Is AIRBUS A380 too big?

cars · Post by **cars** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:47 am

It was just on the news where this new "Airbus A380" Airplane was being put into use. This bohemouth can carry "550" upto "800" passengers! IMO just too many people in one plane & this Airplane is just too big! I would not fly in this plane if ever given the opportunity. It is too big to land in most airports today, so they are making some of the airports bigger, to accomodate this plane. But if you think about it, if there was ever an emergency, this plane could not make an emergency landing in most airports! :guitarist Also, can you imagine 550 to 800 people at the baggage claim!!!

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS PLANE, IS IT TOO BIG?

Cass · Post by **Cass** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:52 am

Hi cars ~ I was just looking at this aircraft this morning. My brother works for Air Canada and is working on the simulator for this A380 to train their pilots. (PS - Air Canada has not officially even ordered any of these babies ~ so I am not sure whats up with that)

800+ passenger.......2 decks........ bigger than a 747

I am leary!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL so many parts, so many things could go wrong, if that thing crashes, thats a lot of humanity on board.

My Brother assures me it is no different in principle to any other aircraft, the laws of flight are the same.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:03 am

cars wrote: It was just on the news where this new "Airbus A380" Airplane was being put into use. This bohemouth can carry "550" passengers! IMO just too many people in one plane & this Airplane is just too big! I would not fly in this plane if ever given the opportunity. It is too big to land in most airports today, so they are making some of the airports bigger, to accomodate this plane. But if you think about it, if there was ever an emergency, this plane could not make an emergency landing in most airports!

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS PLANE, IS IT TOO BIG?

It's probably a good thing - it produces less emissions and only half the take-off noise of a 747, can land on a shorter runway, and the seating arrangements can apparently be converted to carry 840 "economy" passengers. It lessens the pressure (for the current workload) on take-off/landing "slots". The main issue seems to be with passenger logistics at airports.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:06 am

I could not care less if the thing was totally silent and ran on grass clippings!!! I would not set one foot on this thing! Of course, I hate flying in ANY type of plane, so, there you go.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:10 am

tmbsgrl wrote: The tickets are going to be well over 1000.00. Just crazy.

Where did you get this gem? Is that $1000, Ã‚£1000, a flat rate, hourly rate, or what?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:17 am

tmbsgrl wrote: It was on the news here. They interviewed the person that created it. They said it was going to be about 1500.00 per person to fly in the plane.

Wouldn't economies of scale indicate that the fare from A to B would be less than currently?

Cass · Post by **Cass** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:36 am

BabyRider wrote: and ran on grass clippings!!!
I think they should really look into that! good thinking!

cars · Post by **cars** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:39 pm

tmbsgrl wrote: Hi Cars, I agree with you. It is too big & i would not want to fly in it. It looks like it was made for celebrites. You know they will take advantage of it. The tickets are going to be well over 1000.00. Just crazy. Usually when we go on vacation we are on a budget so i will not be getting on that plane anytime soon.

Wow the cost of a ticket is outragious, :wah: especially when you consider "all" those people flying in that one Airplane. One would think that the cost should be very reasonable, as now the Airlines would only have to use "1" crew to fly all those people instead of 6 or 7 crews to fly the smaller 100 passenger Airplanes.

Also, another big cost savings factor for the Airlines is the "fuel" saved flying just 1 palne vs flying 7.

Cars :driving:

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:23 pm

Air bus isn't too big. For those concerned about safety, just look at the safety record of the 747. It's practical and efficient. When I fly from Los Angeles to New Zealand every November and back again in May, there are usually two full flights of 747's leaving within 20 minutes of each other for the same destination. One air bus would be more efficient.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:34 pm

All I could think of when I saw this monster of a plane...is the SPRUCE GOOSE, THAT HOWARD HUGHES BUILT.. To darn big for me..I'm hopeful it will be as durable as the 747.

I'm waiting for BEAM ME UP SCOTTY TRANSPORTATION.!!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:26 am

Olly wrote: I'm pretty damn sure that Airbus's engineers have tested both of these criteria, along with many other factors that affect the plane, they wouldn't be releasing it unless it was safe to fly.

Neither would they be permitted to.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:31 am

I for one am happy to see that it has 4 engines venev better that they have RR on them. I fly transatlantic a bit and the new plaes are mostly 777's with only two engines which on the simplest level means if one goes you have had it.

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:47 am

"Two much magic buss"

Can't help but have that Who song in my head when ever I see the word buss.

Der Wulf · Post by **Der Wulf** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:52 pm

Don't know about international flights, but one of the major economic problems domestically is too many empty seats, a lot of the larger planes are moth balled or have been converted to freighters. The larger planes are great for holidays, but awfully expensive to park the rest of the year. :-6

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:10 pm

Der Wulf wrote: Don't know about international flights, but one of the major economic problems domestically is too many empty seats, a lot of the larger planes are moth balled or have been converted to freighters. The larger planes are great for holidays, but awfully expensive to park the rest of the year. :-6

The Airbus will be used on International Flights. It's not priactical for Domestic Flights.

Not sure where you live Der Wulf, but I haven't seen any empty flights on any United or South West Airline flights in and around the West Coast, and I fly a lot.

cars · Post by **cars** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:56 pm

Olly wrote: It doesn't actually matter how big the plane is, as long as the engines can provide enough thrust to get the plane off the ground and as long as the materials the plane is made out of can upport the weight of the plane. I'm pretty damn sure that Airbus's engineers have tested both of these criteria, along with many other factors that affect the plane, they wouldn't be releasing it unless it was safe to fly.

There's no question as to the quality of the plane, that was never the issue.

The issue is the enormous number of "people" it can carry, upwards of 800+! How long will it take to "Board" all those people, and worse yet the wait to get off! Then think of 800+ people at the baggage claim rack!! :wah:

Cars :driving:

cars · Post by **cars** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:08 pm

Bothwell wrote: I for one am happy to see that it has 4 engines venev better that they have RR on them. I fly transatlantic a bit and the new plaes are mostly 777's with only two engines which on the simplest level means if one goes you have had it.

It has been said that on a two engine Airplane if one engine flames out during the "Takeoff" then you have had it. But if the Airplane is at altitude, and one engine goes out, the Airplane can still fly on that one and make a safe landing. :-2 (I fly on a lot of "two engine planes, sure hope it's true)

Cars :driving:

Cass · Post by **Cass** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:04 pm

Olly wrote: It doesn't actually matter how big the plane is, as long as the engines can provide enough thrust
I am strangely aroused

Der Wulf · Post by **Der Wulf** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:44 pm

Lon wrote: The Airbus will be used on International Flights. It's not priactical for Domestic Flights.

Not sure where you live Der Wulf, but I haven't seen any empty flights on any United or South West Airline flights in and around the West Coast, and I fly a lot.
So says Aviation Week, its been over 18 mo since i was actively involved, maybe things have changed, I do know a lot of 747's are still parked.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:48 am

>>^..^ I am strangely aroused

Ha! Ha! Well done.