Have to disagree with you on the 737 winglets. To me, it looks like the plane tried to go between two buildings that were not quite far enough apart and, as a consequence, the wings were pushed up. The 747 is beautiful. I like it best when it's in its element. Looks a little ungainly on the ground but so beautiful once it's off the ground and all cleaned up. David R http://home.attbi.com/~damiross http://home.attbi.com/~damiross/books.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alireza Alivandivafa" <DEmocrat2n@xxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 15:15 Subject: Re: [AIRLINE] Three Hole Salute > In a message dated 7/1/2003 3:10:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > damiross2@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > > << Not necessarily. Remember back when the Trident was in production, > go-juice was > just a few cents a gallon and was a much smaller percentage of hourly costs > then it was today. > > Remember, even back then WN was flying 737s, knowing how good they are > > > Ah, I long for the good ol' days when airplanes didn't have the same boring > look like they do today. >> > > I generally agree with you on the looks thing. Airbus is especially guilty > of creating lifeless tubes. At least Boeing has the 757, which looks great, > and the 737 winglets are cool. This is why the 747 is the best ever. The thing > is just that damn beautiful, and the original design is from the 1960s. >