[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

badidea I think your connection to the company has made you a bit too over emotional for this thread.

Kevin I think your ignorance towards the subject has made you look like a fool in every single post in this thread.

You stick to your opinion, I'll stick to mine. Life goes on and no one cares.

V

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

badidea I think your connection to the company has made you a bit too over emotional for this thread.

You're probably right but my emotions are not as much related to the subject as it seems - I just cannot stand stupid people with small egos no matter what the subject is about!
Or can you explain to me why some people here who have no connection to the company (the thread is not about Airbus btw - just the A380!!) get so emotional?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Kevin I think your ignorance towards the subject has made you look like a fool in every single post in this thread.

You stick to your opinion, I'll stick to mine. Life goes on and no one cares.

voodoo why do you keep posting hateful and baseless posts like this? I've never claimed to be an expert in the subject of planes, let alone this one. I've just stated it looks to be an economic failure. And now after all this, there is no question of that. I don't know diddly about planes. But I do have the common sense to look at the numbers, do my own little bar graphs in my head (I had office installed) and see it's not going to make them a lot of money. That is all I have said.

My last comment was out of concern. He the poster I was referring to seems to respond in a hostile nature because of his ties with the company.

I am not saying that is an unnatural response, or that I don't respect him having pride in his job/work. I just stated that I think his close ties to the company maybe makes him make posts such as he did because of self defense mechanisms.

He at least has a valid, and somewhat respectable excuse for acting the way he is. But you don't.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by badidea 

You're probably right but my emotions are not as much related to the subject as it seems - I just cannot stand stupid people with small egos no matter what the subject is about!

I think hatefulness tops my list of bad things. It's a bit higher that "stupid", which in this case is highly subjective. I can understand too how PacHead can piss people off. While I personally have nothing against the guy, I don't think he should react the way he does sometimes. But that is his choice.

Or can you explain to me why some people here who have no connection to the company (the thread is not about Airbus btw - just the A380!!) get so emotional?

No I cannot. I do not understand why anyone with no connection to the plane or the company get so emotional over it. Either Pro or Against. It's just a piece of machinery. But as I stated before. I understand YOUR reactions in this thread. I am not attempting to say you are a bad person by the way you are reacting. I think it's only natural to defend such a thing in your position. And I can respect that type of behavior. I apologize if my post came off as high horsed or condescending. Maybe it should have been a msg to you instead personally.

my bad.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I've never claimed to be an expert in the subject of planes, let alone this one. -- I don't know diddly about planes.-- That is all I have said.

No argument there.

V

[badidea]

Ok, cool!

I am just pissed sometimes that this thread already became political and a huge fight between Americans and Non-Americans on the first few pages just because (yes, this was my personal impression) the largest passenger airplane wasn't build by Americans anymore!
I might be wrong with this impression but for me this was a quite obvious observation!
Why else should Americans care so much that a European company is building this airplane?

I don't really care what plane I am flying with. Boeing and Airbus both have around 50% market share. Both build equal quality. Both make mistakes. Both have problems with new technologies...
...but only Americans have a saying like "If it's not Boeing, I am not going!"

Sorry, I find that very nationalistic and stupid.

I'll try to keep myself out of those fights here in the future just like I try to keep myself out of the Pol-Lounge...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

No argument there.

Well then why the tirade? I wasn't discussing the plane itself.

Originally Posted by badidea 

Ok, cool!

I am just pissed sometimes that this thread already became political and a huge fight between Americans and Non-Americans on the first few pages just because (yes, this was my personal impression) the largest passenger airplane wasn't build by Americans anymore!

Hmm I didn't get that impression or see that, but If you claimed it happened, I am sure it did. But I did see a lot of non-americans being critical of anyone
saying anything bad about the plane acting as if they were talking about their mothers. So both sides of the extreme are wrong here IMHO. I have no interest in planes, or the size of them. It means nothing to me.

I might be wrong with this impression but for me this was a quite obvious observation!
Why else should Americans care so much that a European company is building this airplane?

I don't think that they cared so much as that they saw certain people reacting a certain way when they would mention flaws. This shows up as a shiny red button to some people. And they have to touch it, and keep touching it. We all have been tempted by the shiny red button from time to time. Myself included. Having said that, I believe there are a few Boeing made fans in here that are playing the VS. side as well.

I don't really care what plane I am flying with. Boeing and Airbus both have around 50% market share. Both build equal quality. Both make mistakes. Both have problems with new technologies...
...but only Americans have a saying like "If it's not Boeing, I am not going!"

I am not so sure about that last comment. I've heard xenophobic comments like that made from both sides of the pond.

Sorry, I find that very nationalistic and stupid.

I agree it is.

I'll try to keep myself out of those fights here in the future just like I try to keep myself out of the Pol-Lounge...

Yeah I keep myself out of there too. It's a cesspool. No real political discussion goes on there. Just a lot of mud slinging.

There should really be no more trolling in here. If someone posts something good about the plane it should be accredited. If someone mentions something that is a loss, they should do it in a non-flamey way, and those that are fans of the plane shouldn't make attacks towards them if their intentions weren't of the flame sort. I myself have been guilt of it in this thread too when I should have known better.

I think the extremes of both sides need to stop and realize what they are getting so heated up over. Something so meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by badidea 

(please go ahead and get your account deleted and leave already, will ya?)

It's really none of your business, but don't whine to me, I don't like whiners. Go whine to the mods and admins if you have a problem with the speed at which they handle things.

[analogika]

You ARE a whiner.

http://forums.macnn.com/61/feedback/...unt-right-now/

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by analogika 

You ARE a whiner.

It's all a matter of perception, and you happen to be incorrect in this instance, since my lowkey method which I first attempted didn't produce satisfactory results, so I had to resort to plan B.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

You ARE a whiner.

http://forums.macnn.com/61/feedback/...unt-right-now/

I guess in that way, everyone on this forum is a whiner.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I guess in that way, everyone on this forum is a whiner.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by PacHead 

It seems as if far more Europeans work for Airbus than Americans.

Go check it out yourself on wikipedia:

Which has nothing to do with the value share of the A380. Americans working for other companies add substantial value to the WhaleJet.

[imitchellg5]

Stop bickering please, this is a good thread, keep it going.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

badidea I think your connection to the company has made you a bit too over emotional for this thread.

Come on. He never worked on the wing. Take it easy on him. The wiring, well, thats another story.......

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Stop bickering please, this is a good thread, keep it going.

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Come on. He never worked on the wing. Take it easy on him. The wiring, well, thats another story.......

OK then... START bickering!

[Weyland-Yutani]

The 380 gets a mention in JibJab "in 2007" video.

"...big ass plane..."

[TETENAL]

New problems with the A380: the escape slides have to be overhauled every couple flights because the propellant decomposes and the slides become non-functional. The slides are made by the American company BF Goodrich.

Riesenjet A380: Airbus hat Probleme mit den Notrutschen - Wirtschaft - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten

[analogika]

SOCIALISSS!



(right?)

[mrtew]

Any super cool new pictures of the plane?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

New problems with the A380: the escape slides have to be overhauled every couple flights because the propellant decomposes and the slides become non-functional. The slides are made by the American company BF Goodrich.

Riesenjet A380: Airbus hat Probleme mit den Notrutschen - Wirtschaft - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten

I don't read German, but it sounds unlikely; Goodrich has been doing aircraft slides for years. Point me to an AD or the EASA/JAA equivalent and I'll believe you.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Any super cool new pictures of the plane?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I don't read German, but it sounds unlikely; Goodrich has been doing aircraft slides for years. Point me to an AD or the EASA/JAA equivalent and I'll believe you.

All slides to date have been inflated by compressed air.

These are driven by chemical charges, like an airbag.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I don't read German, but it sounds unlikely; Goodrich has been doing aircraft slides for years. Point me to an AD or the EASA/JAA equivalent and I'll believe you.

Translated version of http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,534209,00.html

[mduell]

Show me the money, er, AD.

[analogika]

Here's an English-language article, based on an article from the German "stern" magazine website:

Airbus A380 has hitch with escape slides: report - Yahoo! News UK

The stern.de article:
Airbus A 380: Probleme bei Notrutschen - Computer-technik - stern.de

They quote an Airbus speaker named Barbara Kracht, who, a quick Google reveals, is in fact VP Media Relations at Airbus and has been a spokesperson for at least five years.

[mduell]

They don't actually quote her, they just say she said there was a problem which may not be exactly the problem described.

The English translation also makes it sound like a one time fix rather than an ongoing maintaince requirement as TETENAL implied in his post.

I've been in aviation long enough to be skeptical of the media getting stories right.

[Buckaroo]

A380 company replied with the following:

EADS unit Airbus denied a report in the German magazine Stern that said its super-jumbo A380 aircraft has problems with how frequently it must replace the cartridges that deploy its emergency evacuation slides.

It said the cartridges are currently replaced after every 70 flights, as planned when the new plane went into service last October, and that work is underway to make the cartridges last longer.

EADS unit Airbus denies report of problem with A380 evacuation slides - Forbes.com

Which is a little bit more accurate than the first story, but also some BS. It should not have to be swapped out every 70 flights. That could be less than a month.

[TETENAL]

They confirm they have to be swapped out every 70 flights. All they deny is that this is not "as planned".

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

They don't actually quote her

The stern article DOES actually quote her, as saying "the charges currently (="momentan") need to be replaced about every 70 flights." and again later on, as saying "the problem is under control."

[mduell]

Thanks for the translation from stern, however with Airbus denying it that makes me think there's no AD to back it up.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Which is a little bit more accurate than the first story, but also some BS. It should not have to be swapped out every 70 flights. That could be less than a month.

It may be a time based limitation rather than a cycle based limitation, but they've converted it to flights to help the public understand.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

It may be a time based limitation rather than a cycle based limitation, but they've converted it to flights to help the public understand.

I thought they went with the number of flights vs. number of days (something the public could more easily measure) for the bigger number. If they post every 3 weeks instead of an larger ambiguous number (70) that means nothing to the stock holders and public.

They are trying to hide the problem in a bigger number. Every 3 weeks means damn, you got problems.

70 flights could mean anything, 3 months, 6 months, who knows.

[mrtew]

Hypersonic jet could reach Australia in under five hours - Yahoo! News

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Hypersonic jet could reach Australia in under five hours - Yahoo! News

Is this good or bad for global warming?

[ghporter]

Considering that its output is basically steam and nitrous oxides, it would be seriously less of a problem than anything using conventional fuels. I wonder how a liquid hydrogen-fueled engine can produce nitrous oxides (other than a few incidental molecules formed during the hydrogen combustion process), but that's beside the point. From a greenhouse standpoint it would be worlds better than a fossil fueled jet, and since it would take a lot more passengers a lot farther, it could make a serious dent in the airline industry's carbon footprint.

[Don Pickett]

All this aside, I'm beginning to think that Airbus has bet on the wrong horse with the A380. From what I can tell, the biggest growth in air traffic in the next 30 years is going to be short to medium haul in and around India and China, with connections to the rest of south Asia and Europe. In the area in and around China and India you have 3 billion people, with about 2 billion of them stepping into increasingly modern and wealthy economic conditions in the next three decades. It's the same kind of economies of scale which drove the American aviation industry in the post World War II years, only two orders of magnitude greater. Given the large populations and relatively short distances (Mumbai to Shanghai is only ~3,000 miles) I don't see much need for something as large and expensive as the A380. I do see a big market for things like the uprated 737s, the 787 and the 737 successor and the A320 and A330. I just don't think there's going to be a huge increase in the kind of transcontinental travel the A380 is built for.

It's also interesting to look at the history. Even though the 747 was Boeing's iconic aircraft, it was never a huge seller. It only sold about 1,400 in 40 years. In the same time frame the 737 has sold over 7,000. The 757 sold 1,050 in only 21 years, and the 767 has sold over 1,000 in 26 years. The 787 already has 885 orders, and it's range and seating are smack in the sweet spot of the medium haul market. I think Airbus got a bit greedy and decided they were going to knock Boeing's biggest plane out of the market. The problem is that the transcontinental market is a relatively small part of the global air travel market and, because of the distances and fuel involved, a market which gives a relatively poor ROI when compared to the short and medium haul market. Given the enormous time and expense Airbus has put into the A380, I think they'd be much better off putting more effort into getting the A350 sorted out.

You just don't need an A380, or a 747, to fly from Mumbai to Calcutta, or from Beijing to Hong Kong.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

You just don't need an A380, or a 747, to fly from Mumbai to Calcutta, or from Beijing to Hong Kong.

But with landing slots at Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo and Osaka already starting to squeeze, having bigger capacity planes full of passengers and or freight makes sense.

I see plenty of 747's with 100% economy class for domestic use within Japan and Mainland China, where a 100% economy class A380 fitting these domestic markets very nicely.

[voodoo]

There is the A350XWB to compete in that market - against the B787 - while the 380 is for another niche. Airbus bet a lot on the 380, but it didn't bet everything.

This isn't so dramatic.

[OreoCookie]

You can't really compare the sheer sales figures of two types of aircraft. Even if the market is smaller (in terms of numbers of planes), it doesn't mean it's not lucrative to go after. Both, Boeing and Airbus have independently found that they won't be able to start designing the successors to their 737/A320 lines before 2015 (apparently they need improved engines).

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Andy8 

But with landing slots at Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo and Osaka already starting to squeeze, having bigger capacity planes full of passengers and or freight makes sense.

I see plenty of 747's with 100% economy class for domestic use within Japan and Mainland China, where a 100% economy class A380 fitting these domestic markets very nicely.

True. But you're still talking about a very small slice of the market. There are many, many more 737s and A320s out there, and they're both selling very well. I think the future lies in with the 787/A350.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

There is the A350XWB to compete in that market - against the B787 - while the 380 is for another niche. Airbus bet a lot on the 380, but it didn't bet everything.

This isn't so dramatic.

It is dramatic considering the problems Airbus is having with the A350, and questions are being raised as to whether Airbus has the excess engineering capability to develop another aircraft so soon after the A380, especially considering the fact Airbus essentially had to redesign to A350 when industry heads said they wouldn't buy the original presentation.

I'm not saying that AIrbus is doomed or anything silly, only that I think they took a shot at a market which will give them much poorer ROI than others they could have chosen.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You can't really compare the sheer sales figures of two types of aircraft. Even if the market is smaller (in terms of numbers of planes), it doesn't mean it's not lucrative to go after. Both, Boeing and Airbus have independently found that they won't be able to start designing the successors to their 737/A320 lines before 2015 (apparently they need improved engines).

Those are two separate lines of thought, and Boeing is still selling as many 737s as they can make.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Thanks for the translation from stern, however with Airbus denying it that makes me think there's no AD to back it up.

The Airbus spokeswoman has CONFIRMED the problem.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Those are two separate lines of thought, and Boeing is still selling as many 737s as they can make.

No, they're not.
Airbus' smaller planes are also selling like sliced bread -- no wonder both companies got to the same conclusion.

[Buckaroo]

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, they're not.
Airbus' smaller planes are also selling like sliced bread -- no wonder both companies got to the same conclusion.

That's my point: I think the massive amount of money put into the A380 was a bad investment. Better it would've been spent to get the A350 off the ground.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

That's my point: I think the massive amount of money put into the A380 was a bad investment. Better it would've been spent to get the A350 off the ground.

I don't think so. I think it's good if companies invest money in different markets so now Boeing is getting better and has an edge in one market while Airbus has an edge in another. (I'm glad that Boeing has made it, if the 787 hadn't been successful, Boeing would have been in very deep trouble.) I've recently read that Asian airlines have been asking airbus to make even bigger versions of the A380! :wow:

In both cases, their newly developed technologies trickle down into their other lines (e. g. 748 or A350).

[TETENAL]

Airbus A380 - cockpit | p a n o r e p o r t a g e | g i l l e s v i d a l

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Airbus A380 - cockpit | p a n o r e p o r t a g e | g i l l e s v i d a l

WOW, that's cool!

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, they're not.
Airbus' smaller planes are also selling like sliced bread -- no wonder both companies got to the same conclusion.

At the end of 2007 Airbus had a backlog of 3,421 frames. Boeing 3,427 frames.