ATL refuses to accomodate A380
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NC USA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The f*^%ing French always (fill in the blank with your specific complaint)....now that the obligatory slam is out of the way....
Just curious, what sort of modifications might be required, in general, at a major airport. I understand the need for more jetways, etc... what are some of the other issues?
Just curious, what sort of modifications might be required, in general, at a major airport. I understand the need for more jetways, etc... what are some of the other issues?
Plaything of fine moderators everywhere
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: On the beach
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point OldAg84.
I don't know the full extent of requirements, but as a guide Orlando International Airport is approved to land the A380, but needs investment of about $20m to widen the taxiways.
Atlanta Hartsfield is currently in the middle of a $6 billion expansion programme - which may be why some of the cynics amongst us wonder if there is a hidden agenda....
I don't know the full extent of requirements, but as a guide Orlando International Airport is approved to land the A380, but needs investment of about $20m to widen the taxiways.
Atlanta Hartsfield is currently in the middle of a $6 billion expansion programme - which may be why some of the cynics amongst us wonder if there is a hidden agenda....
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would guess that BA is included in Winos list because it used to be a state owned airline, but dear old Maggie sold it off about 15 years ago along with the rest of the family silver
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They also got granted several aircraft for free along with the spares and everything else.
It was a while ago, but again, the point is that it happened. If you are gonna bring up so called protectionism against the concorde (tell me, why didn't it fly ANYWHERE else.)
Not all airlines were in trouble before Sept 11. Most of them weren't. The grant pretty much coincided with what the airlines lost by grounding their aircraft for the several days after sept 11. It didn't move things one bit and didn't actually prop anyone up either. Again, that was compensation for DIRECT losses caused by government restraint of trade. (Remember, only the airplanes were grounded, the leases still had to be paid, and so did the staff.) So all the expenses were there, just no revenue.
MS SPurtle.
SO what? Government shouldn't be propping up business. Tell me, how was your post constructive to the arguement in any way?
Biggles,
The PBGC is an insurance program for workers, not the company. That money doesn't go to the company. THat is to protect workers. And btw, USAIR was forced to pay their premiums for the insurance policy on their pension funds. WIthout the PBGC, NOTHING would change for USair, the company would continue. It is just that the workers would be even more out of luck.
Wanna try again? You make a lot of rhetoric based charges, but the facts are not in evidence.
Panda-K-Bear,
VERY interesting question. ONe would possibly require realignment of the whole airport. The other would not.
Pontious,
How would the USA EXACTLY lose out if they refused to realign their taxways? There are plenty of other aircraft out there that can do the job without expensive mods. So the A340/747 flies the leg from the USA to Heathrow and then the 380 flies beyond. What's the big deal?
Its not that we don't want it. Its that we shouldn't have to PAY for it. YOU pay. then you can use it all you want.
Cheers
Wino
It was a while ago, but again, the point is that it happened. If you are gonna bring up so called protectionism against the concorde (tell me, why didn't it fly ANYWHERE else.)
Not all airlines were in trouble before Sept 11. Most of them weren't. The grant pretty much coincided with what the airlines lost by grounding their aircraft for the several days after sept 11. It didn't move things one bit and didn't actually prop anyone up either. Again, that was compensation for DIRECT losses caused by government restraint of trade. (Remember, only the airplanes were grounded, the leases still had to be paid, and so did the staff.) So all the expenses were there, just no revenue.
MS SPurtle.
SO what? Government shouldn't be propping up business. Tell me, how was your post constructive to the arguement in any way?
Biggles,
The PBGC is an insurance program for workers, not the company. That money doesn't go to the company. THat is to protect workers. And btw, USAIR was forced to pay their premiums for the insurance policy on their pension funds. WIthout the PBGC, NOTHING would change for USair, the company would continue. It is just that the workers would be even more out of luck.
Wanna try again? You make a lot of rhetoric based charges, but the facts are not in evidence.
Panda-K-Bear,
VERY interesting question. ONe would possibly require realignment of the whole airport. The other would not.
Pontious,
How would the USA EXACTLY lose out if they refused to realign their taxways? There are plenty of other aircraft out there that can do the job without expensive mods. So the A340/747 flies the leg from the USA to Heathrow and then the 380 flies beyond. What's the big deal?
Its not that we don't want it. Its that we shouldn't have to PAY for it. YOU pay. then you can use it all you want.
Cheers
Wino
Plaything of fine moderators everywhere
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: On the beach
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They also got granted several aircraft for free along with the spares and everything else.
So what is wrong with liquidating the airline and paying off the pensions deficit, Wino? It doesn't matter if the PBGC is an insurance program for workers - it is still public money being used to prop up a private company - so it is a subsidy.
Here's another one for you. European airlines have to buy commercial war risks insurance whereas the U.S. ones have the benefit of a heavily subsidised goverment scheme. I don't have time to crunch the numbers at the moment but I can guarantee you that the difference when applied to the top 5 U.S. international carriers is a big number.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino
we get it. Just prepare yourself for payback from those you have got stuck into on this forum if ATL uses taxpayer dollars to make 747ADV compatible stands if they require serious work.
As for the A380 planning reqs, look at airbus.com under aircraft family/380 and there is a lengthy PDF on the subject.
we get it. Just prepare yourself for payback from those you have got stuck into on this forum if ATL uses taxpayer dollars to make 747ADV compatible stands if they require serious work.
As for the A380 planning reqs, look at airbus.com under aircraft family/380 and there is a lengthy PDF on the subject.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Colorado USA
Age: 68
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought that the main thrust of the French salesmen was that airlines could dramatically reduce the numbers of crew they had to employ if they bought the A380. (2pilots driving up to 600 pax).
The chaos that will ensue when 4 of these things spew out 2400 hundred pax into the Atlanta immigration hall doesn't seem to worry the French!
V1
The chaos that will ensue when 4 of these things spew out 2400 hundred pax into the Atlanta immigration hall doesn't seem to worry the French!
V1
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino
Who paid for the improvements when PanAm first used the 747 on the LHR services? PanAm? Yeah right! It's an investment the AIRPORT stumps up for. You see, it works like this:
AIRLINES carry passengers who pay money for tickets to fly to AIRPORTS.
AIRPORTS invest in facilities such as Rapid Rail links, Cheap Tax-free shopping, large well equipped Terminals etc... to attract AIRLINES.
See? AIRPORTS pay to attract AIRLINES. It's not the other way around.
Who picks up the tab for the investment isn't the issue here. But put yourself in the shoes of a Global Majors CEO when (for example) someome says JFK aren't going to accommodate any A380 services but Newark will. Where are the new airline 'Flagships' going to go? After that it's only a matter of time before the rest of that particular 'Majors' services go to an airport that CAN cope.
It's only common sense that, in todays world, CAN cope will succeed whereas CANT cope will fail. Those that can will become 'Super Hubs', those that can't will be the 'Also Ran's'. You do the mathS.
Who paid for the improvements when PanAm first used the 747 on the LHR services? PanAm? Yeah right! It's an investment the AIRPORT stumps up for. You see, it works like this:
AIRLINES carry passengers who pay money for tickets to fly to AIRPORTS.
AIRPORTS invest in facilities such as Rapid Rail links, Cheap Tax-free shopping, large well equipped Terminals etc... to attract AIRLINES.
See? AIRPORTS pay to attract AIRLINES. It's not the other way around.
Who picks up the tab for the investment isn't the issue here. But put yourself in the shoes of a Global Majors CEO when (for example) someome says JFK aren't going to accommodate any A380 services but Newark will. Where are the new airline 'Flagships' going to go? After that it's only a matter of time before the rest of that particular 'Majors' services go to an airport that CAN cope.
It's only common sense that, in todays world, CAN cope will succeed whereas CANT cope will fail. Those that can will become 'Super Hubs', those that can't will be the 'Also Ran's'. You do the mathS.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee, Pontious, such strident vitriol!
Why can't you accept the fact that the mangement at ATL has crunched the numbers, and has found that it doesn't make financial sense to accomodate the A380 at this point in time. The management at JFK and LAX have done the mathS and have a different outcome. No grand conspiracy here.
Despite what Wino may want, had ATL been able to make a business case for it, funds would have been forthcoming from the Aviation fund. That's what it is there for, like it or not.
Above, Biggles Flies Undone suggests that we all let go of the Concorde, and I agree.
Why can't you accept the fact that the mangement at ATL has crunched the numbers, and has found that it doesn't make financial sense to accomodate the A380 at this point in time. The management at JFK and LAX have done the mathS and have a different outcome. No grand conspiracy here.
Despite what Wino may want, had ATL been able to make a business case for it, funds would have been forthcoming from the Aviation fund. That's what it is there for, like it or not.
Above, Biggles Flies Undone suggests that we all let go of the Concorde, and I agree.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howdy ElectoVlasic
That isn't vitrol. Not really. If ATL has done the mathS for its $6Billion improvements package without budgetting for widening and strengthening of taxyways and hard standings what has it budgeted for? An extra Espresso machine? A double de-caff maker? Botox injection suites? Therapy rooms? What?
On the contrary, there is a huge conspiracy here with the Europhobes? What next? Boycott your write to vote because 'Marine 1' is going to be an EH101?
I take it you aren't a native English speaker are you,son.Otherwise you wouldn't have grossly mis-read Biggles's post.
You guy's really are Ludites. If you don't build it or understand it- Kill it!
"Goodnight Jim Bob!"
Nice one Biggles'!
Hey Wino, ElectroV'- CONCORDE
That isn't vitrol. Not really. If ATL has done the mathS for its $6Billion improvements package without budgetting for widening and strengthening of taxyways and hard standings what has it budgeted for? An extra Espresso machine? A double de-caff maker? Botox injection suites? Therapy rooms? What?
On the contrary, there is a huge conspiracy here with the Europhobes? What next? Boycott your write to vote because 'Marine 1' is going to be an EH101?
I take it you aren't a native English speaker are you,son.Otherwise you wouldn't have grossly mis-read Biggles's post.
You guy's really are Ludites. If you don't build it or understand it- Kill it!
"Goodnight Jim Bob!"
Nice one Biggles'!
Hey Wino, ElectroV'- CONCORDE
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.airliners.net/discussions....main/1921277/
The Airbus A-380 Roll-Out
Strong Indications Of Purple Kool-Aid
And, Don Corleone As Sales Director
Airbus rolled out the A-380 last week, with one heck of a welcoming party. Judging by what went on, the late Reverend Jim Jones was manning the cocktail bar.
In what appeared to be the biggest political circus since Monica\'s blue dress came back from the dry cleaners, the Europeans all joined together to celebrate, nay, worship, the A-380 WhaleJet. Sort of like a coming-out party for a five-ton overweight debutante. Over 5,000 people were reportedly there. Lots of speeches. Enough dry-ice fog to look like an outtake from Saturday Night Fever. Confetti falling from the ceiling. Music. The heads of state from all over the Continent - enough political suits to fill the Big \'n Tall section at Men\'s Wearhouse.
And everybody, apparently, was drinking Rev. Jim\'s Purple Kool-Aid. You just gotta dig some of the grand pronouncements at the gala...
"Under the name of Airbus, Europe has written one of the most beautiful pages of its history," gushed Airbus chief Noel Forgeard.
Jacques Chirac, entertaining all, added to global warming with jingoistic speeches about the glory of France, as if anybody cared.
"We need many other projects of this size and of this ambition," Chirac gurgled, as he called for "a great European effort based on the strength of our businesses and of our laboratories that allows our industries to be at the forefront of innovation and at the heart of tomorrow\'s markets."
All-in-all, a gutsy demand from a guy running a country with an enforced 35-hour limit on the work week and a legislated month of vacation time. It\'s a wonder this thing ever got out of the hangar. A gutsy statement, too, about an airplane that is essentially not much more than a composite 747 on steroids.
The Glory of France, England, and Europe First. Market Analyses Second. The whole show looked like a junior high pep-rally that got way over budget. The real story wasn\'t the airplane. It was the high-level politicos and various other luminaries that surrounded it, and what they really said. Aside from all the gush, the message seemed to be some adolescent chant, "Golly-gee, we got one bigger than Boeing."
We Heard All This 40 Years Ago. Take all those quotes, and it sounds distantly familiar. Just replace "Airbus" with "Concorde" and you\'ve just done a time-trip back to the 1960s, when the whiz-kids of Europe announced a supersonic jet program that was aimed at one thing: Showing the US that Europe could build really fancy machinery. Economic viability wasn\'t the issue - just the dream was enough. They wanted to show the US that they were big boys, too.
And they did - heck, the Concorde was an airplane that even by today\'s technology would be tough to build. A 1.5 mach airplane is possible right now. But a 2.0 rocket like the Concorde is a geometric jump. Trust us - we\'ve done the feasibility studies for aircraft manufacturers - the Concorde is a technological wonder for today, let alone the 1960s.
Yessir, the Europeans achieved their goal. They built a supersonic airliner before the US did. In fact, the US never built one. The Russians did - the TU-144, which is best remembered for coming completely unglued in the sky over the 1973 Paris Air Show.
Unfortunately, just building the Concorde was the alpha and the omega of the program. Market demand, mission viability, and economic realities weren\'t addressed. The result was what is now considered one of history\'s greatest planning disasters.
See, the Concorde had the operational economics of a flying brick. Far from being the 707 replacement they predicted, the Euros got just 16 of these contraptions built before they tossed in the towel - something that at least the French seem to excel at doing, by the way. Britain and France then effectively gave the airplanes to their respective state carriers, and dropped the whole thing.
So here we are 30 years later, and notwithstanding the success of the superb A-320 and A-340 programs, the Euros still have a bad case of US-envy. So, they went ahead and built a jet that was bigger, taller, longer than anything the US has put out. Voila! The A-380. They want to out-do the 747. What they missed is that the 747 is a 1970s concept that may not have much viability in the 21st century.
Some Reality Please. But back to the roll-out gala. The purple Kool-Aid was flowing, jumbojet fans. See, this A-380 sucker is big. Really big. So big that Virgin Airways\' CEO declared that he\'s thinking of installing exercise rooms and casinos and all sorts of other stuff on his A-380s. Just what premium passengers want. A roll of the dice at the crap table, a spin on the Lifecycle, and a trip to the massage parlor, all surrounded by comely female flight attendants in designer uniforms.
Wow, can\'t wait. It\'ll kinda be like a party at the Playboy Mansion, \'cept that it flies and won\'t have Hef wandering around in pajamas looking for a Viagra tablet. Gee that\'ll really do wonders to the ASM costs of the A-380. (Remember the piano lounges on American Airlines\' 747\'s in the early 1970s? There\'s a reason they\'re not there anymore. Come to think of it, there\'s a reason there\'s no 747s, period, at AA anymore.)
Let\'s Get Back To Reality. There\'s no doubt that the A-380 will be a technological marvel. But the open question is whether Airbus can sell enough of them to make economic sense. They say gazillions. But looking at traffic flows and airport facilities, we can see, best case, 350-400 A-380s over the next 15 years. As for the initial sales announced, nobody knows what the terms were, and when over 25% of the sales are to one carrier - Emirates - one has to question how firm these sales are.
EU: Making Offers Other Nations Can\'t Refuse? Then we have the issue of the European Union doing the Don Corleone routine on foreign nations to buy the A-380. It\'s been reported that Thailand has been strong-armed, with an offer they can\'t refuse. Buy some A-380s, and you won\'t have any tariff problems with some Thai imports into the EU. Or, China. Remember that arms embargo resulting from the 1989 Tien An Men Square affair? Well, just sign on the dotted line for a fleet of WhaleJets, and everything will be okay, by and by. Don\'t think for one second these types of EU-government shake-downs aren\'t in the cards to peddle these A-380s. Remember, it isn\'t an airplane. It\'s the honor, the glory, and the reputation of all Europe that\'s on the line.
In the interests of historical perspective, virtually every new airliner that\'s come on the market since Wilbur and Orville was declared "too big" by one or more sections of the Luddite community. "Hey, how ya going to fill 21 seats? That DC-3\'ll never make it..." It was certainly said about the 747, and the years immediately after its introduction seemed to initially prove it. But things are very different now. The R&D costs, the total sector expenses, the capital required, not to mention the issue of airport facilities, all point to a much more limited demand for the A-380 than Mr. Chirac and his buddies seem to think.
"...the A380 superjumbo -- overweight, overbudget and still on the ground, but hailed by its makers as a major European feat that will reshape aviation..." Reuters, January 20, 2005.
The Concorde was supposed to reshape aviation, too.
(c) 2005, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Airbus A-380 Roll-Out
Strong Indications Of Purple Kool-Aid
And, Don Corleone As Sales Director
Airbus rolled out the A-380 last week, with one heck of a welcoming party. Judging by what went on, the late Reverend Jim Jones was manning the cocktail bar.
In what appeared to be the biggest political circus since Monica\'s blue dress came back from the dry cleaners, the Europeans all joined together to celebrate, nay, worship, the A-380 WhaleJet. Sort of like a coming-out party for a five-ton overweight debutante. Over 5,000 people were reportedly there. Lots of speeches. Enough dry-ice fog to look like an outtake from Saturday Night Fever. Confetti falling from the ceiling. Music. The heads of state from all over the Continent - enough political suits to fill the Big \'n Tall section at Men\'s Wearhouse.
And everybody, apparently, was drinking Rev. Jim\'s Purple Kool-Aid. You just gotta dig some of the grand pronouncements at the gala...
"Under the name of Airbus, Europe has written one of the most beautiful pages of its history," gushed Airbus chief Noel Forgeard.
Jacques Chirac, entertaining all, added to global warming with jingoistic speeches about the glory of France, as if anybody cared.
"We need many other projects of this size and of this ambition," Chirac gurgled, as he called for "a great European effort based on the strength of our businesses and of our laboratories that allows our industries to be at the forefront of innovation and at the heart of tomorrow\'s markets."
All-in-all, a gutsy demand from a guy running a country with an enforced 35-hour limit on the work week and a legislated month of vacation time. It\'s a wonder this thing ever got out of the hangar. A gutsy statement, too, about an airplane that is essentially not much more than a composite 747 on steroids.
The Glory of France, England, and Europe First. Market Analyses Second. The whole show looked like a junior high pep-rally that got way over budget. The real story wasn\'t the airplane. It was the high-level politicos and various other luminaries that surrounded it, and what they really said. Aside from all the gush, the message seemed to be some adolescent chant, "Golly-gee, we got one bigger than Boeing."
We Heard All This 40 Years Ago. Take all those quotes, and it sounds distantly familiar. Just replace "Airbus" with "Concorde" and you\'ve just done a time-trip back to the 1960s, when the whiz-kids of Europe announced a supersonic jet program that was aimed at one thing: Showing the US that Europe could build really fancy machinery. Economic viability wasn\'t the issue - just the dream was enough. They wanted to show the US that they were big boys, too.
And they did - heck, the Concorde was an airplane that even by today\'s technology would be tough to build. A 1.5 mach airplane is possible right now. But a 2.0 rocket like the Concorde is a geometric jump. Trust us - we\'ve done the feasibility studies for aircraft manufacturers - the Concorde is a technological wonder for today, let alone the 1960s.
Yessir, the Europeans achieved their goal. They built a supersonic airliner before the US did. In fact, the US never built one. The Russians did - the TU-144, which is best remembered for coming completely unglued in the sky over the 1973 Paris Air Show.
Unfortunately, just building the Concorde was the alpha and the omega of the program. Market demand, mission viability, and economic realities weren\'t addressed. The result was what is now considered one of history\'s greatest planning disasters.
See, the Concorde had the operational economics of a flying brick. Far from being the 707 replacement they predicted, the Euros got just 16 of these contraptions built before they tossed in the towel - something that at least the French seem to excel at doing, by the way. Britain and France then effectively gave the airplanes to their respective state carriers, and dropped the whole thing.
So here we are 30 years later, and notwithstanding the success of the superb A-320 and A-340 programs, the Euros still have a bad case of US-envy. So, they went ahead and built a jet that was bigger, taller, longer than anything the US has put out. Voila! The A-380. They want to out-do the 747. What they missed is that the 747 is a 1970s concept that may not have much viability in the 21st century.
Some Reality Please. But back to the roll-out gala. The purple Kool-Aid was flowing, jumbojet fans. See, this A-380 sucker is big. Really big. So big that Virgin Airways\' CEO declared that he\'s thinking of installing exercise rooms and casinos and all sorts of other stuff on his A-380s. Just what premium passengers want. A roll of the dice at the crap table, a spin on the Lifecycle, and a trip to the massage parlor, all surrounded by comely female flight attendants in designer uniforms.
Wow, can\'t wait. It\'ll kinda be like a party at the Playboy Mansion, \'cept that it flies and won\'t have Hef wandering around in pajamas looking for a Viagra tablet. Gee that\'ll really do wonders to the ASM costs of the A-380. (Remember the piano lounges on American Airlines\' 747\'s in the early 1970s? There\'s a reason they\'re not there anymore. Come to think of it, there\'s a reason there\'s no 747s, period, at AA anymore.)
Let\'s Get Back To Reality. There\'s no doubt that the A-380 will be a technological marvel. But the open question is whether Airbus can sell enough of them to make economic sense. They say gazillions. But looking at traffic flows and airport facilities, we can see, best case, 350-400 A-380s over the next 15 years. As for the initial sales announced, nobody knows what the terms were, and when over 25% of the sales are to one carrier - Emirates - one has to question how firm these sales are.
EU: Making Offers Other Nations Can\'t Refuse? Then we have the issue of the European Union doing the Don Corleone routine on foreign nations to buy the A-380. It\'s been reported that Thailand has been strong-armed, with an offer they can\'t refuse. Buy some A-380s, and you won\'t have any tariff problems with some Thai imports into the EU. Or, China. Remember that arms embargo resulting from the 1989 Tien An Men Square affair? Well, just sign on the dotted line for a fleet of WhaleJets, and everything will be okay, by and by. Don\'t think for one second these types of EU-government shake-downs aren\'t in the cards to peddle these A-380s. Remember, it isn\'t an airplane. It\'s the honor, the glory, and the reputation of all Europe that\'s on the line.
In the interests of historical perspective, virtually every new airliner that\'s come on the market since Wilbur and Orville was declared "too big" by one or more sections of the Luddite community. "Hey, how ya going to fill 21 seats? That DC-3\'ll never make it..." It was certainly said about the 747, and the years immediately after its introduction seemed to initially prove it. But things are very different now. The R&D costs, the total sector expenses, the capital required, not to mention the issue of airport facilities, all point to a much more limited demand for the A-380 than Mr. Chirac and his buddies seem to think.
"...the A380 superjumbo -- overweight, overbudget and still on the ground, but hailed by its makers as a major European feat that will reshape aviation..." Reuters, January 20, 2005.
The Concorde was supposed to reshape aviation, too.
(c) 2005, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino, since you are demanding facts on this thread, why don't you get them right:
The Concorde did fly to other destinations than the US. My grandfather used to claim that he flew it to Rio de Janeiro as a pax some decades ago, and I don't know why he should have been lying about it.
I also recall that there used to be a Concorde service to HongKong, but I might be wrong about that.
Anyway, no more Concorde talk....
The Concorde did fly to other destinations than the US. My grandfather used to claim that he flew it to Rio de Janeiro as a pax some decades ago, and I don't know why he should have been lying about it.
I also recall that there used to be a Concorde service to HongKong, but I might be wrong about that.
Anyway, no more Concorde talk....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Che Guevara:
I'm really not frustrated....I thought that the picture that went along with the article was funny...check out the link....
What is your opinion on the subject? I have yet to see you post a point of view. I see you are in Asia so you probably are not French; What is your take on all this?
Try a healthy debate instead of childish sniping on this board...
I'm really not frustrated....I thought that the picture that went along with the article was funny...check out the link....
What is your opinion on the subject? I have yet to see you post a point of view. I see you are in Asia so you probably are not French; What is your take on all this?
Try a healthy debate instead of childish sniping on this board...
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A long time ago bulletin boards and internet fora were used as places where people could engage in reasoned discussion and exchange of information.
Todays word is xenophobe
Personally I think this thread has run it's course.
Todays word is xenophobe
Personally I think this thread has run it's course.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TallBloke:
I agree however I have to say this...
It is obvious that this forum is mostly populated by pilots from Europe. It is unfortunate that a pilot from America cannot come and express his/her views about a topic such as this without having to endure comments directed personally at them instead of a point/counterpoint discussion.
One thing is for sure, I will always respond to a statement made directly to me. I would prefer a debate on the subject matter. I am not interested in personal squables but there is no way I will take an insult without roasting the author.....
Molon Labe
I agree however I have to say this...
It is obvious that this forum is mostly populated by pilots from Europe. It is unfortunate that a pilot from America cannot come and express his/her views about a topic such as this without having to endure comments directed personally at them instead of a point/counterpoint discussion.
One thing is for sure, I will always respond to a statement made directly to me. I would prefer a debate on the subject matter. I am not interested in personal squables but there is no way I will take an insult without roasting the author.....
Molon Labe
Bear Behind
ManagedNav,
Let me quote you:
"It is unfortunate that a pilot from America cannot come and express his/her views about a topic such as this without having to endure comments directed personally at them instead of a point/counterpoint discussion."
Yet on the second page, you said:
""Entende Cordiale" is an agreement of freindship between the British and the French. We Americans, even though we value our freindship with the British, couldn't give a flying ***t about the French."
Please demonstrate the reason in the second quote. When you say things like that, then quite frankly, you don't really deserve a point/counterpoint discussion. I remind you, I'm a Brit and we were never over-enamoured of the French, but please, if you want a reasoned argument, make reasoned points without silly statements like this.
Let's try again, shall we? On the first page, you said:
"I think the US pax carriers would be smart to go with the 7E7 instead and pressure the airports to not make any special arrangements for the 380 so as not to jeapordize their international load factors."
And that is exactly why ATL is having to spend $6 Billion to upgrade - to cope with all of these extra flights. Anyone like to hazard a guess as to how much JFK is spending to be able to take the A380?
Divide it by 60 and you'd be about there. Economies of scale, QED!
Let me quote you:
"It is unfortunate that a pilot from America cannot come and express his/her views about a topic such as this without having to endure comments directed personally at them instead of a point/counterpoint discussion."
Yet on the second page, you said:
""Entende Cordiale" is an agreement of freindship between the British and the French. We Americans, even though we value our freindship with the British, couldn't give a flying ***t about the French."
Please demonstrate the reason in the second quote. When you say things like that, then quite frankly, you don't really deserve a point/counterpoint discussion. I remind you, I'm a Brit and we were never over-enamoured of the French, but please, if you want a reasoned argument, make reasoned points without silly statements like this.
Let's try again, shall we? On the first page, you said:
"I think the US pax carriers would be smart to go with the 7E7 instead and pressure the airports to not make any special arrangements for the 380 so as not to jeapordize their international load factors."
And that is exactly why ATL is having to spend $6 Billion to upgrade - to cope with all of these extra flights. Anyone like to hazard a guess as to how much JFK is spending to be able to take the A380?
Divide it by 60 and you'd be about there. Economies of scale, QED!
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ManagedNav, I for one am confused. Which part of your large post was reasoned discussion and which part was not? Indeed, which part is quoted from elsewhere and which part is your own argument? A statement such as:
does not smack of reasoned discussion to me.
Yes France has a 35 hour week, yes it's economy continues to thrive. (They also have a most excellent health care system. It is paid for through taxation. Just a different way of living. Not right, not wrong, just different).
As for
In the spirit of reasoned discussion, how is this statement justified? Strictly speaking, should we not say that all airliners with engines pod mounted beneath the wings are nothing but B-47s on steroids? Was the B-47 nothing but an ME-262 clone. (Those who have studied the history of airliner development already know that the design of the B-47 was radically changed after design engineers studied captured German documents after WWII). Is the A380 a B-747 on steroids because it is large, or because it has four engines, or what?
Personally I believe Concorde was a mistake with hindsight. Had more effort been put in to asking whether or not the aircraft was likely to be granted supersonic overflight rights (we did not even let it fly supersonic over our own country) then the project would probably have never got off the ground but we live in different times now. Likewise if anyone had managed to predict the massive increase in fuel prices which occured just as the aircraft was going to the market the project would have been abandoned. Just as (getting back to topic for a second) ATL will have done the sums and worked out that they do not need to invest in modifications, Airbus will have done the sums and consider that A380 is a viable product.
By the way, the last TU-144 was used by NASA for a number of years to support research into the next SST.
I think this is a xenophobic statement. If you did not write it I apologise for implying that you expressed xenophobic views. But if you did not write it, I presume that by quoting and publishing it, it is a point of view that you support. Apart from anything else I think it is factually incorrect. The reason that the French attract so much attention to themselves is that they are an intensely patriotic nation who fight with dogged determination to maintain their own identity. This tends to upset a lot of people (me for one, on some occasions)
Am I really so niave as to believe that Airbus airliners are European products? Does the world outside Europe perceive Airbus to be a French company?
Jacques Chirac, entertaining all, added to global warming with jingoistic speeches about the glory of France, as if anybody cared.
All-in-all, a gutsy demand from a guy running a country with an enforced 35-hour limit on the work week and a legislated month of vacation time. It's a wonder this thing ever got out of the hangar.
As for
A gutsy statement, too, about an airplane that is essentially not much more than a composite 747 on steroids.
Personally I believe Concorde was a mistake with hindsight. Had more effort been put in to asking whether or not the aircraft was likely to be granted supersonic overflight rights (we did not even let it fly supersonic over our own country) then the project would probably have never got off the ground but we live in different times now. Likewise if anyone had managed to predict the massive increase in fuel prices which occured just as the aircraft was going to the market the project would have been abandoned. Just as (getting back to topic for a second) ATL will have done the sums and worked out that they do not need to invest in modifications, Airbus will have done the sums and consider that A380 is a viable product.
By the way, the last TU-144 was used by NASA for a number of years to support research into the next SST.
the Euros got just 16 of these contraptions built before they tossed in the towel - something that at least the French seem to excel at doing, by the way.
Am I really so niave as to believe that Airbus airliners are European products? Does the world outside Europe perceive Airbus to be a French company?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHY OH WHY????????
What has gone wrong with (many of) you people? I'm sick and saddened of the rubbish I'm reading on these forums (pprune and even more so on others related to aviation).
Anti Airbus, Anti Europe, F**k the French!!!!
What has gone wrong with all of you. Especially your Americans, many of you only seem to be able to constantly criticise everything that comes out of Europe. And what's your problem with the French?? I remember a time not so long ago when Americans flocked in huge numbers (by American standards, as you are the nation which travels least in the developed world), loved France and the French way of life, so many of your Hollywood movies were set in Paris or France (that land of savoir vivre, style, fashion, romantisicm)??? And now, perhaps because the French government, whether it was for noble reasons or most probably due to other interests, said NO to Mr. Bush and is so called laughable "Alliance" against Evil, which has simply added at causing more division, hatred and lack of thrust in the world in a longlong time.
Now, I am NOT French, Yes I am European, from a "grand" little country that used to also get on great with the US of A, that country with a president who has now decided to try to do away with St. Patrick's day festivities at the White House... A slap in the face to the Irish, yet possibly a relief to most Irish people in Ireland, while probably a bigger slap in the face to the so many US citizens claiming to be Irish. Maybe this will force our government into stopping the use of Shannon Airport by US military aircraft (hopeful thinking), which has caused so much upset in Ireland.
So I live in France, and it's a great country, with so many advantages and great things, and of course it's fair share of negative things, just like any country. The people are actually suprisingly welcoming to foreign residnts. And the great thing about them, they don't seem to give a f*** about all the Anti French crap coming out of the US... and even more suprisingly, while granted few of them seem to like Bush, just as is the case anywhere in the world (including about half of US voters), they don't go around criticising the Americans.
So I ask of you two questions:
1. Why are you so Anti-European/Ant-French? Could you just STOP? Wouldn't it be a wonderful first step towards world peace (which Bush claims (falsely IMO) to be searching for? And PLEASE stop knocking our political systems, which you calim "to be just so socialist". If it is, so what? As you may have seenon recent polls, many published by US sources, it's European countries that occupy the top places regarding a. economic wealth, b. standard of living, c. quality of life, d. education...
2. Can you all just stop knocking anything Airbus? I've carefully monitored these types of forums, and it's 'mainly' you Americans who start these AvB debates by coming out with childish remarks on Airbus. The 'Anti Boeing" only seems to appear in defence as a retaliation to your anti Airbus comments! CALM DOWN FRIENDS AND STOP THIS RIDICULOUS BICKERING.
Thanks, merci, dänke, gracias and so on...
What has gone wrong with (many of) you people? I'm sick and saddened of the rubbish I'm reading on these forums (pprune and even more so on others related to aviation).
Anti Airbus, Anti Europe, F**k the French!!!!
What has gone wrong with all of you. Especially your Americans, many of you only seem to be able to constantly criticise everything that comes out of Europe. And what's your problem with the French?? I remember a time not so long ago when Americans flocked in huge numbers (by American standards, as you are the nation which travels least in the developed world), loved France and the French way of life, so many of your Hollywood movies were set in Paris or France (that land of savoir vivre, style, fashion, romantisicm)??? And now, perhaps because the French government, whether it was for noble reasons or most probably due to other interests, said NO to Mr. Bush and is so called laughable "Alliance" against Evil, which has simply added at causing more division, hatred and lack of thrust in the world in a longlong time.
Now, I am NOT French, Yes I am European, from a "grand" little country that used to also get on great with the US of A, that country with a president who has now decided to try to do away with St. Patrick's day festivities at the White House... A slap in the face to the Irish, yet possibly a relief to most Irish people in Ireland, while probably a bigger slap in the face to the so many US citizens claiming to be Irish. Maybe this will force our government into stopping the use of Shannon Airport by US military aircraft (hopeful thinking), which has caused so much upset in Ireland.
So I live in France, and it's a great country, with so many advantages and great things, and of course it's fair share of negative things, just like any country. The people are actually suprisingly welcoming to foreign residnts. And the great thing about them, they don't seem to give a f*** about all the Anti French crap coming out of the US... and even more suprisingly, while granted few of them seem to like Bush, just as is the case anywhere in the world (including about half of US voters), they don't go around criticising the Americans.
So I ask of you two questions:
1. Why are you so Anti-European/Ant-French? Could you just STOP? Wouldn't it be a wonderful first step towards world peace (which Bush claims (falsely IMO) to be searching for? And PLEASE stop knocking our political systems, which you calim "to be just so socialist". If it is, so what? As you may have seenon recent polls, many published by US sources, it's European countries that occupy the top places regarding a. economic wealth, b. standard of living, c. quality of life, d. education...
2. Can you all just stop knocking anything Airbus? I've carefully monitored these types of forums, and it's 'mainly' you Americans who start these AvB debates by coming out with childish remarks on Airbus. The 'Anti Boeing" only seems to appear in defence as a retaliation to your anti Airbus comments! CALM DOWN FRIENDS AND STOP THIS RIDICULOUS BICKERING.
Thanks, merci, dänke, gracias and so on...