Airbus A380 revealed

[groovebuster]

Since nobody mentioned it so far...

The biggest passenger airplane of the world was revealed yesterday:

Link to Airbus HomePage (http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp)

I'm just curious how other people think about it.

I am looking forward to see (or fly (as a passenger)) one in real one day... :)

groovebuster

[mpw]

Personally I don’t like the idea. It takes forever to load a 747 so sitting on the taxi-way while 800 other sweating tourist board around me doesn’t appeal.

Also I’d like to see a reduction in air travel on environmental grounds OK so it’ll take a little longer to holiday but crossing the globe by boat and rail seems more relaxing to me.

[gwuMACaddict]

how in the world is using boat and rail going to save the environment. most of these devices pollute just like planes?? :confused:


i think the new jet is exciting, amazing what they can engineer.

[garybUK]

Its an absolutely fantastic plane they have already taken so many orders for it, can't wait to see it fly.

Them RR Trent 900 engines are phenomenal they are huge.

I just hope most of the airlines don't use them as cattle markets.

The only thing with the sheer size and capacity of this monster, if and when one does go down, there's an awful lot of people on board.

Is there any news of Air France or British Airways ordering any???

[takao]

how in the world is using boat and rail going to save the environment. most of these devices pollute just like planes?? :confused:

depends...if you use all the way electric trains then it beats all the alternatives (if electricity is produced with hydro-power etc. like more than 65% is here)

[groovebuster]

... and talking about the environment, the A380 is very fuel efficient.

[edesignuk]

Looks pretty amazing to me! Cool! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4183201.stm)

Just a tad on the LARGE side :p

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40728000/gif/_40728825_airbus_a380416.gif

[iGav]

Is there any news of Air France or British Airways ordering any???

I don't think BA are because Branson has been bragging.


Looks pretty amazing to me!

The 747 creams it in the looks department though... the A380 lacks definition and just looks bloated, who would've thought people would ever say that a 747 looks lithe... :eek: :p

[edesignuk]

The 747 creams it in the looks department though... the A380 lacks definition and just looks bloated, who would've thought people would ever say that a 747 looks lithe... :eek: :pYeah, the 747 looks better, but who cares really, it's all about function ;)

[groovebuster]

Yeah, the 747 looks better, but who cares really, it's all about function ;)
... especially when building a plane that size the only thing you care about is: efficiency! There is no room for making it more pretty.

groovebuster

[miloblithe]

Yet another symbol of the rise of Europe as a global superpower?

[iGav]

but who cares really, it's all about function ;)

In a way yes, but you can have both, ;) they're not mutally exclusive.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Yet another symbol of the rise of Europe as a global superpower?
More of a symbol of see what we can do when we all work together vs centuries of warfare. Maybe one day the mid east will grasp this concept.

[plasticparadox]

Have you seen some photos of the interior? I'll never be wealthy enough to travel first class, but it's nice to see how rich people travel :)

http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/96.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/99.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/102.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/105.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/108.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/2337.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/2338.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/55.jpg

[whooleytoo]

In a way yes, but you can have both, ;) they're not mutally exclusive.

I agree, I think in particular if the cockpit had been on the upper deck it would have looked a lot better. It currently looks a bit Frankensteiney, with an oversized forehead! ;)

I was quite surprised at the difference between the listed and max seating figures - I'm really hopeful they won't be cramming the seats in, though of course that's up to the airlines. I flew with <an airline I shouldn't mention> and they had the seating so tight, I couldn't sit without spreading one leg to either side of the seat in front, and I'm not a tall guy! And then the armrests were so tight they were digging into my legs. I hobbled off that plain with pretty bad back cramps afterwards.

[edesignuk]

Have you seen some photos of the interior? I'll never be wealthy enough to travel first class, but it's nice to see how rich people travel :)

http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/96.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/99.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/102.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/105.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/108.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/2337.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/2338.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/55.jpg
WOW

[groovebuster]

I agree, I think in particular if the cockpit had been on the upper deck it would have looked a lot better.
But there are two reasons why they didn't do that.

a) The aerodynamics are better and the noise level in the cockpit is lower.

b) Pilots rated for A330/A340 also can fly this puppy since the cockpit has the same height over ground and taxiing and flying this monster is not much different to the other airbuses. So it saves the airlines money.

So it is all about function.

groovebuster

[whooleytoo]

WOW

I really, really hope they keep some of these features.

But long distance airliners always seem to launch like this, with eyecatching bars and lounges and jacuzzis. But then when pressed into service they're just fitted out with a dozen extra rows of seating instead.. :(

[whooleytoo]

But there are two reasons why they didn't do that.

a) The aerodynamics are better and the noise level in the cockpit is lower.


I'm not surprised that the aerodynamics would be better, but would that affect the noise level?


b) Pilots rated for A330/A340 also can fly this puppy since the cockpit has the same height over ground and taxiing and flying this monster is not much different to the other airbuses. So it saves the airlines money.


And that's something you can't really appreciate from most of the shots here, just how high off the ground some of these cockpits are (and how limited the crew's vision of the ground closeby is).

[superninjagoat]

Quick graphic I did for today's Raleigh News & Observer business section. Gives a little more information on fuel economy, passengers and layout. enjoy

[groovebuster]

I'm not surprised that the aerodynamics would be better, but would that affect the noise level?
I saw a report about it a few months ago on TV in which the discussed exactly that: why they decided to put the cockpit between the two passenger levels. And the explained why the noise level is higher when the cockpit is located higher. Has to do with the angle and speed of the air...

[crazzyeddie]

The Titanic of the sky anyone?! :eek:

[Chip NoVaMac]

Its an absolutely fantastic plane they have already taken so many orders for it, can't wait to see it fly.

Well they are about 80 orders away from the break even point right now.

I just hope most of the airlines don't use them as cattle markets.

It will depend on the market. For Asia there might be 880 seat versions. Just as there are 500+ seat versions of the B747.

Is there any news of Air France or British Airways ordering any???

Yes, they have both signed on.


Other than that it will interesting to see if it becomes a success. Boeing made its last 747 in 2002. Airlines are more interested in smaller planes that fit the hub and spoke system, with multiple stops. 747's and the A380 are best suited for long haul or cattle car flights.

[mpw]

how in the world is using boat and rail going to save the environment. most of these devices pollute just like planes?? :confused:


i think the new jet is exciting, amazing what they can engineer.

IMO there is inevitable going to be new technologies to provide propulsion for cars, trains and boats most I'm guessing will rely on electricity at the point of use. These technologies will be 'cleaner' than present day fuels such as petrol, diesel and coal and most will not pollute at the point of use. Although they may at point of production this will be easier to control and manage.

I can see enormous ship crossing the Atlantic with alternative methods of power and even believe that one day some colossal road bridges/tunnels will span the worlds oceans but the idea of electric motors for flight just doesn’t seem plausible.

Personally I’m hoping to see real inroads to tidal and solar power production.

[fuzzwud]

Have you seen some photos of the interior? I'll never be wealthy enough to travel first class, but it's nice to see how rich people travel :)

http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/96.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/99.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/102.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/105.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/108.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/2337.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/2338.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/55.jpg


you don't have to be super rich to travel like that. just rack up the frequent flyer miles and hope to get upgraded :P

[fuzzwud]

depends...if you use all the way electric trains then it beats all the alternatives (if electricity is produced with hydro-power etc. like more than 65% is here)


there's really few power generation technologies that don't pollute or have an environmental impact even hydro-power. Although it's cleaner, it causes changes with the wildlife around it. ie, Hoover Dam - Grand Canyon and the 3 Gorges Dam

[mpw]

there's really few power generation technologies that don't pollute or have an environmental impact even hydro-power. Although it's cleaner, it causes changes with the wildlife around it. ie, Hoover Dam - Grand Canyon and the 3 Gorges Dam

I think I can accept that any power generation is going to have negatives (with the exception of solar I guess, possibly the least anyway). But I think I'd be happier with reletively local disruption of wind farms and tidal power farms even sypathetic hydro than I would burning petrol etc.

[iGav]

Yes, they have both signed on.

The news here is saying that they haven't, they weren't even at the launch yesterday.

[TheMac19]

how in the world is using boat and rail going to save the environment. most of these devices pollute just like planes?? :confused:

Actually there's this new technology available in boats... What you do is buy this big flat engine made from fabric. Then you tie it to a big stick in the middle of your boat, and the wind pushes you around. The fuel it runs on is quiet, free and doesn't pollute anything. At all.

Funny how one of the oldest methods of "powered" transportation known to the world is still the most effecient.

[agreenster]

I would like to see a reduction in air travel and an emphasis put on high-speed ground travel.

I wouldnt mind getting on a high-speed train of some sort and travel across country in 10 hours instead of 5, because trains are so much more safe, comfortable and can be bigger.

[whooleytoo]

The Titanic of the sky anyone?! :eek:

Maybe. It would have to be a BIG iceberg though! :D

[quagmire]

Airbus just created a big target around that A380. The tons of fuel and more people will attract terrorists. Plus I see boeing rising back soon. You can never doubt a comapny that made the greatest WWII plane. We are also seeing boeing rising back in the military again. Lockhead might have gotten the contract for the new F-35 but, as we see unmanned aircraft coming in, boeing so far holds control over that.

[TheMac19]

I would like to see a reduction in air travel and an emphasis put on high-speed ground travel.

I wouldnt mind getting on a high-speed train of some sort and travel across country in 10 hours instead of 5, because trains are so much more safe, comfortable and can be bigger.

I'm not so sure that trains are all that much safer - I think the real stats go for air travel as safest. As per the number of flights every day, there are extremely few crashes - it's just that every time a plane goes down you hear about it, because plane crashes make great graphic news stories ( which = ratings).

Plus, It'd take a LOT to get a train going 300+ miles per hour nonstop from coast to coast safer than a plane can do it now...

I remember hearing a stat that if a person were to do nothing buy fly for their entire life (from day 1 as an infant) getting on one commercial airliner after another, all over the world, for the 70 or 80-odd years of their (average) lifespan, they would statistically have less than a 5% chance of being involved in an accident, ever. And if they were involved in an accident, the chances were still better than 50% that they'd live without any significant injuries...

EDIT: Quick reference site for safety/effeciency/pollution stats; Planes vs. Trains vs. Autos. (from a quick googling) http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/travel/train-plane-car.html

[Chip NoVaMac]

The news here is saying that they haven't, they weren't even at the launch yesterday.

Sorry, thought I saw the BA logo on the TV news yesterday....

[Chip NoVaMac]

I would like to see a reduction in air travel and an emphasis put on high-speed ground travel.

I wouldnt mind getting on a high-speed train of some sort and travel across country in 10 hours instead of 5, because trains are so much more safe, comfortable and can be bigger.

At those speeds needed, it might not be any safer.

But there is a need for high-speed "rail" in popular corridors, like DC-NYC-BOS, SD-LA-SF, CHI-SL, and LA-LAS-PHX. But the environmental issues would be hard to overcome IMO.

[wdlove]

The Titanic of the sky anyone?! :eek:

I was telling my wife the same thing after I heard Richard Branson of Virgin. His plans certainly sound like quite a luxury liner in the air. Certainly not wishing ill toward one of the planes or its passengers. More along the line of his plan being a disaster. Sounds like a hotel resort in the sky. It would only be practical on the real long flights.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I was telling my wife the same thing after I heard Richard Branson of Virgin. His plans certainly sound like quite a luxury liner in the air. Certainly not wishing ill toward one of the planes or its passengers. More along the line of his plan being a disaster. Sounds like a hotel resort in the sky. It would only be practical on the real long flights.

Airlines have tried to bring more on board, but passengers and dollars counted more than comfort in the end. Any one remember when the upper deck on 747's were lounges? Or when Continental put piano bars on DC-10's?

[Xtremehkr]

I can't wait to fly on one of these planes. I wonder what routes they are going to start flying right away? And which airlines are planning on implementing them right away?

The first class amenities are nice, but let's be realistic, the majority of us are interested in Economy class. Have they made many inroads there? That would make the biggest difference for me, having a seat that reclined far enough to sleep in.

Maybe even a kids section, where passengers with young children can be grouped.

For 5 - 7 hour flights I would take the cheapest price. But beyond 7 hours I prefer to be able to sleep.

I wonder what landing will feel like in that monster?

[tristan]

Good luck getting a train to take you from New York to London. :-)

I'm all for faster trains, but realistically they're only for short haul transportation, which is the complete opposite of what the A380 is all about. Nobody's going to take an A380 from New York to DC, that's a 737s job, or Amtrack's job if they ever become competitive.

And also, for everyone who says that this represents the rise of Europe, well, 50% of the parts in a typical Airbus plane come from the US. Some stuff we can make better and cheaper, some stuff they can - nationalism is so 20th century. :-P

[mpw]

I've just had a re-think on the plane vs trian/boat argument. What would Apple's delivery time be by boat if it takes 3weeks to get an iMac by plane?

Bring back Concorde as an Apple only freighter!

[Chip NoVaMac]

I can't wait to fly on one of these planes. I wonder what routes they are going to start flying right away? And which airlines are planning on implementing them right away?

The first class amenities are nice, but let's be realistic, the majority of us are interested in Economy class. Have they made many inroads there? That would make the biggest difference for me, having a seat that reclined far enough to sleep in.

Maybe even a kids section, where passengers with young children can be grouped.

For 5 - 7 hour flights I would take the cheapest price. But beyond 7 hours I prefer to be able to sleep.

I wonder what landing will feel like in that monster?

Figure that transoceanic flights might be first. Though high density routes might also be a possibility. I doubt that a single airline will fly it solo for long.

With any aircraft the airline decides how they will best utilize the interior. VA seems to want to take the high road with more space for their top paying customers. Others might want to cram 880 people on board. At 550, the first class is supposed to have sleeper suites. In business it is to be something a bit better than first class was. Coach will always be coach IMO. They have stayed away from describing coach.

The feel will probably not be much different than the 777 or even the 747. It is not that much larger than adding to the length of the upper deck.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Good luck getting a train to take you from New York to London. :-)

I'm all for faster trains, but realistically they're only for short haul transportation, which is the complete opposite of what the A380 is all about. Nobody's going to take an A380 from New York to DC, that's a 737s job, or Amtrack's job if they ever become competitive.

And also, for everyone who says that this represents the rise of Europe, well, 50% of the parts in a typical Airbus plane come from the US. Some stuff we can make better and cheaper, some stuff they can - nationalism is so 20th century. :-P

But in some countries short haul can mean high density. Japan has a few of these types of routes.

Your comments is also the reason that Boeing has seen a drop in the 747 sales, so much so they produced their last one back in 2002.

[Peterkro]

Just from(very dodgy) memory I think Singapore Airlines are the first in 2006,London,Singapore,Sydney.
PS BA haven't got involved yet nor I believe Air France.I think Emirates have the largest order so far.

[tristan]

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-01-18-airbus-orders_x.htm

Here's who bought these. Fedex is buying ten - I guess they can hold a lot of packages!

[groovebuster]

Airbus just created a big target around that A380. The tons of fuel and more people will attract terrorists. Plus I see boeing rising back soon. You can never doubt a comapny that made the greatest WWII plane. We are also seeing boeing rising back in the military again. Lockhead might have gotten the contract for the new F-35 but, as we see unmanned aircraft coming in, boeing so far holds control over that.
I really was waiting for a comment like that... :rolleyes:

For the real american patriot it is unbearable that europe is in the lead for something like that now... right?

1) Did terrorists attack a 747 in the last few years? No? So what?

2) Boeing didn't sell one(!) 747 the last two years. On the other hand Airbus sold 139 planes of a model that didn't even fly so far. I am sure that many airlines are still undecided and are waiting for proof how the plane will perform and place theri orders then...

3) I don't give a fart about military planes, this thread was about the A380! I don't think knowing how to destroy the best way is something you can be proud of. But of course the americans are the best in that... I'm impressed!

Thanks for listening! :rolleyes:

groovebuster

[garybUK]

I really was waiting for a comment like that... :rolleyes:

For the real american patriot it is unbearable that europe is in the lead for something like that now... right?

1) Did terrorists attack a 747 in the last few years? No? So what?

2) Boeing didn't sell one(!) 747 the last two years. On the other hand Airbus sold 139 planes of a model that didn't even fly so far. I am sure that many airlines are still undecided and are waiting for proof how the plane will perform and place theri orders then...

3) I don't give a fart about military planes, this thread was about the A380! I don't think knowing how to destroy the best way is something you can be proud of. But of course the americans are the best in that... I'm impressed!

Thanks for listening! :rolleyes:

groovebuster

Here! Here! Have you seen the Eurofighter or Harrier Jump jet??

[edesignuk]

I really was waiting for a comment like that... :rolleyes:

For the real american patriot it is unbearable that europe is in the lead for something like that now... right?

1) Did terrorists attack a 747 in the last few years? No? So what?

2) Boeing didn't sell one(!) 747 the last two years. On the other hand Airbus sold 139 planes of a model that didn't even fly so far. I am sure that many airlines are still undecided and are waiting for proof how the plane will perform and place theri orders then...

3) I don't give a fart about military planes, this thread was about the A380! I don't think knowing how to destroy the best way is something you can be proud of. But of course the americans are the best in that... I'm impressed!

Thanks for listening! :rolleyes:

groovebuster
http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/gifs/applausev.gif

[TheMac19]

I don't think knowing how to destroy the best way is something you can be proud of. But of course the americans are the best in that... I'm impressed!

Thanks for listening! :rolleyes:

groovebuster

Not to spiral this thread back to a long dead political debate, but if nationalist pigeonholing is what you're after, I think there's a few historical oversights in a German declaring that Americans know how to destroy things best, and being proud of it...

tristan said it best; "nationalism is so 20th century"

[groovebuster]

Not to spiral this thread back to a long dead political debate, but if nationalist pigeonholing is what you're after, I think there's a few historical oversights in a German declaring that Americans know how to destroy things best, and being proud of it...
Hmmm... so you think that as a German I don't have the right to criticise nationalism the way I did, because of the german history 60 years ago, which I don't have anything to do with? And in the next sentence you say that nationalism is so 20th century?

I'm sorry when you didn't get my last posting, but I thought I made clear that I don't give a damn about nationalism. It wasn't me who started that Boeing is in the lead BS (btw, Böing was an immigrant from Germany, just mentioning it, even though I don't really care) and talking about military aircraft. And as far as I can recall history of the last 50 years I don't think that Germany was involved in any attacks on other countries... and what we were talking about is the present, not the past. And again, I wanted to talk about a civil aircraft in this thread: the A380!

Peace.

groovebuster

[oingoboingo]

Plus I see boeing rising back soon. You can never doubt a comapny that made the greatest WWII plane.

Boeing didn't make the Spitfire ;)

[garybUK]

Hmmm... so you think that as a German I don't have the right to criticise nationalism the way I did, because of the german history 60 years ago, which I don't have anything to do with? And in the next sentence you say that nationalism is so 20th century?

I'm sorry when you didn't get my last posting, but I thought I made clear that I don't give a damn about nationalism. It wasn't me who started that Boeing is in the lead BS (btw, Böing was an immigrant from Germany, just mentioning it, even though I don't really care) and talking about military aircraft. And as far as I can recall history of the last 50 years I don't think that Germany was involved in any attacks on other countries... and what we were talking about is the present, not the past. And again, I wanted to talk about a civil aircraft in this thread: the A380!

Peace.

groovebuster

And I seem to recall NASA was built on German Rocket Scientists after the war.

[edesignuk]

Boeing didn't make the Spitfire ;)
You read my mind :D

[TheMac19]

Hmmm... so you think that as a German I don't have the right to criticise nationalism the way I did, because of the german history 60 years ago, which I don't have anything to do with? And in the next sentence you say that nationalism is so 20th century?

I'm sorry when you didn't get my last posting, but I thought I made clear that I don't give a damn about nationalism. It wasn't me who started that Boeing is in the lead BS (btw, Böing was an immigrant from Germany, just mentioning it, even though I don't really care) and talking about military aircraft. And as far as I can recall history of the last 50 years I don't think that Germany was involved in any attacks on other countries... and what we were talking about is the present, not the past. And again, I wanted to talk about a civil aircraft in this thread: the A380!

Peace.

groovebuster

Sure thing, as a German you have every right to criticize nationalism, war, film or anything else, as does anyone. I was just hinting at the nationalist sentiment behind the punch you made about American destruction -- and went on to quote Tristan to highlight the absurdity of current nationalist tendencies. (I'd be more likely to say that nationalism was beat to death in the 19th century...)

As per the other posts about Airbus' success and the rise or decline of Europe/America. It's Airbus -- a company -- who makes the great planes. Europe doesn't make the A320, Airbus does, and they're a damn fine company. I certainly wouldn't say that America's the best and only getting better just because Apple makes the best computers (and OS..) and is only gaining more marketshare!

Anyway, what a mucky sidetrack from a great plane, the A380! I will say that recently I few on one of SwissAir's new A340's (I think) and it was the best flight I've been on. They put a lot of work into redesigning the interior, including lay-flat seats for business class, and even the coach seating was the best I've seen: Loads of room, great recline to the seats, and big screens. The flight was smooth as butter and the pressure in the plane was very constant, no ear popping at all! If that's any indication, I'm all for flying in a new Airbus whenever I get the chance. Hmm... Won't that be funny when you search for flights based on what plane you want to fly!

[Les Kern]

The Titanic of the sky anyone?! :eek:

It was my first thought too. I'm not normally so dark, and I love technology, but man if one of these goes down it takes almost 1,000 people with it. And remember, the NEVER DID find those 1,000 missing stinger missles in Iraq.
I like the military strategy of more/smaller/cheaper. Same goes for civil aviation.

[brap]

I'm all for faster trains, but realistically they're only for short haul transportation.
I'll be happy when they get these (http://www.transrapid.de/en/index.html) kittens in the channel tunnel. Imagine the ride quality - no turbulence, no bumpy takeoff and landing, no noise to speak of... sorted.

Wouldn't it be nice if our rail operators had the kind of money to invest in Maglev, hm? Sigh. I could get Nottingham-Canterbury in an hour, instead of six!

[groovebuster]

It's Airbus -- a company -- who makes the great planes. Europe doesn't make the A320, Airbus does, and they're a damn fine company. I certainly wouldn't say that America's the best and only getting better just because Apple makes the best computers (and OS..) and is only gaining more marketshare!
Exactly... it is a company. And I also don't care if it is european or from Mars. So I guess it was just a misunderstanding.

groovebuster

[Chip NoVaMac]

Well this was a nice thread while it lasted.

[bartelby]

I wouldn't trust flying in one!!

I know someone who works on desigining bits of it, and he reserves his judgement of it until further testing is done!

[iJed]

Boeing didn't make the Spitfire ;)

Exactly what I thought too! :-)

[Don't panic]

I'll be happy when they get these (http://www.transrapid.de/en/index.html) kittens in the channel tunnel. Imagine the ride quality - no turbulence, no bumpy takeoff and landing, no noise to speak of... sorted.

Wouldn't it be nice if our rail operators had the kind of money to invest in Maglev, hm? Sigh. I could get Nottingham-Canterbury in an hour, instead of six!

has anybody here ever ridden a maglev train? it must be so cool!

[geese]

I hear Ryanair has ordered a few :D

In fact, the're gonna remove the seats and replace them wiith terraces, so they can cram in 1500 people in! They're gonna use them on a shuttle service from Southend to Ibiza, Ayia Napa, and the parts of Greece that fill with lobster coloured Brits every July.

Well, whadya want for GPB 20 return?

[brap]

I hear Ryanair has ordered a few :D

In fact, the're gonna remove the seats and replace them wiith terraces, so they can cram in 1500 people in! They're gonna use them on a shuttle service from Southend to Ibiza, Ayia Napa, and the parts of Greece that fill with lobster coloured Brits every July.

Well, whadya want for GPB 20 return?
Pff... bw... bwahahahahahahaha!

New Burberry plaid terrrace design, guaranteed to be an instant hit! Let's just hope the calls of dubious reliability are true, eh?

[Chip NoVaMac]

I wouldn't trust flying in one!!

I know someone who works on desigining bits of it, and he reserves his judgement of it until further testing is done!

The real test comes with time. Some examples of aircraft that showed problems after "flight hours" are: the Comet airliner and the C5.

[bubbamac]

The real test comes with time. Some examples of aircraft that showed problems after "flight hours" are: the Comet airliner and the C5.

Truth be told, all aircraft have "teething pains." You simply can't design something that complex, and test all of the possiblities that it will encounter.

The trick is to catch the big issues before they cause something, uh, unpleasant.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Truth be told, all aircraft have "teething pains." You simply can't design something that complex, and test all of the possiblities that it will encounter.

The trick is to catch the big issues before they cause something, uh, unpleasant.

True, but I was referring to unforeseen design "flaws".

[Les Kern]

Truth be told, all aircraft have "teething pains." You simply can't design something that complex, and test all of the possiblities that it will encounter.

I don't know... I saw a Nova on the making of the 777 (designed completely on computer). Boeing farmed out different components to Australia and Japan. When it went together, there just weren't any issues. Not that I'm blind to any limitations technology sure has, but these guys have had decades of experience on what works and what doesn't. It's not like designing the FIRST airplanes! So if they have teething pains, I hope it has something to do with, say, the little TV's in the headrests. But point taken.

[Platform]

... especially when building a plane that size the only thing you care about is: efficiency! There is no room for making it more pretty.

groovebuster

The world most beautiful passenger airplane the A330 (proberly at least i think so, looks like a real bird :D )

[Platform]

But there are two reasons why they didn't do that.

a) The aerodynamics are better and the noise level in the cockpit is lower.

b) Pilots rated for A330/A340 also can fly this puppy since the cockpit has the same height over ground and taxiing and flying this monster is not much different to the other airbuses. So it saves the airlines money.

So it is all about function.

groovebuster

The biggest reason for having the cokpit at the first deck is that with the 747 was meant to be an transporter so it needed the big space to load cargo.
But to land a thing like that is a lot more "anoying" becasue you don't have the same kind of visability.

The A330 pilot have to go trough a bigger course to fly the 380 because quad engines and new fuel systems+ the 340 people also have to take a bigger course than from 330-340 becasue it is so big ;)

[Platform]

Titanic of the skyes :D

Titanic of the skyes would be the Antonov 225 (in size at least not luxury) ;)