BlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1946 posts, RR: 1 Posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1791 times:
There is an article in this months Popular Mechanics about the new era of "flying hotels". This toses a lot of respect I had for this rag out the window.
There is nothing really about the technology in the A38- in the article. It is a fanciful piece based on the PR statments of Airbus and Boeing. The pictures they show are the same fanciful ideas as the 747 was dreamed up with so many decades ago. Showers in suites, bars and what not. It is an generally uniformed, and boring article on the newest and certainly most intriguing developments in air travel. They also manage to site a a plane that looks more like that Russian 757...(Tu-245??) than an A330, as an A340....
Pretty poor if you ask me, not what I have come to expect from Popular Mechanics. Anyone else have some thoughts on this?
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1699 times:
I saw the Popular Mechanics article too. It was a piece of fluff filled with idiotic fanciful drawings of huge lobbies, bedrooms with showers, etc, etc. It was, perhaps, the worst article on the A380 to appear in the popular press.
Perhaps, they were thinking of the Emir of [insert your favorite rich Gulf nation here]'s private A380, which I'm sure one of those rich Gulf potentates will eventually purchase.
JMJ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1689 times:
I haven't read the article but the level of substance in your average PM magazine is usually very low. I've never been satisfied after having read an article, especially a cover one, in PM, only disapointed. The content is never anything but real fluff. Whenever I have looked forward to reading something, I always ended up wondering why they even bothered to write the article- there was no real info in it at all.
JMJ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1683 times:
Oh yeah, and if PM really thinks that the A380 is going to be flying hotel they're really living in fantasy land. What it WILL be is a way to cram 10000 people into one plane like sardines. It doesn't have to be that way but I'm betting that's what's going to happen. I don't mind flying big planes but not if the size is an excuse to jam in more and more people rather than put a few more in and give the poor coach travelers a little breathing space. Does anyone really want to be in the middle seat of some crazy confuguration ( 12-100-12) ! Ok a liiiiiittle exagerated, but not much!!
LuckySevens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1651 times:
I was very disappointed with the article but it reminded me of the old 747 classic "articles". Same fluff.
The one I liked was the TO wieght of 1.2 billion pounds. Just had a quiet chuckle and tossed it in the recycle bin.
Tristar2000 From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1609 times:
I have to admit the article is kind of weak.
1- "1.2 billion pounds"... hmmm okay if you say so, it's just going to be 2000 times the 747.
2- "You don't see many Douglas DC-10 and Lockheed L-1011 jumbos in passenger service these days. And the companies that built them are now parts of other corporations...."
I truly can't see the point in this second statement they make. Lockheed is not part of another corporation these days. Second, if Douglas is now part of Boeing, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it's really because of the DC-10.
Gearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1609 times:
To the folks on this forum who all have a good knowledge of commercial aviation, it is disapointing when you see a publication being so superficial and just plain inaccurate. It makes you wonder if all the other non aviation stuff written in it is rubbish also! But then how often have you seen a caption in a newspaper showing a photograph of a DC-8 which says "A Boeing 707 like this one was involved in an incident..........." The fact is, the general press rarely get it right even about simple things to do with aviation.