|
Have read a report that Airbus are saying sometime next week.
|
FF A380
Seloco,
you should absolutely not believe anything your TLS source says. Such a statement can only come from a severe lack of information. NO FF THIS WEEK. nuff said. |
Perhaps Airbus were slow to react - but what would you have them do - respond to something they hadn't read? Even the Seattle press manage a more balanced perspective Sorry Kuningen but I still think you're missing the point. You can't write a balanced perspective about a biased analysis. The Times wasn't trying to write a balanced article about the aircraft - in which case your complaint would be justified - it was writing a balanced article about the American report into the aircraft. There's a subtle difference. It's not the Times' job to refute the report. It's Airbus' because they built the bloody thing. The paper simply has a duty to state clearly what the source of the information is - which it did - and let its readers decide whether they want to believe the stuff which the US has churned out or not. I think any suggestion that the readers are too dumb to work out that there might be a hint of sour grapes or biased assessment in an American report into the A380 is highly insulting. If Alex Ferguson says that Arsenal is a crap team, do you really need it explaining to you that he might not be entirely independent? Do you really need an equal number of sentences from Arsene Thingy to make sure your poor readers aren't misled? Tripe. As for Airbus needing time to read the report before commenting, that's just rubbish. Airbus is quite capable of reeling out a shedload of rent-a-quote, feel-good comments about the A380 at the drop of a hat. If they chose not to take a spoon-fed opportunity to redress the balance a bit, having been handed it by a Times reporter, more fool them. |
Surely the people who Airbus really want to know about the aircraft already do know whether it is a good product or not - they've been briefing airlines, investors, banks et al for years about it. Why should they really care what the great unwashed think (alright, Times readers might wash sometimes)?
|
|
How a Boeing report on Airbus can be considered a "bombshell" is a bit over the top.
Definitely an oxymoron, just like "US Intelligence" in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Time has come to review the credibility of the so called expert opinions coming out of the US I think, and not only with regards to Airbus, the market leader in civil aviation! Besides, who cares what Boeing thinks about Airbus, or Airbus about Boeing, or who is market leader? The important thing is that we all have one or the other to fly and get to make MONEY. |
From the report:
Long-haul travelers also prefer nonstops to connecting flights. While the A380 is wellsuited to handle significant volumes of passengers in “hub-to-hub” service, this type of operation forces travelers to endure additional connections that may not be necessary. For example, to travel between Indianapolis and Bremen, Germany, today typically requires two connections, with routings such as IND-IAD-FRA-BRE, or IND-DTWAMS- BRE. The use of smaller aircraft such as the 7E7 or the A330-200 (or the 767, for that matter) to add an Indianapolis “spoke” from Lufthansa’s Frankfurt hub, would reduce the IND-BRE trip to a single connection and clearly would be a more desirable alternative for high-yield business travelers than a double connection. I mean, really! |
If you read through the report [ok it's 99 pages so maybe not], you will see there are quite a few crude estimations in place. Simply look at how they forecast how many A380 freighter versions will be sold over a 20-year period....by looking at the deliveries of 747s made, looking at how many of these were freighters (9.9%) and then applying this to the A380 ... yeah ok!
Interestingly, with the 747Adv in the near-term pipeline, this report also points that [if you read between what they are saying about the A380], the 747Adv will only sell around 300 aircraft....that's 12 aircraft produced PER year or one / month. Not too much really! Cheers CP |
That analysis looks rather shadowy to me.
|
Wino- anything from your sources?
|
weather in Toulouse is not looking to bad, no clouds, no fog at the time of posting. I went by Toulouse airport yesterday morning at about 10:00 to collect somebody arriving on EI's service from Dublin. Extremely black clouds just north of the apron. As I watched EI land at about 09:50, a mix of hail and heavy rain was falling with quite a strong northerly wind. The weather is f:mad: awful here recently. Springs seems to have got lost somewhere... Sorry, just realised your weather map automatically updates (as you said yourself in your post!). Excellent... :ok: This morning in Toulouse 22/04/05: Nearly overcast, fairly high cloud cover, no winds, temperature around 10°C at 09:00 (local time). Rain expected later. |
Not sure how relevant the date is but next Thursday evening there is a staff do at Filton to celebrate the first flight.
|
A380 First Flight
Not sure how "new" this news is or if it's been covered elsewhere, but it's the latest I've seen.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_2860013.htm |
I was sent a photo of it this morning with its nose way-y off the ground, but with the mainwheels still on the runway
|
Passed overhead here -Cazaubon, about 20 mins ago. Looked graceful!
|
Find it very hard to believe the 380 has already lifted off... Any proof of this statement? Thanks.
|
A380
Great News.
Any chance of posting the photo you've got Desk Jockey? CM |
I expect the nose up pic was the well known fake that's been around for a couple of days now...
|
Are you sure it was the A380, the Belugas have been flying today on a couple of missions. No record of the A380 getting airborne! not today.
|
Has the new 'beast' of a plane had its 90sec evac yet?!
And did it pass?! you know that hugeeeeeeee massive new airbusy thing!
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:21. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.