.... to tell us they could have done it so much better with a Boeing?

Well done Singapore Airlines, with that many seats you should raise plenty of money for some very worthy causes!

To buy one of these tickets and try to sell it on Ebay for profit?

I suspect the first 787 flight will be much more of "a moment in aviation history... on an aircraft that will mark a new chapter in air travel." The A380 is cool because it's big, but the 787 is cool because it's innovative.

I may be wrong, but I've long wondered if the bewidering 747-500X/-600X/-700X and Sonic Cruiser proposals were mostly attempts on Boeing's part to trick Airbus into launching major projects in areas that Boeing had no real interest in competing in. If I'm right, the A380 is the result of an elaborate campaign of misinformation.

As I understand it, the 380 can have a myriad of seat configurations. Which layout has Singapore Airlines gone for? Will all these eBay bids be for the cramped and nasty Economy seats?

At the end of the day, it's just a commercial aircraft; a big bus with wings. Nothing special about it, except that it's got an upper deck. Oh, sorry, that's not special, London Double-Deckers have had those for years, AND you get better leg room.

There are lots of innovations inside the 787 but so there are on the A380. Stop the propaganda please.

In fact as a passenger the only real benefit you will realise and enjoy on both airplanes is the lower cabin air pressure, that can be translated into less body stress.

Boeing selling point is the 20% less emissions from the engines, but that is FUD since the same engines can be used on other airplanes. Also the second selling point is the airplane full carbon-composite body, while that is good because equals to less weight, it is also bad because means more expensive maintenance tasks, the fatigue in the standard aluminum body of an airplane can be easy spotted, that doesnt happen with carbon-composite, expensive equipment and more careful and detailed checks have to be done.

They don't have the config on Seat Guru yet. I know it's three class, with lots of first and business. Of course, with capacity for a million, there will be plenty of plebeian seats.

Singapore has a rep for good service, so that's a plus.

But it's AUS to LAX to SYD to SIN. Then SIN to SYD via eBay, then SYD to LAX to AUS. That's got to be at least $4000 plus the auction price.

I'd rather just write the three charities checks.

The A380 will fail. The airports will invest billions in infrastructure or won't put in a penny.

I'm sure someone would have wanted a 35 year old seat from an A300 in their living room...

As for the 787 - in what way is it innovative? It's another ETOPS, made with more advanced materials.

And seeing the title of the article I thought someone was auctioning the seats from the Airbus that fell in Brazil last week... which was kinda weird, because I don't think there was much left from the fire to begin with, let alone seats.

"In fact as a passenger the only real benefit you will realise and enjoy on both airplanes is the lower cabin air pressure, that can be translated into less body stress."

I think you mean higher cabin pressure. Also there is one benefit of flying in the 787 which you will realise: you will not have 800+ fellow passengers. How long will it take to board? How long will you have to wait for your bags? How long will it take to clear immigration when 800+ of you arrive at once? I'd take an A320/330/340 over a Boeing any day but not the A380.

When we flew short haul last month Boeing out and Airbus back, my wife and I noticed a significant difference in seat ergonomics. On the Boeing breastfeeding our son was straightforward (as much as it can be on a plane!), but the Airbus armrests and windows were all in far worse positions, making it significantly harder. Of course the delays didn't help either. Perhaps Airbus can address this for the A380 by including a baby friendly section.

The ability of the A380 to carry 800+ passengers is great, until they start dropping out of the sky. An accident involving one of these aircraft would likely cause more casualties than the Tenerife disaster - in 1 fell swoop.

I've never been accused of spreading FUD before. I guess I can check that one off my list.

I'm sure there's plenty of excellent engineering that went into the A380, but when you come down to it, it's just a big plane. Antonov builds 'em bigger, not that I'd want to go on a very long flight on one.

The 787 doesn't just have reduced emissions via new engines, it has greater fuel economy due to being the first carbon fiber airliner, plus a focus on economy throughout the design process. So for me, it's clear which plane which plane is a great achievement in traditional aircraft design and which one is defining the new direction for future design. That's the difference between engineering and innovation.

I also remain skeptical that there's enough of a market for ginormous people movers for the A380 program to be very successful. The efficiencies realized by the economy of scale might not actually fit the travel needs of real human beings that much. The 747 doesn't really sell that well anymore for just this reason.