A380 unveiling, 1/18/05, Live.

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:31:02 -0500, nobody wrote
in ::

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:31:02 -0500, nobody wrote
in ::

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?


Not a relevant statistic either. Factor in the average load factor of
a fuel efficient diesal car and an A380 and then you might have a more
meaningful figure.
--==++AJC++==--

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:15:04 +0100, AJC wrote in
::

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:31:02 -0500, nobody wrote
in ::

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?


Not a relevant statistic either.

Given the OP's comparative statement above, the implied "statistic"
was apparently relevant to her.

Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car
and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure.

Meaningful in what way? Am I to infer, that you find the metric of
fuel-per-passenger-mile irrelevant?

In article , Larry Dighera
says...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:15:04 +0100, AJC wrote in
::

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:31:02 -0500, nobody wrote
in ::

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?


Not a relevant statistic either.

Given the OP's comparative statement above, the implied "statistic"
was apparently relevant to her.

Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car
and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure.

Meaningful in what way? Am I to infer, that you find the metric of
fuel-per-passenger-mile irrelevant?

If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more
efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are
going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers
compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:58:54 +1100, Peter wrote in
::

In article , Larry Dighera
says...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:15:04 +0100, AJC wrote in
::

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:31:02 -0500, nobody wrote
in ::

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?


Not a relevant statistic either.

Given the OP's comparative statement above, the implied "statistic"
was apparently relevant to her.

Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car
and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure.

Meaningful in what way? Am I to infer, that you find the metric of
fuel-per-passenger-mile irrelevant?

If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more
efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are
going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers
compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile? Doubtful.

In article , Larry Dighera
says...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:58:54 +1100, Peter wrote in
::

If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more
efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are
going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers
compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile? Doubtful.

The A380 doesn't need 110 pilots to carry 440 passengers. Huge manpower
savings.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:58:54 +1100, Peter wrote in
::

In article , Larry Dighera
says...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:15:04 +0100, AJC wrote in
::

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:50:20 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:31:02 -0500, nobody wrote
in ::

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent
to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?


Not a relevant statistic either.

Given the OP's comparative statement above, the implied "statistic"
was apparently relevant to her.

Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car
and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure.

Meaningful in what way? Am I to infer, that you find the metric of
fuel-per-passenger-mile irrelevant?

If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more
efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are
going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers
compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile? Doubtful.

Try driving a car across an ocean or mountain range and I think the airplane
comes out more fuel efficient.

Larry,

How many passengers would such a car carry?


four, including the driver. Available from Volkswagen in Germany as we
speak. See
http://showrooms.volkswagen.de/vwcms..._public/showro
oms/de/lupo/lupo_3l_tdi/home.frameset_outer.html

But indeed, the comparison is of limited value, as anyone would find
out who'd try to drive his VW from the US to Europe.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:34:37 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote in
::

But indeed, the comparison is of limited value,

Right. Although it considers fuel efficiency, it fails to address the
difference in speed.