My flight info is showing 6hrs, but that seems kinda long.
10/17/2007 3:44:39 PM
I AIN'T GETTIN ON NO PLANE FOOL!
10/17/2007 3:45:43 PM
thats about right
10/17/2007 3:45:51 PM
I seem to recall flying from charlotte to seattle and it was like 5 hours if I remember correctly.
10/17/2007 3:46:00 PM
Are you taking into account the different time zones?
10/17/2007 3:46:14 PM
it's a long ways to seattle from atlanta...
10/17/2007 3:46:22 PM
^^Yes. I leave at 9:35am and arrive at 11:25amI flew to San Francisco a few years ago, and I thought I remembered it only taking like 3.5 hours.[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]
10/17/2007 3:58:49 PM
Oh come on. My A-Team reference was golden.
10/17/2007 4:00:14 PM
3.5 clock time maybe.
10/17/2007 4:00:16 PM
6 hours sounds about right.
10/17/2007 4:01:19 PM
took about 6 from seattle to rduBUT i guess you could say it only takes 2 watch hours, if thats important
10/17/2007 4:11:41 PM
From Atlanta to SFO is 5 hrs 15 mins.I'm guessing 6 is about right up to Seattle from Atlanta.[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 4:14 PM. Reason : x]
10/17/2007 4:14:44 PM
10/17/2007 4:36:51 PM
Come with the jet stream and 5 years ago it might have taken 3.5 hrs. But not now, not since they are flying slower to conserve fuel, plus you are going against the wind.[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 4:51 PM. Reason : ^ Yea, this guy hasn't exactly shown genius tendencies...ever]
10/17/2007 4:50:26 PM
^^Yeah, you are correct.Self math PWNT.
10/17/2007 5:33:45 PM
10/17/2007 7:13:48 PM
10/17/2007 7:39:21 PM
by flying faster, you burn more lbs per hour of fuelbut you are flying fewer hours since you are going faster.it often comes out roughly as a wash in terms of total fuel burn for a given distancethere is a max range and max endurance airspeed--flying at max range airspeed will burn the least amount of fuel per mile. flying any slower (or faster) than this is less efficient (and max endurance profile neglects distance and burns the least amount of fuel per unit time, which can be used to calculate a maximum loiter time. flying any slower than this, again, is LESS efficient).i'm pretty sure i deal with this kind of stuff for a living and know exactly what i'm talking about, so your investment would be a pretty safe bet.[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 8:02 PM. Reason : asdfas]
10/17/2007 8:01:58 PM
Look, I don't care if you are involved in this shit up to your nose (and you are). When the major airlines have been scrapping plans for faster planes to go with designs that are created specifically for slower more fuel efficient flight, and think I have a bit of an idea what I am talking about.
10/17/2007 10:18:33 PM
lolyou take every oppurtunity to trolldo you have anything else productive you could be doing?(oh and you have no idea what you are talking about)
[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 10:24 PM. Reason :
10/17/2007 10:23:39 PM
TO seattle always took longer for us. The rotation of the earth is with you, but the jetstream is against you.FROM seattle you'll almost always arrive early, esp if the jetstream is high.I think I remember that correctly... Either way both ways is a LOOOOOOONG freaking way. I highly recommend a 60-90 minute layover in Denver. Plus the Denver airport is AWESOME, one of the most beautiful I've seen. LOVE their ceiling and layout. Anyway.
10/18/2007 12:03:40 AM