More bad news for the A380

[Steve Filak]

Don,

No need to apologize, and you're absolutely right. It's pretty obvious that some people want this thread locked down, and as long as it stays on topic and doesn't descend into name calling, that's not going to happen. While many people think that saying the word 'Raptor' is the equivalent of yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater and will get the thread locked down, the truth of the matter is that this thread was based upon a news report of a cancelled Airbus order. The thread stays.

[Vesper]

I 2nd everything Ron said. So far it's been mostly facts and NO BASHING.

Ves

Edited November 10, 2006 by Ken Middleton

[Dan 88]

Can't we enjoy these airplanes and forget about the bickering??

Edited November 10, 2006 by Super Hornet 88

[Rapier01]

Shocking... the same group of aggitators everytime. Who would have thought?

[ron]

I think that I am allowed to state that the fact that this plane scares the hell out of me. It's not an F-18 with flaps down, it's not a political statement, it's not a bash against anyone here nor a bash against manufactures, it's not a religion issue, its not a bash on Trumpeter. It something that I personally may have to fly on and that scare the living hell out of me because its to damn big. It is the Titanic of the air, the titanic would never sink..... This thing scare the hell out of me and travel is part of my living. Bashing manufacturers is not my intent here, this thing scares the full time business traveler period!!! and I see no reason to lock this thread down, we should be allowed an opinion on airplanes as long as it is not nasty!

I am leaving to the airport in the morning for Dubai so probably won't see the response to this if it is locked down. If it is, than its a shame because an opinion on something like this should be allowed to be voiced in a civil way.

As a final note, the A330 and 340 are my favorite planes to fly on so this is not bash on Airbus.

[Rapier01]

I agree with you, you have the right to state your opinion or discuss the facts of the matter without certain parties acting up...

[davetur]

OK great, please provide some contrary facts about the A380 delays and cancellations (not the F-22 please) - that's what this discussion board is all about. I am serious - this is how we all get educated on subjects

Your Hiroshima comparison is not valid when talking about the A380

we fail to see how talking about the set backs of the A380 is political

Fine, I can see I had added a note to my post referring to a part of Simfixer's post as being political, and you have deleted both. The whole thread on Enola Gay and WWII bombings has vanished as well.

I had not made a personal attack on Simfixer, just made an example, and I could browse through some others.

I don't want this thread to be locked, as Steve Filak is suggesting, but I am very strong on consistency, and I'd like to see the same degree of openness in other cases.

Best regards

Davide

[janman]

I don't want this thread to be locked, as Steve Filak is suggesting, but I am very strong on consistency, and I'd like to see the same degree of openness in other cases.

Best regards

Davide

I have to agree.

[engineman]

Hey guys! Still remember the Raptor's stuck canopy?

Joking aside. Were it an American jet, this conversation would be locked up for good.

EADS will get that bird in the air and some day it will inherit the Jumbo's throne.

Only problem is that the jumbos throne is gone, in effect that market is gone and fractured, Airbus is aiming at a long gone target, witness the 767s and 777s and A330s flying. For the most part ETOPS made 4 engine jumbos inefficient.

Long live Boeing.

all kidding aside It would be great to see Lockheed re-enter the airline market again L1011 connie electra

great planes

Scott :D

[Rapier01]

I would rather Lockheed stay away from a cyclical and ultimately useless investment. I like my dividends...

As Warren Buffet says, you're better off burning your money than putting it into the airline sector. The industry taken as a whole, during its entire existence has only ever producd a net loss....

[B12]

I don't want this thread to be locked, as Steve Filak is suggesting, but I am very strong on consistency, and I'd like to see the same degree of openness in other cases.

Best regards

Davide

I agree. Thats only fair.

[Nev]

There may not have been open bashing, but there has been a lot dancing on the A380s grave singing helleluja.

If I could be bothered to find a picture I'd show those early 747s sat on the tarmac with concrete blocks hanging from the engine pylons....

[kitnut617]

I'm a bit surprised at peoples comments that the A380 is too big, I have models of the C-5 Galaxy, An-124, 747 and the A380, all in 1/144 scale. The surprise to me is that the A380 is only just marginally bigger than the An-124, which in turn is just marginally bigger than the C-5 and so on to the C-5 and 747. And considering that the C-5 and the 747 were the original contenders for the heavy lift contract, it puts them all in the same catagory. But I don't see or hear any argument about the 747 being too big that nobody should have bought them, there obviously is a market for these large aircraft.

And seeing as that the 747 is a very successful aircraft, and hasn't had a competitor for most of it's existance

why all the fuss when a competitor does come along.

Incidently, when I lay one half of a 747 fuselage alongside a half of a A380 one thing becomes apparent, there's not a lot of difference between them. The forward fuselage of the 747 is as big as the A380, it's just that the A380 carries the upperdeck all the way down the fuselage, as Boeing could quite well do to the 747 if it wanted too. Have a look at the thread of the new 747 'guppy' transport to see what I mean.

Robert

[Vliegenier]

I fly allot, this A380 scares me. It's to damn big. Just the though of having to stand in line to get onto it has me flustered. The 747 is bad enough to get on and off. It's so big that it dwarfs runways and leaves absolutely no room for error on landing or take off. We've all see the videos over the years of Jumbo's almost loosing it on landing in cross winds, over shooting runways etc. what will happen with this white elephant?

>>> And yet the Jumbo is still flying and doing so with a not bad record at all .

This beast is a recipe for disaster. I am willing to bet that it’s size combined with all the development problems they have been having will lead to a major air disaster within the first year of service. This thing is so big it puts simple avoidable occurrences into easy to happen occurrences like Overshot runways, ground collisions, ground loops from missing half the width of the runway, running out of runway on takeoff or just a plain old crash (god forbid)

>>> I'm sure indeed the media will be triumphing if one would go down . And like all aircraft one WILL one day come down . Things happen . And should we keep all aircraft on the ground that had "major" development problems there wouldn't be all too many left .

I happen to be leaving for Dubai tomorrow and have flown Emirates for years. The 777 bothered me but at least I trust it. When Emirates get this A380 up and running I will not use their services anymore. I for one will never get on this plane if it makes it into service.

>>> This sure doesn't look like being a "fact" anymore .

I sure am wondering what the future for this plane is going to be . But it sure starts looking like it might end up like the Saunders-Roe Princess .

Will it be too much of everything ?

Stef

[Ken Middleton]

There may not have been open bashing, but there has been a lot dancing on the A380s grave singing helleluja.

If I could be bothered to find a picture I'd show those early 747s sat on the tarmac with concrete blocks hanging from the engine pylons....

well, we don't have rules against dancing on graves - perhaps a bit tactless, but no rules are broken

And posting a picture of a 747 like that, just as janman commented on the F-22 canopy, are totally unrelated to this topic, and are the very reasons that cause these types of threads to go to crap.

Unlike the Mods, no one is forcing anyone to read this

[Yuk Kui Ng]

You know folks, I really feel sorry for the Moderators of ARC at times (many times make that). I for one was quite enjoying this thread until things started to get heated for no apparent reason. Unlike others who seem to have strong opinions based on "anti-something" sentiment, I fully admit that I know nothing about the A380 or Boeings direct competition to it. As I stated earlier, I am neither anti-Airbus, nor am I pro-Boeing. Rather I am an aviation enthusiast who is interested in learning more about the A380 by asking questions and having those questions answered by folks who know a heck of a lot more then I do. Individuals, who work in the industry and in the case of this thread, work for some of the companies mentioned in the news releases. What was once a nice educational thread that in my opinion in no way was bashing Airbus (at least not bashing them outside the realm of what the news has already done nor based on what’s out there information wise…again, outside of ARC) has turned into an intentional attempt by a few to have this thread locked down. Why ? Honestly, what was written in this thread to make one or two people feel the need to force…yes…force…this thread to be locked from the majority who obviously want to discuss it and educate themselves in a calm non-inflammatory and non-antagonistic manner (until recently thanks to previous comments)?

News, financial, and aviation agencies from around the world have all written about how Airbus has dropped the ball on the A380 thus far. So what is the problem B) ? Not one person to my knowledge here on ARC has said/stated with finality that Airbus should be dissolved nor have they wished or stated that they hope Airbus or the A380 dies! If anyone here has information that contradicts what has been written by the media, financial institutions, FedEx, Airbus or Boeing then please share it with us. That is why I am here...to learn! Rather then throwing out flippant remarks that are done in the seeming hopes that someone will bite and the thread will be locked down, if you have nothing constructive to add then move on. Honestly, can someone please point me to the spot on the computer screen where the gun pops out, gets pointed to your head, and forces you, the ARC user, to read the threads that you feel necessary to ruin for no apparent reason. Why does Ken and the other Moderators have to monitor this thread that less then 24 hours ago was flowing fine without any gasoline or flames to ignite said gasoline? Honestly.

Now the odds are this thread will end up locked and lost for all to read and contribute to because some people feel the need to achieve some sense of victory or self satisfaction…â€YES I showed them! I got that thread locked downâ€. Well if that’s you then congratulations! It will in all likelihood get locked down. Therefore, instead of having an open and non-inflammatory discussion about the A380, we will all await the next thread to come along, go south, and be locked tomorrow or the next day.That seems to be the pattern.

Moderators…and my fellow ARC members…my apologies for this post/rant and by all means remove it. Please, I will in no way feel slighted or wrongly censored. Moderators, I honestly do not know how you do it? I really and truly do not. the pay must be darned good ;) ! However, may I suggest that you add Boeing and the A380 to Religion, Politics, and flaps up or down to the list of topics not to be discussed here on ARC.

Regards,

Don

Don

Well said sir.

Yuk

[B12]

well, we don't have rules against dancing on graves - perhaps a bit tactless, but no rules are broken

What some of you people need to realise is, its not just Americans that visit here and Airbus is much a part of national pride for Europeans as say the Raptor is to you guys, but its forbidden to say a bad word about it here, or even think about discussing it the way the A380 does.

Unlike the Mods, no one is forcing anyone to read this

And nobody is forcing me to visit this site, if you are going to have one rule for some and a different rule for others, then thats your privilege, but I'm outta here., there are plenty of other good modeling sites on the net that don't have biased rules or allow politics to be used whatsoever, pity because this site apart from those complaints is just about perfect.

Adiós ARC.

Edited November 10, 2006 by B12

[Jim Barr]

It’s too bad that you are leaving over the perceived bias over allowing treads that “bash†Euro aircraft to run but immediately lock down any thing negative concerning American aircraft, it’s just not so. For one, since Steve, the guy who runs this site, is Canadian I am sure he is well aware that it is not only Americans who visit here. Also you can bring up any FACT about an “American†aircraft derogatory or not and as long as it is a factual discussion and everyone minds their manners the thread will stay open. Case in point, the F-22 canopy incident, brought up several times and it ran as long as people stuck to the facts, derogatory or not, it is only when the threads go south that they become locked. As is only human, someone’s fact is another persons ‘bash’ but all and all I think the moderators do an outstanding job of balance here, but if you are so offended by what you see here then it is probably best that you leave and go to one of the other forums, life is too short and this is only a hobby so no need stay somewhere that causes you heartburn.

Regards

Jim Barr

[Vesper]

Here here, bartender get that man a drink!

Ves

[janman]

The rules are different for different subjects, for certain people and - it seems - especially for natioanalities other than Americans and Canadians. It's a sad thing.

There are certain "Holy" issues that can't be discussed fairly. The above mentioned Raptor is one thing. One could never post a negative or critical article about it. At least it feels so. I wouldn't even have a need for that, but still. I've only once started a same kind of thread as these Airbus articles or many other news-type articles of some other aircraft type have been. Most of them have been completely proper articles. My thread (Sukhoi banned by the US govt.) was locked quite soon (or was it deleted altogether?). I forgot to put a direct link to the original article, but otherwise it was a normal Reuters news article with Reuters mentioned as the source. I've got over it, but I think I was being treated unfairly.

None of us don't want to start flame wars, not even when we have different views on some issues than "the North Americans" do. Seems that this cultural richness is not always welcomed here, there is just one universal way of thinking. And it's very American. I don't say it's always a bad thing. Not at all. But we, in this case Europeans, tend to think differently of many issues. I wont make a list of those things as it would include some political issues as well.

This Airbus thread has had its share of politics, bashing (yes there was) and it is now leading to a situation, where one member is seriously thinking he's gonna leave the forum for good. I guess that means the thing got out of hands and people got hurt! That shouldn't happen in such a great and mostly friendly place like ARC!

I love this forum and fancy many of the folks here. This is the best place for any modelling related information, no doubt about it! Wouldn't never want to burn any bridges here!

Happy modelling!

[Albert Moore]

Groan, here we go again. Show us where the bashing is. All you have done is complained about what YOU perceive as bashing, and then try to sway the direction by bringing up pointless arguements over an isolated incident. Tell me, has that one canopy issue been enough bring down the entire Raptor program? No. So quit bringing it into this debate, it has no connection.

Again I challenge you, show us an example of where the bashing in this thread. I also find it ironic that someone asked for a lockdown, when they're the leading scorer here on ARC when it comes to having threads locked or canned all together. Hello pot, meet kettle.

You know as a matter of fact, this thread is another good example of why Real Aviation needs to be canned. It is nothing but a headache for us (Admin that is). You guys can just go to Key Publishing to get your RA fix, as this forum isn't worth the hassles anymore.

Geezuz I need an Advil now.

[Rapier01]

Alby- Well said. But Real Aviation isn't the problem, certain aggitators are...

Edited November 10, 2006 by Rapier01

[Louis]

Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?

[Jay Chladek]

Concerning ETOPS making 4 engined aircraft outdated, that is not really the case. Granted it did essentially get rid of them from the Atlantic ocean markets (North America to Europe), but they are still very much needed for the pacific market in spots. Granted the Boeing 777-200LR gives an extreme idea of what kind of range it can pull off, but ETOPS still limits to a certain extent just what flight routes in can take and it isn't necessarily always going to be the shortest distance between two points.

A plane like the 747-400 or the A380 still will find its best uses in the Asian market (North America to Asia or Europe to Far East Asia), where the distances traveled are long and the amount of people that needs to be transported is high. Just look at the population explosion in places like Hong Kong and mainland China as an example. Even with point to point service, a prime example of the people that need to be hauled is Japan where they operate 747s on routes that one commonly sees 737s or A-320s operating in other countries in terms of distance, just because of the crowds that need to fly on them.

Will the A380 be the best fit? I don't know. But it is I think one of those examples of the chicken and the egg. The true benefits of the A380 probably won't be fully appreciated until she does start entering passenger service. Even with the 747, the understanding was that the jet would be a stop gap until the SSTs came on line, so the hump was put in so that the main deck could become a large cargo hauling area when the passenger jets ultimately got converted to the freight role. Well, that didn't happen. When the airlines found out that the economy of the jet meant that they could sell more tickets to more people, that is when passenger hauling really started to explode.

Slot restrictions at airports also mean that it isn't always best to have more jets to make up for capacity, because you might not be able to achieve it with the restrictions already in place. So, get a big jet in there, and if the restrictions open up, then you can then fly TWO big jets in there and have the best of both worlds.

[janman]

Tell me, has that one canopy issue been enough bring down the entire Raptor program?

No. Hey, that was a joke, man! Is this that serious? Is the Airbus A380 program down? No, and yet even the other mod was talking about grave dancing or how that's not forbidden...

show us an example of where the bashing in this thread.

Suppose you can read. Also between the lines. Here's only one:

I wonder if museums should start putting dibbs on A380's for their collections?

There was also a lot of political talk about the EU and its alleged subsidies. They are cleaned out now, so I can't give you the worst example.

when they're the leading scorer here on ARC when it comes to having threads locked or canned all together

And what's that supposed to mean? Are you now bashing me or someone else? That doesn't even prove anything. Just proves that some users and topics are being treated unfairly sometimes. The topic starter is one to blame also.

I'm not here for fighting. Most of us aren't. You're trying to make me look like one though. This is unfair, you're a mod. I would lose every time.

Just read my my posts, I've been mostly talking about models here. But I'll say my opinion, if someone else says his. That's democracy. That's also called discussion.

Happy Friday all!

regards,

Janman