Airbus A 380 is rolling [Archive]

Martin Hotze

April 17th 05, 03:41 PM

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:23:51 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

> > http://www.airliners.net/open.file/818500/M/
>>
>> according to this foto, the Aribus A 380 is on its 3rd rolling
>
>What a monster.

yeah.

>> hopefully they'll have a save first flight soon.
>
>Since I believe this is war

hu?

>and I'm rooting for my side, I hope the
>thing flops. Still, as an aviation buff, I'd love to watch a
>touch-and-go.

I like it beeing in service and generating business. There are concerns
IMHO about so many people in one place (check-in, gate, plane) ...

#m
--
<http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg>

Dan Luke

April 17th 05, 03:49 PM

"Martin Hotze" wrote:
>>Since I believe this is war
>
> hu?

It's a war between the two giant, state-supported airliner mfrs. The
winner will dominate the business and the loser's country will suffer
economically.

>>and I'm rooting for my side, I hope the
>>thing flops. Still, as an aviation buff, I'd love to watch a
>>touch-and-go.
>
> I like it beeing in service and generating business.

Actually, the 380 would likely be a boon to the economy around here
(Mobile, Alabama) because Brookley Field would probably get a lot of
maintenance and component manufacturing business. Overall, though, if
the 380 is a big success it will hurt Boeing and the U. S.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Gene Seibel

April 17th 05, 03:58 PM

I hear Fed Ex has ordered some. What a truck!
--
Gene Seibel
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:23:51 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:
>
> > > http://www.airliners.net/open.file/818500/M/
> >>
> >> according to this foto, the Aribus A 380 is on its 3rd rolling
> >
> >What a monster.
>
> yeah.
>
> >> hopefully they'll have a save first flight soon.
> >
> >Since I believe this is war
>
> hu?
>
> >and I'm rooting for my side, I hope the
> >thing flops. Still, as an aviation buff, I'd love to watch a
> >touch-and-go.
>
> I like it beeing in service and generating business. There are
concerns
> IMHO about so many people in one place (check-in, gate, plane) ...
>
> #m
> --
> <http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg>

Stefan

April 17th 05, 04:01 PM

Martin Hotze wrote:

> I like it beeing in service and generating business. There are concerns
> IMHO about so many people in one place (check-in, gate, plane) ...

I seem to remember that when the 747 was introduced, there were
*excactly* the same concerns.

Stefan

Martin Hotze

April 17th 05, 06:52 PM

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:49:12 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

>Overall, though, if
>the 380 is a big success it will hurt Boeing and the U. S.

it _will_ hurt Boeing, but I doubt that it will hurt the US. Such big
companies think global, so they spread maintainance, parts, etc. all over
the world. IMHO

#m

--
<http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg>

Chris

April 17th 05, 06:58 PM

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
>> I like it beeing in service and generating business. There are concerns
>> IMHO about so many people in one place (check-in, gate, plane) ...
>
> I seem to remember that when the 747 was introduced, there were *excactly*
> the same concerns.
>

The interesting thing I noticed in the picture was the tail of a South
African Airways A340 behind the A380. SAA are moving to an all Airbus fleet
and dropping Boeing.

Stefan

April 17th 05, 07:08 PM

Martin Hotze wrote:

> companies think global, so they spread maintainance, parts, etc. all over
> the world. IMHO

Each A380 will be maintained at the home base of whichever company has
bought it, exactly as your spam can isn't ferried to the USA for the 50
hours check of the Lycoming.

Reminds me of a story a couple of years ago. The Swiss army planned to
buy a certain amount of trucks. Some politicians insisted that they
should be Saurer trucks (Saurer was a now defunct Swiss truck factory)
rather than the somewhat cheaper Mercedes because by buying the Swiss
stuff, they would create work in Switzerland. Taking a closer look it
turned out that by buying the German Mercedes they would create *more*
work in Switzerland, because the German Mercedes had much more Swiss
built parts than the Swiss Saurer...

Stefan

Matt Whiting

April 17th 05, 07:38 PM

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in news:1164trbo65unn67
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>
>>"Martin Hotze" wrote:
>>
>>>>Since I believe this is war
>>>
>>>hu?
>>
>>It's a war between the two giant, state-supported airliner mfrs.
>
>
> But why do us outsiders have to take sides?

We don't have to, but it is human nature to be competitive. And this is
actually good in most cases as long as it isn't taken to extremes.

>>The
>>winner will dominate the business and the loser's country will suffer
>>economically.
>
>
> Not necessarily. Why can't we have a "live and let live" attitude? If
> an interesting and valuable project gets started which can make life
> better or is just an achievement in its on right, I'm happy, no matter
> who it is or what country it's from. As long as it's not about guns or
> other things which are to destroy rather than enjoy.

I enjoy my guns tremendously.

>>Actually, the 380 would likely be a boon to the economy around here
>>(Mobile, Alabama) because Brookley Field would probably get a lot of
>>maintenance and component manufacturing business.
>
>
> See?
>
>
>>Overall, though, if
>>the 380 is a big success it will hurt Boeing and the U. S.
>
>
> If that is what your media are telling you, don't believe them. They
> are paid by the industry :). Perhaps the competition can enthuse Boeing
> to create a new, even more spectacular jet, and the games goes into
> another round.

It already has. The dreamliner looks pretty cool to me. And the way
fuel costs are going, the smaller more efficient machine may just be the
way of the future.

> Personally I have an affection for Boeing because they were the jets
> that Pan Am flew into West Berlin where I lived, and thus were my first
> aviation experience. And we have an affection for here Pan Am too.
> Here's a memorial site http://www.pan-american.de/ "We miss You,
> Clipper": http://www.pan-american.de/We%20Miss%20you.html

Likewise. It is unfortunate that Boeing has suffered under some pretty
poor management for the last decade or two. If they'd have spent as
much time on airplane design and marketing as they did trying to get the
government to bail them out against Airbus, I think they'd be much more
competitive now.

Matt

Dan Luke

April 17th 05, 07:53 PM

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote:
>>
>> It's a war between the two giant, state-supported airliner mfrs.
>
> But why do us outsiders have to take sides?

Europeans and Americans are not outsiders in this struggle, since our
governments support the combatants.

>> The
>> winner will dominate the business and the loser's country will suffer
>> economically.
>
> Not necessarily. Why can't we have a "live and let live" attitude?

Are you kidding? International trade is war, nice sounding treaties
notwithstanding.

> If
> an interesting and valuable project gets started which can make life
> better or is just an achievement in its on right, I'm happy, no matter
> who it is or what country it's from. As long as it's not about guns or
> other things which are to destroy rather than enjoy.
>
>> Actually, the 380 would likely be a boon to the economy around here
>> (Mobile, Alabama) because Brookley Field would probably get a lot of
>> maintenance and component manufacturing business.
>
> See?

But it's political as much as economic. Both companies use this
strategy to ease the qualms (and grease the palms) of countries that buy
their products. Net total is still a loss for the U. S.

>> Overall, though, if
>> the 380 is a big success it will hurt Boeing and the U. S.
>
> If that is what your media are telling you, don't believe them. They
> are paid by the industry :). Perhaps the competition can enthuse
> Boeing
> to create a new, even more spectacular jet, and the games goes into
> another round.

Because of the immense development costs, there's room for only one new
jumbo jet in the world market. It may be there's room for only one mfr.
of large airliners, too. I believe Boeing and Airbus both suspect this
is true, and are betting on different airplanes to make them the "one."
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

john smith

April 17th 05, 09:07 PM

Wolfgang, please help me with the translation of this:
The wife, as such, is as our businesss, seldom more excluded.

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Die Frau als solche ist aus unserer Gesellschaft kaum mehr wegzudenken

john smith

April 17th 05, 09:10 PM

Which is exactly what killed McDonald/Douglas.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Likewise. It is unfortunate that Boeing has suffered under some pretty
> poor management for the last decade or two. If they'd have spent as
> much time on airplane design and marketing as they did trying to get the
> government to bail them out against Airbus, I think they'd be much more
> competitive now.

john smith

April 17th 05, 09:11 PM

I saw an announcement two weeks ago in my local newspaper that Airbus
was searching for a site to build a US maintenance base.

Stefan wrote:
> Martin Hotze wrote:
> Each A380 will be maintained at the home base of whichever company has
> bought it, exactly as your spam can isn't ferried to the USA for the 50
> hours check of the Lycoming.

john smith

April 17th 05, 09:12 PM

Did anyone read the Wall Street Journal article two weeks ago that
listed all the A380 suppliers, what they supply and where they are located?

Martin Hotze wrote:
> it _will_ hurt Boeing, but I doubt that it will hurt the US. Such big
> companies think global, so they spread maintainance, parts, etc. all over
> the world. IMHO

Martin Hotze

April 17th 05, 09:39 PM

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:07:13 GMT, john smith wrote:

>Wolfgang, please help me with the translation of this:
>The wife, as such, is as our businesss, seldom more excluded.
^^^^^
woman

this sentence is rather hard to translate without beeing lost in
translation. I don't exactly get the deeper meaning of it, there must be a
joke or so to it.

>Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>Die Frau als solche ist aus unserer Gesellschaft kaum mehr wegzudenken
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
our society (and not business)

Women, as such, can't be ['excluded' is what is the word by word
translation, it is more a 'denied out of' or 'banned from'] our society.

#m

--
<http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg>

Blanche

April 17th 05, 09:40 PM

john smith > wrote:
>Which is exactly what killed McDonald/Douglas.

M/D didn't die. It bought Boeing with Boeing's money and kept the
Boeing name.

Stefan

April 17th 05, 09:45 PM

Martin Hotze wrote:

> Women, as such, can't be ['excluded' is what is the word by word
> translation, it is more a 'denied out of' or 'banned from'] our society.

Close, but not eactly. I don't think a translation is possible at all.
You have to know the German sociologyc slang to grasp the sheer irony of
this statement.

Stefan

Dan Luke

April 17th 05, 11:46 PM

"john smith" wrote:
>I saw an announcement two weeks ago in my local newspaper that Airbus
>was searching for a site to build a US maintenance base.

Yes. My airport, Mobile Downtown, is in the running. Not sure I'm
crazy about this idea, as GA ramp space might be appropriated for new
facilities. On the other hand, if it boosts the local economy enough,
it might pump up my Bonanza fund.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[email protected]

April 18th 05, 01:08 AM

Still, as an aviation buff, I'd love to watch a
> touch-and-go.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

Some years ago I happened to pass by Travis AFB, CA in a 152. There
were a few C5 Galaxies in the pattern - doing touch and go's.
Impressive, even from a distance. It was a rather large pattern.

David Johnson

Blueskies

April 18th 05, 01:31 AM

"john smith" > wrote in message ...
> Which is exactly what killed McDonald/Douglas.
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Likewise. It is unfortunate that Boeing has suffered under some pretty poor management for the last decade or two.
>> If they'd have spent as much time on airplane design and marketing as they did trying to get the government to bail
>> them out against Airbus, I think they'd be much more competitive now.

The MD 11 killed MD...

Paul Tomblin

April 18th 05, 02:26 AM

In a previous article, "Blueskies" > said:
>The MD 11 killed MD...

You sure it wasn't the way that the badly designed cargo door latch on the
DC-10 caused the largest aircrash in history until Tenerife?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Today is a good day. Not because anything wonderful is happening, so
much, but because my definition of a 'bad day' has been revised.
-- Chris Klein

Morgans

April 18th 05, 04:15 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

The dreamliner looks pretty cool to me. And the way
> fuel costs are going, the smaller more efficient machine may just be the
> way of the future.

Assuming all the seats are full, (which they usually are full, or almost
full) on the long haul routes, the larger the more efficient.
--
Jim in NC

Thomas Borchert

April 18th 05, 08:44 AM

Martin,

> hopefully they'll have a save first flight soon.
>

They'll wait for the pope election hype to subside, if they want
maximum PR effect.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 18th 05, 08:44 AM

Dan,

> Yes. My airport, Mobile Downtown, is in the running.
>

So what on earth are you complaining about in your "war" comments?
You'd rather want Airbus to take your view and move to some other
place? Jeeze...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

G Farris

April 18th 05, 08:48 AM

In article >,
says...
>
>In a previous article, "Blueskies" > said:
>>The MD 11 killed MD...
>
>You sure it wasn't the way that the badly designed cargo door latch on the
>DC-10 caused the largest aircrash in history until Tenerife?
>

May have been both - however the MD11 made specific promises for utility
(load and range) which it was unbable to deliver. This led to cancelled orders
and public derision (American made some public statement about returning to
Boeing "who at least know how to make an airplane"). Thus the investment in
the MD11 had no hope of being recovered.

G Faris

G Farris

April 18th 05, 08:54 AM

In article >,
says...
>
>Did anyone read the Wall Street Journal article two weeks ago that
>listed all the A380 suppliers, what they supply and where they are located?
>

Didn't see the article, but it's a very pertinent point. US (and worldwide)
suppliers play a very important role in the A380 program, and their risk to
benefit ratio is attractive, compared to that of Airbus Industrie.

Boeing CEO Condit, in a visit to France a few years ago, mad a snide comment,
something like "The manufacture and sale of a Boeing aircraft benefits France
and Europe more than the sale of an Airbus aircraft." He was referring to the
cost of subsidies paid to Airbus, but also to the shared markets for suppliers
- notably engines.

G Farris

April 18th 05, 08:59 AM

In article >, says...

>
>Likewise. It is unfortunate that Boeing has suffered under some pretty
>poor management for the last decade or two. If they'd have spent as
>much time on airplane design and marketing as they did trying to get the
>government to bail them out against Airbus, I think they'd be much more
>competitive now.
>
>

It is indeed hard to avoid the supposition that Boeing is badly mismanaged in
recent years. The huge rift between the EURO and the dollar should translate
to approximately a 30% pricing advantage for Boeing - a theoretically
insurmountable advantage - yet they have been unable to leverage the advantge,
and have seen market share slipping to Airbus every year.

Meanwhile, faced with the public image momentum of the A380, they have
announced plans to discontinue the 747, and have released, then backed away
from, a number of different options to face-off the competition. To the public
view, Airbus is moving forward, unstoppable like a tank, while Boeing is
flip-flopping like a fish out of water.

G Faris

G Farris

April 18th 05, 09:04 AM

In article >,
says...
>
>Martin,
>
>> hopefully they'll have a save first flight soon.
>>

Official date is Friday.
Chances are they'll try to maintain it.

G Faris

Cub Driver

April 18th 05, 11:19 AM

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:49:12 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>It's a war between the two giant, state-supported airliner mfrs. The
>winner will dominate the business and the loser's country will suffer
>economically.

But not nearly as much as we will all suffer if there IS a loser.

The present situation suits me just fine, thanks. See saw, Margery
Daw. Keeps the prices down, the executives sweating, and the trade
negotiators' blood pressure up against the stops. And if the European
and Wichita taxpayers want to subsidize my flying, that's a bonus.

Looks like Boeing will ace out Airbus in sales this year.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Cub Driver

April 18th 05, 11:21 AM

> Perhaps the competition can enthuse Boeing
>to create a new, even more spectacular jet, and the games goes into
>another round.

It already has: the 787.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Matt Whiting

April 18th 05, 11:23 AM

Morgans wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
> The dreamliner looks pretty cool to me. And the way
>
>>fuel costs are going, the smaller more efficient machine may just be the
>>way of the future.
>
>
> Assuming all the seats are full, (which they usually are full, or almost
> full) on the long haul routes, the larger the more efficient.

Larger isn't always more efficient. Yes, you need high seat density for
efficiency on a per seat basis no matter what size the airplane.

Matt

Cub Driver

April 18th 05, 11:23 AM

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:59:44 +0000 (UTC), (G Farris)
wrote:

>The huge rift between the EURO and the dollar should translate
>to approximately a 30% pricing advantage for Boeing - a theoretically

Not so. Airbus hedged the dollar for several years out. Not until
those hedges are exhausted will Boeing see any advantage.

>insurmountable advantage - yet they have been unable to leverage the advantge,
>and have seen market share slipping to Airbus every year.

Again, not so. Boeing may well be the market leader this year, on the
strength of the 787.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Cub Driver

April 18th 05, 11:27 AM

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:08:13 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>Taking a closer look it
>turned out that by buying the German Mercedes they would create *more*
>work in Switzerland, because the German Mercedes had much more Swiss
>built parts than the Swiss Saurer...

And perhaps they broke down more often?

It has often struck me that the jobs lost to the American economy
through the Honda Accord are all maintenance jobs, since the Accord is
built in the U.S. and never breaks down.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Cub Driver

April 18th 05, 11:30 AM

On 17 Apr 2005 17:08:04 -0700, wrote:

>Some years ago I happened to pass by Travis AFB, CA in a 152. There
>were a few C5 Galaxies in the pattern - doing touch and go's.
>Impressive, even from a distance. It was a rather large pattern.

I once watched a C-5 searching for bodies after a boating accident on
Great Bay. (It happened to be arriving at Pease air base just after
some racing shells discovered that they couldn't handle waves.) It was
SO BIG that it appeared to be motionless in the air: the eye simply
assumed that everything was happening nearby and in slow motion.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

G Farris

April 18th 05, 01:39 PM

In article >,
says...

Boeing may well be the market leader this year, on the
>strength of the 787.
>
>

I find this very tenuous.
If Boeing does manage to slow the hemmorrage of market share this year, it
will be thanks to a traditional agreement with the Japanese, and not to any
purported strengths of a plane that does not exist, and that no one knows much
about, except that it has wavy lines on the floor instead of straight ones.
(Are these supposed to help drunken passengers navigate, or are they a
metaphor for Boeing's own management strategy?).

They year is young yet. Airbus is about to proceed with the most spectacular
rollout since the 747 - and I have not seen any billboards saying, "Would the
last one to leave Toulouse please turn out the lights . . ." The prestige and
media coverage of the event can only enhance their posture (unless of course
the rollout ends the way the initial A320 demonstration did)!

And Boeing, in their wavering wisdom, have chosen this moment to announce the
end of the 747 program. What stupidity! Not to end it, I mean - but to
announce it now - to say to all the asian carriers who use almost exclusively
jumbos "YES, we have NO ANSWER to Airbus's A380!" They have thus spent time
and money gold-plating the silver platter on which they deliver this lucrative
market to their competitor.

I'm American, and I would love to see Boeing at least maintain parity with
Airbus in deliveries, as well as maintaining their stature as a technological
flagship of American industry. Byt then, I went to University of Minnesota,
and I quickly learned the futility of rooting for any of their teams!

G Faris

Dan Luke

April 18th 05, 01:52 PM

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
> > Yes. My airport, Mobile Downtown, is in the running.
> >
>
> So what on earth are you complaining about in your "war" comments?
> You'd rather want Airbus to take your view and move to some other
> place? Jeeze...

Well, no. If the 380 succeeds (which is starting to seem likely), of course
I'd like my local economy to benefit. Taking the larger view, though, I
would regard the success of the 380 as a very ominous sign for Boeing, and
thus for the U. S. manufacturing economy in general.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke

April 18th 05, 01:58 PM

"Cub Driver" wrote:
> > Perhaps the competition can enthuse Boeing
> >to create a new, even more spectacular jet, and the games goes into
> >another round.
>
> It already has: the 787.

Have you seen the modified 747 freighter they'll build to support the 787
project?

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/photorelease/q1/pr_050222g-3.html

Thomas Borchert

April 18th 05, 02:18 PM

Dan,

> Taking the larger view, though, I
> would regard the success of the 380 as a very ominous sign for Boeing, and
> thus for the U. S. manufacturing economy in general.
>

Taking the larger view, you'd see that 50 percent or so of each A380 are
manufactured in the US. It just doesn't say Boeing anymore outside. So what?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jay Honeck

April 18th 05, 02:44 PM

> I once watched a C-5 searching for bodies after a boating accident on
> Great Bay. (It happened to be arriving at Pease air base just after
> some racing shells discovered that they couldn't handle waves.) It was
> SO BIG that it appeared to be motionless in the air: the eye simply
> assumed that everything was happening nearby and in slow motion.

Last year at OSH the C-5 did some low approaches. The mind has a hard time
grasping the fact that something that big can fly, and it looks for all the
world as if it's standing still.

See:
http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/OSH-04/Small%20C-5%20Galaxy%20fly-over%20departure%207-04.jpg

It's a remarkable machine.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Dan Luke

April 18th 05, 03:59 PM

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
> Taking the larger view, you'd see that 50 percent or so of each A380 are
> manufactured in the US. It just doesn't say Boeing anymore outside. So
what?

So Boeing loses, and perhaps in the long run abandons the airliner business.
This would be a net bad thing for the U. S., especially with respect to
balance of payments.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Thomas Borchert

April 18th 05, 04:13 PM

Dan,

Well, if you want to make it a war, do it. I won't be coming, though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dan Luke

April 18th 05, 04:52 PM

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

> Well, if you want to make it a war, do it. I won't be coming, though.

It's nothing to do with what I want, Thomas. It's simply what is.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dave

April 19th 05, 04:01 AM

C-5's are impressive for sure..

Then we had one of the Antonov's in here several times last
year....

Now, we talkin HUGE...

Looked like one could remove the Herky's wings (It was parked
on the same ramp) and roll it inside, and still have room for the
wings and a few army vehicles as well....

Dave

..On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:44:10 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> I once watched a C-5 searching for bodies after a boating accident on
>> Great Bay. (It happened to be arriving at Pease air base just after
>> some racing shells discovered that they couldn't handle waves.) It was
>> SO BIG that it appeared to be motionless in the air: the eye simply
>> assumed that everything was happening nearby and in slow motion.
>
>Last year at OSH the C-5 did some low approaches. The mind has a hard time
>grasping the fact that something that big can fly, and it looks for all the
>world as if it's standing still.
>
>See:
>http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/OSH-04/Small%20C-5%20Galaxy%20fly-over%20departure%207-04.jpg
>
>It's a remarkable machine.

DrunkKlingon

April 19th 05, 05:05 AM

New Boeing 7E7 is more fuel efficient than the A380

With the high price of jet fuel and it going higher, I wonder if a big 4
engine gas guzzler like the 380 will be a big business mistake for Airbus?

Airbus goes big but fuel thirsty
Boeing goes for fuel efficiency and high tech

In the long run, Boeing may have chosen the right business path
Another big problem is the limited number of airports this behemoth can
fly into

The 7E7 can go just about anywhere

Martin Hotze wrote:
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/818500/M/
>
> according to this foto, the Aribus A 380 is on its 3rd rolling
>
>
> hopefully they'll have a save first flight soon.
>
> #m

Thomas Borchert

April 19th 05, 08:54 AM

DrunkKlingon,

> In the long run, Boeing may have chosen the right business path
>

Sorry to spoil the party, but can you say "Airbus 350"?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Chris

April 19th 05, 07:32 PM

"DrunkKlingon" > wrote in message
. ..
> New Boeing 7E7 is more fuel efficient than the A380
>
> With the high price of jet fuel and it going higher, I wonder if a big 4
> engine gas guzzler like the 380 will be a big business mistake for Airbus?
>
> Airbus goes big but fuel thirsty
> Boeing goes for fuel efficiency and high tech
>
> In the long run, Boeing may have chosen the right business path
> Another big problem is the limited number of airports this behemoth can
> fly into
>
> The 7E7 can go just about anywhere
>

The A380 is not meant to go anywhere. Its prime route will be Europe to the
Emirates and Asia. The 7E7 is more of a low density traffic plane. I suspect
that the A380 will be delivering their vast numbers into airports where the
7E7 and the like can scurry around taking the passengers to their final
destinations.

Bit like Fed Ex really

Jay Beckman

April 19th 05, 08:00 PM

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "DrunkKlingon" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> New Boeing 7E7 is more fuel efficient than the A380
>>
>> With the high price of jet fuel and it going higher, I wonder if a big 4
>> engine gas guzzler like the 380 will be a big business mistake for
>> Airbus?
>>
>> Airbus goes big but fuel thirsty
>> Boeing goes for fuel efficiency and high tech
>>
>> In the long run, Boeing may have chosen the right business path
>> Another big problem is the limited number of airports this behemoth can
>> fly into
>>
>> The 7E7 can go just about anywhere
>>
>
> The A380 is not meant to go anywhere. Its prime route will be Europe to
> the Emirates and Asia. The 7E7 is more of a low density traffic plane. I
> suspect that the A380 will be delivering their vast numbers into airports
> where the 7E7 and the like can scurry around taking the passengers to
> their final destinations.
>
> Bit like Fed Ex really
>

Thought I read somewhere that Emirates Air already wants to rasie the
capacity of the A380...round about 800 pax, IIRC.

Jay B

John Galban

April 19th 05, 09:31 PM

Jay Beckman wrote:
> >
>
> Thought I read somewhere that Emirates Air already wants to rasie the

> capacity of the A380...round about 800 pax, IIRC.
>
Good grief! Now you'll have to get to the airport 4 hrs. early. Can
you imagine how long it would take to check in and board 800 people and
their luggage?

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Dean Wilkinson

April 19th 05, 11:01 PM

Can you say "WTO lawsuit"? No subsidies, no A350

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> DrunkKlingon,
>
> > In the long run, Boeing may have chosen the right business path
> >
>
> Sorry to spoil the party, but can you say "Airbus 350"?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Dean Wilkinson

April 19th 05, 11:02 PM

Not to mention the cost of paying for 800 deaths when the tail falls off the
thing...

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jay Beckman wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Thought I read somewhere that Emirates Air already wants to rasie the
>
> > capacity of the A380...round about 800 pax, IIRC.
> >
> Good grief! Now you'll have to get to the airport 4 hrs. early. Can
> you imagine how long it would take to check in and board 800 people and
> their luggage?
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

[email protected]

April 20th 05, 07:08 AM

No 7x7 either.
-Kees

Hilton

April 20th 05, 08:09 AM

Dean Wilkinson wrote:
> Not to mention the cost of paying for 800 deaths when the tail falls off
the
> thing...

....or the rudder goes hard-over, or the engine goes into reverse thrust
while in cruise, or the plane simply explodes, ... and I'm not even
including DC/MD accidents.

Don't read any bias into my post - just trying to unbias the original post.

Hilton

Hilton

April 20th 05, 08:12 AM

> New Boeing 7E7 is more fuel efficient than the A380

OK, here's my question. Aircraft manufacturers will do just about anything
to get 1% fuel savings. Boeing says the 787 will be 20% more efficient -
HOW? And why is everyone OK with it? I'm just curious, I'm not doubting
their claims, but sometimes if things sound too good to be true...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/background.html

Thanks,

Hilton

Scott Skylane

April 20th 05, 08:20 AM

Hilton wrote:

>>New Boeing 7E7 is more fuel efficient than the A380
>
>
> OK, here's my question. Aircraft manufacturers will do just about anything
> to get 1% fuel savings. Boeing says the 787 will be 20% more efficient -
> HOW? And why is everyone OK with it? I'm just curious, I'm not doubting
> their claims, but sometimes if things sound too good to be true...
>
> http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/background.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hilton
>
>
Hilton,

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics. Besides, Boeing says:
"The airplane will use 20 percent less fuel for comparable missions than
any similarly sized airplane."
Not exactly an apples to apples comparison with the 380.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Hilton

April 20th 05, 09:23 AM

Scott Skylane wrote:
> Hilton wrote:
>
> >>New Boeing 7E7 is more fuel efficient than the A380
> >
> >
> > OK, here's my question. Aircraft manufacturers will do just about
anything
> > to get 1% fuel savings. Boeing says the 787 will be 20% more
efficient -
> > HOW? And why is everyone OK with it? I'm just curious, I'm not
doubting
> > their claims, but sometimes if things sound too good to be true...
> >
> > http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/background.html
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Hilton
> >
> >
> Hilton,
>
> There's lies, damn lies, and statistics. Besides, Boeing says:
> "The airplane will use 20 percent less fuel for comparable missions than
> any similarly sized airplane."
> Not exactly an apples to apples comparison with the 380.

I never mentioned the A380 - I'm just curious how Boeing has reduced the
fuel consumption by a staggering 20% for a similarly sized airplane.

Hilton

Cub Driver

April 20th 05, 10:33 AM

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:32:50 +0100, "Chris" >
wrote:

>The A380 is not meant to go anywhere. Its prime route will be Europe to the
>Emirates and Asia. The 7E7 is more of a low density traffic plane. I suspect
>that the A380 will be delivering their vast numbers into airports where the
>7E7 and the like can scurry around taking the passengers to their final
>destinations.

It's not a bad division of labor.

Airbus would be smart to quietly drop its 787 killer, just as Boeing
quietly dropped its 380 killer.

It's been about 25 years since I've flown (in) a 747. I don't ever
expect to fly a 380. No thanks! Since the airlines started to fill the
middle seats, commercial air travel has become hard labor, and I will
always pick the 250-seat plane over the 400-seat plane.

The worst thing that could happen to air travel is for either Airbus
or Boeing to go on the rocks. The present situation, where each is
concentrating on its own style of air travel (the bus vs. the limo) is
ideal.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Cub Driver

April 20th 05, 10:36 AM

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:12:44 GMT, "Hilton" >
wrote:

>OK, here's my question. Aircraft manufacturers will do just about anything
>to get 1% fuel savings. Boeing says the 787 will be 20% more efficient -
>HOW? And why is everyone OK with it? I'm just curious, I'm not doubting
>their claims, but sometimes if things sound too good to be true...

One assumes they're saying 20 percent more efficient than the 777, and
that it's accomplished by cutting weight, streamlining design, and
buying better engines.

The engines of course are fungible. Airbus proposes to use them on its
787 killer (which will probably never get off the ground).

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Hilton

April 20th 05, 04:46 PM

Cub Driver wrote:
> Airbus would be smart to quietly drop its 787 killer, just as Boeing
> quietly dropped its 380 killer.

Are you referring to the 747X that no-one bought or the almost-supersonic
plane that Boeing engineering couldn't live up to Boeing marketing promises?

Hilton

Dean Wilkinson

April 20th 05, 10:35 PM

Bull****, Boeing doesn't receive government subsidies... tax breaks don't
count and they are tiny compared to what Airbus gets...

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> No 7x7 either.
> -Kees
>

faky

April 21st 05, 01:52 AM

Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380.
1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets.
2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money
for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are
making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes.
3. Pilot pay is going down, so it is no longer a big money savings reducing
the number of pilots by flying larger planes.
4. Gas costs are going up, and will continue to rise for the next several
years. Fuel efficiency is key.

With these factors in mind, it is at the least very risky to be putting all
of your eggs in one basket with the A380. If it does not sell like hot
cakes, Airbus is going to take a bath, and the Euro taxpayers are going to
be footing the bill.

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>
> Boeing may well be the market leader this year, on the
> >strength of the 787.
> >
> >
>
> I find this very tenuous.
> If Boeing does manage to slow the hemmorrage of market share this year, it
> will be thanks to a traditional agreement with the Japanese, and not to
any
> purported strengths of a plane that does not exist, and that no one knows
much
> about, except that it has wavy lines on the floor instead of straight
ones.
> (Are these supposed to help drunken passengers navigate, or are they a
> metaphor for Boeing's own management strategy?).
>
> They year is young yet. Airbus is about to proceed with the most
spectacular
> rollout since the 747 - and I have not seen any billboards saying, "Would
the
> last one to leave Toulouse please turn out the lights . . ." The prestige
and
> media coverage of the event can only enhance their posture (unless of
course
> the rollout ends the way the initial A320 demonstration did)!
>
> And Boeing, in their wavering wisdom, have chosen this moment to announce
the
> end of the 747 program. What stupidity! Not to end it, I mean - but to
> announce it now - to say to all the asian carriers who use almost
exclusively
> jumbos "YES, we have NO ANSWER to Airbus's A380!" They have thus spent
time
> and money gold-plating the silver platter on which they deliver this
lucrative
> market to their competitor.
>
> I'm American, and I would love to see Boeing at least maintain parity with
> Airbus in deliveries, as well as maintaining their stature as a
technological
> flagship of American industry. Byt then, I went to University of
Minnesota,
> and I quickly learned the futility of rooting for any of their teams!
>
> G Faris
>
>
>

Morgans

April 21st 05, 02:41 AM

"faky" > wrote

> Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380.
> 1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets.
> 2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing
money
> for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are
> making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes.
>

First of all, I want to state that I am not an airbus fan.

The whole state purpose of the 380, is to get more passenger capacity at
airports that have no more available landing slots, due to the airport being
at maximum movement capacity. Heathrow is one example. The 380 would have
to be put on a route that had enough demand to another city, to keep it
full. Demand has to be at levels higher than what the current slots will
carry, with the present planes. That is the only big advantage, and will be
the only routes the 380 is slated to run on.
--
Jim in NC

Matt Whiting

April 21st 05, 11:20 AM

faky wrote:

> Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380.
> 1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets.
> 2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money
> for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are
> making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes.
> 3. Pilot pay is going down, so it is no longer a big money savings reducing
> the number of pilots by flying larger planes.
> 4. Gas costs are going up, and will continue to rise for the next several
> years. Fuel efficiency is key.
>
> With these factors in mind, it is at the least very risky to be putting all
> of your eggs in one basket with the A380. If it does not sell like hot
> cakes, Airbus is going to take a bath, and the Euro taxpayers are going to
> be footing the bill.

I don't think the 380 was designed for domestic routes where the hub and
spoke system dominates. It was designed for international routes which
have pretty much a hub to hub design inherently. I suspect it will do
well in that application.

Matt

A Guy Called Tyketto

April 21st 05, 09:26 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

faky > wrote:
> Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380.
> 1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets.
> 2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money
> for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are
> making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes.
> 3. Pilot pay is going down, so it is no longer a big money savings reducing
> the number of pilots by flying larger planes.
> 4. Gas costs are going up, and will continue to rise for the next several
> years. Fuel efficiency is key.

From a US perspective, you're quite correct. But the A380 isn't
geared really towards the US market.

> With these factors in mind, it is at the least very risky to be putting all
> of your eggs in one basket with the A380. If it does not sell like hot
> cakes, Airbus is going to take a bath, and the Euro taxpayers are going to
> be footing the bill.

I don't htink Airbus is doing this. They still have their fuel
efficient winners in the A318/319/320. That is what has been their big
winners and encroachment into Boeing's turf in N. America. The A380 is
going to be for those bigger, more heavily populated tourist cities
that people will fly to/from en masse. At the most, the US will
probably only see the A380 at 5 airports, and possibly another 3 - 4 in
Canada; those being New York (JFK), LAS, LAX, SFO, and ORD. With
Canada, YVR for sure, but possibly YYZ and YUL. Other than that, it's
going to be used in the Europe/Asia/Oceania/Middle East market, and
used in full.

You need to think more on the global perspective with the A380,
not just regional.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCaAxjyBkZmuMZ8L8RAr0OAKClul3QcHjM88Xf++16vP cnUuKuSwCgjjVl
0xizzc3cZJDpDt7cpisfeCI=
=lye9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

G Farris

April 22nd 05, 08:58 AM

In article >, says...
>
>Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380.
>1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets.
>2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money
>for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are
>making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes.
>3. Pilot pay is going down, so it is no longer a big money savings reducing
>the number of pilots by flying larger planes.
>4. Gas costs are going up, and will continue to rise for the next several
>years. Fuel efficiency is key.
>
>With these factors in mind, it is at the least very risky to be putting all
>of your eggs in one basket with the A380. If it does not sell like hot
>cakes, Airbus is going to take a bath, and the Euro taxpayers are going to
>be footing the bill.
>

If you consider the above to be a full analysis of the industry - you could be
a top exec at Boeing!! (That's a joke - I don't mean to criticize your
comment). Seriously, what is missing from your thumbnail analysis is the
persepctive of the major Asian carriers - companies like Cathay Pacific and
Singapore Airlines will not convert massively to 7E7's just because Boeing
says they should. Such planes do not fit their mission profile, or their
corporate image. They will buy (and already have bought) A380's. I do not
doubt Boeing is right to move away from the 747 program, and time may prove
them right on their long term strategy - but to make public announcements
now that they are stopping the 747 seems foolhardy to me. By simply saying the
747-400 will continue production, they would be offering a "conservative"
option to those carriers who already rely heavily on this aircraft. And
wherever you find people making hundred-million dollar purchases, you're
going to find some conservative people. Would you sneeze at picking up an
extra $10 billion in cash, while waiting for your market projections to
materialize? Apparently Boeing does!

Of course the A-380 is a huge gamble, and I agree it is the Europeans' savings
they are gambling with. It is a very serious effort, and they will put every
resource possible into assuring it will obtain its market objectives, however
with such diametrically opposed strategies, one is tempted to believe that
both Boeing AND Airbus cannot be right. Since I do not have a crystal ball to
see who is going to be vindicated, I look to other indicators of management
success, and I'm afraid I do not discern a bright, shining beacon at Boeing.

G Faris

Cub Driver

April 22nd 05, 10:57 AM

>Of course the A-380 is a huge gamble, and I agree it is the Europeans' savings
>they are gambling with.

Taxes, actually. Taxes come before savings and private consumption, or
instead of them.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Dan Luke

April 22nd 05, 12:11 PM

"G Farris" wrote:

> ...I look to other indicators of management success,
> and I'm afraid I do not discern a bright, shining beacon at Boeing.

Tee-hee!

Beauty.

Robert B.

April 23rd 05, 05:21 AM

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jay Beckman wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Thought I read somewhere that Emirates Air already wants to rasie the
>
> > capacity of the A380...round about 800 pax, IIRC.
> >
> Good grief! Now you'll have to get to the airport 4 hrs. early. Can
> you imagine how long it would take to check in and board 800 people and
> their luggage?
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

Forget check-in and luggage... Can you imagine Custom lines if a couple of
these suckers land at the same time?

Thomas Borchert

April 23rd 05, 09:25 AM

Faky,

> it is at the least very risky to be putting all
> of your eggs in one basket with the A380.
>

It would be - if Airbus did. They don't. They have a line of aircraft
covering all needs, including a competitor to the 787, the 350. To
pretend that Boeing's line-up is anywhere near as complete ais Airbus's
would be, well, strange.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 23rd 05, 09:25 AM

Dean,

> No subsidies, no A350
>

Boeing would be long dead without subsidies.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 23rd 05, 09:25 AM

Dean,

> Bull****, Boeing doesn't receive government subsidies.
>

Bruhaha.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 23rd 05, 09:25 AM

John,

> Good grief! Now you'll have to get to the airport 4 hrs. early. Can
> you imagine how long it would take to check in and board 800 people and
> their luggage?
>

This is so funny. It reads like what one read in the trade magazines of
the late 60s about the 747. Exactly, almost word for word. Look at us
today: Does anyone think anything about boarding a 747 flight?

Ah, human nature and innovation...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 23rd 05, 09:25 AM

Cub,

> (which will probably never get off the ground).
>

How do you get these ideas? A friend of mine is busy designing the
vertical stabilizer as we speak. It will fly, since it will be the
succesor of the 330.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Cub Driver

April 23rd 05, 11:18 AM

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:25:16 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Does anyone think anything about boarding a 747 flight?

Yes, I do.

Or rather, I don't, if I can help it.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Bob Noel

April 23rd 05, 01:43 PM

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Boeing would be long dead without subsidies.

define "subsidies"

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

Bob Noel

April 23rd 05, 01:45 PM

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> This is so funny. It reads like what one read in the trade magazines of
> the late 60s about the 747. Exactly, almost word for word. Look at us
> today: Does anyone think anything about boarding a 747 flight?

yes. One reason I like RJ's and turboprop aircraft is the short time required
to load and unload the aircraft.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

Chris Colohan

April 23rd 05, 05:15 PM

Thomas Borchert > writes:
> > Good grief! Now you'll have to get to the airport 4 hrs. early. Can
> > you imagine how long it would take to check in and board 800 people and
> > their luggage?
> >
>
> This is so funny. It reads like what one read in the trade magazines of
> the late 60s about the 747. Exactly, almost word for word. Look at us
> today: Does anyone think anything about boarding a 747 flight?
>
> Ah, human nature and innovation...

Yeah, you notice that these planes have more than one door -- it would
be _so_ nice if airports would design gates to use multiple doors at
the same time...

(I know, some airports in Europe do this. Just not here.)

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

Chris

April 23rd 05, 06:07 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>
>> Boeing would be long dead without subsidies.
>
> define "subsidies"
>
Soft government contracts, state governments paying to site factories,
support for labour training, soft government contracts, overpriced
government contracts, government contracts going to factories in swing
states etc

Chris

April 23rd 05, 06:09 PM

"Chris Colohan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Thomas Borchert > writes:
>> > Good grief! Now you'll have to get to the airport 4 hrs. early. Can
>> > you imagine how long it would take to check in and board 800 people and
>> > their luggage?
>> >
>>
>> This is so funny. It reads like what one read in the trade magazines of
>> the late 60s about the 747. Exactly, almost word for word. Look at us
>> today: Does anyone think anything about boarding a 747 flight?
>>
>> Ah, human nature and innovation...
>
> Yeah, you notice that these planes have more than one door -- it would
> be _so_ nice if airports would design gates to use multiple doors at
> the same time...
>
> (I know, some airports in Europe do this. Just not here.)
>
That's why the A380 should do well in Europe and Asia. They tend to use all
the doors available. It seems obvious.

G Farris

April 23rd 05, 06:23 PM

Latest press release indicates the A380 should fly on Tueday or Wednesday.
They would like decent weather for the first flight, and these days are
predicted to have a slight break.

The plane is expected to be shown at the Paris Airshow in June. The longest
runway there is 10,000ft X 150ft. Otherwise ther is an 8700ft X 200ft. The
taxiways, hangars and parking spaces were built before jet airliners flew.

Quite a few exception planes fly at the Paris Airshow, including Antonov's, so
the 380 may not be the biggest one to use these facilities. I do not think any
demonstration flights are planned nevertheless - probably the state of
certification (just beginning the process) precludes this.

G Faris

George Patterson

April 23rd 05, 07:35 PM

Chris Colohan wrote:
>
> Yeah, you notice that these planes have more than one door -- it would
> be _so_ nice if airports would design gates to use multiple doors at
> the same time...
>
> (I know, some airports in Europe do this. Just not here.)

IIRC, they load 747s through multiple doors at JFK. The only time I flew one was
over 15 years ago, though, so my memory may be faulty. The procedure seemed to
be the same as that used at Frankfurt/M.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Peter Duniho

April 23rd 05, 09:39 PM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Kzwae.1657$Sk6.243@trndny08...
> [...]
> IIRC, they load 747s through multiple doors at JFK.

They do at Logan as well (or at least, they did ten or fifteen years ago
when I was flying through there).

I don't know how common it is, but I have certainly seen 747s being boarded
across multiple jetways/doors at a time in the US. Of course, much of the
time they are boarded through a single door as well. And it does take
longer. Somehow, I think when the A380 is flying commercially, folks will
manage.

Pete

Bob Noel

April 23rd 05, 10:27 PM

In article >,
"Chris" > wrote:

> >> Boeing would be long dead without subsidies.
> >
> > define "subsidies"
> >
> Soft government contracts, state governments paying to site factories,
> support for labour training, soft government contracts, overpriced
> government contracts, government contracts going to factories in swing
> states etc

feh - Those aren't subsidies.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

Matt Barrow

April 23rd 05, 11:59 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Chris" > wrote:
>
> > >> Boeing would be long dead without subsidies.
> > >
> > > define "subsidies"
> > >
> > Soft government contracts, state governments paying to site factories,
> > support for labour training, soft government contracts, overpriced
> > government contracts, government contracts going to factories in swing
> > states etc
>
> feh - Those aren't subsidies.
>
And just how much of those thingies apply to Boeing?

Cub Driver

April 24th 05, 12:08 PM

On 23 Apr 2005 12:15:30 -0400, Chris Colohan >
wrote:

>
>Yeah, you notice that these planes have more than one door -- it would
>be _so_ nice if airports would design gates to use multiple doors at
>the same time...
>
>(I know, some airports in Europe do this. Just not here.)

There was great confusion, getting off the plane in Belize City, when
the flight attendant pointed out that we could "deplane" from the rear
door. For most of us, that was an entirely new concept.

Of course, what we "deplaned" on was the wheeled staircase, onto a
broiling surface. (102 degrees F was spoken of in the city that day.)

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Stefan

April 24th 05, 03:05 PM

Bob Noel wrote:

>>Soft government contracts, state governments paying to site factories,
>>support for labour training, soft government contracts, overpriced
>>government contracts, government contracts going to factories in swing
>>states etc

> feh - Those aren't subsidies.

Repayable credits aren't, either.

I think the only answer you'd accept is: Everything the ather guy gets
is subsidies. Everything you get is not.

Stefan

Robert B.

April 24th 05, 04:06 PM

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
> >>Soft government contracts, state governments paying to site factories,
> >>support for labour training, soft government contracts, overpriced
> >>government contracts, government contracts going to factories in swing
> >>states etc
>
> > feh - Those aren't subsidies.
>
> Repayable credits aren't, either.
>
> I think the only answer you'd accept is: Everything the ather guy gets
> is subsidies. Everything you get is not.
>
> Stefan

But as I understand it, the AB "repayable credits" are only repayable out of
the profits of the aircraft line they support. Not having any risk in new
development is a pretty big subsidy!

Bob Noel

April 24th 05, 07:34 PM

In article >, Stefan >
wrote:

> I think the only answer you'd accept is: Everything the ather guy gets
> is subsidies. Everything you get is not.

I'm looking for a real definition, not some made up one

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Stefan

April 25th 05, 09:57 AM

Bob Noel wrote:

> I'm looking for a real definition, not some made up one

There is no hard definition. Cheap credits, tax cut, overpriced
contracts, free infrastructure, payed research, import taxes for
competitors etc. etc. are all indirect subsidies. I don't say whether
this is good or bad. Most probably it is inevitable.

Stefan

Cub Driver

April 25th 05, 10:59 AM

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 09:06:39 -0600, "Robert B."
> wrote:

>But as I understand it, the AB "repayable credits" are only repayable out of
>the profits of the aircraft line they support. Not having any risk in new
>development is a pretty big subsidy!

That's correct. For example, if Airbus gets Launch Aid for the 787
Killer and then decides not to build the aircraft, the money is gone.

Indeed, one wonders how much of the Launch Aid was ever repaid. It
reminds me of the scene in Shakespeare in Love where the theater owner
and the Money talk business on the new production, Ethel and the
Pirate's Daughter:

"But what about the actors?"

"Share of the profits."

"But Mr. Fennyman, there are never any profits!"

"Of course not."

"Mr. Fennyman, I think you're onto something!"

Airbus is certainly onto something with its Launch Aid.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Dylan Smith

April 26th 05, 11:58 AM

In article >, Robert B. wrote:
> Forget check-in and luggage... Can you imagine Custom lines if a couple of
> these suckers land at the same time?

This is why I don't really like the A380 - unless Customs/Immigration is
really improved in most airports, it'll take hours to get through. Even
a B777 load is the best part of an hour unless you're lucky enough to be
the first off.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"