A380 unveiling, 1/18/05, Live.

Peter wrote:

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.

True, but it does need more pilots than 110 passenger cars do. Small
manpower savings to the cars! G


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

In article , alexy says...
Peter wrote:

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.

True, but it does need more pilots than 110 passenger cars do.

How do you work that out? Two pilots versus 110 drivers - the plane
clearly has the edge in manpower efficiency.

Peter wrote:

In article , alexy says...
Peter wrote:

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.

True, but it does need more pilots than 110 passenger cars do.

How do you work that out? Two pilots versus 110 drivers - the plane
clearly has the edge in manpower efficiency.

Easy. If 550 people need to get somewhere, the odds are minuscule that
any of them are qualified to fly the 380, so they almost certainly
will be required to hire a crew (not just pilots). The probability
that at least 110 of them are qualified to drive a car is huge, so
they will not likely have to hire anyone to make their trip by auto.
And they certainly won't have to hire any pilots!

Did you notice the G on my original post? No one is taking this
seriously. One would have to factor in the time taken by all of the
passengers to travel by car versus plane, which would yield a huge
advantage to air travel.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Peter" wrote in message
T...
In article , Stefan says...
nobody wrote:

This puts the 380 on roughly the same order of magnitude as very fuel
efficient cars

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.

Hard to fit five passengers into a modern car. Usually there are two
seats in the front and three seatbelt positions in the rear, for a total
of five occupants, one of whom is the driver.

And the cars that only takes 3 liters for 100 KM is not the biggest cars
either...

If you are to compare such a car with four passengers then you would also
have to compare that to a A380 with a full maximum load of some 800 pax.

Nik

"AJC" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:04:52 -0500, alexy wrote:

nobody wrote:

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

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

Interesting stat, but the followup discussion here points out a
question on exactly what this stat is. Is it fuel burn per passenger
mile at max passenger load (i.e., the 380 carries 110 times as many
passengers as the 5-passenger car, but burns less than 110 times as
much fuel per mile) or fuel burn per passenger mile at typical
passenger loads (i.e., the 380 at a typical passenger load of, e.g.,
450 carries 300 times as many passengers as the car at a typical load
of 1.5 people, but burns less than 300 times as much fuel per mile.

Obviously, such a statistic based on capacity is far more significant
than one based on average use. 3 liters/passenger per 100KM? I suspect
there are MANY 5-passenger cars that will go further than 100KM on 15
liters of fuel, but not may that will go 100KM on 4.5 liters of fuel,
if 1.5 is the average load of the car.


Exactly. Commercial aircraft, and especially long-haul commercial
aircraft operating the sorts of routes for which the 380 is designed
have far higher occupancy rates than cars, so the number of seats a
car has is irrelevant.
--==++AJC++==--

On the Asia-Europe rutes I do not doubt that the plane will be more or less
full to the brim...

Nik.

"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.

Tom Peel wrote in
:
I recorded it. 2 hours of circus, stuffed shirts, talking heads and
enough hot air to levitate the entire A380 production for the next 10
years.

Kinda like the discussion of fuel economy here...

Seems the 'roll out' was nothing but the politicians all getting to show
their faces. I bet none of them found time to discuss the large amount of
non-EU content in the A380. Given the "51% American content in terms of
work share value" [1], maybe W should have been given a seat at the dias...

--lw--

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus

"Peter" wrote

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

True, but it does need more pilots than 110 passenger cars do.

How do you work that out? Two pilots versus 110 drivers - the plane
clearly has the edge in manpower efficiency.

That is really twisted thinking. Normally, in a car, one of the passengers
is posing as the (pilot)driver. Therefore, airbus loses. Airbus - two
people that went somewhere, only because they had to, vs car - no person
went somewhere they did not have to.

Still, this is all meaningless, anyway. Not many diesel cars can drive
from New York to England.
--
Jim in NC

In article , Morgans says...

"Peter" wrote

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

True, but it does need more pilots than 110 passenger cars do.

How do you work that out? Two pilots versus 110 drivers - the plane
clearly has the edge in manpower efficiency.

That is really twisted thinking. Normally, in a car, one of the passengers
is posing as the (pilot)driver.

They can pose all they want, but if they are are a passenger, they are
not the driver. The cops generally seem to work it all out when deciding
who to charge for drunk driving.

Still, this is all meaningless, anyway. Not many diesel cars can drive
from New York to England.

Why on earth not? Granted, they have to take a ferry over the Bering
Strait and a train under the Channel, but that's no problem.

Pete

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:36:38 -0000, "Chris" wrote
in ::


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.


Given the A380 is overweight, over budget and yet to fly, It's
difficult to know the truth on this issue. But that doesn't prevent
its makers from hailing it as a major European feat that will reshape
aviation. Let's discuss it further after it has actually flown.