Airbus 'Superjumbo' Deliveries Delayed

[beet1e]

Thank you, Dago. I don't claim to be an aviation expert, but I do travel quite a bit in different parts of the world. Let's skip further insults this thread, and concentrate on the material at hand...

As I said, the story is yet to be told on the A380. It might succeed, it might not.

I think it will. The airlines who plan to operate it must have taken into account their passenger loadings versus the cost of operation. I certainly don't believe that just being a few months late (the subject of this thread) is going to  be a make or break issue.

But, right now, can you tell me what airports that can handle it? Not too many.

It's not many, it won't be that many, and it doesn't need to be many. A380 is destined to be a hub-to-hub plane.

What is the footprint weight at max gross ramp weight, and how many airports have the structural ability built into the runways, taxiways and ramps to hold it. (I assume they already considered it, but that might limit the airports)

I don't know the weights, and whether spreading the weight across more landing gear wheels makes a difference to these considerations. The main task of the airports preparing for A380 readiness seems to be that of widening the runways - not lengthening, or preparing for extra weight.

How many airports have passenger waiting areas where 800 people can wait?

What's the 800 figure? The initial design of the A380 accommodates about 550 pax. A couple of 747s carry more than that, and in some cases BA despatches two of those from London to New York within half an hour of each other. Given that check-in is 2 hours before flight departure, you can see that an airport like LHR is already handling large volumes of passengers on the ground. A fifth terminal is being built, so it's all in hand.

If a flight is canceled, what will be the cost of accomodating 800 people, and the impact on thier opinion of the airline?

Ah the 800 figure again! These considerations are already in hand. It's not just the size of individual aircraft which affect the impact of cancellation. In case of bad weather, all passengers would be stuck - regardless of the size of aircraft they were planning to fly in.

How many jetbriges are required to load and unload 800 people? How long are the passengers willing to wait to unload when stopped at the gate?

Part of the LHR A380 upgrade plan (and this may be what T5 is all about) is to provide both upper and lower loading ramps. So to load 550 pax shouldn't take longer than loading ~275 pax on a smaller plane.

What will be the required load factor necessary to break even or profit from a flight with that much fuel, food and cabin crew?

They'll be looking to fill every seat, and they should be able to do it quite easily. On some routes in the Asia/Pacific/Oceana regions, capacity has tripled in less than 5 years. Clearly the operators need more seats than could be provided by the aircraft they had 5 years ago. Don't know about the cargo specifics, but A380 is supposed to have a range about at least 10% greater than other long range planes.

God forbid an accident, but if one ever crashed, what would be the political and commercial impact, and how much negative publicity would accompany that? (think the Comet)

People will still fly. Boeings have crashed and people still fly them. The worst aviation disaster on record involved TWO 747s (KLM and Pan-AM) at Los Rodeos Airport, Tenerife, Canary Islands in 1977, and about 575 lives lost. The KLM pilot was arguably to blame for taking off without a take off clearance. But... KLM is still alive and kicking 28 years later...

All interesting points, Dago. I'm sure the operators to be will have done their homework.

[Dago]

So, basically you think airlines will line up to buy an aircraft that does what the 747 does?

Time will tell, but support and infarstructure necessary will be huge, and for a plane not offering all that much more than a 747.

Japan has already carried 520 people in a 747-200.  

 Buy a much bigger plane to carry 30 more?

[beet1e]

They're already lined up, Dago, with 144 firm orders to date.

I don't know what you mean by not offering much more than a 747. The 747s I've seen have had about 300 seats - maybe 350? But certainly not 555.

Japan has already carried 520 people in a 747-200.

Buy a much bigger plane to carry 30 more?

Individual airlines can configure the seating any way they want. Japan may have been able to squeeze over 500 peeps aboard a 747, but you have to remember that the Japanese are much smaller people than westerners. It wouldn't work in other countries - can you imagine if they tried that in.... no, I'm going to be nice in this thread.

[Hangtime]

"giajin! I stick you in eye wif chopstic!! you no touch nuts!"

[john9001]

Originally posted by beet1e
They're already lined up, Dago, with 144 firm orders to date.

 

and the concord had projected sales of 100 aircraft.

it's a "firm" order when you cash the check.

[Dago]

Originally posted by john9001
and the concord had projected sales of 100 aircraft.

it's a "firm" order when you cash the check.

Yup, exactly, there are "firm orders" and then there are deliveries.

Whatever.

dago

[Fishu]

Dago,

You fail to take into consideration that there was nothing which would've made Concorde a profitable aircraft.
Concorde drunk gas like million drunkards, had almost nil cargo space and only carried a handful of passengers.
It doesn't take a scientist to figure out the outcome.

So far I don't see any obvious reasons why A380 would fail on a long run. The B747 didn't, which is pretty much the same thing.
Only thing is that will there be enough passengers. However passengers doesn't matter to FedEx or UPS - there'll be always enough cargo for their A380's.

"and given with a fair amount of knowledge about the airline industry. A lot more than either of you clowns"

Yeah and making comparisons which simply can't be used between two different planes.
What exactly is your job in the aviation industry? Surely not the one making decisions which planes to buy for an airline.
If you somehow are doing it, then I do greatly pity the company you're working for.


I'm sure japanese could fit over 800 passengers in the A380.
Then again they do sometimes use 'pushers' at train stations to cram in the passengers.

[bunch]

Concorde would have been a nice moneymaker for speedbird if they knew to set the ticket price 5 times higher.  People that rode in that thing were "money is no object" types, most of them didnt even know or care about the ticket price.  As for the 380, it will not be a failure, as Airbus doesnt have to pay back loans on losing projects.  With that type of deal, i'm dissapointed they dont try some more aggressive design innovation.

[Dago]

Originally posted by Fishu
Dago,

You fail to take into consideration that there was nothing which would've made Concorde a profitable aircraft.
Concorde drunk gas like million drunkards, had almost nil cargo space and only carried a handful of passengers.
It doesn't take a scientist to figure out the outcome.

 

And your point is?

I said it was a failure.  It was.   Now you agree.

Your point?

[Gixer]

Originally posted by beet1e
They're already lined up, Dago, with 144 firm orders to date.

I don't know what you mean by not offering much more than a 747. The 747s I've seen have had about 300 seats - maybe 350? But certainly not 555.  Individual airlines can configure the seating any way they want. Japan may have been able to squeeze over 500 peeps aboard a 747, but you have to remember that the Japanese are much smaller people than westerners. It wouldn't work in other countries - can you imagine if they tried that in.... no, I'm going to be nice in this thread.

The main point that your both missing is that a 742 with 500 people on board will have alot less range then a 380 with 555 people on board.

I think the record for a 742 is something like 800 and something that were evacuated out of Darwin before a hurricane. Of course that would only give it enough gas for a few hundred NM range.


...-Gixer

[bunch]

Well, to evacuate from a hurricane, you only need a few hundred nm.
Boeing hurricane evac planes kix the krap of eurotard hurricane evac planez!
"if it ain't Boeing, im riding the tidal surge!"

[Hangtime]

with 416 souls 747-438 does 7,892 miles.

I'd assume if yah double the body count, you'd about halve the range to 3,500 miles, yes?

[Yeager]

WHERE ARE THE CANADIANS?  ARGHHHH!!!!

[bunch]

Originally posted by Hangtime
with 416 souls 747-438 does 7,892 miles.

I'd assume if yah double the body count, you'd about halve the range to 3,500 miles, yes?

hahaha great news! Now i can fly my C-150 150 miles with 8 passengers.  who wants to go to the beach!?!?!!?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by john9001
and the concord had projected sales of 100 aircraft.

it's a "firm" order when you cash the check.

Apples and oranges again. You're not wrong about the Concorde; there were dozens of cancelled orders, and it was a commercial failure for all the reasons fishu said earlier - noise, fuel consumption, massive ticket price, only 123 seats.

The A380 is different. It's not intended as a record breaking plane. It's just the next in a line of "sensible" planes, which have got bigger and bigger in the last 50 years. The only factors which are needed for it to succeed in finding its niche are for A380 designated airports to be prepared (already being done eg. London, Singapore, Melbourne, Sydney, Auckland, plus a few in the US and elsewhere) and for the operators to be confident of filling all the seats. I see no problem on either count.