Giant plane gives Airbus giant headaches 7/17/2006

[Specop 007]

The Scarebus can sit in the hanger.
If it aint Boeing I aint going!!

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: A5

Originally posted by: Nextman916
Ive learned quite a lot about passenger jets recently. My dad has a huge infatuation about planes hes on airliners.net forums daily chatting up about them, he is extremely biased and favors boeing. He says Airbus pretends to be a privately owned organization but everyone knows their govermently funded, while boeing isnt and still has safer better, more reliable planes.

Boeing gets a LOT of money from the US government as well, it's just not directly into the commercial jet program like Airbus's money.

Huge difference.
Boeing gets funding from the .gov to make .mil vehicles. While it is a lucrative contract there still has to be orders filled.
Scarebus gets free money from the .gov to stay in business, without having to meet any orders in order to qualify for the money.

Its the difference between you getting 10 bucks to mow the lawn, and you getting 10 bucks just because.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: A5

Originally posted by: Nextman916
Ive learned quite a lot about passenger jets recently. My dad has a huge infatuation about planes hes on airliners.net forums daily chatting up about them, he is extremely biased and favors boeing. He says Airbus pretends to be a privately owned organization but everyone knows their govermently funded, while boeing isnt and still has safer better, more reliable planes.

Boeing gets a LOT of money from the US government as well, it's just not directly into the commercial jet program like Airbus's money.

Huge difference.
Boeing gets funding from the .gov to make .mil vehicles. While it is a lucrative contract there still has to be orders filled.
Scarebus gets free money from the .gov to stay in business, without having to meet any orders in order to qualify for the money.

Its the difference between you getting 10 bucks to mow the lawn, and you getting 10 bucks just because.

Boeing gets federal subsidies designed to not look like federal subsidies to circumvent trade agreements. Same sh!t. :roll:

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: A5

Originally posted by: Nextman916
Ive learned quite a lot about passenger jets recently. My dad has a huge infatuation about planes hes on airliners.net forums daily chatting up about them, he is extremely biased and favors boeing. He says Airbus pretends to be a privately owned organization but everyone knows their govermently funded, while boeing isnt and still has safer better, more reliable planes.

Boeing gets a LOT of money from the US government as well, it's just not directly into the commercial jet program like Airbus's money.

Huge difference.
Boeing gets funding from the .gov to make .mil vehicles. While it is a lucrative contract there still has to be orders filled.
Scarebus gets free money from the .gov to stay in business, without having to meet any orders in order to qualify for the money.

Its the difference between you getting 10 bucks to mow the lawn, and you getting 10 bucks just because.

Boeing gets federal subsidies designed to not look like federal subsidies to circumvent trade agreements. Same sh!t. :roll:

They also eat babies and helped build the Haliburton weather machine.

 

[K1052]

Airbus is getting desperate, they just announched another relaunch for the A350.

Dosen't matter if the damn fuselage is made of pixie dust since it won't be ready until at least five years after the 787 starts to deliver.

 

[Toonces]

isn't competition good?
I'd much rather have Airbus and Boeing than only one or the other.

People defending airline companies due to nationalistic pride dosen't make much sense.

Oh, and Bombardier FTW!

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: UNESC0
isn't competition good?
I'd much rather have Airbus and Boeing than only one or the other.

People defending airline companies due to nationalistic pride dosen't make much sense.

Oh, and Bombardier FTW!

I agree 100%. Boeing has always worked best under pressure.

 

[JS80]

French company FTL

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Connoisseur

Originally posted by: Nextman916
Ive learned quite a lot about passenger jets recently. My dad has a huge infatuation about planes hes on airliners.net forums daily chatting up about them, he is extremely biased and favors boeing. He says Airbus pretends to be a privately owned organization but everyone knows their govermently funded, while boeing isnt and still has safer better, more reliable planes.

Hey another win for capitalism. In either case, the 787 does have more advanced technologies than the A380's. However, I for one support taking all the big airline companies down and going with a more taxi-cab model of air transportation. Instead of having to share an aircraft with 300+ sweaty, smelly disgruntled people, I'd rather share it with only 20 or 30 disgruntled people and be able to land in airports other than the big ones... it's probably not going to happen until the flying car becomes feasible... but I can always dream.

Flying terrorist cars FTL.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: UNESC0
isn't competition good?
I'd much rather have Airbus and Boeing than only one or the other.

People defending airline companies due to nationalistic pride dosen't make much sense.

Oh, and Bombardier FTW!

It is, though I must admit a degree of pleasure at Boeing beating the pants off Airbus in this round though.

Boeing's bet on the future of air travel was spot on.

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: UNESC0
isn't competition good?
I'd much rather have Airbus and Boeing than only one or the other.

People defending airline companies due to nationalistic pride dosen't make much sense.

Thank you

 

[Pantoot]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Connoisseur
it's probably not going to happen until the flying car becomes feasible... but I can always dream.

Flying terrorist cars FTL.

Forget about the terrorists, just watch the people around you as you drive home today. Do you really want those people in the air?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Pantoot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Connoisseur
it's probably not going to happen until the flying car becomes feasible... but I can always dream.

Flying terrorist cars FTL.

Forget about the terrorists, just watch the people around you as you drive home today. Do you really want those people in the air?

I've thought about that on more then 1 occasion.

They need to perfect auto-drive systems before turning people loose in a 3 dimensional driving environment.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the A380's real downfall is that it costs more to operate per seat mile than the current 747-400, and way more than the upcoming 747-8.

... and that was before the doubling of costs of development was factored in.

(from the article in the OP)
Airbus, meanwhile, said it expects the redesign of the A-350 ? seen as a competitor to the Dreamliner ? would nearly double the cost of developing the plane to about $10 billion.

 

[Paddington]

Boeing's 787 is a great plane for medium sizes cities like Cleveland and Columbus, since it gives Boeing 747 operating costs per passenger at a plane much smaller in size. That means they can have more direct routes in between cities for routes where there's demand, but not enough demand to justify a jumbo jet.

The Airbus A380 is only good for the big international airports, and even then only for a few of the most busy routes like New York to London.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Nextman916
Ive learned quite a lot about passenger jets recently. My dad has a huge infatuation about planes hes on airliners.net forums daily chatting up about them, he is extremely biased and favors boeing. He says Airbus pretends to be a privately owned organization but everyone knows their govermently funded, while boeing isnt and still has safer better, more reliable planes.

The French government used to have a bounty on laptops from Boeing personnel. They would pay folks for stealing Boeing laptops to pass on to Airbus. Boeing had to have some really paranoid laptop procedures.

First time I've heard about that laptop thing.

I hadn't heard the laptop thing before either, but I think it's relatively well known that french companies and the french government have actively engaged in some pretty brazen industrial espionage. Some years back there were allegations that AirFrance was involved in bugging seats in their aircraft.

Search for France in this document
http://www.ndu.edu/library/ic6/94-S-24.pdf

 

[Jawo]

I'm glad that Boeing is getting good press after so many years of bad news. I have always been a big fan of the American aerospace industry....they make some of the coolest planes!

One question I had is what ever happened to Lockhead Martin in the commercial aerospace industry? Or are they diversifying to more IT/consulting/defense work?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Connoisseur

Hey another win for capitalism. In either case, the 787 does have more advanced technologies than the A380's. However, I for one support taking all the big airline companies down and going with a more taxi-cab model of air transportation. Instead of having to share an aircraft with 300+ sweaty, smelly disgruntled people, I'd rather share it with only 20 or 30 disgruntled people and be able to land in airports other than the big ones... it's probably not going to happen until the flying car becomes feasible... but I can always dream.

Embraer Brazil - ERJ 135 can do that now

37 disgruntled passengers, overstressed hyperactive Stewardess, homicidal maniac for a pilot, manic depressant co-pilot.
You can have it all Now!


I've worked Aerospace all my life, and have always been skeptical of the aluminum clouds of sacrificial parrengers.
That's the Super-Heavies.

Even the 30 year old 425+ seat tour versions of the L-1011's and DC-10/MD-11's taxed the capacities on sometimes
overpowered the airport fracilities, so as to make boarding, travel in a 'sardine packing' seat arrangement,
do a 12+ straight shot packed in oil, and then try to get out of the plane when every one is deteermined to get in your way . .
just isn't the air travel experience it used to be.

It's not so much the plane as it is the handling facility for the traveling swine.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the A380's real downfall is that it costs more to operate per seat mile than the current 747-400, and way more than the upcoming 747-8.

They are talking about creating a new category for the A380 regarding wake turbulence. I guess it is significantly worse than a 744. They are doubling the minimum distance from A380s to 10NM, up from 5NM of a 747.

that is horrific for a busy airport. and busy airports are the only market for the A380.

doh!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the A380's real downfall is that it costs more to operate per seat mile than the current 747-400, and way more than the upcoming 747-8.

... and that was before the doubling of costs of development was factored in.

(from the article in the OP)
Airbus, meanwhile, said it expects the redesign of the A-350 ? seen as a competitor to the Dreamliner ? would nearly double the cost of developing the plane to about $10 billion.

i was talking about the A380, the super jumbo.

but yes, the A370 is going to have problems too, with that doubling of cost. though that brings it up to just above what the 787 will cost.

but boeing is using the 787 design and materials lessons to make the 747-8, as well as the 4th gen 737. so the $9 billion in dev costs for the 787 will lead to lower dev costs for those two planes

 

[Paddington]

Since I don't live in New York or Chicago, I don't care much for the A380, mainly because it's something I would only encounter as a connecting flight, which is something I hate to begin with.

The Boeing 787 promises more point-to-point service and that's definitely something I'm looking forward too.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
They are talking about creating a new category for the A380 regarding wake turbulence. I guess it is significantly worse than a 744. They are doubling the minimum distance from A380s to 10NM, up from 5NM of a 747.

Hmmm... 10 nanometers doesn't sound like much of a distance.

pssst. It's Nautical Miles.
In the meantime, I will calibrate my sarcasm meter.

Wake turbulence is horrible. Remember the Airbus A300 crash in NY post 9/11? It was partially due to the wake turbulence of the JAL 747-400 that was flying ahead...

 

[TallBill]

Didnt realize that they left such a big ass wake.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Actually if you think about it, there are quite a few markets for the A380.

If you're talking busy routes, there are plenty of routes that fill up 747s each day. I fly SFO to Taiwan a lot, and they run 10 flights per week just on the airline I take. I'm sure United runs at least once a day too, as does China Airlines. When you add it up, that's quite a few 747s. I'm sure that SFO to Tokyo is at least a twice a day operation. LAX is even crazier. I know there are at least 14 flights a week on Eva to Taipei, and I'm sure China Airlines and United run a similar number of flights out.

Forget that there is a demand for flights to Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong and Australia as well as Seoul. Then you add in Atlantic flights, and there's quite a market for A380s, but for those of you that fly domestic a lot, I can see why it makes sense.

It's a risky plan, and there's no guarantee the 787 will win.

 

[skyking]

it is the weight combined with slow speeds and high angles of attack. When a heavy is cleaned up and moving along at cruise, it produces a much smaller wake.