Even that thinking is worthy of a little examination.

Case 1 – The pheasant: Reared selectively to produce fit, high flying birds for the guns. Protected and cossetted as it lives its life free in the woods and countryside. After eight or nine months of life there’s a three month period when they are driven over the guns and either killed instantly, wounded and swiftly despatched or escape free to live another twelve months in a near natural environment. An animal bred for sport, but then becomes part of the food chain in game pies, pates and delicious casseroles.

Case 2 – The Tesco chicken: Hatched indoors, never sees daylight for 12(?) weeks, lives in cramped and unpleasant conditions, is finally flung none too gently into a crate, taken to somewhere in a noisy truck, hung by its legs, electric shocked and then bled to death.

Which has the better life? The answer is pretty obvious, but it is only the money paid by the sportsmen that funds that luxury lifestyle.

Moggy

Aye, good point. Sport for food is a sort of 3rd element. Acceptable IMO for the reasons you state.

As for Tesco Chicken…having one tonight. American style. DEEP FRIED. Don’t knock it LoL. Get a rather large culdren, get the oil to the temperature of the Sun, lower chicken in…slowly. 10 minutes or less for a 2.5 pounder.

What ever happened to that food chain they taught at school? :dev2:

Darn right! And we are at the top of it. Live with it people. We, by accident or fortune are the dominant species on the planet.
We should use that position with respect…..animals killed for sport, not really a good thing (1). Animals killed for food, normal behavior and is how we survive. Two eyes facing forward, we are hunters. We need meat. (Veggies use artificial substitutes for meat, or they get ill)

Our foodstuff is a commodity, be it a plant or an animal.

(1) Crocs of Australia need sorting out according to the news tonight. Culling them for a couple of years is now needed. So long as it’s controlled I see no reason why a Croc hunt for Sport should not be used. A few belts, shoes and handbags can be made at high prices too.
As for Koalas, they may look nice but they absolutely STINK!

In this case however, I’ve seen articles claiming it will take 400 units to break even.
This has been my argument since the design of the A380 was set in stone and people started calling it a new era in Aviation.

The 400 seems about right if you include the recovery of the Capex etc.
Whilst it probably is a new era in Aviation, it’s only due to being big (And ugly as hell but that’s my opinion). It’s not faster or necessarily safer. Obviously, each generation of design is safer than the previous.
It’s still a novelty.
Airlines love it because it can now use 1 flight a day instead of two on the very long haul routes.
It offers pax. a lot of things to do……all novelty in my opinion. When I’m on long haul, I want to eat, see a movie and/or listen to my Mp3 and of course sleep. All I actually want is for the pilot to maintain landings = take-offs.
I don’t want to pay extra for stuff I don’t need.
I’m sure I’m not alone.

The new era in Aviation is the plastics. CFRP on main class 1 structural components on “Big” aircraft. I’m sure all the manufacturers that have started this route are sorry. Airbus A350, 787, C series. The weight savings proclaimed are just lies. Maybe 5% on the whole A/c, not the 20% expected.
Costs are 10-fold, both in manufacturing hours and the raw materials, and the fasteners.
The customers (Airlines and users) are not going to pay more for a 5% saving of weight.
CFRP, it’s perfect for panels and nacelles and such like, but when you start making the Spars (Which end up 25% heavier than a metal one), the covers, the floor beams etc. out of plastic, then a whole new untried area is being broached.
OK, class 1 items are plastic in military fighters and small bombers. The wings of such are short stubby and stiff. The pilot can hit the “MUMMY” handle and get out. And don’t forget, it is pathetic in a fire. The Fibers will not melt, but the resin has gone liquid at 200 deg C. It goes jelly at some point earlier than that.

I went past on Sunday 24th May.
All gone, flattened and rubble removed. One or two smaller (House size) brick buildings still remain.

A bit premature, surely?

Just trying to deflect focus from the fact its still not making Airbus money.

Knowing the Business rather well, it always takes about 150 sales to get the recurring costs to break even. The Non recurring costs (Tooling, design, flight test etc.) are recovered from many sources (Governments, European Government, self investment and of course the remainder is added onto the recurring cost, pushing the break even point further to the right.
To bring the B/even point left there needs to be a unique selling factor and a customer willing to pay over the odds for it. Airbus have not been able to capitalise too much on the unique factor, because at the end of the day it’s just another long haul..with some novelty refinements.
Contrarily, the B747 took long haul into a new league, suddenly 4 times the pax. could go in one trip. Boeing filled their boots with that one! Hence the dirty tricks campaigns of the 80’s / 90’s between Boeing and Airbus, where Boeing really tried to scupper the new kid on the block. And failed.

In the UK, or prepared to travel?

Moggy

UK preferably….why, what’s on offer?