taken recently in Toulouse apparently
4 big planes
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
and??
Trust me. It's a big deal.
oh sh!t! those are airbus' arent they?
A380?
of course
Can't they only fly into a few particular airports due to their sheer size?
Depends who you believe. Boeing like to broadcast that, but I've heard the issue is somewhat exaggerated. Sufficed to say though, some airports will require some upgrades.
Hey...you snuck it in under the radar!
I bet they can't land in Kentucky.
Or some airports just won't accept the A380.
I dunno. If there was some sort of extra service offered while embarking/disembarking, I guess it would be alright to fly on one of those things. But for Joe Average, isn't flying on one of those just going to make the flying ordeal even worse? (i kinda like flying actually...) Sure, it might have a shopping mall, spa and all that uber-luxurious stuff on it, but I'd prefer to "get there" faster, rather than be offered umpteen different ways to spend more money on a longer flight, surrounded by that many more screaming babies...
It's gotta take at least an hour to fill that thing up with passengers, and prob. another hour (maybe half hour...) for it to spew them out.
Unless they have boarding passes with staggered boarding times or something, that wouldn't be so bad. But that still leaves you on board, getting later and later for your connecting flight, while this thing disgorges...
But what the hell do I know. Go Boeing.
It's gotta take at least an hour to fill that thing up with passengers, and prob. another hour (maybe half hour...) for it to spew them out.
Unless they have boarding passes with staggered boarding times or something, that wouldn't be so bad. But that still leaves you on board, getting later and later for your connecting flight, while this thing disgorges...
But what the hell do I know. Go Boeing.
That thing is ALMOST retarted. Wonder what the fuel economy is for that monster.
Are there any snakes on those planes?
Due to its size, there are EXTRA snakes
Or we could require them to land in Kentucky...
Size comparison:
Hah, the spruce goose is the only thing larger than this tank.
huh? Looks like the an-225 is longer, wider, and has a higher max take-off weight...I guess only two were ever built, though.
According to that chart, the SG was taller and wider by 6m and 9m respectively.
sorry - I was comparing the an-225 and the a-380...
Ahh, gotcha.
Wonder if Airbus or Boeing will come out on top depending on their different philosophies.
gross fuel economy? or fuel economy per seat?
i bet the 2nd is more important.
They are definitely making jets more efficient
Some airports need upgrades. Larger ones are adding new double decker jetways so that loading and unloading doesn't take an hour when every old lady in france decides to carry 17 baguettes on.
Qantas and Royal Saudi air are currenty flying a380s on long haul routes.
Qantas and Royal Saudi air are currenty flying a380s on long haul routes.
Negative Ghostrider. The A380 is not in service; it has not recieved provisional certification from the JAA/EAA or the FAA for actual operations. Qantas and Royal Saudi are early adopters, but IIRC Singapore Airlines is the launch customer for the A380 airframe.
Many airports will need upgrades, as few long-haul terminals have been built for wingspans larger than the 747-400. Gate spacing is the biggest issue.
On top of that, the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of these birds is sufficient that it surpasses the total runway loading (TRL) for a given airplane. I forget what the max wheel weight is (weight on ground per wheel) for the A380, but it is pretty damn close to maximum for many places.
Fuel economy per revenue seat-mile (the financial unit used by most airlines) is very good for the overall size of the plane, but not the normal evolution in fuel economy supported by clean-sheet airframe designs. This is one reason the Boeing 787 ("Dreamliner") is cleaning up the A380 on sales, another being seat density and route re-alignment.
You won't catch me flying on one of these plastic spam cans. (Fly Boeing or go home)
Cheers,
-Andrew
If its not Boeing, I'm not going.
as long as the plane is clean, leaves on time, and stays in the air when it's supposed to, i don't give a rat's ass who made it.
are you the sort of twit who books flights depending on what model of plane may freight you around?
are you the sort of twit who books flights depending on what model of plane may freight you around?
No, I'm the sort of twit who worked for a major airline for many years and have flown on Airbus and Boeings thousands of times and from MY personal experience, the Boeings were MUCH more reliable.
I'm with you, as long as the plane is clean, operates properly and lands safely, while providing sexy air waitresses, I'm good.
Yeah, I'm that sort of twit. I fly a lot - 85k miles last year and on track for 120 this year. I'll go to India more times than most people will get their oil changed this year. (I'm going in October, November, January, and February as it stands now.)
Go out and read the accident reports. I have. I encourage you to. It sure isn't comforting. I was a pilot before I got back into cycling, and there are some frightening trends in there. I could give you reams of reading and links, if you'd like it.
(That said, I do fly on Airbuses when I have no other choice. I had to return from India via Lufthansa and all that was available out of Bangalore was a A-340. I did Boeing the rest of the trip, 777 BOS->LHR, 747 LHR->DEL, 747 FRA->BOS)
Cheers,
-Andrew
If you're suggesting that Boeings are inherently safer than Airbuses then I think it might be time to put down the crack pipe.
I'm with Narlus....but I do I choose my flights based on whether or not they've got personal TV screens or not.