation that I climbed aboard to undertake my first flight on the giant.
For the 14 September flight aboard MSN001 F-WWOW, I was "riding shot-gun" for our flight-test pilot Mike Gerzanics who was one of five pilot-writers invited to fly the A380 for the world's leading aviation magazines.
Airbus's chief test pilot Jacques Rosay was captain of the flight and in the right hand seat for take-off and touch and goes. For the handling exercises, Rosay handed over to Airbus test pilot Peter Chandler - the ex-Royal Air Force pilot who two months ago flew the A380 as "red one" at Farnborough in formation with the Red Arrows. Down the back at the test console was vice president flight tests Fernando Alonso.
We departed Airbus's Blagnac headquarters at a weight of 390t using the standard "Config 3" flap position (26 degrees on the trailing edge and 23 degrees of leading edge). Take-off roll was smooth with the Trent engines' spool-up limited to 78% N1 until we'd reached 45kt (to reduce fatigue on the engine) which enhances the smooth acceleration.
Alonso reported that the take-off run to the 140kt rotate speed used 1,345m of tarmac, and after another 455m we were 35ft above the ground. The whole process took 43sec.
The interior of 001 is full of flight-test equipment, with a "mini-cabin" incorporating around 30 passenger seats installed on the upper deck. But apart from the seats and overhead bins, there are little if any creature comforts, so the aircraft is far from representative of the A380 that the paying public will fly on, but it still showed remarkable quietness in the cruise.
During the 3h 30min flight we flew as high as 30,000ft and as fast as Mach 0.89/340kt. Climb and descent was "lumpy" to say the least, as each pilot took it in turn to throw the aircraft around to see how it handled - and the ride was not helped by the weather - 800ft cloudbase with light showers, and with the clag topping out just below our maximum altitude.
We were soon back down at medium level to sample the legendary Airbus envelope protection in the landing configuration. Despite being such a huge, heavy aircraft, the A380 computers' "noughts and ones" make sure that the aircraft can be flown right up to the stall without a sweat.
The trip took us northwest of Toulouse towards Bordeaux and back round towards Limoges before a let down to Blagnac for a series of touch and goes. Back at the controls, Mike - who is a qualified test pilot and currently flies 737s for Southwest Airlines - drilled the A380 smoothly down the approach to Runway 32L.
Although the wind was down the runway - 320deg/10kt - the rain and cloudbase was still not co-operating.
Mike's first touchdown was very smooth, with the 20 wheel main landing gear hardly troubled. Then it was straight into the go-around for the eighth time and a wide right hand circuit before recovering for the final full stop landing.
Once on the ground the pilots took it in turn to taxi the aircraft. Aided by the the taxi cameras which display on the PFD, Mike was able to keep the nose gear nailed onto the centreline.
We taxied back to the ramp and after a quick external walkaround check, it was off for some lunch and an informal debrief.
Airbus's great bunch of flight-test pilots and engineers are justifiably proud of this aircraft. They tell me that this is the best performing aircraft they've ever been tasked with developing and can barely hide their frustration that for the moment at least, their success is being overshadowed by events outside their control in production.
If you were to look back at the From the earliest days of manned spaceflight declaring something would launch at a certain time was a hazardous affair, almost as hazardous as the launch itself. John Glenn's orbital flight's10 delays caused immense embarrassment, as one Mercury and Apollo veteran, still exasperated at the problems they had had forty years ago, admitted to me recently.
The word awesome is a little overworked these days (and not just in California) - but it truly does seem appropriate to describe the magnitude of the public relations fiasco that has just been unleased by Britain's currently least favourite major corporation - BAA.
With a stranglehold on London's airports, under siege by just about everybody who comes into contact with them, and a competition authorities investigation just getting underway, now would seem a good time to ingratiate yourself with the world whenever possible.
But instead, this toweringly arrogant company brings us this. I doubt that new owners Ferrovial will let this pass without a head rolling.
(A quick confession here - I'm busy this morning and I haven't had time to check whether the Mirror's story is actually true. But that doesn't seem to matter in the blogosphere - so on this occasion you can choose whether to believe it or not.)
I knew Alan Mulally was out of the ordinary within seconds of meeting him some 14 years ago. Just appointed to head Boeing's newly created 777 division, his corner office at Everett looked more like a hobbyist's workshop than an executive's domain with large parts of aircraft structure and various components littering the floor. My first mistake was to sit down. "Don't do that...come here and see this!" he said. "This is going to be one the real stories of this airplane....just take a look at this floor beam!" In his enthusiasm he almost threw at me what seemed to be a massively long piece of dark and heavy looking structure. I caught it, expecting to sag at the knees, but - relieved at its light weight - held the composite piece and examined it closely while pretending to look like some sort of expert. My PR minder, looking half scared and amused at the same time, watched as I almost had to chase Mulally around his personal Aladdin's Cave of 777 parts. Next came the technical marvel of the 'no-slam can' - a quiet toilet seat developed by Jamco specially for the 777 at the request of a Japanese launch customer which did not want its first class clientele disturbed by such inappropriate economy class noises. Moving to a mock-up mounted on a seat by one wall, Mulally let the toilet seat drop soundlessly into place and, looking at me with a boyish grin, said "isn't that neat!" From that moment on every meeting with Mulally became an 'experience' rather than an interview. Indeed, over the subsequent years I would emerge from talks with him feeling flushed with success, only to spend the next few hours frantically going over my notes to find a 'proper' quote. This was my brush with Mulally's inspirational power and a hint of the leadership that drove the entire 777 programme like a nuclear reactor and which, some 14 years later, would one day attract the attention of Ford Motor Company's troubled CEO, Bill Ford. Not everyone came under his spell, after all thousands of Boeing workers would eventually be axed under his watch as the company fought first through the desperate years of recovery from the production meltdowns of the late 1990s and secondly through the market collapse after 9/11. But Mulally drove the entire Boeing Commercial enterprise just as he had with the 777, and brought the best out of everyone who reported to him. People at Boeing told me if you performed as expected, Mulally would be the best boss you'd ever have. Customers liked him too, and airline CEOs would fly halfway around the world to inspect and collect their new aircraft if it meant face-to-face time with Mulally. His charismatic mid-west charm, while too much for some hard-bitten hacks, would frequently provide a whole extra dimension to others, including myself. Once in 1994 at the Farnborough air show, he jumped off the Boeing bus which was stuck in traffic, to walk with me to the chalets and chat about the 777 special I had just written for Flight International. Mulally told me he enjoyed reading the entire thing with the only question being my description of his role in the programme. Did I really have to call him a 'human dynamo?' Wasn't that going a bit too far maybe?' I never thought so. In fact, for someone who can apparently toil tirelessly around the clock, yet seem - on the outside at least - like he's just started work, I'd say it is an understatement. Mulally also has this uncanny knack of making you feel as if he is communicating directly to you, and you alone, and that he is about to dispense precious gems of wisdom in your direction which you had better use. An astronautical engineer and MIT graduate by training, he is a big believer in the best empirical techniques - a discipline which he attempted to spread with almost religious fervour during his Thursday staff meetings or during interviews with the media. More than once, during complex explanations of a production or programme plan he's suddenly sit back in his seat, look me in the eye and say "Guy, you've just got to let the data set you free!" At other times, perhaps sensing the ironic contrast between the startling order of the immense industrial Boeing machine and the chaotic lifestyle of the journalist across the table from him, he would also say "Guy, you've gotta have a PLAN!" For most of us in aerospace journalism, the defection of Alan Mulally from Boeing to the Ford Motor Company is therefore a sad day. Mulally might not have always been the best Boeing exec to give you hard facts and figures, but his mere presence raised the tempo of any press conference and virtually guaranteed a headline or two. I wish him well in his new and terrifically challenging job and, although our paths may never cross again I sign off with this thought: I still don't have a plan, but at least I drive a Ford!
Airline launches are full of clich駸. New carriers often promise a "new chapter in aviation history." Many announce a "new dawn in business travel" and the word "revolution" is bandied about as often as "solutions" at a software convention.
The European launch of Oasis Hong Kong Airlines had all the old favourites, yet there was something in the way they were delivered that was slightly messianic. The answer lay in the founder's former profession - the Rev Dr Raymond C Lee was a pastor (the doctorate, incidentally, is an honorary title in business administration). Mass transportation was, in his words, akin to the Lord's work. "I find being able to transport millions of people around the world, who had previously not been able to afford flying, a very spiritual aim," the Reverend explained.
Rev Lee is chairman of the Oasis real estate group and one of three investors between them ploughing around HK$780 million ($100 million) into the start-up airline that bills itself as low-cost long-haul. Flanked by his well-groomed, exuberant wife Priscilla and team of other aviation experts, he unveiled the airline's new livery (designed by a swanky Japanese graphics company, with no-doubt welcome input from the Lees and their team) to the
Love him or loathe him, Michael O'Leary of Ryanair knows a thing or two about paring costs back to a minimum in all areas of his business. The Irish low-cost carrier's press conferences have only recently moved to a city of
Yet Oasis saw no contradiction between the sumptuous surroundings of the main ballroom of the Mandarin Oriental, complete with logos etched onto the Louis XV mirrors, and talk of operating costs so low that one way fares of HK$1,000 to
This high aircraft utilisation is based, however, on an 11.5h flight, initially only four times per week. The low-cost strategy is further enhanced by having UK-based flight crew accommodated between flights in
In the airline's defence, the cash-rich carrier owns its two Boeing 747-400s and is ramping up destinations served to add
Yet as I left the briefing clutching a 1:200 scale model 747 and the nicest in-flight toiletry set I have received since the launch of now-defunct Phuket Air, I could help wondering whether the multimillionaire pastor had really gotten the whole budget traveller ethos.
In a surprise move NASA has chosen Lockheed Martin over the Northrop Grumman, Boeing team that represented the legacy companies that built the US space programme's previous manned spacecraft. Boeing bought Rockwell International, the Shuttle's developer and manufacturer in the 1970s and 1980s, in the 1990s.
Today Boeing provides the manned Orbiter vehicle and integrates it with the Lockheed Martin shuttle external tank and the ATK solid rocket boosters for NASA. It's also an equal partner in the Shuttle ground operations joint venture, United Space Alliance, with Lockheed. Few companies like Boeing can boast over 30 years of manned spacecraft operation experience.
One former Boeing Shuttle engineer ranted at me about the decision, reminding me of all the NASA missions that have gone wrong with Lockheed's involvement.
Lockheed's involvement in NASA's Mars Polar Lander, which disappeared upon landing on the red planet; and the Genesis capsule that crashed to Earth; and the abandoned single stage to orbit X-33 vehicle all added to a quiet industry consensus that the winner was likely to be Northrop/Boeing.
The Lockheed choice therefore suggests a NASA strategy to abandon the industrial arrangement it has had for three decades for Shuttle.This is probably because Shuttle represents an expensive programme and NASA has been given a presidential policy of going back to the Moon, but with no substantial increase in its budget. Since the 2004 president George W. Bush vision for space exploration announcement about the return to the Moon NASA officials have emphasised the life cycle cost factor as foremost in their analyses.
Another Shuttle programme veteran was concerned about the impact on job losses. Admitting that Shuttle had been a "jobs programme" for way too long he thought a Northrop win would have made a lot of people feel better about the future.
Interestingly NASA suddenly said earlier this year that the Orion launching Ares I's upper stage and the Ares V's Earth departure stage, would be made at its Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF). This is managed for NASA by Lockheed. Following the contract win Lockheed has announced it will build major Orion structures at MAF.
There is a possibility that NASA is looking to place its entire space transportation system with one company in an attempt to drive down costs.When NASA administrator Michael Griffin is ready to say that the transition from Shuttle to Orion is the agency's biggest challenge, the choice of Lockheed is a bold move.
Recent Comments