Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Halo on December 20, 2004, 10:38:22 AM
-
After reading about the massive Airbus 380 and all its superlatives (e.g., 261-foot wingspan, 50 feet longer than any other aircraft currently flying), have to wonder whether it will become a true airline asset like the Boeing 747 or another niche extravagance like the Concorde.
The heavily subsidized Concorde was envisioned as at least a 100-aircraft fleet but wound up with only 14 regularly flying over only a few routes. The U.S. and Soviet Union concluded supersonic airliners would not justify their cost and chose not to produce any.
So far 139 A380s have been sold, mostly to government-backed airlines like Emirates in Dubai. While the huge double decker offers more room for first class plassengers, coach passengers supposely get only another inch of seat width and no extra leg room.
Airbus says it needs to sell 250 A380s to break even while analyst Frost and Sullivan says that because of discounting the figure is more like 325. Passenger capacity could vary, but might be around 500.
Assembled in France from major parts coming from Germany, England, and Spain, the A380 requires a transporation network that includes tight squeezes through canals and narrow streets, including a three-day, mile-long truck convoy along 155 miles of small country roads, "traveling only at night and a maximum speed of 20 miles an hour."
Will be a fascinating story to watch. Singapore Airlines, with its 18-hour daily flights, will be first to fly the A380, reports the Washington Post, and half the A380 sales are expected to go to developing nations in Asia.
The two-page feature is in the Washington Post, Dec. 19, 2004, Page A23.
-
Concorde flopped because of the huge expenses it had compared to the carry capacity.
Drinks jet-fuel like a drunk, has very little cargo space and doesn't carry enough passengers for all that.
I can't think of any other realistic downfalls for the A380, than the current turbulence at the air industry (are the airliners ready to invest that much?) and its huge size, which will limit the airports it can operate from. (will the restrictions make it more profitable to invest in a smaller aicraft, which will be more flexible?)
-
Seat cost per mile. Nothing else matters. If it's low, it will sell. If it's not, it wouldn't.
-
seat cost per mile isn't the only factor any more.
A) engines currently are fairly conservative on that thing; they designed it for later versions to "Fit in" more powerful engines. That in turn will allow them to use more of that deck space. Read 800 pax cattle cars.
B) 4 engines and running that close to the limits means that it will be slow to climb; that's gonna mean tacking an extra half-hour or more on long haul flights, which does have an economic impact on operational costs. I'll eat my hat if that thing climbs fully loaded faster than the curvature of the earth.
C) Large capacity may mean fitting more people in a landing slot at crowded airports, and that's supposed to be the market (hence not just seat cost, but how many seats). But do a mental note of the flights you've made in the past five years -- how many of them would be "A-380 Territory"?
D) An already complicated system has further strains added by political concerns that decentralize every aspect of the aircraft's design, construction and assembly. Even worse, there are politicians who see this project as a European Statement. You'd hope that Europeans, as backwards as they are, could take a couple lessons from the past: the soviet missile program, the Concorde and Tupolev, that whole "Schoolteacher in Space" thing. Let business determine what's good business.
E) Load factors. What kind of load factor does that thing need to break even?
So basically, we get the A-380, a whale of an aircraft marginally bigger than a 747-400 (which can cram up to 568 pax, by the way, but not conceivably on long hauls), but with considerably worse performance, as-yet undetermined operating costs, and some interesting problems with passenger handling: even if they upgrade the physical aspects of the airports in time, there's still the baggage handling and boarding time/space. When the A-380 comes out with the 800-passenger version, is it going to be popular with ground crews and passengers? do you mind boarding your 14-hour flight 1.5 hours early, then waiting another hour at the other end for your bags?
It could do very well, but Boeing's only sold something like 1400 747s in 35 years. To "Break Even" at 325 aircraft, the A380 would have to match Boeing's figures for 8 years.
So even the orders they've got are probably skittish. If boarding/deplaning is a nightmare, or if -- heaven forfend -- something should happen (like Swissair's MD-11), the A-380 could run a quick and nasty death.
Of course, it could do really well too. The folks in Toulouse know they've only got one shot at this.
-
No no no, that's an ex cathedra pronouncement. It's the infallible and immutable truth!
Damn why are airbus fans so much like Mac owners?
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Damn why are airbus fans so much like Mac owners?
right on the money :D
-
Every single one of your points distill down to seat cost per mile, Dinger.
-
Airbus will sell plenty of A380's, even if they are off the backs of the taxpayers. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Airbus will sell plenty of A380's, even if they are off the backs of the taxpayers. ;)
Are you saying the Boeing's arent off the backs of the taxpayers then? ;)
-
Originally posted by Halo
Will be a fascinating story to watch.
definitely! i still hope to get one of the first tickets for the
big A380 show :D
This thing HAVE to fly otherwise Airbus is out of the race!
R
Gh0stFT
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Are you saying the Boeing's arent off the backs of the taxpayers then? ;)
There's a slight difference. Airbus receives charity, eg, money from the government with no need to give anything in return.
Boeing, on the other hand, SELLS aircraft to the military. Sure, they receive dollars from the US Government, but it's in exchange for goods and services.
I understand, the distinction may be difficult for some.
-
most people at boeing are watching the a380 with a ton of envy, and as far as the airplane goes we wish it the best in flight.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Assembled in France from major parts coming from Germany, England, and Spain, the A380 requires a transporation network that includes tight squeezes through canals and narrow streets, including a three-day, mile-long truck convoy along 155 miles of small country roads, "traveling only at night and a maximum speed of 20 miles an hour."
Do you think the 747 is produced totally on-site in Seattle? As I recall it has components shipped in from all over the globe. Doesn't the rudder come from New Zealand? Or is the rudder not considered a major part?
-
Will airliners chose the huge A380, or the fuel effecient, 250 seat Boeing Dreamliner, with a range of 9000 miles?
(http://boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63066.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
There's a slight difference. Airbus receives charity, eg, money from the government with no need to give anything in return.
That is not quite true. The low interest loans that Airbus uses to fund development and design do not have to be paid back until that model line starts making a profit. Those loans do not "hit the books" until the break even point is reached. As a result, there is less incentive pay back these loans by recouping the development costs as a part of the selling price. Enron were amatuers! Airbus does this with full backing by the governments of Europe.
MiG
-
Originally posted by Halo
So far 139 A380s have been sold, mostly to government-backed airlines like Emirates in Dubai.
Emirates was started with seed capital of US$10m, the single solitary time the airline has recieved money from the regal purse. It's also one of the most successful airlines in the world with zero govt. support.
Originally posted by Chairboy
There's a slight difference. Airbus receives charity, eg, money from the government with no need to give anything in return.
Boeing, on the other hand, SELLS aircraft to the military. Sure, they receive dollars from the US Government, but it's in exchange for goods and services.
I understand, the distinction may be difficult for some.
Airbus are "supposed" to pay back govt. loans.
The only difference between Boeing and EADS is that EU govts are more open about the support they give EADS. $3.2 Billion in tax "support", and Japanese govt. support of the 7E7 program is different how again?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Will airliners chose the huge A380, or the fuel effecient, 250 seat Boeing Dreamliner, with a range of 9000 miles?
7E7 is more of a direct competitor to the A330
Tronsky
-
(Quote)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Halo
So far 139 A380s have been sold, mostly to government-backed airlines like Emirates in Dubai.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emirates was started with seed capital of US$10m, the single solitary time the airline has recieved money from the regal purse. It's also one of the most successful airlines in single solitary time the airline has recieved money from the regal purse. It's also one of the most successful airlines in the world with zero govt. support.
(Unquote)
Tricky juxaposition in the article. Here's the exact quote:
"Airbus has sold 139 of the A380s, mostly to government-backed airlines. It's largest customer is Emirates, a rapidly expanding state-owned carrier based in Dubai...."
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Will airliners chose the huge A380, or the fuel effecient, 250 seat Boeing Dreamliner, with a range of 9000 miles?
(http://boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63066.jpg)
I'd go with the A380, that picture is just studmuffingy.
-
(Quote)
Re: Airbus 380 -- Another Concorde?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Halo
Assembled in France from major parts coming from Germany, England, and Spain, the A380 requires a transporation network that includes tight squeezes through canals and narrow streets, including a three-day, mile-long truck convoy along 155 miles of small country roads, "traveling only at night and a maximum speed of 20 miles an hour."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think the 747 is produced totally on-site in Seattle? As I recall it has components shipped in from all over the globe.
Doesn't the rudder come from New Zealand? Or is the rudder not considered a major part?
__________________
(Unquote)
Many major enterprises like jumbo aircraft have parts made in many places and shipped to the final assembly point. The Washington Post apparently dwells on this aspect of the A380 because of the exceptional challenge and expense of some of the component routing.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Will airliners chose the huge A380, or the fuel effecient, 250 seat Boeing Dreamliner, with a range of 9000 miles?
(http://boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63066.jpg)
Boeing is building a Caravelle?
-
Caravelle looked like a DC-9 (MD-80), didn't it (engines in the back)?
-
Have you guys heard about the big flying wing Boeing had been planning?
I saw some drawings awhile back. It supposedly would have a 1000 seat capacity and be 33% more effient than the AB380.
-
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".
(http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/boeing/bwb/img/200/bwb_3.gif)
-
Originally posted by Halo
Caravelle looked like a DC-9 (MD-80), didn't it (engines in the back)?
The DC-9 looked somewhat like the Caravelle, not the other way around.
(http://photos.airliners.net/bfbba29fb456034619cb66a2fcd279cf/41c757bb/middle/7/7/6/134677.jpg)
-
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".
(http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/boeing/bwb/img/200/bwb_3.gif)
are they ever gonna build that?
btw chaiboy, what part of LA do u live in, the Valley, N. hollywood, or W.hollywood?
-
Culver City, sort of. I sold my home there and am living on a friends couch while I look for a new job.
-
Originally posted by Halo
So far 139 A380s have been sold, mostly to government-backed airlines like Emirates in Dubai.
Airbus has received (fully refundable) downpayments for 139 airplanes. Downpayments were as low as $500,000 US dollars. Some of these orders may become firm but most are contigent on the A380 meeting its weight, range, and performance goals. They've publicly admitted to a serious weight problem which will affect payload, range, and ultimately seat-mile costs.
Just in general...
I have to laugh at Airbus' marketing a cruise ship in the sky to the ignorant public. They've floated artist renditions of grand ballrooms, bars, waterfalls, and huge open spaces in some widely read periodicals. I can assure folks that this airplane will be filled with wall to wall seating. Don't go expecting in-flight shopping malls, bowling alleys, and movie theaters in any of the common air carrier's airplanes.
"Now boading rows 110 through 120 on the upper deck and 140 through 150 on the lower deck..."
MiG
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Have you guys heard about the big flying wing Boeing had been planning?
I saw some drawings awhile back. It supposedly would have a 1000 seat capacity and be 33% more effient than the AB380.
what lenght of runway would you need to take off with 1000 seats?
the A380-F (freighter version) will need more then 3000meters
thats a problem today, the normal A380 (only passengers) will need aprox 2700meters and that fits for the main airports around the globe.
the drawing looks cool, would love to see such "Nurflügler" flying around.
But you know, between drawings & reality there is sometimes moire then a gap.
R
Gh0stFT
-
D) An already complicated system has further strains added by political concerns that decentralize every aspect of the aircraft's design, construction and assembly. Even worse, there are politicians who see this project as a European Statement. You'd hope that Europeans, as backwards as they are, could take a couple lessons from the past: the soviet missile program, the Concorde and Tupolev, that whole "Schoolteacher in Space" thing. Let business determine what's good business.
The Europeans might be backward but if they are then Boeing is too.
Take a look at this from the official Boeing website.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/dev_team.html
Look at all those countries taking part in the 7E7's development. Most the Airbus countries in fact. Even France. Yes even France. Shocking isn't it?
All those major parts coming from all over the world and assembled in Washington. That make the three day 155 mile convoy seem very small potatoes indeed.
But you may also be pleased to know that no less than 50% of the A380 will be American made. So much for it being a European statement.
I really don't know why the A380 and 7E7 are mentioned in the same breath all the time. They are fully aimed at different markets. Good luck to both of them. It's the nature of the aerospace business these days to be fully global. Something the Washington Post and a few others seem to fail to grasp.
At the end of the day the success or otherwise of both depends on whether they make money for their operators and whether they arrive in the right market conditions.
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
I have to laugh at Airbus' marketing a cruise ship in the sky to the ignorant public. They've floated artist renditions of grand ballrooms, bars, waterfalls, and huge open spaces in some widely read periodicals. I can assure folks that this airplane will be filled with wall to wall seating. Don't go expecting in-flight shopping malls, bowling alleys, and movie theaters in any of the common air carrier's airplanes.
Wasn't that exactly how Boeing marketed the 747? Of course it is going to be wall to wall seating as soon as they get bigger engines, just like the 747 did.
Originally posted by cpxxx
But you may also be pleased to know that no less than 50% of the A380 will be American made. So much for it being a European statement.
I hear that only card carrying members of the ACLU will work on it.
-
Heh, now in the global market economy, it is to be expected that parts are manufactured all over the world. But development and assembly are centralized. They'Boeing's not doing the interior in Hamburg then moving it to Toulouse to have a plane attached to it.
-
Boeing has been working on anti-gravity propulsion. Just wait until GRASP is realized....then we'll be all that.
Seriously, if you google "Boeing anti gravity" you will find some interesting material. Those damn Russians are to blame I think.
Anyway....... gravity is heavy chit.
-
perk the a380! ;)
-
Chairboy,
Can that plane be flown without Fly By Wire, or is it so unstable that it doesn't stay in rhe air without computers?
-
And who the hell said I was a conservative?
Let's face it, if the US were a socialist country, we'd kick the living tar out of any socialist system built yet. Our 'conservatives' don't know how good they've got it. Our bureaucracies are actually efficient and relatively free of corruption. And our businesses function pretty well too. In any case, I think I share a time zone with you scholtz, only I don't have to wear a jacket outside -- err check that, you guys are an hour behind us. See, you're even backwards right now!
Debout les damnes de la funkin' terre!
-
I didn't say government.
-
Where would you put the 1000 PAX. Frankfurt has 1 position that can fit the A380, but the gate isn't big enough. I wonder how many other airports are able to support the A380?
How long would it take to board it? A 747 on the average takes about 45-50 mins, with only about 250 to 300 passagers.
If I flew with a 747 or 340, and started boarding the same time as a 380, I would be over Irland before it took off.
I think speed and economics are a better sell then size.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Concorde flopped because of the huge expenses it had compared to the carry capacity.
Drinks jet-fuel like a drunk, has very little cargo space and doesn't carry enough passengers for all that.
And wasn't helped by being banned by the US for the route it was intentionally built for at the start of it's service.
Some are saying the same thing with US airports dragging their heals in accomodating the A380 and that if it was a Boeing they would already be complete.
...-Gixer
-
If the Boeing 2707 would have been built, they wouldn't have banned the Concorde.
-
Ooops.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-1118081,00.html
-
Originally posted by mora
If the Boeing 2707 would have been built, they wouldn't have banned the Concorde.
One of the reasons we didn't build an SST is because of the noise restrictions in the US.
it wasn't just Concord that was banned.
-
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".
(http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/boeing/bwb/img/200/bwb_3.gif)
I want a window seat takes on a whole new meaning.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Heh, now in the global market economy, it is to be expected that parts are manufactured all over the world. But development and assembly are centralized. They'Boeing's not doing the interior in Hamburg then moving it to Toulouse to have a plane attached to it.
You're right the interior is not being made in Hamburg. It will be made in Washington. The fuselage in Italy and Texas the flight deck in Kansas or OK. Most of the wing in Japan. Landing gear in France. The toilets in California!!!!!!!!
Exactly like Airbus!
-
...and then all the parts (not the assembled fuse, or an entire wing) are shipped to washington for assembly.
Most of the parts involved can be shipped using existing means. Doing the interior in Washington means that the aircraft does not need to move between assembly and delivery (which, by the way makes sense)
Check out that Times article. Those logistical problems with the A-380 are quite impressive. They are building the whole darn wing in Wales, and then relying on custom transports to get the wing to Toulouse. Then they have to get the Hamburg plant runway extended so they can fly the planes there to do the interior.
These aren't subcontractors either: these are Airbus plants. Why not have it all centrally located, or at least the final assembly? Well, that's not how state-subsidized business works in Europe, now is it?
I'm not saying they won't overcome those obstacles; of course they will. But it's a classic example of ass-backwards business made to satisfy government interests instead of market needs, and complicating design in the process. You want a socialist government? Great, just do it right, and stop aping your american friends by feeding EADS.
-
One thing those boarding time numbers assume is that there will be a single point of entry for boarding the plane. Most literature about the A380 and other SuperJumbos show two more more embarkation points, a technique that should improve load times significantly, if the airport is rigged to allow for it.
I would think most modern airports could easily do this by assigning two gates to a plane and just maneuvering the other jetway to service the other end of the plane.
-
But all it takes is one person to stop at the end of the jetway and look around in a daze for a few moments to gum up the works. Add 1 hr to your airport time to disembark 555 people.
-
Originally posted by Monk
Where would you put the 1000 PAX. Frankfurt has 1 position that can fit the A380, but the gate isn't big enough. I wonder how many other airports are able to support the A380?
Most major airports should have their A380 plans already under way. Sydney KFS has major works beginning immediately after Christmas, which should run for about the next year+1/2 after having most of the prep work commenced six months ago.
Originally posted by Chairboy
One thing those boarding time numbers assume is that there will be a single point of entry for boarding the plane. Most literature about the A380 and other SuperJumbos show two more more embarkation points, a technique that should improve load times significantly, if the airport is rigged to allow for it.
I would think most modern airports could easily do this by assigning two gates to a plane and just maneuvering the other jetway to service the other end of the plane.
Depends on the current config of the bay/air bridge. Multi airbridges would most likely service through both sides of the nose and the bay specifically made capable for that purpose.
Tronsky
-
An even better thought...imagine what 50 A380s in formation flight would look like..........
-
...levelling entire cities with their wake turbulence.
-
Looks like there's few very very bitter guys in US who sees Airbus as a real antichrist... LOL
-
show Christ some respect you athiest
-
Originally posted by Yeager
show Christ some respect you athiest
The guy got stuck to a fencepost, c'mon, that's embarrasing.
Back to the Airbus, economic forces (as always) will determine the success or failure of the technology. Even if they're subsidized by some of the european governments, they'll have to prove themselves in the long term to succeed. The scale of international air traffic is such that they just HAVE to make money, or the dollar (euro?) tree will wither and die. Look at the Concord, it was subsidized, and the fleet never grew to the levels needed to make a serious stab at international travel.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
show Christ some respect you athiest
Why?
...-Gixer
-
An old Captain once voiced this adage everytime we ran into a delay:
Time to spare? Go by air! More time yet? Take a jet!
I think that ought to be put on a banner and hung over the A380's gates. Cod... the thought of loading and unloading 1000 pax in this day and age of airline security and baggage checks.
"Sir, preparations for a goatrope of cosmic proportions are complete!"
"Exxxxcellllent! Announce the boarding of the A380!"
-
Ah, but the question for each airline is "schedule".
Will the customer flying from Timbuktu to Shangri-la pick the A380 on Zippy Airways if the time from check-in to the taxi stand is 2-3 hours longer than the same trip on Timesaver Air Lines B-777?
It'll be a factor, along with fares and amenities.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, but the question for each airline is "schedule".
Will the customer flying from Timbuktu to Shangri-la pick the A380 on Zippy Airways if the time from check-in to the taxi stand is 2-3 hours longer than the same trip on Timesaver Air Lines B-777?
It'll be a factor, along with fares and amenities.
I'd still say yes. When shopping for tickets online (how we usually do it, not sure if its 100% common), we look for cheap. I doubt 90% of people even know about the 380 and that it might take longer to board. They do know their ticket to Kiev is 15% cheaper than on the B-777.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
99.9% of all people have more time than money, and that's who the airlines get most of their revenue from. The point of these aircraft: deliver one person from A to B in the most cost effective way possible. Adding an hour or two to an 11 hour flight is something 99.9% of all people will find preferable to adding $$$ to the fare.
I can only speak for myself and my experience and the answer is no.
I used to fly from Boston to Hong Kong ALOT. I had plenty of choices of how to get there.
Boston to LA to HK, Boston to SF to HK, or Boston to Chicago to HK (and some other Canadian options as well).
I always chose the Boston to Chicago to HK route because it cut out about 2 or 3 hours of my total travel time (about 13 or so hours in the air from Chicago to HK) even though it was more expensive.
I was always under the impression that it was the business traveler that usually footed most of the bill for the airlines. I don't know about you, but most business travelers I've met do not have more time than money. To them, time is money.
-
because
-
10 screaming kids around me are enough, who would want to multiply that by another 10.
-
who cares about the kids?
imagine all the flatulents multiplied by 10X :P
-
The business passenger has long been considered the "bread and butter" of the airline industry. They are the folks who can be gouged for huge amounts of money because they often cannot book 3 weeks ahead.
It has changed a lot over the last 20 years though. The gold mine of the businessman is starting to play out a bit.
Still, the businessman is the holy grail of airline marketers... because you can stick 'em good.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well then Stinger, you're part of the 0.1%. You see 99.9% of all people do not fly "ALOT", and certainly not "ALOT" of long flights. Using an A380 on a short domestic 2 hour flight is perhaps dumb though.
I believe there will be a place for the A380, because even if the 99.9% doesn't fly a lot, they still make up the biggest part of the airline business. There will of course be a place for the smaller planes too, just as it is now, to cater for other groups of customers ... like yourself.
I don't think the business traveler makes up just .01% percent of the flying public. In fact I know it's not near that small. In fact, I'd wager that the business traveler is responsible for the vast majority of the air miles traveled. Hardly a small group of "other" customers.
You are wrong in your assumption that 99.9% of all people are not business travelers. You're flat out wrong on your percentage, period.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I was always under the impression that it was the business traveler that usually footed most of the bill for the airlines. I don't know about you, but most business travelers I've met do not have more time than money. To them, time is money.
a friend of mine who used to be a thrower (baggage handler) for Delta told me that the airlines made almost as much money hauling cargo and mail as they did the passengers. If it was a choice between extra cargo and somones luggage they were told to load the cargo.
I'm not sure if this is true or not like I said I heard it from a friend.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
a friend of mine who used to be a thrower (baggage handler)
Yeah, we all saw Fight Club. Good flic.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Yeah, we all saw Fight Club. Good flic.
well that's what he called himself......good movie though.
He used to tell me horror storys of the watermelon people would try to pack or bring on airplanes and also how "gentle" they were with the luggage itself.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
a friend of mine who used to be a thrower (baggage handler) for Delta told me that the airlines made almost as much money hauling cargo and mail as they did the passengers. If it was a choice between extra cargo and somones luggage they were told to load the cargo.
I'm not sure if this is true or not like I said I heard it from a friend.
Pretty much true I'd say.
I know some airliners are picking the plane types they use by the amount of cargo which can carried along with the passengers.
MD-11 is a good example of this, the passenger version does fit in cargo quite nicely in comparison to some of the newer planes of its class.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Delta told me that the airlines made almost as much money hauling cargo and mail as they did the passengers.
That was extremely true in the '80's. Used to fly all-nighters whistle-stopping across the Southland just to carry the mail. We almost gave the "owly bird" seats away because the mail paid for the flight and more.
The last few years I was there we had quit bidding on the mail contracts. They didn't pay enough to make it worth it.
Cargo pays pretty well but Delta, for one example, either isn't interested enough or managed well enough to capitalize on it. Our cargo operations weren't emphasized and, as a result, didn't contribute all that much to the bottom line.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes the number is just arbitrary, and used to underline my point. However how big is the business class on your average airline jet compared to the tourist class?
Granted first class and business class passengers pay more, but still I don't think they'll make up for the numbers. I could be wrong though.
GScholz,
Not all, in fact, a minority of business travelers travel in first or business class. I would say the majority fly coach. That isn't to say that the majority of the folks sitting in first or business class are business travelers, I'm just saying that alot more business travelers fly coach than fly the more expensive fares.
-
Before the Frequent Flyer miles, 50% of what you saw in First Class were airline employees on passes. ;)
Since the mileage awards, 50% are "free upgrades". The guy the airlines love is the last minute business coach traveler that HAS to be there. The gouging knife comes out then.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Before the Frequent Flyer miles, 50% of what you saw in First Class were airline employees on passes. ;)
or "bumped up" gov't employees.;)
-
I wonder if the 380 would have more fans here if it was made by Boing or some other american company ;)
My guess is that it would be the best thing ever if that was the case.
-
You can say that, but it just isn't the case. Boeing has and is making some questionable design and development decisions, and will of course try to leech as much free money out of the US (and other) governments as possible, but to see the A-380 level of government payola to a corporation for a product of questionable viability and high profile in "national pride" terms, you'd have to leave Boeing and look at the Bush administration's cheerful relations with Martin-Marrietta over this whole "mission to mars" boondoggle.
-
Nope. There's a lot of concern that the A380 is just too bloody big for the airline infrastructure that's already in place.
Before I left, my airline had considered aircraft that big and decided they were going to cause more problems than they were worth. Their position was that from reservations, to ticketing/bag check to gate parking to taxiway congestion and on down the line they were going to require far to much money to accomodate.
Taxiing around JFK in a 767-300 is tight in a lot of places. I can only imaging how the A380 will do in some of the bottlenecks there.
Boeing or otherwise I think there's a point where the infrastructure can no longer accomodate bigger aircraft. Especially if the benefit side of the equation has so little to offer.
-
It's hard to imagine two aircraft so different - the Concorde and the A380. Concorde was all about speed. With only 123 seats and with an hourly fuel consumption of 26,000 litres, it was a commercial disaster. The ticket price for London/New York was something in the order of £5000 one way.
The A380 won't be a short hop plane, that's for sure. The 7E7 may well be more versatile for many routes, whereas the A380 is likely to be no more than a hub to hub plane. As long as those designated hubs have stands and taxiways to accommodate A380, is there still a problem? I know - emergency landings at a non-designated airport...
I live about 20 miles west of London Heathrow Airport (LHR), and have used this airport a great deal over the past 40 years. The runways are already working at capacity. There are two parallel east-west runways, plus another intersecting runway that isn't used very much.
It's getting to the point whereby no more take off and landing slots are available, with each runway recording a movement every minute. The only way to service the increasing passenger loadings on the existing runways is by using larger aircraft. LHR is the busiest airport in the world, and is the major hub between America and Europe.
American Airlines operates SIX flights per day from London to New York. If it could operate A380, it would need only three or four flights, thereby relieving runway slots to be used by other services. Similarly, British Airways operates TEN flights per day from London to New York - in some cases, the interval between flights is as little as 20 minutes. A380 will be able to reduce runway movements dramatically. Just as well, because a fifth terminal is being built at LHR, and as far as I know there will not be another runway.
The operating costs of the A380 are less than the costs of operating the B747 - in terms of fuel per seat per 100km. Airbus says its aircraft is 12 per cent more fuel efficient, consuming less than three litres of fuel per passenger per 100km (62 miles), a rate "comparable to an economical family car". Operational costs overall are estimated to be 20 per cent lower per seat than the 747s.
Not surprisingly, Singapore Airlines is going to be one of the first commercial operators, beginning in 2006. Singapore is itself a hub between Europe and Australia. Also of critical importance to operators like Singapore Airlines will be the range of the A380, which is about 10% more than the B747.
OK, you might not see many A380 flying hops over the continental US eg. Chicago to Dallas. But I don't believe the operators that use the A380 in the role for which it was designed will have any trouble at all in filling the seats.
:aok
-
Ok euro stalkers first we had the world fastest airliner now we have the biggest.
eat it and beat it.
fear the new emperial power of europe.
:aok :aok :D :D :cool: :cool: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Dinger
boarding/deplaning is a nightmare.
hmm could be... but they maybe used brain whille they designed that bird, so lets see it in action.
problems whitch you mentioned are so clear, that they had to deal with that somehow.
-
UPS has already bought 12 A380s. The A380 carries as much cargo as a 747 and MD11 combined.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Ok euro stalkers first we had the world fastest airliner now we have the biggest.
eat it and beat it.
fear the new emperial power of europe.
:aok :aok :D :D :cool: :cool: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
*cue Darth Vader theme...
:D
-
Whatever it is, that thing is going to make a very, very, big hole in the ground when it goes down.
-
Jealousy is a beautiful thing.
Nuke, the Boeing big wing is 33% more efficient than the A380 but has never flown. Wow, that is quite an achievement!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Jealousy is a beautiful thing.
Nuke, the Boeing big wing is 33% more efficient than the A380 but has never flown. Wow, that is quite an achievement!
Psst! Hey, Dowding...Neither has the A380, unless I'm mistaken. Granted, it is significantly closer to doing so than the "big wing." Personally, my guess is that both the 7E7 and the A380 have a market nitch to fill. However, it is likely that the 7E7 will have an easier time reaching the profit line. I wish both endeavors well.
-
its not american so it must suck!!!11
-
article (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=66782005)
You would think that if the balance sheet looked good, the Thais would purchase without the tarriff crowbar.
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.
While millions of Europeans are sending aid to Thailand to help its recovery, trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines, its national carrier, pays £1.3 billion to buy its double-decker aircraft.
The demand will come as a deep embarrassment to Peter Mandelson, the trade commissioner, whose officials started the negotiation before the disaster struck Thailand - killing tens of thousands of people and damaging its economy.
While aid workers from across Europe are helping to rebuild Thai livelihoods, trade officials in Brussels are concluding a jets-for-prawns deal, which they had hoped to announce next month.
-
hahaha...so AirBus has to Blackmail countries to take plane?
way to go..good timing by there Public realtions crew!!
Yo...ya,ya..u lost thousands of people..how about you buy our planes..?,,No..ok..well we arent buying your shrimp for those prices anymore
jets -for -prawns..
wow..you know..its like Oil - for -Food..
way to go!!..and USA is so evil?..lolo
-
From the link
The EU has instead slapped a tariff of 12 per cent on its fish - three times that imposed on prawns from Malaysia, its neighbour. This is still less than the US tariff on Thai prawns: 97 per cent.
Mathematically, the US is 8.08 times more evil than Euroland.
Interesting article though, shows how low some of these Euro bureaucrats can go.
-
the bigbus has not flown yet , only one is built and it has not flown yet, no one has "bought" any yet because there are none to buy yet, they have just put in orders for the bigbus.
i think i used "yet" to many times.
i have flown on both boeing and airbus, they are both ok, but i hate flying , it's like a bus ride with no scenery but faster, and we don't even want to talk about going through "securety".
does airbus still glue on their tails?
-
we harvest more prawns from the gulf ..we dont need no stinkn foriegn shrimps..
well excpet the few who post on this BB
-
lol Chortle - absolute classic :D
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?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
lol Chortle - absolute classic :D
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?
So Dowding, you think that USA should deal with Thailand to reduce or eliminate the shrimp tarriff if they do not buy 380's? The thing I pointed out was that using the tarriff as a crowbar to purchase airplanes seems a stretch. The US tarriff exists to shelter Forrest Gump and other Gulf shrimpers.
And since all the 380's and 7E7's ordered so far have been ordered on the basis of promises and engineering estimates, seems like an estimated 33% improvement is worth something.
-
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.
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.
-
looks like you're right, the crowbar may be in Thai hands...
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.
-
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
-
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??
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.
-
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 ...)
-
says the snail eater :)
-
Snail eater ... right :D
I've nothing against asian food like : thai ,viet or japanese but the chinese is not really outstanding IMO
-
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. :lol
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.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
lol Chortle - absolute classic :D
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:
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."
-
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".
(http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/boeing/bwb/img/200/bwb_3.gif)
Does anyone see the danger in this? A passenger aircraft, with the radar profile of a herring gull.
:lol
-
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.
-
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. :lol
ahhh... it all suddenly becomes so clear....
with 555 americans on board it would be atleast 50% heavier still, destroying their runways! :D
-
"""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.
-
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.
-
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! :D
Europeans should be concerned too...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4190313.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4190313.stm)
-
What I'd really want is faster! I'don't care how big the thing is if its slow. It doesn't matter about the size if you still have to spend hours on the bloody thing. A bigger Concorde that's the ticket! That thing was the best and one of the most beautifull things ever made.
Oh and for all you "if it ain't american its crap" types, just remember that without us plucky little heath robinson type brits there would even be a jet engine!
;)
-
LOL Furball! We're going to get into trouble, you know!
Here's a pic of an American concept plane, rival to the A380.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/guppy.jpg)
-
Funny guy. The guppy and super guppy are pretty neat planes for carrying bulky but light cargo, like upper rocket stages.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I just love it when American conservatives call liberal Europeans backward. The irony is oh so sweet. :D
It's only because we look at decades of you turds playing catch-up with us and whining all the way through it.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Why?
...-Gixer
because every knee will bow...even yours
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Jealousy is a beautiful thing.
Nuke, the Boeing big wing is 33% more efficient than the A380 but has never flown. Wow, that is quite an achievement!
Has nothing to do with jealousy....it has to do with folks from afar beating their chests about an unproven product and company....when airbus has half the accomplishments of Boeing, then I'll look at them differently....until then, it's cheap talk.
-
Nevar you would do something like chest beating ....
But it's exactly the how look like your post ...
What Airbus has to proove btw ?
-
Originally posted by Rude
Has nothing to do with jealousy....it has to do with folks from afar beating their chests about an unproven product and company....when airbus has half the accomplishments of Boeing, then I'll look at them differently....until then, it's cheap talk.
It has nothing to do with beating chests, its about the markets.
You can't sell an expensive plane, if the buyers do not know of its capabilities.
Boeing and Airbus works exactly alike with the marketing.
Funny thing is that american plane manufacturers were proven to have exagerated performance of their planes already prior to WWI.
French and brits were the unfortunate customers to realise this.
-
Does anyone remember or have pics of that Russian prototype that was a military transport with 6-8 engines in the rear, 2 in its canard, flew at a alt of about 10-50 ft. over water, had a good range and could carry something like 800 troops and supplies? Just curious.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You may not be a conservative, but I think you're slightly delusional. ;)
Isn't that pretty much the same thing?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Every single one of your points distill down to seat cost per mile, Dinger.
ding ding ding
-
The Boeing 7E7 Dreamliner was renamed the 787 a little while ago.
dago
-
Originally posted by Rude
Has nothing to do with jealousy....it has to do with folks from afar beating their chests about an unproven product and company....when airbus has half the accomplishments of Boeing, then I'll look at them differently....until then, it's cheap talk.
Actually they're twice as good as Boeing. Better fuel economy, distance, more carrying capacity. They can land on standard runways. They're short coming is they need a bit more taxi and parking space. However, american airports are clamoring to build parking and taxiways for them.
IMHO,the bottom line is money. I seem to remember in the '70's when Boeing told you how they would build it for you not how you wanted it. They got a big head and it's caught up to them. If you can buy, bigger for cheaper and get more bang for the buck the shareholders aint gonna care where you bought them.
Our Company is as USA as the day is long and we have orders in for 10-380's. In my last job I was detailed to figure out how we were gonna fit them on our ramps.:)
Ren
-
Originally posted by john9001
the bigbus has not flown yet , only one is built and it has not flown yet, no one has "bought" any yet because there are none to buy yet, they have just put in orders for the bigbus.
i think i used "yet" to many times.
i have flown on both boeing and airbus, they are both ok, but i hate flying , it's like a bus ride with no scenery but faster, and we don't even want to talk about going through "securety".
does airbus still glue on their tails?
There was an article in FLYING magazine about that crash. It seems that NOBODY ever thought that the pilot would use full rudder under those conditions, and the FAA and EAA requirements for structural integrity don't factor it in. Ouch.
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
Does anyone remember or have pics of that Russian prototype that was a military transport with 6-8 engines in the rear, 2 in its canard, flew at a alt of about 10-50 ft. over water, had a good range and could carry something like 800 troops and supplies? Just curious.
Google 'ekranoplan'
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes you guys sure showed us by inventing jets, rockets, radar, nuclear fission ... oh wait! You didn't! :rofl
We are stupid. We just invented the entire concept of the modern aircraft, the liquid rocket ( and gyroscopes and guidence), went to the moon (1969), have the fastest jets in the world (1964), and produced the world's first atomic bomb, the worlds first controled nuclear chain reaction....and loads more .
Sorry Gscholtz, but we have been decades ahead in technology. The Germans copied American rocket technology from the 20's
-
Originally posted by GScholz
ROFL! Is that why the guy that got you to the Moon was named Von Braun and used to lob rockets at London in his previous occupation? What about the scientists who worked on the Bomb? Yes old Albert was American to the bone! :rofl :rofl :rofl
Do lots of Euros share your pain it was Lance Armstrong- an American, functioning on only one testicle- who walked on the moon first?
:D :D :D
-
Diminish it! Qualify it! Make it less notable because you are an Amerihater! :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What about the scientists who worked on the Bomb? Yes old Albert was American to the bone! :rofl :rofl :rofl
Yeah, Albert was too inferior to be a German, the Jews didn't really muster up to the German ideal. America and our society are the reasons for our great success while Nazi Germany was a supreme failure.
The fact is that America went to the moon, not Germany or anyone else.
-
It's been 36 years since America went to the moon and 44 years since Russia first put a man in space.
How many other countries have put a man into space since then? Seems like an elite club......and Germany still isn't in that club, despite their great scientists.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why can't you guys be proud of your own inventions instead of claiming others for your own? Never understood that part.
who's claiming others inventions for out own?
-
What did your country invent? I can list a lot for America if you want.
-
Gscholtz, the only time I ever respond and defend my country is when I see someone trying to bash it in some way.... I don't try to diminish any other country's achievments or way of life, until I see somone doing that against mine.
The thing that set me off here was your statement "you really showed us by inventing, bla bla bla......
I looked at that statement and laughed thinking about what you meant by "us".
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Actually the Russians (well ... again ex-German scientists) reached the Moon first. However you guys shot a man up there first.
yeah, Russian probe crashed into the moon a few years before America put men on the moon and returned them to earth. No comparison in technological achievment.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ditto. Read the post I was responding to.
Did you see how old that post was? ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Skis and the paperclip ;)
Snowboards asnd Post-It Notes. O=Yea.
-
AAAH BEEEELEEEVE IN THAH RESERECSHUN. YYYYEAAAAS AH DO BOYZ!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by rshubert
There was an article in FLYING magazine about that crash. It seems that NOBODY ever thought that the pilot would use full rudder under those conditions, and the FAA and EAA requirements for structural integrity don't factor it in. Ouch.
Actually it was full reversing rudder deflections not just a one time full rudder.
Here is an exert from the official NTSB report:
This aircraft experienced high lateral loads associated with reversing rudder movements during the 1997 accident.
There is quite a difference in what you said above.
Ren