Will the world need the A380 in 2006 ?

[car_owner]

Will the world need the A380 in 2006 ? :confused:

[topman999]

Why on earth not ??

[ExcessData]

As long as the world is sending more than two or so 747 equivalents along the same routes daily in 2006, with load factors in the 90s, I'd imagine it would.

[DanAir1-11]

Oui, bien sur!

Unless there is some stunning apocalyptic revelation that you are withholding from us.

Personally, I can only see growth in our industry, once the repercushions of 9/11 have further subsided, and (God willing there are no repeats) and the US market recovery gathers momentum, as it appears to be doing, I think the future bodes well.

And isn't she just going to be a thing of beauty!.

Regards

[car_owner]

:O
All of you sent very positive response, but Boeing denies that the world would need many 500+ passenger airplanes.
I hope Boeing is wrong.

[aviate1138]

car_owner said......
"All of you sent very positive response, but Boeing denies that the world would need many 500+ passenger airplanes.
I hope Boeing is wrong."

Aviate 1138 says....
Boeing, who thought they were invincible, have made the usual smug Corporate mistake and misjudged the market. Bad luck Boeing. Good judgement Airbus.
Hoping that Airbus will not seriously suggest the A380 will contain bowling alleys, gymnasiums, jacuzzi's, wine bars and massage parlours. Just more legroom and wider seats in Economy! And more loos.

Aviate 1138

[Burger Thing]

As long as the world is sending more than two or so 747 equivalents along the same routes daily in 2006, with load factors in the 90s, I'd imagine it would.

Unfortunately... Two or so 747 equivalents vs. one A-380: Two times more Cockpit-Jobs!

Can't see why people start drooling about A-380. I would have prefered rather two or three Sonic-Cruisers than one A-380. :yuk:

[PAXboy]

The world wants to save money, so that it can make more money. Therefore the A380 will be in demand! The 747 showed how it could be made to work, the 76 and 77 followed in it's footsteps. It could be said that all the Airbus widebodies are a result of the 747.

Cathay Pacific currently have three rotations a day from LHR to HKG. That's every day at 18:25 and 22:35 (local) and one that varies from 13:05 to 21:30 across the week.

The two 'main' rotations are scheduled as 744s, this new (third) rotation varies depending on load, such as A340. However, on the days that it departs within one hour of another, it doesn't take much calculating to see where the savings are going to come from. I don't follow aircraft orders or production, but if CX have not ordered the A380 - I would be surprised!

[Dan Winterland]

The 380 will also be ideal for short high density routes. JAL had the 747-400D built for them. A 744 with no galleys and high density economy only - seating some 650 people. They spend their life flogging between Tokyo and Osaka. The way the Asian market is developing, there must be another market for this sort of operation, between say Beijing and Shanghai.

[bombinha]

Look Damn-air 9/11 was in US and afected US market only.
In case you not familiar the economy that most grow on last 15 years is china and they only cannot keep up growing more than 10% an year just because they lacking on infrastructure (pretty much lack of energy source) as power plants take a while to build.
Another thing is boeing made the same move as douglas in the past and believed US military could keep paying their bills.
Big mistake because strong economy keep the military but not vice-versa.
People in US voted for military and no economy and before the end of Bush second turn we'll see who is the most powerfull nation on earth.
I am not chinese but admire people who work hard to get what they deserve something americans did in the past but don't do it anymore.

[stilton]

The world is more than ready for the A380 despite it's looks, and China is already stronger than the US in most measures.

Boeing really let this one get away.

[R8TED THRUST]

I would have to back Burger Thing on this one! The more plane the more flying jobs.

Also the argument that the companies will save money by operating less flights due to the larger equipment will work in theory. But the business traveler still wants frequency!

Cheers!

[Ignition Override]

R8TED THRUST: Careful neighbor-your "subversive" ideas suggest breaking somebody's 'rice bowl', or might hurt someone's pride, i.e. 'fabrique du jour/Volksflugzeug'.

If the A-380 program is about 2 billion (US) dollars over budget (they can simply increase income taxes...ganz einfach...), as reported in a major publication, does that influence the A-350 program, or whatever is planned to compete with the Boeing 7E7?

[Omark44]

Sorry, cannot agree that Boeing got this one wrong, your memories are failing you if you say that, cast your minds back.

Boeing and AirBus both produced plans for a VLA, Boeing stated publicly that, in their view, having spoken to airlines and made an assessement of potential orders, there may be insufficient market to break even, even less chance of a substantial profit. Boeing offered AirBus the opportunity to form a VLA consortium, share the development costs and see where to go from there. AirBus refused, Boeing watched as AirBus went ahead with the A380 and then said they could not see the VLA as a commerical venture and cancelled their plans.
AirBus continued. The A380 is currently over weight, over budget and under ordered - Yes I know, plenty of orders for an aircraft that has yet to fly but airlines now have a far better idea of what to expect and have previous experience of the 747 quantum leap so, those that want it have ordered it, hardly enough to break even is it?
This is a specialist aircraft for certain routes only and most airlines will only need a few. Don't be misled by the EK order.

In this instance I believe Boeing got it very right indeed.

[jettesen]

Car_owner. Boeing are just running scared now as the A380 is a more tecnologically advanced aircraft than the 747, and they are seriously worried about their flagging sales. in asia eg china / japan, there are 747 fitted out for 555 pax, due to the high poulation of travellers out there. The A380 can take upto 800 pax. Exactly what the asian airlines want.

[BEagle]

There'll be a fair number of sleepless folk in Seattle when the A380 enters service! 7E7 or A350? That'll be an interesting issue.

Meanwhile Beoing still tries to struggle on with its largely unwanted 767 tanker programme.

And how many orders for the 767-400ER have their been since 1997? Just 1. Doesn't compare very well with 517 A330 sales, does it.

Vive le 'bus! 139 A380s on order for 13 customers.

[AIRWAY]

Always liked the Airbus i wont deny that, but when it comes to long haul flying i much prefer to get to my destination as quick as possible, hence why i was looking forward to the Sonic Cruiser, i guess now that project is gathering dust somewhere in Seattle. Shame really :sad:

[Notso Fantastic]

Who says it's an ugly sucker? Wait until it is painted up in airline colours and proudly flying the routes. It's abetter looking aeroplane than a 747. The photos we have seen have been taken to accentuate certain features. In 10-15 years time when the 747 is as ancient as the 707 is now, this will be the only serious large longhaul jet, making a fortune for Airbus, and flying people at minimal cost. It will be the only large player in town. It's looks will be admired- the 747 will be history and heading for the exit door.
As Boeing called the market right 35 years ago, they've called it wrong now. I say this as a 747 pilot who loves it....but it's getting old.

[Zones]

My twopence worth:

I have no preference between Boeing and Airbus products, nor for that matter the other smaller manufactures out there. They all seem to produce reasonable products that do their jobs reasonably well. some are more suited to certain routes, and certain airlines, and some pilots seem to prefer the differing driving techniques, but at the end of the day, looking from a business perspective, I have doubts as to whether the A380 product will be a success in the same way that other Airbus products have been -> A318-321 for example. Certainly don't see it being as successful as the B747 has been for Boeing.

The A380 does have a market, as has been pointed out above by others. But I question how big it is. Passengers have historically demonstrated two main preferences for travel choice - namely price and frequency. Boeing 767/777 & 7E7 and the A330/340/350 will continue to offer the benefits of frequency on the majority of medium, long and ultra long haul, and it is only where slot contraints and time difference take their toll that the A380 will reign supreme - the LHR/HKG pair being the prime example, although not alone.

A380's biggest hope will be if it can do what Southwest and Ezy/Ryanair have done for short haul in terms of reducing cost of travel - and then pax will have to put up with squeezing 750-900 on one aircraft at a time - not with Casino's and gymns...

[Ace Rimmer]

The question isn't so much will the world be ready for the Blunderbus in 2006. But rather will the demand be there over the 30-40+ year life of the programme. It's also a long term programme after all.

Boeing bet the company on the 747 and I understand the programme didn't recoup the investment until the 744 came along. The world certainly wasn't ready for the 747 in 1969. Intially the aircraft was a bit of a millstone (and a bit of a dog apparently early 100s were slower in the climb than 340-300s).

Argueably, over ordering 747s was the beginning of Pan Am's long slow decline (hands up who remembers riding in mostly empty 747s in the early 70s?). By the late mid 80s the market was more than ready indeed demanded bigger, longer range ones. Boeing responded and the sales figures went through the roof (I think I right in saying the Boeing have flogged more -400s than 1,2 and 300s put together).

Point two:If you draw a line from Wilbur and Orville and extend it to today the compound growth in the number of people travelling by air is about 5% it is reasonable to assume that this will continue - which means a doubling of pax numbers in 15 years and triple today's figures 5 years after that. Put it another way, a route that will support 3 x 744s by carrier A per day in 2006 is in all likelyhood going to support 3 x 380s daily in the 2012 to 2015 timeframe and considerably more than that by the mid life part of the programme say by 2021-2026.

Ref the sonic cruiser. I could never figure that one out everything I've read has said that drag increases dramatically in the transonic region say .92 to 1.2 (which is why Concordes used afterburners in the acceleration phase only out to about M1.5 they didn't need em after that).
So I always thought that something that was meant to cruise at .97-.98 would pick up a heavy drag penalty not to mention the fuel burn needed to get above the slower traffic early in the cruise (no point being abole to go that quick if you are stuck behind an A340 eh?)
I could be wrong (no change there then) but maybe that's why no body actually wanted it... and nobody actually wanting it maybe why Boeing binned it

[Max Angle]

It sure is an ugly sucker though. How much overweight is it? About 3 tons I think which is only about 1% of empty weight so not too bad, they may get it down over time. Anyone know if there is any truth in the rumour that the test pilots are having a hard time landing x-winds in the simulator?. A lot of pod scraping going on I've heard.

[barry lloyd]

One point which most people seem to have overlooked is that by definition, the A380 will not be flying into your local airport.The whole point is that it will fly into 'hubs' where intending passengers for the smaller towns and cities on our planet will change to smaller aircraft to complete their journey. Take a look at the companies who have ordered the aircraft, and where their bases are. The Chinese are very interested in the A380, and that, to my mind at least, speaks volumes.
The whole hub and spoke system has worked (generally) satisfactorily in the US for at least 20 years. The rest of the world, driven by population explosions in our towns and cities, is starting to catch up.
Don't be deceived by the talk of bowling alleys, gyms etc. Remember the big bar in the early 747s? Only VS (to the best of my knowledge) has kept them on the newer fleet of 74s. There are a few older models with them still fitted, but they are operated by state-subsidised airlines. The bean counters will make sure there are plenty of seats on board. They rule the world these days, whatever business you're in.
I'm old enough to remember the problems of the 747 when it was first rolled out, and all the naysayers who declared it would never fly/make money/attract passengers. History has given us the answers to that.
Whatever your opinions, let's accept it for what it is - a huge step forward in technology and industrial co-operation. As to the lower air fares - dont hold your breath!

[Omark44]

jetteson in your dreams, I would suggest! AirBus are probably the ones running scared right now, they are millions, if not billions of US$ down the pan and are now gambling on the future of the A380.

BEagle What a disappointment! You an intelligent and educated man with years of service behind you!
Wouldn't put a lot of money on it but I'd guess, (from your posting history etc.), you are now an employee of Airbus or an affiliated partner. All power to your elbow but you should try to stay objective and leave the dreaming to the fairies.

As for a name? Well they called the 747SP the FLUF, later transferred to the 737 and I think this one might well be called the BUF. It certainly doesn't look good.

[VRThomas]

Wasn't the 747 originally designed to be a "double decker", but was downscaled because no one believed it would be able to fly? (Not unreasonalble considering the powerplants and limited manufacturing techniques available at the time.)

What Technology is in the 380 that is NOT available in a new 747?

I haven't seen the specs for the 380 but what kind of operating cost numbers are they advertising? And how are they comparing to the '47?

VRT

[PAXboy]

I understand that the upper deck bulge is there for aerodynamic reasons and was intended as a crew rest area. Pan Am made it into a lounge for 1st Class, so that everyone had two seats for the flight. It was not long before that idea was ditched!

I have also heard that the flight deck was put up top, to allow for the freighter version to have it's lift up nose and load wide palletts from the front.

But I sit to be corrected. :p

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[FullWings]

Although I would very much like to fly a A380 one day, I have to say I'm not so sure about the level of success it will enjoy, especially in the short to medium term.

I think there are routes that could benefit from the introduction of this aircraft but they are pretty limited. As several PPRUNE'rs have pointed out, these days travellers (business in particular) prefer frequency and convenience if they only have to pay a small premium for it.

Take BA as an example. One of their busiest routes is UK<-->New York. They have ten or more services a day on three different aircraft types, with each aircraft type being further subdivided into different class/seating arrangements. Even if BA were given an extremely competitive deal on A380s, I doubt if they would want to consolidate their flights as it would lose them premium passengers.

OK, if you wanted to take 700 bucket-and-spaders to Orlando then it might work but the increased turn-around times would lead to less utilisation. Also, Airbus are claiming only a fairly moderate reduction in seat/mile costs over smaller aircraft - so what will the reality be with all those extra Kg's?

The Far East seems to have more fertile ground in terms of trunk routes and city pairs - and the Mid/Far Eastern carriers are those who have expressed most interest in the A380. Freighter versions should also be popular & show some real advantages.

One thing that crosses my mind about operating with more passengers is the increased likelyhood of a medical diversion. I have diverted more for this cause than any other in my longhaul career. Unless there is a on-board doctor on permanent duty, I feel this could be a BIG problem...
There are many airfields worldwide on which you could safely land an A380 but hardly any on which you could:
a) Leave the runway and be confident of not hitting something
b) Find a stand which would fit and
c) Not completely block up the airfield for everyone else.
I feel nervous with my 200' wide machine sometimes: can't think what 263' span would be like. :eek:

Oh, and one more thing; where the **** are they going to put them all at LHR?

[BlueEagle]

The B747 was originally Boeings best effort in a competition to provide a freighter for the USAF and was designed with a lifting nose cone. The competition was won by the C5A Galaxy so Boeing then turned their attention to making the B747 a passenger aircraft for the commercial market.

[swh]

Zones,

EK and others in TLS this week went to Airbus and have asked for a streached A380, they want a 1000 seat aircraft for relatively short range high denisty routes.

FullWings

"Also, Airbus are claiming only a fairly moderate reduction in seat/mile costs over smaller aircraft - so what will the reality be with all those extra Kg's?"

15% reduction is not what I would call fairly moderate, if any aircraft had 15% advantage, its a significant advantage.

VRThomas

"Wasn't the 747 originally designed to be a "double decker", but was downscaled because no one believed it would be able to fly? (Not unreasonalble considering the powerplants and limited manufacturing techniques available at the time.)"

Dont know about that, however Boeing never did not conduct any upper deck evac work to get the aircraft certified. The 744 is certified for 660 pax, but no operator ever gets close to that number as engines never got big enough.

"What Technology is in the 380 that is NOT available in a new 747?"

The list is very extensive, Boeing with the 744 still have not got the concept of ECAM, still uses paper checklists.

Many of the technology advancements for the 380 have been driven by its size, like the hydraulic system, if everything was at conventional pressures (3000 psi) you would need hydraulic hoses 750mm in diameter.

Omark44,

BEagle does not work for Airbus, AFAIK been flying Boeings for well over the last 10 years of their career.

Max Angle

No x-wind probs I have heard of, most jets are certified so that they do not need to aligned with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft aligned with the centre line.

With its mass its easier to fly the 380 over a smaller aircraft in x-wind or gusty conditions, the momentum of the aircraft makes life easier. Similar with the 744 over a 738.

Good to see they will have it flying earlier than planned, and will be visiting losts of places which will suprise many ! The box teh aircraft fits in is not that much bigger than a 747, C5 etc.

:ok:

[Capn Notarious]

Let us all work as friends, so that loads of these do not get commandered to be troop carriers.

[VRThomas]

After further research I see that the 747 program investigated stretching the upper deck full length for the 47-300 (SUD) developement. Why didn't they persue it further? Was it a technical decision or a marketing choice. Was anyone there???

In so far as the hydraulics Etc. Neccesity is the mother of invention. I have no doubt that in this day and age that pretty well ANY system could be adapted to be as big, or as small as required. From monster machines to nanotechnology, anything is possible.

Maybe I am too "old school" but some of the conversion to electronic and automatic displays have not neccessarily been more effective as. Having a checklist in your hand helps to keep the crew in the loop and focussed on the task at hand. Some of the FMS operations are truly baffling and are slowly nudging the pilots towards more data entry technicians. All lot of the navigating we do is just not that complicated that we require this level of computer control. Complacency is one of our arch enemies up there after all.


I am still hesitant to give Airbus the credit they seek for this overweight, overbudget, overrated(?), behemoth.

VRThomas

[Pittsle]

May I remind you that it was the americans who built the first "ugly sucker" that could supposingly carry 750 persons?

It was in 1947, called the "spruce goose", which had a wingspan of 97,2m (versus 79,8m A380) and a wing area of 1061m² (versus 845m² A380)
But in my opinion both airplanes look nice in their specific way.

http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_artifacts/exhibits_cont1.html#desc

[Omark44]

Don't think so SWH, recent retiree from the RAF after years on the beautiful VC10, fairly certain of that.

[BEagle]

"BEagle does not work for Airbus, AFAIK been flying Boeings for well over the last 10 years of their career."

Wrong. I've never flown a Boeing (apart from one GCA in a B-52G at Barksdale in 1979). I don't actually work for anyone except myself having left the RAF. But I do some consultancy on an aircraft programme which uses an Airbus platform. Involvement with industry has been very interesting - the spin coming out of certain aerospace companies in particular.

Incidentally, there was once a 'double deck' Super Super VC10 project - but Nigel went for the 747 instead and that was the end of it!

[Skylark_air]

It's all down to cash. Most airlines want to shove more pax on a plane, and they want them to spend more cash. This aircraft is so big a few airlines are going to have casinos on board.

-All this is controlled incidently, by a small joystick, such as your 6 year old child would use, to crash planes on MS Flight Simulator.

And if you think getting the pax are going to be just spending cash on the aircraft, think again. Emerates have 36 orders for the A380, it's going to be a taxi service to it's terminal in Dubai to spend even more cash. The airlines who are doing the same as this such as Air France and Lufthansa aren't pleased about this, but who would want to go to Charles De Gaule to spent cash anyway? IT'S A TIP!


Overall thought, this aircraft is going to revolutionise air travel, because most airlines arn't going to fill it up with pax, (Which is a good idea, because they'res always 10 or 20 who never turn up for their flight, or come at last minute) these planes are so big they are going to fill them up with aminities.

So really the A380 will serve as a pleasure plane, until airlines need the space for seats in the future, saving them a bombshell.

They don't build aircraft without doing the maths.

[20driver]

One reason Boeing dropped the two deck option was it ended up costing too much in terms of added weight for the second floor. I've seen the same comment repeated by other designers. (Douglas and others looked at this at various times)

It would be interesting to see the take off weight per seat of the 747 vs the A380 vs say 777 or 340. Need to use the same fuel uplift for a chosen range.

Also re flight deck crew - will the A380 be a 2 or 3 body operation (Not considering relief crew)

The problem I see is that unless you fill all those seats - every empty seat is making any seat mile advantage go bye bye very quick.

[Jet_A_Knight]

The idea of the B747 prototype being a 'double decker' design was clearly an idée fixe of Juan Tripp, Pan Am's then head.

Apparently, the double deck mockup that Boeing presented to Pan Am was a charade, designed not to sell this version of the747, but to kill it. It was clearly a descendant of the Stratocruiser, with two intersecting lobes (the lower one larger, and the upper deck beginning where the lobes met at a seam, roughly 2/3 the way up, similar to an egg in an egg cup) with an upper deck at 25ft of the ground.

When Pan Am's top technicians and Captains were looking at the mockup, the idea of an evac from more than 25' off the ground and the lack of underbelly space for cargo was miserly - especially for an aircraft this size.

'The Boeing engineers had ideas for a different cross section. A single circle, passengers would be 16'off the tarmac, and there would be 9 seats across, with two aisles, and spectacularly wide - about 20'. What the Pan Am techs liked was the underfloor cargo space - there was room for 2 8x8 containers side by side. Juan Trippe had insisted that future cargo would be as important as passengers, and Boeing listened.

The source of this info is from: "Widebody- The Making Of The 747'
Clive Irving
ISBN 0-340-59983-9

A really wonderful read that goes back to Boeings B47/B52/B707 days in devlopment of the swept wing jet aircraft.

[VRThomas]

Airbus was asked about the overweight issue with the 380 and their response was that they "took care of it".:confused:

With the new materials and engineering technology available now, I wonder if Boeing could carry on with their fully extended upper deck design, strap a bunch of Trents under the wings and be able to justify performance numbers that would induce a few preliminary orders?

Why not? Or is the 744 enough?

VRT

[PAXboy]

VRThomas: In your earlier post, you express concern about electronic check-lists and routing, suggesting that the benefits of paper are still valid. They certainly are - for those that grew up with them!

I am in my 40s and grew up with paper so, although I have been involved with I.T. + Telecomms (+other things!) for over 25 years, I still prefer a peice of paper.

My 27 year old nephew who Captains J41s [although now converting to heavies, says proud uncle ;)] considers electronic flight bags as very interesting, as he grew up with computers. My teenage neice and nephew are even happier with a computer. So, electronic check-lists are not wrong or bad but they might be more difficult for older people to adapt to.

Another example, when my grandmother was in her 80s, push-button telephones came along I offered to get her one to make dialling easier with her arthritic fingers. She said, "Oh no dear, I wouldn't know which button to push!" So she used the rotary dial telephone until we called the undertaker... What we grow up with is, usually, what we like!

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[VRThomas]

"... What we grow up with is, usually, what we like!"

Good thing I grew up around pretty girls, and big jets!!!

GTFA

I hate it when the instructions are in the "read Me" files of a program you don't know how to open!

[BEagle]

Quote: "Good thing I grew up around pretty girls, and big jets!!!"

Not as much fun as big girls and pretty jets!

:E