A380 Takes Off For Maiden Voyage

[ptitmoine]

The width of the landing gear's no different from a 747, it can land anywhere a 747 can, it's the width of taxiways and space at terminals that decides where it can go. It's not going to need to use 'most' US airports, it's designed to fly from major hub to major hub. 

'If it doesn't crash'... it's made by Airbus.  An A300 lost its tail and an A310 lost its rudder, therefore the A380 is bound to crash because it's made by the same company?

737s have crashed, 747s have crashed, 757s have crashed ...  so presumably all Boeings are dangerous too?  The A330 and A340 have been flying for over 10 years, without (so far) any crashes.  But Airbus is clearly incompetent ...

613133[/snapback]

I think I might fall in love with you...

whatever...

sh** happens. In fact, A330 has crashed. The prototype crashed during an aborted landing test... Pilot error if I can remember correctly.

A340 had gear problems (Virgin experienced that ^^ )

but, that does not make Airbus a bad a/c maker...

[Space Commander Travis]

sh** happens. In fact, A330 has crashed. The prototype crashed during an aborted landing test... Pilot error if I can remember correctly.

A340 had gear problems (Virgin experienced that ^^ )

but, that does not make Airbus a bad a/c maker...

614257[/snapback]

Quite right, in '94 practising engine failure on a test flight ... as you said, s*** happens.

But my point stands: one crash, and that not a fault of the plane, in 11 years.

S*** happens to all manufacturers ... the JAL 747 that flew into a mountain after its rudder jammed?

It's hardly fair to judge a manufacturer on one or two accidents to different models of aircraft, is it, so let's not judge the A380 before it's even started service.

[ptitmoine]

you're 100% right.

I think seeing people going on with stupid statement like "Airbus is wrong" or "the A380 will never work" is really getting on my nerves...

Especially when people are not sure about what they are saying or doesn't know anything about airplanes....

In fact, that was why I'm here

[decimity]

Even the CEO of Boeing said that they expected the A380 would fly, because "this is what airplanes do". I don't think building a bigger plane is that hard given the current state of the know-how in the industry.

My question is that whether this would a good commercial choice for the airlines as they might not necessarily find it all that easy to fill up a 747 in the first place.

A380 would work if there are fewer flights and a lot of code-sharing between major hubs...

crazy idea... in 10 years time we might see the A380 in "star alliance" or "one world" or "sky team" livery only due to the extensive code-sharing....

that would work wouldn't it?

(personally I am not an airbus fan because the noise inside the plane makes me more nervous than the boeings)

[Space Commander Travis]

Even the CEO of Boeing said that they expected the A380 would fly, because "this is what airplanes do".  I don't think building a bigger plane is that hard given the current state of the know-how in the industry.

My question is that whether this would a good commercial choice for the airlines as they might not necessarily find it all that easy to fill up a 747 in the first place.

A380 would work if there are fewer flights and a lot of code-sharing between major hubs...

crazy idea... in 10 years time we might see the A380 in "star alliance" or "one world" or "sky team" livery only due to the extensive code-sharing....

that would work wouldn't it?

(personally I am not an airbus fan because the noise inside the plane makes me more nervous than the boeings)

629490[/snapback]

A lot of airlines that use 747s currently chose them more because of their range rather than that they need all that capacity, so Boeing definitely think that that's the way forward with the 777 and 787. i wonder if the A380 might find more of a niche where it's numbers and not distance that's important, like the Japanese domestic market?, while long haul becomes increasingly 777s and 787s (and A330s and 340s).

[Wynd]

As an aeronautical engineer I was taught to rely on facts and not emotion and use knowledge in the aviation field. Too many arguments posted by armchair experts appear to be based on emotions and not facts. Both Boeing and Airbus build very good aircraft, both have sold thousands of aircraft, both must pass the same certifications in order to become public utility vehicles. Sadly aviation is an unforgiving environment and many engineering truths have only become known due to trial and error. Both manufacturers have lost aircraft, both for engineering and human errors.

The reality is that both organizations run as commercial organizations, both receive subsides of some form or another and as a result both governments have reached agreements over these issues from time to time. Yet the fact remains that in the aviation industry only two major manufactures produce large jets in large quantities. Without competition the public would not be able to afford the costs of traveling by airlines. I'm grateful that Boeing and Airbus compete, without such competition I wouldn't have the facility to fly the distances I do at the lower costs I do.

Every human activity has risk, yet we continue to engage in these activities as we regard the risks as acceptable and managable. The Certification authorities are the flying publics representative and ensure that the flying public is exposed to the minimal acceptable risk, I do not believe that the certification authorities favour one manufacturer over another.

The airline business is extremely competitive and no one airline is identical to another due to their costs and focus on their segment of the market. Some airlines focus on hub to hub and others attempt the point to point. As a member of the public both have merits and the two manufacturers appear to be target different aspects of these segments.

Please post your views but back them up with facts not emotions.