Another Airbus crashes

I agree - plus Airbus has got nothing on something as awesome as the B-52. My word how I'd like to fly in one of those someday.
 
Palimino said:
There is a fair amount of speculation as well. Airbus execs should have seen the convergence of technology, fashion and affordability. With the advent of virtual meetings, the need for business to have face-to-face meetings is unnecessary. It’s cheaper for business. There will be huge social pressure not to fly in polluting aircraft for tourists, which is expensive anyway with hotels, living expenses & whatnot (financial crisis). Internet travel software will become more sophisticated (cheaper and you see more). Why risk the discomfort, dangers and expense of international travel when you can experience it from the comfort of your armchair? There will always be tourists for those determined to experience the poverty and diarrhea in person, but not in the same numbers. Smaller a/c are sufficient for the diminished numbers (more landing options as well). The A380 is overkill.
Click to expand...

It's quite interesting to see the two different approaches taken by Airbus and Boing over the past decade. Airbus decided that the future of air travel was hub and spoke, where passengers would be transported between major hubs in the A380 and transported to the smaller airports in the A320 (not too different from our local commercial aviation scene, mind you). Boeing decided that smaller planes offering better point to point options was the way forward, and hence we got the 787. Then, they saw the value in each others approaches, so now we have Boeing working on their new 747 derivative and Airbus developing the A350.

Personally, I prefer the point to point model - I'd far rather directly from FACT (and FALE, while I still lived there) than have to transit through FAJS. The A380 will do well though on the high capacity routes (e.g. FAJS-EGLL), but UAE having 79 on their order books is pure overkill.

Rouxenator said:
SAA are buying A320s cause its the wrong thing to do and they have a strict "do only wrong" policy in place.
Kulula on the other hand has some 737-800s on order which is more acceptable.
Click to expand...

Look, I know you seem to detest Airbus, but it makes perfect sense for SAA. Because the aircraft are similar, it should translate into lower maintenance and training costs them, especially when moving their resources (pilots, maintenance crews) between aircraft types whenever the need would arrive. CAW has an all Boeing fleet, so for them to get a whole bunch of A320s instead of the B738s they have on order would similarly make little sense for them. For both airlines, it would be like saying "hey, let me put an NVIDIA and ATI graphics card into the same machine and see what happens". :)
 
Last edited:
@ Kelerei

Do you think we could see an order for A380s from SAA to replace the 744s esp on the FAJS-EGLL - reducing the number of flights (and subsequent required landing slots at an already overworked airport)? So perhaps an all Airbus fleet is not out of the question for SAA seeing as they have not bitten on the 777's successes.
 
powermzii said:
@ Kelerei

Do you think we could see an order for A380s from SAA to replace the 744s esp on the FAJS-EGLL - reducing the number of flights (and subsequent required landing slots at an already overworked airport)? So perhaps an all Airbus fleet is not out of the question for SAA seeing as they have not bitten on the 777's successes.
Click to expand...

This was discussed at airliners.net not too long ago (here's the thread). Personally, I think it's total overkill for them, not to mention that they're probably not in the best position to procure two (at minimum) right now.
 
Kelerei said:
It's quite interesting to see the two different approaches taken by Airbus and Boing over the past decade. Airbus decided that the future of air travel was hub and spoke, where passengers would be transported between major hubs in the A380 and transported to the smaller airports in the A320 (not too different from our local commercial aviation scene, mind you). Boeing decided that smaller planes offering better point to point options was the way forward, and hence we got the 787.
Click to expand...

I didn’t know this, but IMO it makes no difference. Consider:

All present day aviation strategizing should take place against the background of the financial crisis (expense), fuel crisis and global warming (pollution), which work against the A380 anyway (and I concede that these concerns may not have existed in the initial planning). The A380 ‘major hubs’ that you mention would require runway modification for the A380. I can’t see this happening. The huge numbers and expense of operating the A380 make it less flexible (it won’t fly half loads – not economic). The availability and viability of health services, airport emergency services, maintenance issues, hangerage, skills (in SA), etc. will have an impact. A nice try but it’s like the Concorde – a massive wow! factor but not really practical.

I prefer Airbus to Boeing but objectively, Boeing has the better strategy (I wish Airbus did).
 
Billy said:
"Airsafe maintains a list of Fatal Event Rates for Selected Airliner Models. According to their statistics the 5 safest types of airplanes are: Airbus A330, Airbus A340, Boeing 777, Boeing 717, and Boeing 737 (600-900 series). No turboprops are included in the list."


http://airtravel.about.com/od/safetysecurity/qt/safestairplane.htm

There are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!
Click to expand...

I think with the recession aircraft companies are "skimping" on the services of the planes, leading to these crashes. They have been flying for many users without issues and suddenly over the last few we see more and more fatalities from older planes? No upkeep!
 
Once you have flown in the A380, you'll change your opinion and have Airbus as your favourite :D
 
Yes, if you put that into perspective with the amount flying around and the years of service then it really becomes less impressive. But I am sure you will never complain about them. Truth is, most people don't have the chance because the only bad flight onboard an airbus is usually your last flight onboard an airbus.
 
Rosaudio said:
Smoother and quieter :)
Click to expand...

planes are like cars. the gotta look good and they gotta sound good. "smoother and quieter" is something i'd recommend to my grandmother.

gimme a 747 any day.... Queen of the skies!

A340 looks like a thin pencil with wings.. yech.
A380 looks like a pregnant elephant with wings ;)


"if it ain't boeing, i ain't going..."
 
Rouxenator said:
Yes, if you put that into perspective with the amount flying around and the years of service then it really becomes less impressive. But I am sure you will never complain about them. Truth is, most people don't have the chance because the only bad flight onboard an airbus is usually your last flight onboard an airbus.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's your misguided opinion. If you followed the link I posted, you would have found that the A340-600 has not had a fatal accident. And until last year's Air France crash (a side from a pre-production test gone bad), neither has the A330. The 320 series has been in service for about half as long as the 737, but has had only about a 5th of the fatalities.
 
koffiejunkie said:
The 320 series has been in service for about half as long as the 737, but has had only about a 5th of the fatalities.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that there were 46% more 737s built than than A320s.

So if we do some math based on probability and double the airbus time then the 20% (5th) increases to 40%.
Now factor in 6348 737s vs 4326 A320s built things begin change, about 59%.

Now we also have to factor in human error/nature vs mechanical error, cant go blaming the plane for human error.

Just trying to reach a more objective view here.

I'm sure someone out there can do this as a school project :D
 
Last edited:
koffiejunkie said:
Must be the database backup kicking in :)
Click to expand...

Dunno, I always have problems with 'edit'. It usually works fine if I go 'advanced' and then submit although that also spits out an error. Might be a Chrome issue as this happens across operating systems.

edit: Ok it's not Chrome, happens in Safari as well
 
Last edited:
ponder said:
Dunno, I always have problems with 'edit'. It usually works fine if I go 'advanced' and then submit although that also spits out an error. Might be a Chrome issue as this happens across operating systems.

edit: Ok it's not Chrome, happens in Safari as well
Click to expand...

and Firefox....

Must be an Airbus product :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X