45 replies to this topic

[frankly.de]

At this point we are gonna graduate out of college before it flies. (Thats around 2012 for me....the year the apocolypse is supposed to hit for those of you who care...)

Four things:
1. It is already flying, albeit not in commercial use, but SQ will take delievry by the end of the year.

2. Sorry to those of you who don't care about things Christian or "end-time", you may want to stop reading this post now. I just can't help responding to WOTW on this issue. Moderators may want to take this conversation out from this thread and either move it to a new one or delete it completely (if this forum is supposed to be free of religious "propaganda").

3. I don't care! What an utterly complete nonsense. I happen to be in the process of writing a PhD on "The Apocalypse" or the Book of Revelation and, quite frankly, the one thing that is quite clear there is that "the end" could well be a lot before 2012 or a lot after 2012. Ultimately Revelation does not try to give us an end-time-timetable, but is concerned about urging Christians to remain faithful to their Lord, no matter the circumstances, because in the end (whenever it may be), he will come.

4. "apocalypse" means "revelation", not more, not less. The revelation has already "hit", it has been revealed to John and through him to the rest of us (who care about it). Oh yes, Christ, too, will be "revealed", but that's not what the term "apocalypse" is used for. So no, the apocalypse won't hit, although the coming of Christ that is promised in it, will happen.

[airline55]

Well, according to the Olduvai theory, we should be in a global depression, but all signs point to a better economic future, at least for China and India.

hence the "great speculation" part.

BUT, we are getting severely off topic, we have gone from "A380" to "end times."

[WingsOTWorld]

Lol sorry...it happens to be the "biggest" thing in my mind to happen with the time im (supposedly humorously) predicting the A380 to go into full service...and even that was sarcastic. By the way im Buddhist, so before you say im spreading religious propaganda you are DEAD WRONG. Its stuff i watch on the history channel that brings this info to my mind. I frankly dont care how christianity relates to all of this, im talking about the world in general...and yes im sorry i led the topic awry.

To the guy running Air Koru: If you cant take things without putting a religious context onto it, or recognize when someone is trying to be humorous, no matter how poor it may be, I would reccommend either calming down when I say something, or ignoring me, because i prefer to take a neutral standpoint (religiously), and i am VERY VERY SARCASTIC!!!!

[frankly.de]

DEAD WRONG[/U]. Its stuff i watch on the history channel that brings this info to my mind. I frankly dont care how christianity relates to all of this, im talking about the world in general...and yes im sorry i led the topic awry.

To the guy running Air Koru: If you cant take things without putting a religious context onto it, or recognize when someone is trying to be humorous, no matter how poor it may be, I would reccommend either calming down when I say something, or ignoring me, because i prefer to take a neutral standpoint (religiously), and i am VERY VERY SARCASTIC!!!!

Hi there,

first of all, I am actually quite calm and I don't shout at people.

I sure noticed that you are rather sarcastic a lot of the time, something that is quite natural to me as well, I just happen to prefer to make that clear in the relevant contexts. Yes, I probably took you too seriously, but it appears as though I am not the only one. I shall stop taking you seriously and just laugh about you......
But I'm afraid I had to discover that you misread just as much... I never said you spread religious propaganda, what I was refering to was my little lecture. I know very well that not everybody is interested in these issues and was feeling slightly guilty for expanding on the topic in this forum. And I thought I made that very clear in my second point.
If you don't care how christian faith relates to apocalypse, well then you've got even more reason not to use the word in this way, because that is exactly where the word comes from, from the last book of the Bible which in greek begins with "The apocalypse ..." or in english the revelation. I can certainly "take things without putting a religious context onto it", but the apocalyptic end of the world simply is a matter of religious belief, nothing else. So I'm afraid, it's you who actually referred to a religious idea to start with.
I also doubt that you are in deed religiously neutral, because you also clearly state that you are buddhist. And even if you weren't buddhist, you would still believe in some thing or other, whether you see it as belief or not, but that is another topic altogether and I don't think we should go down that road any further here in this very forum....

[drv4truk]

End of the world again? I've heard that more than enough times now over the past 20 years or more. As someone that has been around through the Cold War and other threats of semi or total global annihalition, I think I just got sick and tired of hearing it. I guess after the first few times you just get used to it. :eureka: Maybe that's why I so enjoy post-apocalyptic films such as: The Stand (excellent book as well), Waterworld, 28 days Later, Damnation Alley, Mad Max, The Postman, Where Have All The People Gone? and on and on.


So, anymore talk about end of the world is all a bore to me. Can we get back on the subject of Airbus and the A380 problems? :saint:


Boeing may eventually suffer from outsourcing production of parts to other companies, but nothing on the scale of what Airbus has done. Airbus has topped them with the intricate transportation methods involved with getting the parts to the assembly area. Literally bringing the aircraft together (barges, trucks,etc.) comes at added cost due to the structure and size of the aircraft. If any of the pieces were to be damaged while in transit, it would mean costly delays to an already burdened delivery schedule. IMHO, they should consider utilizing some of the next generation air ships. They are more than capable of the weight and volume required and have a much better speed than the current methods. I know the US military was considering purchasing them to replace some of the Ro-Ro vessels. That would at least solve one of the many problems they face with regards to getting the aircraft assembled.


BTW - What ever happened to the Millenium bug that was supposed to bring the world to it's knees? Maybe it crippled a few of the Airbus computers and that is the cause of their problems?

[WingsOTWorld]

Or perhaps Airbus just should have kept putting together/construction under one roof like Boeing did.....makes it more convenient. That or they do so but in a smaller way?

[FSPilot]

So... the A380 is the antichrist?

[frankly.de]

So, anymore talk about end of the world is all a bore to me. Can we get back on the subject of Airbus and the A380 problems? :saint:

Yes, sure we can. Sorry for getting carried away, but I guess my professional interest in Revelation got the better of me......

On the A380/B787 issue, check out these very interesting articles:

1. Published on the 7th of June, before Boeing was publicly triumphing over Airbus due to their A380 troubles:
http://www.businessw...paign_id=search

2. Published on the 19th of June, when Boeing still has not stopped its triumphant howls over Airbus' perceived incompetence......:
http://www.businessw...paign_id=search

Now isn't that very interesting?

[frankly.de]

Or perhaps Airbus just should have kept putting together/construction under one roof like Boeing did.....makes it more convenient. That or they do so but in a smaller way?

Well, as I said earlier, Boeing does the same thing that Airbus does and just look at the articles mentioned in my previous post to see the results.......

[origin pacific]

So... the A380 is the antichrist?

You wish! It's more likely you, considering what a great route "network" you've got. Don't tell me that the BNE-MEL-route is the most profitable route in the world to put your Q400 on.............:puzzled:

[drv4truk]

While Bair admitted the 787 is still about 2.5 percent over its target weight, he said that target includes an extra safety margin beyond what's needed to meet the fuel-efficiency promises made to airlines. "We will meet all the commitments we made to our customers, even if [the weight] doesn't get any better," Bair said. "All the moving pieces on the schedule are not exactly where we'd hoped they'd be, but when we look at the whole program, there's nothing there that says we won't deliver the airplane when we're supposed to."

So, it may be overweight, but will still meet fuel efficiency expectations. Have you done any further reading on the barrel that failed? Apparently they were testing a different process when creating the barrel that failed. After that, they returned to the same process as the previous 8 successful tests.

I doubt the 787's weight problems are anything near what the A380's are. From what I understand, they underestimated aircraft weight so bad that they had to lower fuel capacity (range) and max passenger loads to accomodate it.

Check your links. Different dates, same article.

[WingsOTWorld]

And yes jeez i know Boeing outsources everything...its the American way now.... i meant the combine more things under one roof. Although the only thing made at the Boeing plant is wiring, they still mill their own wings, assemble them out of the metal they get from other factories, etc etc. I meant for airbus to do the same do instead of having the wings built in england, then shipped to TLS, or Germany, or where ever they go to for the final body join.

And please give me at least 10 hrs to read magazine articles you post while im asleep......

[Scalpel4]

Let me toss this into the mix and get us back on track, since you all know I love to stir the pot:

http://www.iht.com/a...ness/airbus.php

Seems they're going to ask for A350 subsidies, going back on their original pledge not to. My guess is the initial cost overruns caused by the current design fiasco. And before anyone says it, Boeing's commercial aircraft division takes no subsidies on either this scale, or anything as direct as this. I strongly believe that if Airbus Management would pull their head out of their collective backsides, they wouldn't even need these subsidies.

[WingsOTWorld]

Why am i not surprised....what planes have Airbus not asked launch aid for? I know this is a hot topic, and thanks scalpel you just had to bring it in....but cant they just go for tax breaks like Boeing does? Instead of a cash payment, how about a coupon?

[Scalpel4]

Yeah I can see that comparison.

Airbus Subsidy on the A380, $6.5 billion over the last 6 years.
Boeings overall TOTAL "incentives" for all its industries which includes tax breaks during that time, just under $1 Billion.

Yeah, I can see the comparison. One aircraft versus an entire company. I'd have opted for the cash payment myself.

[FSPilot]

You wish! It's more likely you, considering what a great route "network" you've got. Don't tell me that the BNE-MEL-route is the most profitable route in the world to put your Q400 on.............:puzzled:

It's probably not, but it is the best I could find at the time.

And who says you have to have a "network"?

[piercey]

heads up, the co-CEOs of Airbus are being sued by the stockholders and are currently under investigation for insider trading

[FSPilot]

Got a source for that?

nvm -
EADS says regulators target Airbus headquarters in share trading probe

Trading probes after Airbus delays

[WingsOTWorld]

and the fun continues....then again, boeing has had its share of problems too...

[Scalpel4]

http://www.iht.com/a...ness/airbus.php
So it continues. . . . .