Glad the pics are appreciated, I prefer the old system on this forum that did them more justice.

If your pics (excellent set, by the way) are hosted elsewhere on the web, can’t you do an IMG link to them?

I’m glad to hear it – both manufacturers are equally adept at bending the rules whenever it suits them.

So is that a “yes” or a “no”? 🙂

Both Excel 734s leased from Islandflug Grey

Oh – not them again???? :rolleyes:

twist all you want.
The issue here is of the A380. Airbus are circumventing rules.

With respect, Sandy, the issue here is passenger safety.

The B747-400D in service on internal Japanese services carries 569 pax – 19 more than the initial certification of the A380.

Have Boeing, or have they not, carried out a realistic evacuation test (of the kind that you and others are rightly demanding for the A380 before certification for 850 pax) on a fully laden example of that specific variant of the B747?

If they have, all well and good. If, on the other hand, they have not then whatever rules Airbus may or may not break with evacuation testing on the A380 have already been broken by Boeing.

Frankly, I doubt you’d be even raising these points if we were talking about a Boeing type.

Which still leaves the question – have Boeing tested evacuation procedures from a fully-laden B747-400D under these same rules?

The answer can only be “Yes” or “No”, after all.

The rules are, after all, the rules and should be observed by everyone.

But Excel don’t have any B737-400s.

Shome mishtake, shurely? 😉

Fact is, Airbus are skirting round the rules here. I hope someone puts a stop to this.

Perhaps you’d care to share the details of the realistic evacuation tests that Boeing carried out on the 569-seat B747-400D?

I’m sure they will have met your exacting requirements…… :rolleyes:

Most impressive! 🙂