A380 unveiling, 1/18/05, Live.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:31:02 -0500, nobody wrote
in ::

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?


Not a relevant statistic either. Factor in the average load factor of
a fuel efficient diesal car and an A380 and then you might have a more
meaningful figure.
--==++AJC++==--

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:15:04 +0100, AJC wrote in
::

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:31:02 -0500, nobody wrote
in ::

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?


Not a relevant statistic either.

Given the OP's comparative statement above, the implied "statistic"
was apparently relevant to her.

Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car
and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure.

Meaningful in what way? Am I to infer, that you find the metric of
fuel-per-passenger-mile irrelevant?

In article , Larry Dighera
says...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:15:04 +0100, AJC wrote in
::

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:31:02 -0500, nobody wrote
in ::

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?


Not a relevant statistic either.

Given the OP's comparative statement above, the implied "statistic"
was apparently relevant to her.

Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car
and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure.

Meaningful in what way? Am I to infer, that you find the metric of
fuel-per-passenger-mile irrelevant?

If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more
efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are
going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers
compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:58:54 +1100, Peter wrote in
::

In article , Larry Dighera
says...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:15:04 +0100, AJC wrote in
::

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:31:02 -0500, nobody wrote
in ::

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?


Not a relevant statistic either.

Given the OP's comparative statement above, the implied "statistic"
was apparently relevant to her.

Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car
and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure.

Meaningful in what way? Am I to infer, that you find the metric of
fuel-per-passenger-mile irrelevant?

If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more
efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are
going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers
compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile? Doubtful.

In article , Larry Dighera
says...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:58:54 +1100, Peter wrote in
::

If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more
efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are
going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers
compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile? Doubtful.

The A380 doesn't need 110 pilots to carry 440 passengers. Huge manpower
savings.

Peter wrote:

In article , Larry Dighera
says...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:58:54 +1100, Peter wrote in
::

If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more
efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are
going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers
compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile? Doubtful.

The A380 doesn't need 110 pilots to carry 440 passengers. Huge manpower
savings.

True, but it does need more pilots than 110 passenger cars do. Small
manpower savings to the cars! G


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

In article , alexy says...
Peter wrote:

In article , Larry Dighera
says...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:58:54 +1100, Peter wrote in
::

If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more
efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are
going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers
compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile? Doubtful.

The A380 doesn't need 110 pilots to carry 440 passengers. Huge manpower
savings.

True, but it does need more pilots than 110 passenger cars do.

How do you work that out? Two pilots versus 110 drivers - the plane
clearly has the edge in manpower efficiency.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:58:54 +1100, Peter wrote in
::

In article , Larry Dighera
says...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:15:04 +0100, AJC wrote in
::

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:31:02 -0500, nobody wrote
in ::

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent
to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?


Not a relevant statistic either.

Given the OP's comparative statement above, the implied "statistic"
was apparently relevant to her.

Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car
and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure.

Meaningful in what way? Am I to infer, that you find the metric of
fuel-per-passenger-mile irrelevant?

If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more
efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are
going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers
compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile? Doubtful.

Try driving a car across an ocean or mountain range and I think the airplane
comes out more fuel efficient.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:36:38 -0000, "Chris" wrote
in ::


More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile? Doubtful.

Try driving a car across an ocean or mountain range and I think the airplane
comes out more fuel efficient.


Given the A380 is overweight, over budget and yet to fly, It's
difficult to know the truth on this issue. But that doesn't prevent
its makers from hailing it as a major European feat that will reshape
aviation. Let's discuss it further after it has actually flown.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:36:38 -0000, "Chris" wrote
in ::


More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile? Doubtful.

Try driving a car across an ocean or mountain range and I think the
airplane
comes out more fuel efficient.


Given the A380 is overweight, over budget and yet to fly, It's
difficult to know the truth on this issue. But that doesn't prevent
its makers from hailing it as a major European feat that will reshape
aviation. Let's discuss it further after it has actually flown.




It was at some stage 2 percent overweight. Airbus claims that this problems
has been solved. If you really want to doubt then doubt Boeing's claims on
the 7E7. They seem so desperate now that they will be happy to promise
almost everything.


Nik