A-380 Fat in the Butt and Over Budget

[Skyboss]

First the reports of the Super POSAB being a lard butt, now it's $600M+ over budget and counting:

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh60377_2004-12-07_20-19-01_l0795137_newsml

$10.5 Billion Smackers and you're 5% over budget and 2 tons over weight...

If this was the Boeing 7E7 you'd never hear the end of it from EADS.

 

[atrdriver]

It probably helps a lot when the governments over there are doing your financing.

 

[9GClub]

The real kicker is gonna be when the thing can't get off the ground.......

 

[EagleRJ]

I think the A380 is in for huge developmental delays and more cost overruns. Airbus is trying out too many new technologies on one plane, like the 5000 psi hydraulic system and the fuselage made of experimental GLARE composite.

Cost overruns aren't a problem for state-supported Airbus, though. Even if the project fails completely, it won't matter. Airbus will have its loans forgiven by the EU and life will go on. Too bad Boeing doesn't have that kind of insurance!

 

[sstearns2]

Keep in mind that these are the same people who thought the Concorde would be a big money maker. The thing gets great cost per seat mile, but you have to fill it for that to matter. How many oversold 747 flights are there these days? And how many of those could use another 100 seats? I think Boeing is right on with the 7E7.

Scott

 

[Vik]

The Concorde could have been successful if so many people weren't against it. The only thing that killed the Concorde was economies of scale. When you only have 12 of 1 type of aircraft, its gonna be expensive fixing, etc.

If say there were 500 Concordes flying around without major restrictions, by now they would have some sort of "hush kit" and the cost per seat would probably be less than $6.5k/each way between JFK and LHR.

Keep in mind that these are the same people who thought the Concorde would be a big money maker. The thing gets great cost per seat mile, but you have to fill it for that to matter. How many oversold 747 flights are there these days? And how many of those could use another 100 seats? I think Boeing is right on with the 7E7.

Scott

 

[Vik]

Actually, every flight I've flown on in the past 6 months has been on a 747 that has been at full capacity.

Also, there is a need for the A380 as the peak slots at many airports are completely full. I flew on Singapore Airlines and we had a fuel stop at Narita from LAX. 777s and 747s at almost every gate. Those Asian airlines will benefit from the A380.

I wish Boeing had been faster at working on the 747X and getting it out there and sold before Airbus took all these orders for the A380.

Boeing's new 777-200LR is something I'm looking forward to. It can do LAX to Mumbai, India direct apparently. That would shave 6 hours or more off that trip that requires at least one stop now.

 

[crash-proof]

The Concorde could have been successful if so many people weren't against it. The only thing that killed the Concorde was economies of scale. When you only have 12 of 1 type of aircraft, its gonna be expensive fixing, etc.

If say there were 500 Concordes flying around without major restrictions, by now they would have some sort of "hush kit" and the cost per seat would probably be less than $6.5k/each way between JFK and LHR.

What killed the Concorde was the fact that you couldn't fly it in supersonic regime over continents cause of the boom. The pretty much reduced it to over-the-atlantic flying. Ain't no hushkit that will solve that problem. They were cool to watch though.


Ok, back to topic, the A380 is butt-ugly, and that is the main issue.

 

[414Flyer]

Boeing's new 777-200LR is something I'm looking forward to. It can do LAX to Mumbai, India direct apparently. That would shave 6 hours or more off that trip that requires at least one stop now.

Now that will be one long freaking flight. I have flown twice to Mumbai this year from the US, and Mumbai is pretty much opposite side of the world.

 

[9GClub]

I second the butt-ugly motion..... although with a fuselage of that diameter, I guess there's no graceful way to taper the nose.

While we're on the topic of aesthetics (a topic that's undoubtedly been covered countless times before), what are y'alls votes for the nicest (or coolest) looking airliners of all time? I think I'd have to give the nod to the 707, 752, MD-11, L-1011, A330-- wait I'm naming every freaking plane-- suffice it to say it ain't the A380. I guess my final vote would go to a Pratt-powered 752 in Delta or AA paint.

Speaking of AA paint (or lack thereof), why don't we see more bare aluminum these days (like AA, AeroMex, and some of the JAL -47Fs for instance)? It's obviously a significant weight advantage, right? I won't bother to do a quick Google search to get my facts straight (that can wait), but new jets come from the factory in the "greencoat" right? What's the technical scoop behind transitioning from that to polished aluminum, and what are we talking in terms of maintenance (buffing/polishing, etc.)?

 

[414Flyer]

Coolest? Convair 880/990

 

[atrdriver]

While we're on the topic of aesthetics (a topic that's undoubtedly been covered countless times before), what are y'alls votes for the nicest (or coolest) looking airliners of all time?

Personally I believe that the 747 and the L-1011 are the two most graceful commercial aircraft to ever have graced the skies.

Speaking of AA paint (or lack thereof), why don't we see more bare aluminum these days

One problem is that many newer aircraft are made out of part composite, which they have to paint to match, and they never match. Also the buffing is very maint. intensive.

 

[EagleRJ]

Coolest airliner? My vote goes to the Lockheed Constellation. It's equal to the Concorde in elegance and beauty. Once you've seen one taking off at dusk, with the R-3350s' exhaust stacks glowing with blue flame, seeing any modern airliner take off just won't do it for you anymore!

The Concorde could never have been a profitable airliner. It wasn't the fact that there were only 13 in service, or the fact that it was limited to overwater flights. It was the simple fact that the plane carried a third as many people as a 747, but burned twice the fuel and required three times the maintenance. Even charging a premium for tickets that was 10x the subsonic fare, BA and Air France regularly lost money on the aircraft (and don't forget that they bought the aircraft for one pound each from BOAC after all the other airlines' orders fell through).
Don't get me wrong- the Concorde was an amazing achievement in its time, but the economics just didn't work. The same was true with the Boeing 2707. No one would have paid the ticket prices that would have been required for profitability.

We'll see how much passengers will pay to be stuffed into an airplane with 600 other people! I wonder how long boarding will take?

 

[propjockey]

Ahh, but I wanted to fly the Sonic Cruiser. Remember that one? I still wonder if it was ever a real project, or merely a ruse to get people's minds off Airbus for a while.

The 7E7 sounds pretty neat. I have a friend at Jeppesen who is working with the electronic flight bag types. Sounds like it's going to have a lot of great features. I wonder who will be able to afford to buy one...

 

[Caveman]

Yep, definitely the Connie. As far as modern airliners go I think the CRJ700 is a great looking airplane.

 

[habubuaza]

The coolest most graceful airliners definately was the Concorde followed by the Boeing 727. This is coming from years of experience as a kid sitting adjacent 13L at JFK and watching.

 

[Corona]

First the reports of the Super POSAB being a lard butt, now it's $600M+ over budget and counting:

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh60377_2004-12-07_20-19-01_l0795137_newsml

$10.5 Billion Smackers and you're 5% over budget and 2 tons over weight...

If this was the Boeing 7E7 you'd never hear the end of it from EADS.

Well, 2 Tons overweight probably isn't a great amount for an airplane of this size.

Maybe they should use more wine; less cheese.

And, gentlemen, this is definitely a case where bigger is not better.

 

[JetPilot500]

Cost overruns aren't a problem for state-supported Airbus, though. Even if the project fails completely, it won't matter. Airbus will have its loans forgiven by the EU and life will go on. Too bad Boeing doesn't have that kind of insurance!

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm thankful Boeing DOES NOT have that kind of insurance! Otherwise you and I would be footing the bill for their mistakes! I prefer Capitalism to Communism any day!

JetPilot500

 

[Vik]

It was even cooler to fly on

What killed the Concorde was the fact that you couldn't fly it in supersonic regime over continents cause of the boom. The pretty much reduced it to over-the-atlantic flying. Ain't no hushkit that will solve that problem. They were cool to watch though.


Ok, back to topic, the A380 is butt-ugly, and that is the main issue.

 

[Vik]

I go LAX-BOM every other month. It takes a full 24 hours to get there and I realize its the other side of the world.

Go to Boeing's page, pull up the range charts for the 777-200LR. The green circle extends WAY beyond Mumbai and the specs sheet shows a range in excess of 10,500 nm or is it in sm .. whatever .. it can do it and shave 6 hrs off the trip which you spend taking off, landing and in transit at the fuel stop.

The shortest flight I've found is Lufthansa which is 22hrs 35mins. Air India now only has a 1 hour halt at Frankfurt making it even shorter, but then again, its Air India.

Now that will be one long freaking flight. I have flown twice to Mumbai this year from the US, and Mumbai is pretty much opposite side of the world.

 

[OrphicSeth]

Eh, I'm not a big fan of the 727 or the 1011 style, I prefer #2 to be more a direct shot like the DC-10/MD-11. I think the 747 is still very noble, with assertive classic lines, really really tough to beat looks-wise IMO.

Ironically (referencing the 380), back in the day, didn't people think the 747 was an ugly-duckling? (Or maybe people still do and I'm way out on a limb). It definitely has an "interesting" look to it, over time, it may look bad-ass, who knows?

And finally, would it be a shock if U.S. military and Boeing made deals that were preferentially and discretely overpriced, in essence becoming an under-the-table government subsidy? Can we say that doesn't happen already? Just a thought for some thoughtful conversation's sake, I'm not baiting here...

 

[minitour]

The 74 is definately an amazing bird. I've only seen a few on takeoff and one on approach and I still can't believe the ones on takeoff roll get in the air or the one on approach stayed in the air until the runway. It was just moving so slow!

However, I still like the Diamon TwinStar...that thing is a beauty. As far as larger stuff, I'd have to go with the 737. It's simple, but it gets the job done...and it can't be all that bad either with all of them out there.

-mini

 

[Skyboss]

Well, 2 Tons overweight probably isn't a great amount for an airplane of this size.

That would roughly be the loss of 500 miles in range, $1500 or more in cargo revenue per flight or a reduction in capacity of 40-50 seats. Even more **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ing, added runway length requirements.

 

[CRFLyPutt]

Keep in mind that these are the same people who thought the Concorde would be a big money maker. The thing gets great cost per seat mile, but you have to fill it for that to matter. How many oversold 747 flights are there these days? And how many of those could use another 100 seats? I think Boeing is right on with the 7E7.

Scott

Over water flights are pretty full. I've been on a couple of flights over the pond to Europe that needed a shoe horn to get everybody on. I was in Barbados recentley on a charter and saw 4 Virgin 747's unload and load to full capacity in about 2 hours.

 

[Axel]

Jetstream- with pod.

Poetry in motion

 

[OrphicSeth]

Jetstream- with pod.

Poetry in motion

OH YES! Queen of the skies! I'm all hot just thinking about it!

 

[Aerosmith]

Cost overruns aren't a problem for state-supported Airbus, though. Even if the project fails completely, it won't matter. Airbus will have its loans forgiven by the EU and life will go on. Too bad Boeing doesn't have that kind of insurance!

For many years the US Government has subsidised Boeing, mainly by paying research and development costs through NASA, the Department of Defence, the Department of Commerce and other government agencies. Since 1992 Boeing has received around $ 23 billion in US subsidies. Moreover, the US Government continues to grant Boeing around USD 200 million per year in export subsidies under the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act (the successor to the “FSC” - Foreign Sales Corporations legislation), despite a WTO ruling expressly declaring these subsidies illegal.

The latest and most flagrant violation consists in massive subsidies of about US $ 3.2 billion, inter alia in the form of tax reductions and exemptions and infrastructure support for the development and production of Boeing’s 7E7

Since 1990, Boeing has also outsourced increasingly large shares of its civil aircraft programmes to other countries, such as Japan (which intends to take 35% in the 7E7 programme, representing government support of around US$ 1.6 billion). The governments of these countries subsidize these shares, such that Boeing’s programs also receive substantial foreign subsidies.

From 2001 to 2003, Boeing has invested only $2.8 billion of its own funds in commercial aircraft R&D and capital expenditure compared to $9.4 billion by Airbus. Lack of R&D and capital investment, has meant that Boeing has not launched any new programmes since 1990!!!


OPEN YOUR EYES ! It ain´t so black and white.

 

[Launchpad]

Jetstream- with pod.

With a little bit of Hydraulic fluid spewed on the side...

 

[FarginDooshbahg]

has meant that Boeing has not launched any new programmes since 1990!!!


OPEN YOUR EYES ! It ain´t so black and white.

"programmes", eh? I guess that's why "it ain't so black and white" to you.

 

[Skyboss]

For many years the US Government has subsidised Boeing, mainly by paying research and development costs through NASA, the Department of Defence, the Department of Commerce and other government agencies. Since 1992 Boeing has received around $ 23 billion in US subsidies. Moreover, the US Government continues to grant Boeing around USD 200 million per year in export subsidies under the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act (the successor to the “FSC” - Foreign Sales Corporations legislation), despite a WTO ruling expressly declaring these subsidies illegal.

Yes, R&D for defense programs, not commercial aircraft. EADS benefits from the same.

From 2001 to 2003, Boeing has invested only $2.8 billion of its own funds in commercial aircraft R&D and capital expenditure compared to $9.4 billion by Airbus. Lack of R&D and capital investment, has meant that Boeing has not launched any new programmes since 1990!!!

The second half of that is a load of crap. Airbus has never invested in a Commercial Aircraft project without substantial government funding. In addition, Boeing has shareholders not socialist tax payers to be accountable to. Must be nice for Scarebus to spend at will with no regard for the consequences of failure.