View Full Version : A380: up, up, and away
Well, frogs managed to get it off the ground:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050427/D89NOUG80.html
-Kevin
Wheel-Nut
04-27-05, 04:23 PM
The 380 gets off the ground but Air Canada and Air India both put their money in Boeing.
I wonder if the worlds airlines look at the 380 and say, "hey, its a great plane but I want a 777.
devilmaster
04-27-05, 04:40 PM
The 380 gets off the ground but Air Canada and Air India both put their money in Boeing.
I wonder if the worlds airlines look at the 380 and say, "hey, its a great plane but I want a 777.
I wouldn't be surprised (ok maybe i would be) if Air Canada actually asked what their pilots thought of Airbus. I know a friend of a friend who knows a couple air canada pilots who have never really warmed up to the 320... which was the mid-range workhorse for AC back in the 90s.
Steve
I saw where Boeing was looking at updating the engines on the 747. I wonder how much the operating costs will compare once that's done. In spite of all the "biggest" hoopla I don't imagine there will be a lot of routes where absolute capacity will be the deciding factor.
Joelski
04-27-05, 06:42 PM
Ugly. Fookin' horrible! The crapwagon of the skies (even though that's already fairly common). Maybe they can put resonators on the thrust ports to complete the farting bee/travesty of design package.
it's no coincidence that as soon as Airbus started pushing the 350 and revealing to airlines what it was really made out of that Air Canada and Air India put forrth orders for the 787. fuel savings, more comfort... and Boeing's working on pushing the composite technologies on to the 737, and THAT'S where they're going to kill.
Air Canada's supposedly trading in it's a330/340 fleet to Boeing as part of this 777/787 deal, and Northwest is talking to Boeing about arranging the same thing, which would be hilarious because NW has the largest airbus fleet in the US for quite some time and were looking to become an all airbus fleet previously.
can you say, pwn3d? I can :D
Rogue Leader
04-28-05, 12:14 AM
I hate to say it but having traveled many times in the past few years on a plane I dont see much of a need for a plane of this capacity... They just plain arent going to fill it...
Forza Lancia
04-28-05, 11:24 AM
The 380 gets off the ground but Air Canada and Air India both put their money in Boeing.
I wonder if the worlds airlines look at the 380 and say, "hey, its a great plane but I want a 777.
From the article:
"So far, Airbus has booked 154 orders for the A380..."
Just to keep the record straight.
that's cuz they're hoping it will rock the asian market, but it won't, china's the key here, they opened up more gates and more flights defeating the purpose of this cattle car, and china's planning to open even more, A380's been for sale for 10 years, 787 for 1, we'll see who wins ;)
eiregosod
04-29-05, 12:18 AM
I reckon it could reduce the cost of tansatlantic flights.
i can fly to any major european city for €100 return, if i book early enough.
a plane like this would mean it'll be a lot cheaper to go trans atlantic or even tans-continental.
From the article:
"So far, Airbus has booked 154 orders for the A380..."
Just to keep the record straight.
Including options. Big whoop. The A380 was announced ten years ago.
Oh, BTW. Singapore Airlines has delayed their delivery of the Belugas. Do they, and Richard Branson, know something that we don't?
I reckon it could reduce the cost of tansatlantic flights.
What transatlantic flights? Heathrow to where? Boston? Nope, Logan ain't got the room. New York? I haven't heard of any plans to adapt JFK to hold this thing. Atlanta has already stated that they aren't going to spend the millions of dollars it will take. The only airports in North America that I have heard of doing (or planning on) the work needed are ORD, LAX and YVR.
ilferrari
04-29-05, 05:23 AM
The 380 gets off the ground but Air Canada and Air India both put their money in Boeing.
I wonder if the worlds airlines look at the 380 and say, "hey, its a great plane but I want a 777.
139 orders for the 555-seater before it left the hangar, including the world biggest carriers - Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Qantas, Lufthansa, Fedex, Air France, etc etc.
Probably there is a market for both types of plane - Airbus are pursuing all the ranges quite strongly. Nevertheless the A380 will be the undisputed leader in long-haul flight to big destinations, it's a very economical plane.
JohnHKart
04-29-05, 06:08 AM
Oh god man....Spanish TV is a riot!!! They called the flight of the Airbus flight of the whale...vuelo de ballena...Haven't seen that word used yet but it fits. I've been laughing all day.
John
139 orders for the 555-seater before it left the hangar, including the world biggest carriers - Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Qantas, Lufthansa, Fedex, Air France, etc etc.
Probably there is a market for both types of plane - Airbus are pursuing all the ranges quite strongly. Nevertheless the A380 will be the undisputed leader in long-haul flight to big destinations, it's a very economical plane.
I'd hold off on putting Sinapore on there. They have delayed their deliveries. Same with Virgin. As I have mentioned before, there are not many airports in North America that will have the capabilities to host a 380. Most of the carriers that will be using it are from the Middle East and Far East.
The A380 will be the undisputed leader in long-haul flights?
Airbus A380 - Range with typical payload -> 7,650nm
Boeing 777-200LR - Range with typical payload -> 9,420nm
Boeing 787-900 - Range with typical payload -> 8,300nm
Boeing 787-800 - Range with typical payload -> 8,500nm
So it looks like the A380 is 4th at best. Plus. An airplane on the ground isn't making the airline any money. An A380 will spend at least twice as long on the ground unloading, cleaning, stocking and reloading passengers. So it is hardly an economical plane when compared to the 777 and 787.
next version of the 787 engines will be able to do singapore to london and NYC straight up...
the A380 requires hub and spokes, and people dont like spokes, they dont like excessive layovers and massive hubs, they like convenience, with the fuel efficiency of the 787 and the less overhead required with them, A380 is pwn3d.
look, the 747 is worthless for a reason, yet what did France go do? wanted to make the biggest and baddest, just like with the concorde, hey, it may be the biggest and baddest, but it's not going to make any $, airlines are about $, it's cute that europe has a somewhat competent commerical jetliner manufacturer, really cute, but they don't realize what a "market" or "demand" is... they woudln't know it if it was a hooker named "misty" even. why are airbus fleets suddenly ordering 787's? b/c A350 will blow, and the 787's superiority is the reason Airbus pushed ahead on A350, they realize their market share's going to drop now. as for lounges and casinos and whatever, those are going to be ripped out first thing and replaced with more cattle pens, just like with the jumbo jets. as has been said, orders have been delayed and the thing's been on sale for 10 freaking years, watch how many of those orders are actually executed and how many more Air Canada type deals there are for tradiing in Airbus fleets for 787/777 combos
What transatlantic flights? Heathrow to where? Boston? Nope, Logan ain't got the room. New York? I haven't heard of any plans to adapt JFK to hold this thing. Atlanta has already stated that they aren't going to spend the millions of dollars it will take. The only airports in North America that I have heard of doing (or planning on) the work needed are ORD, LAX and YVR.
Remote gates don't need a jetbridge. They just need a bus (or a few buses) full of people and their carryon bags, airstairs (gosh I hope they use two doors for boarding this bird) and a big patch of empty real estate.
Then again, I wonder what its massive weight would do to our country's airport's overpasses (ie the Sepulveda tunnel).
I could see it going transpacific. Other than that ... hmmm ... maybe cargo. But do cargo companies buy brand new equipment?
Linear flying vs. hub and spoke? People don't really know the difference. People just log on to [insert name of travel Web site here] and click on the cheapest fare. If your fare is a dollar higher, you could be relegated to page two and nobody will ever click on you.
People do like the big planes though ... They get all excited when they find out we're going from (domestic city) to (domestic city) on a big bad international widebody plane rather than a "little" domestic narrowbody plane. And that's nice. They'll go tell their friends about it. But will they pay a higher fare, or modify their travel dates/times just to be on the big bird with the bells and whistles? I don't think so.
Maaaaan can you imagine 800 people from one flight going through customs? Maaaaaaan!!!
fedex and ups will definitely be able to use it, mainly because fedex has like 3 global hubs, a380 makes perfect sense for them
The An-225. There is no substitute :D
http://www.challoner.com/aviation/pix/mryia/20-74.jpg
Remote gates don't need a jetbridge. They just need a bus (or a few buses) full of people and their carryon bags, airstairs (gosh I hope they use two doors for boarding this bird) and a big patch of empty real estate.
A few buses? Dude, this thing can carry 550-800 people. A few buses ain't gonna cut it. Let me ask you this. If you were planning on flying a long distance and you had two choices:
1) Flying on an A380 where it takes an hour or more to embark and an hour or more to disembark, only to have to sit on the tarmac (hoping that the weather will cooperate) waiting for a bus to take you to a terminal to get you to your connecting plane because the Airbus can't get it's fat *** down the taxiway of your destination.
or
2) Flying on an 777 or 787 and go right to where you want to go and only spend about 20 minutes getting on or off.
Which would you choose?
Linear flying vs. hub and spoke? People don't really know the difference. People just log on to [insert name of travel Web site here] and click on the cheapest fare. If your fare is a dollar higher, you could be relegated to page two and nobody will ever click on you.
Majority of pax would pay a little more to avoid a layover.
If your fare is a dollar higher, you could be relegated to page two and nobody will ever click on you.
Depends. If you are flying from Newark to Orlando this holds true. How many airlines would use an A380 on that route? Flying intercontinental is a whole different kettle of fish.
People do like the big planes though ...
Again not true. Airliners magazine did a pole about a year ago. Guess which was the #1 pick. 777 followed by the 757, 330, 737 and L1011. The Jumbo was just behind the L1011.
They get all excited when they find out we're going from (domestic city) to (domestic city) on a big bad international widebody plane rather than a "little" domestic narrowbody plane.
This makes no sense. You make it sound like people would rather use the A380 to fly from JFK to LHR rather than a RJ. :gomer: :saywhat:
But will they pay a higher fare, or modify their travel dates/times just to be on the big bird with the bells and whistles? I don't think so.
The A380, 787 and 777-200LR all have the same amount of 'bells and whistles'. Pax don't determine what plane is purchased by the airlines. The airlines do. They look at seat revenue. That is where the 777 and 787 kick the A380's big, fat ass.
fedex and ups will definitely be able to use it, mainly because fedex has like 3 global hubs, a380 makes perfect sense for them
Bingo! Memphis is one of the first US airports to lengthen its runway(s) for this thang. @ least we agree on sumthin'. :gomer:
-Kevin
The An-225. There is no substitute :D
http://www.challoner.com/aviation/pix/mryia/20-74.jpg
:thumbup: :D You can have 80 of your closest buddies in the upper deck drinking brewskis watching an arena bowl game played on the main deck while flying from Gander to Moscow.
777 followed by the 757, 330, 737 and L1011. The Jumbo was just behind the L1011.
L1011. LOCKHEED, BITCHES! RECOGNIZE!!! *puts down some Jay-Z in the background for the Tri-Star* http://www2.hornfans.com/wwwthreads/images/icons/smokin.gif
The A380, 787 and 777-200LR all have the same amount of 'bells and whistles'. Pax don't determine what plane is purchased by the airlines. The airlines do. They look at seat revenue. That is where the 777 and 787 kick the A380's big, fat ass.
and what a big, fat ass it is :eek:
A few buses? Dude, this thing can carry 550-800 people. A few buses ain't gonna cut it. Let me ask you this. If you were planning on flying a long distance and you had two choices:
1) Flying on an A380 where it takes an hour or more to embark and an hour or more to disembark, only to have to sit on the tarmac (hoping that the weather will cooperate) waiting for a bus to take you to a terminal to get you to your connecting plane because the Airbus can't get it's fat *** down the taxiway of your destination.
or
2) Flying on an 777 or 787 and go right to where you want to go and only spend about 20 minutes getting on or off.
Which would you choose?
Majority of pax would pay a little more to avoid a layover.
Depends. If you are flying from Newark to Orlando this holds true. How many airlines would use an A380 on that route? Flying intercontinental is a whole different kettle of fish.
Again not true. Airliners magazine did a pole about a year ago. Guess which was the #1 pick. 777 followed by the 757, 330, 737 and L1011. The Jumbo was just behind the L1011.
This makes no sense. You make it sound like people would rather use the A380 to fly from JFK to LHR rather than a RJ. :gomer: :saywhat:
The A380, 787 and 777-200LR all have the same amount of 'bells and whistles'. Pax don't determine what plane is purchased by the airlines. The airlines do. They look at seat revenue. That is where the 777 and 787 kick the A380's big, fat ass.
I don't know how to cut and paste quotes so I'm going to have to do all my typing here.
I am not interested in defending the A380. I think we're on the same side there. Trust me, I dread this thing a lot more than you do. I'm not flying it. I'm just suggesting how some airlines might make it work.
Every day/night that I go there, I see 747s, which hold about 400, out at the remote gates at LAX. The buses I described don't have seats (except for the driver). Everybody stands up and crams in there. But they didn't know any of this was going to happen when they bought their tickets.
Narrowbodies (like the DC-9-80 and 737 which hold between 120-149) take 25-30 minutes to board while widebodies (like the 767 which holds about 150-200, or the A300 which holds about 250) take about 40.
The A380 would have to board through 2 doors because the flight crews are not being paid until the door closes and nobody is going to give up any more free time. They're already giving an hour before and 15 minutes after each trip.
I know it sounds hokey and I'm not insulted by your smilies but people really do get excited -- and express their happiness -- when they discover their 3-hour flight will be on a 767 instead of an MD80. What frequently follows is "Gee have you been on the 777? Too bad this isn't one of those!" I think it's the same syndrome that causes people to buy bigger & bigger SUVs.
Interesting you would cite Newark - Orlando. If this monster could go anywhere domestic, I think it could be MCO -- although I know nothing about the airport's physical capabilities. Do you have any idea how many people go to Orlando? Me neither. But it's got to be millions, all the time, every day, from every place! And they all fly! Aaaaaaahh!!
Sorry about the outburst. Orlando does that to me.
Please, please do not suggest in public that anyone could ever fly an RJ from JFK to LHR. You never know who's reading these forums and people could lose their jobs. ;) There is a suspicion out there that our "legacy carriers," the ones that don't get liquidated, will only fly transcons and international and leave all the short- and medium-haul domestic flying to their "regional airline partners." If Eagle/Express/Comair gets JFK-LHR, well, that would be bad.
The last time we flew out to Denver we had a perfect example of why connections are bad and bigger isn't always better. There's a great direct flight to Denver on United that we typically pay about $50 extra to take. But this time around I saw a chance to catch a ride on a 747 on the Chicago to Denver leg of a connecting flight.
No Peelo, you'll never catch us driving an SUV :) but I did want to see what a 747 was like and see whether the bigger plane made for a more comfortable flight. The bottom line is that it absolutely does and it's a good thing because it was the longest flight we've ever had.
First, there was over an hour on the taxiway because of traffic stacked up at O'Hare. Then there was an hour or two circling outside Denver waiting for the thunderstorms and tornados to clear so we could land. Then there was a the aborted approach because of wind sheer warnings. More circling. And finally a trip to Salt Lake City, Utah because we were getting low on fuel and no other airport nearby could handle a 747. They could handle it, but they couldn't let us off the plane because they had no jetway for it. Then back to Denver and a beautiful smooth landing.
If we had to have a flight like that I'm glad it was on a 747. But flying through a congested hub like O'Hare makes those kind of delays just that much more likely on top of the longer travel time you have to begin with.
As for the 380. We'll see. The 747 has been sellling at a trickle for a while and I really don't think it's because passenger carriers have been wanting something bigger.
coolhand
04-30-05, 07:02 PM
wow guys, this is a great discussion. Really.
my .02s is this is not what people want. this jsut pushes the hub and spoke concept to the extreme. it means that people will all go through on airport, more layover time, longer turnaround times. somone mentioned the line through customs. :shakehead
I really ahve no desire to fly that thing.
the 787 is going to win because it means more direct flighs and less time in all other matters.
People want less travel time and thats what is offered by the 787.
the 787 is like taking a taxi to where you want to go, you get in and out fast.
the A-380 is like taking a bus that only stops at bus stations and takes forever to get you and all your crap on and off.
coolhand
04-30-05, 07:03 PM
can anyone say the WTC of the skies? :shakehead
I saw an A380 in a movie once....
think they called her "Shamu" :gomer:
EDwardo
04-30-05, 07:30 PM
This might be grim but if one of them goes down with 800 passengers before they sell enough of them to turn a profit it will be a huge financial disaster.
The McDonnell Douglas DC-10 was ultimately reduced to a cargo plane because of safety concerns after a string of crashes. Ironically it now has one of the best safety records.
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/dc-10_facts.htm
oddlycalm
04-30-05, 08:17 PM
The 380 has nothing to do with hub and spoke or anything else related to the US domestic market. The market for high capacity planes is for internation flights in Asia where many of the airports are currently at the maximum number of departures/arrivals and the only way to boost passenger traffic is with jumbos. That's been the primary 747 market and it'll be primary 380 market. Carriers stuff over 500 seats in a 747 and have been doing it for years for their Asia to Asia international routes. And it's miserable.
It doesn't matter how much passenger volume there is between two given cities, on shorter hops in Europe and the US domestic market the 380 will cost too much time on the ground (as already mentioned) which is time and money lost for the airline operator.
oc
it was aimed for the asian market, a keen eye on china especially, but considering only a handful of airports will be able to facilitate the beast, unless all commercial business conducted with east/southeast asia is solely found in london, orlando, LA and dubai, it will serve a hub/spoke model, china's already been relaxing it's ceiling amount on departures, so that's another arrow through that sky-pig, OINK OINK! VIVA LE PROJETS DE SOCIALISTE!!!
eiregosod
04-30-05, 08:48 PM
conspiracy theory time ;)
I dont think anyone in their right mind would want to propose building a plane that cannot be accomodated by the commercial airports that exist today. I think its a nice piece of corporate welfare with the French taxpayer picking up the tab.
eiregosod
04-30-05, 08:54 PM
I suggest that Richard branson's idea should be implemented, by putting casinos on the palnes, thereforee I ride for free and my fare is picked up by the habitual gambling addicts :rofl:
Funny thing. Airbus is complaining about the recent 787 orders on the grounds that the plane hasn't even flown yet. :saywhat:
Funny thing. Airbus is complaining about the recent 787 orders on the grounds that the plane hasn't even flown yet. :saywhat:
it's **** like this that, despite being Boeing's main competitor, makes me the biggest Boeing fan :D :rofl: ****ing wusses.
I am not interested in defending the A380. I think we're on the same side there. Trust me, I dread this thing a lot more than you do. I'm not flying it. I'm just suggesting how some airlines might make it work.
Understood. I just find it curious that two of the three launch customers, Virgin and Singapore, have delayed the delivery of the ship. As we all know, neither airline is hurting for cash and Sir Richard Branson is no fool, so they must know something we don't. They placed the order for the A380 years ago. Markets have changed since then. Boeing has just introduced a grand slam with the 787, the A350 is a complete flop, and the A380 orders have somewhat stagnated. Airbus is in a state of panic now, they have even threatened Air India over the fact that they are probably going to order the 777-200LR. They are getting desperate.
Every day/night that I go there, I see 747s, which hold about 400, out at the remote gates at LAX. The buses I described don't have seats (except for the driver). Everybody stands up and crams in there.
That will give them an idea what it will feel like when the airliners fill the A380 with coach seats..... ;)
I know it sounds hokey and I'm not insulted by your smilies but people really do get excited -- and express their happiness -- when they discover their 3-hour flight will be on a 767 instead of an MD80. What frequently follows is "Gee have you been on the 777? Too bad this isn't one of those!" I think it's the same syndrome that causes people to buy bigger & bigger SUVs.
Kinda funny isn't it? People get all excited about being in a big jet. I prefer flying on the Mad Dogs and the '37s. Although nothing beats a 757's take-off climb. When I first flew on a 767 and 777 it was cool just because it was my first time. But Airbus's flat out scare me. The take off roll for a A340 is the main reason. It feels like days before you rotate and then you are almost at the end of the runway....
Please, please do not suggest in public that anyone could ever fly an RJ from JFK to LHR. You never know who's reading these forums and people could lose their jobs. There is a suspicion out there that our "legacy carriers," the ones that don't get liquidated, will only fly transcons and international and leave all the short- and medium-haul domestic flying to their "regional airline partners." If Eagle/Express/Comair gets JFK-LHR, well, that would be bad.
Well, you know if there was a way, Ryanair would try it. :)
I really hope that the legacy's don't go all transcon because I am still waiting to get a decent shot of American's retro 737 and 757. That has to be flat out the coolest paint scheme out there.
Oh, and sorry about the dude comment.
I saw an A380 in a movie once....
think they called her "Shamu" :gomer:
I was thinking Free Willy. ;)
-Kevin
I was thinking Free Willy. ;)
-Kevin
Willy? Well that's a funny name for a girl now ain't it?
man, threads on skiing, live rock bands, jet planes
OC's like, all cool n **** now :D
ilferrari
05-01-05, 05:52 AM
So it looks like the A380 is 4th at best. Plus. An airplane on the ground isn't making the airline any money. An A380 will spend at least twice as long on the ground unloading, cleaning, stocking and reloading passengers. So it is hardly an economical plane when compared to the 777 and 787.
http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/aea/economic_size.gif
Go figure. But of course you with your anti-French bias know better than the execs of the world's biggest carriers who have all signed for the A380.
coolhand
05-01-05, 06:07 AM
http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/aea/economic_size.gif
Go figure. But of course you with your anti-French bias know better than the execs of the world's biggest carriers who have all signed for the A380.
Your pro french bias is showing. that piece of "evidence" is completly illrelvent.
People have stated that many airlines are trading their Airbus fleets in for 777/787 packages. also in 10+ years of sales the A-380 has sold little more then the 787 has in 1 year of sales. :)
your diagrams breakeven/profit margin does not adress the problems with airport compatability, turn around time, customer desire, and the effects on the basic routes and scheduels of the Airlines. This airfcraft means more hub and spoke stuff with less fligth times during the day.
the basic short comming of your diagram is that is only per flight and negates the fact that the "competition" can fly many more flights a day then this whale. :eek:
http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/aea/economic_size.gif
Go figure. But of course you with your anti-French bias know better than the execs of the world's biggest carriers who have all signed for the A380.
OK, then please explain why two of the three launch customers, Virgin and Singapore, have delayed the deliveries of the 380.
BTW. I am not anti-French. I am against the business practices of Airbus and the free money they get from the EU. Plus their planes are kinda scary to fly on.
ilferrari
05-01-05, 10:11 AM
OK, let's summarize. The frogs have managed to get this whale, beluga, beast, WTC of the skies, sky-pig, crapwagon of the skies off the ground. It is also "cute that europe has a somewhat competent commerical jetliner manufacturer, really cute, but they don't realize what a "market" or "demand" is...".
Only a few airports will accommodate the plane, and passengers will be waiting for an hour to board the A380's 2 sets of doors. The fact that Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic have delayed delivery undoubtedly means that the plane is a gigantic flop. In addition Airbus planes are 'scary' and it seems like they take days to turn after leaving the runway.
I give up. Grasp at all the straws you want, it won't change reality. In the meantime I'll be happy to fly with the world's biggest commercial aircraft manufacturer (Airbus). And for that matter, with Boeing aswell.
OK, let's summarize. The frogs have managed to get this whale, beluga, beast, WTC of the skies, sky-pig, crapwagon of the skies off the ground. It is also "cute that europe has a somewhat competent commerical jetliner manufacturer, really cute, but they don't realize what a "market" or "demand" is...".
Only a few airports will accommodate the plane, and passengers will be waiting for an hour to board the A380's 2 sets of doors. The fact that Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic have delayed delivery undoubtedly means that the plane is a gigantic flop. In addition Airbus planes are 'scary' and it seems like they take days to turn after leaving the runway.
I give up. Grasp at all the straws you want, it won't change reality. In the meantime I'll be happy to fly with the world's biggest commercial aircraft manufacturer (Airbus). And for that matter, with Boeing aswell.
What straws?
Fact: Virgin and Singapore have delayed deliveries. They were launch customers. That is a big issue.
Fact: 10 years and 150 odd orders (including options so solid orders are less) is not stellar. The 787 has had more orders in one year.
Fact: The A350 is a flop with only a handful of orders.
Fact: Air Canada and Air India are moving away from Airbus to Boeing. Northwest (Biggest Airbus carrier in the US) are also considering a move to Boeing.
Those are mighty big frikin straws there pal.
Oh, Airbus is not the biggest commercial airplane co in the world.
OK, let's summarize. The frogs have managed to get this whale, beluga, beast, WTC of the skies, sky-pig, crapwagon of the skies off the ground. It is also "cute that europe has a somewhat competent commerical jetliner manufacturer, really cute, but they don't realize what a "market" or "demand" is...".
Only a few airports will accommodate the plane, and passengers will be waiting for an hour to board the A380's 2 sets of doors. The fact that Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic have delayed delivery undoubtedly means that the plane is a gigantic flop. In addition Airbus planes are 'scary' and it seems like they take days to turn after leaving the runway.
I give up. Grasp at all the straws you want, it won't change reality. In the meantime I'll be happy to fly with the world's biggest commercial aircraft manufacturer (Airbus). And for that matter, with Boeing aswell.
no matter how many times you tell yourself the A380 is going to be the greatest thing since chilled beer, it's not going to happen, logic dictates that it flops, it's an a340 with a second deck slapped on top, even with all the subdsidy bull****, they still won't break even on the thing, 10 years, 150 orders, launch customers are delaying, yes, that's DEFINITELY the sign of an industry juggernaut :gomer:
787, groundbreaking use of composite materials, BLEEDLESS ENGINES, higher cabin pressure and humidity levels for more comfort, 50% larger windows, 2nd gen will be able to fly the furthest commercial flight distance, TAPERED WINGS, oh ya, and more orders than the A380 after being on the market 1/10th the time, and once the bleedless engines and composite materials are adapted to the next gen 737, airbus will be completely screwed. everyone wants 37's, 37's are more profitable than 717's for domestic flights...
pwn3d.
and something tells me virgin and singapore aren't as big as American (*grumble*dirtyfaregougingDFWmonopolisticmanwhores fromFtWorthrippingmeoffoneveryflightlikethelittlem oneygrubbingbastardstheyare:flame:*grumble*)
:gomer:
Napoleon
05-01-05, 01:50 PM
. . . with the French taxpayer picking up the tab. . .
Ah, the company is owned more or less equally by British, German and French concerns and each country's government also supports the company. Their headquarters just happens to be located in France.
Airbus's owners
The Brits
http://www.baesystems.com/
The Germans (Daimler) and the French
http://www.eads.net/frame/lang/en/1024/xml/content/OF00000000400004/6/03/31000036.html
BAE only owns 20%, EADS the other 80%, and german and french citizens pick up amazing tabs on the social welfare Airbus gets in the ways of infrastructure and facility construction
eiregosod
05-01-05, 03:58 PM
on the other hand, the EU is ensuring that there's plane production within its boundaries.
coolhand
05-01-05, 04:35 PM
What straws?
Fact: Virgin and Singapore have delayed deliveries. They were launch customers. That is a big issue.
Fact: 10 years and 150 odd orders (including options so solid orders are less) is not stellar. The 787 has had more orders in one year.
Fact: The A350 is a flop with only a handful of orders.
Fact: Air Canada and Air India are moving away from Airbus to Boeing. Northwest (Biggest Airbus carrier in the US) are also considering a move to Boeing.
Those are mighty big frikin straws there pal.
Oh, Airbus is not the biggest commercial airplane co in the world.
good post bud :thumbup:
coolhand
05-01-05, 04:40 PM
BAE only owns 20%, EADS the other 80%, and german and french citizens pick up amazing tabs on the social welfare Airbus gets in the ways of infrastructure and facility construction
eXACTLY.This has been a french driven project fromt he start with the sole purpose to to say they can compete with the Americans.
but it will be funny to see the eurotrash fall on their faces :laugh:
Ankf00 showed napoleon his waterloo
nappy's cool, lay off yo :)
oddlycalm
05-01-05, 06:56 PM
Grasp at all the straws you want, it won't change reality. Exactly right, but the reality is not what you think. The A380 will turn out to be a niche market product just like the 747 was before it, and for many of the same reasons. There are actual economic fundamentals that dictated that a significant portion of the 747 fleet has spent much of it's life mothballed and parked in rows out in the desert. Boeing is unlikely to repeat the mistake, but Airbus apparently felt they were immune to the economic realities of their customers. Bottom line; there is no doubt they will sell them, but there is real doubt they will sell in quanities sufficient to justify the enormous investment. Only time will tell.
oc
In addition Airbus planes are 'scary' and it seems like they take days to turn after leaving the runway.
Please tell me you didn't take the comments in this thread about long turnaround times to mean, "it will take them days to turn from the runway to the taxiways."
coolhand
05-01-05, 08:38 PM
Please tell me you didn't take the comments in this thread about long turnaround times to mean, "it will take them days to turn from the runway to the taxiways."
dont listen to him, He does not get the terminology.
turnaround time is how long it takes to unload the plane, clean it, restock it, refuel it, re load and board it.
dont listen to him, He does not get the terminology.
turnaround time is how long it takes to unload the plane, clean it, restock it, refuel it, re load and board it.
I know what it means. The fact that he doesn't really makes the rest of his arguements moot.
coolhand
05-01-05, 09:36 PM
I know what it means. The fact that he doesn't really makes the rest of his arguements moot.
Yep, he does not understand the situation :laugh:
ilferrari
05-02-05, 03:01 AM
Oh, Airbus is not the biggest commercial airplane co in the world.
Airbus has been the biggest manufacturer and seller of commercial passenger jets since 2003. It's not uncommon knowledge.
As for the 787, where did I say anything about it? What I have been saying is that Boeing fanboys have spent a whole thread flaming the A380, hoping it (and Airbus) bombs out. That won't happen.
IMO both the 787 and A380 will be successful as they are completely different types of plane serving different market needs. Maybe the 787 will be more successful, I don't know.
Also I don't see what the A350 has to do with the A380 either. In fact the A350 has a comparable amount of orders that the 787 had at the same stage of development. And Boeing's hypocritical complaining over subsidy tactics might send it back to the drawing board. If that happens, Boeing will be a step ahead. But Airbus will be be back - it didn't take them long to catch Boeing in the first place. Airbuses competition is good for Boeing and us because it pushes the industry and technology forward and you get yourself flying in an 787 rather than a 1970's derivative. So stop the bitching.
ilferrari
05-02-05, 03:08 AM
Please tell me you didn't take the comments in this thread about long turnaround times to mean, "it will take them days to turn from the runway to the taxiways."
No, I was not referring to "turnaround" times, which the A380 has been designed to minimize. Try again. You can stock a Jumbo Jet to similar levels as an Airbus A380 and it takes much longer to get people off it, stock it and reboard the plane.
ilferrari
05-02-05, 03:10 AM
Exactly right, but the reality is not what you think. The A380 will turn out to be a niche market product just like the 747 was before it, and for many of the same reasons. There are actual economic fundamentals that dictated that a significant portion of the 747 fleet has spent much of it's life mothballed and parked in rows out in the desert. Boeing is unlikely to repeat the mistake, but Airbus apparently felt they were immune to the economic realities of their customers. Bottom line; there is no doubt they will sell them, but there is real doubt they will sell in quanities sufficient to justify the enormous investment. Only time will tell.
oc
Thanks, a reasonable attitude towards Airbus and the plane appears on the thread
No, I was not referring to "turnaround" times, which the A380 has been designed to minimize. Try again. You can stock a Jumbo Jet to similar levels as an Airbus A380 and it takes much longer to get people off it, stock it and reboard the plane.
How can this be since the A380 has only had one flight and there were no pax. Also, an aircraft on the ground makes no money. Compare the 777-200LR to the A380 on a trip from, say, LAX to Singapore or Hong Kong. Along with a superior range, the 777 has a superior cruising speed. So the 777 could almost make 4 trips to the A380's 3. Therefore the 777 is a more profitable plane.
Napoleon
05-02-05, 06:21 AM
BAE only owns 20%, EADS the other 80%, and german and french citizens pick up amazing tabs on the social welfare Airbus gets in the ways of infrastructure and facility construction
And of course Boeing is also the recipent of corporate welfare from governments and even a US study has suggested Boeing gets more then Airbus (and note this is before the shameless giveaway that has not been finalized regarding the US military's leasing from Boeing of refueling planes).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13181-2004Oct6.html
http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol35/vol35n40/articles/Boeing.html
Oh, and I haven't the slightest idea which plane is better or better suited for the market.
Oh, Airbus is not the biggest commercial airplane co in the world.
Last year Airbus sold more planes then Boeing. Pet peeve of mine is how you judge one company to be "bigger" then anouther (Gross Revenue? Net Profit? Employees? Production Capacity? Floor sace under roof? Net Capitalization? Market Capitalization?) but for a company that has been undeniably number one for a long time it is an important milestone when a competitor of yours sells more units in a year.
Napoleon
05-02-05, 08:05 AM
nappy's cool, lay off yo :)
Don't think you can sweet talk yourself out of that beer you owe me. ;)
Spicoli
05-02-05, 08:34 AM
thisa is ****ing hilarious.
you folks arearguing about commercial airplanes.
:gomer:
When wuz the last time you strapped yo *** in hurtlin' tin tube for a trip that lasted more than 3 or 4 hours? ;)
Then ya might care! LOL
747's ---> :thumbup:
thisa is ****ing hilarious.
you folks arearguing about commercial airplanes.
:gomer:
lone_groover
05-02-05, 09:39 AM
"....turnaround bright eyes"
:)
Spicoli
05-02-05, 11:15 AM
When wuz the last time you strapped yo *** in hurtlin' tin tube for a trip that lasted more than 3 or 4 hours? ;)
Then ya might care! LOL
747's ---> :thumbup:
I call it "The Death Tube". Um, last ride - march this year. I take pills when I do this. And booze.
Methanolandbrats
05-02-05, 11:42 AM
I call it "The Death Tube". Um, last ride - march this year. I take pills when I do this. And booze. Winged Cattle Car.
This sounded familiar for some reason:
As for the 787 [ALMS], where did I say anything about it? What I have been saying is that Boeing [ALMS]fanboys have spent a whole thread flaming the A380[GrandAm], hoping it (and Airbus) [GrandAm]bombs out. That won't happen.
IMO both the 787 [ALMS]and A380 [GrandAm]will be successful as they are completely different types of plane [Series]serving different market needs. Maybe the 787 [ALMS]will be more successful, I don't know.
In fact the A350 [GrandAm] has a comparable amount of orders [Fans]that the 787 [ALMS]had at the same stage of development. And Boeing's [ALMS]hypocritical complaining over subsidy tactics [ISC]might send it back to the drawing board. If that happens, Boeing [ALMS]will be a step ahead.
Brickman
05-02-05, 12:41 PM
thisa is ****ing hilarious.
you folks arearguing about commercial airplanes.
:gomer:
Sometimes I forget you aren't really a blond... sometimes.
I agree with Mappy 100%. The 777 is a damn good plane, if you've never watched the documentary on it's design and building that was shown on PBS, they now sell it on DVD, it's well worth the price. I'm not sure PBS has every shown it again. That's one plane I'd love to fly again.
http://gallery.bcentral.com/GID4271017P4101664-21st-Century-Jet-The-Building-of-the-777-DVD-Set.aspx
Spicoli
05-02-05, 12:54 PM
Sometimes I forget you aren't really a blond... sometimes.
I agree with Mappy 100%. The 777 is a damn good plane, if you've never watched the documentary on it's design and building that was shown on PBS, they now sell it on DVD, it's well worth the price. I'm not sure PBS has every shown it again. That's one plane I'd love to fly again.
http://gallery.bcentral.com/GID4271017P4101664-21st-Century-Jet-The-Building-of-the-777-DVD-Set.aspx
I am Blonde with "Natural Silver Highlights"..... :rolleyes:
You people are a bunch of nerds.
devilmaster
05-02-05, 01:10 PM
Although nothing beats a 757's take-off climb.
I missed this comment till now.....
I might have something that beats it, mappy. C-130, pilot that a) just came back from a tour of delivering supplies to Sarajevo airport (during the sniper and missle season) and 2) wanted to see how many squids he could make sick.
Seats(if you want to call cargo netting that) were sideways, and if you weren't holding on, you crushed the person sitting beside you......
I apologised to 5'2" 100 pd Sandy Prekratic the rest of the flight.... the loadmaster got a good laugh....
Sean O'Gorman
05-02-05, 01:11 PM
This sounded familiar for some reason:
You forgot the part where I reply with a post full of childish name calling. ;)
coolhand
05-02-05, 03:26 PM
thats because the 757 has the best power to weight ratio of any plane. it has the same engines of the 767 but a narrower body.
You people are a bunch of nerds.
As opposed to, say, arguing about bands?
Pick the wrong band and you get a bad CD, a bad show, maybe a bad haircut or tatoo. Oh my god. You're tragically un-hip for like weeks.
Pick the wrong airliner...
coolhand
05-02-05, 04:29 PM
thisa is ****ing hilarious.
you folks arearguing about commercial airplanes.
:gomer:
Damn Strait ;)
And of course Boeing is also the recipent of corporate welfare from governments and even a US study has suggested Boeing gets more then Airbus (and note this is before the shameless giveaway that has not been finalized regarding the US military's leasing from Boeing of refueling planes).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13181-2004Oct6.html
http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol35/vol35n40/articles/Boeing.html
Oh, and I haven't the slightest idea which plane is better or better suited for the market.
Last year Airbus sold more planes then Boeing. Pet peeve of mine is how you judge one company to be "bigger" then anouther (Gross Revenue? Net Profit? Employees? Production Capacity? Floor sace under roof? Net Capitalization? Market Capitalization?) but for a company that has been undeniably number one for a long time it is an important milestone when a competitor of yours sells more units in a year.
Those are defence contracts where that money goes to the development of said defence products. Boeing is also a publicly traded company. They cannot fudge their books. Any profits made by Boeing can be freely applied to any division of their company. That is a big difference from the Euros just cutting Airbus a check.
What transatlantic flights? Heathrow to where? Boston? Nope, Logan ain't got the room. New York? I haven't heard of any plans to adapt JFK to hold this thing. Atlanta has already stated that they aren't going to spend the millions of dollars it will take. The only airports in North America that I have heard of doing (or planning on) the work needed are ORD, LAX and YVR.
SFO is ready to go. article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/27/BUGLBB0UL01.DTL&type=printable) Anything to the west of SFO is at least a 14-15 hour flight. If the A380 can provide something for the passengers to do other than sit, then people might pay more.
Also, I don't know the term, but businesses expect their employees to continue working during long flights and hit the ground running when they get there. Turning a plane into a mini-motel could be profitable.
However, the airlines aren't in the hotel business "Enjoy your stay." They're in the cargo business "Move this much weight, this far, by this time."
Still, I'd like to see the A380 fly over.
coolhand
05-02-05, 05:23 PM
Boeing is a much larger and more diverse company. Commerical Aircraft si only one aspect.
Mapguy is correct in those Government Subisdies going towards The integrated defense system and black works operations.
The commerical side is all Boeing American capitalism baby :thumbup:
Napoleon
05-02-05, 05:50 PM
Those are defence contracts where that money goes to the development of said defence products. Boeing is also a publicly traded company. They cannot fudge their books. Any profits made by Boeing can be freely applied to any division of their company. That is a big difference from the Euros just cutting Airbus a check.
Its ultimately one big pot.
If the head of the Senate Appropriations Committee said to Boeing "look we are funding XYZ defense system and overpaying because we want you to continue to aggressively pursue and have the funds to pursue dominance in the commercial airliner business" do you think Boeing is not going to give them what they want?
Anyways most/many of the subsidies complained of are tax breaks and things of that sort that go directly to Boeings commercial jet operations. Interesting that the defense used for them is "hey anyone who is in their line of business can take advantage of them". That is chutzpah to say that.
Well lets see, pretty much only Boeing is in the only one in that line of business in the US.
Anouther example of the same thing - Auto racing tracks just got a big pork barrel special interest break in the last few months the vast majority of which will flow to the Frances and track owners who run NASCAR.
I call it "The Death Tube". Um, last ride - march this year. I take pills when I do this. And booze.
:rofl: you fooking wus :rofl:
The commerical side is all Boeing American capitalism baby :thumbup:
It's all true, Clinton didn't have sex with that women, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, Elvis is still alive, everyone riding the Tour de France took drugs except Lance Armstrong and the NSA never listens to the conversation of foreign airline executives who are discussing what plane to buy.
racer2c
05-02-05, 09:34 PM
:rofl: you fooking wus :rofl:
Count me in for the pills and booze too. I had one blizzard landing into O' Hare in '93 where the snow was so heavy that looking out of the window at 3000ft was the same as when we touched down. You couldn't see a thing. Nothin'. Just white. The plane was pitching like a roller coaster and then I had to make my connection across the airport in two minutes. They were holding the plane just for me, an international flight, 747 refueling at Dulles (where I got off). I ran full speed down the Chi'town people mover, doing my best OJ after the worst flight of my life thinking, “If I make it home, I'm never doing this 'bull#$%' again”. I made it to the 747, they practically threw me into the first open seat there was and I ended up having the second best flight ever. That 747 lifted off the ground like a rigid airship and I never felt a bump, even when we landed at Dulles. I needed that after the roller coaster DC10 I had just gotten off of. I hate DC10's.
My best flight ever was in my company twin turbo prop from Reagan National to Latham NY. Breakfast in the terminal and then the captain met us to walk us to the plane. It sat 10, we had four. GPS for every seat. That was an awesome ride. I even enjoyed the f'd up zig zag landing back at Reagan national (following the Potomac River). That flight made me never want to fly commercial again. Unfortunately, I'm a peon. I like road trips though.
Spicoli
05-02-05, 09:36 PM
:rofl: you fooking wus :rofl:
Wuss?
Lets get some pills and booze and see who's the last man standing, Betsy.
:gomer:
heh, now it lets me post, after I already emptied my clipboard with my post that it wouldn't let me post for the entire night :mad:
d00d, balvenie and you're on, lets do it on the NASA KC jet too, see if you're stomach can handle that **** :gomer:
Its ultimately one big pot.
If the head of the Senate Appropriations Committee said to Boeing "look we are funding XYZ defense system and overpaying because we want you to continue to aggressively pursue and have the funds to pursue dominance in the commercial airliner business" do you think Boeing is not going to give them what they want?
To quote Keke Rosberg "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle". What you are saying is a hypothetical situation that will never occur.
Anyways most/many of the subsidies complained of are tax breaks and things of that sort that go directly to Boeings commercial jet operations. Interesting that the defense used for them is "hey anyone who is in their line of business can take advantage of them". That is chutzpah to say that.
Well, the subsidy that Boeing got was from the state of Washington, not the United States. It was to keep Boeing manufacturing jobs from going to Kansas or Ohio. Airbus gets subsidies from three, or more, countries. Plus loans that businesses here in the US could not get. This allows Airbus to dump planes on the market. Have you ever noticed that new startup LCC's have one of two types of planes? Either used 737's or brand, spanking new 'bus's. Eastern Airlines got it's first 6 A300's for free. (And look what that did for them... :gomer: ) This is what cheeses me off about Airbus the most. If their planes are so good why are they having to offer zero percent financing and buy 4 get the 5th for free?
My best flight ever was in my company twin turbo prop from Reagan National to Latham NY
That's Albany "International" Airport to you bub. The next time you are out this way let me know and I'll take you to the best brew house in the area.
Spicoli
05-03-05, 05:49 AM
heh, now it lets me post, after I already emptied my clipboard with my post that it wouldn't let me post for the entire night :mad:
d00d, balvenie and you're on, lets do it on the NASA KC jet too, see if you're stomach can handle that **** :gomer:
I need my Ank translator.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/images/content/83930main_kc135grc.jpg
this baby, the vomit comet, KC-135 :gomer:
Da plane do dis.
http://cosmos.ssol.iastate.edu/cysat/images/Pics/96_05247.jpg
You inside do dis.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/space/weightless.jpg
and then Spicoli would be doing this http://www2.hornfans.com/wwwthreads/images/icons/pukey.gif
;)
JohnHKart
05-04-05, 07:27 AM
We all have our fears and it's sad when people are scared to fly. A guy I know just lost the Doors bass playing gig because he refuses to fly. Now that's frickin nuts! How many people are killed by traffic accidents in the US annually? 50, 000?
John
something equivalent to the US losses in Vietnam...
Prof. Traver: "but the lefties on the West Mall keep protesting Vietnam..." :D
Spicoli
05-04-05, 10:01 PM
and then Spicoli would be doing this http://www2.hornfans.com/wwwthreads/images/icons/pukey.gif
;)
I never said I was afraid to fly. I just like the excuse to do ludes and drink and make funny faces at all the other people.
So when are we gonna throw down on the booze, junior? :gomer:
chop456
05-07-05, 02:49 AM
Oops. :gomer:
Northwest Puts In Official Boeing Jet Order (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002265083_boeing06.html)
Polish Airline Wants Boeing 787's (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/223105_boeinglot06.html)
Double oops.... :gomer:
Airbus delays delivery of A380. (http://au.biz.yahoo.com/050502/18/49nr.html)
pwn3d, biotch!
the NW deal is HUGE because they had always fully intended to build an all-bus fleet over the next decade
ferrarigod
05-07-05, 02:59 PM
I would just like to add some more to the arguements on the A380.
I follow planes, but not to the degree with which I follow F1 and ChampCar. But here is what I know.
Atlanta says it WILL NOT redo taxiways to accomodate A380. San Francisco, and Miami said they do NOT have room. JFK has been silent, but many believe the same thing.
IMHO, and in the opinion of my airline following roomate, this A380 will be relegated to a great transporter, for FedEx, and Lufthansa Cargo, and DHL, but will not make a big splash in customer markets.
It will be used in the Tokyo to Narita line, which is huge, and in other others in the 800+ seating configuration, but I doubt we'll see many around in the US other than in Memphis and other Cargo hotspots.
If a Boeing 747ADV comes out, and can up its seat count, and increase efficiency with 4 777 like or 4 787 Dreamliner engines, that may put an end to all the A380 wishes to accomplish.
Please argue with me someone, I'd love to hear what others think about the A380 being shut out at US airports, and of the 747ADV.
And Spicoli, you'd love the A380 in the expected Virgin layout. Bars, and restuarants on board. It will never happen, but you can dream about getting drunk and making strange faces at people. :thumbup:
pwn3d, biotch!
the NW deal is HUGE because they had always fully intended to build an all-bus fleet over the next decade
Not really true with Northworst. They fly whatever they can get the best deals on - and haven't really shown any preference between Boeing and Airbus.
In the past two or three years, they've been taking deliveries of new A330s and new 757-300s to replace their DC-10 fleet. The busses are replacing the 10 on International routes, the 757s on domestic routes.
ferrarigod
05-07-05, 03:40 PM
In the past two or three years, they've been taking deliveries of new A330s and new 757-300s to replace their DC-10 fleet. The busses are replacing the 10 on International routes, the 757s on domestic routes.
Thats true. In March I rode a DC-10 to London. On the way back I was in an A330. Quite a difference. Northwest doesn't have as much reported room as other carriers, but their service and such were great.
First time I have flown NW, usually I fly Delta out of Florida cause its easy to connect anywhere in Atlanta. At any rate, its good to see NW and just getting the best deals out there. NW is one of the few majors that isn't in complete meltdown and after my travel with them, I can see why. Very nice
oddlycalm
05-07-05, 04:28 PM
IMHO, and in the opinion of my airline following roomate, this A380 will be relegated to a great transporter, for FedEx, and Lufthansa Cargo, and DHL, but will not make a big splash in customer markets.
It will be used in the Tokyo to Narita line, which is huge, and in other others in the 800+ seating configuration, but I doubt we'll see many around in the US other than in Memphis and other Cargo hotspots. Exactly right, and what I said a page or two back, it's a niche market product and the volume isn't going to be there. Cargo duty and pressure relief at some crowed Asian airports.
BTW, Narita Airport is the international airport at Tokyo. I've never heard of anyone actually flying from Tokyo Narita to Tokyo Haneda because it's a short bus or train ride. It would take twice that long just to load an A380. Did you mean Taipei?
oc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.