98k

This article doesn't focus really on the fact of the 98k deaths, but I wasn't to look at this fact that people brandy about. I find it altogether impossible to believe. That's a lot of deaths or a lot of mistakes. The more likely candidate is that there were a lot of choices in a serious situation and the wrong one was chosen. Lets focus on the significant factor. The person, by and large, who died was ill, seriously ill. The death is attributed to the error, but in all reality they might or probably would have died anyways. Now this doesn't negate the reason for dealing with errors, but the number does need to be an accurate reflection on the truth. The real question is how many deaths does the insurance industry lead to by denial of claims, or procrastinating(hoping the patient dies first) or causing emotional turmoil. That is a big issue as well that needs to be addressed The other reason that 98,ooo is impossible to believe is the 1/5th statistic. that means that on average 3.7million people die from 4 main causes. I think that is impossibly shallow statistical writing. Ultimately the real question is why is it that everyone wants to live forever? 3.7 million is based on an old US population of 270mil/70 year life expectancy(rough guess)

The Real Battle - The A380 or the 747-8 Intercontinental?

Now the Real qestion is not which one is the most gracefull. Though even the head of airbus couldn't argue that the A380 is not a gracefull airplane. The Concorde is without a doubt the most gracefull. So the real question is which one will get you to where you want to go on time. I have dealt with this in other places. The airbus could hold a third more. The last two trips I have had with A 747 were delayed by people checking in with bags and not showing up to the flight. Maybe they were lying down under the bar stool or some other bad reason. Either way I was delayed from 45 minutes to an hour. Now those odds are not the norm, but with a third more people it will not only cost more to land but also be more frequently delayed by passengers. Time slots and arrivals and departures are critical to the airlines and this is very important. I suspect this is a major driving force of the sales of the 757-8I over the A380. The A380 is a product of the pre 9/11 era. They had a lot of money invested and continued to pour money into it. The problem is this is the post 9/11 era, and people are going to be flying more and more point to point. This is the model the 787 and later the A350 project are designed around. This reduces the chance of terrorism taking out major transfer points as well. Never mind that we might be able to avoid LAX all together. LAX& Tom Bradley Terminal = the worst international airport in the world!!!

Amazing expression - Noël Forgeard President & CEO of Airbus

Now I might believe that the A 380 is an ugly plane with a huge forehead. Airlines will eventually realize that with that many passengers there will be far more complications than there are today with the 747-400 screwing up the schedule far more. They will also realize that more people are going from point to point the Boeing model, and smaller Hubs. There will still be hubs, maybe even larger than today, but the focus will be point to point. Not everyone likes to sit and lounge at the airport. Though many people do like to whale watch and the A380 has a lot of resemblance to the Blue Whale.

Working together

Heathrow airport Facing the crunch Having just flown through Heathrow I always like it. Now most don't, I know, but I enjoy the crazieness of the place. Having lived in London, LA and New York I can see that there are many airports with simmilar problems. Not only with similar problems but also with Similar solutions. The airports need to, must work togetther. Now the solution is a High Spead rail between the regional airports and transfering freight and passengers to their own respective sites. Not the people who run the airports don't like the idea that they have to cooperate, but so what