A380 -- The Reveal

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]The FAA's restrictions are only relevant for flights to and within the US. For domestic flights in the US, there's no chance in hell that the A380 will ever be used. It's too big and it's not Boeing. The same goes of course for the rest of the world (not the Boeing part). This concerns only the major international airports and they're bound to comply. Anything else would be an economic disaster for them. Due to the politics involved, you can count on all the major European airlines (Lufthansa, British Airways, Air France, KLM, SAS..) getting the A380, and they put together are significantly larger than all the other airlines in the world put together

Indeed. The niche for the A380 is for major hub routes (LHR-JFK, NRT-LAX, LHR-ORD, etc.) and it is those airports on the American side that Airbus is working with. Where the millions needed to increase taxiway and runway size will come from I'm not sure. I doubt a bond issue would succeed. It's possible the federal government will pay for part of it. In anycase, should something hold it up, or it turns politically nasty, that knocks off some of the busiest airports in the world from the route structure, it's reason for being.

Quote[/b] ]I don't remember the details of it - saw a documentary about it a few years ago. The story was that a Swedish engineer (hence my original interest) designed a fully GPS based air traffic control system, that besides cutting down on fuel costs, would increase safety (no more human air traffic controllers making errors). He patented it and managed to promote it within the EU where it was agreed that it would be a suitable system to introduce. When it was brought up internationally, everybody agreed except the US which refused and wowed to block any attempts of replacing the existing system. The reason IIRC, was simply because it wasn't an American patent.

Ah. Then we talk of two different things. Not GPS routing, but an automated GPS air-traffic control. Even with GPS routing, ATC is still in effect. I have heard little of GPS ATC, so I won't attempt to debate on the topic. I'll have to look around for it.

Quote[/b] ]You don't think it has anything to do with the Airbus being a newer generation of plane, that is more comfortable and safer for the passengers, and cheaper to operate?

That is a matter of opinion. Comfort has little to do with plane design. I've had my smoothest flight on a 737-800, and one of the bumpiest on an A320. Seat pitch and cabin design are decided upon and implemented by the airlines themselves, not the manufacturer. Safety as well, is based a lot more on operation, and regulation. Boeing planes for the most part are just as technologically advanced and just as safe as Airbus', who like to announce they are the pinnacle of technology when they are not. What I think is it has a lot more to do with politics, load needs, what is "new" and good old fashioned gut feeling. Economics is becoming a big issue. Airbus, I suppose, has the lead in economics, though there is really not much difference between the A320-family and the 737NG-family, or the A340-family and 777-family (except performance).

Quote[/b] ]And if you are in doubt that the Airbus is going to succeed well then look at XXL planes sold this year by Boeing. Was it around 7-10 orders? And all orders were frighters! Not much, considering that the market is growing.

Actually a total around 60, half and half 777's (including Singapore and Emirates...both A380 buyers) and 747's. No one disputes Airbus is selling more planes, but both companies saw increased sales (14% for Boeing, and 15% for Airbus).

Quote[/b] ]Whether it will take 3 or even 7 years for the Airbus to be able to land on most airports is not important.

It's important to the operators that are suppose to recieve it next year. What good is a plane that can't land? As has been mentioned, the A380 is not flying Hamburg-Milan. It's flying high passenger (high profit) yield major hub to major hub routes. That is a big deal.

Quote[/b] ]All your doubt is in vain, the plane has a working market concept, it will dwarf the Boeing in long hall flights. And in a few weeks it will lift off and soon enter the market. Boeing is behind a full concept and development period.

I believe it has a working market concept as well. But my doubts are not from the market viability of it, but for the people that quickly rally nationalisticly behind it when it hasn't actually flown yet. All planes have teething problems (Singapore was not happy with their A340-300's not meeting performance limits), and I just wait for the biggest passenger plane to show its teething problems.

Quote[/b] ]This mean all the runways that will handle the largest 747 aircraft will also easily handle the A380.

Not really true. Taxiways, and runways need to be widened by some 50 feet (have you seen the wingspan?). New aprons, and gate facilities need to be built or modified.

Quote[/b] ]The airlines view is a much better way to look at this. The A380 has a lower ratio of cost per passenger than a Boeing 747-400 or even Airbus' own 767-600. On paper the projected servicing costs are lower then the largest 747. Maintainability is allegedly cheaper relative to flying hours due to the design than any other large scale commercial transport.

Boeing built the 767. I think you meant the A340-600. And I agree with you. On paper it is suppose to have a lower per seat cost than the 747. Maintainability we will have to see about as well.

Quote[/b] ]As for the FAA restrictions...that’s a joke...anyone remember Concorde? Most people on these boards will probably be about 15 years too young but if you do some research you may find some interesting parallels.

Which is my point, and it almost ruined the Concorde. It certainly killed the largest orders. Pan Am had orders for some 20 Concordes. Hell even Braniff had orders. When overflight was denied those orders dried up and they were left with BA and AF.

Now thats obviously not going to happen for the A380. But FAA regulations are not "a joke." You don't meet FAA regulations, you don't fly in or to the US. Why do you think airports are spending millions to "upgrade" their airports? To deny the fact that an airplane that is longer and wider and taller and heavierthan a 747 won't need some of these things is questionable.

Quote[/b] ]It seems like even though the aircraft hasnt even left the ground some people are treating like its just crashed into a nursing home for retired nuns.

On the other hand, there are some that are already making it sound like its raking in cash, knocking every 747 out of the air, and the only plane in the sky.

It is indeed largely political. I for one look forward to flying an A380 at some point. I'm still trying to swing a flight on an A340 or A330. But it is interesting to see that whenever a Boeing/Airbus argument comes up, some of the more level-headed people suddenly turn nationalistic. People who decry nationalism in international foreign policy and domestic sociology, are suddenly very nationalistic behind an airplane maker. If you want to see it at its worse, go to the Airliners.Net forums. People are very quick to dismiss Boeing, and predict its dimise, forgetting that at no time in history has a monopoly been good for the marketplace. Oh sure there is still Tupolev and others, but lets face it. They won't reach the level of Airbus/Boeing anytime soon (though their planes are quite good now).

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Changing the facts Akira

Quote[/b] ]

Der Spiegel

Das Duell der Giganten scheint bereits entschieden zu sein, noch bevor der A380 im März zu seinem Jungfernflug startet. Viel mehr als die bisher verkauften 1350 Jumbos dürfte Boeing kaum an die Airlines verkaufen. Im vergangenen Jahr erhielt der US-Konzern gerade mal zehn Bestellungen. Airbus dagegen hat bereits 149 Aufträge in den Büchern. Jüngster Kunde ist der Paketdienst UPS , der vergangene Woche zehn Frachtversionen des A380 orderte.

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,336748,00.html

In english that means that in 2004 there were only 10 new orders for Boeing's Jumbos!

You got my source, where is yours, maybe it was talking about deliveries?  

[Akira 0]

Changing the facts Akira

Quote[/b] ]

Der Spiegel

Das Duell der Giganten scheint bereits entschieden zu sein, noch bevor der A380 im März zu seinem Jungfernflug startet. Viel mehr als die bisher verkauften 1350 Jumbos dürfte Boeing kaum an die Airlines verkaufen. Im vergangenen Jahr erhielt der US-Konzern gerade mal zehn Bestellungen. Airbus dagegen hat bereits 149 Aufträge in den Büchern. Jüngster Kunde ist der Paketdienst UPS , der vergangene Woche zehn Frachtversionen des A380 orderte.

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,336748,00.html

In english that means that in 2004 there were only 10 new orders for Boeing's Jumbos!

You got my source, where is yours, maybe it was talking about deliveries?

Boeing Orders 2004 (From Boeing)

Boeing Orders (Seattle Times)

Orders

Aircraft orders are gauged upon "seat markets" not "long haul" or "jumbos."

As you can see there are 60+ orders for large aircraft (747/777), most for the 777-class, Boeing's middle replacement for aging 747s.

The 777 (includes 777-200,200ER,200LR,-300,300ER) orders that puts Boeing slightly behind Airbus' comparable A340/330 family (includes A340-200,-300,-500,-600, and A330-200,-300). This page doesn't go into the smaller body of craft orders, though suspect it was significant. Also I am uncertain if these numbers include the 15 planes South African canceled after posting a loss.

So I'm not sure what facts exactly I'm "changing," especially since I lack the nationalistic zeal towards Boeing that you seem to show for Airbus.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

on your second link I see exactly 10 orders for the 747, the plane which is the straightes direct competitor to the new Airbus.

Come on, dont be so stone cold Akira. Of course I try to have a little fun on this forum and of course I play the "who has the largest xxx" game... it is more entertaining this way

[Akira 0]

Yes there are 10 orders for 747's (up from last year), but you said "jumbos" which can include 777-300's (777 family sales are significantly up) since they can seat pretty close numbers (380-450...as I said...seat market). But also there are some 635 747's flying the world today...but not one A380.

It's quite possible that Boeing will concede the large seat market to Airbus (though I doubt it...now its a matter of pride). The design of the 747 is some 40 years old and its last upgrade was the -400 in 1985, and based on orders it seems the design popularity is waning (wouldn't doubt it...as I said...40 years old). Rather than taking on the A380, which as you pointed out has a significant development lead, I believe Boeing may center on the "mid" market, particularly the 7E7 and 767 families, while still offering the smaller "jumbo" 777. I don't think it would be wise for Boeing to attempt a late in the game jumbo competitior (thats what killed the L1011 and the little known 747-300 Trijet). Certainly focus on the 7E7-family and develop a one family plane from 737 to 767 size. The attractiveness of having fleet commonality is a strong seller. On the flip side, Airbus should concentrate on the A380 and ride that success, and forget about the proposed A350, an A330 upgrade to compete with the 7E7.

Quote[/b] ]Come on, dont be so stone cold Akira. Of course I try to have a little fun on this forum and of course I play the "who has the largest xxx" game... it is more entertaining this way

I prefer...."objective."

I hear it in classes all the time. "Boeing rules!" "Airbus rules"....I find it ridiculous as both planes have thier pros and cons. But to hear people that are going into the aviation field have such nationalistic opinions is very very irritating. I'm more interested in what is good for aviation...not a company or country.

EDIT: Interesting from an article:

Quote[/b] ]Today, the 747 faces new problems:

# High costs. The latest model of the 747 costs almost $3,000 more per flight hour to operate than Boeing’s next-smaller plane, the 777, Eclat says. The higher aircraft fuel prices climb, the less economical the 747 is.

# Smaller, longer-range planes. Airlines appreciated the 747 for its long range. But, in February, Singapore Airlines introduced a new Airbus A340 that has an even longer range without requiring the carrier to fill as many seats with paying passengers to cover costs.

Northwest is replacing old 747s with new Airbus A330s. And Boeing continues to receive orders for the 777s, which have about the same per-passenger costs as the 747s and are easier to fill. "The 777 is in many ways the death knell of the 747," consultant Beyer says.

# A bigger rival. Airbus has taken more than 120 orders for the A380, a double-deck behemoth that will be the first commercial jet to surpass the 747 in capacity. When it begins flying in 2006, it will carry a maximum 555 seats, compared with the latest model of the 747, which can be configured with 416. Built of the latest composite materials, Airbus hopes its new jet will have the same or better operating costs.

# Used-plane surplus. One reason Boeing isn’t getting new 747 orders is that so many are in storage, sidelined by airlines that can’t afford to operate them. There were 144 parked 747s as of May, double the number from five years ago, according to the Aviation Specialists Group, a consulting outfit. When passenger traffic falls off, as it did in 2001, the big airlines get hammered first, says the group’s Fred Klein. "They say, "Let’s park the big airplanes.’ "

This explains why the A380 is such a gamble. Low costs will be the main determiner of A380 success. If its hard to fill a 747 on some routes, then an A380 will be even harder. So economics come into play...you may need more seat for a 747 than for an A380 to make a route profitable.

Also as stated, the A380 will be major hub-major hub route plane. These shouldn't be too hard to sell with the current hub and spoke system. The interesting routes will be the Asian-Pacific routes. Singapore just bought and just last year started service from SIN-LAX and SIN-JFK with their brand new A340-500's. What routes will Singapore use them for? SIN-HKG? SIN-NRT? Possible. And what of Emirates?

[aviel 0]

lol... i say again:

Boeing will stay the best, no mather what airbus is making,

boeing is:

A. the most used in the world

B. biggest suplyer of Air-arms

C. the most trusty jets that exist today--> Airbus has a whole Electric system, from the rudder to the stick, if something fails: YAUSC!! (you are up shit creek)

[EiZei 0]

C. the most trusty jets that exist today--> Airbus has a whole Electric system, from the rudder to the stick, if something fails: YAUSC!! (you are up shit creek)

You know, my former car was an old mazda B2200 diesel pickup truck with no power steering, AC, stereo or even turbodiesel. Sure, it didn't fail on me but it's still far from ideal.

[aviel 0]

C. the most trusty jets that exist today--> Airbus has a whole Electric system, from the rudder to the stick, if something fails: YAUSC!! (you are up shit creek)  

You know, my former car was an old mazda B2200 diesel pickup truck with no power steering, AC, stereo or even turbodiesel. Sure, it didn't fail on me but it's still far from ideal.

and thats exactly what i am afraid of with that kind of huge liners.

[bn880 5]

This is awesome, if I have to fly I'll be checking specifically to be on this aircraft, mainly for safety. ANy new aircraft tested as extensively as this is going to be statistically much safer than the old airframes on the 747's and 757's.

Plus it is a much more comfortable ride, the bigger, the more comfy.

Nice work, hope this plane sees a lot of sales and service, although AL Qaeda is probably havinga big laugh at this.

[shinRaiden 0]

I'm not holding my breath on Boeing, here's why...

Up until the late 70's, Boeing was run and driven by engineers, many of them old-school seat-of-the-pants types that wanted their passenger planes to be as rugged as the good old B-17 and B-52 bombers. The plus side was that the planes were a brick, and the downside was that they were a brick. Aside from the 777, all the basic layouts were originally designed back in the pre-deregulation days.

The technical problems facing the SST and other exotic and esoteric projects is three-fold: 1) The engineers tried to design an aircraft to hammer through the air, when it needed to slice, 2) the eco-commie luddites demanded unrealistic performance parameters, 3) there was government money and meddling involved.

In the mid 80's the managers finally got their people slipped into the key positions and things started going downhill. One plane, the 737, has been floating the entire commercial division, and that's been going to puddle-jumper cattlecars like Southwest and Ryanair. The 737 has been stretched and modified to the point that it killed the market for the 757, and the 767 was squeezed out by the 777. I've flown in everything except a 727 that I can remember, and I personally prefer the 767, with a medium density coach. Southwest's new refurb on their 737's is nice too.

Anyway, in the 90's there was a number of serious problems that began to arise. With the revolving door of CFO's and 'friends of the Prez' the began to be a lot of problems relating to 'new' accounting. Shifts in cost allocations from "capital" to "operations" and such, of the similar kind as the dotCom fiascos, resulted in severely declining facilities qualities. On one particular occasion, management ordered a factory designed for 10 units per month to ramp up to 40 units per month in 30 days to accomodate all the orders they had committed to.

To properly handle that, newer more efficent tools needed to be aquired instead of the used hand-me-downs installed into the brandnew facility. However, there was "no capital budget, so just wing it". Some equipment was moved around and such, but as workflow approached 20 units per month, parts automation systems were pushed beyond their limits, to the point that transfer system robots were skidding out taking corners too fast, crashing into things because of momentum, etc. I don't think that site ever got above 25 units per month, and they had to throttle back after some serious accidents.

Meanwhile, it was a constant mess up at corporate headquarters in trying to keep the CEO's constant cycle of secretary-girlfriends from becoming a class-action harrasment suit against the company.

In the middle of this, the CEO invited his college buddy, who had been responsible for liquidating a viable and powerful aerospace firm in interest of short-term stockholder pimping, to buy out Boeing and repeat the disaster. After the McBoeing supersizing, the first order of business was to roll heads, and replace the stonewalling managers with head-rollers.

The plants hobbled by old tools in need of modernization, were now relieved of much of the people to man them, many of who went on to be paper MCSE's and stock day-traders, further polluting the dotcom cesspool, instead of making useful and valuable things. Unable to make parts in sufficent quantity and quality, Boeing is now 'forced' to have other 'bestshore' contractors build the bulk of it's planes in politcal bribery bids for regimes too small to finance the type of coddling that Airbus has been pampered with.

The intent was to abandon high-visibility and legendary reputation, but low margin commercial business, and focus on the short-term high margin government and defense contracts. This was intended to help pad a lot of people's pockets using the short-term rapid rollover approach of dotcom racketeering. It was also expected to be an easy approach, with a bought-and-paid-for agent doing the recommendations and sign-off's in the Pentagon's procurement office. When that agent retired immediately and took a number two job at Boeing after signing off on a multibilion dollar deal that was clearly rammed through on pork pretenses, all sorts of investigations, criminal, civil, and congressional kicked off.

Now a whole pile of their prior contracts are being sued for reevaluation, such as the C-130 maintanence and upgrade contract. Lockheed built them, Lockheed has the tools and the trained people, Lockheed has the facilities, and Lockheed knows them insides and out. Boeing doesn't, and Boeing got the contract - by this same agent now heading to prison.

Boeing's always had competition, whether from Lockheed, or Doulas, or McDonnell Douglas, or now Airbus. In the past, Boeing always won in the long run because they could build the best and fly better than the rest, even with Airbus's cozy coddling. The problem is that the top management doesn't want to work for a living, so they're abandoning the profitable commercial sector.

Complicating this whole fiasco has been the eco-commies that got themselves elected into power here in Washington state. The policy has been "we want your tax dollars, but we don't want your traffic, pollution, or planes". So far they haven't gotten a clue.

I've flown short hops all across various parts of the US, and long hauls to Japan and to the Middle East. For me air travel isn't stressful, it's a beat-the-system game everytime. Most of my travel though is short hops, although there is some cross-country stuff like a trip from Seattle to DC and back in a few months. If I can save $50-$150 bucks by taking a few stops on Southwest with peanuts vs United with weird food, I'm taking Southwest. My mom was jumping up and down when she heard SWA bought out AirTran, because that means she'll be able to claim her RapidRewards points for a trip to Hawaii now. My dad still has his Piedmont and Eastern luggage tags from the good old days.

Anyhow, the layouts look interesting. The intial descriptions of ~500 with lots of ammenities seems odd though. That was also considered for the 747's bubble, but quickly abandoned to pack in more people. The Japanese use 747's like we use 737's. I suspect that after a little bit most of the space-wasting will be retrofitted out, except on 'Virgin'. But that's Richard Branson for you. Lockheed even put the galley down in the hold on the Tristar to add more seats.

I think though the real kicker will be the frieghter contracts. That's been floating the 747 sales, and the military is occasionally dusting off ideas for dual-purpose COTS heavy transports, although the suspicion is that was more of the same inside jobs. That's a fun idea, pulling the troops and equipment out of Europe and closing the bases there to send them off to invade all the rest of the ME, thanks to the lifting capability of the A380. I can't wait to see the MegaGuppy version. Now *that* would be a plane.

[Akira 0]

Man. Everytime you show up its a 5+ paragraph post

I, too, was going to bring up the fact the 747 had lounges and bars (as did most planes) before the gas crunch. But it would be a non-comparative reply. The 747 was and is a gas guzzler. If the A380 can be profitable while at the same time supporting space for bars, casinos, gyms, etc etc, then I say more power to it. Makes me want to fly one even more.

[bn880 5]

Yeah also not sure if this has been mentioned, but the engines will be far more reliable than those of the 7X7 series. They specifically designed the engines to lower noise levels, even lower than those of a 747.

Basically we are talking about a larger diameter turbine, fewer blades, and lower RPM. This will simply turn into improved reliability and less catastrophic failures of an engine.

Cool beans if you ask me, plus this airliner can carry far more than 550 passengers if they opt for less luxurious sections etc.

Hope this thing makes it out there, will save some fuel, noise, and overall will be better for us all.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

forgot to mention the fact that the new Airbus,when accelerating, creates a tornado behind him!

So if you own a property next to an airport, then I suggest you build your house wisely

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

forgot to mention the fact that the new Airbus,when accelerating, creates a tornado behind him!

So if you own a property next to an airport, then I suggest you build your house wisely

[mg]http://www.kswestumc.org/images/t_motorcycle_debris.jpg[/img]

HAHA!  I can assure you the the Vortex generation isnt that strong its split into 8 locations along the wings.  Nothing like the forces required to send Dorathy over the rainbow to Oz. (unless you fly Quantas )

[Mr_Tea 0]

lol... i say again:

Boeing will stay the best, no mather what airbus is making,

boeing is:

A. the most used in the world

B. biggest suplyer of Air-arms

C. the most trusty jets that exist today--> Airbus has a whole Electric system, from the rudder to the stick, if something fails: YAUSC!! (you are up shit creek)

Hey Aviel, yust look here: http://www.eads.net/

Maybe there is a little more about Airbus you should know.

btw. If they implement fly by wire in a plane, I will trust them,with no doupt.

[aviel 0]

lol... i say again:

Boeing will stay the best, no mather what airbus is making,

boeing is:

A. the most used in the world

B. biggest suplyer of Air-arms

C. the most trusty jets that exist today--> Airbus has a whole Electric system, from the rudder to the stick, if something fails: YAUSC!! (you are up shit creek)  

Hey Aviel, yust look here: http://www.eads.net/

Maybe there is a little more about Airbus you should know.

btw. If they implement fly by wire in a plane, I will trust them,with no doupt.  

Ty for the link Mr_Tea, but i still dont trust them

Me R edicted to boeing

[Mr_Tea 0]

Boeing or Aibus?

It`s the same questions as:

Nvidia or ATI?

Anyway, no company can risk the live of more than 800 people.

If a few of this birds fall down, noone will fly with them.

[theavonlady 2]

btw. If they implement fly by wire in a plane, I will trust them,with no doupt.

Look up accident statistics of Boeing versus Airbus aircraft and you won't find much of a difference.

And Boeing began adding FBW when the 777 came out several years ago.

Personally, I don't care who manufactured the plane unless it's a Topolev or a Lockheed Tristar.

Comfort-wise, I'm always finding Airbus planes more cramped, though that can easily vary from one airline to the next and from one Airbus model to the next.

[EiZei 0]

Think the crampedness depends on the airline operator?

[theavonlady 2]

Think the crampedness depends on the airline operator?

That's what I said. Now, let's check if there's a correlation between legroom and management miserliness.

[dm 9]

lol... i say again:

Boeing will stay the best...

...Airbus has a whole Electric system, from the rudder to the stick, if something fails: YAUSC!! (you are up shit creek)

What you dont seem to realise is that aircraft do not fly on Windows powered PC's.

Their entire system is hard-coded into swappable data modules, each of which is thoroughly tested before they are even considered to be safe to plug into an aircraft.

Unlike windows, the "fly-by-wire" code is tested and tested and tested (all companies that develop such software employ test-pilots to "fly" the software on simulators for 1000's of hours in order to iron out any bugs) to ensure that such crashes dont happen.

And, you're actually safer on a "fly-by-wire" aircraft, as the primary electronic controls have two "redundant" back up systems, as well as the normal pair of redundant backup systems that the rest of the aircraft enjoys. And a piece of wire is much less likely to break than a hydraulic line with 2000psi of pressure in it or a steel cable under tons of tension

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Quote[/b] ]A. the most used in the world

Nope, Airbus have outperformed Boeing in sales for 5 of the last 6 years.

Quote[/b] ]B. biggest suplyer of Air-arms

So? Completely irrelevant.

Quote[/b] ]C. the most trusty jets that exist today--> Airbus has a whole Electric system, from the rudder to the stick, if something fails: YAUSC!! (you are up shit creek)

No, the Airbus has a better safety record and the electronic fly-by-wire system is much safer, as it has proper back-up systems, which you can't say for hydraulics.

Quote[/b] ]

Boeing will stay the best, no mather what airbus is making,

You go on believing that, but aircraft engineers and airlines will disagree with you

[aviel 0]

in reaction, to above.

go take a look at http://www.airdisaster.com/

who knows maby i am wrong...

13 years ago today, on January 20, 1992, an Air Inter Airbus A320-111 crashed while on approach to Strasbourg, France. 87 of the 96 passengers and crew aboard were killed.

^^^      

Fly by wire = wire snaps = casualty

in reaction to Ex-RoNiN ---> Boeing still is the most populair  

B. biggest suplyer of Air-arms --> More expiriance than airbus with aironautic's

c. fly-by-wire  ---> one wrong wire snaps, the whole fusalage snaps.

Boeing will stay the best, no mather what airbus is making, ---> we will see if thats true when the SSt comes out    

software on simulators---> never tested in real live, its simulated, pilots are never prepared for the real thing... belive me

[dm 9]

An example of one accident... Look at the stats and you'll find that Boeings crash just as much as Airbusses...

Fly by wire = wire snaps = casualty

The wires are much less likely to snap on a "fly-by-wire" system, as none of the system is under stress. Like I said, electrons flowing down a cable are far less likely to cause the cable to fail than hydraulic fluid in a pipe at 200-1000psi or a steel cable under tons (the weight) of tension.

c. fly-by-wire ---> one wrong wire snaps, the whole fusalage snaps.

Err.. how do you come to that conclusion? The "fly-by-wire" system does not hold the airframe together.

B. biggest suplyer of Air-arms --> More expiriance than airbus with aironautic's

Simply not true, you dont have to make guns to know more than someone else about shooting them, the same applies to this.

software on simulators---> never tested in real live, its simulated, pilots are never prepared for the real thing... belive me

I'm supposed to believe that over c. 50 years of combined family experience? I think not somehow... I have relatives who work on these sort of projects day in day out, and I can tell you current simulators are closer to real life now than you seem to be. Simulators are capable of simulating (duh) every aspect of modern day flight, from failure of ANY component within the system, to bird strikes, to bad weather, to electronic jamming, the lot.

Once something has been simulated on a computer, it is then applied to a test airframe, where it is then flight tested for another couple of hundred hours to ensure safety.

[aviel 0]

An example of one accident... Look at the stats and you'll find that Boeings crash just as much as Airbusses...

Fly by wire = wire snaps = casualty

The wires are much less likely to snap on a "fly-by-wire" system, as none of the system is under stress. Like I said, electrons flowing down a cable are far less likely to cause the cable to fail than hydraulic fluid in a pipe at 200-1000psi or a steel cable under tons (the weight) of tension.

Fly by wire = wire snaps = casualty

hydraulic's:

If they are threathed currectly, nothing happends.

lets take as example a air alaska MD80, that wasnt maintaind for one year. a hydraulic pipe snapped, causing it to overstress and expload in air.

Fly by wire crash example: once a swissair MD-11/DC-10's video intertainment system caused a fire, what snapped all electrycall systems, what caused smoke in cockpit, what caused 2 pilots that are terrified, what caused them to overreact, what caused them not to find the fire at time, what caused 300 peapoles live's.

edit: lol. sorry you are right. c. fly-by-wire  ---> one wrong wire snaps, the whole fusalage snaps.