Air France. The plane went from Montreal to MCO and back to Montreal, where it picked up contest winners and Airbus staff to send them off to Paris.
CDG-YUL-MCO-YUL-CDG
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Future of Transportation To Disney World
- Thread starter Jose Eber
- Start date
CDG-YUL-MCO-YUL-CDG
miles1
Active Member
I hate to sound like Donny Downer, but this thing scares me. Over the years we've all been hardened to hearing about crashes that kill 100, or even 250 people at one time. We all accept the risk and fly anyway.
I may be wrong, but I think I heard this plane carries something like 525 passengers standard, or about 800 in "cattle car" configuration, plus a huge crew. It's probably inevitable that one of them will evenutally be involved in an accident (can you name a series of aircraft that hasn't?). Plus, this is a new, realtively unproven design. Despite all the CAD, testing and research that have gone into it, there will always be bugs in the design that won't make themselves known until the plane sees routine active service. This was the case with the cargo door latches that downed a few 747's years ago.
My point is, 500+ people is an awful lot to put at risk on one aircraft. I think the only other accident that claimed that many lives involved TWO full planes in a runway collision in the early 1980's. GOD FORBID, if one of these planes is lost it will ruin the lives of many, many people, as well as the reputation of Airbus and the airline operating it. No one will ever want to fly in one again, and it could put a chill on international travel for a while.
As much as I marvel at the technology, I dread the day I hear this news.
I may be wrong, but I think I heard this plane carries something like 525 passengers standard, or about 800 in "cattle car" configuration, plus a huge crew. It's probably inevitable that one of them will evenutally be involved in an accident (can you name a series of aircraft that hasn't?). Plus, this is a new, realtively unproven design. Despite all the CAD, testing and research that have gone into it, there will always be bugs in the design that won't make themselves known until the plane sees routine active service. This was the case with the cargo door latches that downed a few 747's years ago.
My point is, 500+ people is an awful lot to put at risk on one aircraft. I think the only other accident that claimed that many lives involved TWO full planes in a runway collision in the early 1980's. GOD FORBID, if one of these planes is lost it will ruin the lives of many, many people, as well as the reputation of Airbus and the airline operating it. No one will ever want to fly in one again, and it could put a chill on international travel for a while.
As much as I marvel at the technology, I dread the day I hear this news.
Actually a lufthansa spokesperson said it is highly unlikely they will use the craft to go to MCO (Orlando International). The reality is, MCO might not see an A380 until, what, 2014? And then it might be Virgin -- I saw 3 of their 747's one time at MCO.
That said, looking at Emirates recent growth arc (over the last 5 years), 10 bucks says they get to MCO first, 2011.
Miles, I don't think you sound like a downer. EVERYONE has thought what you've thought.
But you know what? Look at transatlantic liners and how they've gotten bigger and bigger (now with the new Genesis Class with Royal Caribbean) post Titanic.
Crap happens. We move on. Buy First Class. ™
That said, looking at Emirates recent growth arc (over the last 5 years), 10 bucks says they get to MCO first, 2011.
Miles, I don't think you sound like a downer. EVERYONE has thought what you've thought.
But you know what? Look at transatlantic liners and how they've gotten bigger and bigger (now with the new Genesis Class with Royal Caribbean) post Titanic.
Crap happens. We move on. Buy First Class. ™
jiminy.cricket
Well-Known Member
Wow; thanks! Is the flight straight to Orlando? How long does it take?
hehe... i shouldn't post when half asleep. Thanks for catching thatLufthansa is LH, Virgin is VS
and I agree, I can't see Lufthansa flying an A380 to MCO. They just started direct flights from Frankfurt at the end of October and they don't fly every day.
I could POSSIBLY see an AF CDG-MCO nonstop, or a YUL-MCO 5th freedom flight, since I have a feeling that this is the route being tested on the A380.
WDW Monorail
Well-Known Member
AR ordered these things?! Where did they steal the money from!?! They closed down their NY offices because they couldn't pay the rent but are able to fork out the money for the 380s.
And just to add to the safety issue, it is much, much safer to travel by air than by land. Every year, about 42,000 Americans perish in vehicular accidents. I don't have the exact number but I'm guessing that less than 800 people die in aircraft incidents each year.
And just to add to the safety issue, it is much, much safer to travel by air than by land. Every year, about 42,000 Americans perish in vehicular accidents. I don't have the exact number but I'm guessing that less than 800 people die in aircraft incidents each year.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
I can....no boeing 777 series plane has crashed (almost 13 years of service). Also, I'm pretty sure that the 737NG series (which are still called 737 but were a major redesign and modernization) which started flying in 1998 has not had any fatal "crashes". A southwest plane ran off the end of a runway and hit a car and killed the the occupants of the car but it didn't seriously injur anybody on board.
The accident rate of the modern generation of aircraft (Boeing 737NG, Boeing 777, Airbus A320, Airbus A330/A340 and regional jets) is extremely low. I think a lot of the reduction is due to new technology helping to take out a lot of the human error which causes the vast majority of crashes. There are many models series of planes that have never had an accident due to a design flaw. Some crashes are maintenance mistakes but the vast majority are pilot error. A huge percentage of crashes are C.F.I.T. (controlled flight into terrain) meaning there is nothing wrong, they just flew into a mountainside.
Bottom line is you are much more likely to get into a car accident than be involved in a plane crash.
WDW Monorail
Well-Known Member
I did a search a while back...
In 2005, a total of 434 fatal aviation incidents/accidents were recorded worldwide. Of these, only 1.4% of the incidents claimed 25 or more lives. Most of the incidents involved General Aviation Aircraft. I did notice about 4 downed 737s, killing at least 104.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2....e&p17=Desc&p18=&p19=&p20=&p21=&p22=&p23=&p24=
In 2005, a total of 434 fatal aviation incidents/accidents were recorded worldwide. Of these, only 1.4% of the incidents claimed 25 or more lives. Most of the incidents involved General Aviation Aircraft. I did notice about 4 downed 737s, killing at least 104.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2....e&p17=Desc&p18=&p19=&p20=&p21=&p22=&p23=&p24=
From Nova (who thought PBS content would ever interest me?!)
The annual risk of being killed in a plane crash for the average American is about 1 in 11 million. On that basis, the risk looks pretty small. Compare that, for example, to the annual risk of being killed in a motor vehicle crash for the average American, which is about 1 in 5,000.
So, you are 2200 times more likely to die in a car crash. Wow.
A chart to describe a different way of looking at the research, modifying with different factors such as flight length in miles etc.
Still, with this chart, 285 more likely to get killed in a car crash. Nuts. No idea it was that much higher.
from NOVA
The annual risk of being killed in a plane crash for the average American is about 1 in 11 million. On that basis, the risk looks pretty small. Compare that, for example, to the annual risk of being killed in a motor vehicle crash for the average American, which is about 1 in 5,000.
So, you are 2200 times more likely to die in a car crash. Wow.
A chart to describe a different way of looking at the research, modifying with different factors such as flight length in miles etc.
Still, with this chart, 285 more likely to get killed in a car crash. Nuts. No idea it was that much higher.
from NOVA
From Nova (who thought PBS content would ever interest me?!)
The annual risk of being killed in a plane crash for the average American is about 1 in 11 million. On that basis, the risk looks pretty small. Compare that, for example, to the annual risk of being killed in a motor vehicle crash for the average American, which is about 1 in 5,000.
So, you are 2200 times more likely to die in a car crash. Wow.
A chart to describe a different way of looking at the research, modifying with different factors such as flight length in miles etc.
Still, with this chart, 285 more likely to get killed in a car crash. Nuts. No idea it was that much higher.
from NOVA
I know htis is now getting quite off topic (even though you can travel to Orlando by train :king: ): Why are there 931 people killed by travelling on trains every year? :veryconfu
miles1
Active Member
Good Question- It seems kind of high, even for five years in the United States. Maybe it includes train vs. vehicle collisions? :shrug:
Hoop Raeb
Formerly known as...
Happens every day. I see 3 taxi past my window. Can't even imagine the madhouse that terminal is.
And the A380 was flown in by Airbus (MSN 007). I went over to get a closer look and even though I have ramp access, I was denied by an OIA offical. Airbus was running the show he said and only invited guests were allowed near the thing.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-bigplane1407nov14,0,397831.story?track=rss
