panda-k-bear,
I guess you don't read the USA NPRMs then? ETOPS is going to be extended to 3 and 4 engine aircraft most likely unless I missed something. I was not saying that current ETOPS affect the A380, I was saying what an A380 does may or may not affect a large majority of whomever else is flying the route that must use a certain remote airport.
Depending on the situation, the A380 pilot will choose a very close airport if there is a serious problem and not have much choice depending on where he is. If the problem is not that bad, he may be able to choose an airport that won't affect very many operators.
Pontious - Singapore has been in the news even around here for being furious that they have to leave 80+ PAX behind to make the 15 hour journey. I bet the A345 will make the 15 hour journey at 372k, but when a large chunk of that is gas and not passengers the profit metric gets jacked. The 777 will carry full passenger load all the way to its max range.
I can get the fuel burn stuff if it really matters but I don't see the significants. It all comes down to operating cost and that is what I meant when I said anybody who designs a completely new aircraft with more than two engines is not helping airlines operte efficiently. Hence the idiot comment. Something the size of the A380 would probably need engines so big if it were a twin that maybe it is better in the end to have 4. I guess we will find out.
Its certainly going to save on maintenance of the thrust reversers since it only has two.................
Well I guess until one has an inboard engine out and now you can't use either reverser and end up in the gas station at the end of the airfield.
