Name their range of successful millitary aircraft then... The Eurofighter might catch on, but it's still in the future.- Oyvind

Yes, they help, but the brakes can handle the task alone. On at least some aircraft and airlines, the thrust reversers aren't even considered critical equipment, that is the aircraft is allowed to fly with defective reversers. - Oyvind

I'd just like to point out that Lockheed-Martin is still strong, and its buisness is almost all military contracts.

>To save the brakes. Full brakeforce is seldom used, and would>probably lead to overheating, but in an emergency the bakes>can be extremely capable.Good point.:-shy>As for the logistics of building the aircraft Airbus has>always done it this way, and still manages to be succsessfull,>so I wouldn't worry too much. As long as Germany, France and>the UK are in they'll be fine.Yes they have, but should something bad happen, it has the possibility of cause some major problems.>As long as Germany, France and the UK are in they'll be fine.I'll bet Airbus prays every day that those three will stay in! I would!:-)>My comment on defence spending was not meant as a political>comment, merely a financial one.Sorry, I was a little edgy yesterday.:-hah If getting miltary contracts isn't a wise financal move (I take it, thats what you're saying) , then why is Airbus trying so hard to get them?:-hmmm(The A330 tanker, and tha A400M)How do you pronounce your name?

>Yes, they help, but the brakes can handle the task alone. On>at least some aircraft and airlines, the thrust reversers>aren't even considered critical equipment, that is the>aircraft is allowed to fly with defective reversers. Thats isn't very wise, your putting an awful lot on those brakes, and brake lines, pistons, and discs can break. (The brakes can break)

>less than informed commment about the UNHow many times has the U.N agreed and acted on that agreement? In Iraq, Saddam had broken all 15 resolutions, breaking just one is considered an act of war. And when the U.S. proposed to go in and hold him accountible, what did the U.N. do? Nothing. It seems to me that the U.N. is better at passing resolutions, than acting on them.>has made us embarassed to be associated with you.Who put what in you bed last night? Jeez!

Are those supposed to be funny?:-hmmm :-hmmm

If getting miltary>contracts isn't a wise financal move (I take it, thats what>you're saying) , then why is Airbus trying so hard to get>them?:-hmmm(The A330 tanker, and tha A400M)It isn't an unwise move, I just try to point out that it is a source of income that the "poor" american manufacturers have and not the european, due to the smaller volume of european defence spending. I think it should be factored in when people complain about Airbus being subsidised. Some people here call it propaganda though...>>How do you pronounce your name?My name is really

Gee, uh - why don't you let THEM show you what they have?http://www.eads.com/

Well, I guess I'm more interested in how many of these warbirds they actually sold.btw, I noticed the F-4 and the EF-18 in their fighter assortment, seems like Boeing/MD is everywhere.- Oyvind

Even if the amount of hubs is limited, it would allow far more people to visit those far distant, major hubs than who can afford it now. The cost per passenger will be much lower on the A380 than on the 747. The A380 probably will allow plane tickets from LA to Australia to be about 299 per passenger instead of 599 or whatever the current rate is (those figures being pure conjecture). I am surprised that the Sonic Cruiser was not a hit with the airliners. RobbAthlon XP 2800 (2250Mhz) OCd (2400Mhz)1Gb of 3200 SDRAMASUS KT400 WD Special Edition 80Gb (8meg cache)128Mb Nvidia 4200ti

I doubt ticket prices will drop with the 380.cost per seat/mile may drop a bit, but crew rates will increase as unions demand higher wages from crews in larger aircraft and landing and parking fees at airports will be higher for the beast as well (since those are calculated on basis of weight and number of pax/cargo).And of course the airlines will want to earn some of the 300 million+ dollar investment per aircraft back sooner rather than later, especially the privately owned ones that have shareholders to please who don't like big loans the airlines have to take out to purchase the beast.

>It isn't an unwise move, I just try to point out that it is a>source of income that the "poor" american manufacturers have>and not the european, due to the smaller volume of european>defence spending. I think it should be factored in when people>complain about Airbus being subsidised. Some people here call>it propaganda though...Could yu please elaborate on the "poor American manufacturers" remark? I don't want to take it the wrong way. >My name is really

I have to agree with JW. The price difference between the A380 and the 747 will be pretty small. But who knows, mabey we'll get a plesant surprise!:-hah I wonder what the parking fees are going to be for the A380! :-eek