What do you think of the Livery on the A380?

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

In my line of work, I deal with the U.S. Government or the ramifications there of, on a daily basis. You are absolutely correct Kevin. And there is this other niggling thing called "certified pricing" that you didn't touch upon, but would prevent/preclude/prohibit "profiteering". And I can tell you that any manager who has to put his name to a price certification would be an idiot to attempt to hide or manipulate the numbers - he/she would end up in jail.When people scream about $650 toilets or $200 hammers, they are screaming out of ignorance of the government's processes. What would be a $30 dollar item in the local Lowe's or hardware store gets much more expensive when you factor in the tests that it must go through, the paper work that the government demands accompany it, the means of shipping, the type and design of shipping containers and a whole generation of meetings to go over the design, discuss the factory acceptance testing, ad naseum. The suprise to me is that we don't see $900 toilets.... :)

[Guest oyvindhansen]

>This whole discussion reminds me on what was going on, before>the first steam train started service in England (I think it>was in the 1820s). There were warnings of serious scientists>of that time, that no human beeing could stand a speed of 40>km per hour. People would die instantly.>>WolfgangWhenever things are about to change there are always lots of people willing to explain why this particular change is bad or impossible. Add some random opinions from friends or coworkers and suddenly you have a comprehensive survey concluding that almost everyone thinks that such and such is bad/will not work/is impossible.I am sure that Airbus, the airlines and the major international airports are working to make the transition smooth. But what do those amateurs know? If you want a thourough analysis it is probably better to ask baggage handlers, airport bus drivers, the taxi drivers outside the airports or even some guy on the local pub.-

[KevinAu 441]

It has been many years since I've had to deal with the likes of DCMC or DCMAO, but yes, certified pricing does ring a bell. ;^) It's just a shame to see people base their opinions on this whole Boeing vs Airbus thing on the kind of widespread misinformation and ignorance evidenced in JohnCi's comments. If you want to make money, doing business with the government is probably one of the last things you want to do.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"on the kind of widespread misinformation and ignorance evidenced in JohnCi's comments."Kevin,While I still disagree with the opinion that our aerospace industry is "squeaky clean" and has never gouged the government, I do appreciate the way you worded the comment above. Lately in the forums, many would have taken the low road and said, "John, you're ignorant". Rather than say that, you took a aubtle, but different approach and questioned my comments. Folks--to get people to listen to your side of the story, Kevin's approach is certainly better than saying "John has an aileron missing on the port side" :)Anyway, interesting thoughts from you, Tom and Jeroen.-John

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

G'day Tom>When people scream about $650 toilets or $200 hammers, they>are screaming out of ignorance of the government's processes.>What would be a $30 dollar item in the local Lowe's or>hardware store gets much more expensive when you factor in the>tests that it must go through, the paper work that the>government demands accompany it, the means of shipping, the>type and design of shipping containers and a whole generation>of meetings to go over the design, discuss the factory>acceptance testing, ad naseum. The suprise to me is that we>don't see $900 toilets.... :)At $900 that would be a steal :-lolEveryone is aware of R&D costs but here in Australia it was reported that at some American Senate or Congretional inquiry it was revealed that a certain aircraft manufacturer (guess) was charging the American Military $900 for a plastic blanking plug for the tubing at the base of the Flight engineers chair.! I'm sure that they would have used your argument to the hilt, but to me it doesn't justify the price. CheersRogerEdit: appologies for the off topic post. I rather like the livery of the A380. It is a little clinical but that seems to be the modern trend.

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

OyvindThe principal of a jet airliner carrying 800 or even 2000 people one day is fine.Since 9/11 maybe I am more aware of the potential for a major disaster not just from terrorism but from accidents, mishaps, failures etc.Now I appreciate that these awful accidents do happen rarely and they are a tragedy no matter what size the aircraft.But the bigger the aircraft the more massive the tragedy.When I see the huge birds of the sky I cannot help thinking of the Titanic, the claims that it was unsinkable.....Hopefully nothing like that will ever happen to an A380 but if and when it does that we have to accept that far more people will be involved than in smaller aircraft accidents.Somehow that makes me feel uncomfortable!That is not even taking into consideration all the other problems of operating such a large aircraft and its passengers in a quick and efficient way.Peter

[Guest]

1 death is a tragedy, 1 million deaths are a statistic.Those true words were spoken about 65 years ago by Joseph Stalin.Not my favourite character but he did have a way with words.

[Guest oyvindhansen]

Peter,Most people have no problems boarding a large passenger ferry along with 1000-3000 other people, yet I can recall a couple of disasters involving such vessels, one of which is the "Estonia" that went down in a matter of minutes in September 1994 and killed 852 people. Some of those boats are almost impossible to get out of if they capsize, and people will be trapped inside and drown. Still, most people have no fear of travelling by ferry.But if you put 800 people in an aircraft then we get associations with Titanic. How many passengers are too many? 400? 500? 600? 700? It's interesting that you mention 9/11. Most of the people killed wasn't even flying. The twin towers contained tens of thousands of people. Having that many people in a building, especially one that had previously been targeted by terrorists, must be inviting disaster.I cannot find any reason to believe that the A380 will be inherently unsafe. I suffers from the same problems as other big jetliners I suppose. It isn't the biggest aircraft ever built, there is nothing very drastic about its construction as far as I know, composite materials have been in use for years, it has four very reliable engines, top-notch avionics, FBW etc.-

[Sonar5 3]

A Bit ironic, isn't it?

[Guest oyvindhansen]

Sonar 5, the sentence "Having that many people in a building, especially one that had previously been targeted by terrorists, must be inviting disaster." was intended to be ironic. Guess I'll talk more straight in the future ;-).edit:To make myself more clear. My point is that there is this fear mongering because 800 people are flying together, yet there are lots of other potential disasters that are totally accepted as everyday life. What about living in Tokyo? An earthquake may flatten the city any moment now.-

[Guest cw1011]

Five words: on-line checkin no checked bags

[Guest cw1011]

Funny, but I think that just about every one of the fears articulated about baggage times, the horror of a crash, it's just too big etc. were all said about the 747 back in the late '60s and early '70s.I can see the appeal of the jet for:1. International routes flown once or twice a day, that are very heavilly travelled and where competition is limited.2. International routes flown into countries in Asia where standards of living are not particularly high, but large poplulations live overseas (Phillipines come to mind). This plane might put air travel in reach to more people. 3. Japan's domestic routes where 747s routinely fly short hops. 4. Virgin Atlantic for whom the bells and whistles would fit very well with their marketing niche.

[Guest]

no checked bags on an intercontinental flight?I doubt there's 800 business passengers a day for London-Sydney or LAX-Tokyo per airline flying the route who all are going just for a day or so with an overnighter...

[Guest]

You can forget Japan.The last Japanese registered Airbusses were retired last year because they didn't work out for the operator.Currently no Japanese airline is even interested in talking to the French and the Japanese government is strong enough the French can't force them into buying the aircraft through threatened trade sanctions.high traffic routes inside Asia (or to Asia) are indeed the main market or so it seems.Emirates has a lot of foreign workers from other Asian countries to ferry, SIA operates some of the busiest routes into Asia from other countries.For most countries though, it's simply too big...

[mganz121 159]

>high traffic routes inside Asia (or to Asia) are indeed the>main market or so it seems.I would be interested to hear where and how you have made your assumptions as I find it interesting that so many non airline people have such strong opinions and marketing "expertise" on this bird. >Emirates has a lot of foreign workers from other Asian>countries to ferry, SIA operates some of the busiest routes>into Asia from other countries.Emirates ferrying foreign workers through Asia accounts for less than 12% of their overall load factor and they are quickly positioning themselves as one of the preffered long distance global carriers from as far afield as New Zealand & Australia through to London. These route opportunities have arisen due to the 10 year demise of the American carriers and their (percieved or otherwise) poor customer service levels and outdated equipment.Most Asian carriers (along with most Oceanic carriers) are in either emerging or continued growth long distance markets and all face the same problem. The Qantas A380 for instance is a godsend for that airline as it allows them to meet market demand to supply capacity that exceeds current (and likely future) slot availability.>For most countries though, it's simply too big...Again I think you will be surprised and new markets will emerge. There are a number of charter airlines considering lease options to meet the second tier level, especially for the emerging long distance high tourist destinations. Let us not forget that tourism is changing rapidly and that Americans and Europeans (the majority of tourists) are now learning more about the world around them and travelling to more far afield destinations. Most of the comments I have read in this thread suggest excuses rather than admitting to the fear of flying in a bird this size. And that fear is quite reasonable having been shared by millions before you when the B747 was launched. I am quite sure history will demonstrate those fears to be unfounded over time. Boeing did, so why not Airbus?Personally I have flown them all, long distance and short. It all comes down to quality of service and comfort on a long flight (i.e longer than a short haul 6 hour flight) and to date, nothing beats the A340 with the B777 running a very hot second.Like the very outdated B747 before it, I suspect the A380 will change our travel habits for the better and open up the world to more people. Now that has to be good!Dave B