NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, I must apologise if there is a thread on this already. I have checked the last three pages and saw nothing alluding to this, so here I go.

After two years of delays, the first passenger service on the new A380 landed in Sydney earlier today. The big question has to be, would this revolutionise travel like the Boeing 747 did, or should we wait for the next generation, such as the 787 or the A350?

By the way, here is an article for those who are interested

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318241/1415812

A380 arrives in Sydney

It actually landed in Darwin, but ran out of runway... :p

And to answer your question: no. There is nothing revolutionary about yet another bigger aeroplane. Boeing 747 was the first, and for 30 years or so only, in its class. Airbus A380 is no more than just another competitor in the how-to-put-as-many-sardines-in-a-can-as-you-can game.

And, looking to the near future, the impending fuel crisis will probably necessitate a scaling down of all non-essential air travel, and certainly divestment from new expensive planes while the old ones still work. Had it come 10 years earlier, it might well have become a huge success, but now that's not so sure.

Boeing pwns Airbus.

It actually landed in Darwin, but ran out of runway... :p

And to answer your question: no. There is nothing revolutionary about yet another bigger aeroplane. Boeing 747 was the first, and for 30 years or so only, in its class. Airbus A380 is no more than just another competitor in the how-to-put-as-many-sardines-in-a-can-as-you-can game.

And, looking to the near future, the impending fuel crisis will probably necessitate a scaling down of all non-essential air travel, and certainly divestment from new expensive planes while the old ones still work. Had it come 10 years earlier, it might well have become a huge success, but now that's not so sure.

It is realy a revolution.

Before the 747 there were already several other big planes, the 747 was also bigger as the ones already available.

This is not of the same class as 747, it's another class. (Just like Jumbo was in its time...)

The plane is big, but the comfort is also unseen. It's not a sardines-in-a-can plane.

The expected fuel crisis is not for tomorrow. Till that time we will use this plane. And even then, it's cheaper to load max n people in an A380 than using two, three or even four planes to transport the same amount of people to some location.

It's also innovating in other domains, such as the used materials & techniques:

• Glare
• Carbon fibre reinforced plastic
• Weldable aluminium alloys
• Thermoplastics

You're too conservative and I understand. People, in general, don't like new innovations in the beginning. But if we do not innovate, we are still using horses to transport ourselves.

You're too conservative and I understand. People, in general, don't like new innovations in the beginning. But if we do not innovate, we are still using horses to transport ourselves.Then we wou;dn't have the oil peak etc.:p

Okay, this monster carries 800+ people... How are they going to board in one day? I mean, US airlines can't get 120 people on a plane fast enough to make an on time departure. Seriously, if they're only using one or two jetways, boarding could take a couple hours.

And the gates aren't sized properly, either. This will require at least four of the gates that are in use, here in Atlanta.

Okay, this monster carries 800+ people... How are they going to board in one day? I mean, US airlines can't get 120 people on a plane fast enough to make an on time departure. Seriously, if they're only using one or two jetways, boarding could take a couple hours.

And the gates aren't sized properly, either. This will require at least four of the gates that are in use, here in Atlanta.

An airport have to be 'A380 approved'.

And it helps to build more than one exit. I assume they did for such big plane. :)

It actually landed in Darwin, but ran out of runway... :p
I think that the most significative change the A380 will bring to air transport will be that most major airports will start building longer and broader runways. Hence, it is likely that future aircrafts will be built to use those longer runways.

And to answer your question: no. There is nothing revolutionary about yet another bigger aeroplane.

The real revolution will be hydrogen-powered airplanes. It's theorically feasible, but I think that no-one is willing yet to solve the technical problems.

edit: anyway, using an A380 is more fuel-efficient than using a B747. So, while I wouldn't call the A380 a revolutionary aircraft, it sure is an improvement.

An airport have to be 'A380 approved'.

And it helps to build more than one exit. I assume they did for such big plane. :)
I know the FAA has a requirement to evacuate the aircraft within a very small amount of time in an emergency. I suspect other governing bodies follow suit.

Still, there must be a practical maximum number of passengers that an airport can support for a given aircraft. I don't think most handle the 120-250 passengers that now board in a very efficient manner, let alone the massive gaggle that would be caused by 800+

So what does "A380 approved" mean?

The plane is big, but the comfort is also unseen. It's not a sardines-in-a-can plane.
Yes, it is. It is the penultimate sardines-in-a-can plane. Airbus has no influence on how buyers set up the plane. Once bought, especially if by an Amrican group, it will be packed with tons of cattle-class cars probably getting the passenger size of the plane of up to 150% what Airbus says is the comfortable number (500 wasn't it?).

I know the FAA has a requirement to evacuate the aircraft within a very small amount of time in an emergency. I suspect other governing bodies follow suit.

It received it's certificate from the EASA and the FAA (and other institutions)
So I assume it's within the standards.

Still, there must be a practical maximum number of passengers that an airport can support for a given aircraft. I don't think most handle the 120-250 passengers that now board in a very efficient manner, let alone the massive gaggle that would be caused by 800+

So what does "A380 approved" mean?

They have to adjust their facilities:

• Making the landing strips and riding zones larger.
• The fundament under the platforms of the terminals shall be strengthen
• The terminals itself have to be adjusted to enhance shipping in and out.

Here’s a list with all A380 approved airports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_and_Boeing_747-capable_airports

Yes, it is. It is the penultimate sardines-in-a-can plane. Airbus has no influence on how buyers set up the plane. Once bought, especially if by an Amrican group, it will be packed with tons of cattle-class cars probably getting the passenger size of the plane of up to 150% what Airbus says is the comfortable number (500 wasn't it?).

No, it can handle 853 people max. (its having 1 class then)

The 555 you're pointing to, is when it's delivered with 3 classes.

It's a nice plane, but probably a bit of a white elephant - with all the delays, they're going to have to sell hundreds just to break even.

I do think Boeing is going the right way with the smaller long distance plane that can go from regional airports - if people have the choice between flying from near home or driving for hours to sit crammed in with 800 other people, I think most would choose the former.

This is good news for me, however, as I'll be able to buy one cheaply on the second hand market as my personal transport in my evil empire.

Needs to be more phallic.

It's a nice plane, but probably a bit of a white elephant - with all the delays, they're going to have to sell hundreds just to break even.

I do think Boeing is going the right way with the smaller long distance plane that can go from regional airports - if people have the choice between flying from near home or driving for hours to sit crammed in with 800 other people, I think most would choose the former.

This is good news for me, however, as I'll be able to buy one cheaply on the second hand market as my personal transport in my evil empire.


They said the same about the Jumbo. Really :)

It's a nice plane, but probably a bit of a white elephant - with all the delays, they're going to have to sell hundreds just to break even.

I do think Boeing is going the right way with the smaller long distance plane that can go from regional airports - if people have the choice between flying from near home or driving for hours to sit crammed in with 800 other people, I think most would choose the former.

This is good news for me, however, as I'll be able to buy one cheaply on the second hand market as my personal transport in my evil empire.

They will sell enough. It's a hole in the market, so it will work out.

An airport have to be 'A380 approved'.


Which makes the plane a "Pain in the Ass Approved" design. If you have to rebuild your entire airport just to accommodate a single plane, which is flying in limited numbers for a substantial time to come, that's going to limit the usability of said plane.

They said the same about the Jumbo. Really :)

Yes, but the jumbo is 30 years old now. It's still more than adequate for most routes, while Airbus has just produced an even bigger plane at a time when the market is looking more to local airports.

I'd really like it to work, it's a fantastic engineering achievement. But the figures don't look healthy.

Delays to the flagship project have cost Airbus 6bn euros (£4.17bn; $8.5bn) and analysts believe the planemaker must now sell 420 models to make a profit on it.

It currently has 189 confirmed orders and tentative sales agreements in place.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7043812.stm

They will sell enough. It's a hole in the market, so it will work out.

Uhhh...I've looked at the market numbers, and I fail to see a hole in the market. Is there a plane out there that's this big? No. Is a plane this big really necessary? Is it in line with the growing market expectations of the customers? No.

Yes, but the jumbo is 30 years old now. It's still more than adequate for most routes, while Airbus has just produced an even bigger plane at a time when the market is looking more to local airports.

I'd really like it to work, it's a fantastic engineering achievement. But the figures don't look healthy.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7043812.stm

Shades of the Lockheed L-1011. Lockheed put so much money into that plane that there was no foreseeable break-even point. They quit production aftee 15 years, with only 250 deliveries.

Airbus might be able to break even on this plane, but even 'confirmed' orders aren't revenue until they're delivered and paid for. There's a long way to go.

Which makes the plane a "Pain in the Ass Approved" design. If you have to rebuild your entire airport just to accommodate a single plane, which is flying in limited numbers for a substantial time to come, that's going to limit the usability of said plane.


First you don't have to rebuild all.
And other big planes will follow.

And it will not be used on Brussels-Rhodos but the big higways in the sky and thus the major airports like London - NY.

First you don't have to rebuild all.
And other big planes will follow.

And it will not be used on Brussels-Rhodos but the big higways in the sky and thus the major airports like London - NY.

Yes, yes you do.

Requirements ranging from wider and longer runways, to redesigned terminals make the costs implicit in being able to handle the A380 shockingly high. FAA Classifications rate the A380 as a Class VI aircraft, which requires substantially larger runways than the Class V runways that are readily available. Taxiway and apron reconfigurations would be required for many major airports.

It's also unclear that other big planes will follow. Boeing and Embraer both have an entirely different strategic direction from Airbus, with a greater focus on smaller, more efficient jets capable of regional travel.

Yes, but the jumbo is 30 years old now. It's still more than adequate for most routes, while Airbus has just produced an even bigger plane at a time when the market is looking more to local airports.

I'd really like it to work, it's a fantastic engineering achievement. But the figures don't look healthy.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7043812.stm

Most routes, but not all. Some will be used by the A380.

The inital design is 30 years old, maybe that's a nice reason to build an entirely new plane.

And they have 30 years to sell a few hundred planes. They will succeed.

They are almost halfway in sales and it is bloody new...

Yes, yes you do.

Requirements ranging from wider and longer runways, to redesigned terminals make the costs implicit in being able to handle the A380 shockingly high. FAA Classifications rate the A380 as a Class VI aircraft, which requires substantially larger runways than the Class V runways that are readily available. Taxiway and apron reconfigurations would be required for many major airports.

It's also unclear that other big planes will follow. Boeing and Embraer both have an entirely different strategic direction from Airbus, with a greater focus on smaller, more efficient jets capable of regional travel.


Yes, you have to enlarge your landing strips, roads to the landing strips, terminals and hubs...

But not the entire airport.

Btw, lots of airports are already A380 Approved, so...
And like I said already, some airports are just not interesting for the A380 due the low traffic.

I think that Boeing and others will follow. It depends, if Airbus will sell numbers, they will have to catch up.

Business is not gambling. I'm rather sure that they listen well do their stakeholders and given the amount that are already ordered, it's looking good.

Wow that is a long way for a road that starts out in Torquay. Now we can drive from England to the mythical country of Australia...

Yes, you have to enlarge your landing strips, roads to the landing strips, terminals and hubs...

But not the entire airport.

It's a major renovation program, regardless, which will take a large portion of the airport out of commission for construction. Will you have to alter the check in terminal? No, of course not, but major portions of the airport will require renovation.

Btw, lots of airports are already A380 Approved, so...
And like I said already, some airports are just not interesting for the A380 due the low traffic.

That's not a lot of airports, though, and the need for such a large plane on even the densest passenger routes may not need the A380.

I think that Boeing and others will follow. It depends, if Airbus will sell numbers, they will have to catch up.

Not entirely certain. Boeing is currently having success with its focus on regional airports and smaller, more efficient long range jets, and the revamped 747-800.

Business is not gambling. I'm rather sure that they listen well do their stakeholders and given the amount that are already ordered, it's looking good.

As was mentioned earlier, though, Airbus needs to sell a lot of planes, something around 480 just to break even, and they don't have even sufficient prospect orders to fulfill that as yet. The Lockheed 1011 Tristar comes immediately to mind, after all. And if they don't come through, I suspect the usual governmental bailouts to Airbus because they're "national champions" or some such baloney as that.

Wow that is a long way for a road that starts out in Torquay. Now we can drive from England to the mythical country of Australia...

I mean the roads for the planes from the hub to the landing/take-off strip. :)

I don't know the word in English, in Dutch it is 'taxibaan'

More than that, Boeing originally had begun work on a concept for a 747 variant that would match the A380 in size, but the project was scrubbed because major customers had little interest in such a design.

More than that, Boeing originally had begun work on a concept for a 747 variant that would match the A380 in size, but the project was scrubbed because major customers had little interest in such a design.

I don't know about the profile of their customers.

Maybe Boeing it's major share is America and for Airbus it's maybe more international, no?

I mean the roads for the planes from the hub to the landing/take-off strip. :)

I don't know the word in English, in Dutch it is 'taxibaan'

He was making a joke about the 'A380' being a road that starts in Torquay. It was a play on words.

He was making a joke about the 'A380' being a road that starts in Torquay. It was a play on words.

Ow :)

It's not my mother tongue, so sometimes I miss the context :)

I don't know about the profile of their customers.

Maybe Boeing it's major share is America and for Airbus it's maybe more international, no?

Not really, the single largest purchase of the 747-8 has been from Lufthansa, followed by Cargolux (Luxembourg), Atlas Air (US) and Emirates (UAE). As for the dreamliner, well, I'll let the orders for that one speak for themselves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_orders).

Boeing is not some sort of podunk domestic firm. They have a truly international base, and they do it as well as Airbus. So, just as many US Flag carriers fly Airbus jets, many European carriers fly Boeing jets.

Much the same goes for Embraer. Brazilian company, but truly international customer base.

Over a thousand orders and options for a plane that hasn't even taken to the skies yet. That's just amazing. The 787 will have a bigger impact on the future than the A-380. The 787 is a well designed aircraft in all respects.

The A-380 isn't going to be too successful. The 747-8 has nearly caught up to it in orders despite being available for a far shorter amount of time.

Quite an engineering achievement to have a plane that size.
I hope my local (Darwin) airport can upgrade to accomodate it.

Quite an engineering achievement to have a plane that size.
I hope my local (Darwin) airport can upgrade to accomodate it.

I highly doubt it - I don't think that many large planes head over to Darwin anyways (I am guessing this is Darwin, Australia). I know that my local airport (Auckland International) has upgraded to accomodate for it, although regular flights here may not occur - Singapore Airlines, QANTAS and Emirates are the only airlines that are going to fly the A-380 that fly here and their routes do not have the loads or the potential loads to justify flying it. What will be more fun is when the 787 comes out, especially with Air New Zealand getting the first 787-9.

And to Rambhutan, that was funny - I was laughing my head off

I looked at the Singapore Air website, and they detailed the cabin for the new A380...

:eek:

Incredible. I mean, just unbelievible. First class has fricking little rooms to themselves. Just...wow.

I highly doubt it - I don't think that many large planes head over to Darwin anyways (I am guessing this is Darwin, Australia). I know that my local airport (Auckland International) has upgraded to accomodate for it, although regular flights here may not occur - Singapore Airlines, QANTAS and Emirates are the only airlines that are going to fly the A-380 that fly here and their routes do not have the loads or the potential loads to justify flying it. What will be more fun is when the 787 comes out, especially with Air New Zealand getting the first 787-9.

And to Rambhutan, that was funny - I was laughing my head off

Yep Darwin, Australia. Royal Brunei will stop flying here soon too.

i thought a 380 was an ancient i.b.m. mainfraime from some time back in the late 60s/early 70s. such are the parrells of using a number as a name for something.

so this is the AIRBUS 380 series of commercial aircraft you're talking about?

well that's nice. so what's it supposed to do that's so "revolutionary"? does it consume less fuel, go faster, carry more freight and passingers?

i vaguely heard somewhere that boing and airbus are the only remaining giants in the commercial aircraft industry.

it's not something i fallow closely, nor find as or more pertinent then the things that i do.

now if someone were making solar powered narrow gauge trains and replacing the automobile with transit networks of them, THAT i'd be interested in.

all this everything having to be a big deal and be impressed by it, is one of today's worlds big mistakes.

i'm happy for airbus because the're not boing, i guess. though i can't for the life of me think of any other particular reason i ought to be.

=^^=
.../\...