Another Airbus crashes

Rosaudio said:
Once you have flown in the A380, you'll change your opinion and have Airbus as your favourite :D
Click to expand...

For me it was quite the opposite. I recently (last week) flew JHB-Paris return on the A380, and to be honest was not too impressed. From an engineering point of view its pretty impressive, but as a passenger in cattle class, practically its a pain. Having 550+ people on one aircraft causes many problems. Its takes over an hour to load passengers. Baggage delivery takes longer, Passport control gets overhelmed. Our return flight was delayed by an hour, so twice the number of missed connections and a real scrum around air france ticketing office of people trying to rebook.
 
Daveogg said:
For me it was quite the opposite. I recently (last week) flew JHB-Paris return on the A380, and to be honest was not too impressed. From an engineering point of view its pretty impressive, but as a passenger in cattle class, practically its a pain. Having 550+ people on one aircraft causes many problems. Its takes over an hour to load passengers. Baggage delivery takes longer, Passport control gets overhelmed. Our return flight was delayed by an hour, so twice the number of missed connections and a real scrum around air france ticketing office of people trying to rebook.
Click to expand...

So really you're complaining about the A380 being big and taking on more passengers? I suppose a lot of people said the same thing when the 747 first appeared...
 
racer said:
actually nobody did...
Click to expand...

Really? Were you around back then? I remember people complaining about the exact same issues as late as the early 80s - increased load/unload/embark/disembark times. You should look at the airline and/or airports where you flew to and from rather. The Airbus A380 had to meet the same 90 second evacuation as any other commercial passenger airliner to be certified. At Heathrow, at least the flight I saw, multiple loading bridges (not sure what you call them - the tube things) were used, making the boarding *faster* than any 747 or A340-600 flight I've been on.
 
aeroplanes are getting old, they are far too much of a hassle (book, wait, traffic, danger, spill coffee, long queues, only land some places, pitt stops, via this and that, boarding etc...), rather get us a global undersea maglev train system, you get in at the local sub, hour later you're in a city half the way cross the globe. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/transatlantictunnel/interactive/interactive.html

total cost of passenger jet is around $100 mn, multiply that by the amount of passenger gets in operation, and you've got $2Trillion for the undersea tunnel project, + many more trillions which will be saved in fuel costs and then there's trillion more for the passenger who now gets better productivity, and the nations which can now trade more easily too, there goes the ships as well.

London-New York (4000 miles), costs 88 - 175 Bn
 
Last edited:
Looking at things like Intercape and SA Roadlink it becomes clear that something with "bus" in its name is bound to crash.
 
Garyvdh said:
Yep, it certainly looks like it for them.
Click to expand...

Actually if you bothered to read the details of the incident, you would notice that this is an engine issue, so in other words, a Rolls Royce issue. Airbus doesn't make the engines, Rolls Royce does.
 
The French know nothing - they can't even reliably fit a Rolls Royce engine to their plane without it catching fire.
 
Rosaudio said:
Actually if you bothered to read the details of the incident, you would notice that this is an engine issue, so in other words, a Rolls Royce issue. Airbus doesn't make the engines, Rolls Royce does.
Click to expand...

I am quite aware of what the article says. But regardless.....

Airbus chose to use these engines on their planes, no? And these engines are what keep the plane in the air (besides the wings), no?

I would most certainly say it is related. :)
 
Rouxenator said:
The French know nothing - they can't even reliably fit a Rolls Royce engine to their plane without it catching fire.
Click to expand...
/facepalm
Garyvdh said:
I am quite aware of what the article says. But regardless.....

Airbus chose to use these engines on their planes, no? And these engines are what keep the plane in the air (besides the wings), no?

I would most certainly say it is related. :)
Click to expand...

Yes they chose Rolls Royce to power their aircraft? So what? So did Boeing. In fact the Boeing 787 basically uses the same RR engines as the A380 in the Qantas incident.

Airlines also have a choice between RR and GE for their engines. EK and AF use GE. LH, SQ and QF use RR

http://images.theage.com.au/2010/09/01/1897008/Engine-420x0.jpg
That is the result of the exact same problem as on today's incident happening on a 747, 2 years ago (also Qantas) This was also a Rolls Royce engine. Is Boeing now to blame for that incident as well? Or should we start looking at the engine manufacturers rather?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X