A-380 - will it fit?

[Sunnfun]

Guys and gals, please...

let's be realistic here. For one, this isn't "french", it's french, german, english and spanish. Or for the lack of better words: "european". How's that?

Second. Singapore Airlines as on one of the launch customers isn't completely stupid for doing that. They know, that they're going to have an advantage over the competition at the launch airports. You know, these guys didn't crawl from underneath a rock the other day, they know what they're doing.

Third, if Boeing weren't so sure to have everybody "bought", they might have innovated, and got some new business themselves.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Metro752]

Airbus is NOT making better planes that Boeing. Not to be a put down to Airbus, but it is the truth. I would suggest asking the mechanics which is better. United Mechanics probably could give you the best answer.

 

[mattpilot]

Too many people still stand by that "if it aint Boeing I aint going" BS... mean while Airbus is making better airplanes, and running away with their business. I'm as red blooded american as the next guy, but you gotta be realistic. And everyone that has something stupid to say about Airbus, have no time in them... at least from my experience.

only reason airbus is selling so great is because they are so fooken cheap! Their planes aren't better - neither from a mechanic's viewpoint nor from a pilots viewpoint. The airbus aircraft are way underpowered compared to boeings. The only advantage is from the managements viewpoint - dirt cheap planes & less training costs (since all have similar cockpits). Airbus, the company, doesn't/didn't have to worry about making a lot of profit, because i believe 80% of their cost was subsidized by the gov'ts in europe.

 

[Cpt. Underpants]

matt

I notice from your vast experience that you are emminently qualified to render authoritative opinions on large complex aircraft. In your dreams bub.

 

[mattpilot]

thanks for acknowledging my vast experience - much appreciated.

I don't suppose you can disprove anything i've written?

Do you deny airbus' are dirt cheap compared to boeings - financing options & all included?
Do you deny airbus' are underpowered compared to boeings?

Do you deny airbus' is being funded by other governments?

What exactly is it you disagree with about my observations? You don't need to have X amount of hours in said aircraft to read about said issues. One source you could go to inform yourself is pprune.org - you'll get viewpoints from both sides of the pond.

 

[bobbysamd]

Mile High D.A.

what about kden with our 16,000 ft runway? will it fit here?

Don't forget about Denver's density altitude. In the middle of the summer, it can go to 7000 feet-plus!

You're not going to see too many A380s at DEN.

 

[DenverDude2002]

For Denverites, Saturdays Rocky Mountain News had a thing on DIA and had a map of DIA pointing out future expansion, and one of them was an A380 gate where the Luftansa flight is coming in.

 

[Cpt. Underpants]

Airbus V Boeing

matt

Do you deny airbus' are dirt cheap compared to boeings - financing options & all included?
Do you deny airbus' are underpowered compared to boeings?

Do you deny airbus' is being funded by other governments?

No aircraft is "dirt cheap". Airbus has innovative financing options. Boeing (and US lending institutions) should learn from them. Until they do learn, Airbus will kick Boeing's (virtual) b^tt.

Airbus is not underpowered. I have flown every modern Boeing since the 727 (except the 777) and every Airbus except the A300. As an aside, Airbus invented the twin widebody, and Boeing copied it.

All have their pro's and cons. "Power" is relative. How much do you need? Enough to do the job or lots more? Lots more power may make the pilots happy, but then again we don't pay the bills, do we? In case you haven't figured it out, "power" costs gas. More power = higher fuel bills. You can make a brick outhouse go supersonic with enough smash...like the shuttle.

Boeing is not government subsidized? Take your head out of your b^tt and cut the jingoistic b-s. They may not be direct subsidies, but trust me, Uncle Sam does help.

Despite all the above, I do prefer a Boeing. They are simpler, built better and last a long time...but then again, I don't pay the bills.

 

[mattpilot]

matt



No aircraft is "dirt cheap". Airbus has innovative financing options. Boeing (and US lending institutions) should learn from them. Until they do learn, Airbus will kick Boeing's (virtual) b^tt.

Airbus is not underpowered. I have flown every modern Boeing since the 727 (except the 777) and every Airbus except the A300. As an aside, Airbus invented the twin widebody, and Boeing copied it.

All have their pro's and cons. "Power" is relative. How much do you need? Enough to do the job or lots more? Lots more power may make the pilots happy, but then again we don't pay the bills, do we? In case you haven't figured it out, "power" costs gas. More power = higher fuel bills. You can make a brick outhouse go supersonic with enough smash...like the shuttle.

Boeing is not government subsidized? Take your head out of your b^tt and cut the jingoistic b-s. They may not be direct subsidies, but trust me, Uncle Sam does help.

Despite all the above, I do prefer a Boeing. They are simpler, built better and last a long time...but then again, I don't pay the bills.

Just curious - are you able to have a discussion without insulting?

Point about being "dirt cheap" - thats relative. I've read numerous articles about airbus' being cheaper than airbus', mainly because airbus doesn't have to make as much of a profit as boeing does. And that is mainly do to gov't support. see pprune.org

Now consider this.... airbus gets most of its bills paid through the european governments - just because.... boeing gets supported through defense contracts. Whats more kosher? One actually does work for money, the other just gets it. Airbus doesn't need to worry about a failed project, because the local governments will cover the bill. On the other hand, if boeing has a failed project, who pays their bill? Which company can take greater risks? Which needs to be more conservative?

Point about being underpowed - Look at the link about runway req'd for the A380 that i posted. It shows that even the 777 has more power available than the A380.

Of course the Airbus' have enough power to get the job done, but in an emergency, that extra power will save your butt. Thus my conclusion, airbus' are underpowered compared to boeings. Again, refer to pprune.org about said discussions from people of both sides of the pond.

 

[Cpt. Underpants]

matt

I apologise if you are offended.

Boeing got their BIG break with their subsidised submission for the B747 military contract (that Lockheed won with the C5). Good for them.

If you were to take a tour of the AI factory at Toulouse, you'd sing their tune forever - as you would if Boeing took you around Renton.

Do you think that AI would put $15,000,000,000 (that's BILLION) into a machine that couldn't do it's job or wouldn't have adequate safety margins? Are you a structural engineer? An aerodynamics wizard? Perhaps an engine boffin? Leave it to the guys who do know what they're doing.

At the end of the day, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Airlines will buy what best suits their budget and the task. If Boeings are better, then they will sell more, vv. Personally, I believe the A380 will be an engineering triumph but a commercial disaster. I won't gloat if it fails, but I will celebrate if it's successful. Give them their due. They make good commercial aircraft, and so do Boeing.

Don't be obsessive over it, it just doesn't matter in the grand scheme, does it?

 

[urflyingme?!]

I've heard that one reason Boeing isn't selling as many new aircraft as Bus is that they are or where for a while soncentrating on Mil and space technology.

Anybody else hear that?

 

[mattpilot]

Underpants & patmack - i respect your opinion on the matter, however, it is not the only one out there. Regardless if i'm not 'qualified' as much as someone else might be, i didn't pull my opinion out of my as.s.

I'll quote www.pprune.org one more time, as i think it is an excellent source for info. However, the people who post there also only post their 'opinion'. I just tend to believe their opinion more than yours.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[bobbysamd]

A380s at DEN

For Denverites, Saturdays Rocky Mountain News had a thing on DIA and had a map of DIA pointing out future expansion, and one of them was an A380 gate where the Luftansa flight is coming in.

I'll look at it.

I remember how, initially, there was talk about not bringing 747s to Stapleton for performance reasons, and also because of runway weight-bearing concerns.

According to the Saturday Rocky Mountain News article, the A380 coming to DEN is not a certainty:

If an airline decides it wants to fly the new, 840-passenger Airbus 380 to Denver, the sixth runway completed in 2003 can handle its weight. DIA will have to spend only a few million dollars to widen taxiways and add a double-deck jetway on Concourse A, Busch said.

But that huge Airbus is expected to be used more in congested skies like those between European cities. Braunagel said she expects the new long-haul Boeings to be more common at DIA.


We'll have to wait and see. I still have trouble envisioning A380s at DEN, however, primarily because I cannot imagine even 500 people needing to come at once from Germany to Denver. Don't forget the burden placed upon the baggage system with all their luggage to unload.

 

[DenverDude2002]

Bobby, I dont know. BA is running a 747-400 because of high demand, and they aready get an AN-124 if Im not mistaken.

 

[bobbysamd]

An-124

Bobby, I dont know. BA is running a 747-400 because of high demand, and they aready get an AN-124 if Im not mistaken.

One would think that it would be, at best, once or twice a week. Of course, other airlines could fly A380s into DEN and could share the gate with Lufthansa.

The 16,000-foot runway can handled a 747-400. I am less sure about the Airbus, though they wouldn't talk about the gate if they couldn't build the facilities to handle the airplane - especially the baggage facilities.

I did see the AN-124 last weekend.

 

[cforst513]

not to hijack this thread or anything, this is more of an aside than a hostile take-over: when is this thing's first flight scheduled to occur? airbus' website is worthless. is it in march or at a later date?

 

[minitour]

I thought I remembered reading July...but that could be when I'm scheduled to hit Puberty....can't remember

 

[Kawasumi_Kichou]

I heard March too, but don't know for sure. That AW&ST article mentioned that the first airframe is just completing ground testing now, and will be turned over to the flight test department shortly.

 

[DenverDude2002]

Why not have the maiden flight on the same day the Titanic sank? Same thing will happen with the A380.

 

[habubuaza]

Didn't they just find fatigue cracks all over the aircraft after some stress testing?

 

[urflyingme?!]

I heard it died of laziness....

 

[JimNtexas]

Suppose Airbus talked to a Brit, French or Spanish defense offical about hiring her after her time in the goverment.

Do you think that Airbus would be fined, lose a billion dollar goverment rocket booster contract (they also lost the KC767 lease deal), and have executives going to jail?

Because that's exactly what has happened to Boeing.

Some "subsidy".

 

[typhoonpilot]

My dad is however a training captain for a major here in the states, is typed in the 737, 757, A320, and A330 (among a dozen other things) and prefers the Airbuses hands down... his 19K+ hours and opinion have a little more weight than yours... him and everyone else I've known with comprehensive time in both, all prefer the Bus's.

Patmack, your dad has never flown the 777. If he did, he would certainly sing a different tune. The A320 is a generation, or two, ahead of the 737 while the A330 is a generation ahead of the 757. So I can understand his feelings if they are from a technological point. The Airbii that he has experience with have newer technology than the Boeings he has flown. Naturally we prefer newer technology. The 777 is a further generation ahead of the A330, or at least has some better thought put into it's design.

I fly for an airline that operates all current models of the 777 as well as the A330-200, A340-300, A340-500, has orders for the A340-600 and finally is the largest single customer for the A380 with a total of 45 orders. Here is the company's press release on why so many A380s:

WHY EMIRATES HAS ORDERED 45 A380S

The first critical factor in Emirates huge order is the airline’s need today for an aircraft w/ the high capacity/low operating cost combination offered by the A380.

Emirates has embraced the new aircraft more quickly and massively than other carriers because its rate of expansion is much higher than that of most other airlines and is more hobbled by capacity constraints than them. In a nutshell, Emirates wants more A380s because it needs more of them, and the sooner the better.

Over a 20-year history of rapid growth, Emirates has learned that the greatest impediment to its development is not in customer demand but in the number of seats it can offer. The result is an A380 order book that will make Emirates the world’s largest operator of the new aircraft for at least the first decade from its launch.

As HH Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Maktoum, Emirates Group Chairman put it, “The A380 is an ambitious aircraft that meets our ambitious growth strategy. Every single one of the A380s we have ordered has been carefully planned for and supports present and future network needs. It will play a significant part in our expansion in a way that no other aircraft could.” He added: “By 2012 our current 73-strong fleet will more than double in size, while enabling us to carry a lot more than twice the present number of passengers, because the average size of the aircraft will be substantially bigger. We will be able to offer more seats, in ever greater comfort, without depending so much on frequency increases.” He concluded: “The A380 will give us some of the lowest seat costs in the industry. It is an essential solution at slot-constrained airports. It will be an impressive people carrier, while offering more, not less, passenger comfort and amenities. We are striving to make the flying experience enjoyable again, and the A380 will be a great tool in support of this goal.”


Only time will tell if the airplane will be successful. As some have stated, there are some pretty smart airlines buying the A380, including Singapore, Cathay, Emirates, Qantas, and Lufthansa. All are much more profitable than any of the U.S. majors so they must know how to run a business and how to position themselves for the future.


Typhoonpilot

 

[bocefus]

"Only time will tell if the airplane will be successful. As some have stated, there are some pretty smart airlines buying the A380, including Singapore, Cathay, Emirates, Qantas, and Lufthansa"

You are correct, only time will tell, as it will tell whether the 787 will outsell the A-380. One thing those airlines you mentioned have in common in addition to being "smart" is that they are all government owned.

 

[typhoonpilot]

The A380 and 787 are completely different airplanes and have a completely different market. What is important is whether Boeing can maintain a major portion of commercial aircraft sales. They have given up the ultra-large aircraft market to Airbus. That is a strategic decision on their part and it may be a good move or it may not. They have a winner with the 777 and they will have a winner with the 787. The 777 is far superior to the Airbus 340, especially the -500 and -600s. The 787 will be better than the A330 series. These are both good things for Boeing. What isn't good is that they don't have a replacement for the 747-400. This is where Airbus and the 380 will have an advantage.

Counting A-380 sales versus 787 sales is not the right comparison. The right comparison is counting 787 versus A-350 and counting A-380 versus 747-400.

Whether or not the mentioned airlines are government owned, Cathay isn't , is not the point. They all operate as for profit enterprises. Emirates and Singapore are operating from Open Skies bases with much more competition than a U.S. major would encounter.


TP

 

[bocefus]

Sorry, I stand corrected, you are correct about Cathay. However, the other three portend to be for profit enterprises as does Airbus, but the reality is, if you eliminated the government funding, they would fizzle away.

 

[typhoonpilot]

However, the other three portend to be for profit enterprises as does Airbus, but the reality is, if you eliminated the government funding, they would fizzle away.

I can't speak for Qantas, which has been in the process of privatization since the early 90s, nor Lufthansa which is also a publicly traded company, nor for Singapore which is in fact 57% government owned, but I can speak for Emirates.

Emirates received $10 million in start-up capital from the government of Dubai in 1985, Since that time they have not received any more financing and have had to rely on the capital markets to fund aircraft and other purchases. Last year Emirates paid the government a huge dividend on their record profits. They hardly need any financial support from Dubai. Emirates also, as mentioned above, operates in one of the most competitive markets on the planet with full open skies in Dubai.

Is Emirates owned by the government ? ,yes. Do they get some benefit from that ? , yes But you are reaching if you think they need financial support to keep operating. Emirates will report record profits again this fiscal year, probably in the range of $700 million.

Now, back to the A-380 and it's 20,000 foot runway requirement .


TP

 

[bocefus]

Hmm, I might be reaching as you say, but a lot of folks in the industry are reaching also, in a more overt manner than this forum;
Here is what Qantas has to say;
http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2004/aug04/3135

"Governments and the ruling families in the Middle East, for example, were spending billions of dollars on aviation and tourism to reduce their reliance on their finite oil and gas reserves"
"The Chairman of Emirates is not only a member of the (local) ruling family, he is also Head of the Dubai Department of Civil Aviation, which runs Dubai Airport. I don't recall any media coverage in Australia of the recent decision by Dubai Airport to ban low cost airlines"
"Emirates pays no corporate tax in Dubai. Qantas has paid $1.3 billion in income tax since privatisation and pays $180 million a year in other direct taxes, such as payroll tax and fringe benefits tax, in relation to its Australia-based employees"
Emirates' strategy was being followed by a number of Middle Eastern carriers. Etihad Airways, the Abu Dhabi based airline that only started flying last November, last month ordered 24 aircraft worth US$7 billion and took options over another 12 aircraft. Qatar Airways has ordered 34 aircraft worth US$5.2 billion and plans to operate 52 aircraft by 2008
In addition, the statment also refers to a number of favourable government policies enjoyed by foreign carriers:
"Two-thirds of the 40 international airlines that operated to and from Australia each week were Government owned or subsidised and US and Canadian carriers received legislated bankruptcy protection. US airlines received US$15 billion in grants and loans after September 11 and also receive substantial Government support in relation to many security measures for which Qantas is not supported
"Japanese airlines have received significant funding from their Government, Air New Zealand has received a NZ$885 million Government bail-out and the Italian Government has recently stepped in to rescue Alitalia,"
"Singapore allowed its airlines to depreciate aircraft over just three years. If Qantas were able to take advantage of a three year write-off period, the present value benefit would be a decreased tax liability of A$1.3 billion"

 

[labbats]

D-def-defininately Quantas. N-never, never had a crash. -Charlie Babbit

Seriously though, they have a valid point. Without breaks (taxes or government bailouts) how is Quantas on a level playing field?

 

[typhoonpilot]

Qantas whinges all the time because the government of Australia is pursuing an open skies agenda. Obviously that is not a good thing for Qantas. It is a good thing for the people of Australia as they get more choices from the increased competition. Never-the-less Qantas still makes very nice profits.

In regards to Dubai banning start-up LCCs, that was a decision that was made in favor of all the established carriers that serve Dubai. The airport has some serious capacity issues and the over 100 established airlines were wanting greater frequency as well. At some point decisions have to be made to see who gets what. Since that decision, many of the already established carriers have increased frequency or started new routes. Cathay, for example, has added 4 more weekly flights to Hong Kong. Dubai has also moved up the time table for the new airport at Jebal Ali. Once that is complete the decision will likely be reversed.

In a way that is a great example of why the A380 will probably be a success. Most countries or cities can't just go out and build a new airport when their present one reaches the saturation point. The only viable answer is for bigger aircraft.

Typhoonpilot