Behemoth A380

cars · Post by **cars** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:50 am

How big is too big?! Tuesday the behemoth Airbus A380 (touted as the world's largest passenger plane, able to carry "555" passengers) landed here in New England. This being it's maiden voyage from France to the USA. The eight story tall, double decker jet was quite the sight to see, said an observer. The plane carried no passengers, instead it carried electronic measuring equipment, & barrels of ballast. It was said that later this month the first A380 will be delivered to Singapore Airlines to be put into service.

Is this plane really too big??? Is was mentioned that the runways at only "60" airports "worldwide" can accomodate this behemoth! It was pointed out by the New England airport authorities that although their "runways" were able to accomodate the A380, the actual "terminals" could not handle the surge of 555 passengers all deplaning at the same time! "555" personalities all during the flight, & then deplaning can be tough!

My thought on it is: This behemoth can be exceptionally dangerous, as if in the case of a "mechanical" failure and this plane had to make an "emergency landing" it would be critically "limited" as to where it could "safely" land!

Thoughts!

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:02 pm

I saw this plane this morning driving to work. It is HUGE!!!. They did a 500 ft flyover at our airport this morning to show it off to the workers who designed the wings here in town. I had heard about this last night. I drive to work on the road that runs just south of our airport, I made sure to drive in a little early this morning and watched on the side of the road as it swooped down and then back up. It was pretty awesome. I have no idea if it is dangerous or not but it is amazing seeing that big of an airplane flying.

cars · Post by **cars** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:14 pm

YZGI;704731 wrote: I saw this plane this morning driving to work. It is HUGE!!!. They did a 500 ft flyover at our airport this morning to show it off to the workers who designed the wings here in town. I had heard about this last night. I drive to work on the road that runs just south of our airport, I made sure to drive in a little early this morning and watched on the side of the road as it swooped down and then back up. It was pretty awesome. I have no idea if it is dangerous or not but it is amazing seeing that big of an airplane flying.
Yep, that's what they did the same thing here for the company that built the 4 behemoth "10 foot diameter engines powering it! An observer on the ground here under it said the engines were extremely quiet! Amazing!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:55 pm

All good points, Cars. I'm not sure it's a good idea to increase the number of people you have trapped in a tube flying through the sky. As you said, all those personalities. I think that increases the chance for altercation and there wouldn't be that much crowd control. I Googled this plane to see how big it was...kinda scary for me. It doesn't sound like a good idea to use this thing before airports are ready and able to accommodate it.

minks · Post by **minks** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:59 pm

cars;704728 wrote: How big is too big?! Tuesday the behemoth Airbus A380 (touted as the world's largest passenger plane, able to carry "555" passengers) landed here in New England. This being it's maiden voyage from France to the USA. The eight story tall, double decker jet was quite the sight to see, said an observer. The plane carried no passengers, instead it carried electronic measuring equipment, & barrels of ballast. It was said that later this month the first A380 will be delivered to Singapore Airlines to be put into service.

Is this plane really too big??? Is was mentioned that the runways at only "60" airports "worldwide" can accomodate this behemoth! It was pointed out by the New England airport authorities that although their "runways" were able to accomodate the A380, the actual "terminals" could not handle the surge of 555 passengers all deplaning at the same time! "555" personalities all during the flight, & then deplaning can be tough!

My thought on it is: This behemoth can be exceptionally dangerous, as if in the case of a "mechanical" failure and this plane had to make an "emergency landing" it would be critically "limited" as to where it could "safely" land!

Thoughts!

and if it crashes that is 555 lives lost

cars · Post by **cars** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:57 pm

minks;704780 wrote: and if it crashes that is 555 lives lost

That's the unthinkable, & if it only crashed at sea. Just think of what a gigantic cratter that monster would make if it crashed on land somewhere, & the possible hundeds that would be killed on the ground!

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:11 pm

cars;704812 wrote: That's the unthinkable, & if it only crashed at sea. Just think of what a gigantic cratter that monster would make if it crashed on land somewhere, & the possible hundeds that would be killed on the ground! :(Unless it managed to crash in Shanksville Pennsylvania. The ground there swallows up airplanes and doesn't so much as spit out the rivets, much less things like engines or tailplanes. Special soil, apparently. You'd think people would want an air accident report if that happened, wouldn't you.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:01 am

YZGI;704731 wrote: I saw this plane this morning driving to work. It is HUGE!!!. They did a 500 ft flyover at our airport this morning to show it off to the workers who designed the wings here in town. I had heard about this last night. I drive to work on the road that runs just south of our airport, I made sure to drive in a little early this morning and watched on the side of the road as it swooped down and then back up. It was pretty awesome. I have no idea if it is dangerous or not but it is amazing seeing that big of an airplane flying.

I think you're getting it mixed up with the Boeing 787. The A380 is entirely European with the wings and engines designed and made in the UK.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:42 am

gmc;704922 wrote: I think you're getting it mixed up with the Boeing 787. The A380 is entirely European with the wings and engines designed and made in the UK.
Well, maybe not.

http://www.kansas.com/107/story/192938.html

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:44 am

gmc;704922 wrote: I think you're getting it mixed up with the Boeing 787. The A380 is entirely European with the wings and engines designed and made in the UK.
Apology accepted.:wah:

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:37 am

I don't think I'd want to be trapped with that many people for a long period of time. I already am not too fond of flying. *shudder* :-3

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:45 am

YZGI;704974 wrote: Well, maybe not.

http://www.kansas.com/107/story/192938.html

Apology accepted.

None given

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,1393110,00.html

go to the fourth page.

Parts are sourced from all around the world so there are probably bits made in the US there may even have been some design input. If it's good enough why not? As usual americans seem to find it inconceivable that other countries have engineers as well and might not need american help to design a plane. Let's hope sour grapes doesn't have the FAA trying to block it flying to the US like they did with concorde.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:51 am

gmc;704985 wrote: None given

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,1393110,00.html

go to the fourth page.

Parts are sourced from all around the world so there are probably bits made in the US there may even have been some design input. If it's good enough why not? As usual americans seem to find it inconceivable that other countries have engineers as well and might not need american help to design a plane. Let's hope sour grapes doesn't have the FAA trying to block it flying to the US like they did with concorde.

there's no need to be rude to us just because you were wrong. :rolleyes:

this is more than just "probable bits":

Airbus North America Engineering had engineering responsibility for the A380 wing. And while the 170 people who work in Wichita have an average of 20 years of experience, the wing design was unique.

"We've never worked on anything this large," said Bill Greer, vice president and general manager of the Wichita facility.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:05 am

gmc;704985 wrote: None given

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,1393110,00.html

go to the fourth page.

Parts are sourced from all around the world so there are probably bits made in the US there may even have been some design input. If it's good enough why not? As usual americans seem to find it inconceivable that other countries have engineers as well and might not need american help to design a plane. Let's hope sour grapes doesn't have the FAA trying to block it flying to the US like they did with concorde.

gmc;704922 wrote: I think you're getting it mixed up with the Boeing 787. The A380 is entirely European with the wings and engines designed and made in the UK.

So what does the word "Entirely" mean in the UK? Did the article I posted the link to not say"

Airbus North America Engineering had engineering responsibility for the A380 wing. And while the 170 people who work in Wichita have an average of 20 years of experience, the wing design was unique."?

I believe this means that the design was NOT entirely done in the UK. I wasn't being an ass about it I just pointed out the mistake. I make mistakes all the time, its no big deal. I am sure the Uk have the experience and technology needed to have done this project in its entirety, the simple fact is that some US engineers helped with the design. Not a big deal.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:13 am

gmc;704985 wrote: None given

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,1393110,00.html

go to the fourth page.

Parts are sourced from all around the world so there are probably bits made in the US there may even have been some design input. If it's good enough why not? As usual americans seem to find it inconceivable that other countries have engineers as well and might not need american help to design a plane. Let's hope sour grapes doesn't have the FAA trying to block it flying to the US like they did with concorde.

facts are always better than generalizations, yes?? (quoted from Time Magazine/CNN)

The Concorde could not meet the standards of a 1969 U.S. federal regulation that set maximum noise levels for jets. But the clamor to permit the Concorde into the U.S. was so great that William Coleman, the Ford Administration's Transportation Secretary, decided in 1975 to give the aircraft a 16-month test at Washington's Dulles and New York's John F. Kennedy International airports.

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:16 am

Oh Spot

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:19 am

I believe the article you referred was basically just showing the Eu involvement. It never states entirely. Only who in the Eu was involved. Which means that the US very well could have been involved and obviously was.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,1393110,00.html

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:20 am

And by the way. It is already flying around the US. How on earth do you think I saw it?

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:25 am

YZGI;705013 wrote: And by the way. It is already flying around the US. How on earth do you think I saw it?

:yh_rotfl

good ol' southern logic, can't argue with that!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:12 am

YZGI;704997 wrote:

So what does the word "Entirely" mean in the UK? Did the article I posted the link to not say"

Airbus North America Engineering had engineering responsibility for the A380 wing. And while the 170 people who work in Wichita have an average of 20 years of experience, the wing design was unique."?

I believe this means that the design was NOT entirely done in the UK. I wasn't being an ass about it I just pointed out the mistake. I make mistakes all the time, its no big deal. I am sure the Uk have the experience and technology needed to have done this project in its entirety, the simple fact is that some US engineers helped with the design. Not a big deal.

No you weren't being an ass about it but I was a little so I apologise. There's bits from all over the world so maybe there was some input in the component design but the article rather implies that the wing was designed in America which is annoying.

Airbus North America Engineering had engineering responsibility for the A380 wing.

No doubt many Americans also believe they invented the jet engine.

posted by sunny 104

The Concorde could not meet the standards of a 1969 U.S. federal regulation that set maximum noise levels for jets. But the clamor to permit the Concorde into the U.S. was so great that William Coleman, the Ford Administration's Transportation Secretary, decided in 1975 to give the aircraft a 16-month test at Washington's Dulles and New York's John F. Kennedy International airports.

You may believe that but we all know It was sour grapes because the US manufacturers couldn't do it when even the Russians managed it as well. I see they even had to get the Russians to help them out to try and catch up.:sneaky:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... gewanted=1

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:30 am

gmc;705110 wrote: No you weren't being an ass about it but I was a little so I apologise. There's bits from all over the world so maybe there was some input in the component design but the article rather implies that the wing was designed in America which is annoying.

No doubt many Americans also believe they invented the jet engine.

posted by sunny 104

You may believe that but we all know It was sour grapes because the US manufacturers couldn't do it when even the Russians managed it as well. I see they even had to get the Russians to help them out to try and catch up.:sneaky:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... gewanted=1
Yes you are correct. Either the French or the UK also needed one anothers help. I think it is great that the US would ask for help. Everyone does at some point.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:33 am

you're ok GMC, you'll be next on our redneck list after we're through with Lon. :p

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:26 pm

I thought I'd stick my nose in a little to try and clear up some confusion..

Anyway, the wings for the beast are designed and made at Filton, near Bristol UK.

Expertise in the design and manufacturing of wings has been the major – but by no means the only - British contribution to Airbus aircraft from the company’s earliest days 35 years ago.

Today the Airbus sites at Filton, near Bristol, and Broughton, North Wales, make up the Centre of Excellence Wing. Around 140,000 jobs are generated in the UK by Airbus wing work, directly and indirectly through supplier contracts.

At Filton, headquarters of Airbus UK, a wholly-owned subsidiary, over 4,500 people are employed in the design office, manufacturing areas and in business support roles such as procurement, finance and customer services.

The design office at Filton - one of six within Airbus – manages the design of all wings for the whole Airbus family of aircraft. It is also responsible for the design integration of the landing gears and fuel systems.

Engines! Like most aircraft builders now, engines are rarely sourced from one supplier. Airbus use engines from single suppliers, as well as collaberations of manufacturers.

Engine codes

Code Manufacturing Company

0 General Electric (GE)

1 CFM International (GE/SNECMA)

2 Pratt & Whitney (P&W)

3 International Aero Engines (R-R, P&W, Kawasaki, Mitsubishi, and Ishikawajima-Harima)

4 Rolls-Royce (R-R)

6 Engine Alliance (GE and P&W)

US involvement with Airbus Industrie.

The Airbus Americas headquarters is just outside Washington, D.C., in Herndon, Virginia. The facility employs some 140 people in sales, marketing, and communications for Airbus customers in the U.S. and Canada. This facility also serves as headquarters for Airbus North America Customer Services. The employees here reflect the diversity in nationality that is so commonplace at Airbus worldwide, offering North American customers daily interaction with a company that offers a true global perspective.

Nearby in Ashburn, Virginia, another 75 employees keep the 24-hour Airbus Spares Center humming, shipping aircraft parts, tools and sections to customers in the Americas. This facility is one of three Airbus Spares facilities in the world.

Airbus opened its first design and engineering center outside of Europe in 2002 - in Wichita, Kansas. At Airbus North America Engineering, some 210 engineers are focused on the A340 and A380. The facility doubled its size and tripled its workforce in its first two years of operations. In terms of population percentage, more people work in the aviation and aerospace industries in Wichita than in any city in the world, so Airbus expanding to this locale was a natural fit..

The southernmost U.S. facility is Airbus Training Center in Miami, Florida. The $50 million custom-built complex, one of three Airbus training facilities worldwide, houses 110 staff members dedicated to training more than 3,000 air crew each year in a range of full-flight simulators, trainers and computer-based training programs. Most all the trainees are based in the Americas..

Airbus Americas has a Safety and Technical Affairs office in Washington D.C., convenient to the headquarters of the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board. This ten-person office specializes in daily interaction with these federal agencies relative to regulatory issues, continuing to build the positive relationships between Airbus and U.S. government organizations. This facility is also home base for Airbus North America’s government relations staff, allowing easy exchange of information between the manufacturer and U.S. elected representatives.

Construction was completed in early 2007 on the newest Airbus facility in the U.S. – Airbus North America Engineering in Mobile, Alabama. This facility is responsible for various interior elements of Airbus’ newest aircraft, the A350XWB, including design and engineering work on the cabin, crew rest, lavatories and galleys. At full capacity, the office will employ 150 engineers. Should EADS, an Airbus parent company, receive an order to modernize the U.S. Air Force’s tanker fleet with the Northrop Grumman KC-30, this facility could expand into a larger-scale industrial site related to that aircraft.

That's it! Just wanted to clarify a few points!..

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:52 pm

Wow lads, you certainly got going on this A380 thing, its amazing how people get nationalistic over things like cars, and aeroplanes! Still its nice to see our British members all being enthusiastic about one European project! :rolleyes:

Interestingly there is a bit of a debate in the British engineering and science community who are trying to get the British governemnt to invest more in space projects, both with NASA and ESA, as there are lots of planned manned missions coming up over the next 20 years, so a British person on the moon? What about that idea, interesting.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:22 am

Galbally;705354 wrote: Wow lads, you certainly got going on this A380 thing, its amazing how people get nationalistic over things like cars, and aeroplanes! Still its nice to see our British members all being enthusiastic about one European project! :rolleyes:

Interestingly there is a bit of a debate in the British engineering and science community who are trying to get the British governemnt to invest more in space projects, both with NASA and ESA, as there are lots of planned manned missions coming up over the next 20 years, so a British person on the moon? What about that idea, interesting.

Well german rockets to get us there british radar and tv to help find the place and send back pictures, linux rather than microsoft-so they don't have to reboot the computers half way there. We can let the french and italians do the catering and we should probably let the russians get involved as well so they don't sulk and keep all the oil and gas. but the americans can do the interior decorating and take all the credit and then they could start a conspiracy theory about how it was all a hoax anyway and filmed in a barn in hollywood. :sneaky:

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:51 am

gmc;705510 wrote: Well german rockets to get us there british radar and tv to help find the place and send back pictures, linux rather than microsoft-so they don't have to reboot the computers half way there. We can let the french and italians do the catering and we should probably let the russians get involved as well so they don't sulk and keep all the oil and gas. but the americans can do the interior decorating and take all the credit and then they could start a conspiracy theory about how it was all a hoax anyway and filmed in a barn in hollywood. :sneaky:

:wah::wah:

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:59 pm

Getting "Back on topic", after touting all those statistics, you guys forgot to mention,"would you feel comfortable to fly in a behemoth plane like this? That has "limited worldwide airports" (only 60) it could land at? :-2 Regardless of what country it's from"!

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:17 pm

Yes Cars, why not, they said more or less the same thing about the 747..

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm

They should bring the Concorde back. Way cooler.

I used to fuel airplanes. There are no fuel trucks in operation to fuel a plane 8 stories high. They would have to outfit an existing truck or purchase a custom truck for the one aircraft.

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:30 pm

Nomad;706209 wrote: They should bring the Concorde back. Way cooler.

I used to fuel airplanes. There are no fuel trucks in operation to fuel a plane 8 stories high. They would have to outfit an existing truck or purchase a custom truck for the one aircraft.

Would the fueling point be that much higher though Nomad? I wouldn't have thought the undercarriage would be much longer than what exists now, It's the double deck passenger cabin, and larger tailplane that makes it taller.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:41 pm

dubs;706214 wrote: Would the fueling point be that much higher though Nomad? I wouldn't have thought the undercarriage would be much longer than what exists now, It's the double deck passenger cabin, and larger tailplane that makes it taller.

Well for the 767's we had 2 tiered trucks. I dont know what the difference is but 8 stories sounded pretty high even though the fueling points are under the wing. At least I presume they are as are all other jets. Dunno really.

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:43 am

dubs;706205 wrote: Yes Cars, why not, they said more or less the same thing about the 747..

That means the 747 will have the same problem as the A380. However, the 747 is somewhat smaller/lighter, & at the current airports it likely will also have many airports where it can not "safely" land!

The idea of only "60" airports "WORLDWIDE" as being able for either of these behemoths to land at presently, sounds rather risky, is the main point of the post.

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:51 pm

cars;706352 wrote: That means the 747 will have the same problem as the A380. However, the 747 is somewhat smaller/lighter, & at the current airports it likely will also have many airports where it can not "safely" land!

The idea of only "60" airports "WORLDWIDE" as being able for either of these behemoths to land at presently, sounds rather risky, is the main point of the post.

The point I was sort of trying to make is that the A380 isn't that much bigger than the 747, which has been happily flying all over the world for 40 years. So why the reason for the major changes to airports? Are the airports using this aircraft to get funding? I don't see why, bearing in mind it's only marginally bigger, they can't use facilities already in place for 747 operations! I don't know if it's me being cynical, but would there be the same amount of objection to this aircraft, were it built in Seattle?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:20 pm

cars;706196 wrote: Getting "Back on topic", after touting all those statistics, you guys forgot to mention,"would you feel comfortable to fly in a behemoth plane like this? That has "limited worldwide airports" (only 60) it could land at? :-2 Regardless of what country it's from"!

I think the point about only 60 airports is somewhat overstated. I believe that many current aircraft have the same limitation :-

"A highly efficient wing design allows the A380 to take-off and land in less distance than today's largest aircraft. As a result the A380 uses existing runways while carrying 40 per cent more passengers per flight. "

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:36 pm

dubs;706581 wrote: The point I was sort of trying to make is that the A380 isn't that much bigger than the 747, which has been happily flying all over the world for 40 years. So why the reason for the major changes to airports? Are the airports using this aircraft to get funding? I don't see why, bearing in mind it's only marginally bigger, they can't use facilities already in place for 747 operations! I don't know if it's me being cynical, but would there be the same amount of objection to this aircraft, were it built in Seattle?

As previously mentioned earlier, it really doesn't matter where the giant behemouth is built. Seattle doesn't enter into the equasion at all, the fact stated was that the A380 can only land at "60" airports worldwide!!!! That's the safely issue being highlighted here!!!!

Note in the article below, (I stand corrected) the 747 can land at "210" airports worldwide!!! That's quite a significant greater number of airports that could be used in case of mechanical problem requiring an emergency landing!!!

Quote:

The Boeing 747-8 Family: A Proud Tradition of Value Continues

The Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental and 747-8 Freighter are the new high-capacity 747s that offer airlines the lowest operating costs and best economics of any large passenger or freighter airplane.

This latest family of the 747 jetliners meets airline requirements for a passenger airplane that serves the 400- to 500-seat market between the 555-seat Airbus A380 and the 365-seat Boeing 777-300 Extended Range airplanes (...).

Brief description:

The 747-8 Intercontinental is the only jetliner in the 400-to-500 seat market, stretched 3.6 m (11.7 ft) from the 747-400 to provide 450 seats in a three-class configuration and a 14,815-km (8,000-nmi) range. Using 787-technology engines, the airplane will be quieter, produce lower emissions, and achieve better fuel economy than any competing jetliner. The 747 Intercontinental will provide equivalent trip costs and 8 percent lower seat-mile costs than the 747-400, plus 21 percent greater cargo volume. Operating economics will offer a significant improvement over the A380. The 747-8 is more than 13 percent lighter per seat than the A380 and will consume 14 percent less fuel per passenger than the 555-seat airplane. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 22 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 6 percent, compared to the A380. Both the 747-8 Intercontinental and 747-8 Freighter can use the existing infrastructure and ground equipment at more than 210 airports worldwide.

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:02 pm

As I said, the 747 has been flying for 40 years and all it's variants have been accomodated at airports all over the world. What I don't get is why A380 is being made the bad guy here, It can use the same facilities 747 can. Why the uproar?

I took this snippet from the Airport technology website.

over 80% of B747 operations in the USA are from airports which do not meet the full US generic design standard for the type known as Group V, and have, therefore, been granted waivers under this process. A similar situation exists at several other large international airports that do not meet the full ICAO Code E generic design standards.

So 747 has been flying into airports that don't meet the USs own standards, but when a European rival attempts to do so you cry foul? Gimme a break!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:18 am

The number of airports is a non issue. so long as all the fuel doesn't fall out they will be able to reach somewhere. the likelihood of all the engines failing is probably remote. if the wings fall off since the impact will be such that the quality of the landing won't really be noticed by those on board. If it fall out the sky and lands on you you won't have time to get over the surprise. Maintenance checks are going to be so through it will probably be one of the safest aircraft to fly in the world. It's no more likely to crash than any other aircraft. Although the wrench bits are cause for concern.

frankly I am more worried getting on a twenty year old aircraft running a shuttle service to London two or three times a day. Closest I have come to crashing is being in one that skidded on landing. I've also been underneath a near miss between to aircraft flying in to Heathrow I know this as it was reported as being one of the nearest near misses ever recorded.

posted by dubs

So 747 has been flying into airports that don't meet the USs own standards, but when a European rival attempts to do so you cry foul? Gimme a break!

It's that inferiority complex again just because they couldn't do it they think nobody else should be allowed to.

cars · Post by **cars** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:55 am

Apparently there are those who are looking to make this into an issue of "us against them" mentalitity! :-2

So this will be last reply to this never ending "off topic" saga.

The whole point/intent again, was & in fact airport size (or lack there of) is the prime issue here. Especially if you found yourself on board a plane with a mechanical emergency that had to land immediately (so forget about how much fuel it had) and it was said it could not "safely" land on any available nearby airports. What then?

The 747 is too big!!! The A380 is even bigger/heavier! Get it now!

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:23 am

Nomad;706209 wrote: .

I used to fuel airplanes. .

:yh_think you inhaled jet fuel on a regular basis? :yh_think

I think that explains a lot of things...............................

:wah:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:46 am

cars;706782 wrote: Apparently there are those who are looking to make this into an issue of "us against them" mentalitity! :-2

So this will be last reply to this never ending "off topic" saga.

The whole point/intent again, was & in fact airport size (or lack there of) is the prime issue here. Especially if you found yourself on board a plane with a mechanical emergency that had to land immediately (so forget about how much fuel it had) and it was said it could not "safely" land on any available nearby airports. What then?

The 747 is too big!!! The A380 is even bigger/heavier! Get it now!

Apparently there are those who can't tell when they are getting their leg pulled or the proverbial taken out of them.

But to answer your question when you are half way over the atlantic on a 747 with a mechanical emergency that meant it had to land immediately how big a problem do you think that would be? If it bothers you that much I suggest you don't use it.

I think byyn mawr answered your question

"A highly efficient wing design allows the A380 to take-off and land in less distance than today's largest aircraft. As a result the A380 uses existing runways while carrying 40 per cent more passengers per flight. "

Americans are too easy to wind up, usually they can't tell and take things too seriously. The Irish and welsh are so used to it it doesn't bother them and the english are too thick skinned to notice. The french don't care what what anybody thinks and there are none here anyway and the canadians are too nice. It's getting so it's no fun taking the **** out of the nationalities any more.:yh_sigh

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:06 pm

cars;706782 wrote: Apparently there are those who are looking to make this into an issue of "us against them" mentalitity! :-2

So this will be last reply to this never ending "off topic" saga.

The whole point/intent again, was & in fact airport size (or lack there of) is the prime issue here. Especially if you found yourself on board a plane with a mechanical emergency that had to land immediately (so forget about how much fuel it had) and it was said it could not "safely" land on any available nearby airports. What then?

The 747 is too big!!! The A380 is even bigger/heavier! Get it now!

I wasn't having a personal pop at you Cars, it's just for some reason the politics of the aviation industry get right up my nose!:)

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:12 pm

gmc;706815 wrote: Apparently there are those who can't tell when they are getting their leg pulled or the proverbial taken out of them.

But to answer your question when you are half way over the atlantic on a 747 with a mechanical emergency that meant it had to land immediately how big a problem do you think that would be? If it bothers you that much I suggest you don't use it.

I think byyn mawr answered your question

Americans are too easy to wind up, usually they can't tell and take things too seriously. The Irish and welsh are so used to it it doesn't bother them and the english are too thick skinned to notice. The french don't care what what anybody thinks and there are none here anyway and the canadians are too nice. It's getting so it's no fun taking the **** out of the nationalities any more.:yh_sigh

G'way ye scots git. :wah:

Post by **spot** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:52 pm

You know, I bet there's a big difference between the airports rated to take it and the ones it could safely get down on in an emergency.