A380 unveiling, 1/18/05, Live.

"Jeff Hacker" wrote two more lines and added them to a
10K post, without snipping the length, at all.

Shame on you! Don't be lazy!
--
Jim in NC

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Coming from the fascist EU that's rich!!!


You'd be wise to learn to read since the point is the TIMING.


You didn't notice the date on the article provided by AJC? I also gave you
an article with an important date on?

Perhaps you do not know when the Tsunami stroke?


The
melodramatic start to your quote indicates the level they work on, and
my how they twist reality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4054251.stm

"Thai Airways had been proceeding towards buying eight Airbus aircraft for
$2bn.
All seemed to be going smoothly until the country's Prime Minister Thaksin
Shinawatra intervened to allege that discrimination by the European Union
against Thai imports of sea food and poultry was a problem.

Until the EU changed its way, he indicated, Thailand would be loathe to
buy
aircraft from Airbus."

Take your EU fascist/statist crap and shove it up your ass.



How come that communists and ultra-conservatives have the same common
problem of recognising the difference between reality and their own
ideologically created illusions?

Nik

A friend went to Alaska recently in a 747. He commented that they
could have put that many passengers in a commuter. OTOH when my wife
came back from New Zealand last year, every seat was full. The ones
in front of her had three air sick kids which made it a memorable 13
hours.

The one flight probably didn't pay for the taxi time, but the other
probably did quite well.


No surprise Singapore airlines is the launch customer and that the other
leading customers are all major flyers from Europe to the East. These
flights all tend to be full. I have yet to do a flight where the airplane
has not been chockablock full. They will fill the A380 however many seats
they put in then on these routes.
The major issue will be how quickly the airports will be able to process the
passengers. I would not be surprised to see some immigration duties carried
out on board the aircraft and with the satellite links now available, it is
entirely feasible to link to immigration databases etc. One immigration
officer could happily handle 600 passengers even allowing for the non
straight forward ones over an 10-12 hour period.
Now if an airline offered that service then they would get my business.


This is in contrast with flights from Europe to North America where there is
often empty seats. Last September coming back to London from Chicago the
United flight was half full

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:

In fact, the monopoly power (or lack thereof) that certain carriers have
over hubs is probably the main reason they are still surviving. It's
probably the only place in their operations that consistently makes money.

Au contraire. It is exactly because the legay carriers have been able to
and have milked customers in areas of non competition (their hubs) that
they not only developped high costs, but also left the door wide open
for the first low cost carrier to enter that city and really hurt the airline.

The legacy carriers abused yield management for short term gains back
then, but they are now paying the big bucks for it.

Had the legacy carrier not milked customers (in particular business
customers) just because they could, they would have had much greater
incentive to lower their costs so that they could be more profitable
carrying more passengers with a lwer yield, instead of relying on fewer
pax paying exhorbitant fees.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 at 22:19:48 in message
, Stefan wrote:
Actually, no. There are diesel cars which burn 3 litres of diesel on
100 kilometers for the *entire car*. Which means 3 litres for 4
passengers, or even 5 if you accept to be stuffed like in an airplane.

That's excellent 78 mpg (US)
--
David CL Francis

"Dave" wrote in message
...


A friend went to Alaska recently in a 747. He commented that they
could have put that many passengers in a commuter. OTOH when my wife
came back from New Zealand last year, every seat was full. The ones
in front of her had three air sick kids which made it a memorable 13
hours.

The one flight probably didn't pay for the taxi time, but the other
probably did quite well.


No surprise Singapore airlines is the launch customer and that the other
leading customers are all major flyers from Europe to the East. These
flights all tend to be full. I have yet to do a flight where the airplane
has not been chockablock full. They will fill the A380 however many seats
they put in then on these routes.
The major issue will be how quickly the airports will be able to process
the passengers. I would not be surprised to see some immigration duties
carried out on board the aircraft and with the satellite links now
available, it is entirely feasible to link to immigration databases etc.
One immigration officer could happily handle 600 passengers even allowing
for the non straight forward ones over an 10-12 hour period.
Now if an airline offered that service then they would get my business.


This is in contrast with flights from Europe to North America where there
is often empty seats. Last September coming back to London from Chicago
the United flight was half full


In those 11 years I have lived in Hong Kong I have only experienced once a
plane being only about half full.

Nik

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:26:39 -0500, "H Pinder" wrote
some stuff about "380 fuel usage", to which I would like to add the following:

It would be normal corporate behaviour to calculate the "liters per
passenger per 100 Km" using the most optimistic factors. Such as maximum
number of seats, every seat filled, best city pair, no delays of any type,
etc. etc.

So how is that different from car companies releasing fuel efficiency numbers?

Or you think they do those measurements in a big traffic jam with the aircon
running full blast? :-)

Cheers,
Chanchao

Matt,

Coming from the fascist EU that's rich!!!


From the what??? ROFL!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:17:11 -0000, "Dave"
wrote:



A friend went to Alaska recently in a 747. He commented that they
could have put that many passengers in a commuter. OTOH when my wife
came back from New Zealand last year, every seat was full. The ones
in front of her had three air sick kids which made it a memorable 13
hours.

The one flight probably didn't pay for the taxi time, but the other
probably did quite well.


No surprise Singapore airlines is the launch customer and that the other
leading customers are all major flyers from Europe to the East. These
flights all tend to be full. I have yet to do a flight where the airplane
has not been chockablock full. They will fill the A380 however many seats
they put in then on these routes.
The major issue will be how quickly the airports will be able to process the
passengers. I would not be surprised to see some immigration duties carried
out on board the aircraft and with the satellite links now available, it is
entirely feasible to link to immigration databases etc. One immigration
officer could happily handle 600 passengers even allowing for the non
straight forward ones over an 10-12 hour period.
Now if an airline offered that service then they would get my business.


This is in contrast with flights from Europe to North America where there is
often empty seats. Last September coming back to London from Chicago the
United flight was half full


This is why so many Americans are so sceptical of the market for the
380. They mostly see small aircraft, empty flights, airlines in
financial problems. Go to airports in Europe, Asia and you see 744s
lined up, and as you say get on the flights and they are packed.
Traffic on the Europe-Asia-Aus/NZ routes is booming, within Europe
there is steady growth, while it is declining on the North Atlantic.
--==++AJC++==--

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:39:55 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:15:05 -0700, "Matt Barrow"

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=901

"Tsunami-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it
must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs
against
its fishing industry.

While millions of Europeans are sending aid to Thailand to help its
recovery, trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines,
its national carrier, pays £1.3 billion to buy its double-decker
aircraft."


You'd be wise to do better than 'inform' yourself from an American
'Neolibertarian community portal' (their description, not mine!).

Coming from the fascist EU that's rich!!!



Wonderful. That old trick. Anyone who has another opinion, does things
in a different way, disagrees with you, just call them a fascist. Did
you learn that from your comrades at your local neolibertarian
community portal? Clearly they've given you the basic training, but
you really need something a little more sophisticated than that before
you should be let loose.



You'd be wise to learn to read since the point is the TIMING.


Ah yes, the timing. The trade dispute between the EU and Thailand has
been going on for quite some time now, but you didn't see fit to
mention it earlier. The Thai government's attempts to link the dispute
with their national airline's order for some aircraft started some
time ago, but you didn't see fit to mention it then. No, you
opportunistically picked your moment after the natural disaster in
Asia on 26 December, simply so that you could embellish your factually
incorrect propaganda with the starting phrase: 'Tsunami-struck
Thailand'.

Why are you so supportive of the Thai government's interventionist
policies anyway? The last thing Thai Airways needs right now is
government interfering in its operations. It needs to be left to make
commercial decisions to compete in its markets, yet you are supporting
the government's outrageous attempts to bribe it's way through a trade
dispute at the risk of damaging Thai Airways. Is this government
interventiionist policy one that you adhere to generally? Is it
something you learned at your neolibertarian community portal? Maybe
you need to go and get a ruling from the neolibertarian politburo on
that.

Out of interest, as you are such a concerned citizen when it comes to
supporting the Thai shrimping industry, would you like to tell us some
of the active measures you have taken to fight the 97% tariffs imposed
by the US?

Oh, and why are you so supportive of the shrimping industry in Asia?
An industry that is surrounded in controversy with criticism of it's
abuse of people and the environment. As you took so much trouble to
bring this matter to our attention, you must surely be aware of the
forced removal of people from their land by the shrimping companies,
and the destruction of ecologically important mangrove swamps. Of
course you will also be aware that human rights and environmental
groups are actively fighting these abuses, but I suppose you would
just consider them fascists to.



The
melodramatic start to your quote indicates the level they work on, and
my how they twist reality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4054251.stm

"Thai Airways had been proceeding towards buying eight Airbus aircraft for
$2bn.
All seemed to be going smoothly until the country's Prime Minister Thaksin
Shinawatra intervened to allege that discrimination by the European Union
against Thai imports of sea food and poultry was a problem.

Until the EU changed its way, he indicated, Thailand would be loathe to buy
aircraft from Airbus."

Take your EU fascist/statist crap and shove it up your ass.



Ah, personal abuse. A sure sign of someone floundering. I know it's
difficult. You found a piece of factually incorrect, but melodramatic
propaganda on one of your favourite neolibertarian community portals.
You pasted it here, hoping a few people who don't know any better
would believe it, and that would be the end of it. Thing is you really
need to have some back up, something with a little more depth than
just calling everyone a fascist.




Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO





--==++AJC++==--