First Airbus A350 XWB Delivered, Will Start Service in January

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Airbus A350 XWB Delivered, Will Start Service in January

Posted by timothy on Friday December 26, 2014 @08:57PM from the every-inch-of-seat-matters dept.

jones_supa writes The wait is finally over for aviation aficionados wanting to book a flight aboard the Airbus A350 XWB. Qatar Airways, the global launch customer of the plane, accepted delivery of their first A350 of 80 in order, during a ceremony at Airbus' headquarters in Toulouse, France, on Monday morning. This particular A350-900 will enter regular commercial service in January, operating daily flights between its Hamad International Airport hub in Doha, Qatar and Frankfurt, Germany. There are three different iterations of A350 XWB being built: the A350-800, the A350-900 and the A350-1000, which seat 270, 314 and 350 passengers, respectively, in three-class seating. The "XWB" in the name means "extra wide body." The A350 is the first Airbus with both fuselage and wing structures made primarily of carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. Curious what it was like to be on the Tuesday delivery flight? Jeremy Dwyer-Lindgren was onboard that flight and chronicled the landmark trip in photographs.

65 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why the 1st model starts at -800? by schwit1 · 2014-12-26 21:22 · Score: 0

Boeing did the same thing starting at 787-8.
Hopefully the A350 can make up for the anemic A380 sales.
1. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by TheRaven64 · 2014-12-26 22:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Hopefully the A350 can make up for the anemic A380 sales
  
  The A380 is really huge. A lot of the long-haul flights that I've been on in the last couple of years haven't been full, even when they're the one flight of the day between two points and are on a plane with half of the capacity of the A380. It's a very economical plane to fly if you can fill it up, but if it's likely to be under half full then it's very expensive. The big-planes, infrequently model doesn't really work with the hub-and-spokes model popular in the USA, because it either needs more coordination with short-haul spoke routes, or layovers (and the cost of near-airport hotels means that these can often make it cheaper to book a different airline's flight).
  I flew on the 787 (LHR - IAH, both directions) for the first time this year and it was such a massive improvement over earlier models that I actually enjoyed flying for the first time in ages. Even in the cheap seats, there was lots of legroom, lots of overhead space (so you didn't feel cramped), the air pressure stayed good for the entire flight, the seats reclined comfortably without invading someone else's space. I managed to get more uninterrupted work done on the outbound flight than any other time over the surrounding few months. I'm really looking forward to airlines using similar craft on all long-haul routes.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
2. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  The big-planes, infrequently model doesn't really work with the hub-and-spokes model popular in the USA, because it either needs more coordination with short-haul spoke routes, or layovers (and the cost of near-airport hotels means that these can often make it cheaper to book a different airline's flight).
  What? Airbus bet on hub and spoke with the A380 whilst Boeing bet on point to point with the 787. The A380 is at its best between the biggest hubs when passenger demand grows but landing and takeoff slots are limited. The trickiest enlargement for any airport (or even a city with multiple airports) is to add more runways but an A380 requires hardly any changes be made to a large airport (every new aircraft type requires minor changes to gates). However, the US is not a hub and spoke market and the A380 was never intended for it. The main market for it is and has always been Asia where air travel grows faster than here and planes are filled beyond anything we could imagine. Airlines from oil rich Middle Eastern countries also like it because with their oil money, they want the best, biggest and most luxurious all the time (Etihad offers fucking multi-room suites with private butlers on theirs).
3. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by ADRA · 2014-12-26 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  If they don't sell seats (which really depends on how much they want to undercut to fill), they can always ship more cargo, which can actually be quite lucritive, though probably somewhere south of an economy ticket, but I don't know those details.
  
  --
  Bye!
4. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by Richard_at_work · 2014-12-26 23:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm afraid the airline chooses the seat pitch, seats and cabin layouts - its not the 787 giving you most of your experience there, its the airline.
5. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by arglebargle_xiv · 2014-12-26 23:43 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's like processor performance ratings: AMD, er, Airbus PR800 -> 270, PR900 -> 314, and PR1000 -> 350. No doubt Boeing will roll out its own bCOMP index to rate its aircraft: Take the number of passengers, multiply by the number of engines, divide by the average delivery delay, multiply by the number of consonants in "Rolls-Royce Trent 1000", and you have the bCOMP index, which oddly enough works out slightly higher than the Airbus Performance Rating in all categories. I hear that Airbus are planning to overclock their engines in order to get higher numbers than Boeing for their next release...
6. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by Aviation+Pete · 2014-12-27 00:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's the same reason why the A-380 did not become the A-350. 350 would have been the next number in the sequence.
  The reason is Chinese superstition. 8 is a lucky number in Chinese, because the sign for 8 shows two triangles pointing up. By the way, 4 is considered an unlucky number in China because it sounds similar to the word for death. Since most customers for both Airbus and Boeing are assumed to be in East Asia, their marketing departments put eights into their newest products wherever they can. The newest version of the 747 is called 747-8.
  Do you spot a pattern?
  
  --
  You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
7. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by Richard_at_work · 2014-12-27 00:38 · Score: 2
  
  Pedanticism strikes, there is no such plane as the A-350 nor the A-380. The aircraft is called the A350 and the A380. Airbus doesn't use hyphens in its main product name.
8. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by TBoon · 2014-12-27 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  The big-planes, infrequently model doesn't really work with the hub-and-spokes model popular in the USA
  Also, apparently American airlines typically use revenue management software optimized for smaller aircrafts, compared to that used by European carriers. http://www.businessweek.com/ar...
9. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by SpzToid · 2014-12-27 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  You're not kidding about Etihad! You get three %$#@! floors! There's like a living room/entry, a private en-suite bath/shower, and finally a double-bed.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  Still, that's a bargain compared to Justin Bieber's new 60 million dollar Gulfstream 6, with at least $3000 an hour operating costs, not counting the pilot.
  Hey, I'll bet you can pick up a cheap used Gulfstream 5 from Bill Cosby soon for the right price.
  
  --
  You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
10. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Well, I didn't get into private jets but prince Alwaleed (spelling?) of Saudi Arabia has the most luxurious one: An A380 with a swimming pool onboard (supposedly the only such monstrosity in the world since such a thing had never been certified for flight before).
11. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  The A380 is not a good cargo plane compared to the 747.
12. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by willworkforbeer · 2014-12-27 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Must have had an Amazon handslapping.
  
  --
  Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
13. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  Shhh...wait till he tries first class...it's going to blow his mind.
14. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by TheRaven64 · 2014-12-27 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  I've flown first class before, but the value proposition isn't really there. Given the choice between flying first, or flying economy and keeping the price difference, I'd pick the latter (I'll happily fly first when someone else is paying and I don't have the choice of taking the money though). Economy (well, Economy Plus, but it's United, so Economy on any other airline) on the 787 was the first time I've been sufficiently comfortable in an economy seat to get productive work done - usually I just sleep or zone out and watch bad movies. The interesting thing was that the first and business sections didn't seem any different from the 777, only the cheap seats improved.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
15. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by Richard_at_work · 2014-12-27 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  First class and business tend to have their products refreshed on a more regular basis, because there's more involved in each rather than "seats" and "entertainment" in economy, and in the case of the 787 most airlines had planned to launch new first and business products with the introduction of the 787 into their fleets, but then the plane was hit with 5 years worth of delays so those products got launched on older aircraft instead.
16. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by ShanghaiBill · 2014-12-27 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of the long-haul flights that I've been on in the last couple of years haven't been full
  Let me guess: You fly USA <=> Europe. Every USA <=> Asia flight I have been on the last two years has been 100% full.
17. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by ceoyoyo · 2014-12-27 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC Boeing was putting some pressure on the airlines not to make the 787 economy class too much like a can of sardines. That may well change when they're not trying to hype them anymore.
18. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by TheRaven64 · 2014-12-27 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  Always Europe at one end, Asia or the USA at the other end. I've been on one or two full flights from the USA, but I've also been on one where everyone in economy plus had a row of 3 seats to themselves, though economy was packed. Flying ANA to Japan there were quite a few empty seats.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
19. Re:Why the 1st model starts at -800? by mjwx · 2014-12-27 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully the A350 can make up for the anemic A380 sales
  The A380 is really huge. A lot of the long-haul flights that I've been on in the last couple of years haven't been full, even when they're the one flight of the day between two points and are on a plane with half of the capacity of the A380. It's a very economical plane to fly if you can fill it up, but if it's likely to be under half full then it's very expensive.
  This has more to do with the way the US hub and spoke model is designed. If you travel between Europe and Asia or Asia and America the A380 is quite popular. Its taking over a lot of the routes that 747's were used for. QANTAS is replacing it's custom 747-ER aircraft with stock A380's for it's pacific routes.
  
  The A380 has a bigger issue that gates at older airports need to be upgraded to accommodate the A380. Despite this, Airbus have delivered 147 airframes since release. Its really the 747-8 that is floundering.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
5% less leg room? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 22:05 · Score: 0

Might have missed it but all I see is width but what about leg room?
I have switched from air to train travel in Europe because flying has become too uncomfortable for tall people.
Modern trains are quite good. I get a 220V power plug and share my phone's Internet or pay for on train wireless. They also offer a bit more room for my legs and more distance to the passenger next to me.
1. Re:5% less leg room? by TheRaven64 · 2014-12-26 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  The 787 has more legroom than any other plane I've flown in and this is aimed as a 787 competitor. Note that it depends a lot on the airline though - they get a lot of say in the exact layout of seats, so you'll see different amounts of legroom for different carriers and the same aircraft.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
2. Re:5% less leg room? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  exactly. i flew on an a380 flight with singapore when they were new. terrible legroom. reminded me of a japanese schoolbus.
3. Re:5% less leg room? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-12-27 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  I also vastly prefer train travel to air travel within Europe.
  Dunno about other parts of Europe, but at least here in Sweden, SJ have started providing free wifi on most of their regional and cross-country trains. You're limited to 200 MB on the regional trains, but that's plenty to surf and do email with for 1-2 hours, and hey, it's free.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
4. Re:5% less leg room? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  I also vastly prefer train travel to air travel within Europe.
  Dunno about other parts of Europe, but at least here in Sweden, SJ have started providing free wifi on most of their regional and cross-country trains. You're limited to 200 MB on the regional trains, but that's plenty to surf and do email with for 1-2 hours, and hey, it's free.
  If your travel is 1-2 hours with train, then flying isn't really an option, that would be a 10 minute flight or something? But I much rather have a 50 minute flight than a 6-7 hour train ride.
5. Re:5% less leg room? by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-12-27 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Within Europe, the door-to-door time on trains is probably better anyway, and with no more worries about weather.
6. Re:5% less leg room? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  If your travel is 1-2 hours with train, then flying isn't really an option, that would be a 10 minute flight or something? But I much rather have a 50 minute flight than a 6-7 hour train ride.
  High speed rail says hello. I know americans still think rail is deadlocked to 19th century technology but guys you know that 300-400 km/h trains do exist. And that speed is 1/2 of that of an airplane. Trains can do city to city and you spend less or at the worst the same amount of time a plane would need. And no TSA and balls groping either. Win win for rail.
7. Re:5% less leg room? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  If your travel is 1-2 hours with train, then flying isn't really an option, that would be a 10 minute flight or something? But I much rather have a 50 minute flight than a 6-7 hour train ride.
  High speed rail says hello. I know americans still think rail is deadlocked to 19th century technology but guys you know that 300-400 km/h trains do exist. And that speed is 1/2 of that of an airplane. Trains can do city to city and you spend less or at the worst the same amount of time a plane would need. And no TSA and balls groping either. Win win for rail.
  I'm the AC you replied to, and I live in the neighbor country to the OP I replied to. Between the 3 major cities in my country the travel time by air vs train is what I posted. I need to be at the airport 30 min before departure. With plane I can reach a same day early morning meeting have a full workday and be back home same evening, with train I spend the whole day, or night, travelling, each way. There is absolutely no comparison.
  When we discussed travel alternatives I assumed we didn't include hypothetical options, if we do I agree that point to point high speed train might be an option beating planes for short/medium distances. But according to Wikipedia the fastest high-speed train in service operate at 320 km/h max speed, and a typical plane cruise speed is 878-926 km/h (according to Wikipedia), so plane is closer to 3 times as fast which quickly adds up with distance.
8. Re:5% less leg room? by 0123456 · 2014-12-27 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Because everyone in Europe has a high-speed rail station outside their house from where they can take a train all the way to their destination by the direct route without stopping anywhere in between.
  You're right that flying makes little sense on short routes, due to the time taken to get on and off the plane. But high-speed rail makes little sense on those routes, either. When I lived in the UK, even the relatively slow 220-ish km/h inter-city trains used to spend about the first half hour crawling out of London before they could get up to speed, then, after a few minutes at that speed, they'd be crawling in and out of the stations where they stopped along the way.
9. Re:5% less leg room? by FooAtWFU · 2014-12-27 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  I have switched from air to train travel in Europe because flying has become too uncomfortable for tall people.
  
  From my preliminary understanding of things, you wouldn't be using Qatar Airways for flights within Europe anyway. They're more of a long-haul hub-and-spoke model airline that could take you from Europe to Africa or east Asia with a one-stop trip. For intra-European air travel you'd use a different airline, and probably a different model of airplane, optimized for fuel efficiency on shorter-haul trips (and possibly a narrowbody plane, if the airports in question aren't so busy that they're trying to max out every landing slot).
  
  --
  The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
10. Re:5% less leg room? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-12-27 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  I was referring to the regional trains. Cross-country takes longer, e.g. Stockholm to Malmö is 4-5 hours. Last time I took that route (something like 6-7 months ago), they'd just started including wifi with a paid ticket. I can't recall whether or not it was unlimited. The free wifi on the regional trains just started a couple of months ago.
  For me, Stockholm to Malmö or Copenhagen takes about the same amount of time by train or by plane. I'm about a 20 minute subway ride from Stockholm Central, I only need to be there maybe 10 minutes before departure, and the other end of the journey is the central station in the destination city. Whereas Arlanda airport is about 90 minutes away for me, I have to be there at least an hour before takeoff, and it's 30 to 45 minutes from Kastrup into the downtown area of either city, which pretty well cancels out any speed advantage from flying.
  And when I go by train, I don't have to worry about my bag being overweight or containing anything I'm not allowed to take on an aircraft.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
11. Re:5% less leg room? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  I was referring to the regional trains. Cross-country takes longer, e.g. Stockholm to Malmö is 4-5 hours. Last time I took that route (something like 6-7 months ago), they'd just started including wifi with a paid ticket. I can't recall whether or not it was unlimited. The free wifi on the regional trains just started a couple of months ago.
  For me, Stockholm to Malmö or Copenhagen takes about the same amount of time by train or by plane. I'm about a 20 minute subway ride from Stockholm Central, I only need to be there maybe 10 minutes before departure, and the other end of the journey is the central station in the destination city. Whereas Arlanda airport is about 90 minutes away for me, I have to be there at least an hour before takeoff, and it's 30 to 45 minutes from Kastrup into the downtown area of either city, which pretty well cancels out any speed advantage from flying.
  And when I go by train, I don't have to worry about my bag being overweight or containing anything I'm not allowed to take on an aircraft.
  Hmm.. doing the math (and assuming you have to be there a full hour before, not my experience, including Arlanda), Plane: 90+60+30+70 min flight time = 4h 10 min hour. Train: 20+10+5.20 train time = 5h 50 min. You have a 3 hour 20 minute difference in travel time for a return trip. I don't know how much you travel, but for me that is quite substantial. If you shave your airport time to 40 minutes before departure (been there done that a lot, never failed on Nordic airports), the difference is 4 hours shorter travel time on plane than train. Even with your unusually long travel time to Arlanda.
12. Re:5% less leg room? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 11:35 · Score: 0
  
  Might have missed it but all I see is width but what about leg room?
  I have switched from air to train travel in Europe because flying has become too uncomfortable for tall people.
  Modern trains are quite good. I get a 220V power plug and share my phone's Internet or pay for on train wireless. They also offer a bit more room for my legs and more distance to the passenger next to me.
  I am 1.88m (6'2") and if you choose your seat and airline leg room is not an issue for intra-European flights for me (for long haul flights I make significant effort to fly Business). Travel time is important, and most times people say it is the same time it really isn't. And, Internet is starting to become common on many flights.
13. Re:5% less leg room? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  Within Europe, the door-to-door time on trains is probably better anyway, and with no more worries about weather.
  From someone who has been flying across most of Europe weekly for years -- it is nowhere close. If I have the time to spare I sometimes enjoy taking the train, fx from Amsterdam to Brussels. First class train is a nice way to travel. But on time plane wins almost always.
14. Re:5% less leg room? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  The 787 has more legroom than any other plane I've flown in and this is aimed as a 787 competitor. Note that it depends a lot on the airline though - they get a lot of say in the exact layout of seats, so you'll see different amounts of legroom for different carriers and the same aircraft.
  This has nothing to do with the plane model, and all to do with airlines seating plans. There are low-priced carriers with very tight seating on the 787. Personally I like the Lufthansa economy seats, and how they create extra leg room even with fairly tight economy spacing. I'd rather miss an inch of seat padding if I get an extra inch of leg room.
15. Re:5% less leg room? by TBoon · 2014-12-27 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  Plane: 90+60+30+70 min flight time = 4h 10 min hour. Train: 20+10+5.20 train time = 5h 50 min. You have a 3 hour 20 minute difference in travel time for a return trip.
  On the other hand, pretty much all of those 4h10m are spend being unproductive if flying. Barely any time to do any work in between moving to the next stage, standing in line, and waiting for a few minutes here and there. However in the train scenario only half an hour really prevents work from being done, leaving a solid 5 hour work block to be utilized.
  Flying might get you there faster, but you'll get more done on the train. Depends on your priorities and needs.
16. Re:5% less leg room? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  Plane: 90+60+30+70 min flight time = 4h 10 min hour. Train: 20+10+5.20 train time = 5h 50 min. You have a 3 hour 20 minute difference in travel time for a return trip.
  On the other hand, pretty much all of those 4h10m are spend being unproductive if flying. Barely any time to do any work in between moving to the next stage, standing in line, and waiting for a few minutes here and there. However in the train scenario only half an hour really prevents work from being done, leaving a solid 5 hour work block to be utilized.
  Flying might get you there faster, but you'll get more done on the train. Depends on your priorities and needs.
  I agree that train can be a better, and sometimes more productive, travel experience. I have just found that the speed advantage of planes usually are much bigger than many assume when they say train can be just as fast. In your example 4 hours difference, for someone in Stockholm with more typical distance to Arlanda the difference would be 5 hours. Disregarding a need (pr not) to be somewhere and back quickly, that is 4-5 hours you can be productive not travelling :)
17. Re:5% less leg room? by jrumney · 2014-12-28 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure which Singapore Airlines A380 you flew on, but the ones I've flown on have subjectively more legroom than any 747, 777 or A330 I've flown, mostly because the gap under the seats is slightly higher than older designs and free of added metal boxes for the retro-fitted entertainment systems, while keeping the same seat pitch.
18. Re:5% less leg room? by jrumney · 2014-12-28 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  If I have the time to spare I sometimes enjoy taking the train, fx from Amsterdam to Brussels.... But on time plane wins almost always.
  Could you have picked a worse example? That train ride is less than the 2 hours that you are recommended to be at checkin before an international flight from a busy airport like Schiphol. Just getting from downtown Amsterdam to the airport has already lost you 30 minutes.
19. Re:5% less leg room? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-29 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  If I have the time to spare I sometimes enjoy taking the train, fx from Amsterdam to Brussels.... But on time plane wins almost always.
  Could you have picked a worse example? That train ride is less than the 2 hours that you are recommended to be at checkin before an international flight from a busy airport like Schiphol. Just getting from downtown Amsterdam to the airport has already lost you 30 minutes.
  Well, I picked an example I've personally traveled many times, both with train and plane (put together maybe 20 times, at least). And one of the few places I sometimes do travel with train instead of plane, which is why I picked it.
  When in Amsterdam I usually stay very close to the airport (if not at the Sheraton in the airport) because my meetings are in the area. And being there 2 hours before is just bullshit, check in online and be there 45 minutes before and you are fine (maybe a little more on Friday afternoon if you don't have fast track access).
Re:Boeing Be Better by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 23:07 · Score: 0

Why? Generally, American products are not exactly known for their high quality.
When it comes to aeroplanes, Airbuses and Boeings appear to be very comparable overall. Airlines often base their choice on very specific requirements in their operations or on what they bought in the past (maintenance is typically cheaper if you have fewer types). Both manufacturers use components from around the world.
Re:CNN BREAKING NEWS: 50% of Americans not too bri by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 23:39 · Score: 0

> 50% of Americans have below average IQ. It's sad, of course, but then you still gotta put them SOMEWHERE
Not necessarily. Could actually be somewhat more or less than 50% if the distribution isn't equal/symmetrical above and below the middle.
Median though...
Odd by jemmyw · 2014-12-26 23:47 · Score: 1

We're so weird about planes. If the local bus company got a new bus we wouldn't be rushing down for a demo ride.
Airlines have an interest I'm sure, as the service does effect who I'd travel with. Bit that is only one ends to a means.
1. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  You don't pay hundreds of dollars for a bus ticket.
2. Re:Odd by Richard_at_work · 2014-12-27 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  A lot more new tech goes into a new aircraft model than a new bus model, thats why aviation is followed so keenly.
3. Re:Odd by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-12-27 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bus
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Close and don't show me this again! by AndyKron · 2014-12-27 00:01 · Score: 1, Redundant

Close and don't show me this again damnit!
1. Re:Close and don't show me this again! by hcs_$reboot · 2014-12-27 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Why's that? A350 is such a perfect toy, it deserves some publicity.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Better than the failed Dreamliner by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 03:58 · Score: 0

I'm sure it will be a better success than the flop and failure that the American Dreamliner was, which it seems every airline is having problems with.
Qatar? by Tetetrasaurus · 2014-12-27 04:39 · Score: 2

Why does Qatar need 80 new planes, let alone 80 planes? The land mass of Qatar is 4,468 sq miles. That's about 67 miles on a side if you make is a square. If you evenly place these 80 new planes along the border of Qatar, there would be one every 3.3 miles. If these planes were taxiing around the border at the standard 30mph, and you stood there, one would pass you every 6.6 minutes.
I see. Border patrol.
1. Re:Qatar? by FooAtWFU · 2014-12-27 05:18 · Score: 2
  
  Open up a map and check out where Qatar is. It's kind of smack dab in the middle of the Eastern Hemisphere's inhabited landmasses. This makes for a really nice hub-and-spoke model air service.
  
  --
  The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
2. Re:Qatar? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  Why does Emirates need 140 fucking A380s? Maybe to grow to the biggest hub ever known...?
3. Re:Qatar? by Tetetrasaurus · 2014-12-27 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Qatar hardly wants to try and make money off the cutthroat commoditized airline industry. They've got oil!
Can women travel in Sweden? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 05:28 · Score: 0

Last time I heard, in Muslim countries like Sweden, women are not allowed to get on the train.
Scarebus! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 09:14 · Score: 1

Just here to spread a little FUD... I did a ton of engineering work on another one of EADS' fine products, the AS350 "A Star".
Now, granted, that's rotary-wing, and it's another division, but... trust me on this, guys, the electrical system was seriously lacking. Cartridge fuses, for one. Say the hydraulics go out. You have to unscrew the fuse holder, find a replacement on this little holder in the footwell (there's one on either side, a bit lower than the knee), make sure it's the right one, and screw it back in. God help you if it's a real emergency and you don't have time to do all that.
Generally, the rule of thumb is, if you can't live without it, you are allowed one reset of the circuit breaker. Either it immediately re-trips, or it starts working again and you have some time to plan an emergency landing.
Airbus has a similar thing going in that there are some systems that if they trip or are disabled, they cannot be re-enabled by anyone except maintenance, on the ground. There are arguments for this, but the thing that we pay pilots for is to, essentially, do absolutely nothing all the time - UNTIL a human is really, really required, in which case they become heroes. Every once in a while Sully has to lay it down in the Hudson, you know? Everything else is completely automated and there's very little that humans actually *need* to do to control a flight.
Boeing, on the other hand, gives humans ultimate control - it's assumed that if the pilot is trying to do something that looks dumb, that it's not because it's a dumb move, it's because he is an expert and knows better. Maybe there are extensive cautions and warnings, but, hey, if you have to push that button, it'll let you in the end, because maybe the risk of starting a fire is worth it and we really need the fuel pump NOW, or maybe because enabling the fuel transfer pump will dump all the remaining fuel outboard through a chunk of destroyed structure, and the flight computer cannot figure out why you would ever want to do that - perhaps you're already gliding, and you need landing weight to come down more than you need fuel?
Same philosophy with the 777 / 787. Composites had never been used on that scale before, so they were only used in noncritical applications. The wing roots were still metal, but the fuselage was composite. It's not that is wasn't an advanced design, the fan blades in the turbines could even be composite, but systems that if they were to fail would certainly kill everyone on board were built using proven tech. You can have a rotor burst and make it home OK, but if you lose a wing, well...
Airbus jumped right in and made really important things out of composites the first go. They chose correctly, in the end, but the aviation industry is built on the corpses of companies who were really, really good... but chose wrong *one time*. All this tech is pretty awesome and all, but when I am magically being hurtled through the stratosphere like a Greek god, I prefer reliability over all else. Plus, Boeing is made in America, so fuck yeah.
Tl;dr:
Boeing: Trust humans more, also America fuck yeah.
Airbus: Trust the machine more.
1. Re:Scarebus! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  I would trust Europeans ahead of Americans any day.
2. Re:Scarebus! by sr180 · 2014-12-28 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  Now, granted, that's rotary-wing, and it's another division, but... trust me on this, guys, the electrical system was seriously lacking. Cartridge fuses, for one. Say the hydraulics go out. You have to unscrew the fuse holder, find a replacement on this little holder in the footwell (there's one on either side, a bit lower than the knee), make sure it's the right one, and screw it back in. God help you if it's a real emergency and you don't have time to do all that.
  It still makes sense. In an AS350, and hydraulics fails in a single pilot situation (almost all of them except for training given the aircraft), you don't have the time or the available hands to do any diagnosis. You'll be hands full on the controls, landing and diagnosing on the ground. Their engineering decisions were based to match the aircraft and the operations at the time. Its a reasonably old airframe now but still more capable than anything their opposition offer.
  Furthermore, its not a real AS350 unless you have the original French engine and the pleasures of having to deal with Turbomeca.
  
  --
  In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
3. Re:Scarebus! by tlhIngan · 2014-12-29 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Generally, the rule of thumb is, if you can't live without it, you are allowed one reset of the circuit breaker. Either it immediately re-trips, or it starts working again and you have some time to plan an emergency landing.
  Actually, that rule has changed. If the breaker has tripped for ANY reason, DO NOT RESET IT. If it wasn't essential to the flight, continue on. If it was, land ASAP.
  Get on the ground, then have maintenance figure it out.
  It tripped for a reason, and if it was because of a circuit short, do you really want to stress that circuit some more? (There have been a few accidents where resetting it has caused more issues because the already stressed circuit causes failures elsewhere, even after the faulty component was replaced).
  The old rule was yes, you get ONE reset out of it. The new rule is no resets at all because maintenance should check the entire circuit to ensure the wiring and all that are still OK because they were stressed. (that includes the breaker itself which may need changing too).
  Of course, back when I was taking flight training, I had a breaker that kept tripping (I found a tripped breaker, then reset it - back in the one-reset days). Basically I found a tripped breaker in my preflight, then when I finished that and got in, it tripped again which basically mean to scrub the flight. My flight instructor tried and he couldn't get the breaker to stay in either. In the end, it turned out that the alternator field coil controller had failed. But basically since it failed, resetting wasn't going to accomplish anything. Aircraft circuits don't change, so transient faults are rarely transient - I mean, if your avionics never tripped the breaker before, then the breaker trips without anything changing, something has gone wrong, especially if it's worked for years before.
Re:Can women travel in Sweden? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 11:22 · Score: 0

Last time I heard, in Muslim countries like Sweden, women are not allowed to get on the train.
Let's say this is true, so you should stay away.