When will Northwest retire the DC9...

oh wait, nevermind.

I've seen enough "Airbus should cancel the A380" threads to last a lifetime. Also, threads on "why are there no direct flights from DTW to ______."

People that complain about repetitive topics.


Hint, don't read them..

Every few months we have a thread wondering why hasn't any airline or plane maker gone for the two-aisle narrow body, 2-2-2 abreast - after all, it sounds like a great idea! Or why not a 777 with 3 aisles? Or a 7-abreast plane 1-1-1-1-1-1-1? Enough about more-aisle threads! Aisles do not generate revenue.

Is there a second hand market for -insert generic brand of aircraft-

Honestly every single thread about any Boeing aircraft always coming back to the seats being .5 inches smaller than Airbus and it being the worst thing ever really gets old.

Other than that, the clickbait "xxx got THROWN OFF A PLANE FOR xxx" ones also get me.

Miami to Asia. It seems like there's a thread weekly, with maybe a tiny rumour or just the same stuff

How about the G4 bashing---so old and tired

The threads about Boeing ending 757 production always grind my gears. That topic literally comes up every month, started by a different user each time. The forums have a topic search feature, use it.
Also, why does/doesn't airline ABC fly to airport XYZ?

All these EK threads. There seem to be a new one every week. Emirates bubble,Emirates wine, Emirates A380, Is Emirates the new Pan Am, EK at DWC. It is just getting a bit too much. There is more to the aviation industry than Emirates. I said before a bit Kim Kardashian of the aviation world.

To give some background I have seen EK begin when most here didn't even know of it's conception. It has grown to what it is today from it's first flight to KHi with full page advertisments but it's not the end of the world. Other airlines do exist including it's other partners in crime EY and QR who are definitely better.

When is DTW going to become the next DXB? When is JetBlue going to start DTW-MCO? When is Southwest going to increase their DTW service? etc.

ahj2000 wrote:

Miami to Asia. It seems like there's a thread weekly, with maybe a tiny rumour or just the same stuff

or Raleigh/Durham to Asia.

UPNYGuy wrote:

ok on the first page, I managed to count 3 separate 757 threads. Two of these could have been in a single thread. Like many of you, I get my jollies when I see the same dead horse beat TO DEATH by the same members time and time again.

So, I thought we should have some fun with it! Every member here has that ONE topic that annoys the hell out of them! That one topic that comes up repeatedly, that they wish would just die.

Now I am not advocating that we need to quit talking about these all together, I just want to have a little fun with this, and see what topics really grind the gears of everyone in here, and see where it goes

you forget some of these topics are the online porn for some people.
and you know ... one fetish video just isn't enough.

For me it is the "why no" threads...as in "Why no SBN-GYY?"

Obviously the answers to every one of these "why no" threads is that there is not enough business on the route to support it, but posters continue to start such stupid threads year after year.

757 replacement

MIA-NRT

How about an XY and YZ merger?

Race to the bottom

AA's livery

AA's 767 Y cabin

...just off the top of my head. I'll probably think of a dozen more after I submit this

Any what if .... topic e.g. if TWA survived etc etc etc

Any order speculation - wait until the press release

Will xxx ever serve ZZZ ?

For Civil Av:
757 Replacement
I'm fine with the topic itself, but the fact there are so many of them... ugh.
For Non Av:
"Insert anything Trump-related here"
The man has been elected and there's nothing we can do about it. Sit back and make the best of it.

I'm also growing weary of EK (or any ME3) threads. They are either God's gift to commercial aviation, or play things of oil rich countries with deep pockets, and nothing in between.

DLPMMM wrote:

For me it is the "why no" threads...as in "Why no SBN-GYY?"

Obviously the answers to every one of these "why no" threads is that there is not enough business on the route to support it, but posters continue to start such stupid threads year after year.

Oh, that's a bit callous, don't you think? Sometimes, the "why no" is a bit more nuanced than that. Sometimes, it's because the dominant airline prefers too funnel that traffic through a hub. Or, there's not enough slots available at one end or the other of the route. While it may be the dominant factor, profitability is hardly the the entire picture when it comes to route planning.

Some time ago, I posted "Why no YYC-MEX." After all, it used to be a Mexicana route. And, lo and behold, Aeromexico is starting the route again as of June 1, 2017!

Regarding the 757 threads, sometimes I wonder if there isn't just a bit of trolling going on.

This thread has been moved to site related -- threads like this do not belong in civil aviation.

I understand the frustrations of some, but please keep in mind that newer users haven't hashed and rehashed these discussions to death like users who have been around for years. This site is cyclical with many of its discussions, as are most discussion sites.

Instead of getting upset or flaming users for committing such a faux pas, just ignore the thread. If it annoys you, then you don't need to take part. I'm not saying it's okay for multiple similar discussions to occur at the same time, but if a "What if the 757 were still a thing" thread comes up every few months, then so be it. Talking about this stuff is why we're all here!

Newer users have every right to take part in the discussions all you old-timers once had, so cut them some slack. I'm sure none of you are in favor of certain topics being barred from discussion.

aerolimani wrote:

DLPMMM wrote:

For me it is the "why no" threads...as in "Why no SBN-GYY?"

Obviously the answers to every one of these "why no" threads is that there is not enough business on the route to support it, but posters continue to start such stupid threads year after year.

Oh, that's a bit callous, don't you think? Sometimes, the "why no" is a bit more nuanced than that. Sometimes, it's because the dominant airline prefers too funnel that traffic through a hub. Or, there's not enough slots available at one end or the other of the route. While it may be the dominant factor, profitability is hardly the the entire picture when it comes to route planning.

Some time ago, I posted "Why no YYC-MEX." After all, it used to be a Mexicana route. And, lo and behold, Aeromexico is starting the route again as of June 1, 2017!

Regarding the 757 threads, sometimes I wonder if there isn't just a bit of trolling going on.

Asking why YYC-MEX doesnt exist warrants a discussion. You're talking about Calgary and Mexico City which are two cities you could argue would have an interest in air service for each other.

SBN-GYY is South Bend, Indiana to Gary, Indiana.

Two cities in northern Indiana that are 90 minutes from each other driving and apart from something in a fantasy world called the Indiana Air Shuttle, air service between the two would never start given the airlines in today's industry climate.

stlgph wrote:

Asking why YYC-MEX doesnt exist warrants a discussion. You're talking about Calgary and Mexico City which are two cities you could argue would have an interest in air service for each other.

SBN-GYY is South Bend, Indiana to Gary, Indiana.

Gotcha. You're specifically referring to obviously ridiculous pairs. Indeed, I did argue that MEX and YYC could warrant a direct. And, apparently, Aeromexico agrees with me! They must have read my thread, right? I'm sure it has more to do with Canada dropping the visa requirement for Mexicans.

Personally, I think we need more discussions about how many fish will fit in an A321LR cargo hold.

Can't believe nobody has mentioned it yet, but:
- UA/CO merger bashing

Why Delta hates MSP just because they downgraded one route from an A320 to an MD-80.

I could do without people who say the existing of a XYZ-ABC route is prestige.

Lets not forget A300NEO

There should be service to Miami from everywhere. Please we know your from Miami, but the airport is so crowded & run down, except AA terminal. They should remove flights, tear down the old ratty terminals and start over. Then when they are done there should still not be Tokyo-Miami.

UPNYGuy wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

This thread has been moved to site related -- threads like this do not belong in civil aviation.

I understand the frustrations of some, but please keep in mind that newer users haven't hashed and rehashed these discussions to death like users who have been around for years. This site is cyclical with many of its discussions, as are most discussion sites.

Instead of getting upset or flaming users for committing such a faux pas, just ignore the thread. If it annoys you, then you don't need to take part. I'm not saying it's okay for multiple similar discussions to occur at the same time, but if a "What if the 757 were still a thing" thread comes up every few months, then so be it. Talking about this stuff is why we're all here!

Newer users have every right to take part in the discussions all you old-timers once had, so cut them some slack. I'm sure none of you are in favor of certain topics being barred from discussion.

I deliberately stuck it in civil, because that is where these topics always come up. And it is not the newbies that bring the up

Agreed that it's not always the newbie.

For the 757 threads, they often start with "I know this topic has been discussed to death, but..." and then they attempt to perform some kind of linguistic acrobatics to explain why their specific topic is not identical to all the others (e.g. "I'm talking specifically about replacing the 757s with over wing exits and no L3 door...").

My suggestion is, just as we have generic threads that become a catch-all (such as "Southern Hemisphere Aviation thread #359"), and if anyone talks about a route from SCL-SYD, folks jump all over them, saying it's already being discussed in xxx thread, why not just have a catch-all Boeing 757 thread where all discussion about production history, market demand, competition, replacement, etc. can go. It will leave the rest of the forum uncluttered from having three or four threads right on the front page all about the same thing.

The same could be done for other overdiscussed topics, such as the A380 and its future, EK and its future, and anything else that gets a new thread at least once per week.

I mean, if we could do it for Des Moines Aviation, why not for other popular, repetitive topics?

hOMSaR wrote:

why not for other popular, repetitive topics?

One problem is that generic threads don't necessarily eliminate what some people see as a problem. Once the thread has 23,498 replies, will people really read all replies just to see if what they wish to write about or ask has already been discussed? We saw this in Australian Aviation, for example, where the same arguments about why QF was wrong to not buy the 777 had been discussed several times and cropped up again from time to time. Another example is here in site related where the thread about the new forum has seen the same points raised several times with the same replies from those monitoring it.

If someone doesn't want to read a particular thread they can easily not open it. Sure, it makes for a little more scrolling (how tiresome) but is that such a big deal? Alternatively, if a thread is a duplicate of a subject being currently discussed, use the suggest delete function to draw it to the moderators' attention.

DexSwart wrote:

Honestly every single thread about any Boeing aircraft always coming back to the seats being .5 inches smaller than Airbus and it being the worst thing ever really gets old.

Other than that, the clickbait "xxx got THROWN OFF A PLANE FOR xxx" ones also get me.

If this were Reddit, I would give you "gold" for this comment. I agree with both. Very predictable flow in those types of thread.

I DO like the fact that we don't have a single thread for certain broad subject areas. In other words, I would prefer to read "AA orders 30X aircraft, 15 Y aircraft, and 10Z aircraft" rather than needing to keep abreast of 20 pages of activity in a general "AA fleet status" or "Boeing 2017 orders" or "Airbus 2017 orders" thread. When you can start a new topic on a legitimately novel story or insight, the signal doesn't get lost in the noise.

I find the seat width debates really annoying because they essentially block any interesting discussion from happening. Very few threads about either the 787 or 777 last more than 20 or 30 posts until someone mentions seat width and then the discussion becomes worthless.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I find the seat width debates really annoying because they essentially block any interesting discussion from happening. Very few threads about either the 787 or 777 last more than 20 or 30 posts until someone mentions seat width and then the discussion becomes worthless.

I will confess to engaging in this once, but since then, I have seen the light, so to speak. I agree, this is a problem. My suggestion for a solution is to open a new topic in "Travel, Polls & Preferences." Call it something like "Seat width: how much difference does it make?" and refer people to it, when other discussions are being derailed.

Great idea. Far too many worthwhile discussions are sidetracked by an endless debate over less than an inch. It would be nice to refer this to its own discussion. Unfortunately some of the seat width debate is A vs B comparison related, and that topic never dies.