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: Hurt American pride?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Way to go Waynos, Great thread and I gave you a "WATS" for such an amazing effort at trying to have a unbiased discusion with Fanboys lol




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
No apoloogy needed Darkblue sky, its all about opinions, besides I like a touch of wit (like your last post)


Carch, funnily enough I don't remember any of what you have posted above, are you sure you didn't just make it up?

I do remember Airbus seriously underestimating the Boeing 787 however, lulled into a sense of smugness by them outperforming Boeing fairly consistently and the amount of effort Boeing had wasted on the Sonic Cruiser, and I rememeber that the first attempt at producing the A350 to rival it was a complete shambles. But that was never the point of the thread anyway, nor was it about the real troubles of the A380, it was always aimed squarely at the groundless and uninformed carping we see, emphasised by the 'A380 is no big deal' responses above, including your own (ie building the worlds biggest airliner is a huge achievement, until Airbus does it, spot the contradiction).

You are right in what you say about American (but mainly Boeing) airliners, I'm not knocking them. You see? *I'm not knocking them*. Boeings contribution to air transport since WW2 is completely unparalelled. However in what sense is the 777 the most advanced aeroplane flying today? Even assuming you only mean civil aeroplanes, how is it more advanced than the A380?

Are you sure the Comet was an engineering and commercial failure? Comets were in airline service until 1980, and the military version of the same airframe is currently being developed into a brand new version after 38 years of service in its own right. Sounds like a new definition of 'failure' I haven't previously encountered. And remember, without the Comet there would not have been a 707. It played its part in aviation history alright. Besides, you should be well aware by now, the UK does inventing, not selling.


I also rather expect the Dash 8 to be more technologically advanced than the Comet, call me a curmudgeon but I think, being built over thirty years later rather demands that to be the case.


There are also some specifics of the whole SST story you might want to brush up on (like the fact that the US SST died long before it was known there was no future for the type, simply through the US president forcing Boeing to set its technological goals too high - its all in the details).



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I'm American, but I think the A-380 is a great idea!

So what if we aren't building the BIGGEST airplane at the moment. I think it's dumb to expect to be the biggest and best at EVERYTHING, EVERY TIME!

Sorry to say it, but Some of our leaders here in the good old USA are becoming Arrogent! It good to see Airbus taking such a big leap forward. If Boeing feels like their Ego get brusied by the A-380, maybe they will GET OFF THEIR TAIL and start being innovative again.

Sometimes I think we (The USA) need to take a break from political Grandstanding and look at our REAL Problems! Yes Americal is a great country in many ways, But we also have our OWN bag of Problems we need to fix!

Maybe A reality check is just what the Doctor Ordered!

Tim

[edit on 4-10-2006 by ghost]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
My answer is NO.

A multinational company built the world biggest commercial jet liner, my question is so what? I'm not "hurt" that it's not American. There are way too many other things (to me) more important to be concerned about. However I will say this, certain people do boast about this plane, and tend to push it a little bit, and most are not American...



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Meh, the A380 hasn't effected me in the least bit. Being an American, I haven't paid much attention to anything outside of my country.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
americans build big cars not planes,

most arospace companies employ staff from allover the world and if they all worked together
we'd be on on pluto by now.

us brits are the king of inventions,i cant wait to use the new dyson hand dryer! the US seem to be top at reverse engineering.they will always have the resorses to out do most countries

britian is buliding the wings for this french oddity,the engines for the jsf, hud's for the isralis and what ever else that is too technical

of couse im biased,but not arsed,

in Arthur c clarkes favorate si fi book olaf stabletons - first and last men writian in the 1930 he predicts the a bomb very well,and spookaly writes how the US and Europe go to war and how the world becomes an american and chineise world its brilliant cos its so what could happen.

As david ike rekons Britian and france still run the US,and i like the idea that america is continuing our empire by proxy,



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

David ike rekons Britian and france still run the US,and i like the idea that america is continuing our empire by proxy,


The Reptilian man thinks that the UK "runs" the US?
Is he not aware of a very significant year, 1776?

[edit on 4-10-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
What do you mean that the Dash-80 (i skip 1 zero, sorry
) flew 30 years away the Comet?



The 707 was based on an aircraft known as the 367-80. The "Dash 80", as it was called within Boeing, took less than two years from project launch in 1952 to rollout on May 14, 1954. The prototype was the basis for both the KC-135 Stratotanker, an air tanker used by the United States Air Force, and the 707


en.wikipedia.org...

DeHaviland Comet




Design work began in 1946 under Ronald Bishop and the intention was to have a commercial aircraft by 1952. The DH 106 Comet first flew on 27 July 1949. At the controls was de Havilland test pilot, John Cunningham, the same man who set a new altitude record two years later in a de Havilland DH 100 Vampire.


en.wikipedia.org...

Call me crazy, but from 1949 to 1954 there are only 5 years...



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
"Hurt American Pride" is relative, as well as being an absolute proclamation/assumption, waynos.

What is the true 'killer' here is "Old Europe/Europa" smugness and underestimation, but hey, that is pretty 'a' typical, correct?
Counter dictum here: Bigger is not always better, and to be honest, that is what Airbus did and is finding out.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I don't think the A380 hurts American pride whether it's successful or not, we still have many accomplishes to be proud of.

I personally think it's going to end up to be a dud, but who knows....anything can happen.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Way to cast out the ol' troll bait, Waynos. I see you got a few bites.

It's easy to forget through the dark mists of time that around 1971 Boeing had quite a few 747 parked in Everett with cement blocks where the engines should have been because of integration problems (no, not racial integration, obviously Amerikkka is still way behind Europistan in such matters) but was able to solve the problem and bring production rates up to levels that produced actual profits.

In that case Juan Trippe, Pan Am and Boeing investors hung thier ass out on the line, and failure was an option, not an abstract budget line in a government underwritten project.

Nor can it be denied that Boeing's Dash 80 /707 was developed and government subsidised in order to provide an air-refueling vehicle to support the B-52 bomber, an American taxpayer supported project that supported the other American taxpayer supported project of keeping West Europe out of the Russian sphere of influence because European taxpayers refused to fund that project themselves.

I don't think it's jingoism to observe that an investment that fails to yield a timely return of capital or result in quick turnover of inventory or claim a significant market share is a bad investment.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
"Hurt" American pride? Hardly. This bird is an electrical nightmare. Bigger is not necessarily better.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
Its quite true; the US has everything to be proud of as far as technological innovation.

Except of course

the car
the flushing toilet
the jet engine
the jet airliner
internal combustion engines
powered flight (the wrights were the first to prove sustained, powered, controlled flight only. each part had already beeen done seperatly between them.)
computers
tv
telephones
radio
nuclear power (uk had first comercial power plant)
submarines
tivo!


1- We may not have invented the car but we did perfect it. If ity weren't for Henry Ford it would have been just another aristocratic plaything for european peasants to gock at.

2- Well we weren't around in 2500 BC.

3- You got us on the jet engine

4- Yes the first commercially available jetliner was British but the first commercially successful jetliner was American.

5- Actually we did

Samuel Morey

6- So someone built a glider, then someone tried to build a powered glider but failed then someone built a powered glider but it crashed. I think you're reaching a little here my friend.

7- Actually we did that too
USA, USA, USA

Atanasoff-Berry Computer

8- Highly debatable. However the first regular color broadcasts in Europe only started in 1967 nearly a decade after they had begun in America. America wins

9- Again very debatable

10- Well actually Marconi drew on alot of Tesla's ideas. and yes Tesla was an American(he was naturalized on July 30, 1891)

11- Yeah but we created the worlds first sustained-controlled nuclear reaction and of course the first uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

12- I believe it was an American named David Bushnell that constructed first submarine used in combat.

The Turtle

13- Really
It says that the company is based in California. Thats where I live in pretty sure were part of the US.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
"You have voted waynos for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."

Nice one waynos, keep reeling them in



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
An interesting bit of chum to throw out into the shark infested Aviation waters Waynos.

I am disapointed to see it develop into a "well we invented 78 ply embossed toilet paper" before your country type of argument. What next? Who can pee the furthest.

In regards to the pride issue, its an interesting notion and I have a few observations:

When an American shows pride in thier country, its almost universaly treated with scorn and ridicule (here and elsewhere) yet the EU and others seem to be exempt from those sort of critisims by and large.

Airbus is a great source of EU pride there is no denying it as evidence by many of the posters in this very forum. SO why is it surprising that Americans take pride in the acomplishments of the Boeing Corporation?

In as far as having the biggest plane, is it that big of a pissing contest? Boeing and Airbus have competent design teams. Does anybody doubt Boeing could design a mega transport if it so desired? Granted it would not have the luxury of not having to pay back any aid untill it was profitable, but the A380 is not a revolutionary design (A good design with evolutionary details) but not earth shaking as the Comet or -80 was in its day. Perhaps it cannot because it does not have access to such financing. Boeing also had a different view of the market.

Yes the 747-8 is an acknowledgement that there may be a bigger end to the mega transport market than it anticipated but:

1) Its not that much bigger than the existing 747-400. I mean we are talking 50 seats here so cleary they don't think a mega transport of thier own is needed.
2) Some new tricks, but the development cost are going to be pretty low. The engines were already developed for the 787 and require some tweeks but not that many. A380 development is at 8-12 billion right? How much of that is in loans and launch aid? So why not put a variant out there with so little risk.
3) It may be enuf to keep some carriers within the fold or operate mixed fleets like Luftansa is considering it may also eat into a fw of the A380 sales which leads me to this---------------------------

I don't think Boeing cares if it sell a passanger variant of the -8. I mean it cares about sales period, but I think they designed the -8 to go after A380F sales. Two major cargo carriers Emirates and Atlas have echewed the A380F in favor of the 747-8F and Boeing launched it on the basis of cargo orders. Every order they take away eats away at total production numbers of the A380 delaying its profitability mark and that also has political advantages and allows them to continue to point at the unfair advantage Airbus has in such matters.


My position on Airbus mainly revolves around its funding and oeprations not in the skill of its people or the quality of the planes they build. I am always skeptical because in my view Airbus has been basicaly a giant jobs program and with the backing of French government and others has basicaly maintained an unfair advantage over Boeing because of it. I have to be honest as well: The A380 while no will doubt will be a usefull a/c for slot limited hubs seems to be like to Concord a pride issue in and of itself. Profits (at least before EADS assumed control) were a secondary consideration in relation to the political "Look what we can do" / economic benifits aka The EU Deal Job Creation Program.

Seems Pride is flourishing on both sides of the pond.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
No.
People hate the A380, because it IS really annoying, to me and to many people in the world. Airbus marketing keeps making up a load of crap sayings like, "OUR A380 HAS BARS IN IT MUCH BETTER THAN 747". No Airline is even doing anything like that.

I hate the A380 program, since it's so hyped up. Mr. Fanboy from Farnborough saw the A380 fly past. Mr. Marketing told him it's 'O so much better than the 747 / 787, so then Mr. Fanboys goes.

"ZOMG I SAW THE A380 I AM 11 ITS BETTER THAN THE 747 AND 787, AIRBUS IS BETTER THAN BOEING ZOMGZOR!111". That is what causes me to get really annoyed about the A380.

Great TV channels like NGEO waste time talking about how revolutionary it is, when it truely isn't. The next day at school after that doco was on, since I like planes, I get:
"ZOMG I SAW THE A380 I AM 11 ITS BETTER THAN THE 747 AND 787, AIRBUS IS BETTER THAN BOEING ZOMGZOR cuz AIRBUS SED SO!1111".

People need to wake up, the A380 is yar, a nice plane. But they should take a look at the 787. It is a more comfortable plane than the A380, as well as it is 80% composites by volume, and they plan to build something like 18 a month with over 440 orders for a plane that is due to fly in a year! IMO, That is more revolutionary than the hyped up A380, which caused people in the USA / EU to make these fanboyish posts.




Look at how many aircraft there are in the world today in the same class that the 787 will fill (this includes the 767, A330, A340 and smaller 777’s), literally thousands . Now look at how many 747’s (the only previous model that comes close to the A380) are in service (precisely 989 of all models with 46 more -400’s on order). Of course the 787 is going to sell more than the A380, the A350 will, in turn, outsell the 747-8, all of which proves precisely nothing.

Yes but the 787 flies in a whole year!



What this argument doesn’t seem to recognise is that there is no numbers race between the two models, they are too different. Those races are between the A380 and the 747-8 (which Airbus is winning)

Didn't the 747 get more orders than the A380 last year?


the idea that Boeing, trailing in both sales and output

That may be true, but last year it wasn't much. This year, well:
Boeing: 666 (ZOMG THE DEVIL)
Airbus: 253


Originally posted by Shamanator
Boeing builds far superior planes in every way compared to Airbus all I have to say is you will never beat America! We are the winners and you are the losers. This is the way it has always been and this is the way it will always be. Don’t even try it losers. America will beat your ass again. Anytime. Bring’em on!

Go USA!!


WTF!? You're just making your country look bad.


1st stealth technology bomber; Northrup Grumman B-2

wasn't the F-117 that first one? Or was that a fighter. Also, the rest of your post has nothing todo with commercial aviation.

So Waynos, I could easily say what you said directly back to you with the 787. Here are some example:
"ZOMG USA SUCKZORZ!!1 TEH 787 IS CRAPYZZ!1"
I won't go into anymore details, just look up my post for them, or go to www.flightlevel350.com and search in the forum, for someone called A300dude.

It is my understanding that Europe as a whole HATES the USA from assholes who think Boeing is so much better. I even found a whole site DEDICATED to it.


Look at the germans.....they buy only german made products.....

Even though Lufthansa flies the 747?


To other people, who gives a crap about who did what. This is about commerical aviation in RECENT years. Not if some idiot did that and that...

P.S I'm an Auzzie.



[edit on 5-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]

[edit on 5-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   



yet this is a muti-national message board and when somebody posts something that they are proud of their country, americans come storming in going BLAHHHHHHHHHH,

then we defend ourselfs saying america is not 'all' that great (give our reasons), then we get "you just hate us because of our freedoms"

Ever notice, that most Americans never bash Europe unless they do it to them first? This thread is a prime example.

I could create a thread about how much nicer Australia is about any other place, whether true or not. Renember, people think you're right if you say it right.


Also why Americans should be jealous.
Boeing creates the fist successful jetliner, the 707
They expanded aviation to anybody the 747
and you can go on and on

WHO CARES? We are talking about now, not 1955 or something when the 707 flew.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
The main point of my post, is there IS reasons to not like the A380, and it's not only Americans who do these fanboyish posts.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   


Ever notice, that most Americans never bash Europe unless they do it to them first? This thread is a prime example.

You should not be so harsh on your self, any way, america is still a Europian colony, you might not notice it, but all the people behind the scenes are Europians,
such as roial blood lines, europe owns the federal reserve bank

The big shoots are pulled from here, frome europe, from people that no one knows, I'm not exactly proud by that, being an europian, but thats how things are.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Wow, so many replies, where do I begin?
Well, first I will mention the Olympic standard of 'missing the point' that has been demonstrated in so many replies. When it comes to this aspect I would like to proclaim PisTonZOR the gold medallist.


P.S I'm an Auzzie.

No excuse necessary pal, you won fair and square, especially with all those 'out of context' quotes you used.


For the record, the 787 has had hardly any unnecessary bashing at all (but I can't speak for forums I don't use, obviously) and yes, when it flies it WILL be the most advanced airliner in the sky, once more you missed the entire point.

rather than trawl back through all the replies which make the same wrong assumption I will just say again

*the first post is very specific, it is not saying that the A380 hurts American pride generally or universally, or than anyone is 'better' than anyone else, at anything.

It is specifically aimed at a particular mindset that just bashes with no bearing on reality and takes no account of real fact* (you could extend this to posts with mindless bashing of anything, F-22 maybe, thats had quite a bit too, but the A380 has seen by far the biggest proportion of it, hence why I chose that as the subject). In this particular case (and certainly not generally) the only reason that makes sense is the one spelled out in the first post.

And to be frank, this is all explicitly explained right there in the first post. Maybe some of you guys would like to take the time to read it again, but with the tin hats off?

To come back to the replies, there are excellent points made in more than a few but they seem to be in the wrong thread, I agree with many, I disagree with quite a few, but I'm trying to resist the urge to debate the issues (but not very successfully) in an attempt to make sure the original message is not too diluted. There are some I'd like to respond though;

aaaaa, nothing to criticise there, I just want to acknowledge another quality post, both side of the coin concisely illustrated.


Danwild - you tease! the frustration here is killing me
I....must.....stay.....on.....topic grrr


Fred, although I'm sorry that the subtlety of the first post appears to have passed you by (like so many others, maybe its a transatlantic thing?) you have again raised some great points, as always.




Airbus is a great source of EU pride there is no denying it as evidence by many of the posters in this very forum. SO why is it surprising that Americans take pride in the acomplishments of the Boeing Corporation?


It isn't, as I said thats not what I was writing about, its only the ones who take the view that 'I like Boeing ergo everything that Airbus does is crap' that I'm having a pot shot at. For the record, Russian/European sympathisers who call the F-22 crap, Chinese who call the Tejas crap (and vice versa with Indians and the J-10) Typhoon fans who call the Rafale crap (and you know how I like the Typhoon)
etc etc etc all fall into the same category and get viewed with the same scorn, I just chose the biggest and most current example to make the point is all.

Regarding the 747-8 and the A380, the most interesting point of the comparisons between them for me is that, although Boeing has realised it DOES need a competitor in the heavy market, it clearly feels that this is as big as it is ever going to go, the 747-8, apart from all the new technology, being an ultimate growth model of the 747. The A380 on the other hand is clearly a plane at the beginning of a growth cycle (look at any three view, the fuselage appears to be far too short and the wings quite massive, despite it being longer than a 747). Just how big does Airbus feel they can go with the 380, and still sell it and fly it? I don't pretend to know the answer to that or whether Airbus has a hope in hell of ever realising the full growth potential of the type, but IF they ever did of course I don't doubt that Boeing could come up with an all-new competitor if the need was there.

I disagree that Boeing isn't really bothered about selling passenger models of the new 747-8, it is actually trying very hard, because, as you say, every one soild is one less A380. In the 747-8 review published in Flight when it was revealed Boeing said that they acknowledge that the A380 will beat them in passenger sales but that they feel they will win the freight market battle, this is not the same not being bothered. Astonishingly perhaps an Airbus spokesman said that they were confident they would win the battle in the passenger market but that the 747-8 would take the freighter market away from them, which amounts to an agreement!


I am disappointed that you feel the A380 was created purely 'because we can' as you seem to be saying.
The A380 was based on very lengthy research into future needs and to whether Airlines would want to buy them. The Govt aid that irks you so is also public money and the UK Govt, for certain (I can't speak for the others as I don't know them) would not have invested without a solid commercial case and a very strong likliehood of not just getting back, but with a substantial profit as we have on every other Airbus model we have co-funded. The idea that any other European country would tip up millions of Euros just to let France build the biggest airliner in the world is frankly ludicrous Fred, you surprise me.

I also detect a hint of spite in your 'jobs creation programme' comment. Don't you think that anyone else should have a high tech aerospace industry? Don't you realise that the US will protect its own industry if it ever needed to (and indeed has, however they might try to dress it up), there is no way that the US administration would ever allow Boeing to slide into oblivion if push came to shove, why is that a bad thing? It is absolutely necessary.

The thing is that Airbus was created by aircraft companies (Hawker Siddeley, MBB, Sud Aviation) not by governments, the govt money helped to support it, of course, but it was not an 'artificial jobs creation' scheme, it was a pooling of EXISTING skills to produce an airliner which could genuinely compete in the marketplace. This was achieved and every single Airbus type since has returned a profit on those investments for the Govts involved, therefore painting it as a drain on public funds to support it artificially is completely wrong.

We've had this debate before of course and from what I remember the biggest differen between Airbus and Boeing, financially speaking, is that Airbus pays its funding back with profits while Boeing just swallows its own aid, sorry, 'tax breaks'. We're not going there again are we?




new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join