airbus 380 [Archive] - Page 4 - Off Camber Forums

Ankf00

03-19-07, 10:07 PM

Ank, they flew that thing all the way from Toulouse to LAX??? Maybe so. I know LAX kicked up a massive squawk when they were not part of the original PR flight.
which is why there was a 2nd, empty flight. LAX was late on infrastructure mods, but they'll play one of the biggest domestic hosts to that flying pig.

The flight to Los Angeles International Airport, which landed there a little after 9 a.m. local time, was flown under the colors of another A380 customer, Qantas. But it arrived virtually empty—the plane was so new it didn’t even have seats.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/4213482.html

eiregosod

03-19-07, 10:53 PM

According NBC, airports have spent hundreds of million$ of $ upgrading to support the pig, and no domestic airlines have bought one. Too bad they dint mention that it was slated to be primarily a cargo plane in the US.

-Kevin

the domestic airlines probably couldn't afford them

mapguy

03-20-07, 12:11 AM

the domestic airlines probably couldn't afford them

Domestic airlines don't need them.

dando

03-20-07, 08:19 AM

Domestic airlines don't need them.

US carriers don't fly overseas? :confused:

-Kevin

mapguy

03-20-07, 08:29 AM

US carriers don't fly overseas? :confused:

-Kevin

The 777-300ER & 200LR can fly longer and have a lower fuel burn.

Oh, BTW, the world's 'largest' airlines, British Airways, hasn't bought them either.

JoeBob

03-20-07, 09:41 AM

US carriers don't fly overseas? :confused:

-Kevin

US carriers tend to have numerous international gateways, and thus need planes that can bring fewer people, longer distances.

The A380 really only works when you have a lot of people in one place, at one time wanting to go a long distance. That works for single-hub airlines like Singapore or Emirates. US airlines would rather have multiple smaller flights from a variety of cities with fewer seats. (That goes for most airlines worldwide, at least if 787 sales mean anything.)

TravelGal

03-20-07, 02:17 PM

OK guys, here's the question.

How fast does this puppy go? The only thing TravelGuy wants to know is: Does this crate get me from here to there FASTER than anything else? All the Airbus palaver is only about size and sound, not speed.

Gnam

03-20-07, 02:53 PM

hyperdrive is next. they promise.

SteveH

03-20-07, 03:31 PM

WGN out of Chicago showed this beast landing at O'Hare. Holy cow, its mammoth. The tail is 8 stories high. The wing tips look to extend beyond the edges of the runways. Having flown in an out of O'Hare several times, ground traffic is a real mess. I can't imagine what it will be like to taxi something that requires as much clearance. Certainly it will have a gate at the end of a concourse. It all depends on which airline wants to pay for the special jetways, etc. that it will require. Not every airport can handle its size. Even one of the WGN commentators wondered out loud if all runways can support a plane of this size. Another mentioned that a pilot that has flown it said it doesn't fly like a large plane, he said its handling was very sportscar-like.

It is one impressive machine.

Gangrel

03-20-07, 03:57 PM

It is one impressive machine.

SHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

What are you trying to do? Get drawn and quatered? :D

oddlycalm

03-20-07, 04:01 PM

The only thing TravelGuy wants to know is: Does this crate get me from here to there FASTER than anything else? All the Airbus palaver is only about size and sound, not speed. The heavies are always a bit slower due to separation requirements and ground taxi time and this one is a serious heavy. Not such a big deal as it won't be used for short hops in North America. Air speed won't be anything to brag about in these days of high fuel cost.

oc

RichK

03-20-07, 06:26 PM

The heavies are always a bit slower due to separation requirements and ground taxi time and this one is a serious heavy. Not such a big deal as it won't be used for short hops in North America. Air speed won't be anything to brag about in these days of high fuel cost.

oc

Not to mention boarding time and "de-planing" time with that many passengers & luggage.

Ankf00

03-20-07, 06:33 PM

the wake requires a longer seperation period for trailing aircraft, but supposedly it's so massive that the plane's inertia allowed a ruling stating that its exempt from seperation requirements.

TravelGal

03-20-07, 07:59 PM

OC, I was afraid of that because it was never mentioned. Oh well.

Rich, they've done the "tests" and can get it loaded in 20-35 mintues (depending on the amount of time people spend gaping at the interior of the plane itself). That's because they use two jetways instead of one. One of the many reasons it costs beaucoup bucks to reconfigure the airports.

I noticed the the LAX one landed at the "North Terminal" AKA Siberia for those who have landed there. That makes sense. It's quite a bit out of the way. Big pain though because it means sending little busses out to get the peeps back to the main terminal. And who knows WHERE their luggage goes. :smirk:

Opposite Lock

03-20-07, 10:18 PM

the wake requires a longer seperation period for trailing aircraft, but supposedly it's so massive that the plane's inertia allowed a ruling stating that its exempt from seperation requirements.

so its gravitational pull actually draws the trailing plane close enough to compensate for the lost trailing time?

:brilliant: :thumbup: :)

can it pull lesser planes away from jetways to create more immediate terminal access?

oddlycalm

03-20-07, 10:32 PM

the wake requires a longer seperation period for trailing aircraft, but supposedly it's so massive that the plane's inertia allowed a ruling stating that its exempt from seperation requirements. Makes sense, this lead sled probably wouldn't even quiver if it hit a 747 wake. Hate to be the pilot of a Dash 8 too close behind it though....:eek:

oc

mapguy

03-20-07, 10:39 PM

The heavies are always a bit slower due to separation requirements and ground taxi time and this one is a serious heavy. Not such a big deal as it won't be used for short hops in North America. Air speed won't be anything to brag about in these days of high fuel cost.

oc

Ironically, the fastest commercial jet-liner in service today is the Boeing 747-400.

SteveH

03-20-07, 11:09 PM

SHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

What are you trying to do? Get drawn and quatered? :D

I debated adding that. :D But it is impressive to see anything that massive land and then to see it in relation to ground vehicles. I'm no fan of Airbus, but it does attract attention.

Dirty Sanchez

03-20-07, 11:47 PM

It is one impressive machine.I was out there today for some instruction. pretty cool :thumbup:

SteveH

03-22-07, 01:12 AM

U.S. Airports that can Accommodate the A380
Associated Press WorldStream
via NewsEdge Corporation

WASHINGTON - Only a handful of U.S. airports meet the Federal Aviation Administration's design standards for an aircraft as large as the new Airbus A380 superjumbo jet.

The FAA sets requirements for six categories of aircraft to make sure that airplanes can move efficiently and safely around the airport. Taxiways, for example, must be wide and well lit so a pilot can safely control an airplane along the center line.

follow the link for the list

http://www.airportbusiness.com/online/article.jsp?id=10983&siteSection=4#

oddlycalm

03-22-07, 03:09 PM

Ironically, the fastest commercial jet-liner in service today is the Boeing 747-400. Designed prior to the 1973 oil meltdown and you won't ever ride one going that fast in this era. The era when the airlines actually cruised at 85% of max speed instead of the 55% economy cruise setting used universally today ended more than 25yrs ago. As I recall that added around an hour to a trans con flight and a half hour Chicago to Phoenix.

oc

Andrew Longman

03-22-07, 04:11 PM

Sometimes it seems it is even less than 55%

On certain routes, e.g., EWR to Dallas where AA has an near monopoly, I've noticed the engines idle noticably slower and it can take nearly as long as EWR to Phoenix.

Ankf00

03-22-07, 05:47 PM

F-AA and FDFW.

and if peelo sees this post, O'Gorman made me say it! :gomer: :D

coolhand

03-22-07, 07:05 PM

If I were AA I would be pissed after spending all that money to get DFW going. Then the big mean SWA comes into Love and ignores what all other airlines agreed to when they moved to DFW

Ankf00

03-22-07, 09:48 PM

If I were AA I would be pissed after spending all that money to get DFW going. Then the big mean SWA comes into Love and ignores what all other airlines agreed to when they moved to DFW

DFW was built on the backs of Dallas County taxpayers as a blatant giveaway by Jim Wright to Tarrant County and AA. Dallas County taxpayers keep funneling their money to DFW which in turn keeps filling Tarrant County coffers.

AA runs a monopoly out of DFW and it's evident every time SWA begins new service out of Love (eg StL, KC, MO) AA drops their fares $200.

The "compromise" was a load of horse **** since Alliance was all freight anyway and most of that was moving to Amon Carter, the bulk of passenger service was on the other side of the metroplex.

ferrarigod

03-23-07, 01:10 AM

The A380 can fly into Anchorage International Airport. At least we know now that we can buy Wilke a clue and be able to transport to him efficiently. It'll most probably have to be a big clue, so its good they have access.

whale jet:thumdown:

chop456

04-12-07, 12:10 PM

Outrage at Forgeard's $11M Severance Package (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003663043_eadspay12.html) :laugh:

Ankf00

04-12-07, 01:46 PM

only 11M? man, he negotiated one crappy contract :laugh:

Wheel-Nut

04-12-07, 01:56 PM

Are the 380's in service yet? I saw a very large KLM fly over my house the other day. Looked to be larger than a 747.

cameraman

04-12-07, 02:24 PM

A330s not 380s

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/image3323.html

If it had 4 engines it was a 747-400 or -400er
They also fly 777-200s

indyfan31

04-12-07, 03:28 PM

Outrage at Forgeard's $11M Severance Package (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003663043_eadspay12.html) :laugh:

So THAT's what happens when you mix Socialism and Capitalism. :laugh:

Wheel-Nut

04-12-07, 03:36 PM

A330s not 380s

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/image3323.html

If it had 4 engines it was a 747-400 or -400er
They also fly 777-200s

2 engines and didn't have the 747 hump.

TorontoWorker

04-12-07, 04:25 PM

A330s not 380s

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/image3323.html

If it had 4 engines it was a 747-400 or -400er
They also fly 777-200s

Most likely an A348

TorontoWorker

04-12-07, 05:03 PM

the wake requires a longer seperation period for trailing aircraft, but supposedly it's so massive that the plane's inertia allowed a ruling stating that its exempt from seperation requirements.

Inertia? You mean political inertia?? Not true as far as exemptions anyway:

"The Steering Group comprised representatives from the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), Eurocontrol, US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Airbus. The study has demonstrated that en route the A380 is very similar to the Boeing 747. In cruise and when flying in a "holding pattern", the A380 is considered to be identical to any other aircraft, both for vertical and horizontal spacing between it and any following aircraft."

Note the word "similar". Closer to the ground you'll find that size DOES matter. I'll bet 1 NM from touchdown the numbers are NOT similar - they are on the highside of a model 400. Wake issues are always stronger near the ground as the the flow is affected from objects on the ground such as trees, buildings etc. Now the study didn't say which model of a 747 they are targeting. I believe Airbus will haul out the data that compares with the as yet unflown 800 model and it is this aircraft that *may* be "similar" above 5000AGL. Below this level we'll hear a few years from now about all sorts of issues of light planes flying VFR in class G airspace landing at uncontrolled airports under a major's flight path getting flipped around.

Yikes! (Thinking now what will happen at the Brampton Flying Club)
Duck!

cameraman

04-12-07, 07:43 PM

Most likely an A348

KLM does not own any of the airbus 340 series.

KLM flies five "big" aircraft

747-406M
747-400ER
MD-11
777-206
A330-203

TorontoWorker

04-12-07, 10:40 PM

KLM does not own any of the airbus 340 series.

KLM flies five "big" aircraft

747-406M
747-400ER
MD-11
777-206
A330-203

Thats just the former KLM fleet. Under the new group - KLM-AIR France I have heard that they are moving people and equipment around. Air France has 19 A343's right now - 4 of which are out on wet leases to travel groups under different names. Is it possible that a few of the A343's might have been transfered? Who knows? The only four engine aircraft on record he could be talking about would be the 747.

FYI: I note that the Paris to Montreal route has an A380 listed. That should be interesting as it will come in over the city (instead of the now closed Mirabel airport) landing at Trudeau (YUL). I'll have to find out when it's first landing is and pay a visit with my camera.

TorontoWorker

04-13-07, 04:36 PM

Just went over 500 orders without a plane in the air yet.

Full list 787 orders_so far...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_orders

157 and lucky if they hold that number...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380

ferrarigod

04-13-07, 07:04 PM

787 got those 60 unknown orders yesterday(or whatever) and I'm very interested to know where from.

Lot's of talk about Delta and getting rid their crappy 762's and 763's(although the ability to do bankruptcy ordering is argued). A.A. is also being rumored to help with their crappy 757's.

Also lots of talk of up to 700 orders by rollout, looks like 600 will be easy.

oddlycalm

04-13-07, 08:12 PM

787 got those 60 unknown orders yesterday(or whatever) and I'm very interested to know where from. Probably a leasing company, which is what Delta will probably end up doing.

oc

TorontoWorker

04-13-07, 09:53 PM

Probably a leasing company, which is what Delta will probably end up doing.

ILFC?

coolhand

04-13-07, 10:02 PM

Just went over 500 orders without a plane in the air yet.

Full list 787 orders_so far...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_orders

I don't see United and AA on there, they will eventually order it too. the Future looks bright.

TorontoWorker

04-14-07, 01:06 AM

Ï'll show that guy in 14C what that brown bag is for!

oddlycalm

04-14-07, 06:40 PM

ILFC? I don't have any specific information, just a guess because of the large number. ILFC's customer are mostly overseas carriers but given the financial condition of most US carriers we might see their lenders force them to look at leasing going forward.

oc

Ankf00

04-14-07, 07:17 PM

mapguy

04-16-07, 07:36 AM

.

..

ferrarigod

04-16-07, 08:35 PM

I don't see United and AA on there, they will eventually order it too. the Future looks bright.

AA looks like the UFO for the 30 787 orders last week.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=8595

People are talking about how it would be hard to keep the brushed aluminum look with the composite 787 :) I'm gonna go ahead and say they should use the chrome thin paint that McLaren uses on the F1 car.

Would be Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet.

coolhand

04-16-07, 10:36 PM

People are talking about how it would be hard to keep the brushed aluminum look with the composite 787 :) I'm gonna go ahead and say they should use the chrome thin paint that McLaren uses on the F1 car.

haha I did not think about that.

ferrarigod

04-18-07, 04:04 PM

BMW to design interior of 787 for one of the BBJ's owned Russian Oil Tycoon:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/17/213328/pictures-bmw-presents-bond-style-787-cabin-concept-for-russian.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=17289

HOT. Love the carport underneath!

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/6041/bananalamaka7.gif

coolhand

04-18-07, 06:52 PM

you can fit a car on one half of the 787 like that? Is it a wider body then current planes?

cameraman

04-18-07, 07:18 PM

I'm thinking they used a little artistic license...

nrc

04-18-07, 09:15 PM

HOT. Love the carport underneath!

As long as someone doesn't get drunk at the bar and decide to go for a drive. :eek:

ferrarigod

04-18-07, 10:26 PM

I'm thinking they used a little artistic license...

If you follow the link you'll see that the way it is set up, it probably could actually take a car like that. The 787 is a widebody like the 767 and if you removed some of the floor and the overhead bins you could easily get 2 levels and at points 1 level with a garage underneat. Obviously it wouldn't be 10 feet tall and you could probably only fit a small car like a BMW/Porsche/Ferrari/Lambo, it is for sure possible.

The way you would get it in there would be interesting, b/c I don't know what kind of door this will have on it to swing open that far to allow car access. Haven't heard or seen of any 787 cargo doors yet. Maybe the tail swings when they built the Cargo version and can adapt to the BBJ, but I doubt it.

ferrarigod

04-18-07, 10:29 PM

Cabin width on the 787 18 ft 9in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787

JoeBob

04-18-07, 11:25 PM

That's the width a little more than 4 feet above the floor. It would be significantly more narrow down below.

Ankf00

04-19-07, 12:09 AM

As long as someone doesn't get drunk at the bar and decide to go for a drive. :eek:

why not? just be sure to wear the requisite parachute and you're good to go :D

coolhand

04-19-07, 04:37 AM

If you can afford a private 787 why the hell would you fly a BBBMMMMWWW around? You could probably afford to rent a 5 series on the other end.

Maybe hauling a vintage Rolls or a Duesenburg around makes sense.

Turn7

04-19-07, 12:46 PM

armored.

ferrarigod

04-19-07, 05:17 PM

That's the width a little more than 4 feet above the floor. It would be significantly more narrow down below.

Seems to me there is only about 4-5 feet to the left of the BMW in that photo. Its probably against the wall in the artist rendering, and doesn't have too much room on the other side.

It's very possible.

TorontoWorker

04-20-07, 04:58 PM

I'd put a ramp in the after area of the second baggage hold for the car to drive up and down on. Think of the after door for the 727 only wider and a more shallow angle. Any exotic would fit height wise.

I question if it really is for a Russian billionaire as I don't see any plans showing where the bath filled with champagne is, nor the mirrored ceilings in the bedroom with the round bed and golden lame`wallpaper? :laugh:

TorontoWorker

04-24-07, 10:08 PM

Somewhere in France this is leaving a mark...

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/allaboutus/pressoffice/pressreleases/news/pr240407a.jsp

Andrew Longman

04-24-07, 10:49 PM

What's the over/under on how many pages/the latest date for the last post on this thread.

this may be OC finest thread. :thumbup:

oddlycalm

04-24-07, 11:07 PM

What's the over/under on how many pages/the latest date for the last post on this thread. No way to say. Through the magic of socialism this turd could be circling the drain for a very long time all the while providing entertainment for us and huge orders for Boeing...:gomer:

oc

ferrarigod

04-25-07, 12:18 AM

Somewhere in France this is leaving a mark...

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/allaboutus/pressoffice/pressreleases/news/pr240407a.jsp

Was gonna post that earlier, but didn't. Air Canada also up'd to 37 firm orders.

:thumbup:

coolhand

04-25-07, 01:22 AM

Will this replace Virgin's smaller A340s? should be hell of a lot cheaper

ferrarigod

04-25-07, 02:09 AM

Will this replace Virgin's smaller A340s? should be hell of a lot cheaper

Virgin got sold a bill of goods with those A340's and I'm sure they are still a little pizzeled about that. South African did as well. SA was told the A346 would be able to make the ATL-Joburg flight non-stop, something the 744 can't do without a stiff wind. Well guess what, even with a good tail wind in the good direction, it can't even come close. At least teh A346 looks better with the big engines than the hairdryers on the A343's and what not.

Viva Boeing.

coolhand

04-25-07, 02:44 AM

what other planes can make that jump? 777 LRs?

ferrarigod

04-25-07, 02:57 AM

what other planes can make that jump? 777 LRs?

200LR can, I'm pretty sure, but there aren't enough of those out yet.

The 300's are too long and even with extra fuel just can't make it. Even the 300ER isn't good enough. The 747-8i only has a NM range of 8000, so I believe it can make it, but I don't think it would have the required reserves left.

There are some great stories back with the A346 that South Africa flies out of ATL. They are often known in the past for not starting the engines of the plan, and literally towing it to the runway and starting them up there. I believe they might have done it a few times when the prevailing winds were against them with the 747 as well.

Last summer I had a friend on the ATL-JNB SA A346 and she said they were not towed, as far as she could tell(but thats not saying much, she's not so bright)

:D

ferrarigod

04-25-07, 03:07 AM

Ok, ATL-JNB is 7334nm. So yea, the 744's could have maybe made it one way with winds as I said. The 748i for sure can make it, even with required reserves. The 777-200LR's can easily make it. The A346HWG can make it when pulled to the tarmac, but generally will have to stop b/c of reserves needed.

The 772ER has a similar range, but with substantially less seats. But costs per passenger are also lower. The cargo capacity on the extended A346 does make a lot more sense than the 744.

But SAA was stupid to trade in all of the 744's for cargo room. They should have kept the Boeings and waited for the 773LR, gotten same seats, better range lower maintence costs and lower costs per passenger.

Something else I find especially interesting, and its just seems weird, but ATL-JNB is actually a longer flight than JFK-JNB, by about 1000nm. Which is just weird to think about when you think that JFK is north of ATL, but its the way it covers the spherical shape of the earth that actually makes it closer. You get to cut some out with the JFK flight, but the ATL-JNB almost has to be straight on, so you have to cover the complete curvature with no shortcutting.

I'm a loser, I'm aware, but its the little things in life. At least thats what myself as a loser says.

Gnam

04-25-07, 11:58 AM

Virgin Atlantic will choose an engine manufacturer, either Rolls Royce or General Electric, for the aircraft (Boeing 787-9) in due course.
I didn't know the customer had a choice of engines. You'd think Boeing would be the one making the decision.

oddlycalm

04-25-07, 02:08 PM

I didn't know the customer had a choice of engines. You'd think Boeing would be the one making the decision. To be accurate Boeing is an airframe mfg. and systems integrator. It's their job to build the airframe and integrate all the systems the customer wants. Aside from the basic airframe the customer decides on every component on the order. Everything from engines and avionics to tires, seats and cabin layout. In the past there have also been engine sub-options as well such as fuel delivery systems, reverse thrusters, etc.

A customer that operates all GE engines is unlikely to also want to keep a 2nd parts stock for Pratts at all it's maintenance hangers. They may not even have any personnel that are certified to work on the Pratts.

This goes for the military as well. When the Navy bought some F5's for Top Gun when it was at Miramar they didn't have a single person in the entire Navy certified to work on the GE engines which meant that the A&P's that got trained and certified on the GE J85 never had to serve on boats (carriers) and never got transferred and were stuck on the beach in San Diego for the duration as opposed to rotating to sea duty with their unit.

oc

Wheel-Nut

04-25-07, 02:09 PM

ATL-JNB, is that a highly traveled route?

Racing Truth

04-25-07, 02:36 PM

What's the over/under on how many pages/the latest date for the last post on this thread.

this may be OC finest thread. :thumbup:

Pfffft. Ridiculous assertion.:shakehead

THIS Thread (http://offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10069&highlight=Spring+Cleaning) is our finest.:D :thumbup:

ferrarigod

04-25-07, 02:47 PM

ATL-JNB, is that a highly traveled route?

Not really, its just a lie that Airbus fabricated and that is what makes it interesting. JFK-JNB is much more travelled. Just the way that Virgin/SAA got screwed I find funny.

:gomer:

TravelGal

04-25-07, 05:22 PM

Not really, its just a lie that Airbus fabricated and that is what makes it interesting. JFK-JNB is much more travelled. Just the way that Virgin/SAA got screwed I find funny.

:gomer:

Which is why SAA dropped the ATL/JNB route in favor of IAD.

ferrarigod

04-25-07, 07:47 PM

Which is why SAA dropped the ATL/JNB route in favor of IAD.

I'm 99% sure those have to stop on the same island as before, or in Senegal for fuel.

ferrarigod

04-25-07, 09:19 PM

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q2/070425b_pr.html

The 787 Dreamliner is the fastest-selling airplane in aviation history, with firm orders for 544 airplanes from 44 airlines.

I don't know why Boeing doesn't include Air Canada's 23 firms they upted to yesterday, but they didn't. Still amazing. Kool pic though.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/photorelease/q2/K64024-0_lg.jpg

coolhand

05-09-07, 12:20 AM

http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news_business.php?id=260749

Emirates is buying more

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/dailypost/business/tm_headline=airbus-predicts-move-into-profit&method=full&objectid=19041328&siteid=50142-name_page.html
Airbus predicts move into profit

Andrew Longman

05-09-07, 09:28 AM

Pfffft. Ridiculous assertion.:shakehead

THIS Thread (http://offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10069&highlight=Spring+Cleaning) is our finest.:D :thumbup:

Tough call.

05-09-07, 12:20 PM

Pfffft. Ridiculous assertion.:shakehead

THIS Thread (http://offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10069&highlight=Spring+Cleaning) is our finest.I am SO proud of myself that I have not looked at the "shrimp".:laugh:

TravelGal

05-09-07, 02:38 PM

I'm 99% sure those have to stop on the same island as before, or in Senegal for fuel.

You're 100% right. I guess I was replying to something different I thought I saw. :\

Either Dakar or Tenerife, usually, although as I said, the ATL/JNB route has been abandoned. They have landing rights in quite a few US cities and can never seem to make up their mind which one they want to use. Changing alliances (Sky Team/One World/Star) has not helped. You can tell I can't remember which one they are in now. LOL.

oddlycalm

05-09-07, 03:06 PM

Airbus predicts move into profit The question that remains is when. One thing for certain is that governments led by Sarkozy and Merkel will be quite different from those EADS is accustomed to dealing with.

Long term I imagine the Airbus mess will get sorted out but it's going to take some time and fundamental changes will have to be made. Until that happens we can continue to make sport of their self-induced misfortune...:laugh:
oc

SteveH

05-10-07, 12:14 PM

Great analysis (http://www.airportbusiness.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=3&id=11963)of Airbus' problems

While Airbus holds a strong position in this market with the A330, that 250/300-seat product is quickly being overtaken by Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner. Airbus' other midmarket product, the A340 series, has been plagued by higher operating costs relative to its competitor, the 777, and has suffered on the market.

Development of the A350 cannot proceed at a leisurely pace. Demand for aircraft in this class has been extremely strong over the past five years, as evidenced by 500 up-front 787 orders and a record 777 backlog. In fact, there have been 1,500 orders for aircraft in this class since the A380 was launched in 2001. By contrast, after February's UPS cancellation, the A380 order book totals just 156 aircraft.

coolhand

05-10-07, 02:20 PM

Long term I imagine the Airbus mess will get sorted out but it's going to take some time and fundamental changes will have to be made. Until that happens we can continue to make sport of their self-induced misfortune...:laugh:
oc

It will have to look like a real cooperation to reach that point, not some multi-national flag waving exercise and social project.

oddlycalm

05-10-07, 05:31 PM

It will have to look like a real cooperation to reach that point, not some multi-national flag waving exercise and social project. That goes without saying given the Merkel and Sarkozy governments are both center/right. If they have the will to unwind the silly structure at EADS and bring in a strong management team the situation is certainly not beyond salvaging. They may consider it a necessary casualty, but the fallout from such a massive failure would be epic and politically very uncomfortable.

To put it another way, I've seen Boeing in worse situations. The saying around here is "the last person to leave Seattle has to turn off the lights." That saying wasn't much of an exaggeration on multiple occasions over the decades and yet here is Boeing today healthier than ever.

oc

BZSetshot

05-22-07, 09:44 AM

Not 380 specific but related in a way:

The first Boeing Co. 787 Dreamliner takes shape in the assembly plant in Everett, Wash., Monday, May 21, 2007. The new commercial airplane is assembled with major components produced worldwide with final assembly in this plant.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/6e7da959-edd4-4f1c-90d6-7592937ae5cd_ms.jpeg

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/wireStory?id=3199026

KLang

05-22-07, 11:00 AM

Dreamlifter, nasty looking plane. :yuck:

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=15819

Good article in the current issue of Air & Space magazine about the company in Italy that is manufacturing some of the fuselage sections.

I'm not familiar with the history of how it came about that the pieces of the 787 are being manufactured in so many places around the world and then assembled here. I assume it was a political decision?

05-22-07, 11:56 AM

Dreamlifter, nasty looking plane. :yuck:

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=15819
http://s107.photobucket.com/albums/m313/elisson1/Miscellaneous/Gasper.jpg

ferrarigod

05-22-07, 12:40 PM

I think the Dreamlifter looks strange, but still better than the retarded whale the A380 was based on.

Here are some more pix and a video from the Boeing floor:
http://flightblogger.blogspot.com/

cameraman

05-22-07, 12:47 PM

Dreamlifter, nasty looking plane. :yuck:

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=15819

Looks utilitarian to be sure, but I don't see it as nasty.

Pretty impressive that it flies actually.

Andrew Longman

05-22-07, 02:06 PM

Dreamlifter, nasty looking plane. :yuck:

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=15819

I'm not familiar with the history of how it came about that the pieces of the 787 are being manufactured in so many places around the world and then assembled here. I assume it was a political decision?

Looks like a plump tick.

And yes, spreading production around the globe greases the markets to buy the product.

KLang

05-22-07, 02:37 PM

Pretty impressive that it flies actually.

I've always been amazed that this combination flies:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/STS-Ferry/Small/EC98-44740-1.jpg

oddlycalm

05-22-07, 03:25 PM

I'm not familiar with the history of how it came about that the pieces of the 787 are being manufactured in so many places around the world and then assembled here. I assume it was a political decision? No question that it makes good political sense but that's not why they did it. The process actually saves Boeing a fortune in capital expense and labor overhead expenses (pension & healthcare).

With 11 axis tape layers and channel laminators costing north of $12 million each, and with many dozens required, Boeing is saving hundreds of millions in capital expenditure. Giant autoclaves aren't cheap either nor is the building space to install them. The pre-wired and fitted out "snap together" assembly allows them to roll out a complete airplane every 4 days. This translates into millions of square feet of floor space they don't have to build and a large workforce they don't have to hire as they no longer need to have 20 planes in assembly at the same time. It no longer takes many weeks to assemble a plane but rather days.

This process also allows Boeing the flexibility to add a 2nd line with relative ease which turned out to be important in this case due to demand.

It also force them to limit options such as engines. For the 787 the choices are GE and Rolls Royce only. Pratt misses this round entirely. Many previously optional systems are now standard. Hamilton Standard is the only choice for APU's (turbine engined generators for use on the ground) and power management, Thales is supplying power conversion and in-flight entertainment, Honeywell and Rockwell-Collins will supply controls, guidance and avionics systems.

The obvious downside of this type of operation is that Boeing has, for the first time, allowed others in on the secrets and tooling of it's wing design. Probably not as important as it once was however, as few companies (or governments for that matter) have the resources to take advantage of this information, and even if they do it would be a generation old by the time they were able to do anything with it.

oc