NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like the French have finally outdone Boeing. The mighty, state-sponsored Airbus company has rolled out the A380 double-decker as this report from Agence France-Press reports:

The huge A380 superjumbo, which can carry up to 840 people on its two full decks, supersedes the ageing 747 by US rival Boeing as the biggest civilian aircraft ever made. . . .

"Good old Europe has made this possible," German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder told a packed hall in Airbus's headquarters in Toulouse, southwest France.

That was a barely-veiled barb recalling the US dismissal of France, Germany and other EU states in 2003 as "Old Europe" because of their opposition to the war on Iraq.

Airbus chief Noel Forgeard made similar hints in his presentation of the A380 during a colourful spectacle featuring computer graphics, atmospheric theme music, dancers and fountains.

"The European states--so easily accused of weakness--backed this fantastic challenge 35 years ago and have believed in the A380," he said.


Not to let this go without a barb of my own -- These guys took 35 years to build something bigger than the 747 and we're supposed to be impressed?

Not to let this go without a barb of my own -- These guys took 35 years to build something bigger than the 747 and we're supposed to be impressed?

If that's the way you're going to view it, let me just point out that America hasn't designed an equivalent aircraft at all. Taking a long time is better than not doing it at all.

Its bigger, more efficient, less polluting, and cheaper to maintain in the long run than the 747. Its the first stpe in moving away from Boeing's supposed dominance of the airliner market. Airbus sales are increasing, and Boeing are going to be left behind.

It's also not French. Its European. Built in Britain, France, and Germany. You might not be impressed by this pinnacle of large airliner design, but then at least us Europeans can always turn around and say "Concorde".

But developing and making somthing that bid with the sort of stats it's got is incradable, it burns less fuel per person per mile than a avrage hatchback, it's only 3 meter's bigger than the 747 yet carries more people in greater lucktury, yep it's not impressive is it.

Of course according to the Americans Glocal warming dosn't exist...

If that's the way you're going to view it, let me just point out that America hasn't designed an equivalent aircraft at all. Taking a long time is better than not doing it at all.
Time will tell if there is a market. Oh wait, the airlines are government sponsored, too. Of course there's a market for it.

Boeing has certainly been busy with the 757, 767, 777, 717, and 7E7 all designed post-747 to fit actual market needs.

Time will tell if there is a market. Oh wait, the airlines are government sponsored, too. Of course there's a market for it.

Boeing has certainly been busy with the 757, 767, 777, 717, and 7E7 all designed post-747 to fit actual market needs.
So what your saying, our goverments are saying that we have to ride in these things, are creating a market, yeah we're all forced to do that sort of thing. And who can say weather or not there will be a market for it, are you a expert?

Time will tell if there is a market.

I'd fly on it if it's more comfortable and can fly the same range as a 747.

Its bigger, more efficient, less polluting, and cheaper to maintain in the long run than the 747. Its the first stpe in moving away from Boeing's supposed dominance of the airliner market. Airbus sales are increasing, and Boeing are going to be left behind.

It's also not French. Its European. Built in Britain, France, and Germany. You might not be impressed by this pinnacle of large airliner design, but then at least us Europeans can always turn around and say "Concorde".

As if the Concorde is something to be proud of? Boeing shut down the SST because there was no real market. I'm sure Air France and British Airways had a few government dollars keeping it in the air until the end.

Don't forget the A300, A320, A340, A318 etc.

Both companies are now equal in size and market share. This is a good thing as it keeps both companies on their toes and should lead to even more efficient planes in the future. For once there's actually no need to bitch!

Time will tell if there is a market. Oh wait, the airlines are government sponsored, too. Of course there's a market for it.

Boeing has certainly been busy with the 757, 767, 777, 717, and 7E7 all designed post-747 to fit actual market needs.

So the market doesn't require the A380? Just off the top of my head, Virgin Airlines (Not state sponsored), have bought seven. Emirates have bought forty-odd. BA i think has at least options on some. Perhaps the market is calling for larger aircraft with more room, as opposed to Boeing's semi-monocoque sardine cans?

As if the Concorde is something to be proud of? Boeing shut down the SST because there was no real market. I'm sure Air France and British Airways had a few government dollars keeping it in the air until the end.
Odviusly you've never seen the thing, it was brilliant, just seeing it was inspiring.

Don't forget the A300, A320, A340, A318 etc.

Both companies are now equal in size and market share. This is a good thing as it keeps both companies on their toes and should lead to even more efficient planes in the future. For once there's actually no need to bitch!

Actually, Airbus is now getting more orders than Boeing.

So what your saying, our goverments are saying that we have to ride in these things, are creating a market, yeah we're all forced to do that sort of thing. And who can say weather or not there will be a market for it, are you a expert?
Airbus is subsidized by the EU. It used to be just France, but now the EUropeans have taken over that role. Air France is subsidized by the French Government, too. Of course the plane will be placed into service.

I'm probably more aware of the airline market, if only because I worked on the L-1011 program at Lockheed. Don't now because the plane is pretty well out of service. But my statement was "Time will tell if there is a market". If you see American Airlines, United Airlines, JAL and other non-Europeans buying the thing, it will have passed the "has a market" test.

Time will tell if there is a market. Oh wait, the airlines are government sponsored, too. Of course there's a market for it.

Oh, right. Cause no privately-owned U.S. airlines use Airbus aircraft. Give me a break.

Europe can't please y'all unless they live up to your expectations of unsuccessful and uncompetitive nations full of wine-and-cheese socialist liberals. They're demonized in this light until they become competitive (or god forbid, get an edge) in the market. Then what? It's boo-hoo because state involvement in the industry ain't fair?

The A380 is built perfectly to meet the hub-to-hub U.S. aviation market and it's going to take Boeing a decade to introduce a competitive aircraft.

Actually, Airbus is now getting more orders than Boeing.

I know, but it's still pretty close and could easily swing back and forth. I'm really glad the A380 got built as it's nice to see BAe involved in something peaceful for once!

Though I will admit that Boeings look a lot less chubby than Airbus's.

As if the Concorde is something to be proud of? Boeing shut down the SST because there was no real market. I'm sure Air France and British Airways had a few government dollars keeping it in the air until the end.

Again, I laugh at you. If there was no market, how come Concorde flew for decades? The reason it eventually failed, or at least part of it, was the FAA and the US working against it, limiting its flight plans. I have a feeling it was because the SST program was failing.

And don't forget the Miles M52 of course, whilst we're talking about aircraft design. Convinient how the American X1 design team suddenly made some dramatic changes to the design after having seen the M52. One could even say they stole certain parts of the design. And I won't even mention the Harrier / AV-8.

Odviusly you've never seen the thing, it was brilliant, just seeing it was inspiring.
Seeing any new airliner rolled out is inspiring. It's a big show. And if the company is any good, a pretty darn good show at that.

Again, I laugh at you. If there was no market, how come Concorde flew for decades? The reason it eventually failed, or at least part of it, was the FAA and the US working against it, limiting its flight plans. I have a feeling it was because the SST program was failing.

The SST was shut down in the early '70s. I have no doubt it would have proved superior to the Concorde. There just wasn't a commercial market to support the NRE required. The Concorde served as more of a symbol that as a profit-making device. I'm sure it never recovered the engineering and fabrication costs it incurred.

Seeing any new airliner rolled out is inspiring. It's a big show. And if the company is any good, a pretty darn good show at that.
Yes but it was indpiring even if you'd seen it 100 times.

If you see American Airlines, United Airlines, JAL and other non-Europeans buying the thing, it will have passed the "has a market" test.

American Airlines might buy some if the government gives them some money to do so :)

The SST was shut down in the early '70s. I have no doubt it would have proved superior to the Concorde. There just wasn't a commercial market to support the NRE required. The Concorde served as more of a symbol that as a profit-making device. I'm sure it never recovered the engineering and fabrication costs it incurred.

Ah of course. Us lowly Europeans could never build anything better than the Americans could we? No, of course not. *cough* TSR.2, Harrier, Concorde, A380, *cough*

Airbus is subsidized by the EU.

And Boeing is subsidised by the US and Japan. Your point?

If you see American Airlines, United Airlines, JAL and other non-Europeans buying the thing, it will have passed the "has a market" test.

Non-Europeans? Like Emirates? Guess it has a market then.

[QUOTE=Myrmidonisia]Time will tell if there is a market. Oh wait, the airlines are government sponsored, too. [QUOTE]

Pot, kettles and blackness....
Regarding subsidised airplanes...see below, taken from the guardian newspaper.....


"How much is alleged to have been paid? The US claims that EU governments have loaned $15bn [£8bn] to Airbus ... The EU has argued that such loans were necessary to support a fledgling industry ... In turn, the EU said in its filing to the WTO that Boeing has received $23bn [£12bn] in subsidies from the US goverment since 1992."

Dry your eyes Myrm!!!!

Non-Europeans? Like Emirates? Guess it has a market then.

Aaaaand Qantas, FedEx, UPS, ILFC, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia, Thai, Korean Air and Qatar and Etihad Airways.

Nice try, pinkos. In America, we don't ride buses. We drive cars.

And Boeing is subsidised by the US and Japan. Your point?

Notwithstanding the fact that US airlines do gain from government subsidies.

No national carriers operate without government money.

I find this to be a sour grapes thread. As evidenced from the thread orignators ignorance of Airbus Industries.

Aaaaand Qantas, FedEx, UPS, ILFC, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia, Thai, Korean Air and Qatar and Etihad Airways.

Well yeah. Just couldn't bothered to open the magazine right next to me and read it properly.


Nice try, pinkos. In America, we don't ride buses. We drive cars.

And we fly aeroplanes. What's your point?

Ehh...So it's bad cos Airbus is EU subsidiced? So Boeing is completely free of this? It happens that Boeing benefits from a huge tax reduction program (non repayable) and great militray contracts for civil airplanes at full prices. I'd expect them being part of developing the space programme has some spill-over effects to their commercial side too.

But Europeans built a big plane (and to the best of my knowledge Boeing goes 'smaller' by choice). woo-hoo! Does naybody know if it flies too..?

It is very childish....my planes bigger and brighter and pinker etc than yours!!
Sour grapes all round!!
Why was this post started? Just so some American lad/ladess can have a pop at european built airplanes?!!

Are you afraid??!!

Americans are just pissed because it does not happen in the States but in Evil Europe. Or should I say EVIL FRANCE ......The ENNEMY

They will get over it.

Nice try, pinkos. In America, we don't ride buses. We drive cars.
I drive a car. I also sometimes take a bus or a train. I've recently started taking the train to work. Take that you dirty OPEC terrorists.

Americans are just pissed because it does not happen in the States but in Evil Europe. Or should I say EVIL FRANCE ......The ENNEMY

They will get over it.
and Germany...and the UK

and Germany...and the UK
And parts from all over Europe.

So far as U.S. airlines that actually turn a profit without aid from the U.S. government. (remember the bailout after sept 11th). Jet Blue uses smaller airbuses and I am not certain what Southwest uses.

Boeing is looking for the more efficient, more comfortable faster planes. The future isn't in big. The future hasn't been in big (except for a few situations, and human transport isn't one of them) for ages. The future is in efficiency.

French Build Big Airplane

Notice the emphasis on BIG? Yes people, this is what international business is really all about: PENIS SIZE.

Some people in America have been questioning the size of the French penis. This airplane is a public statement by France and the European community in general that says, "Our penises ARE bigger!" :rolleyes:

If the future isnt big why do they have many orders already for the A380?

If the future isnt big why do they have many orders already for the A380?
Because it is a fad.

And Boeing is subsidised by the US and Japan. Your point?
Boeing is not subsidized. It takes contracts for profit.

So far as U.S. airlines that actually turn a profit without aid from the U.S. government. (remember the bailout after sept 11th). Jet Blue uses smaller airbuses and I am not certain what Southwest uses.
Has little or nothing to do with their choice of planes. Budget airlines cherrypicked the most lucrative routs. Plus some are poorly managed, like US airways. They have the most upper management of all the airlines, and when they cut employee's pay by double digit percentages to make ends meet the management took a 5% cut just after they gave themselves a 4% raise. Management doesn't fly planes, or maintain them. Most of them are essentially extra baggage.

so nothing to do with the fact that it will carry more passengers for the companies, is more efficient (apparently), and possibly quicker as well?

Notice the emphasis on BIG? Yes people, this is what international business is really all about: PENIS SIZE.

Some people in America have been questioning the size of the French penis. This airplane is a public statement by France and the European community in general that says, "Our penises ARE bigger!" :rolleyes:

Y'know, I thought the exact same thing, I just didn't say it. The whole US/Europe thing is like that.

Note the similarities when there was bitching over whether the USA or Europe was going to give more money over the tsunami disaster. "OUR AID PENIS IS BIGGER!!!"

Europe built a big airplane, some sort of flying hotel.
Can't you just stand that we have the skills to not be only a nice place for your vacations?

Boeing is looking for the more efficient, more comfortable faster planes. The future isn't in big. The future hasn't been in big (except for a few situations, and human transport isn't one of them) for ages. The future is in efficiency.

The problem is with passenger loads. The 7E7 carries that fewer passengers than the A380 that it would require more aircraft to carry the same number of passengers. Thus making the process inefficient. The A380 will be more comfortable than any airliner in production today, since it has far more head room and shoulder room, more leg room unless the operator specificies the seating as being 'Sardine Can' class, as opposed to mixed. It's more efficient than the 747, and if I remember rightly (which I probably don't) its faster too.

And we fly aeroplanes. What's your point?

Oh, no. I agree with you. I'm just making fun of the kneejerk reaction against the A380 because it's EU. Airbus and Boeing are banking on aviation moving in different directions. That's all there is to it. But at the watercooler this morning, the same folks who usually extoll the virtues of the free market were bellyaching about the A380 because of subsidies or general Frenchness.

So far as U.S. airlines that actually turn a profit without aid from the U.S. government. (remember the bailout after sept 11th). Jet Blue uses smaller airbuses and I am not certain what Southwest uses.
Exclusively B737s. Airtran is all Boeing, too, with 717s and 737s.

Boeing is looking for the more efficient, more comfortable faster planes. SNIP
Right you are (snipped cos I didn't 100% agree with the rest). A380 isn't competing with Boeing then, right? Why fret? And I can tell you the secret now when the plane is unvailed... Americans have always complained the EU doesn't have the transport capability to move troops to the various hotspots cos we don't have the likes of C-130 Hercules. Well, now we have. And we are transferring troops with style! Drinks and gambling before battle, anybody? :)

Boeing is looking for the more efficient, more comfortable faster planes. The future isn't in big. The future hasn't been in big (except for a few situations, and human transport isn't one of them) for ages. The future is in efficiency.

The A380 has both.

Boeing is not subsidized. It takes contracts for profit.

The US IS paying subsidies. Why do you think it pulled out from trying to take the EU to the WTO?

Now where the A380 could really excel (in my silly opinion) is in cargo transport. Big is the future in cargo transport. UPS, the mail, FedEx, these will be the home of the big planes. Where you can stuff all the packages on, and fly long distances. That's what I think the A380 is useful for.

IIRC, Emirates has ordered roughly ten passenger variants to each freighter variant. To me, that means someone at Emirates disagrees with you. As do I.

Now where the A380 could really excel (in my silly opinion) is in cargo transport. Big is the future in cargo transport. UPS, the mail, FedEx, these will be the home of the big planes. Where you can stuff all the packages on, and fly long distances. That's what I think the A380 is useful for.

(My reasoning behind this "big isn't the future for passenger airlines" stuff is Jetblue and Southwests success with smaller planes)

Notice the emphasis on BIG? Yes people, this is what international business is really all about: PENIS SIZE.

Some people in America have been questioning the size of the French penis. This airplane is a public statement by France and the European community in general that says, "Our penises ARE bigger!" :rolleyes:
Yeah, well Boeing builds better warplanes. So they can use the "But can you kick MY ass?" comeback.

...we don't have the likes of C-130 Hercules...

Yep, the A400M. Oh, sorry, that's Airbus, therefore European, therefore bad, and far worse than the C-130. Obviously.

And this isn't just me being anti-European or anything. I apply the same philosophy to the 747. It's too big, it's far better as a cargo transport than as a passenger liner. But, once again, this all relates to the success of the discount airlines in the US.

Now where the A380 could really excel (in my silly opinion) is in cargo transport. Big is the future in cargo transport. UPS, the mail, FedEx, these will be the home of the big planes. Where you can stuff all the packages on, and fly long distances. That's what I think the A380 is useful for.

(My reasoning behind this "big isn't the future for passenger airlines" stuff is Jetblue and Southwests success with smaller planes)

I don't really see how you can make univeral "big is or is not the future"-type statements. It's totally contingent on market. For routes like San Fransisco-Tokyo, New York-London, or New York-LA, big is better. For routes like Pheonix-San Jose or Anchorage-Seattle, big ain't better. It's about filling the seats. Barring some drastic population shifts, there will always be certain markets better served by the super jumbo and other markets better served by the 737.

The A380 is bigger and more efficient than the 747. This means for those markets, it makes sense. And before we go into the argument about which direction each of these companies is taking, don't forget that both have full ranges of aircraft. I don't think anyone's giving up on any market, thought the A380 looks like it might have the edge in the highly-trafficked, long haul routes.

I thin that A380 is a cool !!!!
Its a bigger faster and all around better !!!!!!!!!
I think that the french should consider !!!! But if they don't contact me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) :) :) :) I think the french will consider because they want to get to know the new tech !!!!!! But there is a chance that there won't !!!!!!!


Greecelot :) :) :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Further, my arguement comes from my recent experiences with the air-travel industry. I flew to Frankfurt Airport in Germany from Washington Dulles and made a return flight from Frankfurt to Chicago O'Hare on a 757 this summer, and one would suspect these flights would both be filled to the brim, with the size of Airports they're flying to and from, but they weren't. They were pretty full, yes, but there were most definitely open seats (including several very tasty looking ones in first class...) These flights weren't even redeye's, they were normal flights. So, this is more along my line of "small-medium passenger planes" theory. There were similar situations on these planes as well, and these were 737's I believe, although I'm not totally sure.

Other recent flights of note (summer of '03):
Chicago O'Hare-> LAX
LAX-> Chicago O'Hare

I've got to run off now, I'm already late for class, toodles.

Remember this represents the completion of a challenge from 35 years ago! That means the design dates from 1970. Is it a monument to European persistence, or to finally getting the job done and trying to make something of it? Is building a big airliner really a 35 year task? The US started and finished the Space Shuttle in less than 35 years!

The US started and finished the Space Shuttle in less than 35 years!

And the British designed the Spitfire in 6 years. What's your point?

Remember this represents the completion of a challenge from 35 years ago! That means the design dates from 1970. Is it a monument to European persistence, or to finally getting the job done and trying to make something of it? Is building a big airliner really a 35 year task? The US started and finished the Space Shuttle in less than 35 years!

Dude, please. He was speaking metaphorically about the 35-year rivalry between Boeing and Airbus. The "challenge" is the challenge of being competitive with the U.S. aviation industry, not the specific challenge of building the A380.

Remember this represents the completion of a challenge from 35 years ago! That means the design dates from 1970. Is it a monument to European persistence, or to finally getting the job done and trying to make something of it? Is building a big airliner really a 35 year task? The US started and finished the Space Shuttle in less than 35 years!

I think you'll find that 35 years ago was when Airbus was formed.

I'm sure they've worked on other planes in that time, and haven't spent 35 years on the A380.

I think you make an excellent point Myrmidonisia. I just can't get it... are you saying they started planning a380 35 years ago? Please elaborate.

Southwest uses the B737 series and in fact retired the -200 series monday. The A380 is a beast, but I don't think it will be as legendary as the B747 was. I do see the A380 as a great cargo plane, but it seems like a glorified cattle car to me and will wreak havoc on other aircraft with its wake turbulence, I shudder even thinking about it. Hopefully it won't scrape the trees five miles from take-off with an awful climb out rate like the A330.

The A380 is a beast, but I don't think it will be as legendary as the B747 was.

Lol. Fortunately I don't care what you think :D

I thin that A380 is a cool !!!!
Its a bigger faster and all around better !!!!!!!!!
I think that the french should consider !!!! But if they don't contact me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) :) :) :) I think the french will consider because they want to get to know the new tech !!!!!! But there is a chance that there won't !!!!!!!


Greecelot :) :) :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

*Feels the average IQ drop by a few points*

D'oh.

Anyways, this is ridiculous. So Airbus cranks out a new plane, and a big one, too. Good for them (no sarcasm here), if they can do it, fine. The 747 was aging anyway.

The problem I have with this it that this is being turned into the whole Europe vs US debate that is going on everywhere. Niether is better, really, and it doesn't matter. If the world could put aside this "my penis is larger than yours!!!111oneone!" mentality, it would be a better place. How low has it gone when a simple airplane can inflame an arguement like this?

It's just so stupid. I hate the US for hating Europeaners for no reason, and I hate those Europeanors who return the damned favor.

*Renounces his American and European citizenships and goes to find a nice quiet village in the South Pacific somewhere*

And the British designed the Spitfire in 6 years. What's your point?
That 35 years to build a big airliner is nothing to be proud of.

*Renounces his American and European citizenships and goes to find a nice quiet village in the South Pacific somewhere*
Can I join you? We can buid a bigger raft than the EU or USA ever imagined possible...

That 35 years to build a big airliner is nothing to be proud of.

That would be a great point, if someone had actually taken 35 years to build an aircraft.

That 35 years to build a big airliner is nothing to be proud of.
Yeah. They spent the whole 35 years building this plane.

That 35 years to build a big airliner is nothing to be proud of.

Dude, did you completely ignore everyone else? Airbus has been around for 35 years. Not designing the A380 for 35 years. Subtle difference.

Can I join you? We can buid a bigger raft than the EU or USA ever imagined possible...

Sounds good to me.

:D

I think you make an excellent point Myrmidonisia. I just can't get it... are you saying they started planning a380 35 years ago? Please elaborate.
Maybe something was lost in the translation, then. What I got out of the article that I quoted on page 1, was that the completion of the A380 was something that had been in the works for 35 years. If this was allegorical and really referred to something else, then I missed it.

Here's the part that makes it sound like the end of a 35 year job.

"The European states--so easily accused of weakness--backed this fantastic challenge 35 years ago and have believed in the A380," he said.

That 35 years to build a big airliner is nothing to be proud of.

Look, I'm not saying you have to understand everything you read. Just the articles you quote when you start threads.

It is flat out untrue to say that the A380 is a "1970s design."

Airbus, as a company, is 35 years old. When they say "35 year challenge" they're talking about the challenge of competing with Boeing.

Dude!

Remember this represents the completion of a challenge from 35 years ago! That means the design dates from 1970. Is it a monument to European persistence, or to finally getting the job done and trying to make something of it? Is building a big airliner really a 35 year task? The US started and finished the Space Shuttle in less than 35 years!

huh??? The idea for the 3XX project dates from 1991....not 1970.

from the Airbus website....

You need to move the timeline back to 1991 (http://www.airbus.com/A380/default2.aspx?artId=21&dispBack=0)

1 July 1991
A VISION OF THE FUTURE…

Airbus unveils its vision of a future aircraft capable of carrying more than 600 people, much larger than any passenger airliner ever built.

The decision to develop an “ultra high capacity” aircraft at the turn of the 21st century came after Airbus completed a long term strategy review which revealed a strong need for very large airliners on the basis of steadily growing passenger traffic and limitations at airports.

Initial feedback from airlines suggests that these large airliners need to be compatible with existing airport facilities, given the high cost and environmental impact of building new ones.

You need to move the timeline back to post 72 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7983501&postcount=72)

Bingo. Ten years, maybe eleven on the drawingboard. That's a reasonable time scale, bearing in mind this was a blank sheet of paper in '91, and it is a completely brand new design, of something virtually never created before.

Look, I'm not saying you have to understand everything you read. Just the articles you quote when you start threads.

It is flat out untrue to say that the A380 is a "1970s design."

Airbus, as a company, is 35 years old. When they say "35 year challenge" they're talking about the challenge of competing with Boeing.

Dude!
So, either Airbus just started competition with Boeing in 1970 or the quote was poorly phrased. Either way, it's been a fun discussion.

Here's the part that makes it sound like the end of a 35 year job.
Yes. I can see why you got the wrong impression. The unveiling bash was attended by several heads of states... so the hübris was high. As an American you must know letting heads of states roam free and giving speeches leads to misunderstandings. ;)

Airbus is subsidized by the EU. It used to be just France, but now the EUropeans have taken over that role. Air France is subsidized by the French Government, too. Of course the plane will be placed into service.

I'm probably more aware of the airline market, if only because I worked on the L-1011 program at Lockheed. Don't now because the plane is pretty well out of service. But my statement was "Time will tell if there is a market". If you see American Airlines, United Airlines, JAL and other non-Europeans buying the thing, it will have passed the "has a market" test.


The current orders are:

Emirates: 43, including two freighters
Air France: 10
Etihad Airways: 4
Federal Express: 10 freighters
International Lease Finance Corp.: 5 and 5 freighters
Korean Air Lines: 5
Lufthansa: 15
MAS: 6
Qantas Airways: 12
Qatar Airways: 2
Singapore Airlines: 10
Thai Airways International: 6
Virgin Atlantic Airways: 6
UPS: 10 freighters

Funny, but there are almost no European orders on that list....

The sad, sad truth.

*Pokes Bush in the eye with a stick*

The current orders are:

SNIP


Funny, but there are almost no European orders on that list....
149 planes... of which 25 European orders (is Virgin considered European? Its owner is... so +6)... so it's like...17%. Yes. surprisingly low...

I guess, if you want to call it a discussion. I just saw a bunch of Francophobia and a little bit of banging on the Boeing gong. If Boeing had rolled this mutha out, I'm guessing the thread title would have been something along the lines of "Another Marvel of American Ingenuity" and that the discussion wouldn't have revolved around allegations that Americans can't build a decent plane in under 35 years.

And I don't think the thread turned in that direction, I think it started that way.

149 planes... of which 25 European orders... so it's like...17%. Yes. surprisingly low...

I actually made it 31, not 25. And that's just pre-flight orders.

we're supposed to be impressed?The Euros did not Built the Super-Jumbo to Impress you,
They Built it to piss-out CNNs Lou Dobbs :D

http://www.gogomag.com/ld2/x_loudobbs2.jpg ...Europe just built this...this Oversized...this..this Overweigth Airliner...*using his trademarked God-Save-Amerika-Xpression*

Leave it to the French to build the worlds largest commercial aircraft when the rest of the world is going to smaller, more efficient planes :rolleyes:

. . . Europe just built this...this this Oversized . . . this . . . this . . . Overweight Airliner . . .

. . . specifically to cart around our oversized . . . overweight . . . asses. In all their American glory.

I actually made it 31, not 25. And that's just pre-flight orders.
Yes. Corrected that... and it was the "almost no European orders" I was referring to. I really think it is too big for the mainly commuter traffic inside Europe though. I'd assume that's why no big orders as of yet.

Leave it to the French to build the worlds largest commercial aircraft when the rest of the world is going to smaller, more efficient planes :rolleyes:

Yes. Because you've obviously done more thorough market analysis and have a clearer business model than the guys who sunk 30 billion into designing and building this aircraft. :rolleyes:

And I seemt o recal that you can add some just-announced orders from China Air and Cathay Pacific (5 planes each I believe) onto that list as well.


The limiting factor for this plane is actually likely to be facilities at first. Few airports are designed with double-decker skywalks, or with waiting lounges built to accommodate a 600 passenger jet (if in all-coach configuration).


My understanding is that the safe takeoff and landing distances required are not expected to be a major problem for 747-rated airports, however I'm not sure as to the wingspan of this beheamoth either and how it will fit into some terminals, de-icing stations, etc.

Leave it to the French to build the worlds largest commercial aircraft when the rest of the world is going to smaller, more efficient planes :rolleyes:

The plane is more efficient than... the 747 for example, and it wasn't built solely by the French - try the UK, Germany, Spain and France?

Leave it to the French to build the worlds largest commercial aircraft when the rest of the world is going to smaller, more efficient planes :rolleyes:

here speaks an expert! :rolleyes:

. . . however I'm not sure as to the wingspan of this beheamoth either and how it will fit into some terminals, de-icing stations, etc.

That's why they folded the wings up at the ends. :D

Leave it to the French to build the worlds largest commercial aircraft when the rest of the world is going to smaller, more efficient planes :rolleyes:


There is still a market for larger planes on the long routes. They have been going to the smaller variants more because of the fuel efficiency than the seating capacity and running more flights to handle the volume.

The A380 is expected to compete with the smaller planes on efficiency, and more than make up for any discrepancy with the reduced overhead of a smaller fleet.

By bridging those two factors it has found a large potential market - if it delivers on it's promises.

For sure it will never be a short-haul aircraft where the smaller jets are used. But for the trans-atlantic, trans-pacific, and other long-haul routes it will find interested carriers.

Yes. Because you've obviously done more thorough market analysis and have a clearer business model than the guys who sunk 30 billion into designing and building this aircraft.

Probably have, since they obviously haven't read them.

Probably have, since they obviously haven't read them.

And why do you say that? Because Boeing is going for smaller aircraft of a similar range, as they have been for the last 40 odd years? Airbus launch a rival to the 747, and all of a sudden, their stupid and don't know how to design an airliner?

The limiting factor for this plane is actually likely to be facilities at first. Few airports are designed with double-decker skywalks, or with waiting lounges built to accommodate a 600 passenger jet (if in all-coach configuration).If this plane is as good as advertised, Airlines will buy them, and if the Airlines buy them...Intl. Airport either adapt or lose bussiness.

(if they know what is good for them) even American airports will adapt to the Euro-Plane.

BTW its going to cost mucho americano dolares, merry X-mas ;)

(I wish Lou Dobbs could read this :D )

Probably have, since they obviously haven't read them.

Not if you think its only a French built aircraft

My understanding is that the safe takeoff and landing distances required are not expected to be a major problem for 747-rated airports, however I'm not sure as to the wingspan of this beheamoth either and how it will fit into some terminals, de-icing stations, etc.
You are right. The strips are no problem. The terminals have to be renovated to fit A380 in. I know the work is being done in Heathrow as we speak...well, they have 1.5 years to complete it.

Probably have, since they obviously haven't read them.

Barring massive population redistribution, there's always going to be a market the long-haul, high-capacity aircraft. You can make whatever unsupported claims you want about what the world needs or which direction it's going, but the fact of the matter is that for the A380 to be a financial success, Airbus only needs to sell 250 of them. A day after the ribbon cutting, they've got orders in excess of 150 aircraft.

It looks like the market's there and it looks like the world has a better idea as to its needs than you do. Aight?

Airbus is subsidized by the EU. It used to be just France, but now the EUropeans have taken over that role. Air France is subsidized by the French Government, too. Of course the plane will be placed into service.
Errr... Airbus is a private company, and it used to be British. Hence the name "Airbus" - a compound of two English words.

I'm probably more aware of the airline market, if only because I worked on the L-1011 program at Lockheed. Don't now because the plane is pretty well out of service. But my statement was "Time will tell if there is a market". If you see American Airlines, United Airlines, JAL and other non-Europeans buying the thing, it will have passed the "has a market" test.
For a supposed expert you know very little about it. Most of what you're saying is just "US pwnz j00" propaganda drivel. British Airways is a private company, and has bought some, as is Virgin Airlines (which was NEVER state owned). As has been previously stated, Emirates has also bought some (non-EU). Oh wait, I forgot. The only nation outside the EU is the US. SIlly me.

For a supposed expert you know very little about it. Most of what you're saying is just "US pwnz j00" propaganda drivel. British Airways is a private company, and has bought some, as is Virgin Airlines (which was NEVER state owned). As has been previously stated, Emirates has also bought some (non-EU). Oh wait, I forgot. The only nation outside the EU is the US. SIlly me.

Hear, hear.

Probably have, since they obviously haven't read them.

Right.

Them and all of the airlines just have NO clue as to the airline industry whatsoever.

That's why there are only about 150-odd orders for the A380, instead of that far more massive 122 orders for the new 7E7....



Oh wait.


Nevermind.....

Ok.. if anyone want to hear my point if view the can read the following text, everyone else can go directly to the next post...

747, Probobly the best known jet in the world, is old.. It do get upgrades, but still its constrution is old and is not fit for this times of cheap airline service...

A380, The new BIG jet, Its new and has been built to adapt these new times.. Its way more economical to fly ~600 from example New York - London or Copenhagen - Bejing than wath it is to fly the same route with two or maby three planes á 200-300 passenger (I admit that I dont know how many people can fit into a 747) as almost everyone know..


I still think that the 747 will be in use as a mid-long distance plan, but the heavyer routes that many thousands are traveling everyday will most likely be more or less taken over by this new mega-jet.

All this talk about Airbus vs Boeing is just dumb.. If there would be only Boeing it would surely be a so called monopoly and noone wants that, exept Boeing and maby Microsoft...
The talk about Airbus as a part of the EU and that it should be under goverment controll is just silly.. The money that Airbus recives from Europen goverments (I only know about the support from france) is not even close to the amount of money that Boeing gets from the american goverment for its engenering on millitery airplanes and jet-engiens..

Lol Zepp.

And in response to your mentioning of the modifications to airports, its not really that big a program. Most gates that will load A380s can handle enough passengers to fill a 747, so a few mroe shouldn't cause a stretch. The biggest problem will be facilities, i.e. fuel tankers, de-icers, ground crews etc. BUt it's no more dramatic than introducing any new aircraft really. Just a little bigger is all.

...All this talk about Airbus vs Boeing is just dumb...
*and he's a jolly good fellow and so say...* well...me (supposed to be 'I' though, aight?)

All this talk about Airbus vs. Boeing is just dumb.

Come on now. Airbus reps themselves talk about the 35-year rivalry with Boeing. I'm sure airline execs also spend a fair amount of time comparing Airbus to Boeing before they commit billions to buy aircraft. There's nothing wrong with comparing the companies or their products. Who knows, maybe I'm thinking about buying stock.

What is kind of dumb is to use the aircraft as proof that the EU rules the school while the US drools or, in the spirit that the thread began, that the A380 is suspect or shoddy because it's from old Europe.

Lol Zepp.

And in response to your mentioning of the modifications to airports, its not really that big a program. Most gates that will load A380s can handle enough passengers to fill a 747, so a few mroe shouldn't cause a stretch. The biggest problem will be facilities, i.e. fuel tankers, de-icers, ground crews etc. BUt it's no more dramatic than introducing any new aircraft really. Just a little bigger is all.


After a few checks, you are correct that the lounges should not be a problem. After all, a 747-400 can be configured up to 550 passenger.

But the terminal itself may be more of an issue. They are generally designed with gates that can can handle aricraft up to a 747-400 plus a safe maneuvering margin before the next gate. The 747-400 has a wingspan of 64.4 meters, but the A380 has 79.8 meters. That 15 meters (50 feet approx) is a 24% increase that may require some structural changes to the terminal to allow them to fit into the gates safely. The A380 also has dual access doors - one for each level, and I would guarantee that they will need (for safety reasons) that airports have ladders or skywalks able to reach the higher door.

The longer wingspan can also have an impact on the apron of the runway as the lanes for getting aircraft to and from the runway are designed to be wide enough to handle 747s. Again, the safety considerations of having a plane with wings 50 feet wider than those currently in use need to be evaluated.

So yes - the size of this plane in relation to what is currently available will require structural considerations at airports.

I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone discussed this plane's enormous potential as a terrorist target?

I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone discussed this plane's enormous potential as a terrorist target?
It uses less fuel, so a boeing is still the best missile

Man, I want a giant flying phallic symbol!

I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone discussed this plane's enormous potential as a terrorist target?

As a terror target, it isn't that much of an upgrade over the 747. Most won't be configured to carry the maximum passenger load (I think the standard config is around 550). Yeah, there'll be more people and more fuel, but a 747 already has a lot of people and a lot of fuel. We don't want baddies crashing either one. It's like asking whether it's a greater threat to have a 15-ton bomb dropped on my house than to have a 10-ton bomb. Yes, but both would suck a real lot.

Come on now. Airbus reps themselves talk about the 35-year rivalry with Boeing. I'm sure airline execs also spend a fair amount of time comparing Airbus to Boeing before they commit billions to buy aircraft. There's nothing wrong with comparing the companies or their products. Who knows, maybe I'm thinking about buying stock.

What is kind of dumb is to use the aircraft as proof that the EU rules the school while the US drools or, in the spirit that the thread began, that the A380 is suspect or shoddy because it's from old Europe.

Ok.. I see your point.. I should have typed "The Airbus vs Boeing thing, as an American vs Europe thing, is just dumb

I found this (http://www.forbes.com/home/2004/01/05/cx_al_0105matchup.html) site when I was looking for the airbus stock to se how it has been doing sence the A380 thingy..
The data is collected by Forbes that is an, as far as I know, american newspaper mostly read by americans.. that makes the poll in the bottom a bit off I would think..
Some of the fact on the site that I think is interesting is that has Airbus only been around for the last 35 years and still can come close to Boeings sale.. I'm not really supprices about Boing geting more money a year as they also have a large industry of other companys on the side... Somthing that Airbus lacks...

It uses less fuel, so a boeing is still the best missile

I know it's more efficent, but does it carry less fuel than a 747? Efficency is a comparison of weight (cargo and passengers) moved versus fuel consumed. So the A380 can be more efficient even while burning more fuel.

p.s. You should be in Boeing's PR department. "Boeing . . . still the best missile." As far as slogans go, that's up there with "Ryder . . . who'd suspect?"

Lol. Fortunately I don't care what you think :D

Its ok, you don't get paid to fly them either. :D The American market for aircraft isn't in a need for a larger aircraft right now. That is why a majority of US airlines are switching to the smaller and faster regional jets. The next generation CRJs' and ERJs' are quieter and more efficient, and also provide more room than the earlier models. This is what US airlines want. The A380 is a "look at what we can do" not a "this is the next big thing."

I know it's more efficent, but does it carry less fuel than a 747? Efficency is a comparison of weight (cargo and passengers) moved versus fuel consumed. So the A380 can be more efficient even while burning more fuel.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think it does in fact carry more, if only slightly. To be honest I don't know, and I can't be bothered to walk two steps to get the information I have on it, and really can't be bothered to Google it.

Its ok, you don't get paid to fly them either. :D The American market for aircraft isn't in a need for a larger aircraft right now. That is why a majority of US airlines are switching to the smaller and faster regional jets. The next generation CRJs' and ERJs' are quieter and more efficient, and also provide more room than the earlier models. This is what US airlines want. The A380 is a "look at what we can do" not a "this is the next big thing."

Unfortunately, as much as you may state that, it's the Global market that really count's. That's where the real money is. And that's where the A380 will come into its own, on long haul flights.

Actually, Airbus is now getting more orders than Boeing.
For now, but when the 7E7 comes out, why do I get the feeling that their sales will decline sharply unless the EUrocrats completely subsidize it's construction?

I know it's more efficent, but does it carry less fuel than a 747? ?"
Probably they carry about the same...
Either way an American Plane is a more likely target anyways.

For now, but when the 7E7 comes out, why do I get the feeling that their sales will decline sharply unless the EUrocrats completely subsidize it's construction?

Bearing in mind that neither aircraft has "come out" in production terms, the A380 has more sales than the 7E7 so far, and both were opened for sales at around the same time.... I somehow doubt sales will fall. Airbus is on the rise, and Boeing is going to lose out on sales. Which won't exactly hurt airline companies or their customers, as Boeing will be forced into cutting prices to make sales, as will Airbus.

On a side note, Airbus are predicting sales of 20,000 aircraft over the next twenty years, as airlines start to replace their aging airliners with newer aircraft. The industry is going to take off, pardon the pun, and the two companies are taking a different approach to dealing with it. I wonder how many of those sales will go to Airbus, and how many to Boeing?

well, if this is as much as a pie in the face as the first airbus that crashed in new york, boeing's 747 program is quite safe. however, if it isn't, they better have another ace up their sleeves.

..
p.s. You should be in Boeing's PR department. "Boeing . . . still the best missile." As far as slogans go, that's up there with "Ryder . . . who'd suspect?"LOL... If you were an Arab Kamikaze, would you "Fly American"?

That's a sweet looking plane. A little chubbier than the Boeings, yeah, but still pretty nice looking. And if it has better gas mileage, that's even better.

Yay for Science.

Yes. I can see why you got the wrong impression. The unveiling bash was attended by several heads of states... so the hübris was high. As an American you must know letting heads of states roam free and giving speeches leads to misunderstandings. ;)
Gee, we've never had that problem with a head of state:)

Talking as someone who knows someone who has worked on several Airbus projects, the electronics in the Airbus planes (of which there are many, but only this has hit the press) are far superior to those of the US planes. The 747 is an ancient plane, is it really all that suprising that it will be replaced? Or do you Americans think we should keep buying your crap just because it says "Made in the USA" on the side?

They are building the air filtering systems near my house. I was invited to see what they were up to

Does it fly? will it take me on my holidays? good enough for me. I perhaps speak for the silent majority in that I don't really give a crap what type of aircraft I fly on, as long as I get there. If the airlines can operate these things cheaper, then that can only mean a decrease in fares, which will boost passenger numbers enough to fill them, which is exactly what the industry needs, still feeling the pinch of losses due to 9/11

Its ok, you don't get paid to fly them either. :D The American market for aircraft isn't in a need for a larger aircraft right now. That is why a majority of US airlines are switching to the smaller and faster regional jets.

I've looked up the stats of the planes on Wikipedia:

Airbus A380 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380)
Boeing 7E7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7E7)

It seems that the Airbus is actually slightly faster, and also has a better range than the 7E7 (although I'm sure the Boeing guy's argument was that the 7E7 would fly directly between far-apart airports, whereas the A380 would only be able to go between hubs because it's range wouldn't be good enough? So... I'm a little confused. Are these stats wrong?).

Can't find any reference to fuel efficiency, but I do know that the A380 is meant to be a lot more efficient than the 747s.

It would seem based upon this, that the only time a 7E7 is preferable is if you don't have enough passengers to fill the plane (Could be a cost factor too - is the 7E7 much cheaper to buy than the A380?).

And I don't think the thread turned in that direction, I think it started that way.
When I read the press release, my first thought _was_ that it seemed like long time to build an airplane. When I re-read it, I was pretty sure that it was phrased pretty badly. Considering the dig that Schroeder tried to get in at the US, I figured that the EU was fair game. Since the French press released the translation, they should bear the brunt of the blame over the poor choice of words.

Now, what did I ever say that was derogatory about the Airbus 380, other than "time will tell if there is a market for it"? There are orders, so there must be a market. So many thin skins in the EU. Wait until I get the article about the EU collapse posted.

bussiness Class...sweet.
http://www.luftfahrt.net/galerie/new/bilder/1058166497_A380.jpg

As a soon to be French citizen, I can't say that I'm prouder than usual of living in here and stuff, and most people absolutely don't give a shit about it's fuel efficiency or buoyancy or how it's despised by Boeing or whatever. It's just a big plane, get over it. It carries people from a point A to a point B by flying. Who gives a shit if it looks chubbier than other planes?
We don't care whether you're impressed or not by it. It's just the proof that we pinkos can make the same, if not better stuff than americans. Period.

Bearing in mind that neither aircraft has "come out" in production terms, the A380 has more sales than the 7E7 so far, and both were opened for sales at around the same time.... I somehow doubt sales will fall. Airbus is on the rise, and Boeing is going to lose out on sales. Which won't exactly hurt airline companies or their customers, as Boeing will be forced into cutting prices to make sales, as will Airbus.

On a side note, Airbus are predicting sales of 20,000 aircraft over the next twenty years, as airlines start to replace their aging airliners with newer aircraft. The industry is going to take off, pardon the pun, and the two companies are taking a different approach to dealing with it. I wonder how many of those sales will go to Airbus, and how many to Boeing?
Possibly true, unless the US gov decides to subsidize Boeing by the same amount that the EUrocrats are subsidizing Airbus, at which point the market will probably start to favor Boeing again. As it is, two 7E7's carry more passengers for slightly longer ranges at about the same price as an airbus. Approx. US$120-$150 mil for the 7E7's, and Approx. US$275-$285 mil for the A380.

Im not sorry to say that the Airbus A380 (it does matter that it was state funded, thats stupid) is the best plane ive ever seen, and is approaching the luxurious excellence that only a zeppellin could previously achieve (yay for zeppellins) it is FAR FAR batter than the Boeing 777 a plane i also eagerly awaited because it was good, and it FAR FAR outstrips boeings planned response the long distance 7E7, an idea which i think is frankly shit. Airbus makes your ride more comfortable, boeing makes it longer... what do i chose, what DO i chose.

In short. Airbus good
Boeing... hurry up dammit

Considering the dig that Schroeder tried to get in at the US, I figured that the EU was fair game. Since the French press released the translation, they should bear the brunt of the blame over the poor choice of words.

Schroeder's quote was referencing a backhanded Rumsfeld comment about "Old Europe." Google Rumsfeld and "old Europe." And I don't think too many people shared your confusion, but blame whomever you like for it.

Can i just say...

PLEASE, dont capitalise the EU in Eurocrat, the term is stupid enough in itself without you making yourself sound stupider.

And if the US government subsidised Boeing as much as the EU has Airbus, it would still be losing market share because its new idea would still be crap, just out sooner. Ill support Boeing if theyd just come up with something good.

Put your macho we love the US crap behind you because its sickening and think with your head not your flag.

and is approaching the luxurious excellence that only a zeppellin could previously achieve (yay for zeppellins)..
http://webpointsao2.terra.com.br/istoe/dinheirodinamica/galeria/fotos/Airbus_A380_j.jpg
The bar looks good.

Doesn it just... i so want to travel business class on that thing.

Although im sure youll all agree taht the good old Airship still holds the award for aerial oppulance.

I wonder how long it takes to get everyone off the thing? Normal debarkation, not the emergency type. It's bad enough to be at the back of the plane in a 777-type aircraft, let alone to be the last of 800+.

Its double deck so its probably not that much slower, plus it of course meets saftey standards, and... whod want to leave, that things practically nicer than my house*.

*exxageration.

We'll see how good they are, they seem too big, some are bound to crash, and by some, I mean more than usual.

Its double deck so its probably not that much slower, plus it of course meets saftey standards, and... whod want to leave, that things practically nicer than my house*.

*exxageration.
It is a pretty picture. I don't think the coach class folks get to use the bar, if it's anything like the upper level bars on 747s though.

It is a pretty picture. I don't think the coach class folks get to use the bar, if it's anything like the upper level bars on 747s though.
I have faith that they wont crash more than usual, after all do big ships more than usual or does that sound as stupid to you as the conept of big things automatically crashing more sounds to me, sorry it just does.

And as for whatever you said, oh yes bar, weell theres gym and a casino too so who knows, as well as a double beds. But in economy you do get omre room even if you dont get ANY of the business perks (something i dont know about yet, ive not have anything tell me)

You might not be impressed by this pinnacle of large airliner design, but then at least us Europeans can always turn around and say "Concorde".
*giggle*

Actually, Airbus is now getting more orders than Boeing.
149 planes where pre ordered before the A380 was even revealed. And orders from China are expected soon. Nope. No market at all for the plane.

Good for the French. Now, life goes on as usual. It won't stop because Airbus and Boeing are waging the economic equivilant of a gang war. Quite frankly, I could care less. If the thing can get off the ground, I'm on it. I don't care if the Chinese or Russians or the Zimbabweans made it.

Good for the French. Now, life goes on as usual. It won't stop because Airbus and Boeing are waging the economic equivilant of a gang war. Quite frankly, I could care less. If the thing can get off the ground, I'm on it. I don't care if the Chinese or Russians or the Zimbabweans made it.

Welp, "Good for the French"? We won't see the benefits of that thing before a long, long time. But I concur that we don't give a damn about who made it.

http://webpointsao2.terra.com.br/istoe/dinheirodinamica/galeria/fotos/Airbus_A380_j.jpg
The bar looks good.

Thats the restaurant....not the bar....hence the plates...

Thats the restaurant....not the bar....hence the plates...
See this thing has everything... except solid gold beds and a whale.. take it back, i want a better one.

Welp, "Good for the French"? We won't see the benefits of that thing before a long, long time. But I concur that we don't give a damn about who made it.
Why are some Frenchmen so mean?

See this thing has everything... except solid gold beds and a whale.. take it back, i want a better one.

I agree...this is just not good enough

Welp, "Good for the French"? We won't see the benefits of that thing before a long, long time. But I concur that we don't give a damn about who made it.
I don't know. The planes that have been ordered already need to be assembled. You probably can see the benefits of the plane soon.

Fighting over who makes better passanger jets :rolleyes: :headbang:

Well, now that Airbus has made the double-decker, Boeing is going to up the ante Gillette-style with a sleek triple-decker that they'll call the "Mach 3." Airbus will then sue, claiming false advertising, while developing a new superjumbo with a vibrating fuselage that runs on AAA batteries.

Well, now that Airbus has made the double-decker, Boeing is going to up the ante Gillette-style with a sleek triple-decker that they'll call the "Mach 3." Airbus will then sue, claiming false advertising, while developing a new superjumbo with a vibrating fuselage that runs on AAA batteries.
Whilst Okyton Enterprises will sail happily by with a Zepellin

Slogan:

"Where else do you get your own solid gold bed, and personal whale... only with Okyton Zeppellins. You bring your own whale."

All the same, even with my disagreements about it's marketability, the A380 is an amazing technological marvel, worthy of note. If I could buy meself a plane, I'd buy one of these (and a Lear, but that's in a whole different market.)

Well, now that Airbus has made the double-decker, Boeing is going to up the ante Gillette-style with a sleek triple-decker that they'll call the "Mach 3." Airbus will then sue, claiming false advertising, while developing a new superjumbo with a vibrating fuselage that runs on AAA batteries.

:p :D

Can i just say...

PLEASE, dont capitalise the EU in Eurocrat, the term is stupid enough in itself without you making yourself sound stupider.

And if the US government subsidised Boeing as much as the EU has Airbus, it would still be losing market share because its new idea would still be crap, just out sooner. Ill support Boeing if theyd just come up with something good.

Put your macho we love the US crap behind you because its sickening and think with your head not your flag.
If Boeing was subsidized by the US gov, the prices of it's planes would be less than they currently are, how much would depend on the amount of subsidy. Ergo, more airlines would buy boeing planes.

If Boeing was subsidized by the US gov

It is.

If Boeing was subsidized by the US gov, the prices of it's planes would be less than they currently are, how much would depend on the amount of subsidy. Ergo, more airlines would buy boeing planes.
The prevelance of smaller planes is also due to the reduced fuel costs, it really wouldnt do any good. US subsidies would do no good, it is not a piont to believe youve beaten Airbus, they are not "cheating" it is not the dastardly EU cheating to beat the US, it is simply a better plane.

Dude! The 747 was designed back in the 60's! I learned about the 747 in a "Weekly Reader" article in 2nd grade. In Jumbo Jets, Boeing has been resting on its laurels for a very long time.

Gaah.

Both companies are damn fine and both deserve success.

As for those who said the A380 was doomed as it wasn't getting many European orders. Who cares? They're playing in a global, not European market?

And who here honestly chooses their airline by the planes they fly? I go by cost, and do they fly from Manchester to where I want to go. Not the type of planes that they fly!

Personally I like to fly in an Airbus as they're partly made in Britain and it's good for our economy. However, when possible I fly with American (Boeing only), as though they can be a bit more expensive than other airlines, they have the most legroom in economy and at 6'5" that's VERY important to me when choosing an airline.

Thats the restaurant....not the bar....hence the plates...
ever heard of dual purpose?

see this is your office AND could be used to sleep too.

http://www.latecoere.com/arppnac/arppnac/Liaison/107/i380.jpg
http://www.luftfahrt.net/galerie/new/bilder/1058166497_A380.jpg

Vive La France!

*flies*

Fighting over who makes better passanger jets :rolleyes: :headbang:

It matters in some cases. Bombadier (Canadian) vs Embraer (brazilian) almost resulted in an all out trade war between the two countries.
But then something like that could never happen between those eternal buddies, the USA and the EU, could it! ;)

Bombadier (Canadian) vs Embraer (brazilian) almost resulted in an all out trade war between the two countries. Who won?

But then something like that could never happen between those eternal buddies, the USA and the EU, could it! ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4164755.stm

Exactly - USA accuses EU of subsidising Airbus and EU accuses USA of subsidising Boeing :)

Exactly - USA accuses EU of subsidising Airbus and EU accuses USA of subsidising Boeing :)[/QUOTE]

The A380 could not be built without subsidies from European countries. The Europeans fire back by saying that Boeing receives larger subsidies. The only susidies that Boeing recieves are for millitary jets (not commercial airliners), and subsidies from NASA and the European Space Agency for the X-33 Venture Star.

The A380 could not be built without subsidies from European countries. The Europeans fire back by saying that Boeing receives larger subsidies. The only susidies that Boeing recieves are for millitary jets (not commercial airliners), and subsidies from NASA and the European Space Agency for the X-33 Venture Star.

Says you. There's no smoke without fire, so I'll pick the "takes two to tango" viewpoint rather than your biased opinion and justification - both of which you've plucked out of the air. Simply because the "both are at it" viewpoint is more likely to be true - or do you have some solid evidence for your statement?

Put it this way - as little as I trust them, I trust the EU ministers to know more than you do.

Wow. You know, the French have been overcharging for potted meat product for decades. Pate is really Armour brand Potted Meat Product.

I'm getting a laugh out of this, its pretty bad when people argue over which country has the biggest jet and who took the longest :rolleyes:

You think they would give congrats to them for making such a plane instead of bashing them :rolleyes:

I thank god I'm not like most americans, fat, and think they are better then everyone else and never give congrats to anyone :rolleyes:

Not Proud to be an American!!!

I've seen documentaries on this new airbus, and the only problem I have with it is that the company that produced it is so heavily subsidized by the EU that it does not allow for fair competition between Boeing and Airbus.

And I'm sure that within a few years, there will be no legroom on the airbus either. It will be a european sardine can rather than an American one.

I like how leftist economics don't work.


Until they best rightist economics.


Then they're just unfair.


Rock.


Big plane. Brum brum. Nyyyyowm.


If it is more fuel efficient (will it be? Hard to say until we see its popularity), everybody wins, even if some want to pretend that they lost.

Its bigger, more efficient, less polluting, and cheaper to maintain in the long run than the 747. Its the first stpe in moving away from Boeing's supposed dominance of the airliner market. Airbus sales are increasing, and Boeing are going to be left behind.

We'll see. For one thing, the A380 is so damn big that many airports are unable to handle them, and would have to be refitted to do so. This limits the usefulness of the giant plane rather sharply. Would you buy a bunch of planes that couldn't land in the airports that your airline runs flights in?