The remarkable airplane that failed.

[JimmyC]

I happened to be on the inaugural flight singapore to London
It was quite a surprise.
My wife and kids and I flew from New Zealand and changed planes in Singapore and when we got to our gate we where given champagne..a band was playing..t v crews and reporters..a breakfast buffet..loads of gifts etc..was a right laugh..we had no idea.
My mrs was interviewed in flight by the BBC and all our friends and family knew we where home because we where on the news..
Was a great flight..I tucked in to as much complimentary booze as possible to make the second leg of our 24th journey more bearable.

[CavPuke]

Coming? Going? It doesnt matter. Were not talking safety here were talking about the slow down of airport operations. And you well know airports hate that cause it cuts their revenue. Some things they have no control of, like weather and such. Other things they do have control over, like not servicing super Jumbos which cut into revenue more they they generate. There is only one super Jumbo and its in a world of trouble.

A great achievement? Yes. But there are reasons why not just airlines dont want it. Airports dont either.

I beg to differ, IAD, MIA, BOS, DFW, IAH, LAX, SFO, ATL, and JFK have all made the necessary infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the A380 and I would bet DEN, EWR, and ORD aren't far behind. These are pretty much the major airports of the U.S. I think your argument that the airports don't want this a/c isn't valid, otherwise why would any airport authority undertake the financial burden to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the A380 unless they felt it was worth the expense.

Also the AN-225 is classified as a Super Heavy.

I'm not disputing your basic premise that the A380 is failure, but your assertion that it has had a detrimental effect on airport operations just isn't the case.

[flight17]

I beg to differ, IAD, MIA, BOS, DFW, IAH, LAX, SFO, ATL, and JFK have all made the necessary infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the A380 and I would bet DEN, EWR, and ORD aren't far behind. These are pretty much the major airports of the U.S. I think your argument that the airports don't want this a/c isn't valid, otherwise why would any airport authority undertake the financial burden to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the A380 unless they felt it was worth the expense.

Also the AN-225 is classified as a Super Heavy.

I'm not disputing your basic premise that the A380 is failure, but your assertion that it has had a detrimental effect on airport operations just isn't the case.

First, the call sign is "super" not "super heavy". Secondly, the only aircraft that is a "super" is the A380 as the term was made specifically for it by the ICAO. The AN-225 is only a heavy and was flying nearly 20 years before the A380. Remember, these terms are for wake turbulence avoidance reasons, not necessarily because of weight. Above 300,000lbs MTOW, everything is a heavy except for the A380. There is only one exception to this rule and that is the 757, even after they bumped the weight threshold from 255k to 300K for heavies, they still treat all 757's as if they are a heavy due to the severe wakes these planes make.

As for operations, even the A380 ready airports still face operational issues the A380 Imposes that others don't. Any plane taking off behind an A380 has an even longer wait time then a heavy and it can not be waved. Some airports have to close taxiways to other traffic while the A380 is taxiing on a parallel taxiway due to reduced clearances between them.

Also, just a few days ago was the 10th Anniversary of the first A380 revenue flight!

[Rich46yo]

Read it all. In a nut shell http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/business/oversize-expectations-for-the-airbus-a380.html

Dude how many of those airports have spent money in order to support the A380 specifically? Like None? If a major hub can support a 747 and can run two air bridges together, and all can, then it can support an A380. Ohare, the busiest in the world, doesnt want them and CAN support them. I can tell you that much. Its not like they spent 25 b on developing an airplane with the hope major Hubs will then build the "supporting infrastructure" to support them. Thats insane.

Can you imagine that? Spending 25 b developing a passenger plane with the hope that Hubs around the world will get giddy from watching promotional videos and will then widen runways and put in air bridges, watching the sky like goose hunters on a blue bird day. That entire notion is insane. The plane was built because the Hubs already existed!

I beg to differ, IAD, MIA, BOS, DFW, IAH, LAX, SFO, ATL, and JFK have all made the necessary infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the A380 and I would bet DEN, EWR, and ORD aren't far behind. These are pretty much the major airports of the U.S. I think your argument that the airports don't want this a/c isn't valid, otherwise why would any airport authority undertake the financial burden to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the A380 unless they felt it was worth the expense.

Also the AN-225 is classified as a Super Heavy.

I'm not disputing your basic premise that the A380 is failure, but your assertion that it has had a detrimental effect on airport operations just isn't the case.

[flight17]

It's when you say blatantly false things like that I start thinking you're not entirely sincere. At least 17 airlines have ordered the A380.

(Image removed from quote.)

Of the 19 customers who have ordered the plane, 1 has had their order canceled by Airbus (Skymark) and 4 others will never take delivery: Amedeo (leasing company who has already been switching delivery positions with Emirates as they can not find anyone to lease them), Air Austral, Virgin Atlantic (will be standardizing on 787 nor can they afford them anymore), the unidentified is Hong Kong Airlines who canceled their order and Transaero is still out to be decided.

[PR3D4TOR]

In any case A380 production is sold out until 2017, so Airbus and the airline industry have two years to figure things out. Time will tell.

[Rich46yo]

In any case A380 production is sold out until 2017, so Airbus and the airline industry have two years to figure things out. Time will tell.

Only one airline is backing the airplane. Even the maker is suggesting the line will be stopped in a few years, "no doubt testing the impact on share prices". Its no secret AB basically gave away A380s at no profit to make it to 2017, giving the A350 to acquire a share of the market. Since AB is a very good airplane maker I have no doubt the A350 will be a success, or at least profitable. After guessing wrong they took 4 years to guess right and make a competitor to the 787 and 777.

Do you think its just chance that the President of AB suggested stopping A380 production in 2018, the very same year it will take to vamp A350 production to full levels? Hell of a coincidence aint it? In a nutshell this explains it was the philosophy behind the A380 that failed and not the airplane itself. http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2014/12/11/airbus-a380-vs-boeing-787-revisited/

Boeing doesn’t take the current hub-and-spoke model as a given. Marty Bentrott, vice president of sales, marketing and in-service support for the 787, says that since 1990, the number of city pairs more than 3,000 nautical miles apart served by the world’s airlines have doubled, the number of frequencies offered by the airlines have doubled, and the number of available seat-kilometers (seating capacity times miles flown) have doubled. None of these trends show any signs of abating; meanwhile, the average airplane size has actually declined slightly. Clearly, customers prefer more point-to-point flights, flown more frequently, on smaller airplanes.

[PR3D4TOR]

The president of Airbus did no such thing. It was their chief financial officer at a shareholder's meeting. And he said that they would have to offer new engines to make the A380 more attractive or discontinue the program. The president responded to the reactions by stating they had no intention to stop making the A380, saying the super jumbo had a "bright future" despite a lack of orders this year.

Again, I find your "facts" lacking. Your opinions are clear however.

Time will tell.

[PR3D4TOR]

And just for your information regardless of what the Boeing marketing department wants you to believe, the B787 was not a new concept by Boeing. It's an answer to the A330. It's a ping-pong match between manufacturers. Interestingly enough the A330 is still selling well despite being almost two decades older than the competition.

[Rich46yo]

And just for your information regardless of what the Boeing marketing department wants you to believe, the B787 was not a new concept by Boeing. It's an answer to the A330. It's a ping-pong match between manufacturers. Interestingly enough the A330 is still selling well despite being almost two decades older than the competition.

(Image removed from quote.)

You use a picture to support an opinion?
I mean a drawing. Well I guess a simple argument is the best kind.

[PR3D4TOR]

No, it's an illustration of an A330NEO. Delta Airlines became the first buyer of this updated A330 in November last year.

I don't get what I need to support? The specifications of the two aircraft are nearly identical. Range, empty weight, loaded weight, number of PAX. The 787 is a little bit better at everything than the old A330-200 from the mid-1990s thanks to new materials and engines. They designed it to beat the A330. The A350 is the A330's replacement with newer materials and construction techniques. If you don't take my word for it check out the specs yourself. The internet is at your fingertips.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/12/03/how-will-the-new-airbus-a330neo-impact-boeing/

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2014/07/airbus-unleashes-the-a330neo-to-hound-boeings-787.html?page=all

[earl1937]

Yet you made a seemingly authoritative six paragraph first post and continue to argue on the economics and market for the A380. (Image removed from quote.)

I made a post some time back about when is big, big enough! Can't find it now, but doesn't matter, as the one thing we don't have access to is the long range forecast by the airlines on what they are needing, 10 to 15 years from now.
Someone made a good point of how much the 380 affected local airport traffic and parking spaces.
I remember when the "stretch' DC-8 and the Boeing 747 hit the Atlanta "Hartsfield" airport, what a mess for a while, until they figured out how to handle a bus mixing with VW's. It was interesting to say the least for a few weeks.
Oh, for the days of "Southern" DC-3's, Martin 404's, and the love of my life, the DC-6B! 

[PR3D4TOR]

Qatar Airways unveils its Airbus A380 luxury first class cabin

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/travel/video-1125919/Qatar-Airways-unveils-Airbus-A380-luxury-class-cabin.html

[Ripsnort]

There is so much I want to say in this thread since I am directly connected to the 787 program managing office but I cannot until I retire...otherwise I could end up in deep do do regarding proprietary and limited only information I would have to disclose to give facts, data and MY opinion.

Now..regarding airburst...how many A380s have sold to commercial airlines (not rent-a-plane companies) since Jan 2014? Assignment die in two hours.

Boeing had a better vision of the Airlines future model regarding pax and long haul

[PR3D4TOR]

Boeing's grand vision of making a better A330-200?