Would you fly the new Airbus? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Prince · 01-20-2004, 06:17 AM

As I'm sure some or many of you have heard, they've built a new model for the Airbus series of commercial jets. I don't remember the model number but it was A80 or A380 or something like that. Anywho, as I recall, normally a commercial jet can take somewhere between 220 and 250+ passengers, but this thing can hold between 550 and 800 passengers. It can hold up to 800 if no casinos and restaurants are built in it, but apparently they do intend to have casinos and restaurants and stuff like that, so it can only hold around 600 passengers. One plane. And if you've seen the pictures, the thing is HUGE.

My question is, would you fly it? Eventually, if you fly a lot, you may end up having to, as I am sure they'll be selling seats for these Airbus routes (not all airports can even handle them at this point) more than willingly, as it brings down the cost of flying a passenger from A to B. They can fly more passengers at once... But there are downsides from where I'm standing. The time it takes to empty one of these new Airbus planes of passengers alone is 2 hours. That's a rather long wait... But what concerns me the most is, whereas now if a plane goes down, "only" about 200 people die, but if this new Airbus goes down, it'll take well over 500 with it...

Say what you say about the odds of dying in a plane crash, but I am not entirely sure if this new Airbus is necessarily an improvement, statistically.

What say you? Would you want to fly it?

floydthebarber · 01-20-2004, 06:31 AM

I wouldn't be the least bit concerned to fly in that thing. I'm only one person and if the aircraft crashed I'd be only one in a group of 200 or one in a group of 500, I'll still be dead.
I have a hard time buying the two hour load time.

SaltPork · 01-20-2004, 06:35 AM

Hey, as long as it doesn't catch on fire over a large body of water, I'd fly on it.

Prince · 01-20-2004, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by floydthebarber
I have a hard time buying the two hour load time.

Yeap. It sounds a bit much, but that's what they said on CNN. Then again, it's CNN, so... We won't know until those things hit the traffic.

floydthebarber · 01-20-2004, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
Yeap. It sounds a bit much, but that's what they said on CNN. Then again, it's CNN, so... We won't know until those things hit the traffic.

I guess if they had a casino on board, a two hour load time wouldn't be so bad

yakimushi · 01-20-2004, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
Would you fly the new Airbus?

Sure, anyone got one they wanna let me borrow?

Seriously though, I don't see any issue. Its just bigger...

Yeah, if one goes down it'll be more casualties, but then again, these things are top of the tech new, so at least issues of mechanical failure might be decreased.

tritium · 01-20-2004, 07:46 AM

Interior shot:

Big plane:

image too big for here: http://aviaforce.free.fr/avions/imag...380/a380_6.jpg

tritium · 01-20-2004, 07:48 AM

I'm not sold on the security. As aircraft become bigger, they also become larger targets for OBL. I want to know that this thing can dodge a stinger (much unlike the DHL aircraft in December) and actually land, if struck. Not trying to scare anyone.

Cynthetiq · 01-20-2004, 07:57 AM

commoditizing air travel is a big deal. Keeping people productive during long flights is also a big deal. Business people need to be productive from the time they hit the ground, and so sleeping and working on the plane is truly important to those types.

Ships have been sailing along those lines for many years, where it's boarding takes a long time to get all those people on and off. But they account for it by having long times that people can plane and deplane (i hate those made up words)

denim · 01-20-2004, 08:07 AM

I'm not real fond of Airbus, but I don't have to concern myself with this particular plane. It'll be used on routes similar to the 747 etc., and I've never flown those.

Boeing forever!!!

(edit) Nice 1st class cabin. Now show the image of what most people will be seeing in Coach.

Sparhawk · 01-20-2004, 08:48 AM

That's a great shot of it next to that Lufthansa 747. Wow!

arch13 · 01-20-2004, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yakimushi
... these things are top of the tech new, so at least issues of mechanical failure might be decreased.

And when has the newest thing ever been the most stable or safe? Think software. There's always a bug. Think hardware. There's always a patch.
A plane with that much tech dependence could be a very dangerous thing in a bad situation.

feelgood · 01-20-2004, 11:16 AM

tritium dude, is that picture for real man? I was gonna say fuck no b/c of the fact that it has 500-800 people and that's asking terrorist to hit me hit me! But damn, it got a bar...computer...*drools*

Sign me up! But what are the chances of finding a plane that size out in Calgary? We don't even get Jumbo Jet, the only thing that was jumbo was the Air Force 1 among other country aircraft for the G-8...

onodrim · 01-20-2004, 11:46 AM

I've never had any fear of flying, so I wouldn't mind flying in an Airbus. It looks and sounds like it would be quite a fun experience!

The_Dude · 01-20-2004, 11:54 AM

i'd gladly fly the plane! just buy me tickets and i'll be ther.e

dragon2fire · 01-20-2004, 12:02 PM

i dont fly on american arilines any more but if i did yea i would fly on one of those

for those of you wondering why

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=41237

Sapper · 01-20-2004, 12:03 PM

I see no problem ... yet!

punx1325 · 01-20-2004, 01:18 PM

I have flown in the Boeing 747 which hold ~400 passengers, and I was planning on flying Boeings new 7E7 which is about the same size as Airbus's new plane. I have also unwillingly flown on planes with duct tape holding the bulkheads. So I don't see any problem with flying it. These planes are tested in and out and are probably a lot safer than some of the aging crafts. As long as it's safe I will fly.

EDIT: My bigger concern would be a terrorist attack. Image one of those things crashing into a building....

smarm · 01-20-2004, 01:28 PM

No problems here. I guess I am a bit of a fatalist, but if my number is up, then I guess it is up.

I think they'll have to have multiple jetways to get the passengers on, which means airport refitting.

The gate areas would have to be much larger. Imagine hanging out with your 800 of your closest friends at gate 10 while you wait for the Tokyo flight to begin boarding!

It would suck if they cancelled a full flight, because re-routing would take so many other airplanes from other carriers.

My company puts me on the cheapest flights, no matter what, so if its that plane, I guess I'm on it.

-smarm

denim · 01-20-2004, 01:34 PM

My understanding is that when Boeing was defining the 777, they aired the idea of a double-decker like the new Airbus. The idea was shot down at the time for the reasons given here: airport refits required, runway reinforcement required, and LIABILITY issues.

I don't want one of these things to go down, but I would like to know how Airbus expects to survive such an event.

splck · 01-20-2004, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arch13

A plane with that much tech dependence could be a very dangerous thing in a bad situation.

Why would this aircraft be more tech dependant than any other jet aircraft? It's just larger, that's all.

feelgood · 01-20-2004, 02:45 PM

Just of our the curiousity...how come there's couple of A380 pictures that it looks like it's in service while Airbus is saying that it doesn't have the facilities to build any A380 or saying that it's going into service in 2006?

Sure looks like it's in service...

omega2K4 · 01-20-2004, 02:50 PM

That is one bigass plane.

splck · 01-20-2004, 02:52 PM

Quote:

The A380, which will seat 555 passengers in a typical three-class interior layout, will enter airline service in 2006.

Doesn’t look as if it's going to be in service for a while yet.

Link

mingusfingers · 01-20-2004, 03:23 PM

I mean, whoa. Now I just have to find a reason to fly-only done so once.

shakran · 01-20-2004, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by feelgood
Just of our the curiousity...how come there's couple of A380 pictures that it looks like it's in service while Airbus is saying that it doesn't have the facilities to build any A380 or saying that it's going into service in 2006?
Sure looks like it's in service...

Note the Airbus livery. If it were in service, it'd have the livery of whatever airline was flying it

statistically the plane should be safer than others assuming it's designed right. After all, every time it flies and doesn't crash, that's an extra 200-300 people that MIGHT have been on the 747 that did

denim · 01-20-2004, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by feelgood
how come there's couple of A380 pictures that it looks like it's in service while Airbus is saying that it doesn't have the facilities to build any A380 or saying that it's going into service in 2006?

Photoshop.

amonkie · 01-20-2004, 04:51 PM

There was a special about the plane on the Travel Channel a couple weeks ago, they had cameras all over the plane showing stuff. The coach section wasn't really any different from today's standards, just many more seats.

Nefir · 01-20-2004, 05:58 PM

Yes, I would certainly fly this plane if it is more beneficial (either financially or comfort-wise) than the smaller jets.

I am not concerned in the least about dying in a plane crash. If my time has come, I'll die either way, be it by planecrash or by cancer. Might as well enjoy the trip

That two hour wait does sound unpleasant though... I'm surprized they never use multiple exits. Then again, airlines do lots of silly things...

orphen · 01-20-2004, 06:52 PM

oh man! looks so confi. i don't think i can resist. that will probably drop the price for plane tickets (?) because of the capacity (?) i'm looking foward to it

Raptor20561 · 01-20-2004, 08:45 PM

heck i would fly in it, why nots!? it looks pretty sexy, inside and out.

im not really scared of death or dying really, if God wants me up their earlier then what i want, im sure there's a good reason for it =D

but anyways, im shure it would help with ticket prices... more efficient, u know. it also looks more confortable to sleep in over night. sleeping in a airplace over night to Sweden isnt all tat great! acually i hated it but ya. cant wait to sit in that baby ^^

forseti-6 · 01-20-2004, 08:51 PM

Wow thats a big plane! I look forward to flying on it. I've flown on 747s before, and those are fun. Still haven't gotten on a 777 yet.

I don't fear flying on planes at all. It's the safest way to travel. Statistically, you have a much higher chance of dying driving than flying. Of course all the factors aren't taken into account, but if I have to travel far distances, I'll fly!

PorscheBunny · 01-20-2004, 09:36 PM

I don't go anywhere in any vehicle that I don't control. Call me a 'control freak', but if I'm going to die in a vehicle it's going to be my fault, not someone elses.

That being said, I might reconsider if it had it's own defense system instead of relying on the airport's puny screenings.

denim · 01-20-2004, 09:48 PM

There are other people with you on the road. You don't control them. Some of them are idiots. How do you handle this?

billege · 01-21-2004, 01:45 AM

My safety on ANY plane ride has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people on the plane. To draw such a conclusion, even as a question, is down right silly.

Would you ask if I'd be more afraid of a car accident in a van verses an compact car, becuase of the greater number of people in the van? Of course not.

Neat plane.

hotzot · 01-21-2004, 05:09 AM

beats flying coach.

tritium · 01-21-2004, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by feelgood
Just of our the curiousity...how come there's couple of A380 pictures that it looks like it's in service while Airbus is saying that it doesn't have the facilities to build any A380 or saying that it's going into service in 2006?

Sure looks like it's in service...

feelgood, that is a photoshopped picture from Airbus that shows the approximate size of the plane. These sort of "in habitat" pictures go over better with executives than simple schematics. If you take a close look at the airport picture, you'll see that the shadows beneath the wings of the a380 are a hair too sharp when compared to the rest of the photograph.

Yalaynia · 01-21-2004, 12:10 PM

Im sure they have atleast a couple concept planes built already , they would have to. After watching the shows and TV documentries they take atleast a year to build and test. They need time to train pilots to handle the size as well as work out any problems with the plane itself. Not to mention that if they are going to be commissioned in 2006 they need to be building them now. Even though planes are built as they are ordered from companys.
As far as flying one I would just not looking forward to the price , I wouldnt be surprized that the cost is running for middle class about the same price as what a Concord flight used to cost.

Besides for those into sneaking around might be a lot easier to join the mile high club.

tinfoil · 01-21-2004, 12:11 PM

The poll is missing a 'For the love of god and/or all that is holy keep that thing away from me'

I don't like planes.

numist · 01-21-2004, 12:19 PM

I did a research project on this for a flight class I was taking.

The things are massive, the sheer physics involved are mind-numbing.

The planes, while set up like a luxury villa in the pictures, would be most profitable (and therefore most used by airlines) with a normal sardine setup with tons of seats. The plane would fit a small town inside.

The airplane would require whole new terminals to be built for it, as it has to have at least 2 doors open to haveefficient loading/offloading of passengers (one door for each level).

From an economic perspective, if there are passengers for it, it would be a boom for Airbus, Airports, and the Construction industry.

Morally/phychologically, I dont like it at all. Too big. Bigger is not better in all instances, and there doesnt seem to be a way that there are enough passengers to fill one of these on a flight these days. The TSA has strangled the industry, there arent enough passengers for the flights that exist now. I think it will flop, even if it does make it somewhere on the market, it will not even last as long as the Concorde, which was a good idea, just poorly implemented (the engines were military grade on the Concorde. With proper engines it would have actually succeeded)

View Poll Results: Would you fly the new Airbus?
Yeah, sure! Bring it on!	43	71.67%
Not really, no...	14	23.33%
Unable to form an opinion at this point.	3	5.00%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

01-20-2004, 06:17 AM	#1 (permalink)
Prince /nɑndəsˈkrɪpt/ Location: LV-426	Would you fly the new Airbus? As I'm sure some or many of you have heard, they've built a new model for the Airbus series of commercial jets. I don't remember the model number but it was A80 or A380 or something like that. Anywho, as I recall, normally a commercial jet can take somewhere between 220 and 250+ passengers, but this thing can hold between 550 and 800 passengers. It can hold up to 800 if no casinos and restaurants are built in it, but apparently they do intend to have casinos and restaurants and stuff like that, so it can only hold around 600 passengers. One plane. And if you've seen the pictures, the thing is HUGE. My question is, would you fly it? Eventually, if you fly a lot, you may end up having to, as I am sure they'll be selling seats for these Airbus routes (not all airports can even handle them at this point) more than willingly, as it brings down the cost of flying a passenger from A to B. They can fly more passengers at once... But there are downsides from where I'm standing. The time it takes to empty one of these new Airbus planes of passengers alone is 2 hours. That's a rather long wait... But what concerns me the most is, whereas now if a plane goes down, "only" about 200 people die, but if this new Airbus goes down, it'll take well over 500 with it... Say what you say about the odds of dying in a plane crash, but I am not entirely sure if this new Airbus is necessarily an improvement, statistically. What say you? Would you want to fly it? __________________ Who is John Galt? Last edited by Prince; 01-20-2004 at 06:20 AM..

01-20-2004, 06:31 AM	#2 (permalink)
floydthebarber Insane Location: ?	I wouldn't be the least bit concerned to fly in that thing. I'm only one person and if the aircraft crashed I'd be only one in a group of 200 or one in a group of 500, I'll still be dead. I have a hard time buying the two hour load time. __________________ wish you were here

01-20-2004, 06:35 AM	#3 (permalink)
SaltPork Everything's better with bacon Location: In your local grocer's freezer.	Hey, as long as it doesn't catch on fire over a large body of water, I'd fly on it. __________________ It was like that when I got here....I swear.

01-20-2004, 07:46 AM	#7 (permalink)
tritium Professor of Drinkology	Interior shot: Big plane: image too big for here: http://aviaforce.free.fr/avions/imag...380/a380_6.jpg __________________ Blah.

01-20-2004, 07:48 AM	#8 (permalink)
tritium Professor of Drinkology	I'm not sold on the security. As aircraft become bigger, they also become larger targets for OBL. I want to know that this thing can dodge a stinger (much unlike the DHL aircraft in December) and actually land, if struck. Not trying to scare anyone. __________________ Blah.

01-20-2004, 07:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	commoditizing air travel is a big deal. Keeping people productive during long flights is also a big deal. Business people need to be productive from the time they hit the ground, and so sleeping and working on the plane is truly important to those types. Ships have been sailing along those lines for many years, where it's boarding takes a long time to get all those people on and off. But they account for it by having long times that people can plane and deplane (i hate those made up words) __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

01-20-2004, 08:07 AM	#10 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	I'm not real fond of Airbus, but I don't have to concern myself with this particular plane. It'll be used on routes similar to the 747 etc., and I've never flown those. Boeing forever!!! (edit) Nice 1st class cabin. Now show the image of what most people will be seeing in Coach. Last edited by denim; 01-20-2004 at 08:10 AM..

01-20-2004, 08:48 AM	#11 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	That's a great shot of it next to that Lufthansa 747. Wow! __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

01-20-2004, 11:16 AM	#13 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	tritium dude, is that picture for real man? I was gonna say fuck no b/c of the fact that it has 500-800 people and that's asking terrorist to hit me hit me! But damn, it got a bar...computer...drools Sign me up! But what are the chances of finding a plane that size out in Calgary? We don't even get Jumbo Jet, the only thing that was jumbo was the Air Force 1 among other country aircraft for the G-8... __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

01-20-2004, 11:46 AM	#14 (permalink)
onodrim Cosmically Curious Location: Chicago, IL	I've never had any fear of flying, so I wouldn't mind flying in an Airbus. It looks and sounds like it would be quite a fun experience! __________________ "The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides" -Carl Sagan

01-20-2004, 11:54 AM	#15 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i'd gladly fly the plane! just buy me tickets and i'll be ther.e __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

01-20-2004, 12:02 PM	#16 (permalink)
dragon2fire Junkie	i dont fly on american arilines any more but if i did yea i would fly on one of those for those of you wondering why http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=41237

01-20-2004, 12:03 PM	#17 (permalink)
Sapper Insane Location: The Internet	I see no problem ... yet! __________________ rm -f /bin/laden

01-20-2004, 01:18 PM	#18 (permalink)
punx1325 Junkie Location: San Diego	I have flown in the Boeing 747 which hold ~400 passengers, and I was planning on flying Boeings new 7E7 which is about the same size as Airbus's new plane. I have also unwillingly flown on planes with duct tape holding the bulkheads. So I don't see any problem with flying it. These planes are tested in and out and are probably a lot safer than some of the aging crafts. As long as it's safe I will fly. EDIT: My bigger concern would be a terrorist attack. Image one of those things crashing into a building.... __________________ If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is....

01-20-2004, 02:50 PM	#23 (permalink)
omega2K4 Natalie Portman is sexy. Location: The Outer Rim	That is one bigass plane. __________________ "While the State exists there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin "Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form."- Karl Marx

01-20-2004, 01:28 PM	#19 (permalink)
smarm Insane	No problems here. I guess I am a bit of a fatalist, but if my number is up, then I guess it is up. I think they'll have to have multiple jetways to get the passengers on, which means airport refitting. The gate areas would have to be much larger. Imagine hanging out with your 800 of your closest friends at gate 10 while you wait for the Tokyo flight to begin boarding! It would suck if they cancelled a full flight, because re-routing would take so many other airplanes from other carriers. My company puts me on the cheapest flights, no matter what, so if its that plane, I guess I'm on it. -smarm

01-20-2004, 01:34 PM	#20 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	My understanding is that when Boeing was defining the 777, they aired the idea of a double-decker like the new Airbus. The idea was shot down at the time for the reasons given here: airport refits required, runway reinforcement required, and LIABILITY issues. I don't want one of these things to go down, but I would like to know how Airbus expects to survive such an event.

01-20-2004, 02:45 PM	#22 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	Just of our the curiousity...how come there's couple of A380 pictures that it looks like it's in service while Airbus is saying that it doesn't have the facilities to build any A380 or saying that it's going into service in 2006? Sure looks like it's in service... __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

01-20-2004, 03:23 PM	#25 (permalink)
mingusfingers Psycho Location: uhhhh	I mean, whoa. Now I just have to find a reason to fly-only done so once. __________________ Still Looking

01-20-2004, 04:51 PM	#28 (permalink)
amonkie Drifting Administrator Location: Windy City	There was a special about the plane on the Travel Channel a couple weeks ago, they had cameras all over the plane showing stuff. The coach section wasn't really any different from today's standards, just many more seats. __________________ Calling from deep in the heart, from where the eyes can't see and the ears can't hear, from where the mountain trails end and only love can go... ~~~ Three Rivers Hare Krishna

01-20-2004, 05:58 PM	#29 (permalink)
Nefir Junkie Location: Louisville, KY	Yes, I would certainly fly this plane if it is more beneficial (either financially or comfort-wise) than the smaller jets. I am not concerned in the least about dying in a plane crash. If my time has come, I'll die either way, be it by planecrash or by cancer. Might as well enjoy the trip That two hour wait does sound unpleasant though... I'm surprized they never use multiple exits. Then again, airlines do lots of silly things... __________________ You do not use a Macintosh, instead you use a Tandy Kompressor break your glowstick, Kompressor eat your candy Kompressor open jaws, Kompressor release ants Kompressor watch you scream, Because Kompressor does not dance

01-20-2004, 06:52 PM	#30 (permalink)
orphen Insane	oh man! looks so confi. i don't think i can resist. that will probably drop the price for plane tickets (?) because of the capacity (?) i'm looking foward to it

01-20-2004, 08:45 PM	#31 (permalink)
Raptor20561 Tilted Location: so cal	heck i would fly in it, why nots!? it looks pretty sexy, inside and out. im not really scared of death or dying really, if God wants me up their earlier then what i want, im sure there's a good reason for it =D but anyways, im shure it would help with ticket prices... more efficient, u know. it also looks more confortable to sleep in over night. sleeping in a airplace over night to Sweden isnt all tat great! acually i hated it but ya. cant wait to sit in that baby ^^ __________________ Things have never been so swell I have never failed to fail

01-20-2004, 08:51 PM	#32 (permalink)
forseti-6 Existentialist Location: New York City	Wow thats a big plane! I look forward to flying on it. I've flown on 747s before, and those are fun. Still haven't gotten on a 777 yet. I don't fear flying on planes at all. It's the safest way to travel. Statistically, you have a much higher chance of dying driving than flying. Of course all the factors aren't taken into account, but if I have to travel far distances, I'll fly! __________________ "Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." - Dr. Seuss

01-20-2004, 09:36 PM	#33 (permalink)
PorscheBunny Insane	I don't go anywhere in any vehicle that I don't control. Call me a 'control freak', but if I'm going to die in a vehicle it's going to be my fault, not someone elses. That being said, I might reconsider if it had it's own defense system instead of relying on the airport's puny screenings. __________________ This post has been sanitized for your protection by the Ministry of Information of Oceania.

01-20-2004, 09:48 PM	#34 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	There are other people with you on the road. You don't control them. Some of them are idiots. How do you handle this?

01-21-2004, 01:45 AM	#35 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	My safety on ANY plane ride has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people on the plane. To draw such a conclusion, even as a question, is down right silly. Would you ask if I'd be more afraid of a car accident in a van verses an compact car, becuase of the greater number of people in the van? Of course not. Neat plane. __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

01-21-2004, 05:09 AM	#36 (permalink)
hotzot We're having potato pancakes! Location: stalag 13	beats flying coach. __________________ The Bully Boys are here!

01-21-2004, 12:10 PM	#38 (permalink)
Yalaynia Insane Location: here but I wish I lived there	Im sure they have atleast a couple concept planes built already , they would have to. After watching the shows and TV documentries they take atleast a year to build and test. They need time to train pilots to handle the size as well as work out any problems with the plane itself. Not to mention that if they are going to be commissioned in 2006 they need to be building them now. Even though planes are built as they are ordered from companys. As far as flying one I would just not looking forward to the price , I wouldnt be surprized that the cost is running for middle class about the same price as what a Concord flight used to cost. Besides for those into sneaking around might be a lot easier to join the mile high club. __________________ I couldnt think of anything to put here , but I guess anything would do Last edited by Yalaynia; 01-21-2004 at 12:16 PM..

01-21-2004, 12:11 PM	#39 (permalink)
tinfoil Fucking Hostile Location: Springford, ON, Canada	The poll is missing a 'For the love of god and/or all that is holy keep that thing away from me' I don't like planes. __________________ Get off your fuckin cross. We need the fuckin space to nail the next fool martyr.

01-21-2004, 12:19 PM	#40 (permalink)
numist Banned Location: UCSD, 510.49 miles from my love	I did a research project on this for a flight class I was taking. The things are massive, the sheer physics involved are mind-numbing. The planes, while set up like a luxury villa in the pictures, would be most profitable (and therefore most used by airlines) with a normal sardine setup with tons of seats. The plane would fit a small town inside. The airplane would require whole new terminals to be built for it, as it has to have at least 2 doors open to haveefficient loading/offloading of passengers (one door for each level). From an economic perspective, if there are passengers for it, it would be a boom for Airbus, Airports, and the Construction industry. Morally/phychologically, I dont like it at all. Too big. Bigger is not better in all instances, and there doesnt seem to be a way that there are enough passengers to fill one of these on a flight these days. The TSA has strangled the industry, there arent enough passengers for the flights that exist now. I think it will flop, even if it does make it somewhere on the market, it will not even last as long as the Concorde, which was a good idea, just poorly implemented (the engines were military grade on the Concorde. With proper engines it would have actually succeeded)