[voodoo]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ck=1&cset=true

Yes people this is stupidity at its finest. Maybe it's just entertainment for US Americans, I don't know. The editorial may require subscription so I'll post it here..:

Airbus' Big, Big Bet

Of all the things we were unaware that we needed right now, Europe's colossal new Airbus A380 airplane is right up there. This 1,200,000-pound monster will pack in you and 799 other people you can't wait to sit among, and theoretically lift the entire neighborhood into the skies for a long, long, long trip somewhere very together for many hours. Won't that be fun?

It's theoretical because this airborne cruise ship won't leave the ground until it's tested in March. But that hasn't kept airlines � none of them U.S. passenger carriers � from ordering 139 of these $250-million machines. Such motorized clouds could bring passing shade to L.A. glide-path communities next year.

The Airbus story sounds like an episode of some "Megastructures" documentary. In summary: Several European countries offered more than $12 billion in financing and subsidies to a bunch of multilingual engineers. That bought a whole lot of wine to fuel late-night brainstorming sessions about what people dislike and fear in planes. Then, they designed an immense human cargo carrier that'll hold a small town of crying babies, talkative strangers and bony elbows on two decks. The lighting will change to ease jet lag adjustments. And don't worry about crowding: The seats will be one whole inch wider.

The last time you flew somewhere, did you wish there were seven times as many shoulder bag-swingers crowding on with three carry-ons each? When LAX and other terminals convert to handle such people precincts, loading will occur on two levels at once, like ship gangways. Row 84, Seat R, anyone?

Built by 18,000 low-bid contractors, the thing is gigantic. An air pump is car-sized. A simultaneous flushing of the vast plumbing system could seed clouds. The wings � Shaq could stand inside one � are made in England and, tides permitting, barged to the Continent. The fuselage is German. The assembly is French, bien sur. It's 239 feet long, with a wingspan of 262 feet, and nearly a half-million pounds heavier than a Boeing 747, which to many eyes is obviously incapable of flying, until it does.

Airbus seeks to lengthen its new global commercial sales lead over Boeing, which sees the future in smaller, efficient craft because maybe 800 folks don't want to fly from Minneapolis to Hibbing, Minn. Airbus' bet is big. It says growing traffic and crowded skies dictate fewer but larger planes, offering spacious first-class beds, lounges, entertainment systems, gyms, even waterfalls, not to be missed during turbulence.

There's no end to possible airborne amenities. By the time we reach Airbus 480, each flight could comprise a human migration, with casinos, IMAX, Starbucks, boutiques, spas, suites, even parking. Variable configurations could cram 1,000 into the A380 now, sufficient for its own flu epidemic. You've got to hand it to those Europeans � they're finally acting like Texans.

There are so many 'golden' comments and snidey remarks in that editorial I'd suggest the writer use lubrication next time he jams a broomstick so far up his rectum.

[Spheric Harlot]

wow, what an idiot.

Why do they let a guy write an editorial when it's patently obvious that his first - and only - encounter with the subject of passenger aircraft was the 60-second brief on the A380 that he saw on the 9 o'clock news?

[AKcrab]

I just want more legroom.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
wow, what an idiot.

Why do they let a guy write an editorial when it's patently obvious that his first - and only - encounter with the subject of passenger aircraft was the 60-second brief on the A380 that he saw on the 9 o'clock news?

LA's losing the Boeing 717 manufacturing facility, so this editorial sounds like griping.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

some of his points are valid

[John Q. Smith]

I'm quite impressed that europe has done something!

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by John Q. Smith:
I'm quite impressed that europe has done something!

in before the macnn smackdown

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
some of his points are valid

I didn't see any valid points.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
some of his points are valid

Really? Which ones?

[Eriamjh]

Built by 18,000 low-bid contractors...

All planes are. At least this one is new. Many airplanes in US fleets are over 40 years-old. That does not instill confidence.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Many airplanes in US fleets are over 40 years-old. That does not instill confidence.

tried and tested, reliable, obviously well made.

[Aiglos]

Ironically, his article illustrates the great things humans can accomplish when we work together.

Wings being English, fuselage German, etc...

[mitchell_pgh]

Talking about the new Airbus is PURE SPECULATION at this point.

It could bring in a new modern era of flight, or it could be a major flop. We simply don't know.

You can't compare a new aircraft to the 747. The 747 (minus a few issues) has been a true maverick of the skies. It's a proven design. Comparing a proven design to a new design is simply silly at this point. In 5+ years, we should have a better picture of the whole thing.

[CD Hanks]

No one should take the LA Times seriously on any matter.

[BRussell]

Shorter thread: "Don't you dare make fun of my airplane!"

[videian28]

i'll take european engineering over american engineering any day

[CD Hanks]

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

You have no idea what you just started.


hahhahah, oh god...

[John Q. Smith]

what a surprise, the conversation is being divided up into two camps.. sooner or later bush will be brought up, the thread will be moved to the poly lounge, somebody will make a reference to nazis, and then its over.

[badidea]

Originally posted by John Q. Smith:
I'm quite impressed that europe has done something!

Originally posted by John Q. Smith:
what a surprise, the conversation is being divided up into two camps.. sooner or later bush will be brought up, the thread will be moved to the poly lounge, somebody will make a reference to nazis, and then its over.

why don't you just continue...?

[badidea]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I just want more legroom.

That's up to the airline!
AIRBUS doesn't care if you want just 1 or 800 seats!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Yes people this is stupidity at its finest. Maybe it's just entertainment for US Americans, I don't know. The editorial may require subscription so I'll post it here..:


There are so many 'golden' comments and snidey remarks in that editorial I'd suggest the writer use lubrication next time he jams a broomstick so far up his rectum.

Are Europeans not used to criticism or something? Half of Americans spend half their time criticizing the other half. Europeans spend about half their time criticizing Americans. Don't Europeans themselves ever get criticized by anyone? It's just an airplane, after all, and that was a pretty tame editorial. Lighten up. Have a laugh about it.

[BoomStick]

Quality control is going to be an issue with 18,000 subcontractors.

At least when one goes down and there is a settlement over a billion dollars, Airbus won't suffer the blame, but the subcontractor of the failed part. When that subcontractor fails from the suit, another will happily pop in to take it's place.

[CaseCom]

It's a legitimate question to ask whether we need ever-larger aircraft, but the A380's success will depend not on whether fliers like them but on how profitable they are for the airlines. It's a fact that U.S. airlines have been buying smaller, more fuel-efficient aircraft because that's what the U.S. market wants right now. They'd rather fly a full 70-seat aircraft that a half-full 150-seater.

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.

[BoomStick]

Could it be the SST debacle all over again?

Huge amounts of hype, promised orders then a whopping 8 aircraft that have to be given away for free at the cost of the taxpayers?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Are Europeans not used to criticism or something? Half of Americans spend half their time criticizing the other half. Europeans spend about half their time criticizing Americans. Don't Europeans themselves ever get criticized by anyone? It's just an airplane, after all, and that was a pretty tame editorial. Lighten up. Have a laugh about it.

Yes that was a lame editorial and that's why I posted it. It was posted in the LA Times, which in my experience is a quite good newspaper. That's why I was quite surprised to see this kind of writing in that publication. Had this been a, say Washington Times editorial I wouldn't have given it a second thought since French bashing and xenophobia isn't entirely unknown to them. So that's the reason for me posting this article BRussell.

You ask if Europeans can't take criticism.. that question doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this thread since the editorial isn't criticising - it is just making up stuff! How about some genuine crticism! That's what I was expecting from the LA Times, but they went for tabloid style instead.

This has nothing to do with 'criticism'. Nothing.

Examples:

Of all the things we were unaware that we needed right now, Europe's colossal new Airbus A380 airplane is right up there.

This is criticism? Seeing as the A380 was created because there is need for it and many airlines that were likely to benefit from such a machine were asked for their input on size, fuel consumtion etc etc. The need is there. The need was there and in the ever growing aviation industry it most certainly will be there. This isn't criticism, this is just the author saying he (and when he say 'we' he means 'I' apparently) didn't/doesn't know that there is a market for the A380. Indeed 139 planes have already been ordered and with options that number is 250. If that isn't a sign of a need for the A380 well..

This 1,200,000-pound monster will pack in you and 799 other people you can't wait to sit among, and theoretically lift the entire neighborhood into the skies for a long, long, long trip somewhere very together for many hours. Won't that be fun?

This is criticism? That the A380 will *possibly* but certainly *not* definitely be configured with 800 seats? There are widebodies configured like that but they aren't many. The 747SR used in JAL domestic 1 hour hauls are examples of such sardine packing and is certainly not the standard isssue with any airline. For it is indeed the airline that decides these things. For the life of me I can't see how a jam packed A380 is better or worse than a jam packed 747, A340, 767.. etc etc. If the airline decides to cram everyone you'll get the same feeling no matter the type of plane. Is that criticism of the A380? Aha.

You may also have noticed if you travel by air long distances that every airline makes even the tourist class more spacious and comfortable than in the shorter or domestic flights. I can't see airlines changing that trend because of the A380. The whole point of the A380 is to provide spacious long distance travel comfort. That's the market niche it is being made for, but surely there will be exeptions - a charter configuration for a 2 hour trip to the Bahamas or what have you. Just like all the other planes. I can't stress it enough: seat configuration is up to the airlines and by what they're saying 550 will be the most common configuration. Besides there is no way you'll be aware of all the people on board, half of them won't even be on the same deck as you! Anyway! On to the next 'criticism':

It's theoretical because this airborne cruise ship won't leave the ground until it's tested in March.

Ah yes *that's* crticism alright! It probably won't fly. No-sir. Them Yurpeans just forgot how to make planes. I really don't know how to comment on this 'criticsm' other than saying "yes, the A380 hasn't flown yet but it will, just as a half done 747 at the Boeing hangars hasn't flown yet, it will". LA Times printed this nonsense. (?) Criticism that something isn't ready. Good one there. According to Airbus test flights will commence this spring (March/April)

But that hasn't kept airlines � none of them U.S. passenger carriers � from ordering 139 of these $250-million machines.

This wasn't criticsm, this was praise. 139 planes sold and it isn't even ready yet! Oh wait a *second*!! Ah dang :slaps hand on forehead: none of the airlines that have bought the A380 so far are U.S. passengere carrieres. Is that criticism? That so far no U.S. passenger carriers have bought an A380? How dares Airbus fail in such a miserable way?? Eh?

Such motorized clouds could bring passing shade to L.A. glide-path communities next year.

Is this criticism? Are the A380s motorized clouds? Is that bad? Good? Does it matter? The editorial doesn't say, but I don't think motorized clouds sound like something that I want flying aver my skies! Just has a nasty ring to it, you know. Of course the A380 isn't that much bigger than, say a 747-400 motorized cloud (isn't that what we are calling big planesd these days in LA? I'm trying to be trendy here..) the wingspan and length are a few meters more than the 747, the main difference is that the A380 is a double decker. Sure the A380 is big, but it just ain't *that* much bigger than the 747. I find the wording sensationalistic and that they bring no criticsim as far as I can tell.

The Airbus story sounds like an episode of some "Megastructures" documentary. In summary: Several European countries offered more than $12 billion in financing and subsidies to a bunch of multilingual engineers.

I'm sorry I haven't seen any "Megastructures" documentary, so I don't know if this is supposed to be criticism. Movie criticism? Is this guy even writing about the right thing? Regardless, his summary seems to be criticising that several European countries offered $12 billion dollars in financing and subsidies to a bunch of multilingual engineers. How dare they!? Throwing money at a *bunch* of *multilingual* engineers! Wait..? Should the bunch of engineers have been 'mono-lingual'? Is this an issue? Ah it was a *bunch* of them. That's good criticism. All the $12 billion was of course used by said multilingual engineers and everything else in the A380 production just sprang up magically. Nifty Europeans and their magic. Actually, the number is �3.5 billion in loans and subsidies, the rest of the �12 billion was funded by the Airbus owner, EADS. While on the issue, that would be ah $15.6 billion in USD cuz the dollar still sucks. Ah it's easy to learn this new kind of 'criticism' BRussell. I seem to have gotten the hang of it already.
Perhaps the subsidies are what agitates the editorial writer. Perhaps that is a valid point, I'm not even going to touch that because it will not have any effect on how good or bad, how needed or un-needed the A380 is. Perhaps he wanted to criticize the EU but the stupid LA Times editor told him he had to write about some dang plane! Oh ain't life unfair sometimes?

That bought a whole lot of wine to fuel late-night brainstorming sessions about what people dislike and fear in planes.

Ah yea this just in. �12 billion that were supposed to be used to develop, build and design the A380 was apparently used for wine purchasing by a bunch of multilingual enegineers... err no actually it wasn't. That's why there is an A380 in a hangar in Toulouse and not a mountain of wine bottles the size of Kilimajaro in Toulouse. And they only worked late night. Hello? Is this criticism? Did the engineers use all the money they got to buys booze and stay up late at night? I totally understand if that is the case, but if it's not the case then what is this? A practice in free association writing??

Then, they designed an immense human cargo carrier that'll hold a small town of crying babies, talkative strangers and bony elbows on two decks.

So after brainstorming in the middle of the night (and plastered apparently - just imagene how much booze you can buy for �12 billion!) the engineers decided to make a human cargo carrier. This must be a new LA lingo for 'passenger airplane'. (it isn't??)
The A380 is in fact designed to be so fuel efficient and therefore cheap that space won't be the same luxury it has been in older planes (sorry human cargo carriers). The A380 is designed to be very profitable with about 500 passengers, and seeing as it is a long distance carrier (15000 km range) it is a good thing to have some more space than usual. The 800 pax configuartion is of course possible, but no airlines offer such configurations anyway on long distance flights (where the A380 will primarily be used) so it is a quite odd conguration to use as a measure for the plane (uh.. HCC)

Perhaps the author was criticising that the A380 hasn't solved the problem of crying bablies, talkative strangers and bony elbowes!! Isn't the A380 supposed to fix all that with the built in baby-silence-O-matics, stranger-B-gones and the extra space? Oh well, one out of three ain't bad. This isn't criticism from the author BRussell, this is like complaining your computer doesn't make the internet less full of crap. Crying babies and talkative strangers are a part of air-travel as hang-overs are a part of Sundays (if you're young like me and party all weekends)

The lighting will change to ease jet lag adjustments. And don't worry about crowding: The seats will be one whole inch wider.

Lighting changes.. good good I suppose. Oh and the seats will be one inch wider. This is criticism? Wider seats? Oh maybe the author doesn't think one inch wider is wide enough. Maybe he's obese and has constant problems wedging himself into the seats on the HCCs. Oh but wait a bit.. one inch wider than *what* exactly? I don't mean to be criticizing such a good 'critic' but wouldn't it help the criticism if there was a comparison. Like.. the seats will be one inch wider than those in a Yugo. Or the seats offered in tourist class by AA or the seats offered in tourist class by AA in a 767 (because seats aren't all as wide in different types of planes). Maybe I'm spoiled, but if I was going to call that criticism then I'd expect *some* comparison. Of *anything* Not just: "one inch wider" and leave it at that.

The last time you flew somewhere, did you wish there were seven times as many shoulder bag-swingers crowding on with three carry-ons each?

To answer the man's question: No. I didn't. However the thought never crossed my mind either. I think most airlines allow only one carry-on (at least here in Subsidized Europe) unless you're travelling 1st class or something. Anyway I'm looking for criticism, and well none found here..

When LAX and other terminals convert to handle such people precincts, loading will occur on two levels at once, like ship gangways. Row 84, Seat R, anyone?

Now the author hasn't established earlier that he's aware that the A380 is a double decker airplane. One assumed he did, but then again who knows. His criticism here is that the boarding will be too much like boarding a ship. How indignified for an airplane!
Wait.. no perhaps he's criticising that the double decker airplane (HuCaCa) will be boarded on noth decks at the same time. I mean wouldn't it be much better for everyone to board the plane on the same deck?

Let's think about that for a minute then. Two decks totalling about 550 pax. Roughly 275 pax per deck. Now we don't have any experience with a single deck 550 pax plane but 257ish pax planes, now *that* we know. For instance the 777, 747, A340.. et al. The typical 747 has in fact a lot more pax on its main level than the A380 will. Boarding is as it is, but it works doesn't it?

So no, I'm going with Airbus on this one - that is to board on both decks at the same time. Boarding both decks through one enterance or one deck would be rather unpleasant I suspect. The author yet again makes one wonder what he would rather see. Of course his POV is so perfect that he doesn't even need to explain what he'd rather have seen. You know like a *critic* would have.

Built by 18,000 low-bid contractors, the thing is gigantic.

Is this criticism? That the A380 is built by low-bid contractors? As opposed to high-bid contractors? Naw, probably that they are bout 18 000. But what exactly is the problem with that, for us that is. I can imagine it being a somewhat bothersome thing to handle all the sub-contractors, QA regarding their product and so on and so forth. However no modern plane is made from less than thousands of custom parts so I guess it goes with the territory. Airbus and Boeing are probably quite able to handle subcontractors, even of that magnitude. Because they have built planes for decades and are still going strong. I don't know if the author of the editorial is criticising anything in particlar or just amazed over the size and scope of the A380 project. Who knows, he doesn't really say if this is good or bad in his opinion.

An air pump is car-sized.

More "OMG OMG this thing is so BIG" - criticism? Nah. Just ranting for the still groggy morning readers of the LA Times. "Honey they say air-pumps are as big as cars in the new Yurpean plane.. <yaaawns> - can you get me another cup of coffee honey.."

A simultaneous flushing of the vast plumbing system could seed clouds.

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?

The wings � Shaq could stand inside one � are made in England and, tides permitting, barged to the Continent.

Shaq is 2.16m tall. Alas, he could not stand inside the the wing. Tides permit transport by barge apparently because there is an A380 in Toulouse *with* wings. The Yurpeans learned that from the US Americans when they transported their plane and shuttle parts on the rivers of their country. Anyway, winds permitting had the wings been flown in and earth permitting had they been driven. Criticism? Nah just some aimless jabs.

The fuselage is German. The assembly is French, bien sur. It's 239 feet long, with a wingspan of 262 feet, and nearly a half-million pounds heavier than a Boeing 747, which to many eyes is obviously incapable of flying, until it does.

.. and the tail is Spanish and the winglets are Australian.. and? The A380 is yay high, yay wide and a whole lotta heavy. Obviously it *can't fly*! Until it does. In March. Tough criticism there. Pre-empetive critcism in fact. If it won't fly we'll already have criticised it. Yeah! The A380 is a whole lotta big [/Mr. T] but it isn't the biggest airplane in the world, just the biggest passenger airplane. The C-5 galaxy is for all instance bigger, so is the An-124 and An-225. The An-225 is the largest plane ever made. The A380 is big but only in the passenger carrier dept. is it the biggest. Bigger, heavier things fly just fine. And have for decades.

Airbus seeks to lengthen its new global commercial sales lead over Boeing, which sees the future in smaller, efficient craft because maybe 800 folks don't want to fly from Minneapolis to Hibbing, Minn. Airbus' bet is big. It says growing traffic and crowded skies dictate fewer but larger planes, offering spacious first-class beds, lounges, entertainment systems, gyms, even waterfalls, not to be missed during turbulence.

Yes, good one there. Listen to Richard Branson and his boasting and take it as fact
Only Branson has been talking about gyms and such aboard Virgin Atlantic's A380s but in all seriousness that remains to be seen. Branson is no less a salesman than Steve Jobs, so. As for the other comment, it is true Airbus is betting that the future will need lots of A380 size jumbo-jets but it isn't betting much. Well �12 billion is quite a bet but already 139 planes have been sold and only 250 sales are needed to break even from the project. The most pessimistic are predicting about 500, maybe less sold. Even so the project has then payed off. With profit. That's a whole lot different than the Concorde project that never saw profit and never saw more than 19 planes made. This isn't prestige, this isn't a continental penis contest, this plane is being made because there is a market for it.

The 7E7 and the A350 that are being developed are also going to be popular replacing all the 757s, 767s, A330s and some 747s and A340s. They simply aren't in the same category as the A380. That one has no competition so far. So the criticism here is.. ok let's just realize for a second here that the author has given up all attempts to take digs at the A380 as such and has gone right for the plans of the prospective owners and operators of such machines and the 'gamble' Airbus has made with the A380. No criticism, just snidey remarks.

There's no end to possible airborne amenities. By the time we reach Airbus 480, each flight could comprise a human migration, with casinos, IMAX, Starbucks, boutiques, spas, suites, even parking. Variable configurations could cram 1,000 into the A380 now, sufficient for its own flu epidemic. You've got to hand it to those Europeans � they're finally acting like Texans.

??? Ok cool. But run by me again the point and 'criticism' of this editorial. Especially the criticism 'we Europeans' can't handle.

[edit: *some* of the typos damn message is so long I'll never find'em all]

[John Q. Smith]

what he said ^^^

(dunno what he said though, didn't read it, way too long...)

[badidea]

Originally posted by CaseCom:
It's a fact that U.S. airlines have been buying smaller, more fuel-efficient aircraft because that's what the U.S. market wants right now.

Just FYI, the A380 is (or will be) the most fuel-efficient airplane available so far!

[badidea]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<too much to quote>

[BoomStick]

A cessna 150 burns around 6 gallons an hour.

How much do the fans on the 380 burn?


It's hardly efficent. However the burn per pound is probably what they are measuring.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by voodoo:
??? Ok cool. But run by me again the point and 'criticism' of this editorial. Especially the criticism 'we Europeans' can't handle.

I think the point of the editorial is that it's a big plane - maybe so big that people won't like flying in them. I know it's awful to make fun of your plane, and I'm sure I'd be just as defensive as you if it were an American plane. Oh wait, no I wouldn't be.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think the point of the editorial is that it's a big plane - maybe so big that people won't like flying in them. I know it's awful to make fun of your plane, and I'm sure I'd be just as defensive as you if it were an American plane. Oh wait, no I wouldn't be.

No no, that's fine and hey I only realized a few weeks ago that Spain had something to do with designing the A380 but then again I'm an Icelandic citizen and that country isn't even in the EU, let alone in on Airbus.

That this was printed in the LA Times is what amazed me. There is plenty of the same and worse scattered all over the net and print.

Also I see you're calling it 'making fun of' rather than 'criticism'. Good call there

I knew you'd see it my way!

(P.S. about 40% of the A380 parts are made in the USA)

[voodoo]

Now here is a *real* article about things that matter to people, especially those who can imagine themselves flying one day with an A380.

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...nterior24.html

A very realistic and non-speculative article on what will be and what will not be a part of the A380 flying experience. They actually quote some people who would know, like the airlines that actually have bought the planes already.

Enjoy!

[Joshua]

[badidea]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
A cessna 150 burns around 6 gallons an hour.

How much do the fans on the 380 burn?


It's hardly efficent. However the burn per pound is probably what they are measuring.

It's 2.9l/100km per passenger (and that's for Jets)!

[itai195]

I think the author probably has just been in LAX right after a couple 747s landed within minutes of each other. It's chaos

[Link]

LOL! Some great posts here..

[villalobos]

Dude, ever heard about sarcasm............

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Peter:
tried and tested, reliable, obviously well made.

Yeah, just like the Space Shuttle.

A 40-year old air frame doesn't make me feel any safer than a newer one.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by badidea:
Really? Which ones?

VALID IDEA:

BEFORE THE AIRBUS HAS BEEN TESTED, AIRLINERS HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT THEM.

THEREFORE THEY ARE BETTING ON THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE NOTION THAT PEOPLE WILL WANT TO FLY ON THESE THINGS.


the title of the article:
Airbus' Big, Big Bet

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
VALID IDEA:

BEFORE THE AIRBUS HAS BEEN TESTED, AIRLINERS HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT THEM.

THEREFORE THEY ARE BETTING ON THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE NOTION THAT PEOPLE WILL WANT TO FLY ON THESE THINGS.


the title of the article:
Airbus' Big, Big Bet

Well not one of the Boeing 747s, 777, 757s or 767s would have been made if airlines hadn't already bought slews of them BEFORE they were ever made.

That is how new types of jets have been launched the last decades, namely by having potential buyers committing themselves before the first unit is out of assembly.

Good? Bad? No idea, just the way this business is today in this large class jetliners. So is the article criticising the industry as a whole?

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by voodoo:

Good? Bad? No idea, just the way this business is today in this large class jetliners. So is the article criticising the industry as a whole?

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.


[I love tech so the airbus is cool to me. However, post 9/11 and current times has many people not trusting airliners. I know of several people that freak out just getting on a normal plane I am not sure this plane will save the airline industry because no tech can make a scared man/woman buy a ticket to something they don't want to ride in.]

[badidea]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
[I love tech so the airbus is cool to me. However, post 9/11 and current times has many people not trusting airliners. I know of several people that freak out just getting on a normal plane I am not sure this plane will save the airline industry because no tech can make a scared man/woman buy a ticket to something they don't want to ride in.]

No problem because we don't build airplanes for insane people! I don't know anybody who changed his/her mind about flying post 9/11 because they all know that many more airplanes crashed even without human interaction before 9/11 -> flying became not a single bit more dangerous!
Since this article already mentioned that no american airline has yet bought one of our A380s those people won't have to fear to fly with one of our "terrorist-bombers" if they keep buying tickets from american airlines exclusively...and if they don't want to fly at all anymore, they can still cross the oceans by ship (and please don't watch Titanic before doing so)!!

[bubblewrap]

I have no problem flying my 30 year old Embraer.
I'll be more than happy to fly the old Boeing turbofans when I'm certified.

I don't think I want to fly the Airbus. I've seen them in maintenance.
There's so much delamination of the composite materials, it's scarey.
And they consider it "normal". Unless it unbolts, it's almost impossible to fix and replace these componants.

[TETENAL]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/airbus.html

I heard in this or a similar thread, that it was a pilot error because the pilot made rudder input too often.

[bubblewrap]

Umm, you have to use the rudder often. Especially on approach. It's the only way to correct yaw in crosswind conditions. Or you could sideload the gear and bend the attach points.
And during turns, it forces an "in trim" turn.

This is purely an engineering flaw followed by lack of a corrective procedure added to the POM or a rudder deflection limiter. Like on the B737

[Thilo Ettelt]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Yes that was a lame editorial and that's why I posted it. It was posted in the LA Times, which in my experience is a quite good newspaper. That's why I was quite surprised to see this kind of writing in that publication. Had this been a, say Washington Times editorial I wouldn't have given it a second thought since French bashing and xenophobia isn't entirely unknown to them. So that's the reason for me posting this article BRussell.

You ask if Europeans can't take criticism.. that question doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this thread since the editorial isn't criticising - it is just making up stuff! How about some genuine crticism! That's what I was expecting from the LA Times, but they went for tabloid style instead.

This has nothing to do with 'criticism'. Nothing.

[...]

Is there a "Seek for truth instead of guidance" award? You certainly deserve it! More people should be seeking for the truth instead of the guidance of their opinion by articles like this one by the LA Times. So, photoshop anyway?


- Thilo

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Umm, you have to use the rudder often. Especially on approach. It's the only way to correct yaw in crosswind conditions. Or you could sideload the gear and bend the attach points.
And during turns, it forces an "in trim" turn.

This is purely an engineering flaw followed by lack of a corrective procedure added to the POM or a rudder deflection limiter. Like on the B737

Well, in this post and following:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=2#post2340348

it was consensus of the experts in the thread, that the pilot used the rudder too often and the accident was therefore pilot error.

[BoomStick]

There is a serious flaw if you can't use the full deflection of any control surface below 200 kts.

There should have been a deflection limiter.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
There should have been a deflection limiter.

Read the thread I linked to above. There is a deflection limiter, but you can use the rudder to full deflection only "a few times". If you use it "many times" it breaks off and that's pilot error.

[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.