A380 airbus - monster of the skies

Trebuchet · 2005-04-28 12:06:37

It probably will be successful - after all, there are enough 747-400's flying the short-haul high-volume routes in eastern Asia. That will be where the money is for the A380, along the eastern Asian seaboard where there is no alternative but bigger planes.

The 7E7 will simply get all the other direct-flight routes, and do especially well in the US and the Americas in general.

Honestly, I expect air travel in general to get hammered by inductive maglevs whenever someone gets around to it. No expensive superconducting magnets, no cramped airliner body, no ability of fanatics to pilot the thing into a building, 400 mph+ speeds. Honestly, I think the only reason they haven't been built is because the idea originated in the US and Amtrak has the business acumen of a smashed egg on the sidewalk - it's taken something like 8 years to go from small-scale test vehicles to full-scale test vehicles, despite the fact that, unlike a normal maglev, you only need to modify, not replace, train tracks (assuming, of course, that all turns on the tracks are gentle enough for a 400 mph train to rocket through).. Of course, there are powerful lobbies in the US to fight this technology - airlines and truckers - so...

Hey, DonPanic, you guys seem to take pride in superfast trains, you want to upgrade the TGV with some US technology and shock the world with long-distance maglev?

RobertDyck · 2005-04-28 12:22:23

I saw a documentary about air traffic control some years ago. They mentioned air traffic across the Atlantic was getting congested. The air lanes were already full, with multiple parallel lanes, multiple altitudes, and timed spacing between aircraft. Improved electronics can squeeze aircraft closer together, but air traffic controllers worry about safety. A large aircraft like the A380 solves that problem.

Yes, smaller aircraft are the trend for regional aircraft. Smaller aircraft will increasingly dominate travel within the continent so airlines can efficiently schedule flights to fill aircraft, schedule frequent flights that fit travellers' needs, reduce wait times at the airport, and permit airlines to move aircraft from one route to another to quickly satisfy customer changing demands. Flexibility and responsiveness are key to business survival in the 21st century.

However, trans-oceanic travel is another beast entirely. Customers don't travel across an ocean that often, so are willing to fit their schedule to the airline. They're willing to wait in the airport over an hour for an 8 hour flight. Reducing the high cost of a trans-oceanic flight is worth being squeezed in with so many other passengers, and long isles to wonder along is a good break from sitting in a seat that long. The A380 has its market niche.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-28 12:57:03

But this can have a couple of effects.

One a reduction in number of pilots and staff for those flight no longer need because they were replaced by the airbus.

Second but in time as more people fly more flights must be added back into the flight paths that were once upon a time full to only become full once more.

Third is terminal departure from craft overload and not to mention the amount of luggage that will be lost.

RobertDyck · 2005-04-28 14:26:11

When I fly, I use a piece of luggage called a Weekender. It's carry-on luggage that fits under an economy class seat. Actually, it's the largest carry-on luggage that fits. It has a large central compartment for clothes and toiletries, one side folds out to a garment bag for my suit, the other side has a pocket for papers. I carry my portfolio, business cards, technical reports, etc. as well as a novel for the flight. The papers pocket is large enough to cram two stacks of 8.5"x11" papers side-by side, but that doesn't leave room for a portfolio. It even has a small outside pocket for the shoulder strap. I never check any luggage. When I get off the plane I just walk straight for my car in the parkade; or hotel shuttle-bus, or taxi stand. I don't have patience to wait by the luggage carrousel. I also buy my ticket on-line and use an airport automated kiosk to check-in and print my boarding pass. I never wait in line at the ticket counter, after getting my boarding pass I go straight to the gate.

Lost luggage is a thing of the past.

Palomar · 2005-04-28 15:14:08

LO
A380 had its 3 and 1/2 hours maiden flight.
Better be a successful plane. 40% of the components value is US

*Saw that on television news last evening. Sorry, couldn't help thinking, "Damn...that's a lot more people dead and injured when and if it ever crashes."

No thanks. I'd prefer flying on a smaller plane.

Robert: When I fly, I use a piece of luggage called a Weekender. It's carry-on luggage that fits under an economy class seat. Actually, it's the largest carry-on luggage that fits. It has a large central compartment for clothes and toiletries, one side folds out to a garment bag for my suit, the other side has a pocket for papers. I carry my portfolio, business cards, technical reports, etc. as well as a novel for the flight...
Lost luggage is a thing of the past.

I've twice flown to the Midwest to visit family members in the past decade. Each time I managed over a week's vacation with 1 duffle bag and a medium-sized purse. Rolled my clothes up military style, minimal toiletries (can buy whatever else is needed "back home" and discard when vacation is over), a couple of books, etc.

I won't bother with luggage check either.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-04-28 17:00:34

LO

Hey, DonPanic, you guys seem to take pride in superfast trains, you want to upgrade the TGV with some US technology and shock the world with long-distance maglev?

Seems that you've been overtaken by Germans in matter of maglev commercial devellopment
http://www.magnetbahn-bayern.de/ENGLISH … glish.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200301/01/ … 9377.shtml

*Saw that on television news last evening. Sorry, couldn't help thinking, "Damn...that's a lot more people dead and injured when and if it ever crashes."
No thanks. I'd prefer flying on a smaller plane.

In an aircrash, people get as dead in a small airplane as in a big one.
Remember that one big airplane maintenance is cheaper than the maintenance for 5 small airplanes, so that risk should be higher travelling in a small one.
Can't imagine an air company neglecting the maintenance for a 200 millions dollars baby carrying 900 passengers, such an aircrash would be lethal for the company and maybe its insurers

DonPanic · 2005-04-28 18:02:14

The A380 is a gamble like the 747 was it will need to have runways lengthened to be able to operate.

Wrong, where a 747 can land and take-off, a A-380 can do it too

What about metal fatique in time, for something so large?

Most of the A-380 structure is carbon composite, not metal

But are bigger planes really the way to go? More flights out of increasingly congested hub airports or smaller planes flying routes more in line with where people actually want to get to?

One A-380 can take the place of four or five planes waiting for landing on congested airports (can carry 550 up to 850 passengers)

If the A380 is European governments' attempt to crush Boeing and seize market share it might make sense. Otherwise, I don't see the demand for an even bigger behemoth aircraft being that high. If ten years down the line the A380 is a huge success I'll admit I was wrong, but at the moment I suspect that Boeing's 7E7 is going to fare better.

7E7 will have success for long range and non mass travels.
A-380 will have a cargo freighter version.

EADs and the EU is desperate to crush Boeing as it's a symbol of American technology. They are doing a pretty good job of buying market share, but that's all they are doing since they can sell airplanes at a loss with no concern where as Boeing has to turn a profit.

Thinking that EU or EADS want to crush Boeing is a paranoïac mistake. Many subcontractors in Europe work both for Airbus and Boeing. For instance, Ratier-Figeac builds landing components for Boeing as well as for Airbus. About 40% of the airplanes components for each aircraft builder come from the other side of Atlantic.
By European laws, Airbus has to pay back the money lended by governments and has to make profits.

Trebuchet · 2005-04-28 18:23:46

Seems that you've been overtaken by Germans in matter of maglev commercial devellopment

In terms of actual units, yes, however, the Inductrack technology is new

DonPanic · 2005-04-28 18:43:40

LO

It's the crappy state of railroads in the US, not the robustness of the technology, which has prevented its implementation.
C'mon, DonPanic, you know France wants it. You could put a line right on the German border and moon the entire Rhineland in an hour on Armistice Day. ^_^

Amtrack should name a froggy to modernise US railroads...
networking goes well with our colbertian mentallity.
The problem that is our cheese stocks are not sufficient to buy US maglev technology right now

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-07-22 08:26:57

I saw a few website with some great pics of it

srmeaney · 2005-08-02 17:27:20

Airbus Burning outside Toronto, Boeing will be happy.

clark · 2005-08-02 17:39:38

Imagine debarking from a plane with 850-900 people on board.

Imagine trying to get your luggage and get out of the airport with a thousand other souls trying to do the same thing.

Imagine the airlines trying to fill an entire plane with nearly a thousand people, many with screaming babies in tow.

Imagine you travel by air, and you have a choice between a big plane, filled with a thousand, versus one, that isn't.

I know which one I would take.

The problem isn't with the runway. The problem is with the situation in the air, and the situation after you land- and before you embark on your flight.

A thousand people trying to "check-in".

American airports (and I believe most airports worldwide) are not ready for the immediate influx of the numbers Airbus promises to deliver with each individual flight. Airbus planes will have to work ovetime to deal with these issues. Airports and the infrastructure that supports them will have to work overtime to deal with these issues.

Boeing is playing it smarter by developing a less intense version of the same plan. We don't fly as groups, we fly as individuals. Providing more individual choice and a better individual experience will result in better profit margins for those airlines that realize this.

srmeaney · 2005-08-02 22:29:54

Boeing is playing it smarter by developing a less intense version of the same plan. We don't fly as groups, we fly as individuals. Providing more individual choice and a better individual experience will result in better profit margins for those airlines that realize this.

How about an airbus between London and New york that has ultrafirst class for all its passengers- not "oh isnt my seat big" first class, rather "Hi!, I'm the Sultan of Brueni" first class.

DonPanic · 2005-08-03 02:38:49

LO

The problem isn't with the runway. The problem is with the situation in the air, and the situation after you land- and before you embark on your flight.
Imagine you travel by air, and you have a choice between a big plane, filled with a thousand, versus one, that isn't.
Imagine trying to get your luggage and get out of the airport with a thousand other souls trying to do the same thing.
Etc

You can also ask balanced questions instead of asking questions that are intended to prosecute one side. Something that would sound as a fair trial.

Imagine you live nearby an airport, you have kids home, one gives you the choice earing a noisy jet overflying your house every 10 minutes or one every half an hour, what do you choose ?

Imagine you're a sky controller responsible for the passengers safety, your are proposed to manage 65% less airplanes, do you refuse ?

Imagine you travel by air, and you have a choice between a big plane, filled with a thousand, versus one, that isn't.
I know which one I would take.

You dont give all datas in your question, here's one you miss :
If people have choice between a 300 seats plane and a 900 seats plane, same comfort, on the second one, price travel being 20% cheaper, guess which will be choosen ?

Rxke · 2005-08-03 02:50:19

"Hi!, I'm the Sultan of Brueni" first class.

And then that knee-jerk reaction:

OMG! A Terrarist!!!!111!

I saw a two-part documentary about building and test-flying the first one.
Impressive. And borderline crazy. Parts assembled all over the world, Fuselage is two big parts, fore and aft, and one of those parts has to go on the road for a LONG trip, through small French villages, at the dead of night (traffic)
And still... They manage to mate the two parts flawlessly. Quite a feat.
And that thing is truly biiiiig. Looks like some kind of SF space-carrier to me, dunno why...

clark · 2005-08-03 05:47:32

Imagine you live nearby an airport, you have kids home, one gives you the choice earing a noisy jet overflying your house every 10 minutes or one every half an hour, what do you choose ?

I used to live between three different international airports, all within an hour or less of my home.

I understand your point, but that has little to do with those who wish to fly on the plane.

Imagine you're a sky controller responsible for the passengers safety, your are proposed to manage 65% less airplanes, do you refuse ?

Again, I understand your point, but it has nothing to do with the airlines that will be purchasing the planes and flying the planes and trying to fill the planes with passengers.

If people have choice between a 300 seats plane and a 900 seats plane, same comfort, on the second one, price travel being 20% cheaper, guess which will be chosen ?

But there is a difference here. Airbus, with the larger plane, will rely on centralized hub airports, and then use smaller carriers for connecting airports. This means that Airbus will not be able to offer as many different direct flights versus the Boeing planes.

The Airbus model is for moving large numbers of people to one destination, and then having them jump from there. Generally, in terms of choice, most people want direct flights between their starting and ending destinations. Boeing can provide more flexibility in meeting that desire. Airbus will require more connecting flights for people to get to their final destination.

Now, I understand your point on cheaper fares, but people are usually willing to pay more for a direct flight versus one that requires two or three connecting flights (thus skipping out on layovers in major airport hubs).

What Airbus will end up with are people who look for the cheapest fare possible. The bargain hunters. No problem there, but it has a net effect of forcing other airlines that fly airbus to compete for these bargain shoppers. This will create a bidding war, which cuts profit margins for the carriers. This will in turn lead to airlines flying Airbus planes to add more seats to the planes in order to maximize the profit margins. Watch, Airbus planes will end up crowded little New Delhi's of humanity, with less space than what a Boeing plane will offer.

Now, the points I raised earlier can be dealt with in large part by developing the airport infrastructure that processes the individuals coming and leaving the airport. However, few if any American airport is doing so.

I am sure it is different on your side of the Atlantic, but here in the States, Airbus is dead on arrival.

900 people, and a handful of bathrooms on a nine hour flight?

But I will wave my little French flag for Airbus if it helps. [wave French flag]

DonPanic · 2005-08-03 08:25:13

Imagine you're a sky controller responsible for the passengers safety, your are proposed to manage 65% less airplanes, do you refuse ?
Again, I understand your point, but it has nothing to do with the airlines that will be purchasing the planes and flying the planes and trying to fill the planes with passengers.

As a passenger, I wish air controllers to be less stressed by intense air traffic for my own sake

If people have choice between a 300 seats plane and a 900 seats plane, same comfort, on the second one, price travel being 20% cheaper, guess which will be chosen ?
But there is a difference here. Airbus, with the larger plane, will rely on centralized hub airports, and then use smaller carriers for connecting airports. This means that Airbus will not be able to offer as many different direct flights versus the Boeing planes.

Why not consider that each plane has its specific task ? A380 being fitted for heavy traffic airlines as London-New York or Bei Jing-Shanghai travels. What you say for A380 fits for Jumbos too, no one opposed them to 737 or small Airbus as you and some others do. A 380 replaces aging Jumbos, as Airbus leaders were aware that Boing had no plans for the Jumbos succession.

But I will wave my little French flag for Airbus if it helps. [wave French flag]

I'm not specially a nationalist, Airbus is an fully international airplane with many transatlantic subcontractors

clark · 2005-08-03 08:38:14

Then let me wave my EU flag [wave]

DonPanic · 2005-08-03 08:42:21

Then let me wave my EU flag [wave]

Not too early untill A 380 is a commercial success

clark · 2005-08-03 08:55:23

like the concorde?

DonPanic · 2005-08-03 09:20:14

like the concorde?

Easy, that one, I won't reply on the Shuttle security for instance, because I take it for a loss for everyboby.

Do you know that new NASA Mars conquest plans are begining to be seen in Europe as an evidence that the US administration admits that Earth is lost and that Mars is seen by many Americans as the new fronteer to escape from an agonizing Earth ?

Grypd · 2005-08-03 09:33:13

"clark wrote:

I understand your point, but that has little to do with those who wish to fly on the plane.
If people have choice between a 300 seats plane and a 900 seats plane, same comfort, on the second one, price travel being 20% cheaper, guess which will be chosen ?
But there is a difference here. Airbus, with the larger plane, will rely on centralized hub airports, and then use smaller carriers for connecting airports. This means that Airbus will not be able to offer as many different direct flights versus the Boeing planes.
The Airbus model is for moving large numbers of people to one destination, and then having them jump from there. Generally, in terms of choice, most people want direct flights between their starting and ending destinations. Boeing can provide more flexibility in meeting that desire. Airbus will require more connecting flights for people to get to their final destination.
Now, I understand your point on cheaper fares, but people are usually willing to pay more for a direct flight versus one that requires two or three connecting flights (thus skipping out on layovers in major airport hubs).
What Airbus will end up with are people who look for the cheapest fare possible. The bargain hunters. No problem there, but it has a net effect of forcing other airlines that fly airbus to compete for these bargain shoppers. This will create a bidding war, which cuts profit margins for the carriers. This will in turn lead to airlines flying Airbus planes to add more seats to the planes in order to maximize the profit margins. Watch, Airbus planes will end up crowded little New Delhi's of humanity, with less space than what a Boeing plane will offer.
Now, the points I raised earlier can be dealt with in large part by developing the airport infrastructure that processes the individuals coming and leaving the airport. However, few if any American airport is doing so.
I am sure it is different on your side of the Atlantic, but here in the States, Airbus is dead on arrival.
900 people, and a handful of bathrooms on a nine hour flight?
But I will wave my little French flag for Airbus if it helps. [wave French flag]
Clark your right the Airbus was never designed for the USA market. In Europe and increasingly so in Asia the major city airports with the likes of London Heathrow, Shanghai etc have maxed out on amount of planes able to come into land and take off. "low cost" cheap airlines do not even fly to these places and guite often land very far from the destination that is wanted. The Airbus is designed to get around the problem of amount of flights by increasing numbers on these flights and it is there it will make its success. It was never designed for the USA market no it was designed for the rest of the world.
Saying that it really is a monster but with this era of low cost cheap flights it could be the only answer and companies profitability is in how many people they can move in a flight and with the airbus able to be adapted for increasing peoples comfort for the really long haul flights and with Deep vein thrombosis as a symptom of the crush the likes of the jumbo 747 do then yes its time for a change.

clark · 2005-08-03 09:46:49

Don't get me wrong, people will end up flying whatever the airlines fly with. You don't have that much choice in choosing the plane that take you there.

However, the front and back end of the airflight experience will be worse- not better.

A thousand people disgorged at a time from a plane (at the same rate of planes) will lead to congestion and a poor experience overall.

Fighting a thousand other people, on just your plane alone, to try and make a connecting flight? Lost luggage (odds increase that yours will get lost due to the sheer volume that must be processed for each flight).

I think the question to ask is, can they fill the planes. The profit margins will not be hit unless they fill those birds up. I just don’t think they will.

DonPanic · 2005-08-03 11:56:34

Don't get me wrong, people will end up flying whatever the airlines fly with. You don't have that much choice in choosing the plane that take you there.

Yes I have, when going to Madrid from Paris, I can choose either an Air France Airbus or an Iberia MD with the same ticket. Prefer Air France menu

A thousand people disgorged at a time from a plane (at the same rate of planes) will lead to congestion and a poor experience overall. Fighting a thousand other people, on just your plane alone, to try and make a connecting flight? Lost luggage (odds increase that yours will get lost due to the sheer volume that must be processed for each flight).

See how many airplanes http://pierre-bon.com/IMG/Airport.gif are linked to the NewYork airport terminals at the same time and you will see why I think that you have not a fairly balanced opinion, wrong arguments, sir !
I don't think you really know what you're talking about.

I think the question to ask is, can they fill the planes. The profit margins will not be hit unless they fill those birds up. I just don’t think they will.

I think that Air transports companies which choose an airplane have their economical arguments

Grypd · 2005-08-03 12:25:53

There is a very quiet revolution occuring in the passenger flight industry and it is to do with how baggage is treated and transported. The new Hong Kong international airport is an example. It brings in a degree of automation that improves service incredibly. An example is that from a plane docking to baggage starting to go around the carousel is only 4 minutes and a plane is emptied usually within 10 minutes.

Putting baggage into the plane is also a lot more automated and luggage is less likely to get lost than a normal service.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-04-28 12:06:37

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#27 2005-04-28 12:22:23

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#28 2005-04-28 12:57:03

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#29 2005-04-28 14:26:11

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#30 2005-04-28 15:14:08

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#31 2005-04-28 17:00:34

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#32 2005-04-28 18:02:14

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#33 2005-04-28 18:23:46

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#34 2005-04-28 18:43:40

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#35 2005-07-22 08:26:57

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#36 2005-08-02 17:27:20

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#37 2005-08-02 17:39:38

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#38 2005-08-02 22:29:54

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#39 2005-08-03 02:38:49

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#40 2005-08-03 02:50:19

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#41 2005-08-03 05:47:32

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#42 2005-08-03 08:25:13

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#43 2005-08-03 08:38:14

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#44 2005-08-03 08:42:21

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#45 2005-08-03 08:55:23

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#46 2005-08-03 09:20:14

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#47 2005-08-03 09:33:13

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#48 2005-08-03 09:46:49

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#49 2005-08-03 11:56:34

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#50 2005-08-03 12:25:53

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

Board footer