Slashdot Mirror
Building the A380
Gavinsblog writes "The Independent has a report on the construction
of the Airbus A380. Amazingly, a ship is being custom-built to ferry parts
for assembly, a custom fleet of trucks are also to be used - with roads widened
to suit. Oh and the assembly building is the size of two soccer pitches, and the
height of an olympic swimming pool."
Ok the plane is big and the people have to herded in. BUT, imagine like how planes are routed along certain times the amount of traffic at customs?
HOLY MOLY! In the mornings (Europe) or afternoons (America) there is going to be a whole slew of people moving through customs. Make the security checks look like a walk in the park....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
... how many poor people could eat a year with $260m.
perosnally, i don't see the benefit of a huge plane like this. somebody convince me.
Increases productivity, increases profits for companies, company expands, company hires new people, poor people get jobs, poor people eat. I trust that they feel they need to build this, that someone wants to buy it, or they would not bother.
Every time I hear how a company is investing millions in a new project, and someone says "think of all the poor people it could feed" I just want to spit up.
HOW the plane is used is irrelevent. How many many people NEED the fastest computer? Since I upgrade every year, it creates jobs. From Dell, to UPS, in China (for parts), on the docks in California. It doesn't matter HOW or WHY I need the new computer, it creates jobs.
Capitolism: Works every time it's tried.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
This raises the interesting question of what happens when a large plane is damaged at a smaller airport. Somewhere like Gatwick. As far as I can see, they've only got two options: a) repair the plane with the limited facilities available or b) chop it up and remove it as scrap metal.
Does anyone have stories to tell about planes that landed too hard, and had to be scrapped because repairs couldn't be carried out on the spot?
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
[sarcasm]
good to see someone still believing in free market economy...
[/sarcasm]
WARNING only read below if you're interested in this OT discussion
do you *really* believe poor people get jobs because bigger planes are being built?
of course *nobody* needs a bigger plane, the fastest computer, etc. i'm shocked that this idea eases your mind without ever asking yourself whether the propaganda you get fed is actually true.
just show me the poor people who get better from the outsourcing of the production of computer parts (or anything, like jeans, furniture, etc). they are being exploited for lower wages than you could imagine, and they are left no other option.
free market economy only works within the boundaries of the self-proclaimed "free world". this does not include the countries outside this "free world" where people *are* poor and exploited by the "free world". think of this next time you buy one of your upgrades, levis, or ikea furniture.
disclaimer: i sincerely apologize for this off-topic rant. mod me down if you wish.
What I think is strange is the $5billion dollars put into the project from the european taxpayers.
Since when does a single company need a $5 billion subsidy from the government?
I also find it bizarre that they would construct special rest stops along the French highway so that the convoy could rest overnight on their 3-day journey.
Wouldn't it be cheaper and more efficient just to pay some overtime and have the drivers drive in shifts, 24/7, until the trip is complete? They'd just stop the convoy for a few minutes while changing drivers. No need for the expense, and the security issues, of building a dedicated rest stop.
But European rest stops are cool. Maybe it would be a good idea to waste the money to build more of them!
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
> At the peak of production, when Airbus is building four A380s a month, the main roads into Toulouse from the north-west will be clogged 12 nights a month with this slow-moving procession.
I'd bet that Airbus would kill to be able to use a CargoLifter airship. This is exactly what they are designed for. Can quietly transport 160 metric tons of any size and shape, for drop off at any location.
Oh dear. Looks like they are going bankrupt.
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
Nothing is perfect. Capitalism is like democracy. It's a rotten system, and the only system worse than democracy and capitalism is everything else.
just show me the poor people who get better from the outsourcing of the production of computer parts (or anything, like jeans, furniture, etc). they are being exploited for lower wages than you could imagine, and they are left no other option.
If you live in China, a job for $1 a day is better than no job for $0 a day. They can only pay $1 a day as long as people will work for it, as their economy improves, the universe of persons willing to work for $1 a day shrinks, thus they have to pay $2 a day to get workers (rinse, repeat).
The fact that some can work so cheap means I buy new computers every year, instead of every 3 years. This means everyone in the chain gets 3x the work, from shippers, builders, etc. It also means that I am significanly more productive (my computer speed is very relative to my productivity). It also means that there are jobs for 3 persons in China instead of 1.
free market economy only works within the boundaries of the self-proclaimed "free world". this does not include the countries outside this "free world" where people *are* poor and exploited by the "free world". think of this next time you buy one of your upgrades, levis, or ikea furniture.
I do agree with your general point. I am not for worker exploitation, but I also know that if we do $1billion in trade with China (as an example) then we are more likely to have influence than if we do $1million. If you refuse to do any trade, then not only do they not care what you think, but it reduces China's economy and their average income.
As an example: Over the last 20 years, China has invested greatly in manufacturing of electronics, building a lot of plants (with the help of western companies). As a result, they are better invested for the future, last year China was the only country experiencing double digit growth in their economy, the average citizen, while still poor, is much better off. This is also leading to small improvements in the political system as well. Very small, but at least in the right direction.
In order to make China a "free" place, you have to empower the people there. Opening our markets to them, trading with them, exchanging culture with them, helps do this. As long as we do the OTHER things necessary (push them to reforms, etc) then it the long run, the average Chinese citizen will be better. Even in the short run they are better than 20 years ago.
And now, instead of producing trinkets, China is producing some pretty damn good stuff. Their quality has good up dramatically. Its not a perfect world, but at least its moving in the right direction, thanks to Capitalism.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I wouldn't say Americans were exactly liberators too, since apparently, if we listen to all the noise in the USA, liberation means: you're free! We own you! Follow us! Shut up, unless for agreeing with us!
Some background info from a world trade law student:
One: European governments are subsidizing Airbus development costs, which according to the U.S. violates WTO rules on subsidies. Of course, neither the EU nor the Bush administration can really be considered champions of unrestricted free trade.
[rant] Although economists and common sense agree that free trade results in a net wealth benefit (note that this doesn't imply a "fair" distribution of that wealth), special interest groups that have much to lose from free trade (unproductive industries, unions) find it easier to exert political influence in favor of protectionism than the average person-on-the-street, who stands to lose a few cents a day on account of a specific protectionist measure, of which he is generally not even aware. [/rant]
Two: There is of course no economical or technical reason at all to distribute this kind of megaconstruction project all over Europe. It is estimated that all the silly moving around of pieces increases construction cost by a two-figures percentage. The reason, of course, is a political one: every nation wants a piece of the cake...
Since when does a single company need a $5 billion subsidy from the government?
Since Europe wants to underbid America,Inc. for its planes it has to offset the effect of military purchases from US plane makers.
Yes, you're right.
We 'got to the moon' with the Apollo capsule, but it wasn't a recyclable investment. What useful things have been done with an Apollo capsule in the last decade?
Certainly, the investment return on 'the space program' as a whole can't be debated. It is immense. However, Apollo is not a completely indispensible part of said program.
Some people have a "zero sum" perspective, which is wrong. If someone gets rich, it doesn't mean it was at the expense of someone else, but so many socialists seem to think this.
If I make a better widget, and sell it and get rich, I am creating jobs for my widget builders, and lower costs for those who buy my widgets. The people who make inferior widgets might have to find new jobs, but those losts jobs are LESS (on average) than the new wealth created by the new improved widgets.
Some people believe that there is a "fixed amount of wealth" so when one person gets more, someone one else must have less. This is utterly incorrect. My success helps others, it doesnt take away from them. Obviously, I could do things detrimental to others by my success, anyone can, but free market capitalism is what prevents me from over charging for my widgets. Free market capitalism prevents me from underpaying my employees, according to what market conditions are in my area. If I treat my employees like crap, they leave and I can't build more widgets.
Zero sum believers simply do not get the fact that wealth is relative, not absolute. A perfect example is "poor Americans". In America, if you work for $7 an hour and you are married with one child, you are considered poor. Odds are, this poor person has heat and air, a roof that doesn't leak, a vcr, a tv, a phone, a car and a decent meal 3x a day.
In many countries, especially countries that do not have free market capitalism (China, N. Korea, etc), this would be considered quite wealthy.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
It's comments like that that make me ashamed to be anti-war. To quote one of my favorite people in the war opposition, Amos Oz, "The protesters have it wrong: this war campaign does not emanate from oil lust or from colonialist appetite. It emanates primarily from a simplistic rectitude that aspires to uproot evil by force."
If you think that it would have been better to have been in the soviet bloc... talk to a few Russians. They'll likely convince you otherwise. The problems with the US's recent behavior are myriad. You have accurately described none of them.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
You're being a little short-sighted, aren't you? A fleet of airplanes like the A380 will last at least 30 years, if not 50. The design and construction started many years ago and cost billions of dollars. You think that should all be abandoned because of this little blip, of couple of years of bad economy?
You'll note from your own post -- 747's are being grounded. Why aren't they being sold? For the same reason.
... how many poor people could eat a year with $260m.
So you are suggesting all of the money currently used for capital investment be put into feeding programs for "the poor"?
I really don't see what good that would do other than result in a whole bunch more poor people.
BTW you aren't the customer for the plane, if you happen to be CEO of an airline I'm sure a meeting with an Airbus representative can be arranged. Obviously the airlines that have ordered A380s see some benefit or they wouldn't have bought the plane.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Soviet Suffered 13.6 million military casualties ... and more than 30 times the number of americans troops lost(300,000)
I wonder whay that is? The Soviets were fighting tooth and nail against the Germans since 1941 - the Americans did not get involved in ground fighting until North Africa in 1942, and that was a comparatively tiny commitment. The Soviets had plenty of people to spare, so they exchanged blood for more time to prepare their reserves. Soldiers were sometimes sent into combat without traning and without a personal weapon. Penal battalions were used to clear minefields by stepping on mines. Millions of Soviet prisoners that ended up in German hands also perished in labour camps, fighting ("Hiwis") for the Germans or were liquidated by Stalin's regime after the war (becoming an enemy prisoner was a capital offense).
There is no doubt that the Soviets suffered tremendous casualties during the war - by far the most of any nation. However, your implication that 30X the casulaties implies 30X the effort is ridiculous.
Where do you think Germany lost the bulk of its troops? Thank you Soviet Union, for getting rid of the nazi menace.
Germany did indeed lose the bulk of its troops on the Eastern front. However, it isn't like the numbers in the West were minisule - the fall of Tunisia in 1943, France in 1944 and the Ruhr in 1945 were all German defeats at the hands of the Americans and British that were at least as catastrophic as Stalingrad.
And let us not forget there are other contributions to victory besides the killing infantry. Who destroyed the most German aircraft? Ships? U-boats? Industrial capacity and oil refining? It wasn't the Russians. Who knocked Italy out of the war and forced the Germans to expend troops occupying and fighting there? Who had the means to project power and keep first-line German formations deployed in theatres they would never fight in (e.g. the Balkans)? Also not the Russians. How many billions did the US expend in lend-lease aid (food and military equipment) for the USSR?
The point is that it took a combined effort from the Soviets, Americans, British, Canadians, French, Australians, etc. to destroy Nazi Germany. To imply otherwise is assinine.
As for the US, its true that your presense probably have saved us from a communist takeover. So thank you US of A for that. Wether that is a good thing or not is debatable.
This is probably the most ignorant and disgusting comment I have ever seen. I'll tell you what - go read up on Stalin, on how many of his own people he had murdered (hint: millions) or imprisioned (hint: millions more) and get back to me on how "debatable" that is.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.