Re: Available consultant Vijay for Unix System Admin with sun Solories Expireance.

On 15 May 2008 in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng2nvfa.nli.read_the_sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jpd wrote:

Moe Trin <ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(Thinking about that, the Chinese recently withdrew authorization for
something like 25 flights with the worst "on-time" performance at
Beijing - that's 25 flights a day!)

China is pretty big. Presumably that means lots of traffic to the
capital. :-)

There's only one commercial airport in Beijing, "Capital International
Airport" with two runways. In 2004, it was the 20th busiest airport in
the world, doing about a half the business of Heathrow, or 80 percent of
Schiphol.

True - but look at those 26+7 New York - Los Angeles flights. The
smallest aircraft scheduled was 180 seats, and they were the one-stops.

Which is pretty different here, as we do have more or less viable
long-range trains,

I suspect you have more _international_ trains in .nl than we have
inter-city trains in .us. Commuter trains in some of the large cities
like New York, Chicago, San Francisco or Los Angeles, but there is one
train a day between San Francisco and Los Angeles (and it doesn't even
go into San Francisco, but is across the bay in Oakland).

lots of people just drive, and in general distance*passengers I expect
to be smaller.

You need only look at our freeway/Interstate highway systems.

[maglev]

Wonder how they would handle snow accumulations - say 10 cm.

Haven't a clue. The coils and whatnot in the rail might have a heating
feature, or just are generally too warm to stay snowed under for very
long (unless it was a lot of snow).

That doesn't sound good.

'a)' would be great, but trying to keep your fleet age so low is very
expensive. (An average age less than ten years is unusual, and less
than six unheard of.) The second hand market isn't that robust.

There are a couple of low cost operators that I'm told keep their prices
low because their fleet is much newer than the incumbments.

That's a comparative statement. Ryanair has a young fleet, but I don't
think the airline itself is that old. Easyjet is similar. Air Berlin is
unloading the oldest aircraft. But none of them are large fleets.

That and planning tricks and advertising prices without the airport fees.

That's common - at least here, they're required to mention that there are
additional fees and taxes, though they only mention the 'per departure'
tax having a specific value.

As you note, scheduling already is quite tortous so that's just a few
more parameters for this one airport.

It gets rather interesting when you are trying to schedule 400+ aircraft
a day when the average flight is 90 minutes (gate to gate), and your
goal is a ground time under 60 minutes. (Southwest Airlines is a bit
harder, with over 500 aircraft, and an average flight time under 75
minutes - and a scheduled ground time under 40 minutes.)

Do you abandon the aircraft, or the airport?

In general, you need both. If a restriction on this airport means you
can't use this airplane there, well, shift it elsewhere and use another
airplane here.

KLM - nearly a third of their fleet is "old". Lufthansa... looks like
about 13% (34 of 260), British - 36 of 240, Alitalia... 80 of 150, well,
you get the idea. Even with small fleets like these, you soon run out of
places when you can use them.

Both Airbus and Boeing are sold out for the next 2-3 years, and the
leasing companies are not awash in brand new aircraft.

All the more a pity that Fokker got the life sucked out of it, then
died, right before the market picked up again.

As an aircraft producer, they were aiming at what is a VERY competitive
target. The F28/F70/F100 jets were all "local service" (50-100 pax,
used in flights up to two hours, and they were slow. If you look at the
business today, Bombardier (Canadair) and Empresa Brasilera are the
major players, but companies in Japan, China, and Russia have what look
to be as-good if not better coming down the pipe. But Fokker isn't the
only one who is out of that business. We _used_ to have four very
energetic builders in this country (Convair, Douglas, Lockheed in
addition to Boeing). Douglas got borged twice, and what's left is a
small part of Boeing.

====================

I'm working in troff, but since recruiters are invariably button pushers
that doesn't help him. He had problems copy/pasting the ghostscript
generated PDF into word (xpdf's pdftotext also gets strange results),
which could have something to do with the tricks I'm using to get the
subsection headers to line out

"The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose
from."

I hope it won't take that long for unrecovery.

It has already taken more, though just now (as noted elsewhere) the
cash is running dry, everybody pops up and wants a piece

Nothing new there.

and $lastjob seems to've done painfully (to me) creative tax things,
and due to (AOT) certain people's litigous full-assery I'm going to
fail the tax deadline for fixing that abortion. So it's really a case
of seeing whether the joint burns down or drowns in the quench first.

Here, the employee is responsible only for telling the employer his
marital status and number of dependents (both effect the "standard"
tax withholding). Everything else is the employers problem, and the
various tax authorities don't tolerate much mucking about.

Best of all, I can't really be arsed to care anymore. But that's
neither here nor there.

Sounds as if you really need unrecovery.

An offset press run isn't going to be cheap either (photocopies are
not acceptable).

A high-volume PS laser could still do it.

Depends on the customer. The government still specifies printing rather
than lasers, even for small jobs. But then, they'll often accept a single
master and they'll do the printing (for a fee). If it's not classified,
office support places like Kinkos will also do the job.

That and having a much better probability of staying around after the
manufacturer has stopped supporting $product, or stopped existing for
that matter. If in 100 years some bunch of yoyos wants to restore a
rusty dreamliner to flying condition (I can think of better projects,
but in 100 years I'll be dead), then a scratchy CD with the plans is
preferrable over a database that has long ceased to exist.

Something like the company in Washington state that is building
copies of the WW2 German Me-262. They have some of the plans, and
have gone to museums to measure the very few existing birds. The
Smithsonian had completed a _museum restoration several years ago,
and that helped. But the current model is using "modern" engines
(from used Lear Jets) because the original engines simply won't meet
even 40 year old standards.

you need parts for a Douglas C-47D that was built in 1943?).

A lathe with the plans available is probably faster and cheaper. Come
to think of it, just a CD with the CNC plans would make for an
interesting airplane kit.

As long as you carry no one who is not a required crew member. The
aviation authorities take a VERY DIM view of people hacking parts.
Quality inspections, materials standards, done by licensed people.
And your insurance carrier is going to be charging HUGE premiums
(even larger than what they charge for a fully airworthy Goon, which
couldn't be certified today due to stability problems at aft CG
conditions, and it's difficulty meeting engine out performance).

$FOO airlines has one located in $BAR, while $BAZ airlines has one
in $QUX, and we have parts sharing agreements with both. Which one
can get "here" quicker?

For that, I agree, a central database isn't a bad idea.

Actually, there are several companies that are in the business of
spare parts support. They own parts, and have them in warehouses at
airports in many countries. As I said earlier - an Aircraft On
Ground is loosing money big time every minute it on that status. The
parts company can be looked at as an insurance scam that's legal.

Probably windows, might not even be properly ``kiosked'', but it should
be. If only for trying to keep malware at bay.

A passenger is sitting in an airliner using his laptop, and on the
screen appears:

Bluetooth: new device found: Airbus A310

(reported in Risks Digest 23.72 17 Feb 2005 - article dated 13 Feb 2005,
but doesn't mention the issue of *c't* it originally appeared in.) The
manufacturers are aware of that problem, as are the aviation certification
authorities.

Pretty amazing how even many people with deep technical clue (in
electronics, other engineering) often still can't be arsed to learn how
to be effective at techical computing. I no longer think that it is
purely my unix bias that classifies windows as entirely unsuitable for
that.

I'm equally distressed to find the attitude that "the computer says" is
an absolute answer. Never mind that it's redmondware and has been 0wn3d,
never mind that the programmer screwed up and didn't (couldn't) test
everything, or that some id10t operated keyed in the wrong data or
fumble-fingered something. "The computer says" as if to say the problem
is your mistake - the computer being perfect of course.

While I don't need to be able to build a pencil from scratch to draw a
bridge design, I do need to know how to use it.

The pencil, or the bridge ;-)

Old guy
.