Flying on a Boeing 747 is still remarkable and safe

While investigators continue to examine why the Qantas 747-400 from Hong Kong to Melbourne had to divert due to a hole in its fuselage, it's worth noting how remarkable and how safe the Boeing 747 really is.

ABTN notes that three rather remarkable transport engineering achievements were unveiled in 1969. The QE2 was the largest, and it is about to be retired in September. The Concorde prototype was the fastest, and none of the 20 made have flown in five years. The 747 was meant to be a large military transport, then a cargo plane - and was built to be tough enough to handle those missions. Its life as a passenger jet design was expected to be short, as the Concorde (and the long defunct Boeing 2707 supersonic transport) were meant to be the future. Unfortunately for British, French and US taxpayers, they were wrong. Fortunately for Boeing, the 747 proved to be revolutionary.

Over 1,400 have been built. The QE2 by contrast was a one off, and instead of being the hallmark of a new generation of ocean liners, it became a cruise ship. A leisure vessel rather than transport, as the age of trans-oceanic travel came to an end in the 1970s. It wasn't the future, but the last gasp of the past.

Concorde whilst a remarkable technological achievement was more a national showcase than a commercial success. Whilst funded by taxpayers, it was politicians around the world, particularly in the USA and India, that stymied Concorde all because of - the environment. The sonic boom was hated by those living near airports where planes are half the noise today than they were in the 1970s. With supersonic flight banned over the continental USA (except, of course, for US military aircraft) and over India, most of the market for Concorde was kneecapped - with no chance of flights between Europe and the US West Coast, or with Asia at full supersonic speed. Its final years were profitable because BA got the debt for them written off, and could charge £13,000 (yes pounds) for a return trans-atlantic flight by Concorde.

So the 747, slow, and not altogether majestic, would be what would change travel. It carries 2.5 times what its predecessors carried, the Boeing 707 and DC-8. It would do it as fast as most subsonic airliners, would carry enormous loads of cargo, be two-thirds wider, and start making inflight movies (on the big screen for many years) easy for all. Most of all, it created most of the new capacity in economy class, and airlines had to fill these enormous planes, and the price of long haul air travel dropped - dropped not because of governments, not because of price control, but because airlines and a plane maker took risks, and it worked.

Consider the original 747 was designed in the 1960s:

"Some 4,500 people were involved in the original design with most of the work carried out on huge elephant-size drawing boards, not the amazing 3D CAD computers available today"

You see things have changed a lot, it's not just a longer upper deck, but engines have evolved, interiors have changed significantly, with entertainment systems, more luxurious seats in the front (and more in front), and less legroom in the back. However, bear in mind what the 747 represents. In less than a lifetime humanity went from the Wright Brothers to an airliner that can lift off with a maximum weight of nearly 334,000 kg (now 397,000), could fly non-stop up to 9,800 km with a full load (now 13,450 km), cruising at 895 km/h (now 913 km/h) with a maximum speed of 945 km/h (now 977 km/h).

Yes you take it for granted now, but consider that it was not long ago that the notion you could be sitting at 11km above the earth, breathing normally, eating a 3 course meal, able to choose between a couple of hundred movies to watch, travelling at just below the speed of sound for the price of anything of between 2-5% of the average annual income of a Western country, would be seen as fantasy. Now it is the norm.

The Boeing 747 wasn't the first plane, it wasn't the first jetliner, but it was the one that moved jet airline travel from being a luxury service to being a mass market service. 747s are built strong and the number of incidents as a result of aircraft failure have all, to date, been attributed to poor maintenance and in one instance flying with too little fuel. In the coming months the last of the second generation of 747s (a 747-400F freighter) will roll out of the factory, and the third generation (747-8) will emerge to ensure that the 747 will still be in our skies for another 15-20 years (albeit in passenger service less and less).

In recent years the airlines flying 747s into New Zealand have reduced to be only Air NZ and Qantas today, with Cathay Pacific occasionally dabbling with them. I don't doubt that within 5 years they will be the exception in NZ skies for passenger use, as smaller longer range more fuel efficient planes are better suited to the NZ market.

However, a winner it has been - and while Concordes and the QE2 both gather more attention, it is the 747 that has been the revolutionary, the strong, enormous workhorse of the skies. Qantas passengers on flight QF30 are alive today not because of luck, but because of a strong, robust design of 39 years (adapted and updated in the 1990s) that changed the world.

Killing for religion is ok

So says almost a third of Muslim university students in the UK, according to a Yougov poll for the Sunday Times.

That in itself should give pause for thought. Pause to think about how the institutions that at best don't discourage and at worst catalyse such thoughts should be treated by the state.

The flipside is that "55% of nonMuslim students thought Islam was incompatible with democracy. Nearly one in 10 had “little respect” for Muslims."

Furthermore "Homophobia was rife, with 25% saying they had little or no respect for gays. The figure was higher (32%) for male Muslim students. Among nonMuslims, the figure was only 4%."

The obvious tension is clear. Whilst a significant minority of Muslims hold and express values that are contrary with those of Western civilisation, and fundamental British laws, serious questions will be raised about how much tolerance there should be towards those promoting such hatred and violence.

The UK has long been tolerant of Muslims and those of other (and no) religion, and rightfully so. It is a core liberal concept that people should be able to live their lives in peace regardless of what they do or don't believe in. This of course also includes racists, communists, Christian fundamentalists and the like. You shouldn't be stopped about going about your daily life, as long as your prejudices, desire for violence and the like remain expressed within your own four walls.

However, the state shouldn't be subsidising organisations or locations where you and your warped friends meet to share your malignant beliefs. Moreover if you and your friends plan to do violence or threaten as part of your collectivised irrationality, then expect that to be drawn to the attention of the state.

So what to do? Well first, non-private universities shouldn't be funding or supplying space for students of any religion to worship or meet. Religion and state should be separate, so the state shouldn't facilitate Islam. Secondly there is immigration. The UK ridiculously hands migrants rights to welfare, healthcare, education and housing. This simply should end. If you wish to migrate you should be responsible for paying your own way. Finally there is the most important point of all - it is the promotion of what liberal democratic capitalist British society is all about.

It is about respecting the rights of adults to make their own decisions about their lives and property.
It is about respecting the rights of adults to have freedom of speech, but not demand that others provide the means to express it.
It is about separating the right of people to hold their views, beliefs, lifestyles, as long as they respect the rights of others to hold different ones, AND CRITICISE YOURS.

It means the right to say Islam is evil, Christianity is evil, Communism is evil and Capitalism is evil - and to condemn those who hold these views, or no views.

Muslim students who believe in violence should be damned for the evil that they are, their stone age views should be criticised without fear, as the similar views of fringe fundamentalist Christians should be, as should Marxist-Leninists and neo-Nazis. Meanwhile, taxpayers shouldn't be providing places or funding for these views to be spread, they should be funding intelligence services to be watching and monitoring those who do.

National's latest policy is Labour's - again...

Newstalk ZB reports "The National Party has moved to defuse fears it will dismantle the Working for Families scheme if it wins the election. Party leader John Key told this morning's TV One Agenda programme he is planning no changes to the system. He says a careful look at the way the scheme functions has shown it is not worthwhile changing it. Mr Key says it is important to offer people certainty during tough economic times."

Just think, you can vote Labour and get the same policy with different people - nice to have choice isn't it? Then whichever way the election goes you win - unless you think Working for Families is middle-class welfare thieved from middle to upper income taxpayers that encourages the majority of families to be dependent on the state, rather than granting them higher tax cuts. Given it didn't exist when National was last in power, it need not exist now. Or should National just concede that "a lot that Labour did when it was in power is worth keeping".

(Hat tip: Lindsay Mitchell)

Iran going to murder some more

AFP reports Iran is going to murder some citizens in a mass execution:

"It said 20 of those on death row were convicted drug traffickers. The remaining 10, identified as "murderer thugs" were also convicted of "disturbing public security and disorder, beating up people, repeated robberies, having illegal relationships and showing up drunk in public"."

So having illegal relationships and showing up drunk in public are reasons to be executed? Or are they murderers who also did such things?

Nevermind, AFP also reports:

"Capital offences in the Islamic republic include murder, rape, armed robbery, drug trafficking and adultery. Earlier this month, it emerged that the Iranian parliament was considering a bill which could see the death penalty also used for those deemed to promote corruption, prostitution and apostasy on the Internet. Last week, an Iranian rights group, Volunteer Lawyers' Network, said that Iran planned to stone eight women and one man sentenced for adultery despite a moratorium on such executions."

Still, don't exactly expect the so-called peace movement, or those who call for the impeachment of Condoleeza Rice to protest the Iranian embassy or call for it to be expelled. No - Iranians aren't entitled to individual rights when they are opposing the great Satan USA.

The price of freedom over the price of peace

Rick Barker, Minister of Veteran Affairs, is making a speech this Sunday, to commemorate the 55th anniversary of the armistice that ended the Korean War.

Now this is all very well and good. He talks briefly about the war, describing it as "a military peace enforcement intervention". It was, in fact, an action to repel the North Koreans from South Korea as invaders who were committed to abolishing the Republic of Korea government. "Peace enforcement" undermines what it was, a brutal war on the front line of the Cold War battling one of the first attempts by the communist bloc for expansionism (as North Korea had been given the nod by the USSR to invade).

He will commemorate the veterans, rightly so. Does some minor politicking which is probably inevitable. However what gets me is that he doesn't grasp the moral imperative of this war - this was a battle against tyranny. He calls it "the price of peace", I call it the price of freedom.

North Korea was already at the time a communist dictatorship in the mould of Stalin, China had fallen communist the year before and was threatening to overrun Taiwan. The strategy was simple, the weak (though authoritarian) South Korea government would be quickly overwhelmed (South Korea was largely a poor peasant country at the time, North Korea the well developed industrial centre) defeated and then Japan would be surrounded on three sides by communist influences.

North Korea was thwarted by the US and its allies because Douglas Macarthur landed at Inchon, cutting off the North Korean troops which had invaded almost all of South Korea, and so they were rolled back to the 38th parallel, and then the war went from being simply rolling back the invasion, to destroying the North Korean menace. This saw US/UN forces go as far as the Yalu River, but the topography and weather were against them, and Mao feared the US would invade China. So China poured in hundreds of thousands of troops to defend North Korea. China rolled back the UN forces to the 38th parallel once more.

So the war lasted two years moving the frontline a few miles back and forth.

New Zealand contributed bravely to defending South Korea from the evil Stalinist dictatorship to the North. There were two choices facing NZ (and the US and the other UN countries that participated in the Police Action):
- You could choose peace (which would literally mean just letting Korea go communist and then deter an attack on Japan, hopefully!); or
- You could choose freedom (which means ensuring North Korea does not take South Korea).

Had peace been chosen, the Republic of Korea may not exist today. Also to those who say the Syngman Rhee regime in Seoul wasn't free, they are right, but compared to Kim Il Sung, it was significantly more open and liberal -and since the late 1980s South Korea has been a thriving open liberal democracy, which puts the North Korean prison state in stark contrast. New Zealand veterans from the Korean War helped ensure that would be, and deterred the risk of an attack on Japan.

So while Rick Barker is doing the right thing remembering and celebrating the veterans of the Korean War, they were not fighting for peace first and foremost, although the end of the war was certainly a goal. That goal was meaningless without it being a fight against communism and for the more free alternative at the time. Had the primary objective not been to contain and keep South Korea free from Stalinism, then peace would've been easy - simply surrender.