More proof of the U.S. downfall. Viva la france!

[DanS]

That was a very helpful post by Adam Smith.

[MikeH]

Concorde was a big loser too.

[BeBMan]

But it was still cool.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I heard that some models of the plane would seat up to 800 passengers. Can you imagine the stink when one of those babies goes down?

Are you sure about this? I haven't seen anything relating to that number.

IIRC, the jets really can't accomodate more than 600 or so passengers due to weight restrictions. As was previously noted, it is already believed some seriously new technology is needed to go beyond the weight of these planes. Accomodating 200+ more passengers would entail a huge increase in weight, between them, the seats and their baggage.

[Boris Godunov]

On another note, how is boarding handled for these monsters? It's already crowded for 200-300 people waiting at one gate...imagine 555! I would imagine the planes would have two gates for boarding? Or are the European airports having to build new gates to accomodate these behemoths?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
On another note, how is boarding handled for these monsters? It's already crowded for 200-300 people waiting at one gate...imagine 555! I would imagine the planes would have two gates for boarding? Or are the European airports having to build new gates to accomodate these behemoths?

Excellent point. Boarding took nearly half an hour on the last 777 flight and it was just over 300 people boarding trough 2 entrances. I would imagine that they would have to have at least two entrances per deck in order to make this fesible.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Are you sure about this? I haven't seen anything relating to that number.

Yes, max. number given is 840

Linky

What the pic not shows is the max. number of passengers is above 500 for a B747 as well.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Dissident


they've been talking of high speed rail between LA and Las Vegas for so many years now. I'll believe it when I see it

Eventually you would think it has to happen. Already the strip is almost unusuable for passenger vehicles. They really should concentrate on getting people here, not their cars.

The bigges obstacle is cost. The second is risk. The cost wouldn't be a big deal if there was some assurance they can make a profit.

I'm not even sure if our monorail will even make a profit. But it's been doing okay so far (and it's winter time as well).

elimination of risk is the key to understanding 90% of the subsidies that really got airbus of the ground. The idea is the government loans all the money that is needed to get the project off the ground with the stipulation that it only needs to be repaid if the effort becomes profitable. That's what worked for airbus. Airbus continues to enjoy the bennfits of such loans for research. It essentially has no risk in any investment it chooses to make because all money invested becomes someone elses lost money if the investment doesn't pay off.

[pchang]

I think the real key is that Airbus has yet to repay any anywhere close to its R&D costgs out of its profits.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Reminds me of the way smaller scale, (jet) Fokker 100 project... a great design for the market, but man what a money loser that one was.

I think this will probably end up in bankruptcy.

As if the Euros would allow that to happen. You're cute Fez

[Ned]

Che, I'm surprised at what you said about the GOP in Florida being against building railroads. Here in Kalifornia, it is the Dems who are against building infrastructure of any kind. The reason we are even discussing building RR's here in Kalifornia is because of Arnold.

With regard to the Airbus subsidies, I think we should bar Airbus planes that benefitted from subsidies from using US airspace for a number of years equal to the advantage the subsidies gave them.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, I'm surprised at what you said about the GOP in Florida being against building railroads. Here in Kalifornia, it is the Dems who are against building infrastructure of any kind. The reason we are even discussing building RR's here in Kalifornia is because of Arnold.

With regard to the Airbus subsidies, I think we should bar Airbus planes that benefitted from subsidies from using US airspace for a number of years equal to the advantage the subsidies gave them.

wouldn't Airbus's benefactor the EU simply respond in kind with a ban vs Boeing aircraft?

[Boris Godunov]

@ Ned, you are such a crank.

Let's not forget that airspace rules are a product of treaties, not subject to the whims of administrations. Thankfully.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MikeH
Concorde was a big loser too.

The Concorde is what points to the other way. IOW, high speed planes with small capacity is not the way to go.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by BeBro
Yes, max. number given is 840

I reckon that would be short flights with luggage restrictions.