Posted on 01/22/2005 7:56:30 PM PST by Eurotwit
At a lavish, laser-speckled launch party in France last week, Tony Blair said that the new Airbus was “a symbol of confidence that we can compete and win in the global market”. Nearly right, you big-eared thicko. Actually, it is a symbol of confidence that we can compete and win in the global market despite the utter stupidity of your government.
The gigantic wings for this plane are built by British Aerospace in north Wales. But each one is far too large to be taken to Toulouse by road and far too heavy to be taken there by air. So they are loaded on to barges in the port of Mostyn and floated down the Irish Sea, across the Channel and then through France’s canal network.
Plainly this is idiotic. It would be much easier and cheaper to build them in France but politically this would be no good at all because the Airbus is intended to show how European co-operation can work. We do the wings and the engines, the French put everything together, the Germans finish everything off and the Spanish . . . actually, I don’t know what the Spanish do, apart from gatecrash the launch party and lisp.
You would imagine then that Tony’s government would be doing everything in its power to make sure that Britain’s contribution was smooth and effortless. But no. Those wings can be loaded on to the barges only at high tide because the monumentally daft Environment Agency won’t let anyone dredge the harbour at Mostyn.
Why ever not? Well, there’s the European Union Habitats Directive, you see, that was drawn up to protect worms and slugs from the perils of profit. Elsewhere on the Continent they don’t apply it to navigational routes but in Britain we do. So, thanks to the green-eyed madness of our men in parkas, building the most advanced plane in the skies is governed by the needs of an invertebrate and the orbit of the moon.
I have another problem with Tony’s launch speech, too, because he described the A380 as “the most exciting new aircraft in the world”. Even if we ignore the fact that he can’t possibly know since it hasn’t actually left the ground yet, I am not sure that he’s right.
Technically, of course, we must doff our caps to the engineers who have built a cross-Channel ferry that can fly. It is far from the prettiest machine ever made but we should marvel at the quietness of its engines, its 8,000-mile range, its ability to take off on conventional runways and its parsimonious drinking habits. It uses less fuel per passenger than a Ford Fiesta.
Yes, at the moment, despite much plastic and carbon fibre in its construction, the A380 is four tons overweight, but when the 747 was rolled out in the 1960s that was 50 tons overweight. So let’s not get too worried. They could save four tons by simply removing one American passenger.
Plainly the weight issue has not worried Virgin, Emirates and the other carriers that have placed orders. Even British Airways would do the same, except that its long-haul fleet is fairly new and it hasn’t got any money.
So the message is clear. For the airlines and their shareholders this enormous plane is marvellous. But I am not sure that it is quite so rosy for you and me.
Certainly life will be worse at airports because to accommodate these giants the gates have to be further apart. Walk past four A380s to reach your plane and you will have walked the length of four football pitches.
That is presuming you got past the check-in. I guess you have all experienced the ludicrous queues that build up now. Well, imagine how long they are going to be when there are half a dozen A380s scheduled to depart within 15 minutes of one another. With seating for 550 on each one that is 3,300 people to be interrogated, 3,300 suitcases to be loaded, 3,300 pieces of hand luggage to be x-rayed and 3,300 pairs of shoes to be examined.
Do you think that Virgin or Emirates will spend the money that they have saved on fuel by employing more check-in staff? I doubt it. As a result you will need to arrive at the terminal 3,300 hours before take-off. Then there is the flight itself to worry about.
Airbus made sure that its launch video featured on-board gyms and bars. There were big squidgy double beds and probably a polo lawn or two. But the reality is that airlines will fill the entire fuselage with seats they’ve nicked from a primary school to wedge the passengers in like veal.
In other words, being on board the A380 will be exactly the same as being on board any other jet liner. Exciting? I don’t think so, Tony.
This brings me to the final point. You see, the cruising speed of the A380 is Mach 0.85 (647mph), which is pretty good for something with the aerodynamic properties of a wheelie bin and engines that run on mineral water. But the 747 cruises at Mach 0.855 (651mph). This means that the 747 gets you there faster and means that you spend less time with your face wedged in an American’s armpit.
On that basis you can marvel at how Airbus has jumped through political hoops and climbed technical mountains to bring the world its shareholder friendly A380. But you are better off going in a Boeing.
I will not fly airbus products. They have lost too many of theirs planes in their short existence.
"...They could save four tons by simply removing one American passenger."
Now that is funny. We have to be able to laugh at ourselves once in awhile.
So just where is the market for these things? I really would like to know.
IMO, the A380 will do well. As have the other members of the Airbus line. And their new A350 will gain market share also.
Airbus has/is using "type commonality" in their a/c and this is bringing huge savings to the end operators.
p.s....are you a guy I know in the MRO business in Ireland?
Has anyone checked to see what the impact these behemoths will have on existing airports?
Can you imagine it? Boarding alone will take 2 hours just to get everyone seated.
Cost to taxpayers? Huge! Why? Because most airport waiting areas are prepared to have 800 people waiting for a single gate.
This baby has boondoggle written all over it (and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch--the EU).
I saw a picture of the plane. Grandiose and beautiful is what comes to mind.
And it's only fair being as how we've been subsidizing their defense for the last five decades.
And, no, it's not going to drive Boeing out of business.
OTOH, if the UK improves its diet they might actually produce more Olympic medalists than Australia or, say it's not so, France.
For all I know, the 380 is a fine airplane...I suspect it is. But I have to say - Mr. Clark is a truly truly funny writer, the article is hilarious.
I had a client about 15 years ago who was a captain on an Airbus product for EAL. He said that the Boeing competition was faster, had an operational ceiling of over 5,000 greater altitude, and that the Boeing had far more redundancy in the stuff that made it fly. Also, Boeing had more redudancy than Douglas products.
However, I understand that Airbus has remedied alot of those problems.
Maybe someone more knowledgable than me will comment.
American Airlines really does give you more room in coach. I always fly them whenever I have a choice.
Kudos to whoever made that decision - it's given me genuine brand loyalty for an airline.
D
I think (for what it's worth) the new generation of aircraft will be space oriented and very very fast. They will be smaller, faster and more efficient than the jumbos.
It would be wonderful to jump on a space vehicle and land in Thailand in five hours instead of thirty.
Imagine an East to West coast flight in a couple of hours or less. I think the future is smaller, faster, nimbler, not huge.
Well as it turns out I also saw a very detailed documentry on the subject which contributed the crash to faulty maintainence on a DC-10 where an engine mount was not properly serviced and reattached according to proper procedure causing said mount to fall off the plane prior to takeoff. It is true however that while the Concords tires blew out causing extrapulated damage to Concord, the fact of the matter still is that; had it not been for the part from the DC-10 laying in the runway Concord would not have run over it and would probably still be flying today. I beleive you should now stand corrected.
I think they are pinning it on Aisa and Mid East. Both places are big in their kick-off orders and it fits their political ambitions as well (knocking Boeing down in the 'emerging world' market).
I think it is worthwhile to note that Boeing could stretch the 747 but has not done so, someone must have concerns about likely profit from such a huge capacity.
Brits got to build the wings for a flying "Titanic".
It was never proven that the Concorde hit the debris from the DC-10. It is assumed that it took place only because the debris was supposedly found on the runway after the accident and it was traced to the DC-10. That still doesn't mean the Concorde actually hit it and that it started a chain of events, although it is a likely possibility given the lack of any other evidence for a cause.
What happened this last time could have happened during any one of the prior 57 times.
Oh yeah, I trust a French court.
I believe the pilot that was flying the Airbus that crashed at the Paris air show was also found guilty when it crashed into the trees instead of climbing. Initialy the accident was blamed on the fly by wire system but I seem to recall that politics reared its ugly head and the French didn't want a black mark against their new plane so the pilot was blamed.
That's exactly what Boeing is saying. They don't see a significant market for this aircraft, and that's why they declined to compete with it directly. Long haul-high density routes are about the only place this plane makes sense, and there just aren't that many of them. Boeing is gambling that more passengers will be interested in having a wider choice of flights on smaller planes flying direct routes than there will be passengers who will accept fewer departure/arrival choices and be forced into the hub & spoke system to ride the behemoth.
Somebody will be right, and somebody will be wrong. The one that's right will flourish financially. The one that's wrong will be lucky to not go bankrupt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.