In many of your columns, you criticise the A380, which is---by a large margin---the highest capacity passenger aeroplane in service. In other columns, you have raked airlines in the US over the coals for causing the current air traffic congestion problem by using smaller craft, thus reducing the average passengers/aeroplane ratio, which uses more gate slots and take off/landing slots, and thereby reduces the total daily passenger capacity at the airports.

If the A380 is bigger, we'd all be better off if airlines in the US used them instead of dinky little regional jets, thus turning ten little regional jet flights into one great big A380 flight. Right?

As to the logistical issues of airports needing to build stronger taxiways and alter service facilities in order to handle something the size of on A380, it would seem fair to say that this problem is not due to anything specific to the A380 but is simply due to its size and high passenger capacity. Any attempt to alleviate congestion by building bigger aeroplanes will run into these issues. If we actually want to work on the congestion problem, we should be encouraging bigger planes, and encouraging airlines and airports to use them, rather than devoting an unseemly amount of attention to the precise shape of their noses.

Agreed that the A340 is at worst a more interesting looking plane than the A380. It may even be "pretty."

Thai Airway's A340 configuration for the 17 hour flight from JFK to Bangkok is remarkably comfortable, even in cattle-class.

Free Dom Yam/Sour Shrimp & Tamarind flavoured MaMa brand instant ramen noodles on-demand on Thai as well.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

If the 380's going to carry us with a modicum more comfort and convenience than the other cattle trucks then that's fine by me.

And, as pointed out, bigger planes = fewer flights = a good thing.

Clearly Patrick hasn't been looking at the stuff coming out of Detroit for the last fifty years.

It is my understanding that the original decisions regarding the 747 cockpit placement involved a bit of serendipity as well as a couple of technical driving factors. Firstly, one of the premier envisioned uses for the 747 was to carry large cargo, thus providing incentive to have the possibility for a large entry access at the nose of the aircraft. With the cockpit placed high, the nose could be articulated to flip either to the side, or straight up thus providing unrestricted access to the fuselage. Secondly, the 747 was designed prior to the advent of computer aided design (CAD) tools. Certifying a new windscreen design would have been especially problematic given the larger surface area needed to support a lower placement of the flight deck. With the cockpit mounted in the “hump” the 747 was able to mount the same windscreen as was already certified for the 707. Thirdly, the hump actually provides a slight aerodynamic advantage, allowing the 747 to have a slightly larger airspeed than other heavy and midsize jets. Aesthetics probably had little if anything to do with the choice. It would be interesting to know the reasoning of the Airbus engineers regarding the lower cockpit placement used for the A380.

I'm amazed that they bothered putting seats in a plane that large. It's only purpose is to stuff people in like the last train to Sobibor.

In perspective, I don't care what kind of airliner or airline I fly if the plane is in good shape and the crew competent.

Of course, this rules out Aeroflot completely as an airline and any NorthWest flight-crew who usually come directly to the airport from a bar. Aeroflot, by the way, is Russian for "OH MY GOD!"; NorthWest is how they fly when instructed to head South.

Singapore Airlines unveiled those pretty double-bed cabins on its A380s, only to announce (with a typically Singaporean, have-fun-and-we'll-cane-you-and-not-in-a-nice-way perspective on life) that passengers are not allowed to fool around. What a gift for Richard Branson! This all but ensures that Virgin Atlantic will place a condom on the pillow on board its aircraft to seize the competitive advantage.

period. they don't care about looks or passengers and especially not the pilots. it's not part of their vocabulary.

But not that ugly. Not as ugly as I thought the first time I saw it, and as Pininfarina said, designs that are instantly attractive rarely last, but those that grow on you are the ones that stand the test of time. Like the 747.

Weight is a factor in both takeoff and landing, as has been pointed out, and as someone who lived through the debacle that was FAA testing of the runways at the then-new Southwest Florida Regional Airport I can tell you that when a news person says that a plane is "too big" for a runway they almost always mean "too heavy".

Size doesn't matter :) I've been spending a lot of time on regional jets lately. The only Miami-Greensboro direct flights are on American Eagle, with those 60 or 70 passenger Brazilian mini-Boeings that are so popular now. Recently I had to fly back out of Charlotte and was very happy to see that I would get to fly on a "real" airliner, a 737-300. Imagine my dismay on discovering that the bigger plane had less room, was noisier, and was far less comfortable overall than the smaller one. Jamming 614 people onto an airpane, no matter how large that plane might be, is bound to be an extremely unpleasant experience for all concerned.

Over the top: boy, you are an oversucker for overhyperbole. No wonder they didn't invite you. Who needs a downer on the inaugural? I have travelled extensively with SQ and Emirates and enjoyed the service and on time performance. The 380 will only be as good as the carrier.

Strange eh! A tiny island nation of 2 million people and a minor city state have airlines that runs rings around our own awful carriers. Reality check: the 380 will gradually move up to a 3 class 600+ plane configuration except for some ME and Asian routes. All the spending money and need to flash it around is there. Watch out for Chinese grandees spending the big euros (I wanted to say bucks but!!!).