A380

Joined
24 Feb 2004
Messages
4,046
Reaction score
1
Location
Somerset
Country
United Kingdom
Airborne at last, thankfully we are making the wings, else we would be about to cancel the project in true 'Wobbly Brit' style .. Well done Airbus or should we rename that 'AIRBOSS' :D

How will our US friends combat this beomoth ?
Will they do a Concorde and ban it from overflying their territory ? I guess they'll need it to have a major emergency before casting the runes.
They have, of course, announced the future is smaller aircraft more flights twixt ever-more airports... Suites them, sir !!
:D
 
Sponsored Links
I had been looking forward to this morning too. We don't just make the wings though, we make the (best available) engines for the A380 too ;)

I can't imagine the US could find any reason to ban this from overflights: it is quieter than the 747 (so no Concorde excuses) and has lower emissions! I believe several US airlines have bought the A380 also, which would make it a foot-shooting incident if they DID ban it.

Boeing are confident that the A380 will be a loss-making exercise. However I have read a market analysis that concluded the market is there to allow ONE superjumbo to be profitable, but only if there is ONE company making one. This is why Boeing have settled into making little planes, A380 was too far advanced and they realised a 797 that seats 800 people would spell disaster.

Of course Boeing may be confident, but I seem to recall a certain former President of Boeing claiming that Concorde was rubbish in a documentary about the failed Boeing supersonic attempts. :LOL:
 
Engines live on and diversify .... :D I meant the project relies upon us to keep it airborne !! :D :D
 
It's a funny old thing. "We make the wings" sounds pretty rubbish, a bit like saying "we make the wheels" about a car. But, without wings, an A380 would just be a big stationary tube with seats!

Of course, French aeronautical engineering isn't to be sniffed at either, they are the world's authority on ramjets and wind tunnels.
 
Sponsored Links
Well you won't catch me on this hideous beast - I'll stick to my eco friendly bicycle.
 
gonna ride to the states then?... or do you plan on being eco friendly and swimming? :LOL: :p
 
Dont get to excited just yet, the yanks were going to build something similar but then changed their mind and went for a medium haul plane instead, something swayed their opinion, so either they have dropped a boo boo or the Europiens have.

They got the Concorde bit right when they stated it wouldnt make money which turned out to be true in the end, so the A380 has to make money, we shall see.
 
It's like I said earlier, there is only room for ONE superjumbo in the industry. If Boeing AND Airbus had built A380-sized planes then neither would be profitable.

The A380 development costs were something like £8bn. IIRC a brand new 747 retails for around £30M nowadays. As you can see, to return a profit you need to sell a LOT of planes!

I don't know what the 747 cost to develop, but it has been flying for nearly 40 years now. Not bad for a plane that was originally designed to carry cargo only! How many 747s have been sold?

Now, I am not saying they will sell as many A380s as they did 747s. Quite likely the opposite (less planes required to shift as many passengers, air travel might decline and so on). However, Boeing has already found that planned future developments of the 747 are falling on deaf ears to airline execs who want to buy the A380 instead.

Nothing returns a profit immediately. How many A380s have been sold so far? At what cost? Obviously there won't be a profit just yet. But, if the design life is anything like that of the 747 then it will return a profit.

Dont get to excited just yet, the yanks were going to build something similar but then changed their mind and went for a medium haul plane instead, something swayed their opinion, so either they have dropped a boo boo or the Europiens have.

Different market. In the UK you are seldom more than 50 miles from an international airport. If you are, you probably live out in the sticks. So what you do when you visit the UK is to fly into Heathrow, Birmingham, Leeds etc. and then take a train or a hirecar to where you are going. The same is true throughout Europe.

But, that wouldn't really work too well in the US. You would often be faced with either having to drive or train 400 miles after a transatlantic flight, or have 747s touching down in "local" airports! Neither is particularly logical. So, you come into the big "Hub" airports and then take what is basically a flying bus to a more local airport (on a "spoke").

I have also read some scaremongering (on US websites) about the size of the A380 being too great for current airports. That's a load of balls. The size of the A380 is pretty much exactly the upper limits set in place by the aviation authorities, and also maximum ground pressure (weight of the beast divided by the footprint of the tyres) will also all be designed to conform. Also the take off and landing rolls will come within the set limits so you WON'T need to add an extra mile to the runway.

Gates have to be redesigned slightly due to the two-deck configuration, but that is not a major problem as they are always being overhauled and jigged about. Heathrow T5 is being built with A380 support from the outset.

If you can fly the Antonov An-225 to pretty much any major airport then believe me, the relatively lightweight A380 will be no problem! :LOL:
 
dabaldie said:
gonna ride to the states then?... or do you plan on being eco friendly and swimming?

Nope, my plan is to never visit the states :D
 
Suanapore airlines will be the first airline in the world to fly the Airbus A380 in 2006. The Airline made the order for 25 A380s (10 firm and 15 on option) in September 2000. Trent 900s specified ...
SIAA380Tailfin.jpg

S'pore 001 nearly there !!

ANA ( All Nippon Airways) Has selected R-R Trent 1000's for it's order of 50 Boeing 787s.... first civil aerospace order from Japan for R-R in 30 years !! Very important launch customer choice.

ANZ (Air new Zealand) also spec T1000's for it's ordered 787s.

So two major airliner launches will be utilising R-R power..
;)
 
AdamW said:
It's like I said earlier, there is only room for ONE superjumbo in the industry. If Boeing AND Airbus had built A380-sized planes then neither would be profitable.

The A380 development costs were something like £8bn. IIRC a brand new 747 retails for around £30M nowadays. As you can see, to return a profit you need to sell a LOT of planes!

I don't know what the 747 cost to develop, but it has been flying for nearly 40 years now. Not bad for a plane that was originally designed to carry cargo only! How many 747s have been sold?

Now, I am not saying they will sell as many A380s as they did 747s. Quite likely the opposite (less planes required to shift as many passengers, air travel might decline and so on). However, Boeing has already found that planned future developments of the 747 are falling on deaf ears to airline execs who want to buy the A380 instead.

Nothing returns a profit immediately. How many A380s have been sold so far? At what cost? Obviously there won't be a profit just yet. But, if the design life is anything like that of the 747 then it will return a profit.

Dont get to excited just yet, the yanks were going to build something similar but then changed their mind and went for a medium haul plane instead, something swayed their opinion, so either they have dropped a boo boo or the Europiens have.

Different market. In the UK you are seldom more than 50 miles from an international airport. If you are, you probably live out in the sticks. So what you do when you visit the UK is to fly into Heathrow, Birmingham, Leeds etc. and then take a train or a hirecar to where you are going. The same is true throughout Europe.

But, that wouldn't really work too well in the US. You would often be faced with either having to drive or train 400 miles after a transatlantic flight, or have 747s touching down in "local" airports! Neither is particularly logical. So, you come into the big "Hub" airports and then take what is basically a flying bus to a more local airport (on a "spoke").

I have also read some scaremongering (on US websites) about the size of the A380 being too great for current airports. That's a load of balls. The size of the A380 is pretty much exactly the upper limits set in place by the aviation authorities, and also maximum ground pressure (weight of the beast divided by the footprint of the tyres) will also all be designed to conform. Also the take off and landing rolls will come within the set limits so you WON'T need to add an extra mile to the runway.

Gates have to be redesigned slightly due to the two-deck configuration, but that is not a major problem as they are always being overhauled and jigged about. Heathrow T5 is being built with A380 support from the outset.

If you can fly the Antonov An-225 to pretty much any major airport then believe me, the relatively lightweight A380 will be no problem! :LOL:

Agree with everything you have said but you missed one vital thing, the french are involved, so when they dont like something the will picket the factories and set fire to loads of sheep as is the norm :LOL:

Suppose everythings ok untill one drops out of the sky :confused:
 
Good point, I hadn't factored in the French... It's not a military plane so I didn't think it would be an issue... :LOL:

Suppose everythings ok untill one drops out of the sky

I have read blogs saying "what if someone does a Lockerbie?" or "what if someone does a 11/9?". Well, why do we still fly big planes like the 747 and 777? There are smaller planes that fulfill the ETOPS requirements to be flown transatlantic (basically rules saying you must be able to get to a suitable runway to land if you lose an engine). I'm surprised people aren't worried about their heads falling off if they travel faster than a galloping horse ;)

I would imagine that the A380, whilst all new and subject to teething issues, will have drawn on all the experience gained with the previous models in the A300 series.

Would you be safer crashing in a really big plane or crashing in a smaller plane, all other things being equal? If I was on a plane coming down in the jungle, I would rather it flattened the trees than get wrapped round them!

Aaaanyhoo. I will be interested to see the logistics of 840-passenger planes.
How many Gate Gourmet lorries will fill it up with in-flight dinners?
How long will it take to load and unload passengers and baggage?
How near will everyone be to a toilet?
How many toilets will there be?
What about the issue of baby cries? On a plane with 100 people you might have one baby crying here and there throughout. But with 400 on each deck, you are far more likely to be disturbed for longer.
Will cabin crews for 840 people be too large and unwieldy for them to work as the efficient and close-knit teams they usually are?
With so many people in one place, are you more likely to get someone falling ill during the flight, or will the extra space reduce this likelihood? Will they be obliged to carry a doctor or paramedic?
 
You missunderstood me as regards them falling from the sky, but on that subject of big planes and trees, i saw a film years ago of an airliner which crashed in a forest in France and it breaks up like confetti millions of bits of aluminium everywhere and the bodies are torn to sheds, body parts hanging in trees etc etc, probably when they show you an aircrash you always see the engines and the tail, everything else seems to disappear
 
One thing hasn't been mentioned is that i believe they are going to operate at a level of 500+ (compared to 800 odd capacity) passengers, it's bad enough disembarking from a jumbo(200+) and waiting 2 hours to get through immigration (Orlando) let alone 500 passengers how long will it take then?!
So unless the infrastructure of the receiving airports is improved to take this influx then passenger tolerance is going to be at an even lower ebb.
 
Who cares about passengers ? More bu l l **** .... Stack 'em in like sardines 840 I think is max .. perhaps if they all lay down and were strapped in, then rotated upright .. they could fit even more into the old f art filled cylinder ... ;)
:D
Let us go via civilised (?) transport ...
http://www.gonomad.com/transports/0011/miniguide_freighter_voyage.html
Promised myself one of these .. may even do Oz this way !!
:eek: :eek:
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top