Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Becoming Proactive And Social Responsibility  
User currently offlineEatmybologna From France, joined Apr 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1469 times:

Hello fellow A-netters. I've got to write a business paper on my understanding of the relationship between becoming proactive and the contemporary issues of ethics and social responsibility. So I was considering writing in on the developments of the A380 vs. B747-8. I would love to hear your comments, corrections, or additional thoughts on what I've listed below.

The way I see it is the following:

Proactive-

Airbus anticipated VLA customer need to reduce costs. (hub to hub with many passengers)

Boeing, though reactive to the A380, 747-8 with 787 technology (engines, leading edge on wing, advanced materials) to reduce costs.

Responsibility-

Airbus (Not responsible.)388 wake turbulence and noise issues. Claimed they would be better than current 747-400.

Airbus (Responsible.) for reducing per passenger fuel costs.

Boeing (Responsible.) Develoing 747-8 with noise reducing engine nacelles. Noise not disruptive to community.

Boeing (Responsible.) for reducing per passenger fuel costs.


Also, on Boeing's 747-8 website http://747.newairplane.com/747-8.htm

Under the Responsibility/quiet section, GC2 is mentioned. Can anyone tell me what this is? I web searched and couldn't find anything regarding aviation or noise.

Thanks in advance,

e-m-b


Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
1 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCtbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1418 times:

I think what your professor is getting at may be better expressed by using the metaphor of the crash of the Concorde:

Should AF and Aerospatiale have known the fuel tanks were vulnerable to puncture and corrected the problem? Was the cost of doing so prohibitive? Could the problem with the tires be anticipated and corrected?

Was CO negligent in allowing a piece of FOD to fall off one of their aircraft? Can this sort of thing be entirely eliminated?

What (if anything) could ADP have done to further ensure that there is no FOD on the runway? Are they morally culpable?

How do you balance duties to customers, government aviation bodies, shareholders, and the wider community? Whose interests take precidence depending on what situation and why?

Hope this helps,

Charles, SJ



The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airport Transfers And Airline Responsibility posted Fri May 5 2006 02:29:35 by DFWMzuri
Air Force And Becoming A Pilot? posted Sun Jun 25 2006 14:07:22 by Rolo987
Aviation Schools And The Road To Becoming A Pilot. posted Wed Jan 5 2005 04:24:31 by Jalto27R
Becoming A Flight Attendant, And Being SEA Based? posted Wed Jul 24 2002 02:56:23 by SJCguy
Becoming A Pilot: Pros And Cons posted Sat Feb 9 2002 08:09:20 by Airbus Lover
Saudi Arabian AL : A350 And 787? posted Tue Dec 12 2006 22:30:18 by FCKC
UAL Says Looking At 787 And A350 posted Tue Dec 12 2006 19:10:05 by NYC777
BCN And Star Alliance posted Tue Dec 12 2006 18:25:53 by Skyteam2000
The First And Last Andorra Aviation Thread posted Tue Dec 12 2006 17:32:55 by SwissA330
Out With The Old And In With The New - AR + EZE posted Tue Dec 12 2006 15:32:54 by Treeny