Airbus A380: So big; it's useless.

[OS]

Originally posted by: z0mb13
Hmm this is the popular mechanics artilce that I was saying about:

Airbus believes the market for aircraft that carry 500-plus passengers will be about 1200 planes over the next 15 years. Boeing, which initially argued that the market is no greater than 350 planes, now seems to quietly agree that the world needs a next-generation jumbo. Its recent forecasts on the demand for jets in this category are far more bullish than its public pronouncements. "They are now saying that the market could be almost 1000 planes," aerospace consultant Scott Hamilton notes. "That means room for both Airbus and Boeing."

Link can be found here

I saw that later, but that's basically speculation by a "consultant". Boeing's official stance as far as I have seen hasn't changed.

Last I heard Boeing believes the market can be served by new variants of the 747 with upgraded composites, 787 style wings, stretched top cabin, etc.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Bootprint

Originally posted by: halik


funky painted mig-29?

yep

Thanks :beer:

 

[Brainonska511]

First off, the 787 is not going after the same market as the A380. I'm almost positive that it is replacing the 757 and 767 series. The 747 will continue to be upgraded and remain in competition with the A380.

The problem with the A380 is that it leaves such a large wake, that air traffic will actually need to be rerouted because of it. More space behind an A380 will be required for the next plane on the tarmac, and therefore, less take-offs and landings at airports. It may cut be great for the number of people that it can hold, but is it also worth the congestion that it will cause at airports?

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: dethman
omg i'll bet everyone at airbus wishes they had consulted with you before they built and engineered the craft. they would NEVER have thought of all these things prior to building such a plane. thank THE LORD JESUS we have you to show us the light.

ummm. He was not the only one to think that when it was announced. Some of the best critics said it was a niche aircraft that will hard time reaching the break even point.

A niche market? Pretty much every international flight I've been on has been a 747 - so I guess it aint that much niche...

800 passengers vs 400-500ish

Trust me, there wont be an A380 with 800 passengers. The 747 has 350-400 something the A380 will have some 550

I remember A380 has 555 passengers in a standard "all classes" package. If only flying "cattle class", they have some 800

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: iversonyin

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: iversonyin

Right....If the Dreamliner delivers...it would be much more fuel efficient than the A380.

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.

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.

Bigger planes will have better fuel efficiency - all else being equal (they have more interior volume per frontal area). However, for planes total mass must be taken into account.
Anyway, I feel the A380 has improved fuel efficiency than the 747 variants - and probably the DreamLiner, if passengers/plane weight ratio will stay somewhat the same.
The biggest advantage of the composite construction would be construction time (no more riveting), followed by resistance to corrosion, hopefully vibration. The decrease in weight won't be so great

 

[dug777]

This thread raises a question from me :

How old is the OP? Going by his remarkably immature and troll-esque poll, he must be 10 or younger

On topic, i feel that the A380, IF Airbus can deliver, has great potential. The problem so far has been their inability to get the damn things into the hands of their buyers on time and working...

The 787 looks great too...

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Calin

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: dethman
omg i'll bet everyone at airbus wishes they had consulted with you before they built and engineered the craft. they would NEVER have thought of all these things prior to building such a plane. thank THE LORD JESUS we have you to show us the light.

ummm. He was not the only one to think that when it was announced. Some of the best critics said it was a niche aircraft that will hard time reaching the break even point.

A niche market? Pretty much every international flight I've been on has been a 747 - so I guess it aint that much niche...

800 passengers vs 400-500ish

Trust me, there wont be an A380 with 800 passengers. The 747 has 350-400 something the A380 will have some 550

I remember A380 has 555 passengers in a standard "all classes" package. If only flying "cattle class", they have some 800

I posted their max pax configurations, why are people trying to correct me?

 

[FreshPrince]

last year when I traveled to europe, I rode on an A340 on Luftansa.

that was probably one of the most confortable rides ever.

 

[d94]

bigger the plane, the smoother the ride

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Sluggo

Originally posted by: Calin

Originally posted by: Googer
This thing is a monster!

What is the red and white thing in the top left corner of the image?

Looks like a fighter plane of some sort, possibly a Mirage.

That's England - RAF don't operate Mirage do they? Tornado, harrier, eurofighter, etc.

AIrshow pic.... Multi national, much like any large airshow.....

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: George P Burdell

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: Shawn
Looks pretty damn cool to me.

It's so big that Airport terminals cannot accomodate it. In order to board such a beast, you will have to walk from the front enterance to the last terminal then walk some more all the way accross the tarmac and then stand in line and wait to be boarded. Once you are boarded, you will have to wait even longer for every one else to get on.

Where exactly are you getting this information?

Finaly the plane takes off and the flight is smooth but when time comes for you to land. THe process will start all over but in reverese

Yes, but cheaper tickets >> slight inconvenience.

Wait to get off, walk accross 1 mile of tarmac, walk some more, and keep walking.

Isn't this why they have buses on the tarmac and travelators in terminals for? You obviously need to travel some more.

The A380 is a big passanger timewaster. But if could prove usefull if China decides to jump on the Illegal Immigration Bandwagon that was started by Mexico. One A380 is a heck of a lot cheaper than providing food and healthcare for 15 million Chinnese Citizens.

You

I am getting this information from two personal and very credible sources:
I have family who worked in the Airline Buisness and know a Commercial Pilot. Continental Airlines former CEO Gordon Bethune said (in a company newsletter) that they had looked in to acquireing an A380 but there would be no real advantage to using it over the other planes in the Company's fleet. Two, Southwest airlines is the most profitable corporation in the buisness and they choose to use the smallest plane Boeing makes: The 737. Three I have flown on countless 747 Jumbo Jets and I cannot even begin to count the number of empty seats. An A380 would not be much better and those extra empty seats would cost the company more money and they in return would have to charge a higher ticket fee.

Three a close contact in the Airline industry told me that the trucks on the A380 are so big and so wide that it cannot turn around or steer it's way off 99% of America's runways.

Link

SOuthwest doesn't serve international markets except for perhaps Mexico and Canada. They are short hop service oriented where the cost of the 380 and efficiency of moving many people via the 380 don't come into play - ie; flights over 8 hours. Longest SW flight is probably in the neighborhood of 4.5 hours or so.

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS

Originally posted by: GoogerAlso there are a total of TWO airports that capable of landing such a large aircraft. Pointless and null due to it's size.

That is absolutely not true.
http://www1.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2570775

Thanks for the reminder, there is a WHOPPING total of SIX airports (out of hundreds) in the USA! Not very practical or smart buisness wise. This things primary purpose may be to pick up where the concorde left off: Trans-Atlantic flying (NYC to London).

You don't see many 747's or 777's (or airbus 340's) flying domestic routes either except some select flights that hop off eventually to overseas. ie; the Delta 777 from Atlanta that hops to Orlando and then to Argentina and back.

If you look at the major hubs for airlines that serve overseas, and the major international airports for overseas travel, the list is actually not that long.

By airline/favored international departure hubs off the top of my head ( having flown over 100 segments a year for over ten years):

Detroit - Northwest's major international hub
Atlanta - Delta
Cincinatti - Delta
Chicago - American
Charlotte - US Air
Cleveland - Continental

Major cities/tourist dest/airports regardless of hub status:

NYC -JFK
NYC/Jersey -Newark
Orlando
Vegas
San Fran
LA -LAX
Boston - Logan
DC - Dulles
Baltimore - BWI
Dallas -DFW

Yeah... there's more... but point is the list of airports that MAKE SENSE to operate these 380's out of in the USA is relatively small.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
last year when I traveled to europe, I rode on an A340 on Luftansa.

that was probably one of the most confortable rides ever.

Lufthansa über alles

<--- use to work for them

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I don't know.. maybe most of you don't fly a lot or whatever, but most of the time when I fly to Europe,I ride in 767s or MD-11s. Then again that's because I hop to the East Coast first then fly on. Now if you fly from Chicago or from the West Coast, that's when they throw in the 747s, 777s. Then I fly to Asia, which is always in a 747 if not in a 777 (rarely an MD-11), but the point is maybe you guys are looking at the wrong market and then throwing out the A380.

Think of it this way. Wherever the 747 flies, the A380 can fly too.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
I don't know.. maybe most of you don't fly a lot or whatever, but most of the time when I fly to Europe,I ride in 767s or MD-11s. Then again that's because I hop to the East Coast first then fly on. Now if you fly from Chicago or from the West Coast, that's when they throw in the 747s, 777s. Then I fly to Asia, which is always in a 747 if not in a 777 (rarely an MD-11), but the point is maybe you guys are looking at the wrong market and then throwing out the A380.

Think of it this way. Wherever the 747 flies, the A380 can fly too.

With the exception (as been brought up previously) airports that can handle the A380 and/or want to.

If the cost to upgrade is not worth the demand/benefit, an airport will not allow the A380 in. Few airlines will foot the upgrade bill on their own and no airline will try to move their main airport operations away to "blackmail" the airport into doing the upgrade.

 

[0roo0roo]

soon those frenchies will renationalize airbus, u just watch

and yes i'd rather be inside the 787 style interior. airbus's have deep set tiny windows.

 

[Vic]

The 380 is going to bankrupt Airbus. The problem is not the concept or the technology. That is fine. The problem is the implementation. Given everthing that has happened, it's going to be nearly impossible for Airbus to pull a profit on the plane at this point, and they are way way too heavily invested into this single project.

 

[Adul]

pulling numbers out of your ass for the loss!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: DLeRium
I don't know.. maybe most of you don't fly a lot or whatever, but most of the time when I fly to Europe,I ride in 767s or MD-11s. Then again that's because I hop to the East Coast first then fly on. Now if you fly from Chicago or from the West Coast, that's when they throw in the 747s, 777s. Then I fly to Asia, which is always in a 747 if not in a 777 (rarely an MD-11), but the point is maybe you guys are looking at the wrong market and then throwing out the A380.

Think of it this way. Wherever the 747 flies, the A380 can fly too.

With the exception (as been brought up previously) airports that can handle the A380 and/or want to.

If the cost to upgrade is not worth the demand/benefit, an airport will not allow the A380 in. Few airlines will foot the upgrade bill on their own and no airline will try to move their main airport operations away to "blackmail" the airport into doing the upgrade.

Many airports simply won't be able to do the upgrades. ORD can't even get its runway situation straightend out to help existing traffic. So that means the two busiest airports in the US can't take the plane (ATL and ORD). Even more to the point, no major US airline has even ordered the A380 (they are still out buying 777s and 787s). So for the forseeable future you are limted to foreign airlines mostly flying the 380 into LAX/SFO/JFK.

I think the market for the A380 is smaller than anticipated given its access requirements. It will likely still make money but it may take a decade or two longer than expected, especially given the ongoing problems.

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: DLeRium
I don't know.. maybe most of you don't fly a lot or whatever, but most of the time when I fly to Europe,I ride in 767s or MD-11s. Then again that's because I hop to the East Coast first then fly on. Now if you fly from Chicago or from the West Coast, that's when they throw in the 747s, 777s. Then I fly to Asia, which is always in a 747 if not in a 777 (rarely an MD-11), but the point is maybe you guys are looking at the wrong market and then throwing out the A380.

Think of it this way. Wherever the 747 flies, the A380 can fly too.

With the exception (as been brought up previously) airports that can handle the A380 and/or want to.

If the cost to upgrade is not worth the demand/benefit, an airport will not allow the A380 in. Few airlines will foot the upgrade bill on their own and no airline will try to move their main airport operations away to "blackmail" the airport into doing the upgrade.

Many airports simply won't be able to do the upgrades. ORD can't even get its runway situation straightend out to help existing traffic. So that means the two busiest airports in the US can't take the plane (ATL and ORD). Even more to the point, no major US airline has even ordered the A380 (they are still out buying 777s and 787s). So for the forseeable future you are limted to foreign airlines mostly flying the 380 into LAX/SFO/JFK.

I think the market for the A380 is smaller than anticipated given its access requirements. It will likely still make money but it may take a decade or two longer than expected, especially given the ongoing problems.

US Air is on the order list for the 380. ATL and ORD can take a 380 with upgrades to both ramp space(jet ways etc), and taxiways. THough at ATL I imagine it would be easier.

Don't confuse volume of takeoffs with volume of passengers per plane.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: DLeRium
I don't know.. maybe most of you don't fly a lot or whatever, but most of the time when I fly to Europe,I ride in 767s or MD-11s. Then again that's because I hop to the East Coast first then fly on. Now if you fly from Chicago or from the West Coast, that's when they throw in the 747s, 777s. Then I fly to Asia, which is always in a 747 if not in a 777 (rarely an MD-11), but the point is maybe you guys are looking at the wrong market and then throwing out the A380.

Think of it this way. Wherever the 747 flies, the A380 can fly too.

With the exception (as been brought up previously) airports that can handle the A380 and/or want to.

If the cost to upgrade is not worth the demand/benefit, an airport will not allow the A380 in. Few airlines will foot the upgrade bill on their own and no airline will try to move their main airport operations away to "blackmail" the airport into doing the upgrade.

Many airports simply won't be able to do the upgrades. ORD can't even get its runway situation straightend out to help existing traffic. So that means the two busiest airports in the US can't take the plane (ATL and ORD). Even more to the point, no major US airline has even ordered the A380 (they are still out buying 777s and 787s). So for the forseeable future you are limted to foreign airlines mostly flying the 380 into LAX/SFO/JFK.

I think the market for the A380 is smaller than anticipated given its access requirements. It will likely still make money but it may take a decade or two longer than expected, especially given the ongoing problems.

US Air is on the order list for the 380. ATL and ORD can take a 380 with upgrades to both ramp space(jet ways etc), and taxiways. THough at ATL I imagine it would be easier.

Don't confuse volume of takeoffs with volume of passengers per plane.

The problem with ORD is that there are already so many operations already. Now you add a plane that will require a larger seperation from other take offs and landings because of wake turbulence and it will congest it even more.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I am quite familiar with ATL. It currently has five parallel runways, from north to south, 1-5. Runways 3 and 5 are the only ones long enough to handle the A380 but the brand new fifth runway cannot handle the weight as a good portion of the runway is a bridge/roof of I-285. As soon as they are done resurfacing runways 1-4, they will turn their attention to a new International terminal. Concourse E will become yet another domestic terminal. Whether the new International terminal/Concourse F will be built with the A380 in mind is anyone's guess.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: DLeRium
I don't know.. maybe most of you don't fly a lot or whatever, but most of the time when I fly to Europe,I ride in 767s or MD-11s. Then again that's because I hop to the East Coast first then fly on. Now if you fly from Chicago or from the West Coast, that's when they throw in the 747s, 777s. Then I fly to Asia, which is always in a 747 if not in a 777 (rarely an MD-11), but the point is maybe you guys are looking at the wrong market and then throwing out the A380.

Think of it this way. Wherever the 747 flies, the A380 can fly too.

With the exception (as been brought up previously) airports that can handle the A380 and/or want to.

If the cost to upgrade is not worth the demand/benefit, an airport will not allow the A380 in. Few airlines will foot the upgrade bill on their own and no airline will try to move their main airport operations away to "blackmail" the airport into doing the upgrade.

Many airports simply won't be able to do the upgrades. ORD can't even get its runway situation straightend out to help existing traffic. So that means the two busiest airports in the US can't take the plane (ATL and ORD). Even more to the point, no major US airline has even ordered the A380 (they are still out buying 777s and 787s). So for the forseeable future you are limted to foreign airlines mostly flying the 380 into LAX/SFO/JFK.

I think the market for the A380 is smaller than anticipated given its access requirements. It will likely still make money but it may take a decade or two longer than expected, especially given the ongoing problems.

US Air is on the order list for the 380. ATL and ORD can take a 380 with upgrades to both ramp space(jet ways etc), and taxiways. THough at ATL I imagine it would be easier.

Don't confuse volume of takeoffs with volume of passengers per plane.

Link?

AFAIK no US passenger airline has ordered it.

 

[NoShangriLa]

747-400 standard 3 class is capable of 416 seats, and 2 class is 568 seats. the new 747-400ERF cargo payload is 124 metric tones. Planned 747-8F cargo payload is projected to be between 134-140 tones.

A380-800 seating capacity range from 3 class 555 seats, and up to 850 seats single economy configuration. A380-800F cargo payload is between 140-150 tones with side door loading that greatly reduce turn around time.

Fuel economy still have to be seen once both planes are in operation because both parties claim that they are 15-20% more efficient than the other.

IMHO, the modern EU plane is going to be more fuel efficient than the US by comparing the automobile engines.

Landing A380 with 747 on the tarmac in the foreground.

 

[jemcam]

IMHO, the modern EU plane is going to be more fuel efficient than the US by comparing the automobile engines.

Is this a joke? Are you really comparing two separate industries that don't even resemble each other? Only the fact that one is based in Europe and one is based in the US?

Also, I don't think you're comparing apples and oranges even with automobiles.