my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » A380 - world's largest pasenger aircraft - makes maiden flight (Page 8)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

Author Topic: A380 - world's largest pasenger aircraft - makes maiden flight Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 10-06-2006 04:23 PM                        quote: Bill Enos Michael, in running cable, crosstalk is something that happens often enough that you must expect it, and be prepared to resolve it. You, working in the service side well know that the engineering types seem to believe their designs are perfect from the beginning. In reality, it's the service techs that make most of their designs function in the real world. There is some truth in that, but airplanes are really on a completely different level of complexity than the stuff we work with. Whatever really happened, there, it is obviously a huge messup, very embarassing for the company, too, but I am not inclined to pass judgment because I couldn't do better. I wonder if "entertainment system cabling" is the real reason or if they haven't come across a more serious safety issue that they don't want to reveal because it would taint the reputation of the plane from even before the start.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 10-06-2006 04:43 PM                        If so, that's a very high risk strategy, because if someone else does the revealing, then Airbus have really screwed their pooch. In that scenario they'd be accused of trying to cover up a safety issue. Even if they later corrected it, the damage would be done in terms of public reputation. Paul - correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this scenario pretty much what undermined sales of the DC-10 in the '80s? The impression, rightly or wrongly, that McDonnell-Douglas was trying to brush the underlying causes of the Paris and Chicago crashes under the carpet created the public image of a fundamentally unsafe aircraft, even though the technical flaws, once identified, were easily and cheaply rectified? So any airline considering the purchase of DC-10s knew they were buying a PR problem, even if the aircraft itself was fundamentally safe by that stage. Given the management problems that have affected Airbus in the last 12-18 months and the intense competition between the Airbus and Boeing concepts for the next generation of long-haul airliners (Airbus megajumbos v. smaller capacity, more flexible planes), any credible accusation of a safety problem in the design or manufacture could spell big trouble, I guess - and even bigger trouble if Airbus tried to deny it.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-07-2006 10:32 PM                     It would seem to me that they would attempt to minimize xtalk with a more robust software package. I know for a fact that digital crosstalk can be managed via software. Seems like software has always been a problem for Airbus though. I too feel that its some other safety issue they don't want let out, probably not a structural issue though. I think airplane structures have advanced beyond a point that something could have slipped by them in that aspect. Mark  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 10-08-2006 06:47 AM                        Meanwhile, the Airbus gets cheaper as penalty clauses kick in. Loading/unloading is still the bane of any large vessel; ship or aircraft. Assuming Boeing does not have similar problems (delays) it will be educational to see who "wins." Louis  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-08-2006 08:40 AM                     Boeing has already won for the most part. With close to 500 orders for a plane that hasn't left the ground yet. What counts is the number of total orders placed in selling planes of this type. Boeing also has far more experience in just about every aspect of airpanes... as much as the rest of the indusrty combined! Mark  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-09-2006 09:33 PM                     Oops. More Airbus problems today. The new CEO resigned after just 99 days on the job. I was a bit off on the orders at Boeing.... I think he sees it as a loose-loose situation. It also really makes me wonder if there is some sort of safety issue at hand with the "flying cash cow".... From today's article on MSNBC "After concentrating massive resources on the superjumbo, Airbus has been outmaneuvered by Boeing’s two-engine 787, which delivers better fuel economy than older four-engine Airbus jets in the same size category — a sales argument that has grown more persuasive with higher fuel prices. A widening gap The gap widened on Monday, as Airbus announced it had taken orders for 226 planes from Jan.1 through Sept. 30, compared with 723 net orders recorded by Boeing as of Oct. 3."  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 10-09-2006 11:45 PM                        Careful with the statistics Mark. That 226 figure quoted for Airbus is just for the A380 whereas the quoted Boeing number is for total aircraft orders across all of their offered types including the 787 and the new 747-8. Airbus' order book for all of their offered types is similar to Boeing's - the competition between the two companies remains close and fierce, as it should be.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 10-11-2006 10:43 AM                        Well, the saga taxis on... CEO Christian Streiff was 'Airbusted!' according to the banner headline on Fox News in my Anchorage hotel room just now, or 'canned in a boardroom boot', as the announcer described his resignation. The story had to compete with Kim Jong Il and Congressman Foley for airtime, and so didn't get much: but the gist of it seeemed to be that Streiff wanted to radically reorganise Airbus to try and both sort out the A380 and make the other lines profitable. In response, the Spanish and German governments took one look at the scale of job losses that would involve, and promptly told him to return his seat to the upright position and remember that the nearest emergency exit may be behind him.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 10-11-2006 10:04 PM                        This is a little OT, but has anyone ever thought of fitting the big aircraft for intercontinental flights with bunks like in a submarine rather than seats? The seats are crampy even for slim people, you can't really sleep in them, there is little legroom. I guess you could fit just as many bunks in as seats since you could three or so on top of each other. Then people could really stretch out and sleep and be much more rested than after the torture of sitting in a sardine can for 10 hours. Just a thought.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 10-11-2006 10:15 PM                        Heh. Looks like someone recently patented an idea for seats that convert into sleepers.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-12-2006 09:15 PM                     quote: Paul Mayer Careful with the statistics Mark. I'd be curious to see where you got your figures...As of Sept 30 2006 from the Seattle Buisness Weekly Boeing has 507 orders just for 737's so far this year. Ryanair also recently signed an agreement for an additional 32 737's. According to answers dot com Boeing has 408 orders (368 firm, 40 pending) to date for the 787. That my friend is one busy plane maker and they have left Airbus in the dust! This of course doesn't count the 747, 767 planes. Last year it was more neck and neck with Boeing at 825 and Airbus at 687. Mark  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 10-13-2006 03:44 PM                        Mark apparently doesn't understand that this isn't a game in which there will ever be a "winner". It is in the best interest of the airline industry to have competing companies rather than a monopoly of any single one.  |  IP: Logged Robert Minichino Master Film Handler Posts: 350 From: Haskell, NJ, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 10-13-2006 03:46 PM                        Bah, you can't have competition if no one wins!  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-14-2006 04:50 PM                     Exactly Robert! Michael still doesn't see the big picture in which Boeing will buy Airbus at a fire sale . Mark  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 10-14-2006 05:05 PM                        It would be a big disadvantage for airlines if there was only one manufacturer with a monopoly which can dictate prices for new planes. I think they take that into account when making their ordering decisions. But it is good to see that there is still an area in which an US manufacturer can compete internationally.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.