Let's see the section that holds 500 seats of hungry passengers fighting their neighbor for the arm-rest and getting poked in the back by the knees of the guy in back of you. And just think how many screaming babies you could fit on this thing.
Airbus' golden boondogle. The trick about big planes is filling them up with PAYING passengers. I believe that Boeing's approach, smaller aircraft flying direct to destinations is the correct way to go. Besides, this thisg is too big. Airports around the world simplly do not have the infrastructure to support it.
How many routes actually could use a 380? Sure, maybe fewer fligts than 747's would need, but 747, et. al. hlready haveonly limited routes that are profitable.
What about the demand on terminals? You need security scr=eeners, ticket takers, loading doors and all the other features, to be doubled at least. That won't be easy, but in time it could be done.
What about public reaction when a 380 goes down killing all on board? It will happen, and psychologically it will be a bombshell when it does. Still, the Tenerife 747 crash killed as many, and maybe no one remembers.
Small point - the requirement for evacuation of all passengers in less than 90 seconds. I don't think that you could do that with explosive decompression at 40,000 feet.
Anyhow, it will be interesting watching Boeing and Airbus push their separate visions. Maybe there's room for both. But if it's oneor the other, I guess I'd have to go with Boeing's approach - smaller planes, more direct flights.
Compared to the 777's seats that have a couple of extra inches on the sides. The seats shown on 380 economy seem to be of the 747 ilk. Most uncomfortable and cramped.
I am surprised at all of the bad comments on the A380. The 747 is an old design, and it is good that it is at last getting true competition. I think that the reason why Boeing is not trying to compete is because they do not want to damage 747 sales so they are instead replacing other old designs. (Which have been loosing sales due to other Airbus products.) Rememeber that the 747 was insulted for all the same reasons, and they were even more justified then as the airports needed huge upgrades.
I believe that Boeing's approach, smaller aircraft flying direct to destinations is the correct way to go. Besides, this thisg is too big. Airports around the world simplly do not have the infrastructure to support it.
fligts than 747's would need, but 747, et. al. hlready haveonly
limited routes that are profitable.
What about the demand on terminals? You need security
scr=eeners, ticket takers, loading doors and all the other
features, to be doubled at least. That won't be easy, but in time
it could be done.
What about public reaction when a 380 goes down killing all on
board? It will happen, and psychologically it will be a bombshell
when it does. Still, the Tenerife 747 crash killed as many, and
maybe no one remembers.
Small point - the requirement for evacuation of all passengers in
less than 90 seconds. I don't think that you could do that with
explosive decompression at 40,000 feet.
Anyhow, it will be interesting watching Boeing and Airbus push
their separate visions. Maybe there's room for both. But if it's
oneor the other, I guess I'd have to go with Boeing's approach -
smaller planes, more direct flights.
We'll see.
The seats shown on 380 economy seem to be of the 747 ilk. Most uncomfortable and cramped.
Its the plane that Microsoft's money built!
- by steigen1 September 15, 2009 9:14 AM PDT
- Thank you
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(22 Comments)