Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Furball on April 26, 2005, 01:15:54 PM
-
Will it get airborne?
(http://techno-science.net/illustration/Aero/A380/Presentation/Avant_presentation_1.jpg)
-
It should have no problem flying since it will be nearly 600,000 lbs under gross. I can't wait to see the full-up 1.3 million pound max gross weight takeoff. It'll be like watching a small eagle trying to carry a large fish... lots of struggling.
-
She will fly perfectly. It will be a thrill and an honor to watch her lift off for the very first time.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
She will fly perfectly. It will be a thrill and an honor to watch her lift off for the very first time.
Yeah, i love advances like this. It is a big deal seeing something like this fly now. But in 5 - 10 years i bet it will be so common like watching any airliner come and go.
-
wow, i didnt realize just how massive that monster is until i saw that particular pic, since theres something to compare it to...
-
what is the actual wingspan/length of that aircraft compared to a normal 747?
-
Has anyone done any kind of loading/unloading times on this thing yet? Is it gonna take extra long to embark/debark? how bout luggage?
-
i bet they don't do a Full Scale Evacuation Demonstration on that one.
-
Originally posted by Toad
i bet they don't do a Full Scale Evacuation Demonstration on that one.
http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=2270&comm=0
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
what is the actual wingspan/length of that aircraft compared to a normal 747?
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40728000/gif/_40728825_airbus_a380416.gif)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
She will fly perfectly. It will be a thrill and an honor to watch her lift off for the very first time.
Of course it will....that plane flew in simulation years before the first metal was cut to build it...or else they wouldn't have bothered.
-
Wow. I figured they'd get a waiver. Most estimates say 4-6% injuries on a full scale evac. Some could be serious on a "double-decker". Good luck to all involved and ... be careful out there.
-
Something about that plane just doesnt look right to me. Wish I knew what it was because whenever I see pictures of that plane the first thought in my head is always along the lines off "Baaad JUJU".
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
Something about that plane just doesnt look right to me. Wish I knew what it was because whenever I see pictures of that plane the first thought in my head is always along the lines off "Baaad JUJU".
the forehead?
-
They will never get 850 people off that thing in 90 seconds.
-
Can they do a complete evac in 90 seconds on a fully loaded, max configuration 747? I'm guessing not.
-
I believe it has the same number of seats per exit as any other plane, and the exits are extra wide.
-
I always wondered, how many times per year ( for example ) are the emergency procedures really used ?
I mean water landing in my cases are the ditches we know from AH or WB but rather cartwheeling crashes where slides do you no good.
Same goes for ditches on land..
So question: evac procedures, floating devices, offloading ramps, are they ever used for their purpose ?
-
Originally posted by fd ski
So question: evac procedures, floating devices, offloading ramps, are they ever used for their purpose ?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/286919/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/790243/L/
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I think they have to get it certified, don't they?
Yes
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why not?
Even though the chutes of the A380 can accommodate two people abreast, it's a daunting challenge. Counting the time it takes more than 850 passengers to find which of the jet's 16 exits are open -- only half will be, and the participants won't know which when the test starts -- they'll have to average about 1.2 people per second through each doorway.
It is all part of a drill that Airbus and The Boeing Co. have had to run over the years during certification of their new jets, including Boeing's 747. But never have so many people had to get off an airplane in only a minute and a half -- and never from two full-length decks at the same time
sorry linked from Mora's post.
-
Whatever, it looks prety impressive!
-
Hats off to airbus for showing guts and daring to build something inspiring, which shamefully Boeing has not been doing for years in the civil market.
-
Big tail.
-
what time is that flight ?
-
It will fly, this one is so ugly the Earth will repel it away.
Seriously, I kike the idea of this plane as a giant succesor to the 40 year old 747 but that tall doubledecker fuselage and big forehead make it look like some retared fish. The whole thing is short and out of proportion, I hope they do an extened fuse model - that will make it look better imo.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The whole thing is short and out of proportion, I hope they do an extened fuse model - that will make it look better imo.
Like the 737-600 versus 737-800 :cool:
-
Originally posted by vorticon
the forehead?
what about the forehead? sloping back like some type of animal / person you have in mind? what are you trying to say?
-
Another misproprtioned Airbus:
(http://www.airshowphotography.com/commercial/A340-600-B-6052-040517-2.jpg)
This one is 7 feet longer than even the A380...
-
I saw a special recently showing the building process for this monster. What interested me was the way that during the manufacture, the fuselage is freighted through several French towns with heavy police escort and effectively shuts down all commerce and traffic for over a day in a way that would never (pardon the pun) fly in the USA.
PS: Regarding the wing droop, the wings and engines are made in England, could be depression... ;)
(http://www.iabg.de/presse/download/bilder/images/A380-Transport-Entladung-3-150.jpg)
-
Originally posted by vorticon
the forehead?
It does have a bit of the mongaloid look to it.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Will it get airborne?
Um, look at the 4 planet eaters hanging off the wings.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
what time is that flight ?
The first flight will start in aprox 25 minutes from now in Toulouse, France (10:30h local time).
-
it kinda reminds me of a fancy guppy.
-
I'd rather have this thing flying over my house than that damned Concorde! - that thing used to make my windows rattle. :mad:
-
It'll make a bigger hole if it stops fying though Beetle!:lol
Concorde was a beautifull technical triumph!
-
It's so odd, there seem to be two main crowds posting here. The 'Boeing sucks, and I'll say/do anything to further that agenda' crowd, and then the 'Airbus sucks, and I'll say/do anything to further that agenda' crowd.
What's that? The descriptions are identical? Well yeah, no crap.
Reading these threads is like watching hardliner liberal Soviets argue with hardliner conservative Nazi's. Both of them abhor each other, but they both do the same stuff. It's funny, it's as if the partisanship actually WRAPS around and touches the other side. With just a little help, the Boeing and Airbus nuts would be bestesses of friends.
Fact: The A380 is neat.
Fact: The 747 is neat.
Almost every criticism applied to the 380 was applied to the 747 when it came out, and you Boeing fanboys are looking really stupid for trotting out those old chestnuts.
Likewise, Boeing has a fine safety record, and has done more with less subsidy then Airbus, but that's just the business model that the US supports, so you Airbus jockeys look like idiots for constantly pulling out the same tired old 'Boeing is ze funded by government too!' argument.
The companies have different financials, do different things good and different things bad. One thing they both share in common is that they create fine aircraft that set and maintain standards of quality and design that are alien to all other large scale industries.
-
Chairboy the voice of reason:aok
-
The scarebus design team must have been big sega fans back in the day.
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/7/198567/seaman_screen008.jpg)
-
she flew, wow! awesome plane :D
-
Henh.
I got bumper stickers..
"If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't going".
Frankly, just based on where it's built and their reputation for non-functional or argumenative autopilot casualties coupled with how and who's certifying 'em all seem somewhat 'troubling' to me.. hell; even the US Navy shoots at 'em for fear the things will drop tails or engines on 'em when they go over. Terrorists like 'em cause they go 'BANG' so easy...
Airbus Fatalities, by A/C Type:
3 July 1988; Iranair A300; Persian Gulf, near Straits of Hormuz: Aircraft was shot down by a surface to air missile from the American naval vessel U.S.S. Vincennes. All 16 crew and 274 passengers were killed.
28 September 1992; Pakistan International Airlines A300B4; near Katmandu, Nepal: The crew was flying the aircraft was flying an approach about 1600 feet (1000 meters) lower than planned when the aircraft collided with high ground. The event happened in daylight and with cloud shrouding the mountains. All 12 crew and 155 passengers were killed.
26 April 1994; China Airlines A300-600; Nagoya, Japan: Crew errors led to the aircraft stalling and crashing during approach. [/b All 15 crew and 249 of the 264 passengers were killed.
24 December 1994; Air France A300; Algiers Airport, Algeria: Hijackers killed 3 of the 267 passengers. Later, commandos retook the aircraft and killed four hijackers.
26 September 1997; Garuda Indonesian Airways A300B4; near Medan, Indonesia: The aircraft was on approach to Medan on a flight from Jakarta when it crashed in a mountainous area about 19 miles (30 km) from the airport. Extensive smoke and haze from numerous forest fires caused reduced visibility in the area. All 12 crew members and 222 passengers were killed.
16 February 1998; China Airlines A300-600; near Taipei, Taiwan: The aircraft crashed into a residential area short of the runway during its second landing attempt. The scheduled flight had been inbound from the island of Bali in Indonesia. The event occurred under conditions of darkness with rain and reduced visibility due to fog. All 15 crew and 182 passengers were killed. At least seven persons on the ground were also killed.
12 November 2001; American Airlines A300-600; Queens, New York: The aircraft was on a flight from New York to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic when it crashed into a residential neighborhood just outside JFK airport. The aircraft experienced an in-flight breakup, with the vertical fin and one engine landing away from the main impact site. There were a number of homes damaged or destroyed by the crash, and at least six people on the ground are missing and presumed dead. All nine crew members and 251 passengers on the aircraft were killed, including five infants.
31 July 1992; Thai International A310-300; near Katmandu, Nepal: The aircraft had a controlled flight into terrain about 22.5 miles (36 km) from the airport after apparently using an incorrect procedure for a missed approach. All 14 crew and 99 passengers were killed.
22 March 1994; Russian International Airways A310; near Novokuznetsk, Russia: Lost control and crashed after the captain had allowed at least one child to manipulate the flight controls. All 12 crew and 63 passengers were killed.
31 March 1995; Tarom Romanian Airlines A310; near Balotesti, Romania: Aircraft crashed shortly after taking off in a snowstorm. All 10 crew and 50 passengers were killed.
11 December 1998; Thai Airways International A310-200; near Surat Thani, Thailand: During its third landing attempt, the aircraft crashed just outside the Surat Thani airport. The aircraft was on a domestic flight from Bangkok to Surat Thani. There were 90 fatalities among the 132 passengers and 11 fatalities among the 14 crew members.
30 January 2000; Kenya Airways A310-300; near Abidjan, Ivory Coast: The aircraft crashed into the Atlantic Ocean shortly after taking off at night for a flight from Abidjan to Lagos, Nigeria. All 11 crew members and 158 of the 168 passengers were killed.
26 June 1988; Air France A320; near Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport, France: The aircraft crashed into trees during an air show maneuver when the aircraft failed to gain height during a low pass with the gear extended. Three of the 136 passengers were killed.
14 February 1990; Indian Airlines A320; Bangalore, India: Controlled flight into terrain during approach. Aircraft hit about 400 meters short of the runway. Four of the seven crew members and 88 of the 139 passengers were killed.
20 January 1992; Air Inter A320; near Strasbourg, France: Aircraft had a controlled flight into terrain after the flight crew incorrectly set the flight management system. Five of the six crew and 82 of the 87 passengers perished.
14 September 1993; Lufthansa A320-200; Warsaw Airport, Poland: Aircraft landed with a tail wind. Landing performance and aircraft design led to a late deployment of braking devices. Aircraft overran the runway. One of the 6 crew and 1 of the 64 passengers were killed.
23 August 2000; Gulf Air A320; Near Manama, Bahrain: The aircraft was making a third attempt to land at the Bahrain International Airport after a flight from Cairo when the aircraft crashed into the sea about three miles (4.8 km) from the airport. All eight crew members and 135 passengers were killed.
I guess the 'smart cockpit' ain't all that smart.. on the other hand; as long as it ain't raining, foggy, snowy, night or the burning season, and as long as there ain't any terrorists or US Navy warships in the area on high alert, or any pesky high terrain like mountains or trees anywhere near where your supposed to land (on the third attempt) you could get get lucky and receive one of Airbus's free 'I flew Airbus and LIVED!!" t-shirts while yer waiting around the airport for a few extra hours waiting on a Boeing to deliver yer luggage.
;)
-
Yup. Just one. The tail fell off.
No biggie. They fall off of Boeings too.. but if I'm gonna die on an airplane, I'd rather go in on a Boeing. If shoddy workmanship is gonna kill my un-worthy ass, I just as soon have it be good 'ol Ammerricun Shoddy Workmanship, rather than French Ineptness.
;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It's so odd, there seem to be two main crowds posting here. The 'Boeing sucks, and I'll say/do anything to further that agenda' crowd, and then the 'Airbus sucks, and I'll say/do anything to further that agenda' crowd.
What's that? The descriptions are identical? Well yeah, no crap.
Reading these threads is like watching hardliner liberal Soviets argue with hardliner conservative Nazi's. Both of them abhor each other, but they both do the same stuff. It's funny, it's as if the partisanship actually WRAPS around and touches the other side. With just a little help, the Boeing and Airbus nuts would be bestesses of friends.
Fact: The A380 is neat.
Fact: The 747 is neat.
Like Skydancer, I agree with this - and the rest of Chairboy's post. Does the existence of one aircraft production company invalidate the existence of any other? No, of course not. But those rants are akin to people refusing to take a taxi in Paris if it's a Citroen, because their home country produces Fords.
The A380 will perform well in designated roles, but won't be suited to other uses. But to condemn it out of hand is as ridiculous as refusing to eat a meal cooked on an electric stove because your stove at home uses gas. In this analogy, "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going" would become "if it ain't gas heat then I won't eat". :rolleyes:
If making a trip by plane, I'll go on whatever plane is provided. I haven't seen anything to convince me that Boeing is safer than Airbus, or vice-versa. Both have taken me to the parts that other modes of transport cannot reach.
The fundamental difference between the two types is that Boeing has "conventional" controls, and Airbus uses fly-by-wire. According to a TV documentary I saw, the trend is a one way ticket towards the latter. (I think this is what rankles with the pro-Boeing/anti-Airbus guys) Thus the purists will argue that control is being taken away from the pilots. Some might argue that this is bad; those in favour might argue that 45% of all aircraft accidents are caused by pilot error as a means of justifying FBW.
Commercially, I think A380 will be successful, not as a continental USA city hopper, but for long range flights to remote destinations where airports are sparse - Australia, Asia - and with operators who fly to those destinations. The CEO of Virgin Atlantic is Richard Branson - a man of vision if ever there was one. (I wish he was running for PM in our election - I'd sure as hell vote for him) And he has ordered several of them. I think the gymnasium idea will be a short term marketing ploy, but a guy like RB would not be ordering A380 if he was unsure of its role in his airline.
-
nice post beet1e
-
A380 will carry the same number of passengers as 747, but they will all be much fatter
-
Originally posted by bunch
A380 will carry the same number of passengers as 747, but they will all be much fatter
So it is indeed made for the american markets?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
So it is indeed made for the american markets?
:lol
The American version will be the 840 seat configuration, converted to 300 seats and an onboard McDonald's franchise.
-
The fundamental difference between the two types is that Boeing has "conventional" controls, and Airbus uses fly-by-wire. According to a TV documentary I saw, the trend is a one way ticket towards the latter. (I think this is what rankles with the pro-Boeing/anti-Airbus guys) Thus the purists will argue that control is being taken away from the pilots. Some might argue that this is bad; those in favour might argue that 45% of all aircraft accidents are caused by pilot error as a means of justifying FBW.
The majority of "Airbus Incidents" relate directly to FBW.. tell me; if the cruise control system on your car failed to disengage and hand you back control of your throttle when you touched the brakes, would you consider that car 'safe'??
If a pilot grabs the stick and rams in more throttle; don't you think the freakin plane should respond accordingly?
Frankly, as long as there's a pilot, there should be no argument between the human interface and the computer as to who in hell is in command.... and thats why I'll take a Boeing any day over that furbish Airbus.
Cheers!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The majority of "Airbus Incidents" relate directly to FBW.. tell me; if the cruise control system on your car failed to disengage and hand you back control of your throttle when you touched the brakes, would you consider that car 'safe'??
hahem ... http://www.boursier.com/vals/all/feed.asp?id=888
Notice it's a French car made in EU ...
Look at the sky Ma ... another falling Airbus :p
BTW I don't think the FBW is the only cause
-
Boeing missed the boat big time.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The majority of "Airbus Incidents" relate directly to FBW.. tell me; if the cruise control system on your car failed to disengage and hand you back control of your throttle when you touched the brakes, would you consider that car 'safe'??
If a pilot grabs the stick and rams in more throttle; don't you think the freakin plane should respond accordingly?
I see that you have not read the actual conclusions about that wreck (presumably, you're talking about the one caught on video that does the low pass, then crashes into trees at the end of the runway).
Early speculation was that the FBW system didn't allow the pilot to throttle up, as you suggest. What was really discovered was that the pilot overrode the FBW and throttled back to idle, not descent power. As a result, when he rammed the throttle in, the turbine lag before the engines began producing thrust was just a little too long.
The crash had nothing to do with the FBW 'not responding', that was what the pilot claimed when he was trying to avoid being chastised. The actual investigation found him at fault for throttling back too far.
I suggest reading up more on the subject.
-
So it is indeed made for the american markets?
Apparently Europe isn't far behind in the passenger weight department, and Germany may have even taken back the lead it lost in the 1990s :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The majority of "Airbus Incidents" relate directly to FBW.. tell me; if the cruise control system on your car failed to disengage and hand you back control of your throttle when you touched the brakes, would you consider that car 'safe'??
If a pilot grabs the stick and rams in more throttle; don't you think the freakin plane should respond accordingly?
Frankly, as long as there's a pilot, there should be no argument between the human interface and the computer as to who in hell is in command.... and thats why I'll take a Boeing any day over that furbish Airbus.
Cheers!
Not saying you're wrong, HT. But if such a high proportion of Airbus incidents are related to the FBW system, then why is there an unrelenting trend away from conventional controls in favour of FBW? Do *they* really believe that the pilots must be protected from themselves, or are there other reasons?
What the documentary I saw actually said was that once the changeover to FBW had been made, there would be no turning back.
We need to hear from Mr. Toad on this.
-
Hangtime is clearly fishing with that ignorant statement, but I'll bite...
26 June 1988; Air France A320; near Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport, France: The aircraft crashed into trees during an air show maneuver when the aircraft failed to gain height during a low pass with the gear extended. Three of the 136 passengers were killed.
14 February 1990; Indian Airlines A320; Bangalore, India: Controlled flight into terrain during approach. Aircraft hit about 400 meters short of the runway. Four of the seven crew members and 88 of the 139 passengers were killed.
20 January 1992; Air Inter A320; near Strasbourg, France: Aircraft had a controlled flight into terrain after the flight crew incorrectly set the flight management system. Five of the six crew and 82 of the 87 passengers perished.
14 September 1993; Lufthansa A320-200; Warsaw Airport, Poland: Aircraft landed with a tail wind. Landing performance and aircraft design led to a late deployment of braking devices. Aircraft overran the runway. One of the 6 crew and 1 of the 64 passengers were killed.
23 August 2000; Gulf Air A320; Near Manama, Bahrain: The aircraft was making a third attempt to land at the Bahrain International Airport after a flight from Cairo when the aircraft crashed into the sea about three miles (4.8 km) from the airport. All eight crew members and 135 passengers were killed.
These are the only crashes in your list where FBW aircraft were involved. Airbus A300/310 series are NOT FBW equipped.
All these five crashes listed here are pilot errors. For example in the Air Inter crash the crew set the FMS incorrectly. IIRC they set the it to 3000 ft/min descent instead of 3 degrees nose down, that could happen with any airplane if you leave your brains home, no matter if the plane is FBW or not. All these crashes could have happened to a Boeing aswell.
Look at this accident;
3 January 2004; Flash Airlines 737-300; near Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt: The aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff on a domestic flight to Cairo and crashed into the Red Sea about nine miles (15 km) south of the city. All 135 passengers and 13 crew members were killed. Flash Airlines is a charter operator based in Egypt.
I could blame this crash on Boeing just aswell. It was caused by mishandling of the autopilot.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I suggest reading up more on the subject.
What's the diffrence between and Airbus and a Homelite chainsaw? (http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Not saying you're wrong, HT. But if such a high proportion of Airbus incidents are related to the FBW system, then why is there an unrelenting trend away from conventional controls in favour of FBW? Do *they* really believe that the pilots must be protected from themselves, or are there other reasons?
The only major thing that the Airbus FBW sytem does differently compared to a traditional hydraulic system is that it limit's bank angle, attitude and angle of attack. There's not a single accident that wouldn't have happened if those limitations weren't there. OTOH there are plenty of accidents which wouldn't have happened with the Airbus FBW system.
People seem to have the misconception that the plane somehow takes control of itself and then crashes. The FBW system only makes sure that the plane stays inside it's intended flight envelope.
-
Boeings arent perfect, what about the 737 rudder prob?
http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm
-
Originally posted by Toad
What's the diffrence between and Airbus and a Homelite chainsaw? (http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml)
Yeah it depends which side you wan't to believe really. Chairboy summed it up verywell. It happened early in the A320 program and if it indeed was a FMS glitch it has obviously been rectified.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Boeings arent perfect, what about the 737 rudder prob?
http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm
Everyone a AH knows you dont even need a rudder to land safe
-
Anyone have a link to the NTSB report on the loss of F-GFKC?
-
Hats off to airbus for showing guts and daring to build something inspiring, which shamefully Boeing has not been doing for years in the civil market.
Daring? Boeing isn't being subsidised by the U.S. government either. Were not comparing apples to apples here. Also no major U.S. airline has orderd a single 380 and untill that trend is broken the 380 will not become a success.
-
Originally posted by VWE
Daring? Boeing isn't being subsidised by the U.S. government either. Were not comparing apples to apples here. Also no major U.S. airline has orderd a single 380 and untill that trend is broken the 380 will not become a success.
I hardly think any american airlines need to buy the plane to make it a success.
-
Originally posted by VWE
Also no major U.S. airline has orderd a single 380
They have ordered only a very few 787's.
Reading the Boeing news releases, Continental is the first and so far the only major US airline to order the 787's, with an order for 10 planes.
Of course both are for different kind of markets, but it does indicate that the US airlines aren't so interested to order totally new planes.
I suspect it is due to the financial difficulties of the major US airlines.
-
I hardly think any american airlines need to buy the plane to make it a success.
Just flying makes the plane itself a success... but financial success is another story and it won't be unless good ol' America help out.
-
Originally posted by VWE
Just flying makes the plane itself a success... but financial success is another story and it won't be unless good ol' America help out.
Wrong.
-
Go read up about what Airbus thinks about this... and I'm right and your wrong. :p
-
Originally posted by Toad
Anyone have a link to the NTSB report on the loss of F-GFKC?
You mean the BEA I think ?
-
Originally posted by VWE
Go read up about what Airbus thinks about this... and I'm right and your wrong. :p
Its common knowledge that if your name is nilsen then you are always right. If you dont know that then you do not even posess common knowledge so why should i trust you on a subject like this. No.. this is going nowere for you and I accept your apology without rubbing it in to much.
Thanks for playing tho and have a good night. The missus sais im not allowed to stay up anymore.
:)
-
A study says Airbus could realistically have expected to sell just 496 of the large aircraft in the first 20 years of the programme. To date, the A380 has been sold for $130m-$145m, compared with the $199m building cost.
Do the math Nilsen... with numbers that off you can figure it out on a napkin. :aok
-
Originally posted by VWE
A study says Airbus could realistically have expected to sell just 496 of the large aircraft in the first 20 years of the programme. To date, the A380 has been sold for $130m-$145m, compared with the $199m building cost.
Do the math Nilsen... with numbers that off you can figure it out on a napkin. :aok
But its early days yet, the thing has only had a single testflight. None of this says anything about having to sell to america to be a success.
now go away, im having a long nap now! ;)
-
They have ordered only a very few 787's.
Just this week, Air Canada and Air India announced a total of 82 new orders for Boeing jets - including 41 787s - taking Boeing's Dreamliner order book to 237.
Currently there are 157 orders for the -bus...
-
A380 Construction Cost > A380 Selling Price = Bad
Sooner or later even the socialist aircraft woreks will have to turn a profit on these babies. When exactly do scale economies kick in for big plane production runs?
-
Originally posted by straffo
You mean the BEA I think ?
Usually our NTSB has a report on anything that is flown in the US.
-
Anything and everything... just need a date when it happend.
Nilsen is wrong (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/month.asp)
-
Comparing the A380 and 787 is crazy, totally different purposes with entirely different target markets. Closest Boeing product is the 747-400 series and derrivatives. The 747 has been a good seller for decades now (after some early difficulties) so obviously there was a market for such a large aircraft on long-range routes. It also was in a market without competition, something the A380 will change, but whether the A380 is a success will really depend on the market conditions for air travel in the next decade or so and whether it lives up to it's billing on cost/seat-mile. Boeing doesn't seem to have anything firm for a 747 replacement and is mostly looking at some additional upgrades to increase capacity on a design that is somewhat dated.
From what I've read, the A380 order committments to date are probably better than expected considering no US operator (except FedEx and UPS for cargo versions) has ordered it. You can bet if it lives up to billing that many airlines will seriously consider purchasing the A380 and cycling out their 747's. Good market for 747 conversions to cargo right now so a good time for airlines to make the change.
-Soda
-
Originally posted by VWE
no major U.S. airline has orderd a single 380 and untill that trend is broken the 380 will not become a success.
Bollocks. I have said (more than once) that A380 is not destined to succeed as a USA city hopper. That does not mean it won't succeed in the wider world, which indeed it will. Pull your head back from the map of the world so that your nose is 2 inches above the map of the USA. Then start looking at continents like Asia and Australia...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
As for the B787 getting more orders than the A380 ... naaaaaw, you think so? It's a much smaller and cheaper aircraft you dolts. You'd have to sell 3 B787's to match the passenger capacity of a single A380.
But with the 787's you can land in three different cities simultaneously and at the same time.
-
Guys it flew already shouldn't this thread be dead?:lol
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, which is why a comparison between the B787 and the A380 is completely irrelevant. Compare the B787 with the A330 instead. A much more serious comparison.
You didn't get the point.
Boeing's business plan says the market for the smaller plane reaching more and diverse airfeilds was the way to go. They felt that someone might wish to fly from Milwaukie to Munich directly in 7 or 8 hours and only 2 airport hassles instead of going Milwaukie - Detroit - Frankfurt - Munich in 14 hours, with four airport hassles.
We will see which mix of A/C actually is correct in a few years.
-
Originally posted by VWE
Just this week, Air Canada and Air India announced a total of 82 new orders for Boeing jets - including 41 787s - taking Boeing's Dreamliner order book to 237./B]
...and what does this have to do with the major US airlines?
As far as I know, Air Canada is a canadian airline, which isn't part of the US and apparently Air India is an indian airline, which is way across the big pond.
All the talk was about the major US airlines.
And to repeat myself, my point still is that the A380 selling figures in the US likely has nothing to do with the plane itself, but due to the downfall of the US airlines.
A downfall which also seems to be reflected in the 787 orders by the US airlines.
Did I make it clear yet?
-
Canada has airplanes?
-
...and what does this have to do with the major US airlines?
Nothing... you said that Boeing isn't selling many 787's... what was your figure, 10? You only missed the mark by a couple hundred aircraft.
And I never compared the 787 to the -bus for volume just a different buisness plan like McGroin figured out.
And the -bus is only what... 4 billion over budget? Now they only have to sell an extra 50 aircraft to make up for that.
Only time will tell, but I don't see the passenger volume these behemoths are sopposed to fill.
American Airlines
Delta Air Lines
Southwest Airlines
United Airlines
Japan Airlines
Northwest Airlines
Deutsche Lufthansa
Air France
All Nippon Airways
US Airways
10 largest airlines in the world, of course 6 are based in the U.S. and good luck surviving without selling your kitchen sink to any of them. :aok
-
It's funny......."Europe" combines it's resources and produces a plane only very slightly larger than a 40 year old American plane and they get all excited about it........and it has yet to fly one paying passenger.
It has a long way to go before it will ever turn a profit. Time will tell, but the hype is just that......hype.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It's funny......."Europe" combines it's resources and produces a plane only very slightly larger than a 40 year old American plane
Sounds like you're on the trolling mood...
~540,000 tons versus ~400,000 tons MTOW doesn't sound 'very slightly larger' to me.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Sounds like you're on the trolling mood...
~540,000 tons versus ~400,000 tons MTOW doesn't sound 'very slightly larger' to me.
So europe builds a terribly overweight whale and you are proud of it?
:lol
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So europe builds a terribly overweight whale and you are proud of it?
:lol
Proud? why should I be proud? I had nothing to do with the thing.
Are you proud of the B747/777/787, even though you had nothing to do with those?
If you are, then you better get a reality check.
You're such a troll too... no other reason how someone could make up such a reply based on mine.
My reply, which was just about figures and nothing else.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Sounds like you're on the trolling mood...
~540,000 tons versus ~400,000 tons MTOW doesn't sound 'very slightly larger' to me.
well, it does too me. The physical dimensions of the plane are very slightly larger than a 747, which is 40 years old. Not a big achievment no matter how you look at it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
well, it does too me. The physical dimensions of the plane are very slightly larger than a 747, which is 40 years old. Not a big achievment no matter how you look at it.
Are you an engineer who knows what it needs to make a plane with a quorter larger MTOW?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Are you an engineer who knows what it needs to make a plane with a quorter larger MTOW?
Are you an engineer who says that the AB380 is a 40 year advancment in technology from the 747?
Almost no advancement from a 40 year old design.....just a little bigger with more powerful engines. And the 380 has not even flown one paying passenger...... a long way from any "breakthrough"
-
Originally posted by Toad
Anyone have a link to the NTSB report on the loss of F-GFKC?
ok, I know a subliminal message when I see one. I see KFC, that makes me hungry, I don't care what time it is, I am firing up the grill. Damn you!
-
The key to success will lie in the marketing departments.
I wonder what the breakeven load factor will be for that. Probably in the 60-70% range like most of the rest.
If your marketing department can't sell that many seats on every flight, you won't make money. If you don't make money with a plane, it won't be around very long.
I assure you, the marketing department at Delta suxxors so bad they struggle to fill a 767 on the transoceanic runs. Oh, sure.. holidays are easy but we're talking day in, day out loads. That they cannot do.
As for some suddenly new factor in the marketplace that is going to engender 5x as much demand for transoceanic travel, I haven't seen it yet. Maybe if the 380 brings fares down to $20.00 and they can make a profit at 80% load it might work.
In short, it's way too early to tell. It's nice someone built a plane this big. It's going to take a while to see if it makes enough to cover cost/expenses.
I keep thinking about how big and luxurious ocean liners were getting right about the time transatlantic jet air travel started,
You think some Steve Jobs geek is in a garage somewhere working on Scottie's transporter room right now?
-
Originally posted by VWE
Only time will tell, but I don't see the passenger volume these behemoths are sopposed to fill.
American Airlines
Delta Air Lines
Southwest Airlines
United Airlines
Japan Airlines
Northwest Airlines
Deutsche Lufthansa
Air France
All Nippon Airways
US Airways
10 largest airlines in the world, of course 6 are based in the U.S. and good luck surviving without selling your kitchen sink to any of them. :aok
VWE is right in saying that the A380 will not sell in large quantities to many of the airlines he listed. But he exhibits incredible arrogance in saying that if it isn't sold to these airlines, it won't succeed.
I'll say it a third time, as the message still hasn't got through. A380 is not designed as a regional city hopper. The US market is entirely wrong for it. But that doesn't mean it won't succeed in other parts of the world. The largest airline, American Airlines, didn't even have any B747s when they were in vogue. Why's that then? Fuel costs was one, but also because they operate a huges number of routes, and therefore need lots of little tiddlers like the MD80, and won't need A380 - on those routes at least.
Now let's look at Singapore Airlines - Singapore is a tiny little country less than one sixth the size of Rhode Island. Using VWE's logic, one might assume that they fly things like ATR42/72 turboprops. Wrong. Their fleet consists of A340-500 (their smallest) B747-400, and four variants of B777. They will be the first airline in the world to fly the A380. They have 10 on order with options for a further 15.
SIA has tripled capacity between Singapore and Brisbane, Australia in the past 4½ years, and is about to increase capacity to Beijing (capital of the world's third largest country, but not on VWE's map) by 50%.
How much does Singapore Airlines depend on America? Let's have a look...
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/sinworld.jpg)
Out of 59 cities served by SIA, how many are in the USA? Erm... 3.
It would help people to understand the A380 market better if they would look at a world map (the SIA route map is a start) - instead of viewing the world like this....
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/world04.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Actually Master Ignorant, the A380 has 50% more floor space than the B747-400 and more cargo capacity. And even if the A380 flew with only the same amount of passengers as the B747-400 it would still be more cost effective due to superior aerodynamics. It even compares favourably to the B787 in range.
There you go with your personal attacks again.
GS, after reading your factoid about the 380, I've changed my mind.
I now view it as the most futuristic, wild and radical design in aviation history. It has a remarkable new shape and has 50% more floorspace than a 40 year old plane. All of this, PLUS an unquestioned market demand for at least the next 100 years.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why do you think there is only one correct mix of aircraft? I for one think both the B787 and the A380 will have prosperous futures. The B787 will replace many of the older B757, 767, 777 and similar older Airbus designs. The A380 will replace many of the B747's.
Look at the larger picture GS. There is only one world population of aircraft. Therfore there is only one mix of aircraft.
The share that the A380 takes and the share that the 787 takes is what the difference of forecast of Boeing and Airbus is all about.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Actually Master Ignorant, the A380 has 50% more floor space than the B747-400 and more cargo capacity. And even if the A380 flew with only the same amount of passengers as the B747-400 it would still be more cost effective due to superior aerodynamics. It even compares favourably to the B787 in range.
Really? Does that include the amortization of the 250 million purchase price? Still makes it the plane to own when you include that cost?
.
-
But to go from Chicago to Munich only takes one flight in a 787 as opposed to 3 when using an airbus so even though it hauls less passangers it also does not use any landing spots at New York to London or Paris or Holland as you would have to use in the airbus.
So in fact the 787 frees up landing spots at the hub airports. Also do you know what it costs to land a big plane at London or Paris? Huge dollars. And then you have to factor in the cost of the two feeder flights and those planes and the crew and fuel all to get the person to the same place.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, each B787 cost approx. 120 million, but carry only about 250 passengers. So you only get 2 B787 for the price of 1 A380, but only 1/3rd of the passenger capacity.
Also, most of the world's large international airports simply does not have runway slots available for 3 B787s. The A380 only takes one slot.
I hate to get involved here, but there are a couple of instances of bad math/reasoning here.
If a 787 carries 250 people, then two of them carry 500 people. Unless the A380 carries 1,500 people, then your 'but only 1/3rd the passenger capacity' statement doesn't make much sense.
Second, you mention that the worlds large international airports don't have runway slots for 3 787s. That might be true, but as far as I know, there are only two commercial passenger airports in the world that are currently set up for the A380. If that's true (and I admit, I have only heard it in passing), then that would seem to be a bit more relevant to the conversation.
What I don't get is why the 787 and 380 are even being compared. That's like arguing that the Subaru WRX is better then a 36 passenger diesel bus. Better at what? The 380 is better at carrying lots of people over long routes. The 787 is better at providing service to smaller airports.
This conversation has descended from fighting to complete nonsense.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
London Heathrow expects 1 A380 out of every 8 planes serviced there in the near future (i don't remember the exact year).
2016, IIRC
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why would the A380 have to land three times?
Because French labor regulations forbid the pilots from working longer than five hours between striking?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why would the A380 have to land three times?
Hub and spoke rather than direct route between smaller cities.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It's so odd, there seem to be two main crowds posting here. The 'Boeing sucks, and I'll say/do anything to further that agenda' crowd, and then the 'Airbus sucks, and I'll say/do anything to further that agenda' crowd.
What's that? The descriptions are identical? Well yeah, no crap.
Reading these threads is like watching hardliner liberal Soviets argue with hardliner conservative Nazi's. Both of them abhor each other, but they both do the same stuff. It's funny, it's as if the partisanship actually WRAPS around and touches the other side. With just a little help, the Boeing and Airbus nuts would be bestesses of friends.
Fact: The A380 is neat.
Fact: The 747 is neat.
Almost every criticism applied to the 380 was applied to the 747 when it came out, and you Boeing fanboys are looking really stupid for trotting out those old chestnuts.
Likewise, Boeing has a fine safety record, and has done more with less subsidy then Airbus, but that's just the business model that the US supports, so you Airbus jockeys look like idiots for constantly pulling out the same tired old 'Boeing is ze funded by government too!' argument.
The companies have different financials, do different things good and different things bad. One thing they both share in common is that they create fine aircraft that set and maintain standards of quality and design that are alien to all other large scale industries.
Here's a difference....the 747 makes money....worldwide....will the airbus?
We'll see
-
Originally posted by NUKE
There you go with your personal attacks again.
GS, after reading your factoid about the 380, I've changed my mind.
I now view it as the most futuristic, wild and radical design in aviation history. It has a remarkable new shape and has 50% more floorspace than a 40 year old plane. All of this, PLUS an unquestioned market demand for at least the next 100 years.
NostradaNUKE ?
:D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
This conversation has descended from fighting to complete nonsense.
LOL! how true
well i dont see anything bad at the 747, she maybe getting old
yes, but she still flies and doing a good job for years!
But this will not stop others to build newer planes like
the A380. The 747 is not the end in Plane Evolution
i guarantee that ;)
And Rude is right, the 747 makes Money,
The A380 not right now, we have to wait and see.
-
Originally posted by Habu
But to go from Chicago to Munich only takes one flight in a 787 as opposed to 3 when using an airbus so even though it hauls less passangers it also does not use any landing spots at New York to London or Paris or Holland as you would have to use in the airbus.
Originally posted by GScholz
Why would the A380 have to land three times?
The statement from Habu is that YOU would have to land three times, not the A380. To take an A380, you have to fly from a hub. To get to or from the hub, you have to fly a different airplane on the spoke. Each landing incurs fees regardless of the airplane type. Incidentally, you are paying for these costs with your ticket purchase and surcharge fees.
MiG
-
Nukes permanent troll mode is getting pretty old...
I suggest you all go to Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/) forums and read some threads there. This has been discussed to death there. The discussion we have here is discussion is full of legends and myths from both sides.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You really think they'll use an A380 for the "spoke" flights?
hub to hub obviously.
Which means when flying fom Pittsburgh US to Orleans FR, you can fly one leg on a 787 or fly a 737 to Newark, 380 to Paris, then a 319 to Orleans. Three airplanes, three landings, three times the amount of hugely expensive beer and stale pizza eaten at the airport, three times the probablility that your baggage ends up in Bangkok.
-
Some times i wish i was luggage.
Think about all the strange and far-away places you get to see. You don't get to spend as much time with your owner as say a chair or a spoon would either.
-
I'm not saying that the 380 is a bad idea. It is as clearly thought out as any business proposal including the 787.
The business forecast that Boeing used says the market for an efficient midsize is better than an efficient hugesize.
With them selling fewer 747-400's and many more 777's in the last decade to Asia told them that people prefer to fly in smaller more convenient flights rather than the travelling model Airbus' used.
The 380 will sell, but whether it, or indeed the 787 will sell enough to payback the investment is up to the market.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Sure, but that requires there are enough people that want to travel from Pittsburgh to Orleans to make the flight profitable.
You should not forget to add "New" in front or Orléans or it will be a transatlantic flight ...
Plus what the Hell (Helvet ;)) would someone from Pittsburgh go to Orléans or vice versa ?
It's certainly the most uninterresting places in our countries.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
This conversation has descended from fighting to complete nonsense
My work here is complete.
;)
-
Airbus has merely provided a tool.
It will be up to the marketing departments of the world's airlines to make this tool a success.
Either they will find a way to use it profitably or not. That is really the only question here.
-
Yep just noticed Holden post were is precised Orléans "FR".
IMO the smartest way to got from Pittsburg to Orléans would be :
A380 to Paris then 20 in a cab and finally 1 hour train.
-
Sorry Straffo, the 380 will most assuredly not fly into Pittsburgh.
And if I do go to 'Old' Orleans, I'm gonna fly not take the friggin train... unless maybe the TGV goes to Orleans.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
In Asia they'll even use the A380 as a local commuter plane.
I was surprised to find that Singapore Airlines used their 747-400 aircraft to make the 1-hour hop from Singapore to Jakarta. I was expecting something smaller, but as SIA has only about 6 destinations within 1000 miles of Singapore, I guess it's not worth having a fleet of tiddlers.
Oh, and on the Monday morning I made that flight, every last seat was filled. My first trip across the equator. :cool:
A380 in Pittsburgh? :D :rofl
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sorry Straffo, the 380 will most assuredly not fly into Pittsburgh.
And if I do go to 'Old' Orleans, I'm gonna fly not take the friggin train... unless maybe the TGV goes to Orleans.
It goes :)
But don't forget France is a lot smaller than the USA plus our railway system is not comparable to yours.
IMO using airplane to got from Paris to Orlean would be a waste of time.
-
Nice to see Americans are so worried about Airbus' future :)
Errr... maybe You're more afraid what will happen to Boeing?
-
Blah blah blah, I hate america, blah blah blah, lack of sunlight has driven me insane. :D
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
The statement from Habu is that YOU would have to land three times, not the A380. To take an A380, you have to fly from a hub. To get to or from the hub, you have to fly a different airplane on the spoke. Each landing incurs fees regardless of the airplane type. Incidentally, you are paying for these costs with your ticket purchase and surcharge fees.
MiG
How about I explain it a simpler way. You purchase a ticket on the airline flying the A380. It flys that plane from New York to London. You live in Chicago and want to go to Munich. That airline has to get you a flight from Chicago to New York first. Pay the crew fuel landing fees airplane cost etc for that seat. You are probably on a smaller less efficient plane. But the airline is incuring lots of costs for those seat miles.
Now you get on the super efficient Airbus and fly to London and that airline has incurred a very expensive landing fee as major hubs cost more to land at, then it has to fly you out of London (another major landing fee to get that plane into London) to Munich. Now the two feeder planes may be smaller but the airline has to pay the costs to get those seats from Chicago to New York and from London to Munich. It costs much more to land at an airport and take off and continue to a destination than it does to overfly it and go to the same destination.
You have baggage handleing costs, infastructure costs, staff costs etc.
Now the Boeing airline loads up once in Chicago and then flys direct to Munich.
You tell me what will cost less per seat mile.
-
when do i get to buy a cheap used 747? I saw one for sale a few months ago for only a million, but it needed work
-
I think we're missing the point here: the A380 is the largest civil airliner.Aside for the AN225, but how many of those are flying?!?!?
the A380 is a radical improvement over all current airlines.
Boein's latest model, the 787, although it has inovative features, is not the biggest, nor the fastest, nor the longest range airliner. It is touted as "20%" more efficient than comparable airlines , but that's pretty vague.
And...it hasn't flown yet.
The A380 is a historic plane marking a new era in transportation. Can you say the same thing about the 787?
I believe the lead in commercial aircraft design has been taken by Airbus.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Sure, but that requires there are enough people that want to travel from Pittsburgh to Orleans to make the flight profitable. It would obviously work on many routes, but I think there will be plenty of passengers that still have to trickle together to a hub and fly out together, even in America. In Asia they'll even use the A380 as a local commuter plane.
The smart airlines with 787's will pick off the lucrative direct routes. If lots of people want to fly from one city to another due to factors like regular oilfield crew changes for example to major petroleum producers you may have a direct flight from Dallas to Jeddah for example. My flights into Nigeria were almost all oilfield crew. They all went through London. Imagine Dallas to Lagos direct.
Lots of Russians living in Toronto. Now you have a direct Moscow Toronto flight. Too small for a 380 put plenty of people for a 787.
Once all these high volume city to city routes are served direct imagine trying to convince someone to fly Toronto to London to Moscow instead of direct.
And with a 380 you may only have enough business for 2 flights a week. In a 787 you can have 4 flights a week. Easier to sell flights with more choice of departure dates than trying to fill one big flight per week.
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
I think we're missing the point here: the A380 is the largest civil airliner.Aside for the AN225, but how many of those are flying?!?!?
the A380 is a radical improvement over all current airlines.
Boein's latest model, the 787, although it has inovative features, is not the biggest, nor the fastest, nor the longest range airliner. It is touted as "20%" more efficient than comparable airlines , but that's pretty vague.
And...it hasn't flown yet.
The A380 is a historic plane marking a new era in transportation. Can you say the same thing about the 787?
I believe the lead in commercial aircraft design has been taken by Airbus.
The 787 has sold more planes than the airbus so far. In airlines 1% more efficient is huge. Really huge. 20% is like winning the Powerball.
-
Originally posted by Habu
How about I explain it a simpler way. You purchase a ticket on the airline flying the A380. It flys that plane from New York to London. You live in Chicago and want to go to Munich. That airline has to get you one a flight from Chicago to New York. Pay the crew fuel landing fees airplane cost etc for that seat. You are probably on a smaller less efficient plane. But the airline is incuring lots of costs for those seat miles.
Now you get on the super efficient Airbus and fly to London and that airline has incurred a very expensive landing fee as major hubs cost more to land at, then it has to fly you out of London (another major landing fee to get that plane into London) to Munich. Now the two feeder planes may be smaller but the airline has to pay the costs to get those seats from Chicago to New York and from London to Munich. It costs much more to land at an airport and take off and continue to a destination than it does to overfly it and go to the same destination.
You have baggage handleing costs, infastructure costs, staff costs etc.
Now the Boeing airline loads up once in Chicago and then flys direct to Munich.
You tell me what will cost less per seat mile.
Scenarios involving America falter when trying to explore the viability of A380, because in America you have such a high concentration of airports and large number of routing permutations, so you need smaller planes and lots of them. It's a different story in SE Asia, where there are relatively few airports, and where the flights serve remote areas involving huge distances. Sorry to keep going back to SIA, but it is a perfectly good example! - their 59 cities served are spread half way around the world and involve five continents!!! The vast majority are more than 1000 miles from home base. That compares with hundreds of cities served by airlines in the USA alone, and many flights will be 500 miles or less.
-
Originally posted by Habu
The 787 has sold more planes than the airbus so far. In airlines 1% more efficient is huge. Really huge. 20% is like winning the Powerball.
overall effieciency will be proven only after the aircraft enters service with the airlines.
until then, it's just numbers.
-
Supposedly "grown up" people fightning over the issue like kids.
An issue which doesn't have anything to do with them at all.
What the hell is wrong with you people... without the air industry and the competition, we'd be still flying DC-3's and the world war II would been fought with biplanes.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
without the air industry and the competition, we'd be still flying DC-3's
remember where you are, some people wouldnt mind that.
-
Of interest, there are still many DC-3s flying around the world. I've read about DC-3s that have been fitted with turboprops so they can better fly in and out of high altitude airports in South America.
I think that's a pretty good sign of some solid engineering.
Edit: Some more info on turboprop DC-3s, including a 3-engine model. http://www.air-and-space.com/conroy.htm
-
Originally posted by VWE
Daring? Boeing isn't being subsidised by the U.S. government either. Were not comparing apples to apples here. Also no major U.S. airline has orderd a single 380 and untill that trend is broken the 380 will not become a success.
Somehow I doubt this. It probably wouldn't take long to find the subsidies but I can't be assed looking, the US market is so heavily subsidised in all sorts of areas you keep getting hauled in front of the WTO for subsidy violations.
If you think the US is a free and open market you must be out of your mind.
-
Profit = sale price less cost of goods sold.
The 380 has huge development costs to cover. It is also made in a hodge podge of places then flown, trucked railed to the final assembly plant in France. Not just small items but things like fuselage sections. Not the most efficient manufacturing model.
I think Boeing is going to make more money.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Not the most efficient manufacturing model.
I'm sure they have carefully calculated what is the best manufacturing model.
So has Boeing.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
It's the exact same manufacturing model that Boeing uses. Nothing is actually made at the huge Boeing plant, only assembled. Is that egg on your face?
So Boeing has to shut down Seattle everytime they truck a 747 fuselage that was made in Germany through town to the plant ?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Btw. it doesn't cost Airbus anything that the authorities have to shut down a town now and then.
Plus no town was shut down in the past and none will be in the future.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Plus no town was shut down in the past and none will be in the future.
(http://english.gfh.org.il/nazi_g6.jpg)
Pardon, Monsouir?
;)
-
errrr ... look like they forgot to bring the fuselage of the A380 with them :)
-
Like fishu, I can't see why this is being argued about, except that I do get a bit peeved when people say A380 can't succeed if it won't appeal to USA based airlines. ^ ;)
My view is that it will work well - for those airlines who have chosen it on the routes where they intend to operate it. When people are about to make a journey of 8000+ miles or 14000km lasting 15 hours, they're not thinking "Now, shall I get the 9am flight or would I be better waiting for the 9:45am flight?"
It's also going to help out here at LHR, where runway slots are saturated. That's why one in eight movements at LHR will be an A380 by 2016, and that does not surprise me in the least. Why send 10 planes to the same city when the job can be done with 5 A380s?
Someone posted the list of airlines who had placed orders, and not surprisingly, those based in Australia and Asia featured prominently. I have no doubt that they have done their market research, and will be able to fill every seat.
So who cares if a USA airline is going to make more money with a 7*7 in an entirely different market, half way around the world? Good luck to 'em. I don't see the need for a "mine is bigger than yours" pissing contest.
-
I agree Beetle. All credit to Airbus, they've put a lot of effort into this aircraft and I'm sure it will be a success. Afterall they build aircraft after a lot of analysis and research into what is required. I think they're a lot more qualified than any of us to say whether it's what people want or not.
Two major factors come into play if you're flying a long distance trip. The price of the ticket and how many stops/time in the air. For the casual passenger most will be willing to sacrifice the latter for a cheaper ticket and I think the A380 can make flights cheaper (in the long run when more of their fleet are equipped with that type aircraft, and also if the airline is willing to take advantage of being able to lower the price of the ticket).
-
Asia-Pacific. That's where the Airbus is going to be a success: high volume of passengers, long distances.
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
Asia-Pacific. That's where the Airbus is going to be a success: high volume of passengers, long distances.
...And people small enough to be put in in thousands.. :)
I like the plane but I hate firms putting those benches so close to eachother so my legs are tightly fit between my bellybutton and next bench. Not very nice...
-
Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
...And people small enough to be put in in thousands.. :)
I like the plane but I hate firms putting those benches so close to eachother so my legs are tightly fit between my bellybutton and next bench. Not very nice...
lay off the sossage and vodka and you will fit just fine! :D
J/K i know what you mean, but in the standard 1. edition of the 380 there will be plenty of room. Its only if they fit the max amount of passengers (tourist style) that it will be cramped.
-
Airlines always stuffs in more benches than in the 'stantard' setup :I
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
lay off the sossage and vodka and you will fit just fine! :D
J/K i know what you mean, but in the standard 1. edition of the 380 there will be plenty of room. Its only if they fit the max amount of passengers (tourist style) that it will be cramped.
RJ85 is quite small, which is used by Blue1(regional jet) but AB320 gives plenty of room for my legs..
at 6´ 1" and 183 pounds im no too big..all muscle ;) (what all..)
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
Asia-Pacific. That's where the Airbus is going to be a success: high volume of passengers, long distances.
Correctamundo. I suspect a great many will be flown between Europe and Australia. Virgin Atlantic, Air France and Lufthansa have orders for 6, 10 and 15 respectively. Qantas has ordered 12. Emirates placed the largest order of all - 43.
Total orders for A380 worlwide stand at 139.
The only American company to place orders has been Federal Express (10).
The bulk of passenger flight service demands within the US will continue to be met by an assortment of tiddlers like the MD80.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The only American company to place orders has been Federal Express (10).
The bulk of passenger flight service demands within the US will continue to be met by an assortment of tiddlers like the MD80.
The UPS has also ordered 10 A380's and options for 10 more.
the US markets will not need a big plane in numbers, maybe for cross continent flights.
However people needs to fly outside of the US too.
Why does everyone talk of the US markets as if it'd be only domestic business?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
the US markets will not need a big plane in numbers, maybe for cross continent flights.
However people needs to fly outside of the US too.
Why does everyone talk of the US markets as if it'd be only domestic business?
It's possible that Virgin Atlantic will want to use their 6 A380s on routes to the US, but I would not have thought that many US airports would want to upgrade to A380 readiness. So far, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Miami are committed to upgrading in order to deal with international traffic, but no way will A380 be used on internal flights between those cities. For one thing, there could be a lot of business users on those flights, and as Mr. Toad has said earlier, it's important for business users to have a choice of times to make their journeys. That means more flights, using smaller planes.
My guess is that Virgin Atlantic will use its A380 on routes like London/Tokyo, Jo'burg in South Africa, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Sydney.
-
Beetle, an interesting issue is what happens in the event of a diversion airfield being required? It'll most likely have to carry a full load of fuel for every flight incase it requires to divert somewhere that can actually fit the aircraft in.
-
AFAIK it can land easily on a 45 m wide runway. It might not be able to use to taxiways but it can land on smaller airports just fine in case of an emergency.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Beetle, an interesting issue is what happens in the event of a diversion airfield being required? It'll most likely have to carry a full load of fuel for every flight incase it requires to divert somewhere that can actually fit the aircraft in.
I would expect that any arifield large enough to take the 747 can take the A380 in an emergency or something. They are just not large enough to properly "dock" adn load/unload passengers the conventional way.
-
Well, that's good news!! :)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I would expect that any arifield large enough to take the 747 can take the A380 in an emergency or something. They are just not large enough to properly "dock" adn load/unload passengers the conventional way.
"JUMP, Monsouir... JUMP!"
*splat*
"Monsouir, you must pull ze ripcord as you disembark ze aircraft!"
-
:rofl
especially the "Monsouir"
I knew it was not a good idea for Air France to hire Mohamad ;)
-
Originally posted by mora
AFAIK it can land easily on a 45 m wide runway. It might not be able to use to taxiways but it can land on smaller airports just fine in case of an emergency.
I saw where a 747 was put down on a 50' wide 4000' long strip in S. Africa. Gear width was about 6' less than than the runway. Probably had more to do with the qualities of the pilot than the aircraft (i've put a C-172 down on a runway only 20' wide - with gear width only 8.3' ;P). What with flight plans requiring fuel for diverting, it should be OK. How wide is the A-380's gear?
-
On a completely unrelated note, I once saw a video of a DC-10 that operated off of a dirt/gravel runway in Africa. Does anyone have a link to that somewhere?
-
did it have special gear?
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/xb36-13.jpg)
or balloon tires?
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/xb36-11.jpg)
how would a C-99 have stood up against an A-380?
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/us/C99CONVA.html
(http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/b36/xc99.jpg)
-
except that I do get a bit peeved when people say A380 can't succeed if it won't appeal to USA based airlines. ^
Do the math, its called volume... the U.S. based carriers do 5 times the daily traffic as all the rest of the worlds airlines combined. The 380 is designed to for just that, volume of passengers.
-
Originally posted by VWE
Do the math, its called volume... the U.S. based carriers do 5 times the daily traffic as all the rest of the worlds airlines combined. The 380 is designed to for just that, volume of passengers.
Do the geography. You may be correct in saying that the US carriers do 5 times the daily traffic as the rest of the world.
But you're overlooking one key factor - the number of destinations. I'll go over it one more time for you. The US has hundreds of cities served by internal flights. Some routes will have several flights a day. This means that there are thousands of flights each day within the US. What your "total volume" logic fails to take into account is that the average number of seats required on each aircraft will be the total volume which you spoke of (5 times the rest of the world according to your post) divided by the total number of flights. That's the reason that your internal flight service depends on lots of little tiddlers like the MD80 - backbone of American Airlines.
Didn't you ever wonder why AA does not run any 747s? Didn't you give any thought to why one country in SE Asia one sixth the size of Rhode Island has an airline whose smallest aircraft is the A340? Do the geography. Keywords: size, range.
Besides, with regard to success of the A380, what does the US market have to do with the price of fish?
-
Personal attack.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
VWE, your logic is flawed.
Give him a break, hes from texas.
-
Originally posted by VWE
I've never said that the 380 would be ideal for flying in the U.S. but that unless Airbus starts selling to U.S. carriers the 380 will not be a finantial success.
I don't see the logic in that statement either. How many need to be sold for it to become a financial success? There are already firm orders for 139 A380 aircraft. And I have also demonstrated that the US represents only a tiny proportion of the destinations served by A380 pioneer, SIA.
Please explain why the A380 needs to be sold to US airlines to be commercially viable.
-
Just in the top 10 airlines of the world U.S. bases airlines daily passenger volume is 446,000 compared with 188,000 for all the rest... who's doing the 1/3 again?
-
Give him a break, hes from Texas
You should not show such obvious envy. If you work really hard maybe someday Finland will become a nation.
-
No, the DC-10 looked stock, that was part of why it was so neat that it was flying out of a gravel strip.
C'mon, anybody?
-
380 took off, flew few hours and landed after that.
Get over it.
-
Originally posted by VWE
Just in the top 10 airlines of the world U.S. bases airlines daily passenger volume is 446,000 compared with 188,000 for all the rest... who's doing the 1/3 again?
Thats once again illogical.
Do you expect only the top 10 airlines to buy A380's?
Mind that the top profit making airline in the USA is Southwest, which does NOT operate big planes at all and is a low fare airline.
In Europe the #1 is Ryanair, which is also a low fare airline and also operates only one plane type.
...let alone the 1/3rd remark :D
Ps. Heathrow alone has ~180,000 passengers a day.
Can't say I'd envy your logic :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Staga
380 took off, flew few hours and landed after that.
Get over it.
This reply just kills me.. I dunno why, but it does.
Mebbe because Langley said pretty much the same thing after hearing about what the Wright Bros. did at Kill Devil Hill.
:rofl
-
I think Chairboy's item is a lot more interesting than the
'A380 sux' vs. 'A380 r0olz'
back & forth...
-
VWE - I'm not sure whose profit you are talking about.
Are you querying whether A380 will make money for the airlines which operate it, or are you sceptical about whether A380 sales will result in a profit for Airbus Industrie?
Which is it?