It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A380, sucess or failure...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
As far as planes go, there are several countries that outsource to build our planes there, so why shouldn't we? Korea is buying the F-15K, the first of which are to be built here in the US, later models in Korea once the equipment is in place. Japan builds the F-15J. That's common with Russia as well. As far as buying planes mostly built by Boeing, again why wouldn't we? We have an industry leader here in the US, so what would be the point of buying predominantly from another country to supply our transportation aircraft? If Airbus and Boeing had the same history, I'm sure that you would see the same thing happening in Europe with them buying predominantly Airbus, and the US buying Boeing. It just makes more sense if you have a company like that in your country.




posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

.......and then there is the entire issue of how your gov & industry expects to sell to Europe but wouldn't dream of buying European. Even the BAe Hawks you had to make in the US.....


Of course! It's called co-production, which is why every single WAH-64 Apache was made by Westland (now Agusta Westland) made in Yeovil with RTM engines, jsut like the Japanese AH-64Ds are made by Subaru in Utsunomiya with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries engines. Having visited all three of those factories in the past years, I can say that the work on all of them is superb.

An offshore company is going to win awards by providing the customer country with a jobs program for their engineers and factory workers, which is why Aerospatiale won the reconnaissance helicopter program for Australia by building a factory there!

And let me tell you about bikes. Japanese bikes are as reliable as the day is long, but they have no soul (I have owned about ten of them, from all four of the big makers). And, I am embarrassed to say, I have owned a Milwaukee Tracter, a genuwine Hogley Davidson and would never own another. And the Italian bikes? Well, they're okay, I guess, but I'm a confirmed heterosexual, so that sort of lets me out.

I think we can agree that there is only one country that knows how to make real motorcycles.

But Jaysus, man, you gotta do something about those $^**)^Y#^%%&()* Lucas electrics!!!!

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I pesonally think all the technology is in Japan and Europe. American cars get the WORST fuel efficiency in the world. Airbus, I personnaly think, is the best plane maker. No oofense to anyone that's American, but all the technology that you have is from somewhere else. The first car was made in Europe. German scientists were way ahead that the Americans in making the atomic bomb, 3-4 years exactly. The small, fuel-efficient cars were made in Japan. The first car in the US was made in 1895-6, 10 years later that Karl Benz in Germany. I could go on and on about this but i think you get the point.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As far as planes go, there are several countries that outsource to build our planes there, so why shouldn't we? Korea is buying the F-15K, the first of which are to be built here in the US, later models in Korea once the equipment is in place. Japan builds the F-15J. That's common with Russia as well. As far as buying planes mostly built by Boeing, again why wouldn't we? We have an industry leader here in the US, so what would be the point of buying predominantly from another country to supply our transportation aircraft? If Airbus and Boeing had the same history, I'm sure that you would see the same thing happening in Europe with them buying predominantly Airbus, and the US buying Boeing. It just makes more sense if you have a company like that in your country.


Boeing is only assembling the planes in th US, not building them.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qwazzy

Boeing is only assembling the planes in th US, not building them.


We build them here too. We outsource some parts from other countries, but large portions of them are built here in the US. Airbus does the same thing. The A380 is having pieces built in 6 different countries.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qwazzy
I pesonally think all the technology is in Japan and Europe. American cars get the WORST fuel efficiency in the world. Airbus, I personnaly think, is the best plane maker. No oofense to anyone that's American, but all the technology that you have is from somewhere else. The first car was made in Europe. German scientists were way ahead that the Americans in making the atomic bomb, 3-4 years exactly. The small, fuel-efficient cars were made in Japan. The first car in the US was made in 1895-6, 10 years later that Karl Benz in Germany. I could go on and on about this but i think you get the point.


Sure and all the technology from almost every country in the world started somewhere else. Germany built cars first, now Japan makes them. The US made the first flight, now many countries make planes. So why is it different for the US? You make it seem like it's a bad thing that the US uses technology that was started in another country, when every country in the world almost, does the same thing.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Qwazzy
I pesonally think all the technology is in Japan and Europe. American cars get the WORST fuel efficiency in the world. Airbus, I personnaly think, is the best plane maker. No oofense to anyone that's American, but all the technology that you have is from somewhere else. The first car was made in Europe. German scientists were way ahead that the Americans in making the atomic bomb, 3-4 years exactly. The small, fuel-efficient cars were made in Japan. The first car in the US was made in 1895-6, 10 years later that Karl Benz in Germany. I could go on and on about this but i think you get the point.


Sure and all the technology from almost every country in the world started somewhere else. Germany built cars first, now Japan makes them. The US made the first flight, now many countries make planes. So why is it different for the US? You make it seem like it's a bad thing that the US uses technology that was started in another country, when every country in the world almost, does the same thing.


True, but I think, for some reason, that all the technology, wheter its computers or cellphones, is made in leading countries like Germany and Japan.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Qwazzy]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
It's called co-production, which is why every single WAH-64 Apache was made by Westland (now Agusta Westland) made in Yeovil with RTM engines, jsut like the Japanese AH-64Ds are made by Subaru in Utsunomiya with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries engines.


- I'm not denying that there can't be 'off setting' arrangements OTS, the F16 program in Europe was a fine example of it, for instance - but look at the buying profile over the last 20yrs.
The US loves everyone else to buy their kit and buys very very little of ours.

Even the debate about cars and buying what one imagines as a foreign car isn't quite as straight-forward as one might think......Ford own 40% of Mazda, so an American buying a Mazda is really buying an almost American car......just one assembled in Japan etc.

Modern economics, huh?


let me tell you about bikes. Japanese bikes are as reliable as the day is long, but they have no soul (I have owned about ten of them, from all four of the big makers).


- For most of their product I'd call that fair comment, once in a while one or two sneak out with a little IMO. (Ridiculously over-powered big Gsxr's being one of them.
)


And, I am embarrassed to say, I have owned a Milwaukee Tracter, a genuwine Hogley Davidson and would never own another.


- Cruiser type bikes just don't do it for me I'm afraid.
I've never had one nor wanted one.......my pal has a 1700 warrior Yamaha V2; interesting (unlike many in that 'class' it has suspension and brakes that work properly) but it's just not where I'd spend my money.


And the Italian bikes? Well, they're okay, I guess, but I'm a confirmed heterosexual, so that sort of lets me out.


- Oh man!
I have a Ducati-owning mate (a confirmed hetero too
) who just loves those things. He's had the lot from the 916 on and currently has the top spec 999.
Much to my surprise they have even proved reliable!
Not my cup of tea but he reckons they have soul and I can't deny they are blindingly quick and handle beautifully.


I think we can agree that there is only one country that knows how to make real motorcycles.


- Well we all know God rides a Triumph......or was it a BSA!



But Jaysus, man, you gotta do something about those $^**)^Y#^%%&()* Lucas electrics!!!!


- Yeah, not exactly our finest moment eh?
Poor old Joe Lucas, to be cursed down the years for crappy 'lectrics!

No surprises the new Triumphs use Japanese electrics I guess!

(and seriously, if you get the chance take a test ride on that new Rocket 3, talk about a torque monster, it's a big heavy old beast - but you guys have a stack of straight roads to enjoy it properly on - I guarantee you will remember it for the rest of your natural; it really rocks.)


[edit on 19-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Yeah... Nice comments...
Does anybody here think that somebody will build the A380 to a perfect luxury plane... or will everybody stick to the standard "We'll build as many seats as possible"...?


[edit on 19-6-2005 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
As long as it's built for the airlines, the "We need to put as many people as we can" attitude will prevail. The airlines are out for profit plain and simple, so they'll want to get as many people as they can on a plane. There may be some luxury added to it, but they'll have as many seats as they can.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
The only thing I can say is that they better have dry cleaners on that thing, wouldn't want to be toasting my martini when turbulence hits.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Yeah... Nice comments...
Does anybody here think that somebody will build the A380 to a perfect luxury plane... or will everybody stick to the standard "We'll build as many seats as possible"...?


Moooooooooooo airborne cattle car. Bars do not add to revenue generating for airlines. So much like the lounges that were available when the 747's and the cargo hold bars that were in the L-1011's. They quickly disappeared and as many seats were added.

BTW, the main reason for the delay as mentioned in this weeks AWST is not a severe engineering problem rather an under-estimation of how long it would take to outfit the interior of the planes. Airbus did have a similar problem with its A340-600 schedule as well. No doubt the plane will go into service albeit late and haul alot of people between hub and spoke cities.

The real key here is the pending WTO issues and which view of the future is correct (hub to hub vs. smaller city pairs)



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
My understanding of the delay was simply that there was a labor issue at a factory in Germany I think it was, so they was a dealy in getting some of the parts, and then there was a problem with outfitting the interiors. Nothing major there, just simple problems that could happen with any company anywhere. They'll have to fly a lot more test flights before any truly major problems would occur.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As long as it's built for the airlines, the "We need to put as many people as we can" attitude will prevail. The airlines are out for profit plain and simple, so they'll want to get as many people as they can on a plane. There may be some luxury added to it, but they'll have as many seats as they can.


I don't know about that. That's true about crammng as much people as you can on a plane, but maybe bigger airlines like British Airways (if they are buying the A380) will raise the ticket price and have it be more luxorious.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
From what I've heard, British Airways is NOT planning to buy the 380. But the airlines have to make profit to survive. If they increase ticket prices, fewer people will fly, therefore less profit, therefore they have to cut costs to keep from losing money, so less luxury...... it's a catch-22.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
From what I've heard, British Airways is NOT planning to buy the 380. But the airlines have to make profit to survive. If they increase ticket prices, fewer people will fly, therefore less profit, therefore they have to cut costs to keep from losing money, so less luxury...... it's a catch-22.


Oh



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
From what I've heard, British Airways is NOT planning to buy the 380. But the airlines have to make profit to survive.


It depends if they are flying to a lot of slot limited airports then They may have to consider it. You also have to look at thier load factors and destinations served. No doubt they will look at the economics of thier situation and buy accordingly. Unless the UK government puts pressure on them to buy the plane.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
British Airways has concerns about the ability of the Airbus A380 to handle 600 passengers, Air Transport World reports. The airline wants to see the superjumbo jet in service before it places orders. Airbus officials have predicted the airline will order the A380. Air Transport World (5/20)



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
IT would be quite cool to se the next Air-Force 1 as an A380 BTW, even thoug it's impossible...



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
The thing about British Airways (and BOAC as it was) is it has had a long standing love affair with Boeing and the only Boeing jet transport it has not bought was the 727 and that was only because they inherited a fleet of similar DH Tridents after the merger wirth BEA.

BA has consistently overlooked Airbus and headed straight for Seattle whilst waving a chequebook frantically (figuratively speaking).

So ingrained is this situation that it may surprise you to learn that the BA order for the A320 was a major shock so if the 747A does get produced don't be surprised if you see BA becoming one of the early customers.

It goes right back to 1955 when the then BOAC informed the Govt that it had no requirement whatsoever for a big four engined transatlantic jet and cause the Vickers VC-7 to be scrapped with the prototype almost finished, only to then turn around 12 months later and plead that it needed to order the 707 if it was to remain competitive on these routes. After Vickers reported that restarting the VC-7 was no longer possible permission was granted and BA and Boeing remain devoted to each other to this day.

The final irony for Vickers was that, in order for it to meet BOAC's requirement Boeing had to re-enginje the 707 with the VC-7's Conway engines.

I drifted a little there but a little historical perspective is always useful.







 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join