What do you think of the Livery on the A380?

[Guest ba747heavy]

There is a significant different between flexing muscle that any company does, and a company demanding from a disaster torn country, right?

[KevinAu 441]

>aircraft mfrs have had tons of government support in terms of>the government paying top dollar for military hardware when>it's likely worth half the cost in labor and research.Interesting, where did you get that information?

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Interesting, where did you get that information?":)

[KevinAu 441]

You're not boondoggling the government, are you?

[JonRD463 146]

I'm thinking the only reason the A380 even saw the light of day was because Airbus was past the "do or die" point in development when 9/11 happened. Yes, it's been almost 3-1/2 years, but people are still a little skittish about flying. Heck, I admit that I get nervous when I fly and see Middle Easterners. That's not racism, it's reality. Not all Middle Easterners are terrorists, but all the terrorists making the news are either Middle Easterners or Muslims.At any rate, I agree with others who have postulated that this a/c will see a few years of "Gee Whiz" flights, then be relegated to cargo hauling.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"You're not boondoggling the government, are you?"Depends on whether my 401K is heavily weighted in Government contractor stock, I guess. :)Seriously, do you really believe a B2 (not a Boeing aircraft, granted), is worth as much as an aircraft carrier in terms of raw material? How much does the Raptor fighter cost? Nope, I don't have access to the books for Boeing or other government contractors. But to say that the government hasn't been victim to immense profiteering is a state of denial. Without the good graces of the government, domestic aerospace contractors would have struggled much more and perhaps even failed. All I'm saying is that Airbus isn't the only business that benefits from a government.-John

[Guest Slacktide]

>My last few transatlantic hops have been on 767 and I really>enjoyed them, especially when loading and clearing customs. I>think the 7e7 and A350, especially if both have the>performance forecast, will probably become the aircraft of>choice for all but the longest of flights.The 767 is by far my favorite airplane to fly in as a passenger. 2-3-2 seating rocks!However, no commercial airfraft can top the rush of a 757 takeoff at low weight. Worst plane? DC10... Thank god most are out of service. Awful 2-5-2 seating.Dan

[Guest]

>1. With this capacity it truly is like a cruise ship. When I>went to the Caribbean out of Florida loading (dis-embarking?)>was scheduled over several leasurly hours. How long will it>take to get that many people on board? Let's say one hour...>that means you could be sitting at your seat for up to an hour>before you even pushback? >>2) Add that to the two hours most airports suggest for>international flights and now we are talking getting to the>airport 3 hours before takeoff?!>boarding a 747 (full pax version) takes over an hour. A maxed out A380 (which will be the norm in a few years) will have nearly twice the number of seats.Think 2-3 hours for boarding.Checkin time for intercontinental flights is now 2 hours. You'd have to be at the airport 5 hours before departure, probably longer because the larger number of passengers mean longer lines at checkin desks and security checks so think 6 hours to be on the safe side.>3)Think of a waiting area that can handle 500-800 people for>one gate? >Never seen one that can handle even the 300-450 people for a 747...Airports expect passengers to trickle to the gate area while boarding is in progress, which of course makes the boarding even slower as there are times when noone is going through the gate.>Personally, I always have enjoyed flying real-world on the>747's to Europe and Asia on business and I luv the 777. Would>really like to take the 380 when I travel to Australia (a long>term goal). Not me. I will be avoiding this turkey like the plague.

[Guest]

>There is a significant different between flexing muscle that>any company does, and a company demanding from a disaster torn>country, right?Or rather the company's host country demanding a private company from another country be forced to purchase the product to prevent the customer country from facing trade restrictions.That would be like the US government telling the EU that Easyjet has to buy 7E7s or else the USA will impose trade sanctions on European steel.

[Guest]

>>Seriously, do you really believe a B2 (not a Boeing aircraft,>granted), is worth as much as an aircraft carrier in terms of>raw material? How much does the Raptor fighter cost? Nope, I>don't have access to the books for Boeing or other government>contractors. But to say that the government hasn't beenHad the government decided to not cut back orders from the original planned numbers those prices would have been far lower.As it is the cost of development (which under contract with the manufacturer the US government has to bear) of the B-2 has been spread over 20 aircraft when the original contract had been for 100.There's usually also a penalty clause for decreasing ordersize which would increase the cost even more.This is perfectly normal if you order custom hardware or software produced, and not just if you're a government.The situation for the F-22 is similar, with the original order for over a thousand aircraft being reduced to just a few hundred.>victim to immense profiteering is a state of denial. WithoutMost of that profeteering is money being funneled to other projects inside the government.In part this is bureaucratic waste, in part they're black projects depending on this for funding.>the good graces of the government, domestic aerospace>contractors would have struggled much more and perhaps even>failed. All I'm saying is that Airbus isn't the only business>that benefits from a government.>Airbus IS the only one (except a few government owned operations in other countries maybe) that gets tens of billions in grants and interest free loans with no deliverables to counter it (no technology transfer, no goods delivered, nothing).

[KevinAu 441]

Companys may get _work_ from the government, but that is not the same as _profit_ from the government. When you contract with the government, you are subject to rules that restrict how much profit you can make. The money you are paid is based on your cost plus a certain fee or a simple fixed price. Either way, the company is audited at least annually by the government to review their cost data and if profits are deemed too high, the company owes the government money. Of course, if you lose control of your costs, your project then becomes the subject of cost overrun talks and possible cancellation. Or if it was fixed price, then you just lose. Either way, companies that do business with the government aren't that great to put in your 401k portfolio.

[Wolfko 0]

On the website of the german TV news station n-tv (CNN related) there is currently a poll "Would you fly in the new A380?"result: 88 % out of 3325 persons say "yes"!This result reflects very well the opinions in my neighboiurhood and at work.Here ist the link to the poll results:http://n-tv.de/5478865.html?zeige_ergebnisse=1This 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.Wolfgang

[Guest]

>>The 767 is by far my favorite airplane to fly in as a>passenger. 2-3-2 seating rocks!>767 is a disaster. Could be because I've only flown them in dense packed configuration.>However, no commercial airfraft can top the rush of a 757>takeoff at low weight. >Been there, done that. BA Amsterdam-London.747-400 can beat it though, on the same route.>Worst plane? DC10... Thank god most are out of service. Awful>2-5-2 seating.>Very comfortable ride though. I like them, just got to make sure you have the right seat like in any aircraft.

[Wolfko 0]

Jeroen,you seem to be a bit misinformed.- 80 % of Airbus shares belong to EADS- only 30.2 % of EADS shares belong to the French (not only the state but also Legardere)This means the french state holds not even 24 % of the Airbus shares. Not what I would call a demanding majority.By the way 30.2 % of EADS are owned by Daimler-Chrysler which is a US-German company!http://www.eads.net/frame/lang/en/800/cont...3/31000036.htmlWolfgang

[oqvist 11]

>>>>But wasn