1 posted on
12/28/2014 9:50:25 AM PST by
Olog-hai
To: Olog-hai
I guess Boeing may have been right not to build a plane bigger then the 747.
2 posted on
12/28/2014 9:54:35 AM PST by
puppypusher
( The World is going to the dogs.)
To: Olog-hai
Super giant planes are, in my opinion, a terrible idea for passengers. Loading and unloading will take an hour, you will be crammed into the middle of five person rows, service will be awful, and they would reduce the number of flights, resulting in less comfort and fewer options.
I'm glad it's failing.
4 posted on
12/28/2014 10:00:39 AM PST by
pepsi_junkie
(Who is John Galt?)
To: Olog-hai
This plane was betting on the hub concept. Boeing’s 787 is betting on direct flight - which is why it has such a long range.
5 posted on
12/28/2014 10:04:26 AM PST by
microgood
To: Olog-hai
This was predicted to happen all the way back when Airbus originally announced this plane.
6 posted on
12/28/2014 10:05:10 AM PST by
catnipman
(Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
To: Olog-hai
Kinda strange to have people say such things just after fuel declines?
7 posted on
12/28/2014 10:06:56 AM PST by
mountainlion
(Live well for those that did not make it back.)
To: Olog-hai
The A-380 is more suited for FedEx. And I once saw a model of a FedEx C-17 at Nellis AFB.
8 posted on
12/28/2014 10:10:27 AM PST by
onedoug
To: Olog-hai
Looks like it has more center seats than any other airplane.
9 posted on
12/28/2014 10:12:23 AM PST by
catnipman
(Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
To: Olog-hai
at $440 million each, it is$200 million less than an F35. I suggest militarizing Super Jumbos would make sense.
12 posted on
12/28/2014 10:21:26 AM PST by
DaxtonBrown
(http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php)
To: Olog-hai
There’s an efficient/cost effective/profitable size for a passenger jet and it isn’t a jet propelled zeppelin.
To: Olog-hai
The thing that is hurting the A380-800 is this:
![](http://www.newairplane.com/777x/assets/images/gallery/777X-9_3_Shot_Updated.jpg)
This is the Boeing 777-9X, soon to be called the 777-9 (or maybe 777-900). It has almost the same pax/cargo capacity as the 747-400, but with way lower fuel burn and nearly 1,000 nautical miles more range. And the order book for the 777-9X is already 243 planes.
16 posted on
12/28/2014 10:25:22 AM PST by
RayChuang88
(Ferguson: put your hands down and go to work!)
To: Olog-hai
Ive flown on the A380 twice ... once LA to China on China South...total cattle car but the airline itself just sucked
And once Sydney to LA on Qantas.. that was not bad...
Really its the Airline
20 posted on
12/28/2014 11:06:35 AM PST by
tophat9000
(An Eye for an Eye, a Word for a Word...nothing more)
To: Olog-hai
I’ve flown just about everything that’s taken to the skies over the past 50 years...including three rides on the 380.As much as I dislike Airbus (”if it ain’t Boeing I ain’t going”) I must admit that the 380 is a nice aircraft.However it’s no better than recent versions of the 747 or the 777.And from what I’ve read the 380 isn’t *as* good as the 787 (which I haven’t flown yet).
28 posted on
12/28/2014 1:36:35 PM PST by
Gay State Conservative
(Jimmy Carter;No Longer The Worst President In My Lifetime)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson