Classic British Flight Sim

cstorey wrote:I am sorry to disagree strongly with Peter McL, but I see no justification for his view.If the concept is flawed, then the entire concept of long range civil aviation is flawed. The purpose of the A380 is to restore to long distance travel some of the comfort which has completely disappeared ( in economy class at any rate) in the last 20 years in the quest for reducing seat-mile costs. This also was the rationale behind the 747, and it succeeded, albeit with a design that was rather behind the times even when it appeared. ( As a friend of mine said when he got one on his licence after flying the DC-10 for several years, he felt as though he had taken a step backwards, but thought he'd never be out of a job) . As Peter will remember, it too had very serious problems with the PW engines which took several years in service actually to cure . If the 380 induces people to enjoy flying aagain, rather than tolerating it, it will contribute significantly to the future of commercial aviation

Each to his own Chris...but the 380 is too big for practically all airports just from the point of view of gate and taxiway room, let alone the infrastucture in the airports which is already totally swamped by arrivals of 747s etc. There is absolutely no need for such a large aircraft and the Boeing Dreamliner concept is the way to go. God forbid that the 380 will ever get into service...Then we will just be waiting for the biggest ever air disaster. I am totally against the concept of ever larger aircraft and really believe that such concepts are flawed.

As for inducing people to fly again...I would rather take a ride through the Channel Tunnel than fly in that 380 and I'm certainly never going to do either.

Peter : it is a very interesting discussion. The concept of ever larger a/c leading to ever larger disasters has not really been borne out in practice. I agree that the Tenerife collision, and the Japanese domestic 747 with the pressure hull failure, produced the largest number of fatalities, but in practice, ever larger a/c with ever larger inertia have reduced fundamentally the proportion of SOB killed in accidents of the common type , and I am a firm believer that from a safety point of view, the larger the better

Those that challenge this should look at one of the most horrifying accidents of modern times ( an MD 11 of China Airlines which landed at HK in a typhoon and turned turtle on the runway, in which all but 3 out of 315 on board survived)

I agree that the 380 will require new infrastructure - but so did the 747

Incidentally, the Tunnel, which I use not infrequently, actually is very tolerable and remarkably efficient, even though it is a loss maker

Regards

Chris

cstorey wrote: Incidentally, the Tunnel, which I use not infrequently, actually is very tolerable and remarkably efficient .....

But you're forgetting the major disadvantage Chris, where it ends up!!

AndyG

A lovely place, France ... Fine Food, beautiful countryside, Exceptional Wines ... such a pity about the people!!!

The French female accent........oooh :tonqe:

Another perspective on the Airbus "problems"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6196279.stm

AndyG