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

Airbus A380 revealed

takao said:
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)
Click to expand...


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
 
fuzzwud said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
agreenster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
agreenster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
crazzyeddie said:
The Titanic of the sky anyone?! :eek:
Click to expand...

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.
 
wdlove said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
 
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
 
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!
 
Xtremehkr said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
tristan said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
quagmire said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
groovebuster said:
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
Click to expand...

Here! Here! Have you seen the Eurofighter or Harrier Jump jet??
 
groovebuster said:
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
Click to expand...
applausev.gif
 
groovebuster said:
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
Click to expand...

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"
 
TheMac19 said:
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...
Click to expand...
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
 
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