Airbus 'Superjumbo' Deliveries Delayed

[Thrawn]

Teh Avro Arrow would have flown 1000 people, 20,000 miles on a cup of gas.  

[mora]

Originally posted by beet1e
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.

Exactly. I can't believe how retarded arguments people make against it.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by mora
Exactly. I can't believe how retarded arguments people make against it.

And that alot of them are the same arguments used 36 years ago.




...-Gixer

[Torque]

Originally posted by Yeager
WHERE ARE THE CANADIANS?  ARGHHHH!!!!

it's summer, most own water craft and a second residence usually located in some wood area with a lot of clean lakes. they be there now.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by mora
Exactly. I can't believe how retarded arguments people make against it.

It becomes much easier when you look at who is making them.

[Holden McGroin]

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.

EL AL holds the record for carrying the most passengers in a single trip. EL AL’s 747 4X-AXF took off from Addis Ababa airport With 1,086 passengers with the birth of a baby en route it landed at Tel Aviv with 1,087 passengers.

The previous record was 674 passengers set by QANTAS during a rescue airlift from an Australian cyclone.

Oh, and a minor point, Hurricanes never hit Darwin.  Cyclones and maybe Typhoons, but never Hurricanes.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin


The previous record was 674 passengers set by QANTAS during a rescue airlift from an Australian cyclone.

Oh, and a minor point, Hurricanes never hit Darwin.  Cyclones and maybe Typhoons, but never Hurricanes.

Cyclone,Typhoon whatever I knew it was some sort of storm. Thanks for the pax count though and new record.


...-Gixer

[Dinger]

Typhoon. Tracy was it?

Hurricanes and Typhoons are distinguished by hemisphere.

You know, just 'cos some nut said "the Boeing 747 will never be successful" doesn't mean that was the prevailing opinion at the time. The airlines practically begged Boeing to make the 747. Airbus is practically begging airlines to take the A380. (ooh... 144 "firm" orders negotiated at a steep discount, add it penalties for late delivery and performance problems, and the break-even point starts to slide way down towards 500 aircraft)

for me, this isn't about hatred of europe or airbus; it's simple economics.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Gixer
Cyclone,Typhoon whatever I knew it was some sort of storm. Thanks for the pax count though and new record.


...-Gixer

I'm wondering how you can live where you do and not know the difference...

interesting.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Dinger
for me, this isn't about hatred of europe or airbus; it's simple economics.

The break even point for Airbus will slide - I don't have any precise figures and wondered if your 500 planes value was a finger in the air figure like Dago's 800 pax figure. Sure, the potential customers will want compensation - it's in the terms of contract. But the deals will still go ahead. One key user will be Qantas of Australia. The A380 is tailor made for an airline like Qantas - remote area, relatively few major airports (about 10) and long distances (10,000km+). For anyone interested in the facts, this report is from the Qantas news desk.

Source: http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2005/jun05/3276

Qantas today confirmed that the delivery of its first A380 would be delayed by six months as a result of manufacturing issues at Airbus.

The Chief Executive Officer of Qantas, Mr Geoff Dixon, said the airline was now scheduled to take delivery of the first of its 12 new A380 aircraft in April 2007.

"This is disappointing, given that we have met all of Airbus' deadlines for Qantas specifications, however we are developing contingency plans to ensure there is no impact on our schedules or available capacity during the six month delay."

Mr Dixon said possible contingencies under discussion included deferring the retirement of a number of aircraft, redirecting capacity, and bringing forward the delivery of other aircraft on order.

Mr Dixon said that all airlines with early A380 orders were in the same situation, and that Airbus had advised that the deliveries would be made in the same sequence with the same time differentials.

"We will be working closely with Airbus to ensure the new deadline is met," Mr Dixon said.

He said Qantas would also be seeking compensation from Airbus in line with the terms of its contract.

Erm... see anything in there about order cancellations??? Nope, but Qantas sure wants that new deadline to be met!

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Hangtime
I'm wondering how you can live where you do and not know the difference...

interesting.

I know the differance, I just couldn't recall what it was that hit Darwin, I guess I should always just check the facts (just to avoid some petty dig) from the net and sound like a expert like you instead of just  relying from memory on what I'd read a few years ago in a aviation magazine.


...-Gixer

[wipass]

dago if you want to see a real commercial failure then  click here

http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Aircraft/SST.asp


You are simply a deluded individual driven by jealousy

wipass

[Habu]

Commercial failure?

They did research. Determined that the plane would not be economic and scrapped it.

That is a much better position to be in what the euros found themselves in.

Unlike the French Anglo consortium that barged on and went into production and flew they planes for 30 years even though they never would recoup their initial investment and even after writing off that investment still barely broke even on most flights.

The big problems with SST (high fuel comsumption, very low payload, sonic booms that force it to fly subsonic over populated areas) doomed the first generation planes, no matter who designed them or built them. The smart money folded their cards before investing in production.

[wipass]

8 years research and more money spent on "research" than was spent on getting Concorde in the air,

I would call that a commercial failure, and a big one at that too

wipass

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Gixer
I know the differance, I just couldn't recall what it was that hit Darwin, I guess I should always just check the facts (just to avoid some petty dig) from the net and sound like a expert like you instead of just  relying from memory on what I'd read a few years ago in a aviation magazine.


...-Gixer

petty? I said it was a minor point...  I just refrain from using emoticons as much as possible...  I guess I should have used a winky eyed thingy...