Discussion on the Ethics of the Airbus 380

rabbitcancer · 05-14-2002, 11:40 PM

Although impressive, the 380 scares me a little bit.

Here we have the largest airliner ever conceived with a capacity of over 500 passengers.
Quantas has already ordered the first few of the line.

The original, (Designer's Initial Vision) hereon mentioned as the DIV model, was intended to reserve most of the upper deck with a large lounge and first class seating and births.

The lounge will be large enough to accomodate ALL passengers.
The DIV model is a great idea, but I doubt it will be preserved.

We all know that certain airlines who shall remain nameless (Cough Cough aircanadabritishairwaysamericanairlines bleck)

excuse me...

...will jam as many seats into the aircraft as possible maybe raising the number of passengers to almost 600? Who knows.

This, in my mind, places a huge responsiblity on the pilots and the aircraft itself. What's the glide ratio on this monster? 1:3 at best? If those engines quit, you'd need an awful big dustpan to pick up the pieces.

Not to mention that many critics suggest that the existing airframe design (A300-340, B707-777, etc.) has been maxxed out as far as it can go. The span of the A380's wings alone restrict the aircraft to certain airports that have enough space for the ##### thing to turn!

Are we moving in the right direction these days? Or has the economic pressure of running an airline superseded concerns on human life and safety? Where will the line be drawn?

**rtriez** · 05-15-2002, 01:05 AM

Is bigger always better ? Good question. But undoubtetly, they will have the latest and safest technology availible. Is that fool proof - no. A machine made by humans is inherently failable. Where does one draw the line at ANY human loss of life ? Is it ok to allow a 747 to fly because it ONLY will result in the loss of lets say 400 pax instead of 600 ? ANY loss of human life - even one is tragic. Planes have always crashed and always will. It's a fact of life. I guess the responsibility can not fall one one person. You choose to get on a plane or not, you choose whether to get in your car and drive it, you choose to ride your bicycle down a busy street. I feel that an airliner today with a capacity of 600 is far more safe than an aircraft of 40 years ago with a capasity of 30. Should a line be drawn, no. Let them design an aircraft of monstrositic proportions. Will a line be drawn, yes. Physics can only be pushed so far. That limit will be reached someday. In reaching that limit will human life be lost - yes it will. But who's to say when enough is enough ? I just hope it is not capitalistic greed that causes the threshold to be met, rather in the name of humanity - trying to help and serve as many people as we can with the resources we have. A little idealistic - maybe, but thats my 2 cents worth.

Best Regards,

Bob :-wave

[link:www.voyagerairlines.com/gle/index.html|http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/Use...e72514cf2.jpg]

**NedUT** · 05-15-2002, 01:09 AM

>We all know that certain airlines
>who shall remain nameless (Cough
>Cough aircanadabritishairwaysamericanairlines bleck)
>
>excuse me...
>
>...will jam as many seats into
>the aircraft as possible

Actually, from what I hear American is one of the few airlines taking the "less seats/more legroom" direction. I know I've heard AA brag about this, and friends that have flown AA tell me the same thing.

>Are we moving in the right
>direction these days?

Well, I for one would rather see airlines try to go faster, rather than bigger. New airliners are needed, sure, but if all the money spent on R&D for super jumbo jets was directed into research for suborbital craft, chances are we'd be a lot closer to having hypersonic commuter service.

Rather than cramming 500 people into a plane and still have it take half a day or more to get from SFO to Hong Kong, wouldn't it make more sense to send 50-100 people at a time on the same trip in under an hour? I sure think so, but then again I'm also a space nut, so JMHO.

See ya in the pattern!
-Josh

------------
"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain

***jwenting*** · 05-15-2002, 03:25 AM

The first version A380 will carry at least 550 pax in a standard 3-class configuration. As more and more airlines are scrapping first class (which is used mainly by non-rev passengers, namely free upgrades and airline staff), 600 is a more likely number or 650-700 in a charter layout.
Future lengthened versions are already planned to carry over 800 passengers in a 3-class layout.

Some time ago I spoke to a Schiphol luggage handler (old guy, 20 years on the job). When hearing those numbers he said they'd never be able to get an aircraft that size serviced in a reasonable time, let alone get all the passengers on and off quickly.

[a href="http://www.tradewind.org"]http://www.hornet.demon.nl/sigfile.jpg[/a]

rabbitcancer · 05-15-2002, 08:41 AM

However, Physics can be accomodated.

Both Airbus and Boeing have gone back to the drawing board to develop an airframe that will accomodate up to 800 passengers.

You make a strong point though, technically flying is far safer.

The only concern that the airlines need to address is the cramped economy seating.

The so-called 'economy-syndrome' is a very real and dangerous health problem that many passengers suffer from on long-haul flights.

That, in part, is why the DIV model for the A380 stressed the need for a lounge. I hope the airlines are listening.

rabbitcancer · 05-15-2002, 08:44 AM

Another good point.

I doubt someone will respond kindly when they're told to be at the departure lounge 4 hours prior to a flight.

That's the only way you could load luggage on a plane that huge.
There is as much lacking in the support industries as there is in
general aircraft facilities.

rabbitcancer · 05-15-2002, 08:46 AM

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON May-15-02 AT 08:47AM (EDT)[/font][p]That likely won't happen in the near future.

The SST program was designed with such a vision.

The SST failed largely because the profit from running a Concorde was far less than running a 747.

That is why there is such an economic drive for larger aircraft.
We live in an age where every initiative is gauged by its ROI (Return on Investment)

rabbitcancer · 05-15-2002, 08:55 AM

Yeah.. about 2 hours every I wrote this message I saw a billboard advertising that.

I stand strong on my opinion of the other two, though.

Has United taken any initiative???

dinger · 05-15-2002, 10:29 AM

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON May-15-02 AT 10:34AM (EDT)[/font][p]Well, I for one would rather see airlines try to go faster, rather than bigger. New airliners are needed, sure, but if all the money spent on R&D for super jumbo jets was directed into research for suborbital craft, chances are we'd be a lot closer to having hypersonic commuter service.

Rather than cramming 500 people into a plane and still have it take half a day or more to get from SFO to Hong Kong, wouldn't it make more sense to send 50-100 people at a time on the same trip in under an hour? I sure think so, but then again I'm also a space nut, so JMHO.

With regards to speed, jets these days are fixed at a cruising speed of mach ~0.8 because that offers the best combination of speed and fuel efficiency. We could develop another Mach 2 jetliner, but the problem with that would be its commercial feasibility. I mean, not everyone could afford the $10000 round tirp ticket from JFK to LHR on a Concorde. So it's hard to say whether there'll be a market for things like this.

The reason for designing larger aircraft is efficiency. The bigger the airplane, the lower the cost-per-passenger becomes. Another problem would be airport overcrowding. Having several daily flights would be convenient, but since the number of air travellers is always growing, they'll have to boost the number of daily flights, which would eventually lead to overcrowding, and bigger airliners would have to be the solution. For example, in Japan, where airport overcrowding is a problem, JAL has its hour-long flight from HND to KIX on a 747-400. I've been to NRT and it was an interesting thing doing spotting there: in the two hours waiting in the terminal, I didn't see anything besides a 747!

Having been on a 14-hour flight from PEK to DTW on a 744 with an annoying little brat sitting next to me the whole time, though, I can definitely testify about the joys of overcrowding in economy class. Once you land you just want to get out as soon as possible. It's kinda funny that airport staff who work at the counters of gates during the arrival of some long-haul flight say that a foul odor wafts down the jetway into the main terminal. You can't smell it on the airplane because you've been on it the whole time, but it doesn't surprise me.:)