IIRC even boeing admits that there is a significant market for this extra large jumbo jet (forgot how many units they predicted). They say the market is large enough for both players (Boeing and airbus)
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,393
- 8,552
- 126
it's less fuel efficient on a seat-mile basis than the upcoming 747-8.
as far as cargo, maybe it'd do ok, but fedex cancelled its order, placing the freighter version in jeopardy.
it's telling that in the early 90s, boeing and mcdonnell douglas both though of building super-jumbos, and both thought it was a bad idea. that was the same time period airbus first started considering the A3XX.
A niche market? Pretty much every international flight I've been on has been a 747 - so I guess it aint that much niche...[/quote]you must be flying trans-pacific routes or europe-asia routes. particularly between big cities. there are only 3 planes that can fly trans-pacific routes right now, the 747, the A340 (and A300, though i don't think those are on sale anymore), and the 777 (and only because the US gov't gave it a giant ETOPS exception after boeing built a huge runway at midway). ETOPS says that 2 engined airplanes have to stay within a certain amount of flying time from an emergency runway, and there aren't many in the pacific region. the middle of asia surely has similar issue with a lack of emergency runways.
10 billion dollars spent, 10% rate of return will double 3 times, so they'll have made $40 billion. i dunno. the break even point is 400+ aircraft, and who knows over what time frame that is. money today is better than money later. and they'll have a real problem if anyone ever starts buying the more efficient 747-8.
iirc the 787 is less fuel efficient per seat-mile than the current 747, which is slightly less efficient than the A380.
southwest doesn't fly 707s. they fly 737s. about the only people that fly 707s is the US airforce (C-135).
the 797 or whatever it is doesn't have enough windows. people like windows.
iversonyin
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2004
- 3,303
- 0
- 76
I'm just wondering where you get the number from. From what I've read about the Dreamliner so far, its going to be made out of light carbon fiber types material, so its going to be lighter and supposingly more fuel efficient. And let just say that the Dreamliner is not as fuel efficient as A380 per seat-mile for argurment sake. Wouldn't it be hard for airline to fill a A380 on 1 route as to the Dreamliner? So effectively, the Dreamliner can yield more seat-mile?
Boeing's vision is that airlines are going to offer more routes and more flights- so that they will buy smaller aircraft instead of double deck jets like A380. We don't know if teh Dreamliner will deliver, but we know the A380 hasn't.
My prediction is that the A380 will probably dominate (if its ever deliver without any problem) long international route. While the Dreamliners would take most of domestic's market.
Don't know if anyone's said anything about the more morbid topic of things not going right, but entrusting the lives of so many people (double of jets now) to couple engines and a tonne of aluminum doesn't sound so good to me.
I am worried that this plane will severely limit the flight time choices for people. Instead of running 2-3x 777/787, they place a A380 in, you would be limited to one time slot. Miss your flight? Tough luck. Equipment problems? Wait it out, or hope they can find another A380 to get you there.
I say frequency beats capacity.
I say frequency beats capacity.
That's true. But there's risk in every element of life. Statistically, air travel is one of the safest modes of travel.
But price beats all.
Oh, come on! What could be better, than stuffing 500+ souls into an aluminum can that flies??
Just think, the first time one of these crashes......they'll successfully kill MORE people at one time than anytime before in aviation history!! :shocked:
Just think, the first time one of these crashes......they'll successfully kill MORE people at one time than anytime before in aviation history!! :shocked:
However you look at it, airplanes are a marvel of engineering. The A380's design is amazing. But my favorite is still the 747, the curves are just way too sexy.
OS
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 15,581
- 1
- 76
no they didn't, boeing has made statements the international market for this size is maybe 400 planes, and that airbus is "welcome to have it".
As mentioned earlier, the breakeven point for the project is exactly how big the market is, and the more airbus encounters engineering delays and cost overruns, the less likely the project will ever make a single dime, let alone dig airbus deeper into the hole.
Of course, when you suck on government teat for your commercial product development, it doesn't really matter.
These are all old debates, questions that have been answered years ago.
The A380 is meant for big airports with wide runways, special gates, and meant to fly heavy traffic routes. With that, it gives 25% cheaper operating cost per seat to the airline vs. Boeing's biggest aircraft. It's a good plane for big airports and heavy routes.
The Boeing 787 is going after a different market of medium sized airports and medium traffic routes.
The A380 is a business failure not because of the business plan, but because of the poor execution/manufacturing of Airbus. Over time though, it will succeed.
My main objection to the A380 is that after September 11, I really don't like the idea of something even bigger than what we had back then flying around in the skies.
The A380 is meant for big airports with wide runways, special gates, and meant to fly heavy traffic routes. With that, it gives 25% cheaper operating cost per seat to the airline vs. Boeing's biggest aircraft. It's a good plane for big airports and heavy routes.
The Boeing 787 is going after a different market of medium sized airports and medium traffic routes.
The A380 is a business failure not because of the business plan, but because of the poor execution/manufacturing of Airbus. Over time though, it will succeed.
My main objection to the A380 is that after September 11, I really don't like the idea of something even bigger than what we had back then flying around in the skies.
SonicIce
Diamond Member
- Apr 12, 2004
- 4,771
- 0
- 76
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7550964747414840994&q=rc&hl=en
see, it doesn't need much runway
see, it doesn't need much runway
You guys think way too American. Unlike in America the space in most places of the world is limited. Many Airports are already operating at max capacity - how should they cope with more traffic? You cant just build new runways - besides the spce requirements, the attempt usually results in 10-20 year legal battles
I work in product development (airplane design) for Boeing, so I best stay out of this. It is hilarious reading all these stupid posts though. Keep them coming.
I've only seen a couple intelligent posts.
I've only seen a couple intelligent posts.
Airports will grow in size. Eventually this size plane will be the norm for long flights between big cities.
I thought putting a 2nd story on a plane was excessive, but now every international flight has a 2nd floor.
I thought putting a 2nd story on a plane was excessive, but now every international flight has a 2nd floor.
Just read about the Wired Magazine's upcoming modern tall super towers
Terrorists can you say A380 FTW????
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter