Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Airbus A380 revealed

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

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)
 
Looks pretty amazing to me! Cool!

Just a tad on the LARGE side :p

_40728825_airbus_a380416.gif
 
garybUK said:
Is there any news of Air France or British Airways ordering any???
Click to expand...

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


edesignuk said:
Looks pretty amazing to me!
Click to expand...

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
 
iGAV said:
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
Click to expand...
Yeah, the 747 looks better, but who cares really, it's all about function ;)
 
 
iGAV said:
In a way yes, but you can have both, ;) they're not mutally exclusive.
Click to expand...

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.
 
 
whooleytoo said:
I agree, I think in particular if the cockpit had been on the upper deck it would have looked a lot better.
Click to expand...
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
 
edesignuk said:
WOW
Click to expand...

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.. :(
 
groovebuster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

groovebuster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Graphically speaking

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

Attachments

  • 0119-Airbus.gif
    0119-Airbus.gif
    56.2 KB · Views: 279
whooleytoo said:
I'm not surprised that the aerodynamics would be better, but would that affect the noise level?
Click to expand...
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...
 
garybUK said:
Its an absolutely fantastic plane they have already taken so many orders for it, can't wait to see it fly.
Click to expand...

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

garybUK said:
I just hope most of the airlines don't use them as cattle markets.
Click to expand...

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

garybUK said:
Is there any news of Air France or British Airways ordering any???
Click to expand...

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.
 
gwuMACaddict said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
plasticparadox said:
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
Click to expand...


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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back