Author Topic: Airbus 380 -- Another Concorde? (Read 4089 times)

Nashwan · « **Reply #90 on:** January 19, 2005, 07:27:09 PM »

Quote

Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry.

That's not quite what's happening.

Europe has had a tariff rate of 12% or over on Thai shrimp since 1997 (they enjoyed the equivalent of MFN status before that, and the duty was 4%)

Thailand announced plans to order A380s last year.

Last December, before the tsunami, the Thai government began threatening that if the tariffs weren't reduced, they would block future orders from Airbus.

Quote

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said on Wednesday his government may review future plans to buy Airbus planes if the European Union continued to treat Thailand's agricultural exports "unfairly".

Thaksin told reporters Thailand's trade with the European Union was at a disadvantage compared with other countries at a comparable level of development, such as Malaysia.

"Malaysia has trade privileges, but Thailand does not. They can't say that we are in a better position. It's not fair," he said. "If they treat us unfairly, we will treat them the same way."

"We are expanding terminals for new aircraft and we plan to buy Airbus planes from the EU. But if the EU is not fair with us, we will also be uncomfortable in buying their planes." Thailand might turn to Boeing instead, he said.

Airbus said in August that Thai Airways International had ordered eight planes after winning approval to spend USD$1.4 billion over the next five years to boost its fleet. Thaksin said that order was not in doubt.
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2003/12/1071657317.html

It's not the EU threatening tariffs to get orders for Airbus, it's Thailand threatening to cancel orders if tariffs are not reduced. The EU isn't the one linking traiffs and aircraft sales, that's entirely Thailand's doing.

The Scotsman story is also strange for claiming the tariffs are to protect Norwegian shrimp exports; Norway isn't part of the EU.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #91 on:** January 19, 2005, 07:48:45 PM »

looks like you're right, the crowbar may be in Thai hands...

Quote

November 23, 2004

Thailand said on Tuesday it would delay buying Airbus aircraft worth more than USD$2 billion until the European Union eases food import restrictions, though analysts said they still expected a purchase to go ahead.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra told reporters he had instructed Thai Airways International to delay ordering the eight Airbus planes it plans to buy until restrictions are lifted on its shrimp, poultry and farm products.

jEEZY · « **Reply #92 on:** January 19, 2005, 08:37:48 PM »

I really think that the A-380 is an achievment of epic proportions. Airbus and Europe should be proud And I am sure that plenty of long haul carriers will use this thing and make money (and if it doesn't well subsidies will cover any short falls).

As for all of the "oh its going to take X number of hours' blah blah blah. They said that 35 years ago with the 747. People got used to it, people get used to it, people will get used to it. Airports will adapt, its in their economic best interest.

Anyways, it is about time that a new jumbo came out--Boeing had the first, Airbus has the latest--jeez no big deal. If national pride comes from corporate deeds, its time to re-evaluate priorites.

As for flying casinos and bars--recycled from the 747. When it came out there were plans for upstairs "lounges" pianos up front. Next time you board a 747 ask where the bar is. This too shall pass and the 380 will be just another (very big) cattle car.

However, I do find it rather funny that Airbus is comparing their brand spanking new airliner to a 35 year old design and declaring victory.

Anywho, I can't wait to fly on the sucker and upgrade to Virgin upper class--woohoo--thats going to be something. And if the tail breaks off, i'll be so liquered up and buying crap from the duty free and listening to piano music playing the EU national anthem I wont care. YEEEHAWWW

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #93 on:** January 20, 2005, 12:28:14 AM »

what's the farce anyway

its unbelievable The some US people are gonna ***** about it.

Its just worlds biggest airliner and its not american

so what??

Quote

However, I do find it rather funny that Airbus is comparing their brand spanking new airliner to a 35 year old design and declaring victory.

they compare it to the other biggest airliner that seems understandable and it has been upgraded many time.

The 747 is sure not obsolete yet.

straffo · « **Reply #94 on:** January 20, 2005, 01:55:17 AM »

Thai shrimp are cat food , they look weird taste weird and can be used only in chinese food (ya know the food where you never know for sure what you're eating ...)

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #95 on:** January 20, 2005, 01:57:21 AM »

says the snail eater

straffo · « **Reply #96 on:** January 20, 2005, 02:24:07 AM »

Snail eater ... right

I've nothing against asian food like : thai ,viet or japanese but the chinese is not really outstanding IMO

beet1e · « **Reply #97 on:** January 20, 2005, 03:52:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
its not american so it must suck!!!11

LOL! - that would be the "not invented here" syndrome at work. The diehards are going to have to look for a design fault/other excuse not to fly on it.

I read in one of the reports that the passenger cabin has been designed in such a way that it can be redesigned to accommodate 840 people!

The one problem might be the aircraft weight - can the runways take it? In 555 pax configuration it will be some 40% heavier than B747 - and that's in Europe/Asia. I can see why the Americans are worried.

I always remember one scene from Bowling for Columbine - inside the Lockheed Martin factory, there was a sign which said "it has to be foreign object free". I think it meant free from impurities/debris. But the literal interpretation, whilst understandable in a military installation, made me crack a smile.

What's all this about prawns? Is this a joke? Someone once told me a joke about a prawn - at least it tasted like a prawn.

Sabre · « **Reply #98 on:** January 20, 2005, 10:04:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
lol Chortle - absolute classic

Sabre - how is that relevant to my point that a 33% improvement on paper is worth nothing compared to a 90% complete aeroplane development program with trials less than two months away?

To remind you, Dowding, you wrote:

Quote

Nuke, the Boeing big wing is 33% more efficient than the A380 but has never flown. Wow, that is quite an achievement!

I wasn't trying to imply that your point was without merit; only that neither a/c has yet flown, or shown that their respective designs will achieve the projected performance. I also went on to say that Airbus was much closer to demonstrating meeting (or failing to meet) those objectives. You statement seemed to imply that the A380 had flown. I merely pointed out that neither a/c could yet claim to have met design objectives. In fact, the A380 has failed to meet the only objectives yet to be demonstrable, to whit, cost, schedule, and weight. In that respect, you could claim that the Boeing blended body design is more successful, as it has not failed any design objectives. This would of course be a silly, meaningless claim, but true nonetheless.

The corellary to your statement is of course, "Having an (incomplete and untested) airframe built does not in itself make the aircraft more successful than a "paper" design...only more expensive."

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #99 on:** January 20, 2005, 02:14:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
The 'Blended Wing Body', it was called. It might still be built some day. It's a unique solution to the problem of "How to move more passengers without redesigning all the current terminals and runways".

Does anyone see the danger in this? A passenger aircraft, with the radar profile of a herring gull.

Sabre · « **Reply #100 on:** January 21, 2005, 11:53:14 AM »

Actually, the RCS on that plane would still be substantial, for a lot of reasons (lots of rounded surfaces normal to the radar, engines not buried, no treatment of cracks, gaps, cavities, etc. While somewhat less the the RCS of, say the A380, it would nonetheless be sizable.

Furball · « **Reply #101 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:04:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
The one problem might be the aircraft weight - can the runways take it? In 555 pax configuration it will be some 40% heavier than B747 - and that's in Europe/Asia. I can see why the Americans are worried.

ahhh... it all suddenly becomes so clear....

with 555 americans on board it would be atleast 50% heavier still, destroying their runways!

john9001 · « **Reply #102 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:05:56 PM »

"""Does anyone see the danger in this? A passenger aircraft, with the radar profile of a herring gull."""

passenger plans are not "stealth" , they actualy want to be seen, they even carry radar transponders to make their radar image BIGGER.

Chairboy · « **Reply #103 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:10:38 PM »

Even an F-117 or B-2 bomber show up very visibly on ATC radar screens when not in combat. They have transponders that squawk whenever they are touched by a radar beam. Pretty much anything over an ultralight has a transponder these. Anyone who operates within 30 miles of a class-b airport needs a special transponder that also reports altitude.

So, not a problem.

soda72 · « **Reply #104 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:15:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
ahhh... it all suddenly becomes so clear....

with 555 americans on board it would be atleast 50% heavier still, destroying their runways!

Europeans should be concerned too...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4190313.stm