Aa777dr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1173 times:
I am sorry people but that name doesn't have any appeal what-so-ever.
O.K. let me try to repeat it to myself:
Airbus A380. I don't think so. Airbus lovers no offense o.k. please, I beg of you don't take this the wrong way. This is just me expressing my thoughts about the hedious name they've chosen for such a magnificent airplane.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13754 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1093 times:
As in my post that was deleted. It's tacky. A3XX comes into mind much more quickly than A380. For one we all know and love it as A3XX and not A380, and secondly, when you think of why you name was chosen, you need to thing "Oh A340, A3XX. Twice A340. Hmm. A380. Oooh donuts!" While A3XX seems special which it is.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1025 times:
Perhaps they chose "8" for the same reason it's popular with ice hockey players - it's the "biggest" number visually, and obviously to indicate this plane is not just a continuation of their existing portfolio.
I'm surprised at how elaborate belief structures people are willing to support just to make the A380 (almost wrote A3xx!) look doomed. It's just a big plane. There are many routes in the world with sufficiently heavy traffic. Flying it is both cheaper and a bit comfier (in economy, a lot comfier in biz) than other planes. Airlines are obviously interested.
Some think BWB is Boeing's answer to A380. Unfortunately we aren't going to get rides in blended-wing a/c for a while yet. Both Boeing and Airbus have been looking at these designs for decades, yet there is no product on market. How would it be certified? How does it behave at high and low speed? How much more expensive is it to r&d and build? How fast does it go? There are some setbacks, for instance the A380 can be stretched and shrunk at relatively low expense, whereas a BWB family would be prohibitively expensive. Designing one model costs more than designing one conventional model. Subsequent conventional derivatives are cheap, but BWB derivatives are still very expensive.
Mayhap we'll see them when aircraft switch to hydrogen fuel.
CAETravlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 914 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1022 times:
I think the term A380 is going to have to grow on everyone just like the term A3XX became familiar to us for a long time. It is a designation that was chosen, and that is all. I am personally a Boeing fan, and do not believe that this is by any means going to buy Airbus total airliner dominance or mean any kind of end for Boeing. It may or may not mean some sort of dominance for Airbus in one particular category of aircraft. Its profitability for Airbus will only be determined years down the road.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her. - W.C. Fields