What was it like to fly on the A380?

news.bbc.co.uk ^ | 10/25/2007 | Laurence Watts

[Lou L]

Great summary of the program.

[jveritas]

There is really no breaking technology in the A380. Do the French have good engineers? sure they do but what are the breakthroughs in technology that the French have done in the last 60 years? I do not think that they have done any. Many nations have “good engineers” although only very few nation are doing breakthroughs in engieering and technology, the US is by far the leader on this issue.

[mollynme]

I checked the Economy seating out on SeatGuru.com and I’m not terribly impressed. The seats are wider (19”) but it has about the same cramped leg room as the 737/747s.

[RayChuang88]

I think in the end, the A380 will be a success because now that Airbus has overcome its biggest problem—the wiring system—deliveries will start picking up over the next two years. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised that Airbus delivers 6-8 A380’s to Singapore Airlines by summer 2008 and are able to move forward delivery dates for Qantas and Emirates Airways during 2008.

[GregH]

I think A380 will be a success in the long term, the exponential growth of Air travel and along with a increasingly sophisticated passenger requirement will drive the demand.

[jpsb]

congratulations to Airbus. Let’s hope the 787 flys next quarter.

[WesternCulture]

“the nightmare that awaits at the airports.”

- One of several good arguments for high speed trains.

I often enjoy flying, but I wish to see more of trains like the Maglev, the TGV and Thalys.

The infrastructure of Western Europe is, from an international perspective, on a very high level, but there is A LOT to do. I guess the situation is more or less the same in the US. I’ve heard a lot of complaints from US Americans, even though the US, obviously, has one of the best infrastructures of all nations.

In terms of infrastructure, the European Union is very disunited. Two examples of this is that the Alps still is very effective in isolating Italy from the rest of Europe (the solution would be more freeways and improved rail traffic) and another one the lack of decent connections between the Scandinavin peninsula and the European continent.

I live in Gothenburg, second largest city in Sweden. If I wish to go to Stockholm a high speed train (called the X200)can take me there in 3 hours and 15 minutes, but going to Hamburg in Germany, which is more or less at the same distance from Gothenburg as Stockholm is, it would take me around 12 hours if I go by train. Something is basically wrong.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

My favorite...

[pepperdog]

I think you are mistaken or misinformed about the government work done by Boeing. It is true Boeing has government contracts, competitively won by the way, but these are for engineering work and products to be delivered to the military, not subsidizing the development of a commercial aircraft as is the case with the French consortium.

[Squawk 8888]

I vaguely recall reading that they use three or four of the doors to load and unload the pax.

[Squawk 8888]

The A320 was a “breakthrough” as the first large-scale commercial application of fly-by-wire technology. FBW is the only way to fly in the most fuel-efficient configuration due to neutral stability.

[Squawk 8888]

With the exception of a few dense corridors with short densities (New York to Washington, Toronto to Montréal, Southern California), high-speed rail is not commercially viable due to the cost of building out the infrastructure over the distances involved. Fencing off the track and getting rid of the level crossings are the killers.

[ari-freedom]

There’s no such thing as a truly competitive contract from the govt, especially when it comes to the military. I can’t imagine the govt considering buying German planes and Chinese missiles.

Remember that money is fungible so Boeing’s non-military projects are definitely helped by its government contracts, even if it is indirect.

[jveritas]

Nope it is not a breakthrough because the “fly by wire” existed before the A320.

[null and void]

Although I know very little about aviation, I feel confident that the A380 will be considered a success in the end and although I’ aware there are some people here who don’t care much for the French, I think it’s safe to say that France evidently has a lot of competent engineers.

Sadly, I feel that islam will rise to the challenge of taking out the world's lagrest flying target.

[Squawk 8888]

Yes, but not commercially.

[Comstock1]

I completely agree with you that the current status of air travel is a great argument for more high speed trains. Unfortunately, the scale required for effective interstate travel is tremendously expensive. It would require some of those government/business partnerships that we just don’t do well in the US—reference “The Big Dig” in Boston.

Also, please don’t use the term “US Americans.” It is a politically motivated term that was calculated to antagonize Americans. At least in my case it works.

[null and void]

The correct term is Norte Americanos?

[pepperdog]

I guess if you define competition as global in nature you are right. Hopefully our military will never become so rules bound that they’ll have to compete our weapon systems outside of the US, altho I know from personal experience it has been considered...and since I’m not current on what goes on it may be being done today....scary isn’t it?

[WesternCulture]

“There is really no breaking technology in the A380. Do the French have good engineers? sure they do but what are the breakthroughs in technology that the French have done in the last 60 years? I do not think that they have done any. Many nations have “good engineers” although only very few nation are doing breakthroughs in engieering and technology, the US is by far the leader on this issue.”

- The French have made a lot of technological and scientific breakthroughs during the last 60 years. It’s difficult to say what the most significent breakthroughs are, but just look at the products of leading French companies like Alstom, Renault or Sanofi-Aventis.

I think many advanced products of today, like cars, trains and aeroplanes all contain examples of a lot of minor breakthroughs. A lot of what is going on in the world of technology of today is a matter of constant improvement. Even if single revolutionizing inventions sometimes speed up progress in major fields of technology, the competence of today’s engineers is probably best illustrated by comparing modern products and technological systems to solutions of the past.

The US has a lot of competent engineers, reserchers and scientists, but in relation to population the US doesn’t look as impressive as many smaller nations. A comparision between the US and for instance Sweden, my country, in this area would end up about as disastrous from an American point of view as most ice hockey games between our two nations do.

Luckily enough for both nations, Sweden and USA have a lot of fruitful cooperation in many areas of engineering.

Five nice examples of Swedish-American cooperation:

Stealth Submarine technology:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s

http://www.kockums.se/News/oldnews/041105lease.html

The alliance between Ericsson and Microsoft (remember that Ericsson develops much of the ‘infrastructure’ of mobile communications, the phones themselves are not their core business):

http://www.ericsson.com/solutions/operators/news/2007/q4/20071017_microsoft.shtml

GM-SAAB (GM bought the car division of SAAB):

http://www.saab.com/

Ford-Volvo (Ford took over the car division of Volvo):

http://www.volvocars.com/

The Bofors-Raytheon superweapon of the XM982 Excalibur (a ‘smart’ missile)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM982_Excalibur