Europeans claim wictory over Americans!!!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,884
569
126
Originally posted by: menorton
wow, europe can make the largest plane in the world.

























































































now why can't they go to the moon?

muahahahhaah. but seriously, can we?? its been a long while and I'm having doubts if we can even go back there :moon:
 

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
Originally posted by: menorton
wow, europe can make the largest plane in the world.


now why can't they go to the moon?

No one has been in 32 years.

FYI: there is nothing there.

It's like saying why can't the US do SuperSonic passenger craft. It's irrelevant and pertains to the past.
 

menorton

Member
Feb 10, 2004
137
2
81
1. exactly. We could have esaily built the largest airplane in the world, who cares. We could also build the largest car and the largest ship in the world, who cares. The airline industry did not build it NOT becuase they were idiots and didn't know how, but b/c their profits are 0 due to the market so there is no need to build it. Instead of asking us americans 'why didn't you build it' you should ask yourself 'why should we'?

2. As for the moon...we are going back there soon and then to mars. I remember hearing that the reason we can't go back right now is becuase all of the information - which in 1969 was on paper -- burned in a wharehouse fire two decades ago. Is there any truth to this?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
For the routes I normally fly (domestic US) it's still almost all Boeings, except for the shorter flights that used to fly 737s are slowly switching to A320s. Personally, I would think there is more of a market at that end of things that at the "world's largest plane" end, especially in other parts of the world where many flights are shorter range. I'm surprised Boeing isn't doing something to hang on to that market.
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
if anyone remembers, boeing was also developing a counterpart to the A380 and cancelled it a few years ago in lieu of the 7E7. They don't think there is a market for an aircraft that large.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
This thing will be the death of Airbus:

1. R&D costs have spiralled well beyond initial estimates to the point of jeopardizing profitability of the program.
2. The market niche Airbus is targeting with this monstrosity is very limited, and Airbus may not receive enough orders to even break even, let alone make a profit.
3. Airbus initially marketed their behemoth as cost saving and more fuel efficient for airline (i.e. fewer flights along the same route equals lower operating costs)...however, the operating costs of maintaining the A380 is estimated to escalate well beyond Airbus' initial estimates, such that the status quo may actually prove more affordable.
4. The A380 will introduce a severe strain on airports as most gates are not designed to handle the loading of so many passengers in a time/cost effective manner.
5. Liability - if one of these things go down, you are dealing with a huge PR disaster and a whole lot of lawsuits.


You cannot compare the A380 to the 7E7...Boeing decided to fill the market segment for highly fuel efficient and more comfortable planes for longer routes, with the remainder of their fleet offering filling the connection flights...the 7E7 is targeting a market segment that has larger growth potential and is consistent with the changing operating strategies of most airlines...the A380 is an engineering feat that has no market, kind of like the Spruce Goose.
 

menorton

Member
Feb 10, 2004
137
2
81
my sentitments exactly. All i see in the airbus is higher costs, more fuel, and just old-world bloating. The 7E7 is deisgned to have a very high fuel MPG and go veyr long distances, and be overall very cheap. That is what the airlines need, not the latest and largest thing.
 

nCred

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2003
1,105
100
106
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
This thing will be the death of Airbus:

1. R&D costs have spiralled well beyond initial estimates to the point of jeopardizing profitability of the program.
2. The market niche Airbus is targeting with this monstrosity is very limited, and Airbus may not receive enough orders to even break even, let alone make a profit.
3. Airbus initially marketed their behemoth as cost saving and more fuel efficient for airline (i.e. fewer flights along the same route equals lower operating costs)...however, the operating costs of maintaining the A380 is estimated to escalate well beyond Airbus' initial estimates, such that the status quo may actually prove more affordable.
4. The A380 will introduce a severe strain on airports as most gates are not designed to handle the loading of so many passengers in a time/cost effective manner.
5. Liability - if one of these things go down, you are dealing with a huge PR disaster and a whole lot of lawsuits.


You cannot compare the A380 to the 7E7...Boeing decided to fill the market segment for highly fuel efficient and more comfortable planes for longer routes, with the remainder of their fleet offering filling the connection flights...the 7E7 is targeting a market segment that has larger growth potential and is consistent with the changing operating strategies of most airlines...the A380 is an engineering feat that has no market, kind of like the Spruce Goose.

umm.. 149 of them are already ordered, a lot of people thought it would be a disaster a few years ago, but now it seems like ít will be a success.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
It seems kind of strange that there doesn't seem to be any other large developer of large civilian aircraft besides Boeing and Airbus. Maybe China or India will develop one in the future. What about Japan?

 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
It seems kind of strange that there doesn't seem to be any other large developer of large civilian aircraft besides Boeing and Airbus. Maybe China or India will develop one in the future. What about Japan?



Lockheed.

Its very expensive to build these aircraft and it usually takes many, many years to go from concept to an actual flying model. And it snot like a company will be able to sell 10,000 of them to recoup costs, it is a very small market.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Congrats to the EU.

It's good to see Europe finally have the biggest and best of something.

Meh, Americanitis has struck terminally at last ;)


 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
There was at least one Airbus plane that crashed for this reason. I can't recall the flight number, but the tail came off. Basically, by putting holes in a composite part

You are thinking of the Airbus A300 that crashed shortly after takeoff from JFK due to wake turbulence from I believe a 757 in front of it.

That plane crashed because the pilot used the tail to steer the plane, which they were not supposed to do, and the tail fin broke off. If Airbus can be blamed it would be for not building safeguards in the fly by wire software to prevent the pilot from doing anything that would cause the plane to break apart instead of relying on the pilot to not do it.

What are you talking about flying by the tail? Why would using the rudder cause the tail to fall off? I mean seriously think about that. An integral part of the aircraft that is used all the time and it will cause the plane to fall apart? If that is the truth there would be so many lawsuits it would make the EU's head spin.

It seems kind of strange that there doesn't seem to be any other large developer of large civilian aircraft besides Boeing and Airbus. Maybe China or India will develop one in the future. What about Japan?

Not lucrative enough. Lockeeh Martin and McDonell Douglas both tried and basically failed in that arena. Military contracts are where the money is at.

If these are successful, US airlines may need to jump on the bandwagon in order to stay competitive with other airlines who may purchase them.

It really depends on a few things.

A. Airports, can they handle them? Airbus is claiming 50 airports worldwide that can handle the planes weight. That really limits the routes it can fly.
B. Capacity. Currently the most used aircraft on oceanic routes is the 767. A 250 pax aircraft. I honestly could see this thing be huge in the freight industry.

We'll see how many airlines decide to buy it. Noone knows for sure whether it will be a success or not

I believe Boeing already has over 200 confirmed orders for 7E7 series aircraft.

While you guys are arguing A380 vs 7E7, which doesn't make much sense, you should remember another important development - the A350.

Wont be available until 2010 at the earliest.

7E7s will be in service in 2006 I believe.

IMO it is a very interesting aircraft. But I question whether it will be a feasible design. I knew a few months ago Northwest took some DC-10s out of mothballs to replace 747s on certain routes due to lower demand. Unless there is an expansion in the demand for seats the 7E7 may become a better replacement craft for airlines. 250 Pax seems to be a sweet spot on routes this plane will fly. What do you need 800 seats for if you are filling 250-300 of them?

Boenings offer to bring a plane to replace current 250 pax planes with one that is less costly has to be attractive to airlines trying to cope with higher fuel costs.

Besides boeing can sell 777s configured for I believe nearly 450 seats like the 747. Except you are running two engines instead of 4. 777 is really a nice design for an aircraft and that market.


 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
umm.. 149 of them are already ordered, a lot of people thought it would be a disaster a few years ago, but now it seems like ít will be a success.

It will take over 400 orders just for Airbus to earn back their design to production costs alone...while 250 planes short may not seem like much, in an industry that is seeking to reduce risks and cut costs, airlines are simply not in the market for such enourmous commercial aircraft.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,114
5,644
126
All talk of it being a failure/success is quite Moot at this time. Unless the wings fall off during flight testing, the 380 is now a reality and S&D will now determine its' fate.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
There was at least one Airbus plane that crashed for this reason. I can't recall the flight number, but the tail came off. Basically, by putting holes in a composite part

You are thinking of the Airbus A300 that crashed shortly after takeoff from JFK due to wake turbulence from I believe a 757 in front of it.

That plane crashed because the pilot used the tail to steer the plane, which they were not supposed to do, and the tail fin broke off. If Airbus can be blamed it would be for not building safeguards in the fly by wire software to prevent the pilot from doing anything that would cause the plane to break apart instead of relying on the pilot to not do it.

What are you talking about flying by the tail? Why would using the rudder cause the tail to fall off? I mean seriously think about that. An integral part of the aircraft that is used all the time and it will cause the plane to fall apart? If that is the truth there would be so many lawsuits it would make the EU's head spin.

That was the NTSB conclusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...an_Airlines_Flight_587. Apparently you are not supposed to use the rudder to steer the plane.
The A300, which took off just minutes after a Boeing 747 on the same runway, flew into the larger jet's wake, an area of very turbulent air. The co-pilot, Sten Molin, attempted to keep the plane upright with the rudder, but pushed the rudder too far to one side and then overcorrected too far to the other. The strength of the air flowing against the moving rudder stressed the aircraft's tail fin and eventually snapped it off entirely, causing the aircraft to lose control and crash. According to the NTSB, the crash would not have occurred but for the co-pilot's use of the rudder.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
umm.. 149 of them are already ordered, a lot of people thought it would be a disaster a few years ago, but now it seems like ít will be a success.

It will take over 400 orders just for Airbus to earn back their design to production costs alone...while 250 planes short may not seem like much, in an industry that is seeking to reduce risks and cut costs, airlines are simply not in the market for such enourmous commercial aircraft.

Umm, they have a long time to recoup the costs. 747 has been on the market for a very long time. 149 is just a downpayment of orders.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
That was the NTSB conclusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...an_Airlines_Flight_587. Apparently you are not supposed to use the rudder to steer the plane.
The A300, which took off just minutes after a Boeing 747 on the same runway, flew into the larger jet's wake, an area of very turbulent air. The co-pilot, Sten Molin, attempted to keep the plane upright with the rudder, but pushed the rudder too far to one side and then overcorrected too far to the other. The strength of the air flowing against the moving rudder stressed the aircraft's tail fin and eventually snapped it off entirely, causing the aircraft to lose control and crash. According to the NTSB, the crash would not have occurred but for the co-pilot's use of the rudder.
Basically, when you steer a plane with the tail rudder, the directed air flow creates a stress on the tail. The wake of the other plane increased that force by some amount. The tail mounting assembly couldn't handle the combined stress, since the part it was bolted into lost structural integrity during the bolting process. You're both right. :p
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: SuperTool
There is no A380. There is no Airbus. It's all a liberal media invention. There is no way in hell the socialist French with their 35hr work week can outdo Boeing, a great American capitalist institution. ;)

It took a whole continent to out do one of our light industries! Nuff said!

So what? There are fewer people in the UK, Germany and France combined than there are in the US.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
hehe

this is the 5th thread in 3 days about the A380

it's pretty funny to see how some flagwaving yanks are falling over each other in bashing Airbus and hoping to see it crash or fail

 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
This thing will be the death of Airbus:

1. R&D costs have spiralled well beyond initial estimates to the point of jeopardizing profitability of the program.
2. The market niche Airbus is targeting with this monstrosity is very limited, and Airbus may not receive enough orders to even break even, let alone make a profit.
3. Airbus initially marketed their behemoth as cost saving and more fuel efficient for airline (i.e. fewer flights along the same route equals lower operating costs)...however, the operating costs of maintaining the A380 is estimated to escalate well beyond Airbus' initial estimates, such that the status quo may actually prove more affordable.
4. The A380 will introduce a severe strain on airports as most gates are not designed to handle the loading of so many passengers in a time/cost effective manner.
5. Liability - if one of these things go down, you are dealing with a huge PR disaster and a whole lot of lawsuits.


You cannot compare the A380 to the 7E7...Boeing decided to fill the market segment for highly fuel efficient and more comfortable planes for longer routes, with the remainder of their fleet offering filling the connection flights...the 7E7 is targeting a market segment that has larger growth potential and is consistent with the changing operating strategies of most airlines...the A380 is an engineering feat that has no market, kind of like the Spruce Goose.

umm.. 149 of them are already ordered, a lot of people thought it would be a disaster a few years ago, but now it seems like ít will be a success.



a lot of them are going to be used by UPS and other freight companies

the small low cost carriers like jetblue are more efficient because they have a much faster turn around time than the legacy carriers like Delta. airplanes don't make money sitting on the ground. this huge thing will take a long time to load and unload, time in which it can be earning revenue for it's company
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Umm, they have a long time to recoup the costs. 747 has been on the market for a very long time. 149 is just a downpayment of orders.

The 747 has been on the market for a long time, but it has also been sustained by a growth market which has maintained a steady demand...not to mention the contracts for sustainment of planes already fielded.

My point is that not only does Airbus have enough up front orders to make the program profitable, but the market potential for the A380 is so dismal that the program will never come out of the red.

This is what the A380 profit model looks like:

Phase 1 - Build world's largest commercial airplane
Phase 2 - ?
Phase 3 - Profits