Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Contra Costa Times)   AirBus set to unveil big-ass airplane that can seat up to 800. That's twice the number of screaming toddlers onboard a 747   ( divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

16868 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2005 at 3:34 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

322 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

2005-01-17 04:13:56 PM  
Awesome. Now people can die 800 at a time.
How effecient.
2005-01-17 04:13:58 PM  
Couldn't they just have all the people get out the lower deck?
2005-01-17 04:14:46 PM  
2005-01-17 04:10:07 PM gromitcu

Like I, and others, have said, the 7E7 will reduce congestion by elimnating the "hub" concept and taking passengers directly where they want to go, cutting out the busy airports.

Amen to that concept. Although Baltimore is a hub, I can get a direct non-stop flight on Southwest from Baltimore to West Palm Beach several times a day. No stops, no plane changes. I choose my flights based on the convenience of getting on a plane in one city and getting off that plane at my final destination. (Of course, this strategy works best for the relatively short hops, like you find up and down the east coast.)
2005-01-17 04:14:46 PM  
What's next, cruise ships that only have seats?
2005-01-17 04:15:52 PM  
This article mentions the compound curve problem and the first test piece they've made. They're working on fuselage sections at the moment because the wing root is a more complicated proposal. I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying it doesn't exist right now, and still needs to be proven.
2005-01-17 04:16:29 PM  
Take over a plane again and crash it into a building? Unlikely, if not impossible. That's the kind of trick that only works once, because prior to that, the policy was to let the terrorists fly the plane to an airfield and wait for negotiations. Not gonna work now.

Shoot the plane down with a missile from the end of the runway? Now, you're talking.
Again, only works once or twice. Then, you expand the security zone around airports... which isn't easy, if possible, for airports in urban areas.

Do your math and windage calculations, and hit the runway with a whole bunch of cheap-ass mortars from a mile away while the plane is landing? Sounds good...

Send a terr'ist with small pox on an 800-person flight? Okay...

Have a terr'ist swallow a whole bunch of C4 wrapped in condoms (hey, if Columbians can do it with a kilo of coke, you can do it with C4), poo it out (technical term) in the airplane rest room, and asplode it? Sure!

Remember... As long as someone is willing to die to take you out, you can't stop them, unless you kill them prior to them initiating any action. "Stop, terrorist, or I'll shoot you!" "Um, no." [BOOM]
2005-01-17 04:16:47 PM  

Yes they will, because they won't BE at the major airports. Instead of being at LAX, they'll be at Orange County airport. Instead of being at Boston, they'll be at Hanover. Etc. Like I, and others, have said, the 7E7 will reduce congestion by elimnating the "hub" concept and taking passengers directly where they want to go, cutting out the busy airports.

I don't know. Most people still want to fly to the major airports - NY, Chicago, London, Narita, etc... Unless business centers disperse as well, I don't think airlines will be changing their hub/spoke strategy all that much.

Besides, Airbus already has 139 orders for the A380 -- that's pretty good for an airplane that hasn't even flown yet and costs hundreds of millions. By way of comparison, Boeing only had 10 orders for 747s in 2004
2005-01-17 04:17:02 PM  
Don't expect to see a lot of these in the fleets of most US carriers. As I recall, none of the US carriers have ordered one a single A380, whereas Continental has placed orders for multiple 7E7s. Even then, most US carriers who do overseas flights are in such a money crunch that they wouldn't bother getting a single one of these.
2005-01-17 04:17:12 PM  
If you have flown lately, you'll have noticed that there are traffic jams on the runways during peak hours as busy airports.

At busy airports, that's true, but not at many of the smaller, regional airports. Many of them have much less traffic and can't handle a jumbo jet. This is the direction that Boeing thinks air travel is headed. That's why they're betting on their future on smaller planes, not bigger.
2005-01-17 04:17:43 PM  
I hope im not alone in this.This is why I love TF, that and berating Farkliters
2005-01-17 04:18:02 PM  
For you, the masses of Fark, a better headline. I did not submit it, but it had me cracking up:

Airbus creates world's largest passenger jet. Now 840 people can take forever in front of you to get their way-too-big carry-on bag into the overhead compartment
2005-01-17 04:18:33 PM  
Here's a shot of the new A380 during a mock emergency water landing:

[image from too old to be available]

2005-01-17 04:18:38 PM  
2005-01-17 04:19:03 PM  
That is one big ass plane. My dad used to work for Braniff Airlines and he told me that he got to fly on "Fat Albert" It was, I think, the first huge 747 Jumbo Jet. He worked at another airline as well. Now he is retired and gets to fly for free.
2005-01-17 04:19:44 PM  
Can current airports meet the demand of these giant airplanes? Let's say a bunch of A380s come in for a landing: would there be enough fuel so a strain isn't put on the airport's reserves? And would the luggage systems have the capacity to convey over 800 pcs of luggage to the customers? These airports weren't really designed to accomodate such surges that might occur whenever one of these behemoths lands.
I can see it now:
A380: "This is flt 1158 from Gatwick, do we have clearance to land?"
Hopkins Int'l: "uh. No."
2005-01-17 04:21:19 PM  

you owe me a new monitor.

too funny.
2005-01-17 04:21:41 PM  
Nice shots of the interior. They depict how an A380 could look, but I think it's pretty unlikely that any commercial carrier will outfit one likewise. A Carrier would need to fill LOTS of seats in order to realize the ROI on this monster. I suppose the Ultra-Rich may get accomodations like the ones in the pictures (and pay for it you bet), but other than that it will Air-Bus.
2005-01-17 04:22:43 PM  
OK, who read the article?

It has a capacity of 555... not 800.
2005-01-17 04:23:01 PM  
Damn, that's one huge freakin' plane.
You guys suck at secret discussions. /not submitter
I still can't imagine a farker like that making it across the Atlantic without having to refuel.
2005-01-17 04:24:27 PM  
So far, airlines have ordered 139 A380s vs 56 7e7s.
2005-01-17 04:24:43 PM  
Wow, if one of these got hijacked by kamikaze terrorists you might be able to take out a whole city.
2005-01-17 04:25:06 PM  
Loading time!
You have to be at the airport 3 hours early now.. your first flight on one of these bloated monsters you might as well just show up the night before
2005-01-17 04:26:19 PM  
theigorway.....and Continental might be about to cancel their 7E7 order...
2005-01-17 04:26:22 PM  

It shouldn't matter if I currently work in the industry or not. I have exposure, some professional, and some not, to the industry.
2005-01-17 04:27:10 PM  
macman37: OK, who read the article?

It has a capacity of 555... not 800.

No, Airbus says that's the capacity. But that includes having things like bars and lounges and casinos and stuff. I, frankly, don't see an American airline keeping that instead of ripping it out and packing in some more seats.
2005-01-17 04:27:25 PM  
Airline seats suck.
2005-01-17 04:27:36 PM  
Sky Utility Vehicle?
Better ground clearance than a Hummer.
So, why exactly are we doing this? I'm I going to get banned for this? What is going on? This is a shiatty secret discussion.
/got nuthin
2005-01-17 04:27:43 PM  
Airbus craft unnerve me. Too much computer control. I recall several years back they had a nasty tendancy to flip upside down on approach if certain circumstances came to be. A bunch of people died before they fixed that bug in the computer controls.

And I don't like that the computer will actually prevent a very experienced pilot from doing something that might be needed. This line stuck out from reading about the Gimli Glider a couple of years ago:
"But Pearson is relieved that he wasnt flying an Airbus. You can't sideslip an Airbus aircraft, the computers won't let you,"

Granted, the likelyhood of it happening is very very slim, but it happened to AC flight 143, and the captain needed to sideslip his craft in order to land without killing people, and if that was an Airbus, that wouldn't have happened.
2005-01-17 04:28:04 PM  
Boeing need somthing like this to help them financialy.Well, guess you arent such a HumbleGod

They also need shorter skirts for the stewardess waiting on me.
2005-01-17 04:28:40 PM  
I am familiar with the A350. It's not as radical of a design as the 7E7. It uses a lot of GLARE (aluminum/carbon-fiber combined) instead of aluminum, and uses some carbon-fiber in other places, but still retains substantial aluminum content. It's also bleed-air, as opposed to the 7E7, which is bleedless.

Anyhow, if you want to say that the A380 has 139 orders, then you have to say that the 7E7 has 122, and it's been on sale about half the time.
2005-01-17 04:29:52 PM  
barc0001: Airbus craft unnerve me. Too much computer control.

All new aircraft are "fly by wire." The 777 and the next 7e7 are as computer-laden as any Airbus.
2005-01-17 04:29:57 PM  
I sure would like to ride on somthing bigger than the tin can that brought me to Florida
Should we tell them about the parties on Fark? What about "Code Rascal"?
It was kind of scarry seeing the wings peel back.
2005-01-17 04:31:41 PM  
Isn't Airbus a French company? They're not going to fly that thing out of Paris, are they?

God, wouldn't 400 Frenchies on a plane automatically short out the pressurisation system? Taint the food supply?

I mean, just the odor alone would knock out the navigationals, right? The oxygen masks would drop down on every damned flight!


Won't someone think of the Olfactory???????
2005-01-17 04:32:15 PM  
Bennyhana: Sky Utility Vehicle?
shiat, shiat shiat, I was trying to say "Total Fark". Im such a horses ass sometimes. You think anyone is catching on?
Heh, good one.
2005-01-17 04:32:16 PM  
I still like the Antonov 225 better.

[image from too old to be available]

Go Ukraine!
2005-01-17 04:32:27 PM  
Interesting article
great idea. Baaaaaad implemenation.
btw I made out with HumbleGod's sister. Crap, was that supposed to be in the code part?
2005-01-17 04:32:39 PM  

What barc0001 may be referring to is that Airbus likes to design their fly-by-wire systems to limit pilot input to what it considers "safe." Boeing prefers to ultimately allow a pilot to override what is considered safe, as that may allow the aircraft to be saved in an unforseen situation. We don't really know which approach is better yet because Boeing's fly-by-wire implementation is newer and has not seen an incident where the capability has been called for. Airbus had several incidents (including the first crash, due to their FBW system), but the A320 (the first Airbus with it) has been out longer than the 777.
2005-01-17 04:33:05 PM  
Gee, maybe AirBus will fix that whole "the tail section will come off if you correct yaw or pitch on take-off" problem.

Or, maybe, they'll make the seats wider and give their fliers more legroom to combat "business class disease" (deep leg bloodclots) from the cramped seats they have now.

AirBus sucks.
2005-01-17 04:33:11 PM  
So are they going to draw a big bulls eye on the side of it for terrorists?
Codeword: CluelessLiters... pass it on. I don't have a clue why I'm participating in this either.
2005-01-17 04:33:24 PM  
I've got to say I'm convinced by the idea of electric forced-air pressurisation. I know it's supposed to make everything quieter, but it does fall heavily in the category of "more stuff to go wrong".
They're also going to use electric de-ice on the leading edges I seem to remember?
2005-01-17 04:33:39 PM  
I think, given enough time, Boeing will produce the 7E7. It took almost 20 years for Airbus to get the A380 into it's present form. It took tons of planning before they could even manufacture parts. The wing is a revolutionary new design as well as the fuselage. It'll take time, but I think the 7E7 will launch and Boeing will score pretty high off it.
2005-01-17 04:34:06 PM  

Airbus is technically European, but the shareholding (and management) is mostly Franco-German, about evenly split.

As far as your other point is concerned, Air France has ordered some, but their preferred aircraft right now is the Boeing 777. They've taken heat for ordering the 777 over the A330/A340, too. But it just makes too much money for them to give it up.
2005-01-17 04:34:13 PM  
Terminal Frost: Crap, was that supposed to be in the code part?
You aint the only one! His mother was better however.
WTF is the "Code Part"
2005-01-17 04:35:23 PM  
There'd better be twice the number of doors to throw screaming toddlers out!
2005-01-17 04:36:09 PM  

Or, maybe, they'll make the seats wider and give their fliers more legroom to combat "business class disease" (deep leg bloodclots) from the cramped seats they have now.
I wonder if anyone has caught on. I hope people dont select the "No HTML" thingy
I have heard about that happening to a very young athletic girl. It doesnt just happen to fatties.
2005-01-17 04:36:17 PM  
VonDada .... and you've flown on Delta's Boeings recently have you? Or Continentals? Or Southwest. Legroom is entirely up to the airline. American have got it right. The rest should learn a thing or two.
The tail section thing was due to the plane getting into pilot-induced oscillation because he didn't leave enough time between him and the heavier aircraft in front. If you had access to the FDR and CVR along with the aircraft physics, you'd be able to see the pilot continually giving larger and larger input trying to get out of the wake vortex he was flying in. In the end, the lateral loading was too much. Any aircraft would have failed under the same condition.
2005-01-17 04:36:45 PM  
Hang On Voltaire is right...they ALWAYS demo these things with bars and what not in them...PR pamphlets with people lounging around like they're at some classy swank club...but it's all for show. The upper deck of the 747 was promotedd in the exact same way. The airlines will use all that space for SEATING.
2005-01-17 04:37:03 PM  

Given enough time? First 7E7 flight is next year. They rolled out the first barrel section this week.
2005-01-17 04:37:03 PM  
What a waste of good aluminum. Let's hope the press flight goes better than the A-319 flight did in France. The pilot wanted to go around but the onboard computer wanted to land. There was no way to override the computer, result, the A-319 landed in a forest at the end of the runway.

Anyone can cram people into an airplane, the idea is to do it comfortably. Quantas has had about 1200 in a 747, about 600 in a 707, World Airways has had 400+ in a 727. There's no weight / lift problem, it's just a matter of getting people into seats.

I believe the US Air Force was the first with a double decker transport. They added an upper deck onto a B-36 to transport 800 troops, used the airplane for several years and parked it. It's now on display at Carswell AFB in Dallas.
2005-01-17 04:37:24 PM  
OK, who read the article?
It has a capacity of 555... not 800.

And it's unlikely to hit 800 soon for a number of reasons, the main one being the number of emergency exits. To get 800 people to exit a plane requires a lot of exits and the A380 doesn't yet have enough.

Secondly, airlines can use the extra space ( bar, lounge etc ) as a selling point over conventional planes on long haul flights that don't have such features. Passangers may choose the 380 in preference to other airlines with 747s because of tability to get out of their cattle class seats and lounge around for a while.
Displayed 50 of 322 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.