[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
It sounds like a design mistake to me. Pilot input should never allow a structural failure. Also a plain should be able to withstand these wake turbulences since they can be sort of expected.

This is precisely the reason why one would want that for passenger jets the designers have to have the final say in the cockpit, i.e. the controls systems should be programed to operate within an specified envelope. Case in point, if excessive rudder usage caused the structural failure then it goes without saying that the designers should forecast this and prevent such misuses and over-ride, either this or change the sop for handling wake turbulence, I would imagine that this has already been evaluated with AA. A300 are workhorses and pretty darn reliable with almost all operators I believe. If it truly is a design flaw then we would have heard it from all over by now in the last 30 yrs or so of its operation.

[Mastrap]

Fascinating. Thank you both for sharing your knowledge here. I am a pretty frequent yet bizarrely still nervous flyer, the more I know the calmer I am when up in the air.

[chabig]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
It sounds like a design mistake to me. Pilot input should never allow a structural failure.

Let's say you take a propane torch and burn your house to the ground. Do you blame the construction company by saying they should have built it so it could not be burned down?

If you turn the steering wheel of your car hard to the right while driving down a slippery road, you'll skid. If you do it on a normal road, you might roll. Are these design mistakes? No. Machines are built for normal pilot inputs, not stupid pilot inputs.

Chris

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by chabig:
If you turn the steering wheel of your car hard to the right while driving down a slippery road, you'll skid.

I will skid or roll over if it's an A-Class, but I will not break the car with my steering input. I'm not saying it's reasonable to expect a plane to be uncrashable, but at least steering input shouldn't break it. If you look at the video you see that the pilot turned the rudder only four or five times. If you used the steering wheel in your car five times and it broke you would think that is inadequately unreliable, wouldn't you? It is impossible to break a car with driver input, short of driving down the Alps while breaking constantly.

If the tail rudder can not structurally withstand constant turns, then it must be limited to a degree where it still is able to withstand such strain. Could happen progressively for example, i. e. the more often you turn it the less far you can turn it until it "recovers" after some time.

[Mastrap]

I think chabig already said above that aircraft design tends to take past accidents into account.

The plane that crashed was of a model that was getting pretty long in the tooth. I am sure that the latest in aircraft design will take accidents like these into consideration for the next generation of planes.

[chabig]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I will skid or roll over if it's an A-Class, but I will not break the car with my steering input. I'm not saying it's reasonable to expect a plane to be uncrashable, but at least steering input shouldn't break it.

Granted, it is not a perfect analogy. But if you roll your car you will most likely cause severe structural damage to body parts. So in a sense, the steering input did "break" it.

You could also question whether any control inputs should be allowed that let the driver put the car out of control? By that measure, cars fail too.

Chris

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Fascinating. Thank you both for sharing your knowledge here. I am a pretty frequent yet bizarrely still nervous flyer, the more I know the calmer I am when up in the air.

If it will make you feel any better, remember air accidents happen only when a rare environmental variable wins over many very reliable and often redundant well designed and well tested control-systems, the pilot factor will also become eventually quite redundant as technology evolves. One has to wait and see if the skies become even more safer as a result. I predict it will. But also remember, although cockpit emergencies will become rarer in the future, if multiple and unrelated systems do fail, the captain's job is going to be way too difficult to manage effectively, you will need an expert-system on board to help him out. And I think in this area the Airbus Industrie is the leader.

Having said that let me just say one of my most memorable airplane travels happened in a DC-9! Will never forget that ride ever! ;-)

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by FulcrumPilot:
If it will make you feel any better, remember air accidents happen only when a rare environmental variable wins over many very reliable and often redundant well designed and well tested control-systems, the pilot factor will also become eventually quite redundant as technology evolves.

Oh, I know that it's ridiculous being a nervous flyer.

But it's like some people who are afraid of public speaking. My brother comes to mind. It scares him to death. I on the other hand will think nothing of speaking to a large group of people about pretty much anything with minimal preparation - I busked my entire wedding speech without even thinking about it.

[Cadaver]

Chabig,
Thanks for your information and patience with these many questions!

[driven]

Originally posted by chabig:
I'm working on it. Here is a reference that states the weight per wheel on the A380 is less than the weight per wheel of the 747. It's the weight on each wheel that really matters where surface weight bearing capacity is being discussed.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/chasingthesun/planes/a380.html

Here is another reference that talks about the A380 is terms of size but points out that weight is not a problem:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/hsts421/doel/onA380.htm

Chris,

Thanks for the links.

Question: Would weight per wheel still be the only factor in the case of a bridge that an aircraft must cross? (As is the case at several airports and soon ... Atlanta.)

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by driven:
Would weight per wheel still be the only factor in the case of a bridge that an aircraft must cross? (As is the case at several airports and soon ... Atlanta.)

what if the outer engines are sticking out out the bridge? that could be a problem as well, just a guess.

[exca1ibur]

Noise abatement is one factor as certain airports have restrictions, weight is the other, as some airports must reinforce their runways to handle a larger aircraft, also terminal space. Some gates might have to be changed to accompany the larger aircraft as well.

The difference between Airbus and Boeing is that Airbus is counting on that people will want to fly directly to a major hub, then change flights to fly into a smaller city. Where as Boeing with a mid sized jet would be able to fly direct from one location into that smaller city. This is what the Boeing 7E7 is being targeted for. Its a midsize jet with extended range pretty much a boost of the 767 with better fuel efficiency with longer range.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by PacHead:
This airbus plane is midget sized compared to the hercules planes the military already uses, so your genius suggestion is not too bright.

Perhaps the french can sell them to the enemy. They don't need body bags though, just various "parts" bags, since their bodies are in 56 pathetic pieces.

If your second statement doesn't prove you are on heavy drugs, your first sure does!

A380-800:
Wing span 79.8m
length 73m
Height 24.1m
Operating empty 275,000kg
Max takeoff 560,000kg

Lockheed C-130 Hercules:
Wing Span: 40.41m
Length: 29.79m
Height: 11.66m
Freight: 20560kg

or were you thinking of the Howard Hughes Hercules plane that only flew once? I don't even really think it's bigger, but it's close.

Spruce Goose:
Wingspan: 97.54 m
Length: 66.65 m
Height: 24.18 m

But yes, as mentioned above, that Ukrainian plane really is bigger! Of course it's only flown a few times and only one has been built.

Antonov 225 cossack
Length: 84.0 m
Wingspan: 88.4m
Height: 18.2m
Empty weight: 175,000 kg
Max takeoff weight: 600,000 kg
Max Payload (internal or external): 250,000 kg (551,150 lbs)

[mrtew]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I will skid or roll over if it's an A-Class, but I will not break the car with my steering input.
If the tail rudder can not structurally withstand constant turns, then it must be limited to a degree where it still is able to withstand such strain. Could happen progressively for example, i. e. the more often you turn it the less far you can turn it until it "recovers" after some time.

I don't know... I think when you jerk the wheel of your car back and forth 5 times at high speed the body starts whipping back and forth until if gets so unstable that it flips over and breaks apart. I say that the exact same thing happens with the plane except that since it's up in the sky it doesn't hit the ground and break apart like the car does, it just hits the air and breaks up. I do agree that they should make it impossible for the pilot to do that, as well as making it impossible to fly into a building etc. You know... like a hardwired radar based collision avoidance system.

[chabig]

Originally posted by driven:
Question: Would weight per wheel still be the only factor in the case of a bridge that an aircraft must cross? (As is the case at several airports and soon ... Atlanta.)

I think weight per wheel is the important factor on a solid surface, like a patch of concrete. On a bridge, I'm sure total weight is important in addition to the weight distribution. But there won't be a lot of these super jumbos and most airports have ways around the bridges.

Chris

[chabig]

Originally posted by FulcrumPilot:
what if the outer engines are sticking out out the bridge? that could be a problem as well, just a guess.

I suppose so, but off the top of my head I can't figure out why.

Chris

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by chabig:
I suppose so, but off the top of my head I can't figure out why.

Chris

off the top of my head I would imagine that someone driving in their convertible with a hat (on the top of their head)under the bridge could lose it!? besides after crossing the bridge the engine may continue to suck in other debris off the sides of the taxiway?


On second thoughts ofcourse one could taxi around with just 2 and 3 (inboards), I guess.

[Lancer409]

Originally posted by ambush:
pil0t pwn4g3

??? uhh...

[DigitalEl]

Reading this "discussion" in the MacNN Lounge is as much fun as going over to the Betty Crocker forums (if such a thing exists) and listening to a bunch of housewives discuss how PCs are better b/c all the great recipe software comes out for Windows first.

With all due respect (take that how you want), very few of you here know WTF you're talking about. If you're truly interested in anything other than your jingoistic Airbus vs. Boeing shouting and mudslinging, head on over to the Airliners.net forums and just quietly read for awhile. The Civil Aviation forum is great for business stuff and the Tech/Ops forum is good for hardware stuff and how stuff works. And yeah, there's plenty of fanboys and shouters there, too (it is a public forum, after all), but you can cut through the clutter if you want and learn a lot.

The bottom line is that both Airbus and Boeing make great airplanes and both innovate.

Lastly, that BWB (Boeing Blended-Wing) airplane was put to bed years ago. That means it's unlikely to be built or even revisited anytime soon. Boeing's attention is on its upcoming 7E7... And after that, they'll look at the 737, likely adapting 7E7 technology to their most popular product line.

As for Airbus, while the A380 will likely be a successful project, most won't have wet bars, duty-free shops or the other outrageous amenities shown in those pictures on the first page of this thread. Airlines are about asses-in-seats. Nothing more. Maybe some near-luxury carrier, like Singapaore Airlines... Or a gimmick-driven one, like Virgin Atlantic, will do something like that. But most A380s will just have hundreds and hundreds of seats. Much like today's 747s and A340s on long-haul service.

As you were.

[driven]

Originally posted by DigitalEl:
Reading this "discussion" in the MacNN Lounge is as much fun as going over to the Betty Crocker forums (if such a thing exists) and listening to a bunch of housewives discuss how PCs are better b/c all the great recipe software comes out for Windows first.

With all due respect (take that how you want), very few of you here know WTF you're talking about. If you're truly interested in anything other than your jingoistic Airbus vs. Boeing shouting and mudslinging, head on over to the Airliners.net forums and just quietly read for awhile. The Civil Aviation forum is great for business stuff and the Tech/Ops forum is good for hardware stuff and how stuff works. And yeah, there's plenty of fanboys and shouters there, too (it is a public forum, after all), but you can cut through the clutter if you want and learn a lot.

The bottom line is that both Airbus and Boeing make great airplanes and both innovate.

Lastly, that BWB (Boeing Blended-Wing) airplane was put to bed years ago. That means it's unlikely to be built or even revisited anytime soon. Boeing's attention is on its upcoming 7E7... And after that, they'll look at the 737, likely adapting 7E7 technology to their most popular product line.

As for Airbus, while the A380 will likely be a successful project, most won't have wet bars, duty-free shops or the other outrageous amenities shown in those pictures on the first page of this thread. Airlines are about asses-in-seats. Nothing more. Maybe some near-luxury carrier, like Singapaore Airlines... Or a gimmick-driven one, like Virgin Atlantic, will do something like that. But most A380s will just have hundreds and hundreds of seats. Much like today's 747s and A340s on long-haul service.

As you were.

Good post. :-)
A *lot* of recent Boing projects were put to bed. I was frankly amazed that they actually pulled the trigger and committed to the 7E7.

[Randman]

Originally posted by DigitalEl:
while the A380 will likely be a successful project, most won't have wet bars, duty-free shops or the other outrageous amenities shown in those pictures on the first page of this thread. Airlines are about asses-in-seats. Nothing more. Maybe some near-luxury carrier, like Singapaore Airlines... Or a gimmick-driven one, like Virgin Atlantic, will do something like that.

Well, you can already do duty-free shopping in the air from most airlines' shopping service. And while it's not a bar per se, I must say the walking area on the non-stop long-hauls on SQ (Sing Air) is a nice way to stretch your legs and gab a bit.
The windows in the bathrooms are also kinda neat.

More than bodies, it's business class that is attractive for the bigger airlines. More comfort (space beds), more choices (DVD on demand in-seat) and more amentities (ability to check e-mail, surf web and even make calls/video conferencing) is what is going to make it or break it for many of these carriers.
You don't see Southwest on the list lining up for these planes.

And I agree with all the political bs being totally out-of-bounds here. But some people just have to vent their stupidity when and where they can.

[Sven G]

... As for airport compatibility, it might be interesting for you in the US to know that SFO (San Francisco airport) is one of the first big airports to plan full A380 compatbility - despite being one of the most space-constrained ones from the runway and taxiway point of view. If one looks at the terminal area at SFO, it's really amazing what they have done to pack so many airplanes in such a little space: very high density of buildings and aircraft docking piers indeed, and very rational and modernly beautiful at the same time...

BTW, the former international terminal (now replaced by a new one, and under reconstruction for domestic traffic, AFAIK), which could handle 10 B747s in a very "compact" way, was a beautiful example of SFO's style.

[exca1ibur]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... As for airport compatibility, it might be interesting for you in the US to know that SFO (San Francisco airport) is one of the first big airports to plan full A380 compatbility - despite being one of the most space-constrained ones from the runway and taxiway point of view. If one looks at the terminal area at SFO, it's really amazing what they have done to pack so many airplanes in such a little space: very high density of buildings and aircraft docking piers indeed, and very rational and modernly beautiful at the same time.

Yeah SFO has been majorly reconstructed over the last few years. I had to work out there this summer to do weight and balance for Balair. If you want to see nice, you should see the new international terminal. State of the art there. Very impressive airport, amazing seeing the before and after. Also I believe LAX (Los Angeles International Airport) is on the list for being prepared for the A380 in 2006 as well.

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by DigitalEl:

As for Airbus, while the A380 will likely be a successful project, most won't have wet bars, duty-free shops or the other outrageous amenities shown in those pictures on the first page of this thread. Airlines are about asses-in-seats. Nothing more. Maybe some near-luxury carrier, like Singapaore Airlines... Or a gimmick-driven one, like Virgin Atlantic, will do something like that. But most A380s will just have hundreds and hundreds of seats. Much like today's 747s and A340s on long-haul service.

As you were.

And I will still look forward to free upgrades when I fly the A380 in the future. Ofcourse there will be one more reason for me to fly SA as always has been. It's airlines like SA that truly deserve A380's.

But man! your holier-than-thou post otherwise had nothing really new to say, it was predictable and boring!

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Taking a full 747 with annoying babies crying and kids is bad enough, I'd hate to be on some cattle flight with many more people.

Get in-the-ear headphones. Problem solved. I can barely hear anything (except my music) when I'm wearing my Etymotic headphones.



Furthermore, it makes the audio from the headphone jacks on the plane that much better. The in-flight music actually sounds good, and the movies actually become enjoyable.

The solution couldn't be simpler. Babies crying on a plane is now pretty much a non-issue... unless it happens to be your own kid...

[greenamp]

Were it not for the tires losing traction and creating another variable, jerking your steering wheel rapidly back and forth at high driving speeds would break your cars wheels off.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Get in-the-ear headphones. Problem solved. I can barely hear anything (except my music) when I'm wearing my Etymotic headphones.

Furthermore, it makes the audio from the headphone jacks on the plane that much better. The in-flight music actually sounds good, and the movies actually become enjoyable.

The solution couldn't be simpler. Babies crying on a plane is now pretty much a non-issue... unless it happens to be your own kid...

Yeah, I did read about those a while ago, though I haven't tried them myself yet. That will most likely be the first accessory I purchase for my iPod. I believe those headphones just have mics in them, and they pick up external noise and then phase shift the noise 180 degrees, thus eliminating it I assume ?

As for crying babies, luckily I don't have any of my own, that I am aware of.



So, it seems as if the noise issue can be solved. Now if somebody came up with a solution to give more legroom, without buying some first class ticket.............

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by PacHead:

So, it seems as if the noise issue can be solved. Now if somebody came up with a solution to give more legroom, without buying some first class ticket.............

Be nice to check in staff. Seriously, I fly a fair bit and I can't remember the last time I had a seat where I couldn't stretch my legs out.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Be nice to check in staff. Seriously, I fly a fair bit and I can't remember the last time I had a seat where I couldn't stretch my legs out.

Most long flights I've flown, it seems as if most seats are reserved already, and the few spacious seats in economy with added legroom are usually given to annoying people with babies. Do they even pay extra for a baby ticket ? Hell, give the seats to tall people who've actually paid for their seats, and who need them.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yeah, I did read about those a while ago, though I haven't tried them myself yet. That will most likely be the first accessory I purchase for my iPod. I believe those headphones just have mics in them, and they pick up external noise and then phase shift the noise 180 degrees, thus eliminating it I assume ?

Nope.

They just plug up your ear canal, so you've got earplugs with built-in speakers.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Nope.

They just plug up your ear canal, so you've got earplugs with built-in speakers.

Oh, ok, so no mic system then. I'll have to check 'em out and hear how they sound. I know some of the other systems use the mic/phase-cancelling system. I'll see how the two methods compare.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Most long flights I've flown, it seems as if most seats are reserved already, and the few spacious seats in economy with added legroom are usually given to annoying people with babies. Do they even pay extra for a baby ticket ? Hell, give the seats to tall people who've actually paid for their seats, and who need them.

Try travelling with a baby and you will understand. You really need all the space you can get.

Having said that, I am 6'6" and all it takes is a mention of that fact, a smile and a request for extra legroom to keep me comfortable. This is probably BS but I have read somewhere that the airlines treat all people over 6'5" as 'disabled' passengers in that respect. Maybe one of the pilots on this board can illuminate us.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Try travelling with a baby and you will understand. You really need all the space you can get.

Having said that, I am 6'6" and all it takes is a mention of that fact, a smile and a request for extra legroom to keep me comfortable. This is probably BS but I have read somewhere that the airlines treat all people over 6'5" as 'disabled' passengers in that respect. Maybe one of the pilots on this board can illuminate us.

I'm only 6'3", so I suppose I don't qualify as "disabled" then.

Damn, I wish I qualified as "disabled". I'll even wear a huge handicapped sticker, if I had a bigger seat.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Oh, ok, so no mic system then. I'll have to check 'em out and hear how they sound. I know some of the other systems use the mic/phase-cancelling system. I'll see how the two methods compare.

The mic/phase ones suck. They make crying babies WORSE. They cancel out the drone of the engine, so crying babies come thru loud and clear. Plus, most have worse audio quality than standard headphones.

The in-the-ear ones are great. Quality varies with cost, as is expected. My Etymotic ER-4P headphones are excellent, but they cost a lot. You can get cheaper Etymotic 6 series ones or other brands.

OTOH, the in-the-ear ones are lousy for jogging. The wire rubs up against the clothing which each step, and the rubbing sound is very loud.

Originally posted by PacHead:
So, it seems as if the noise issue can be solved. Now if somebody came up with a solution to give more legroom, without buying some first class ticket.............

If you get there early enough, sometimes you can ask for the seats at the emergency exit. Much more leg room.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Americans innovate, the french immitate.

You mean like our flag? And wine?

[driven]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Be nice to check in staff. Seriously, I fly a fair bit and I can't remember the last time I had a seat where I couldn't stretch my legs out.

If you are over 5' try flying Northwest / international in coach. Those seats were made for mini-me.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by driven:
If you are over 5' try flying Northwest / international in coach. Those seats were made for mini-me.

Then there's the 747SR (short range) cattle-cars that shuttle back and forth between Tokyo and Osaka. Jam-packed and built for marginal comfort at a 170 cm average. They fit more people in there than I ever thought possible.

[TETENAL]

Sorry, but I don't get what the complaining is about. The cheaper the ticket the more people must be put into the plane. It's simple math. If you want more space buy a higher class ticket. If you want cheap, stop whining.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Sorry, but I don't get what the complaining is about. The cheaper the ticket the more people must be put into the plain. It's simple math. If you want more space buy a higher class ticket. If you want cheap, stop whining.

please note that tall people have a slightly different stand on the matter.

I wouldn't have bothered mentioning the JAL shuttles if I were closer to the average size of a Japanese citizen.

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
The cheaper the ticket the more people must be put into the plain.

Plane simple! ;-)

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
please note that tall people have a slightly different stand on the matter.

Which stand? That there shouldn't be any cheap flight tickets?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Which stand? That there shouldn't be any cheap flight tickets?

Don't try to turn this into a discussion of principle.

The point isn't that hard to get.

[TETENAL]

The point is whining. You could fly a higher class or an airline with more distance between the seats, but you choose to pick the cheapest and whine about leg space. That's childish.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
The point is whining. You could fly a higher class or an airline with more distance between the seats, but you choose to pick the cheapest and whine about leg space. That's childish.

You're being harsh! Just because someone's a little taller than you doesn't mean they should have to pay thousands more for the same trip just to not be in actual physical pain when flying. Yes, if you want to lie back and sleep with free drinks and sauteed truffled duck, you should pay up, but not for the barest physical accommodation. Quit acting like you're jealous of people of stature, shorty!

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
The point is whining. You could fly a higher class or an airline with more distance between the seats, but you choose to pick the cheapest and whine about leg space. That's childish.

You're talking bollox. It is not my fault that I am tall. I didn't stuff my face for years and then complain about being fat, I was born that way.

When I buy a seat from an airline I like to be able to use it, whatever the price of my ticket. As I mentioned above, I generally try to be at the airport extra early so I do get a seat at the emergency exit. When flying short haul in Europe it doesn't bother me all that much but you try and cross any major ocean with your head between your knees.

[driven]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
The point is whining. You could fly a higher class or an airline with more distance between the seats, but you choose to pick the cheapest and whine about leg space. That's childish.

When the ticket price varies by several thousand dollars in some cases, I personally don't think it's childish.

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
You're talking bollox. It is not my fault that I am tall. I didn't stuff my face for years and then complain about being fat, I was born that way.

When I buy a seat from an airline I like to be able to use it, whatever the price of my ticket. As I mentioned above, I generally try to be at the airport extra early so I do get a seat at the emergency exit. When flying short haul in Europe it doesn't bother me all that much but you try and cross any major ocean with your head between your knees.

May be you should not shower for several days before fly. This may help get rid of some seats near you, this should provide some room. Nasty idea, but you do have a nasty problem.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by FulcrumPilot:
May be you should not shower for several days before fly. This may help get rid of some seats near you, this should provide some room. Nasty idea, but you do have a nasty problem.

Daammmmnnnnnn this thread is going downhill fast. Anyone have any new pictures of the Airbus A380!???

[jcadam]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Most long flights I've flown, it seems as if most seats are reserved already, and the few spacious seats in economy with added legroom are usually given to annoying people with babies. Do they even pay extra for a baby ticket ? Hell, give the seats to tall people who've actually paid for their seats, and who need them.

Small infants are usually considered a "lap child" and don't cost extra. But you have to hold them the whole time.

If you have a baby, sometimes you have to travel with them. And it isn't fun for the parents, tell you me. But in my experience an infant is easier than a 2 yr old. If I'm in a grocery store, etc., and my kid starts throwing a tantrum, screaming, etc., I grab him and drag him outside. Can't do that on an airplane

When moving from the US to Germany (in the army), I was forced to fly on a govt chartered airplane. It was a DC-10, some airline I'd never heard of called "World Airways."
Anyways, the smallest seats with the least legroom I'd seen ANYWHERE (and I've flown on many of the discount airlines), and the flight was absolutely packed. I'm 5'10", 190 lbs. I was sitting between two guys of about equal size. Had to take turns eating, since there wasn't even enough room for all 3 of us to maneuver our arms at the same time to spoon food from our trays to our mouths. I was in actual physical pain the whole flight (knees in my chest), and wasn't able to fall asleep becasue of this. Some people had babies with them, must have been hell for them.

At least the govt. paid to fly my wife and baby out on American Airlines on a 747 two weeks later. From what she tells me, the flight was mostly empty so she had room to stretch out a bit.

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by mrtew:
Daammmmnnnnnn this thread is going downhill fast. Anyone have any new pictures of the Airbus A380!???

Your wish is my command!