|
|
Give Airbus 380 a wink! [JPEG orgy] (Page 28)
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Troll
Aggro has been a word in South African English for as long as I've been around. But it means aggressiveness rather than aggravation.
Thank you.
|
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Sherman Homan
How else is Michael Moore gunna fly to Havana for his medical care?!
Hey, leave Mike alone. He is mainstream now.
|
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Crisis? What crisis? Airbus executives are strutting around the Paris Air Show like there was never a problem with the company's planned super-jumbo jet. But the company's list of new orders from Paris is spectacular only at first glance.
Sounds like this thread.
They must drink from the same kool-aid fountain.
Also
Airbus was offering hefty discounts in an attempt to fill the order books. And some of the orders are not even new
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by glideslope
Getting information about Airbus from der Spiegel is like getting information on the Holocaust from Iran. For some reason it is shamelessly biased and hostile. Someone at Airbus pissed in the sauerkraut of the Spiegel editor..
Any German here with information on why der Spiegel always spouts FUD, half-truths and crap reports on Airbus?
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
Its got nice things and all but will be terrible for extended trips. Also, the 787 Dreamliner looks real nice and its a LOT cheaper. So at least we know were economy airliners will be turning their heads to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Airbus is up by 9 (519 to 510) after the airshow, and as usual they have a higher percentage of narrowbodies. Lots of new LoI/MoU for them too (300+) that may be firmed this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Do you have a figure in terms of volume rather than frames?
Does anyone know how well Boeing's deprecated models sell (i. e. those aircraft which are to be replaced by the 787)?
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by voodoo
Getting information about Airbus from der Spiegel is like getting information on the Holocaust from Iran. For some reason it is shamelessly biased and hostile. Someone at Airbus pissed in the sauerkraut of the Spiegel editor..
Any German here with information on why der Spiegel always spouts FUD, half-truths and crap reports on Airbus?
V
Attack the person and not what he says? Its true! The airbus people DO act like everything is A_oK! When it's not.
This is just an HONEST view of what is going on.
I am sure those in his report believe he was sprouting FUD and half-truths too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Do you have a figure in terms of volume rather than frames?
Does anyone know how well Boeing's deprecated models sell (i. e. those aircraft which are to be replaced by the 787)?
Originally the 787 had accumulated over 500 orders while the 380 only a couple dozen. This show changed that but now in new orders, just confirmation. Boeing however is still doing better off with the more popular dreamliner and its early debut: 2008 as opposed to the 380's 2013 debut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by tiger
Originally the 787 had accumulated over 500 orders while the 380 only a couple dozen. This show changed that but now in new orders, just confirmation. Boeing however is still doing better off with the more popular dreamliner and its early debut: 2008 as opposed to the 380's 2013 debut.
That wasn't really my question, I didn't ask about sales of the B787 vs. the A350, but the B787 vs. the B767, etc. I'm interested in the impact the 787 has already made on orders of other Boeing aircraft (which isn't really a loss for Boeing as it just sells a different aircraft).
PS I think you were talking about the A350. The A380 has over 150 fix orders, enters service this year and does not really compete with the 787.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by voodoo
Getting information about Airbus from der Spiegel is like getting information on the Holocaust from Iran. For some reason it is shamelessly biased and hostile. Someone at Airbus pissed in the sauerkraut of the Spiegel editor..
Any German here with information on why der Spiegel always spouts FUD, half-truths and crap reports on Airbus?
V
What about that article is
a) FUD?
b) Half-true?
c) crap reporting?
I'm seriously interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Do you have a figure in terms of volume rather than frames?
Does anyone know how well Boeing's deprecated models sell (i. e. those aircraft which are to be replaced by the 787)?
What do you mean by volume? List price value?
The only model deprecated is the 767, which was already dead. If you're talking about how the 767 and 330 sell on the used market, take a look at Aircraft Value News.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
What do you mean by volume? List price value?
The only model deprecated is the 767, which was already dead. If you're talking about how the 767 and 330 sell on the used market, take a look at Aircraft Value News.
Both. But I guess the impact on orders of 737s is more significant …
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'd expect Boeings orderbook to be worth more at list prices (and discounted prices), since they have more widebodies and fewer big widebody orders.
I really can't see 787 sales having any impact on 737 orders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by glideslope
I still feel Airbus is one of the worst run unaccountable entities today.
... and yet the most successful over the last decade. I take it your criticism of government subsidies and poor management makes you a critic of Boeing too then?
None of what you posted is an excuse for your attack on Badidea. That was totally uncalled for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Airbus is up by 9 (519 to 510) after the airshow,
How can that be if Der Spiegel says that they got 548 order just during the Show and not including Thursday's orders?
Spiegel says $75Bn in orders for Airbus and $15Bn in orders for Boeing during the show. Unless Boeing has been caning Airbus all year, I'd think they have quite a long way to go to overtake Airbus as the largest commercial aircraft manufacturer in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Troll
How can that be if Der Spiegel says that they got 548 order just during the Show and not including Thursday's orders?
Spiegel says $75Bn in orders for Airbus and $15Bn in orders for Boeing during the show. Unless Boeing has been caning Airbus all year, I'd think they have quite a long way to go to overtake Airbus as the largest commercial aircraft manufacturer in the world.
Many of the orders during the show are commitments!
I think the numbers mduell posted are the firm bookings for 2007 so far (even though I just read different numbers 2 days ago)!
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Troll
... and yet the most successful over the last decade.
Well I'll take that with a grain of salt since you are one of the minions that keep acting like the A30 isn't a failure when it comes to actual business and cost and delays and so on.
The handling of it since it's inception has then took that last decade and made everyone forgot.
The reason they didn't shelf the A30 in the first place was out of "Pride" and nothing else.
They would rather LOSE money than see the project go under. This SAME kind of pride is the kind that America gets made fun of constantly for.
It's not an American thing, it's a human thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
I was at Le Bourget on Sunday. They had two A380's there. One on static display with the Rolls Royce engines and the one they flew has the Engine Alliance engines. The last time I was at Le Bourget, they flew the A380 with the wheels out because the test procedure for putting the gear up took 30 minutes to complete. No such issues this time. The crowd goes absolutely mental for this plane ... and I'm talking everyone from the general European public to the Americans and the South Americans. Even the Air National Guardsmen climbed on top of their planes to watch the display and this must be the 6th or 7th time they've seen it fly. The pilots REALLY threw it around the sky. Half way up the runway, it was off the ground, wheels up and straight into a steep climb. Couple of very steep, tight turns around the airfield, a fast fly by, followed by a very slow fly by at the end of which, they opened the throttles and it just climbed out like a fighter. They then did a very short steep turn into final approach, raced down to the end of the runway and it was all over. The lasting impression was of how manoeuvrable the A380 is. It really flies like a much smaller plane. There was already a lot of talk around the show about the upcoming versions of the A380 with the stretched version being talked about most.
The other aircraft that was very impressive is the Alenia G.222 built in Italy. The US has bought a bunch of them and has designated them C-27 Spartans. The manoeuvrability of this aircraft is just phenomenal. Absolutely astounding. They did aerobatics in a freighter! Knife-edge flypast, rolls. At the end of the display, they did an approach at an impossible angle, touched down and stopped in less than 400m! This is not the video of the Le Bourget display but worth watching. [ YouTube - Alenia C-27 (Aeritalia G.222) airshow demo (3 of 3)
Otherwise, it was the centenary of the helicopter and the Eurocopter did the usual display. Loops, barrel rolls and the 2 moves only the Eurocopter can do - back loop from hover and loop and roll from hover. Amazing aircraft.
(
Last edited by Troll; Jun 25, 2007 at 09:22 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
So you admit you might hold a bit of zealous attitude toward the plane correct?
Not sure if these are Airbus colors..
(
Last edited by Kevin; Jun 25, 2007 at 06:35 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
You gotta be kidding, you can do that in a freighter?!? Wow, that is impressive.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by badidea
Many of the orders during the show are commitments!
I think the numbers mduell posted are the firm bookings for 2007 so far (even though I just read different numbers 2 days ago)!
Ah, okay. Although that shows one of the inaccuracies of the Spiegel article then. They talk about "orders".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
Boeing is doing very well with aircraft and still selling extremely old aircraft as well. I do not understand why Airbus has been able to get orders at all so far, the 380 requires airport renovations, redesigned gates, longer runways and is less fuel efficient due to its size than Boeing's aerodynamic smaller aircraft. THe 380 also has a very short range... which sucks since I've always hated switching planes when going off on business for long trips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by tiger
Boeing is doing very well with aircraft and still selling extremely old aircraft as well.
Since they don't do any cars or ships this is no surprise!
I do not understand why Airbus has been able to get orders at all so far, the 380 requires airport renovations, redesigned gates, longer runways and is less fuel efficient due to its size than Boeing's aerodynamic smaller aircraft. THe 380 also has a very short range... which sucks since I've always hated switching planes when going off on business for long trips.
Err, nevermind...I give up!
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by tiger
I do not understand why Airbus has been able to get orders at all so far
So you think the people that run the airlines that have bought 163 A380's are all dumb?
Originally Posted by tiger
the 380 requires airport renovations, redesigned gates,
Just as the 747 did. Most decent airports don't require any modifications to be made to the surface itself. The modifications that are required are relatively small apron modifications to prevent dust being thrown up into the engines. You might have noticed the A380 flying to a whole bunch of airports all over the world recently. The A380 fits through the same airport gate (80m x 80m) as a 747.
Originally Posted by tiger
longer runways
Nonsense. An A380 can take off and land on any runway that a 747 can use.
Originally Posted by tiger
... and is less fuel efficient due to its size than Boeing's aerodynamic smaller aircraft.
No, you're wrong. The A380 also takes many more passengers than a smaller plane. Efficiency is not measured only by how much fuel you use. You have to take into account the number of people transported, the distance travelled and the fuel used.
Originally Posted by tiger
THe 380 also has a very short range
No! The A380's range is 15,200km which gives it one of the longest ranges of any plane. A 737 will go about 6,500km. A 767 can do about 10,000km and a 747 can do about 14,000. The 787's predicted range is about the same as the A380.
Besides, you seem to think that Airbus has committed themselves to big planes only. Airbus also builds the Airbus A340-500 which has the longest range of any commercial jetliner in the world and carries a mere 313 passengers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogika
What about that article is
a) FUD?
b) Half-true?
c) crap reporting?
I'm seriously interested.
You mean you can't see it for yourself? They aren't really trying to be accurate. Next you'll be asking how John Dvorak is spreading FUD, half-truths and making crap reports on Apple.
Der Spiegel is worth less than a roll of toilet paper when it comes to reporting on Airbus. The TP has better absorbsion.
Originally Posted by Kevin
Well I'll take that with a grain of salt since you are one of the minions that keep acting like the A30 isn't a failure when it comes to actual business and cost and delays and so on.
The handling of it since it's inception has then took that last decade and made everyone forgot.
The reason they didn't shelf the A30 in the first place was out of "Pride" and nothing else.
..the A30? Is that a Boeing product?
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
You totally didn't answer his questions. You just made an attack on him.
YAY YOU WON.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
You totally didn't answer his questions. You just made an attack on him.
YAY YOU WON.
Nor did you answer my question.
And I made no attack on anyone. You must be very thin skinned if you thought that was an attack. You should step away from the keyboard now and turn off the computer while you grow some skin eh.
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by TETENAL
What is actually factually wrong with the SPIEGEL-article? If it's so obvious, it should be easy to name the mistakes.
There are no mistakes but the article uses the same methods as Michael Moore does to make his points!
Your quote is one example - they miss to say that Airbus is still ahead with firm bookings even though many orders of the show are just commitments!
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Can somebody please just answer my ****ing three questions?
I'm not an airplane expert, and no, voodoo, I can not "see that for myself".
It's why I ****ing asked you.
The fact that many of those "orders" aren't actually "orders" but "commitments" - which are less tangible in a business sense than actual orders IIUC - is one point, but that's rather a strike in favor of Airbus, rather than one that makes the article's bias *against* Airbus obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hmm, didn't I just do this?
Ok, I give you one more example...
They compare the orders of the 787 and the A350 to make the point that Airbus isn't as successful as the Airbus executives act like.
If they would have wanted to do a right comparison then they should have compared the orders Boeing had 5 years ago - the A350 isn't going into service before 2013 and the 787 probably next year!
I'd call that crap reporting!
The example in my last post was an example for half-true!
What exactly means FUD?
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
"FUD" stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" and is used to describe "scare tactics" propaganda, generally used (and often paid for) by companies' marketing and PR departments to discredit competitors' products.
An example is Bill Gates' public reference in January to how incredibly insecure Mac OS X was. He was stupid enough to actually make some provable lies in that interview, but some bits were just worded well-enough to be *sort of* true. (Yes, there was the "month of Apple bugs" in January, but they had to start including non-system bugs after like ten days to reach quota, and only a few of them were critical bugs.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
another wonderful example of "FUD" is tiger's post above.
There is literally not a SINGLE true fact in his arguments against the A380.
It's not terribly likely that he's paid-for by Boeing, though (as opposed to glideslope, who seems to display enough half-knowledge to manipulate information - though of course it's highly unlikely any paid shills should spend their time here).
Compare also "astroturfing" - "astroturf" is Kunstrasen - where paid publicity agents drown any and all media with more-or-less subtle product endorsements and marketing propaganda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
I take the point, Tetenal. I wasn't the one criticising the Spiegel article. I just noted that the two pieces of information posted didn't tally.
(
Last edited by Troll; Jun 26, 2007 at 04:48 AM.
Reason: Removed photos after changes on my Flickr account.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Troll
How can that be if Der Spiegel says that they got 548 order just during the Show and not including Thursday's orders?
Spiegel says $75Bn in orders for Airbus and $15Bn in orders for Boeing during the show. Unless Boeing has been caning Airbus all year, I'd think they have quite a long way to go to overtake Airbus as the largest commercial aircraft manufacturer in the world.
Originally Posted by Troll
Ah, okay. Although that shows one of the inaccuracies of the Spiegel article then. They talk about "orders".
They're reporting orders+commitments (LoI/MoU) instead of just firm orders. Airbus had ~400 gross firm orders (many of which were prior commitments) and ~300 gross commitments at the show.
Before the airshow, Boeing was up about 2:1 (~250 to ~125). Now they're both in the low 500s as I mentioned earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Now they're both in the low 500s as I mentioned earlier.
I see, so when it comes to firm orders, you're saying both companies are about the same with Airbus just barely ahead. That's not bad for a company some of you are writing off!
How do things look if you compare all orders (including firm commitments) for Boeing and for Airbus? I mean firm orders alone doesn't give an accurate reflection any more than commitments alone does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
You know back in the 90s I had bad flying experiences with Airbus but they are decent planes, but the 787 will be more efficient than the Airbus 350, also being lighter and faster. Airbus has been the king of aviation for decades but are loosing their place to faster and smaller planes as they concentrate in huge jets.
I also highly doubt that most airlines can accumulate 800 passengers in a single trip, say from LA to SF or NY. Inside the States or say the EU smaller jets may do better and perhaps from China to the US it might be different... being that they do have 1B people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by tiger
... but the 787 will be more efficient than the Airbus 350, also being lighter and faster.
I see, so the 787 will be lighter, faster and more efficient than the A350. Considering the specs are for the 787 are known and those for the A350 have been published, maybe you could back these statements up with facts?
Originally Posted by tiger
Airbus has been the king of aviation for decades but are loosing their place to faster and smaller planes as they concentrate in huge jets.
Loosing? As opposed to Boeing whose tightening?
Concentrate in huge jets? They make ONE huge jet. Just like Boeing does. Is the A350 a huge jet? A310, A319, A320, A340?
Originally Posted by tiger
I also highly doubt that most airlines can accumulate 800 passengers
800? None of the airlines that have bought it plan to put 800 passengers in it. It is cheaper to run than a 747 with the same number of passengers in it. And the Airlines probably think they can run it cost-effectively because, you know, they sort of, ordered them and they're sort of in the business of making money out of flying planes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
The A350 which is all you back your fact with is not due to enter service until 2013. The current A330 is not a very good competition for Boeing. All I'm saying is that Airbus is loosing a lot of money by now having out a small jet that can compete with the 787 that will be out by next year. British airways for example plans to renovate their fleet, Boeing will have a 787 out while Airbus is still in the making for a few more years. The 380 is a nice cargo plane by the way. Also you mentioned that the 350 has a longer range, it has the same range as the 787 which will be out a few years earlier; 15,000 km. The planes are about the same, only that airbus is a little late into the game. I'm sure when the 350 finally shows up the 797 will compete with airbus's next jet that will make its appearance a few years later.
Also I much rather prefer a non-stop flight that's faster than a slow cruise in a huge jumbo plane and over 80% of air travelers prefer that too. Here's you're proof.
Airbus A380 vs. Boeing 787: Poll reveals that passengers prefer a smaller plane
(
Last edited by tiger; Jun 25, 2007 at 11:30 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Troll
I see, so when it comes to firm orders, you're saying both companies are about the same with Airbus just barely ahead. That's not bad for a company some of you are writing off!
How do things look if you compare all orders (including firm commitments) for Boeing and for Airbus? I mean firm orders alone doesn't give an accurate reflection any more than commitments alone does.
Yes, comparing firm orders it was 519 to 510 on Friday... may have been a couple new orders today.
It's hard to keep track of LoI/MoU commitments; Boeing either does less of them (but they have done some, like the drawn out Qatar 777 purchase) or doesn't publicize them as much. Airbus (mostly Leahy, but I've also seen comments from their various CEOs) talks about them a lot more, or at least makes them more well known.
The only one I know about is the next-gen midsize widebodies: Boeing currently has 45 non-firm commitments for the 787 and Airbus has 78 non-firm commitments (many of which were announced last week) for the A350.
edit: A380 has 11 non-firm commitments; all of the 747-8 orders are firm as far as I know.
Originally Posted by Troll
I see, so the 787 will be lighter, faster and more efficient than the A350. Considering the specs are for the 787 are known and those for the A350 have been published,
They have? Somehow they forgot to give a copy to the airline that just bought 80 (dated today).
Qatar Airways became the largest customer for Airbus's A350 XWBs at the show with an order for 80 aircraft, but has been frustrated by the airframer's tardiness in providing detailed and reliable specification and performance data for the new twinjet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
The Boeing cheerleaders are so.. reluctant to think before they write. It is as if they can't digest and analyze news.
Why not bring some Abufalia quotes into this discussion?
Meh
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status:
Offline
|
|
Does anyone else think that Tiger is just a second user name of someone who really wants Boeing fans to look stupid?
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Yes, comparing firm orders it was 519 to 510 on Friday... may have been a couple new orders today.[/I]
Okay, but what's the score including commitments that fall short of firm orders?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by tiger
All I'm saying is that Airbus is loosing a lot of money
Dude, "loosing" is not a word.
Originally Posted by tiger
... by now having out a small jet that can compete with the 787 that will be out by next year.
Airbus has aircraft that compete with the 787 and that you can buy right now. The difference between Airbus and Boeing is that when it comes to the 787, Airbus has a competitor in the works. When it comes to the A380, Boeing isn't even trying to compete. That means that Boeing has all of its eggs in one basket. Boeing propaganda likes to cast the competition as that between big and slow (Airbus) and small and fast (Boeing) but that couldn't be further from the truth. In truth it's a competition between a company that offers big and fast + small and fast and a company that only offers small and fast.
Originally Posted by tiger
Also I much rather prefer a non-stop flight that's faster than a slow cruise in a huge jumbo plane
Now if you'd bothered to do any research on the topic, you would have seen that the A380 is just as fast as the 787 - Mach 0.85 cruise and Mach 0.89 max.
The supposed advantage of the 787 is "schedule convenience". If, for example, you were wanting to travel to Florence, Italy from Alice Springs Australia in theory, you could get in a 787 in Alice Spring and fly direct whereas, you'd need to fly to Sydney, catch an A380 from there, fly to Rome and then catch a connecting flight to Florence. In theory the Boeing solution sounds good but here's the part I don't get. Where are you going to find 300 people in Alice Springs that want to go to Florence, Italy on a regular basis? Or the reverse. How many Florentines want to go to Alice Springs on a regular basis? I think the model of pooling passengers around bigger hubs is going to be with us for a long while still and I think you're going to find that the 787 will end up flying the same routes as the A380.
As for your article, the poll was conducted by BOEING. If you ask the question the way Boeing did, of course you get that answer. If someone asked me if I'd prefer to have my standard seat in a plane with 300 people or with 500 people, I'd also say 300. But if someone said I could have a standard seat in a plane with 300 people or a bigger seat, a lounge, shops, place to walk around, maybe a shower or a gym in a plane shared with 500 people, I'd go for that option any day. On a long haul flight, space is the single most important factor for me. The point of the A380 was to give passengers more space on long haul flights and I would bet 90% of passengers would opt for more space instead of fewer fellow passengers.
Why don't you guys start a separate thread for the A350 discussion?
(
Last edited by Troll; Jun 26, 2007 at 04:19 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by voodoo
Nor did you answer my question.
And I made no attack on anyone. You must be very thin skinned if you thought that was an attack. You should step away from the keyboard now and turn off the computer while you grow some skin eh.
V
And that wasn't an attack either I guess.
Originally Posted by voodoo
The Boeing cheerleaders are so.. reluctant to think before they write.
ROFL! ... seriously tears coming out of eyes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Troll
Dude, "loosing" is not a word....
The point of the A380 was to give passengers more space on long haul flights and I would bet 90% of passengers would opt for more space instead of fewer fellow passengers....
Why don't you guys start a separate thread for the A350 discussion?
Loosing is definitely a word... it's just spelled wrong!
In the same space, sure I'd want fewer passengers with me, but I for one would like to fly the biggest plane possible that can hold the greatest number of passengers, just for the experience. How many people have even flown on a 747 here? I did about 15 years ago and it was unreal; totally unlike the 'normal' planes I've been flying on since. It was like the difference between seeing a movie at home and then going to see it at the theater.... such a huge shared space, I can't wait to ride a 747 again.... and I dream of flying the A380. Too bad for all the people that would only be thinking how it took 5 mintues longer to board after their two hour wait in the terminal. Kinda sad.
And please no threads for every plane.... then the same crap would just be spewed multiple times.... at least it's contained in one place now! And who's going to be all interested in reading Mac-heads' rantings about the A350 but not the A380? Definitely on a plane forum, but here?
|
I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mrtew
And please no threads for every plane.... then the same crap would just be spewed multiple times.... at least it's contained in one place now! And who's going to be all interested in reading Mac-heads' rantings about the A350 but not the A380? Definitely on a plane forum, but here?
True!
But it's really quite annoying that still people don't stop to compare the 787 with the A380 even though the only thing both planes have in common is that they are new!
This would be like comparing a bus to a van and then saying that busses don't make any sense because they have a worse milage, can't drive everywhere, are more expensive...blablabla! Vans are also sold a lot more often than busses but it still makes a lot of sense to build and offer busses to customers who want and need them - for obvious reasons!
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yea well, this is still the A380 thread. It is inevitable that the B787 and A350 are mentioned once in a while, but until the thread title is actually changed (and I hope it isn't) this is about the A380.
We talk about a lot of non-Mac related things in the lounge. That's what it is for. I'd rather see threads on individual planes than a ubiquous plane thread.
Speaking of the 380 and the 350, I really hope the 350 will have a distinct nose and not the 380 nose tagged on.
i.e. that it will look something like this:
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|