[bubblewrap]

It's suppose to PREVENT it from breaking off.
But it didn't. It dosen't prevent the stresses on the anchor either.
The 737 limits the movement well below it's stress threshold at all airspeeds. Airbus Industrie has done nothing to fix it. Yet.

The little bird I fly you can't physically press the rudder in at 300kts.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by badidea:
It's 2.9l/100km per passenger (and that's for Jets)!

That's less than a smart car!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
The 700 series liners has been the standard for awhile now. Therefore the new airbuses represents a seachange.

This article is about the seachange.


The original pre-order of the 700 series probably was just as big a seechange as this.

"700-series"???

737? 707? 747? 767? 7E7?

Those are all the same series?

You mean like the A320, A340, A350, and A380 are all the same A300 series?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That's less than a smart car!

Less than a car, but just like you can cram 800 people into the 380 you can cram 4 people into a 7 litres diesel. And then the car is more fuel efficient. I assume a train is more energy efficient as well. Flying is only as cheap as it is because flight fuel is not taxed as other energy.

We finally need to tax flight fuel properly.

[bubblewrap]

I pay $3.10 a gallon for AVgas. It's taxed. Heavily.
The Jet A used in the Embrera I fly is almost $4/gallon.

[ringo]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Yes, he actually consulted a meterolgist on that one. - No he didn't and unless I'm gravely mistaken (either him or me) then the water system and toilets in airplanes are chemical and never disposed of except at airports. They are not dumped in the air as the editorial would indicate. But hey. A pleasant thought nevertheless no?

Waste is dumped midair sometimes (I couldn't say how often), every once in a while you'll hear a story about "blue ice" (frozen chunks of toilet waste) smashing through someone's roof.

[dougmilbourne]

I have a fear of flying and hate all planes equally, wish they were never invented

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by ringo:
Waste is dumped midair sometimes (I couldn't say how often), every once in a while you'll hear a story about "blue ice" (frozen chunks of toilet waste) smashing through someone's roof.

As far as I am aware, that's an urban myth. All waste is removed at the destination airport. I am not even sure if planes have the ability to jettison waste in mid-flight. Think about it, it would mean a hole in a pressurized system.

But, I am not an expert, so I might be wrong.

[Buckaroo]

You'll never ever catch me in one of those.

The investigation of the Airbus that crashed in New York sometime after 9/11 was caused because the jet fell apart in the sky.

Besides, I have heard of too many night mares of passengers complaining of horrible enviornmental conditions in AirBus planes.

[Buckaroo]

More important than anything else, These big planes are planed for travel from one big airport to another. That means every flight overseas must be atleast one change over and possibly several changeovers from one plane to another.

I think I'd prefer a smaller size flight that wold not require changeover. Besides the part of the flight that makes me most nervous is the takeoff and landings. After I'm up there, I'm not too nervous. I think I prefer the Boeing 7E7 because it is planned for flights orginating from smaller airports all the way to the final destination. No stopovers.

[Timo]

Re: the LA TImes editorial, they are absolutely right.

800 people do not want to fly from Mpls to Hibbing.

As everyone knows, the drive is much nicer.

[roam]

How long before we see the Americans calling the Airbus a "vehicle for transporting terrorists, and thus must be neutralised", just so they can kill foreign competition.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
I think I prefer the Boeing 7E7 because it is planned for flights orginating from smaller airports all the way to the final destination. No stopovers.

The 7E7 has a range of 15400km - the A380 16400km! Which one now is more likely to make a stopover on a very long flight??

[roam]

Originally posted by badidea:
The 7E7 has a range of 15400km - the A380 16400km! Which one now is more likely to make a stopover on a very long flight??

Will these things fly to Australia? If so, when?

Thanks.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by badidea:
The 7E7 has a range of 15400km - the A380 16400km! Which one now is more likely to make a stopover on a very long flight??

He didn't say stopovers for fueling reasons, he said stopovers in order to change planes to a smaller one that can service smaller airports.

You guys really are talking completely past one another. It's quite obvious even to a layman like me that the A380 has a particular niche in mind -- long distance major routes such as crossing the Atlantic or Pacific, or perhaps crossing from LA to New York.

Most of the criticisms are simply pointing out that not all routes are economic with such a large plane. Most US domestic flights (of which there are an awful lot) are short hops between relatively small airports. The A380 is just the wrong plane for hopping between Raleigh Durham and Reagan National, or even New York to Chicago or Dallas.

Nor do most travellers want to be forced to change planes at a hub airport. They want frequent flights where they can board a plane at their point of origin, have the plane fill up (so they aren't paying for empty seats), and fly to their destination in one hop. That requires smaller aircraft. And because airlines are service industries, it behooves them to listen to their customers.

In most markets, it makes sense for there to be a variety of products to suit different needs. It also makes sense in most markets for their to be a variety of makers making them in competition with one another. Competition breeds imaginative thinking, and counteracts complacency. However, airplanes seem to bring out the small minded in people. A big airplane is not a substitute for the size of your collective d1cks. It's just a product that may be good for some uses, maybe not for others.

[badidea]

Originally posted by roam:
Will these things fly to Australia? If so, when?

Thanks.

I think so but you better ask your local airline!
First plane will be delivered to Singapor Airlines in 2006!

[roam]

Looks great though, enough cargo space to hide half of Columbia in there. Could supply the West Coast with enough blow to keep them from realizing they have a sh!tty, Austrian "actor" governing them.

[roam]

Originally posted by badidea:
I think so but you better ask your local airline!
First plane will be delivered to Singapor Airlines in 2006!

Ah, good, Singapore Airlines fly to Australia. 2006 though? That's quite a bit off, I want to travel on one this year, get a feel for it.

[badidea]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He didn't say stopovers for fueling reasons, he said stopovers in order to change planes to a smaller one that can service smaller airports.

You guys really are talking completely past one another. It's quite obvious even to a layman like me that the A380 has a particular niche in mind -- long distance major routes such as crossing the Atlantic or Pacific, or perhaps crossing from LA to New York.

Most of the criticisms are simply pointing out that not all routes are economic with such a large plane. Most US domestic flights (of which there are an awful lot) are short hops between relatively small airports. The A380 is just the wrong plane for hopping between Raleigh Durham and Reagan National, or even New York to Chicago or Dallas.

Nor do most travellers want to be forced to change planes at a hub airport. They want frequent flights where they can board a plane at their point of origin, have the plane fill up (so they aren't paying for empty seats), and fly to their destination in one hop. That requires smaller aircraft. And because airlines are service industries, it behooves them to listen to their customers.

In most markets, it makes sense for there to be a variety of products to suit different needs. It also makes sense in most markets for their to be a variety of makers making them in competition with one another. Competition breeds imaginative thinking, and counteracts complacency. However, airplanes seem to bring out the small minded in people. A big airplane is not a substitute for the size of your collective d1cks. It's just a product that may be good for some uses, maybe not for others.

Yeah right, very well said and I missed his point....because you actually can't compare the 7E7 to the A380! Those planes are made for different markets!
The direct competition for the 7E7 will be the A350...

And hey, no one is forced to fly with the A380, it's not the only plane we are making! If you like small ones, get yourself a A318 - they are really nice!

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
That's like making a car that you can't use the steering but a few times and blaming the driver for engineering neglegence.

The Airbus design is flawed and they are using "workarounds" to try to make it airworthy.

The tail needs to be re-engineered.

Just read the other thread, will ya.

Just take your car onto an icy road and turn the steering wheel in both directions really quickly. See what happens. Oh, and make sure there is no traffic on the road.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by badidea:
If you like small ones, get yourself a A318 - they are really nice!

I'd prefer to get myself a Gulfstream V, if that is ok with you.

On the other hand, so long as I am flying commercial, I don't really care what the airlines buy so long as it is safe and modern. The first plane I flew in was a Comet. As long as it is a bit safer than that, I am happy.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Most of the criticisms are simply pointing out that not all routes are economic with such a large plane.

And not all plains that Airbus builds are that large. So that criticism is unfounded.

[badidea]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'd prefer to get myself a Gulfstream V, if that is ok with you.

It sure is ok but are you really??? Nice!

On the other hand, so long as I am flying commercial, I don't really care what the airlines buy so long as it is safe and modern. The first plane I flew in was a Comet. As long as it is a bit safer than that, I am happy.

As a passenger or as a pilot? How old are you (if I might ask)??

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by badidea:
It sure is ok but are you really??? Nice!
As a passenger or as a pilot? How old are you (if I might ask)??

I'm kidding about the Gulfstream. I was just amused by your use of the word "you" -- as if I am personally going to be buying any plane. The most I buy is a few inches of uncomfortable economy class seating occasionally. That's why I don't really give a damn what plane the airline flies. They all suck.

I'll be 38 this March. I crossed the Atlantic the first time in a Comet in 1969 when I was 2. They were in commercial transatlantic service until (I believe) 1973.

More interesting is that I was on the very first Laker SkyTrain flight. I used to have a little souvenir, but I lost it.

[badidea]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm kidding about the Gulfstream. I was just amused by your use of the word "you" -- as if I am personally going to be buying any plane.

The use of the word "you" was plain intention (but not directed at you) because many here bitch so much about the plane as it was really in their interest to buy one of those. I think the pilots and and their airlines know a lot better what they want and need and which plane they think is safe enough!

And somehow I got the impression from your post that you would be a pilot and really interested in buying a gulfstream - what do I know how rich you are (Travolta has his own 707)!?!

[turtle777]

Originally posted by videian28:
i'll take european engineering over american engineering any day

-t

[TETENAL]

American engineering isn't that bad either. You don't find anything like that in Europe.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

quote:
Originally posted by videian28:
i'll take european engineering over american engineering any day




the difference is COMMERICIAL american engineering sucks arse because it is influenced by other factors, such as money, profit, and many other stupid crap


American Engineering itself is fine. Intelligence is not a result of location.

[roam]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
American engineering isn't that bad either. You don't find anything like that in Europe.

They're actually built abroad and designed by a Brit. Imagine if Americans built our Macs, lmao.

Just kidding.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by roam:
Imagine if Americans built our Macs, lmao.

This is not funny !














-t

[roam]

Originally posted by turtle777:
This is not funny !

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by roam:
They're actually built abroad and designed by a Brit. Imagine if Americans built our Macs, lmao.

Where they are biult is irrelevant for the design. I know the industrial design is by a Brit (by origin) and in all honesty I believe that's why I like it so much (not because European aesthetics are superior to American, but because I'm more used to it). However Ives is not the only one in the design team, and the technical engineering is done by Americans, and it is amazing at times. I consider the Cube an unparalleled technical piece of art.

Also the PowerPC, Intel and AMD processors are all designed in the USA. The only ones who could come close are the Japanese.

With regards to computers the USA are the unchallenged number 1. That includes hardware and software. The European Linux sucks.

[simonjames]

The article is obviously biased against Airbus and what does this mean? That all articles in all newspapers and news bulletins are biased to the opinions of the editor and the owner. The truth is not out there in print thats for sure.

[3gg3]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
More interesting is that I was on the very first Laker SkyTrain flight. I used to have a little souvenir, but I lost it.

Hmmmm. I had a Freddy Laker souvenir once, too. It was a copy of an unpaid invoice for a refuel when a Laker charter was diverted to the Canadian Forces Base Trenton when the Toronto destination was unavailable. Never found out who got stuck with swallowing the cost.

Had similar instances from Max Ward's Wardair flights, too. Blood from a stone, and all...

[ink]

Originally posted by CaseCom:
Then again, for fliers, smaller isn't necessarily better either. Last year I flew a Northwest CRJ (44-seat Canadair Regional Jet, made by Bombardier) from Minneapolis to Richmond, Va., because it was the only nonstop flight I could get to Richmond. My butt is still sore from the experience. The worst airline seats I've ever sat in.

I had to go from Salt Lake City to Raleigh, NC in one of those. Ouch. Of course, it's not Canadair's fault that the AmericaWest crammed so many seats into it. (but then again, I hit my head on the console when I stood up once)

Re: A380; I've never flown on a 747, so I don't see any of my routes picking up one of these any time soon.

[theolein]

I haven't read this whole thread, only the first half page or so, but already I saw the usual signs of partisan sniping over a very poorly written article in the LA Times, mostly divided into the usual American/European camps, which is missing the point entirely. So I'll post my view on the article and the whole A380 shebang:

1. The LATimes articles is an extreme example of quite a few editorials and commentaries in the American press. None that I've seen go as far as this one in being blatantly critical of an aircraft for no real reason other than it not being made by an American company, i.e. Boeing. However, even National Geographic, for crying out loud, most of them manage to squeeze in a side reference to Boeing's 7E7 marketing line of being better suited to future requirments etc.

2. It's painful to see normally rational people acting like nationalistic goons over a single company's product. The only reason behind this is because Airbus is a European company and because Boeing so badly screwed up in the 90's under a very strange CEO, Phil Condit, who almost managed to run Boeing into the ground before being recently replaced by harry Stonecipher.

3. There are many ironies in this whole story, such as: Almost 50% of the subcontractors on the A380 are American, and Airbus went out of its way to bring American contractor on board in order to soothe American worries about the subsidies paid to Airbus by various European governments.

4. The fact that so many newspaper commentaries are picking up Boeing's marketing FUD about the A380 says a lot about American press impartiality and fact checking. The fact is:
In the early 90's Boeing and Airbus were working on the new large plane together until Boeing pulled out because British Airways, which was to be the launch customer, dropped out, and Boeing was worried that the plane would not sell. Airbus went ahead with development and manged to find many other interested customers, despite the LA Times aming noises about none of them being US airlines.

Boeing, suddenly worried about missing a golden opportunity, started making efforts to sound out customers on a possible stretched version of the 747, called the 747X. But no one was interested, unsurprisingly, in a modified version of a plane that, in its basic configuration and construction, was 30 years old. So, then Boeing went on a weird campaign of trying to outsmart Airbus by coming with the concept of a plane that would travel almost the speed of sound, called the Sonic Cruiser.

However, the Sonic Cruiser would cost so much to develop that Boeing imagined that Airlines would be interested in trying to get customers to pay more for reducing flight times by 10% to 15%, which of course almost no customers are. in 2002 Boeing then was forced to drop the Sonic Cruiser.

Finally Boeing came up with a more practical new plane, the 7E7 which is supposed to use much less fuel due to new engines (GEnX) and use almost 50% composite materials in its construction. Boeing is pitching the 7E7 as Boeing's idea of the future of air travel, saying that it will be able to fly between smaller airports where giants like the 747 and A380 can't go. Being imagines that people will want to fly from, say, Tampa in Florida to Phuket in Thailand, as the 7E7 is basically a long range plane. The short range version of the 7E7 has been ordered by ANA and JAL to fly the same sardine run flights that they currently use the 747 SR for but these are special cases unless the same patterns develop in China or India.

However, the huge hub airports will be as busy as ever as millions of people still want to fly from Singapore and Seoul to LA and NY and London. That is the target market of the A380. Given that the A380 has alread sold around 127 passenger versions in only two years, it looks as if the concept will work, since they need around 250 sales to break even and the A380 will almost certainly replace many 747's currently in service with time.

5. The LA times says that no passenger versions have been sold to US airlines. This is true. However, both FedEx and UPS have ordered 10 freight versions each as the A380 is an ideal plane for transporting large amounts of cargo in pressurised hulls (The An-124 is not pressurised). The real reason that no US airlines have ordered the A380 however, has nothing to do with the plane being an Airbus, since many US Airlines fly the A330, A300 and A319 to A321. The reason is that of the 9 biggest airlines in the US, 5 are under bankruptcy protection and can't afford to buy large new aircraft at the moment. AFAIK, only NorthWest and SouthWest airlines are not under chapter 11 (I don't know exactly which airlines are, so please correct me). The US commercial civil aviation market is going through bad times.

The same, however, is not true for commercial civil aviation worldwide. The fact that airlines like Emirates are buying 45 A380s shows this. And Singapore airlines is also doing well and they have ordered 14 A380s.

6. The LATimes also makes a big noise about the costs of the A380's development will be around $12 billion instead of the original $10 billion. This is ********, plain and simple. Most new plane develpoments go over budget and they know it. Had the LATimes been more interested in journalistic integrity instead of nationalistic whining, the would have noted that the Boeing 777 cost almost $12 billion to develop instead of the original $6 billion estimated. Although the 777 is a fantastic plane (it's one of my favourites) and is selling well, it still hasn't reached break even point, some 6 years after entering service, and added to that, the new 7E7 will compete with it on certain routes.

7. Airbus, realising that the 7E7 is indeed an excellent plane and a good idea, has come up with its own new plane, the A350, since they think the 7E7 will steal marketshare from the A330. No one knows whether the A350 will be a success, and since it will have neither the bleedless engines of the 7E7 nor the supposed 50% composite construction, Airbus has been making its own marketing FUD about how the 7E7 is a pipe dream etc.

Aviation companies are no different than Microsoft or Apple. They all make FUD in order to gain advantage.

In closing, I think all this negative media in the American press about the A380 is simply because the A380, being the biggest flying civil aircraft, is European of origin and they feel a loss of national prestige because Boeing has not come up with something bigger and better. I'm pretty sure that the LA Times would not be so critical if Boeing had some new double decker 747 that was bigger than the A380.

[KeyLimePi]

Relax. The writer isn't saying it's not a technical marvel...just that he doesn't want to be in baggage claim when one arrives. I don't blame him, but who knows? It may be the wave of the future. Only time will tell.

[gatekeeper]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
The European Linux sucks.

Yes, you're right, SuSE does suck.

I prefer the South African Linux, Ubuntu.

I look forward to the day when the mighty American software engineers who develop MacOS X are able to optimize their code so that recursively copying a directory with thousands of small files doesn't take ~10 times as long as it does under Linux (on the same Mac)

[theolein]

Originally posted by CaseCom:
...

Then again, for fliers, smaller isn't necessarily better either. Last year I flew a Northwest CRJ (44-seat Canadair Regional Jet, made by Bombardier) from Minneapolis to Richmond, Va., because it was the only nonstop flight I could get to Richmond. My butt is still sore from the experience. The worst airline seats I've ever sat in.

I've flown on one of those as well, from Zurich to Berlin, and it really is a lot less comfortable than a standard widebody.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
I look forward to the day when the mighty American software engineers who develop MacOS X are able to optimize their code so that recursively copying a directory with thousands of small files doesn't take ~10 times as long as it does under Linux (on the same Mac)

The day when copying thousands of small files from one disk to an other is the only thing I do on my computer all day I will consider installing Linux. Until then welcome to my ignore list.

[gatekeeper]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
The day when copying thousands of small files from one disk to an other is the only thing I do on my computer all day I will consider installing Linux. Until then welcome to my ignore list.

Missed the smiley and the point of my post, huh? You should try browsing using something else than Lynx.

I'm always honored to end up on ignorant people's ignore lists.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
Missed the smiley and the point of my post, huh? You should try browsing using something else than Lynx.

I'm always honored to end up on ignorant people's ignore lists.

quoted to bypass tetenal's ignore list.

[theolein]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
Yes, you're right, SuSE does suck.

I prefer the South African Linux, Ubuntu.

I look forward to the day when the mighty American software engineers who develop MacOS X are able to optimize their code so that recursively copying a directory with thousands of small files doesn't take ~10 times as long as it does under Linux (on the same Mac)

Me too. Ubuntu, apart from me being a South African and all, is the smoothest distro around. Nice girls on the startup screen as well

[gatekeeper]

Originally posted by theolein:
Nice girls on the startup screen as well

Ah, yes, I *almost* forgot about that aspect of Ubuntu

For reference:
Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2
Screenshot 3 (was removed as default wallpaper in the final release)

[itai195]

Originally posted by theolein:
In closing, I think all this negative media in the American press about the A380 is simply because the A380, being the biggest flying civil aircraft, is European of origin and they feel a loss of national prestige because Boeing has not come up with something bigger and better. I'm pretty sure that the LA Times would not be so critical if Boeing had some new double decker 747 that was bigger than the A380.

Yeah, I think it also plays into cultural values/psychology. Americans like things big, after all.

[Sven G]

... Tsk tsk tsk... Mandrakelinux: c'est magique!

Best European (and worldwide) Linux, says the Cooker penguin: ...