Airbus SAS's A380

[John Sayers]

well - it got off the ground and flew around for 3 hours.

 

TOULOUSE, FRANCE -- The world's biggest airliner, Airbus SAS's A380, flew for the first time yesterday, officially launching a new challenge to U.S. rival Boeing Co. in the battle for the global aviation market.

 

The double-decker A380, designed to carry 555 passengers but with room for more than 800, was aloft for about four hours on its maiden flight over southern France, ending the four-decade reign of Boeing's 747 jumbo as the biggest airliner to have flown.

 

SOURCE

 

cheers

john

[Botch.]

R&D ($13.8 B, yes B!) paid for by most governments of the European continent, vs. a for-profit U.S. company that owns half of the U.S. Congress and goes thru CEOs faster than McDonald's. Heehee, ain't world market adjustments fun?

From a purely engineering standpoint, a beautiful achievement! Airbus keeps touting "room for bars, casinos, gyms, and massage parlors" but once the beancounters start working their magic the seats will be just as packed in as a Southwest cattlecar; we'll be able to fly the entire population of Poughkeepsie to Korea in one fell swoop.

Finally, does anyone else seem to think the fin on that bugger is much bigger than it needs to be?

[Mats Olsson.]

http://www.expressen.se/content/1/c6/27/57/35/5f11adb0.jpg

 

http://www.expressen.se/content/1/c6/27/57/50/92c39bab.jpg

 

http://www.expressen.se/content/1/c6/27/57/60/329db80c.jpg

 

http://www.expressen.se/content/1/c6/27/57/49/7e66d45f.jpg

 

http://www.expressen.se/content/1/c6/27/57/62/c524e7d5.jpg

 

http://www.expressen.se/content/1/c6/27/57/44/03acab2a.jpg

 

http://www.expressen.se/content/1/c6/27/58/15/86479fa8.jpg

The crew is back after a rather unusual day at work.

[Philter]

It's cool but it's going to look like an R&D albatross if fuel prices keep rising. Actually it seems a little absurd already.

 

It's also worth pointing out that the engine is made by a GE / Pratt & Whitney joint effort.

[Quarryking]

Great pics ....wonder if the Boeing folks are gonna churn out a 380 beater...probably something larger than there current 747-400.....that would be a killer....!!!

[GZsound]

I think the Boeing folks are in for tough times. It is difficult at best for a private company to compete with several governments.

 

I look at Airbus like the Wal Mart of the airplane business. I guess nobody cares about the thousands of jobs Boeing will lose here in America as long as seven hundred folks can fly and hang out in a bar at the same time..huh?

 

This is what happenes when governments get into the private sector. They have unlimited funds and drive the competition into the ground.

 

If it was our government taking over private industry and losing jobs the outcry from the Wal Mart haters would be huge..but..nooo..

[Quarryking]

I think Boeing as a matter of principle are moving away from a " new super jumbo" aircraft to the likes of the 777 (more medium sized long range aircrafts)...

Atleast that's what it seems like, unless they have this new massive plane, they're keeping awfully mum about...who knows..??

 

But Boeing just bagged a deal for some medium & long range aircrafts from the official Indian carrier.

[Philip OKeefe]

Next up for Boeing is the 7E7 / 787 Dreamliner. A very cool looking aircraft. Kind of reminds me of the old Connies in a way.

 

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/flash.html

 

The 380's huge. The 787's sleek and much more high-tech. Personally, I'm betting on the wisdom of Boeing's development / directional decision, but I guess time will tell.

[Philter]

Originally posted by GZsound:

This is what happenes when governments get into the private sector. They have unlimited funds and drive the competition into the ground.

 

If it was our government taking over private industry and losing jobs the outcry from the Wal Mart haters would be huge..but..nooo..

Uhhh, Mark, wanna take a stab at guessing how much of Boeing's funding comes from taxpayer dollars?

 

Considering that my father works at Pratt, which is a part of UT, which is an American corporation, which is building the engines for Airbus, I think that this plane is great.

 

Boeing has no one to blame but themselves for lost business. They've made a series of tremendous blunders over the last decade. An isolationist government in the US will only worsen their problems and the problems of other US businesses.

[Bbach1]

Gees it amazes me that crates that big and heavy can get off the ground. I do understand the concept of 'lift' and took flying lessons a while back, but it still amazes me. One day, we are going to wake up and realize that things that heavy cannot fly and then once we "get it" the planes will all come crashing to the ground.

[TrancedelicBlues]

Originally posted by Bbach of Bismarck, son of Peter:

One day, we are going to wake up and realize that things that heavy cannot fly and then once we "get it" the planes will all come crashing to the ground.

I think you may be on to something there

[Felix_dup1]

Boeing has been taking a bunch of orders for the 787 from everything I've read - including one article that was specifically talking about Boeing successfully competing with Airbus. I don't think this huge plane is going to have a major effect on their business.

[coyote]

That huge plane presents all kinds of logistic challenges.

 

First off, imagine a plane with 600 passengers AND their baggage AND requisite fuel, crew, supplies, meals, etc. getting off the ground. The available runways will be limited.

 

Second, now instead of checking 300 people through security and Customs you have to handle 600 in one shot! The lines will be ridiculous; you'll have to allocate (read: waste) even more time to get to the airport. And it'll take twice as long to board & offload passengers/baggage as it now does.

 

Third - are they gonna fly the plane if they fill it only 1/3 capacity?

 

I think a plane like that could serve a purpose. On major routes that routinely see massive overbooking, you could have these planes "in reserve". But I truly don't see it competing against current jumbo jets for general daily use. Of course, my crystal ball and tealeaves have not always been perfect...

[videoeditor1]

Coyote,

 

It's gonna be very useful for long haul flights. North America to Far East / Down under etc.

 

Even for short hops like Osaka to Tokyo, this plane is useful. Planes (here) in Japan are like what buses are to NY'ers. There is a security check, but no ID check. People take the plane to work and back home...200 + miles away.

 

 

'Drew

[Ernest Buckley]

Something about seeing something that large in the sky with over 800 people in it gives me the creeps.

 

I`m all about efficientcy (did I spell that right?) but I would be interested in seeing the numbers on this after its in service for about 3 years.

 

The Concorde sort of had the same glory until no one bought it. From what I have heard though, they already have about 35-40 orders worldwide. We`ll see...

[Jon Doe]

Boeing has no interest in the "Super Jumbo" market. They researched that market for a long time before deciding they would not build an aircraft larger than the 747-xxx's. IMHO, Airbus will benefit only from bragging rights with this aircraft.

 

How big is the airport in your city?

[Hanshananigan]

A large plane like this can actually reduce congestion. Gates may need to enlarge, but the tradeoff is that you are loading one plane instead of 3, have 1 instead of 3 on the runway, etc. I would imagine there would be multiple entry points, or true, it would take forever to load.

 

The new Airbus 380 won't revolutionize air travel. As someone said, many carriers (in the US) are going to smaller planes, and those carriers are doing very well. And these planes are not necessarily made by Airbus or Boeing. For example, Independence Air use Airbus but also Learjet Bombardier CRJ-200s. Comair (Delta) uses Bombardiers as well.

 

There are few similarities with the Concorde. The Concorde was a great leap technologically. Although lots of money was spent, it did create "pride" and the technological breakthroughs eventually helped the industry in general. Sort of like how NASA spends lots of money (and the military) in r/d, but the results help the industry more broadly. The new Airbus is a jump from what we have now, but not really as big as the Concorde was. It's really just a bigger plane. And no sonic boom to worry about.

[Prague]

Originally posted by Hanshananigan:

...I would imagine there would be multiple entry points, or true, it would take forever to load...

It WILL take forever to load AND unload.

 

When the 747 came out (40 years ago), very few airports modified their gates to accomodate the 8 doorways. Only some even have two doorways that can be opened. I've never seen the top level doors opened.

 

I doubt there will be many airports (other than Airbus members) that will modify any gates. No way in hell will I pay taxes to accomodate this Winnebago. So, only 1 or 2 doors will be open.

 

It will take you 45 minuites to get on this thing. Each flight will be an additional 1.5 hours of ground time.

 

They also showed pianos and lounges in the 747 (40 years ago). It won't happen on this barge, either. It will be a flying sardine can like everything else. Virgin and Emirates will have a couple set up that way, but you will never buy a ticket. Just like a Strat copy, few will pay for the best flight.

 

I want SPEED in a new plane. They just need to get the fuel economy down (the Boeing SST and the Concorde used a lot of fuel).

 

You'll see these land in only 5 to maybe 10 airports in the US.

[Prague]

Originally posted by Philter:

...Uhhh, Mark, wanna take a stab at guessing how much of Boeing's funding comes from taxpayer dollars?...

Yes, but Boeing has to deliver a product. Boeing gets no outright grant for R & D. They MUST deliver a product in all cases. That is not "funding".

 

All contracts are open to all bids. Understandably, some military contracts require US only companies (Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics, etc.).

[Philip OKeefe]

First off, imagine a plane with 600 passengers AND their baggage AND requisite fuel, crew, supplies, meals, etc. getting off the ground. The available runways will be limited.

 

While the gate requirements might be different (I'm not certain about that, but I would imagine it's true), the actual runway length requirements for the A380 and 747-400 are supposed to be identical. If you can operate a 747 from a particular airport, you should be able to operate a A380 from it. At least as far as runway length goes.

 

Of course, there's the gate requirements, and also the weight handling abilities of the runway... but I am not sure if that's going to be an issue or not. Modern runways are incredible things from an engineering standpoint, and maybe the current runways can handle the increased weight loads just fine... Botch would probably know either way.

[Calfee Jones]

FedEx is buying several of them to haul stuff back and forth to Asia...

[blackpig]

Hello all and welcome to another wise and erudite dissertation from the vast and crepuscular mind of the brilliant Blackpig, purveyor of all things fruity and electrical. We here at Blackpig Labs have pondered the logistics of mass air travel and have come up with the following simple but breathtakingly ingenious solution - a plane that is so massive in its hugeness that it doesn't have to fly at all. The pilot simply parks it at Shannon Airport in Ireland (because we need the money) and then go off and drink beer in the bar and talk about the lovely flights he's had on acid. The passengers, meanwhile, go through the usual mechanisms of checking in / sitting for hours / eating last year's chocolate muffins. When take-off time comes, one simply climbs on board and walks the lenght of the plane until one arrives, safe, healthy and a few pounds less in weight, at New York. One cannot fail to see the beauty of such an aircraft. As it never takes off, it needs no such frippery as engines, wheels etc. and so is environmentally friendly as it burns no fuel. The issue of jet lag is dispensed with in a singularly elegant manner; walking across the Atlantic cannot render unto one a state of exhaustion to compare with it anyway. First class passengers will be presented with bicycles. I am sure I deserve your undying gratitude, but if, however, you are all rendered speechless by my discumbumbulating perspicacity I will quite understand if noone re commends me for the Nobel Prize. Have to go now here's the nurse.

[Philip OKeefe]

The advantages to the 787 are many IMO... take a look at the link I posted earlier. The aircraft is much more "high tech" in its design, utilizing composites extensively to reduce weight while retaining strength. It has better fuel ecconomy than anything of similar size currently flying. IMO, that's a "biggie" from an ecconomy and environmental standpoint. It has great range and good cruising speed (Mach .85). It will have better internal environmental conditions for the passengers. Most commercial airliners, when flying at cruising altitude, have a cabin pressure that is roughly the same as being outdoors on a mountain at 8,000' above sea level, while the 787's cabin will be equal to being at 6,000' above sea level. The avionics are also supposed to be state of the art, but I would imagine they don't suck on the A380 either.

 

As I said previously, it will be interesting to see which aircraft makes the bigger splash (insert bad joke about plane crashes here ) in the marketplace. Time will tell, but for many reasons, I think Boeing is on the right track.

[Philip OKeefe]

ROTFL blackpig!

[fantasticsound]

Fact. I am not an aviation expert.

 

Fact. You hardly ever see 747's at major US airports with few exceptions.

 

Fact. My trip to the Middle East took me to Heathrow, Frankfurt Int'l, Kuwait, Oman, UAE and Bahrain on commercial airliners and virtually every airport had a bunch of 747's.

 

My opinion? Boeing is absolutely right about the American market. We have little use for the A380 within our borders. The only airports that will see them for some time will be in New York, Washington, San Francisco, LA, maybe Chicago, and Dallas/Ft. Worth.

 

But in the world market? They might be able to make some money off this behemoth.

 

I predict the 787 will smoke it in sales, just a short time after its' release.

[djwayne]

Originally posted by blackpig:

Hello all and welcome to another wise and erudite dissertation from the vast and crepuscular mind of the brilliant Blackpig, purveyor of all things fruity and electrical. We here at Blackpig Labs have pondered the logistics of mass air travel and have come up with the following simple but breathtakingly ingenious solution - a plane that is so massive in its hugeness that it doesn't have to fly at all. The pilot simply parks it at Shannon Airport in Ireland (because we need the money) and then go off and drink beer in the bar and talk about the lovely flights he's had on acid. The passengers, meanwhile, go through the usual mechanisms of checking in / sitting for hours / eating last year's chocolate muffins. When take-off time comes, one simply climbs on board and walks the lenght of the plane until one arrives, safe, healthy and a few pounds less in weight, at New York. One cannot fail to see the beauty of such an aircraft. As it never takes off, it needs no such frippery as engines, wheels etc. and so is environmentally friendly as it burns no fuel. The issue of jet lag is dispensed with in a singularly elegant manner; walking across the Atlantic cannot render unto one a state of exhaustion to compare with it anyway. First class passengers will be presented with bicycles. I am sure I deserve your undying gratitude, but if, however, you are all rendered speechless by my discumbumbulating perspicacity I will quite understand if noone re commends me for the Nobel Prize. Have to go now here's the nurse.

You don't seem to understand, for many people, time is of the essence so walking that distance may not work for them. This is why I propose the giant rubber band method, of slinging people from one destination to the next. With a little fine tuning it can work !! Think of the savings in costs of aircraft, and jet fuel. No more noisy airports or plane crashes in bad weather.

[Philter]

Originally posted by Prague:

Originally posted by Philter:

...Uhhh, Mark, wanna take a stab at guessing how much of Boeing's funding comes from taxpayer dollars?...

Yes, but Boeing has to deliver a product. Boeing gets no outright grant for R & D. They MUST deliver a product in all cases. That is not "funding".

Only in the most narrow of definitions. Boeing takes billions of taxpayer dollars every year from our giant military spending. Often they spend millions of taxpayer dollars over years and years only to see the project cancelled. How is that not subsidizing R&D?

 

You say tomato, I say tomato.

[Prague]

Originally posted by Philter:

... Often they spend millions of taxpayer dollars over years and years only to see the project cancelled...

Boeing doesn't cancel the projects. You (the Government) do. And you are the customer. If you have them do work for 3 years you can't take your money back.

 

That's how it's not a subsidy.

 

I expect you work that way, though, correct? You are hired to work a recording project and 2 months later it falls apart and grinds to a halt. Then, you give your 2 months wages back, right?

 

I'll hire you in a second!

[Philter]

Originally posted by Prague:

Originally posted by Philter:

... Often they spend millions of taxpayer dollars over years and years only to see the project cancelled...

Boeing doesn't cancel the projects. You (the Government) do. And you are the customer. If you have them do work for 3 years you can't take your money back.

 

That's how it's not a subsidy.

 

I expect you work that way, though, correct? You are hired to work a recording project and 2 months later it falls apart and grinds to a halt. Then, you give your 2 months wages back, right?

 

I'll hire you in a second!

First of all, my projects don't fall apart.

 

Second of all, as a taxpayer, I have no ability to cut Boeing off. The millions of dollars they spend "lobbying" our politicians ensures their continued federal subsidization. These nuances about what we call the money our governments give to industry are stupid, because the net effect is the same. If you are fooled by pretending that we have a free market here in the States, more power to you.

 

The fact is that our federal tax money subsidizes Boeing just like the European federal taxes subsidize Airbus. You don't like how well organized the Europeans are? What's stopping us from doing the same? If you're so threatened by it why wouldn't you want to adopt the same tactics? It seems like you guys would rather piss and moan and make excuses.

[John Sayers]

I just think it's good to see some healthy competition - Boeing has dominated the market for so long, and still does BTW, designing and building commercial aircraft is a very expensive operation and the fact that we've eventually got two major competitors with quality product is a good thing IMO.

 

On the other hand I'd like to see the return of the airship. With today's technology we could build big, beautiful flying hotels for the tourists to travel in, two to three days to cross the the US or the atlantic......the business people can use the smaller faster jets.

 

cheers

john