It's kinda biggish

[dd74]

Originally posted by beepbeep
...but it might as well end up with streched sardine-can packing 800 pax in all-economy configuration

I guess that's why a friend of mine said there was no way he'll ride on that plane. I don't know if I'd ride on it either.

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

I remeber reading somewhere that they could have put something like 600+ people on the 747, but they didnt, because they didnt want the liability

[Teutonics]

Originally posted by beepbeep
...end up with streched sardine-can packing 800 pax in all-economy configuration

Can you imagine how long it would take to de-plane if you were in the last row?

No thanks.

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by Teutonics
Can you imagine how long it would take to de-plane if you were in the last row?

No thanks.

All airliners must be able to emergency "de-plane" within 90 seconds to be certified.

Frankly, I would rather fly on A380 for 12 hours and be able to strech my legs than sit in a smaller aliminium tub (B777, A330) and be able to go off the plane 10 seconds faster.

[IROC]

Originally posted by beepbeep
All airliners must be able to emergency "de-plane" within 90 seconds to be certified.

Yeah, but have you seen the injuries that usually result from these "emergency de-plane" tests? When is the last time any one of us got off of *any* plane in 90 seconds?

Mike

[MFAFF]

The deplane test is being planned right now..and they are recruiting 1000 volunteers for the testing...guess they want a few spare for injuries...

The majority of large European hubs are either already capable of accommodating the A380 (CDG) or a in the process of finishing off new accommodation (like T5 at LHR).

The prime reason for going bigger is that in Europe especially the slos are already used at max capacity with little possibility of time extensions or new build airports (all these NIMBYS)...unlike in the US where there is greater scope for time extensions and new infrastructure.

Airports like Chek Lap Cok and the new Beijing International are all A380 compatible.

The demands in terms of modifinng and exisiting 747 compatible gate are not massive however there is the real cost as well as the disruption...I gather that airport operation is not necessarily the most profitable business and so additional costs which may or may not generate revenue are unwelcome.

The 747 max capacity is limited by the number they can get out in 90sec..not Boeing's liability...The SR version is cleared to 550+...in domestic Japanese service only. The international versions were all tested with lower numbers.

Physically you could fit more in but if they cannot get out in time there is no certificate...

The A380 is scheduled to appear in Paris and I guess it would have to fly there...

[Steve Carlton]

I remember being so pissed when I was a little kid that Boeing's SST was cancelled. It was faster and carried more passengers than the Concorde...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Superman
IIf Boeing is abandoning Renton and demolishing buildings, then it might be in order to prepare the area for sale. I mean real estate. That's a big place they have, right on the outskirts of Seattle.

There was an analysis published last year that looked at the commercial value of that property. It was staggering what they claimed it is worth. The idea was to create a kind of high-end community with upscale waterfront condos, shopping, and cultural/entertainment venues all within easy walking distance. The revenue generated is predicted to be far in excess of building silly old airplanes there.

And yes, Boeing has lost its edge, its willingness to gamble. Most blame it on the merger when MD bought Boeing with Boeing's own money. Anyone who doubts that can look at the current crop of Boeing execs... for the most part former MD. They come from a military contract based no-risk culture; everything is "cost plus". MD bailed from the risky world of commercial aviation quite some time before the merger. That culture of no-risk decision making has permeated the company right down to its lowest levels. The next ******* flunkie middle manager that asks me to make a "business case" for some painfully obvious decision is going to get an ear full...

And finally (as long as I'm at full rant), I had always seen Stonecipher as the "great dismantler". He added nothing to the company. He sold off much of what his predecessors built, and built through great risk to the company. I think we made more money in selling real estate and other assets during his (and Condit's for that matter) tenure at the top than we did selling airplanes. We're back to the quarterly stock reports driving business decisions in an industry that is well known for its long-term ROI's. Even the SEC recognizes the unique finances of commercial aerospace and grants special book keeping rules to help us out (it's called "forward loss" or something like that; it allows development costs to be ammoritized over the life of a program and its projected sales, rather than piled on at the start). Included in this mad rush for quarterly returns is the worst treatment of its workforce I think we have seen in the company's history. In a business notorious for its ups and downs, all of us old dogs have come to accept a bit of that. Throw in a company's willingness, or more like eagerness, to sell of divisions along with employees at those divisions; its willingness to offload design and manufacturing of parts and sub-assemblies and lay off the workforce that produced them, and you have a sure-fired recipe for some major dissenfranchisement (is that a word?). Anyway, if Airbus ever came to town, try to stay clear of the stampede...

[beepbeep]

And it actually flew Amazing

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/26/airbus.launch/index.html

Suddenly, 747 doesn't look so imposing any more...

[beepbeep]