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."
We gave you the mobile phone, and now the world's biggest/best passenger plane. So what have the Americans ever done for us?
Who measures things in soccer pitches olympic swimming pools? What sort of standards are these? I was just getting used to meters, had a basic understanding of fathoms, and had heard of rods, but what the heck are these new units?
30M ~= 1 olympic size swimming pool?, so is it 60 meters tall? ~190 feet tall?
And just how long exactly is a soccor (soccer!) pitch (field!). My reports show between 100 and 130 yards (Arph! yet another measurement!).
Let's all get together and use either metric or english systems please. Your preference, I don't care because I can translate easily enough between those two.
ADVENTUR>You are in a maze of twisty little passages.
The preceding comment has been reviewed and declared to be compliant with HIPPA Phase II regulations.
Hopefully it'll have custom jumbo-size seats to accomodate today's wider, fatter traveller!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
http://www.airbus.com/airbus4u/photo_album.asp
> 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.
"Olympic swimming pools"? What's that in Libraries of Congress?
Now the Eurpoeans are building something so ridiculously big that no Americans want it.
Talk about role-reversal.
A (non Concorde) flight from NY to Heathrow takes just about as long as a flight from NY to LA. The only really long flight out of the US is LA to Hawaii, but there's not enough demand on that route to make replacing 747s with A380s feasible.
There's also the problem of airport infrastructure. an 80m wide double decker airplane will have a very hard time fitting into any gate spot in an airport anywhere in the world, currently. The only exception I can think of is Hong Kong's Kai Tak airport. It is so new that they might have engineered it with larger gate spots to accomodate future aircraft. Airport infrastructre is actually a pretty large design factor in new airframe development. Airbus is pushing the envelope with something as big as the A380. Airbus even offers documentation on airport planning for A380 accomodation.
Part of airport planning is passenger flow. That's a big issue with the A380. How do you get 555 people off of an airplane quickly? The standard one or two Jetway gate isn't going to work. If I remember correctly, the A380 has fourteen extis, eight on the main deck (four per side) and six on the upper deck (three per side). The rear most doors are father back along the aircraft than any current jetway system can reach. To really use an A380, airlines are going to have to pay to get their airport concourses upgraded. Not something they will do lightly. Not something I expect to see them do in the US.
The infrastructure changes are what is giving most carriers cold feet with regards to the A380. It'll be very hard to run numbers that show upgrading to the A380 will be cost effective in a reasonable time-line, imho. Pacific rim carriers have the best chances of making it work. Now the question is whether or not they're interested.
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!
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...