ATL refuses to accomodate A380
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The anti-French sentiment just comes from the collective psyche in the US not being able to handle France and Germany voting to not get involved in George W's private vendetta against Iraq. It is probably a passing phase.
Mangednav has had the benefit of flying the "three" major brands of a/c. I've only flied first and second generation Douglas aircraft, but recently both narrow- and wide-body Airbuses.
Douglas built pilot's aircraft, a joy to fly, while often not being very ergonomical in ther cockpit design. While Airbuses are not nearly as nice to fly manually because of fly-by-wire and autotrim, they are still easy to handle and above all have all the gadgets that make for safer flying, such as mini-groundspeed, track & flightpath angle, and of course the old and tested alpha-floor protection. In taking responsibility for a flight, I would rather have an Airbus at my disposal, whereas for more pure fun, I would take a DC9 anytime. If I want to have my first-class dinner in style, I prefer my trusty sliding table on the Airbus. If I want to feel completely connected to my aircraft in manual flying I choose the DC9.
I haven't had the benefit of flying Boeings so I can't speak out about them.
As for American sentiment against Airbus, at least a few years back there were more A320s flying in North America than in Europe. Puts things into perspective.
It's not really about which aircraft type we fly is it? Or where it was built? The important thing is that the paycheck is large enough, and that we get time enough to spend with our families.
Che
Mangednav has had the benefit of flying the "three" major brands of a/c. I've only flied first and second generation Douglas aircraft, but recently both narrow- and wide-body Airbuses.
Douglas built pilot's aircraft, a joy to fly, while often not being very ergonomical in ther cockpit design. While Airbuses are not nearly as nice to fly manually because of fly-by-wire and autotrim, they are still easy to handle and above all have all the gadgets that make for safer flying, such as mini-groundspeed, track & flightpath angle, and of course the old and tested alpha-floor protection. In taking responsibility for a flight, I would rather have an Airbus at my disposal, whereas for more pure fun, I would take a DC9 anytime. If I want to have my first-class dinner in style, I prefer my trusty sliding table on the Airbus. If I want to feel completely connected to my aircraft in manual flying I choose the DC9.
I haven't had the benefit of flying Boeings so I can't speak out about them.
As for American sentiment against Airbus, at least a few years back there were more A320s flying in North America than in Europe. Puts things into perspective.
It's not really about which aircraft type we fly is it? Or where it was built? The important thing is that the paycheck is large enough, and that we get time enough to spend with our families.
Che
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Che,
May I simply congratulate you on your highly objective, intelligent and enjoyable to read post.
Good to see also that there are people who still use these forums due to their love or professional links with aviation.
Kind regards.
May I simply congratulate you on your highly objective, intelligent and enjoyable to read post.
Good to see also that there are people who still use these forums due to their love or professional links with aviation.
Kind regards.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Panda...
That was not written as a personal attack against anyone in this forum. It was an observation.
TallBloke...
Those are the words of Jim Boyd, a well respected aviation consultant here in the states. I posted his recent article for everyone to see. Doesn't mean I agree with every word of his article.
I knew that article would really make some of you fly off the handle; I think some may have some sort of complex or something......
That was not written as a personal attack against anyone in this forum. It was an observation.
TallBloke...
Those are the words of Jim Boyd, a well respected aviation consultant here in the states. I posted his recent article for everyone to see. Doesn't mean I agree with every word of his article.
I knew that article would really make some of you fly off the handle; I think some may have some sort of complex or something......
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Managednav,
I certainly don't believe any of the forum members questioning your posts here have any type of complex.
And if you knew the article would make some of "us" fly of the handle, then I hazard to ask why did you post it?
I certainly don't believe any of the forum members questioning your posts here have any type of complex.
And if you knew the article would make some of "us" fly of the handle, then I hazard to ask why did you post it?
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been thinking about this thread for some time, and couldn't resist piping up again.
My company just had a big position bid among the pilots. There were three widebody aircraft to bid on: The MD-11, the DC-10, and the Airbus 300/310.
The seniority on the three aircraft, in both front seats, was abolutely comparable. In other words, pilots did not prefer the Busses any less than the Douglas products.
And a 36 hour work week, with a month of vacation - this is bad?
I admire the French for many things, and have always enjoyed my trips over there. I had the opportunity to haul cargo into Vatry in the Champagne region - incredibly nice people who toasted me (yes, I was in uniform) after finding out it was my first flight there.
Why such vitriol? And on a european-based board? Who here is a politician?
My company just had a big position bid among the pilots. There were three widebody aircraft to bid on: The MD-11, the DC-10, and the Airbus 300/310.
The seniority on the three aircraft, in both front seats, was abolutely comparable. In other words, pilots did not prefer the Busses any less than the Douglas products.
And a 36 hour work week, with a month of vacation - this is bad?
I admire the French for many things, and have always enjoyed my trips over there. I had the opportunity to haul cargo into Vatry in the Champagne region - incredibly nice people who toasted me (yes, I was in uniform) after finding out it was my first flight there.
Why such vitriol? And on a european-based board? Who here is a politician?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand why this subject is causing so many people to get hot under the collar!
If Atlanta chooses not to make modifications to its facilities to accept the A380 because it sees no commercial justification for doing so, what is wrong with that? If Atlanta's major users decide that they wish to use the A380 at that airport in the future, I'm sure negotiations will be undertaken that will establish the most equitable way to pay for the costs incurred - and, usually, such costs are defrayed by the landing charges levied. No big deal!
New York (JFK), Heathrow and others that are modifying their airfields for the A380 are doing so because a significant number of their airline customers wish to use those aircraft (mainly because of slot limitations), and are prepared to pay the extra charges they will incur. Again, no big deal!
I don't see any of this as a campaign for or against the A380. The market will determine whether the aircraft is a success, and it would seem that many - most? - agencies and commercial organisations are convinced that it will be bought in sufficient numbers to justify the investment in infrastructure to support it.
This aeroplane will be here for a long time to come. Naturally, some airlines, routes and airports will not need it or want it - as has always been true for the B747.
If Atlanta chooses not to make modifications to its facilities to accept the A380 because it sees no commercial justification for doing so, what is wrong with that? If Atlanta's major users decide that they wish to use the A380 at that airport in the future, I'm sure negotiations will be undertaken that will establish the most equitable way to pay for the costs incurred - and, usually, such costs are defrayed by the landing charges levied. No big deal!
New York (JFK), Heathrow and others that are modifying their airfields for the A380 are doing so because a significant number of their airline customers wish to use those aircraft (mainly because of slot limitations), and are prepared to pay the extra charges they will incur. Again, no big deal!
I don't see any of this as a campaign for or against the A380. The market will determine whether the aircraft is a success, and it would seem that many - most? - agencies and commercial organisations are convinced that it will be bought in sufficient numbers to justify the investment in infrastructure to support it.
This aeroplane will be here for a long time to come. Naturally, some airlines, routes and airports will not need it or want it - as has always been true for the B747.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't pick it apart right now; got to get the kids to school.
Briefly, I believe that his point was that he does not see a market for the A380 in the same light that Airbus is touting it. I personally believe that it will be a tremendously successful cargo aircraft.
Later.....
Briefly, I believe that his point was that he does not see a market for the A380 in the same light that Airbus is touting it. I personally believe that it will be a tremendously successful cargo aircraft.
Later.....
Bear Behind
One notes that of the operators usint ATL, probably a maximum of 6 are likely to use the 747 pax version on that route (AFR, JAL etc.) Looking at the level of ops of other aircraft there, I would estimate that less than 0.1% of the daily ops are with 747s.
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well "briefly" I would say Mr Boyd said
which I think covers what Managed Nav was saying about market share. But what was all the other stuff about?
As a cargo aircraft, I think it would be much better if Airbus had taken a leaf from Boeings book when they designed the 747, and placed the cockpit such that the nose could open quickly allowing straight on loading of freight.
But the open question is whether Airbus can sell enough of them to make economic sense. They say gazillions. But looking at traffic flows and airport facilities, we can see, best case, 350-400 A-380s over the next 15 years.
As a cargo aircraft, I think it would be much better if Airbus had taken a leaf from Boeings book when they designed the 747, and placed the cockpit such that the nose could open quickly allowing straight on loading of freight.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok....
Getting back to the Boyd article....
It is obvious he has an axe to grind with the Airbus group. After sifting through his zingers, he does make a few good points.
There probably is not as bright a market share to be had with the A380 in the U.S. Pax side.
He feels, as do I, that when over 25% of the orders are from one airline (Emirates), it would be prudent to curb the enthusiasm a bit.
Personally, like I said at the beginning of this thread, I don't like the notion of US airports expending all of that money to accomodate an airplane that may or may not benefit them on the Pax operations side.
I also have a degree of protectionism in me that says "Why make it easier for an aircraft that is built to directly challenge the survival of Boeing, our last standing US aircraft manufacturer?"
Especially one built by the ----!
(Toulouse, that was a joke.....I'm still trying to imagine an Irishman moving to Paris and selecting a Username for "Airbus Mecca"...I'm sure it is an interesting story)
Getting back to the Boyd article....
It is obvious he has an axe to grind with the Airbus group. After sifting through his zingers, he does make a few good points.
There probably is not as bright a market share to be had with the A380 in the U.S. Pax side.
He feels, as do I, that when over 25% of the orders are from one airline (Emirates), it would be prudent to curb the enthusiasm a bit.
Personally, like I said at the beginning of this thread, I don't like the notion of US airports expending all of that money to accomodate an airplane that may or may not benefit them on the Pax operations side.
I also have a degree of protectionism in me that says "Why make it easier for an aircraft that is built to directly challenge the survival of Boeing, our last standing US aircraft manufacturer?"
Especially one built by the ----!
(Toulouse, that was a joke.....I'm still trying to imagine an Irishman moving to Paris and selecting a Username for "Airbus Mecca"...I'm sure it is an interesting story)
The A380 story can be described as is bigger better? (Or as they say in Alabama - more better)
Looking at how sales of the A340 and particularly the 777 have cut in 747 sales/routes it is a legitimate question. The real big deal about the 747 was the range - If you want the range these days you don't have to buy a 747 - at one time you did.
The trend in the states and in Europe is smaller planes - higher frequency - direct flights. The trend over the North Atlantic is the same - heck we even have 737 flying LGW to Deer Lake!!! (as well as EWR- Zurich)
The key to making money is not the size of the plane but filling it and the question is how many routes can a single airline fill a plane for every trip, all year long. Looking at current prices across the pacific right now I can guarantee you there are a lot of empty seats going at the moment.
(Expedia – Virgin LAX-LHR - $580 RT for March – and they want to have sell more seats @ that price, LAX-SYD - $1,100, same dates)
Airport space is like roadways – always behind the curve but the numbers keep going up. It’s being like that since the Wright brothers and it’s not likely to change. HKG gets too crowded someone will build the equivalent of Gatwick or Stanstead or Luton etc
Looking at those realities it is easy to be skeptical – but then everyone said Boeing was nuts building the 747.
Looking at how sales of the A340 and particularly the 777 have cut in 747 sales/routes it is a legitimate question. The real big deal about the 747 was the range - If you want the range these days you don't have to buy a 747 - at one time you did.
The trend in the states and in Europe is smaller planes - higher frequency - direct flights. The trend over the North Atlantic is the same - heck we even have 737 flying LGW to Deer Lake!!! (as well as EWR- Zurich)
The key to making money is not the size of the plane but filling it and the question is how many routes can a single airline fill a plane for every trip, all year long. Looking at current prices across the pacific right now I can guarantee you there are a lot of empty seats going at the moment.
(Expedia – Virgin LAX-LHR - $580 RT for March – and they want to have sell more seats @ that price, LAX-SYD - $1,100, same dates)
Airport space is like roadways – always behind the curve but the numbers keep going up. It’s being like that since the Wright brothers and it’s not likely to change. HKG gets too crowded someone will build the equivalent of Gatwick or Stanstead or Luton etc
Looking at those realities it is easy to be skeptical – but then everyone said Boeing was nuts building the 747.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought and not related to aviation at all. I visited Eastern France last year and visited Verdun which was a World War 1 version of Stalingrad and where 1 million Frenchman died to defend France. On the way back to Dover I visited a military cemetery of hundreds of French Cavalrymen who attacked Nazi panzers on horseback armed with swords in 1940 trying desperately to save France. Both these events took place before the United States entered either war. " Cheese eating surrender monkeys" I think not. Oh! and by the way I am an Englishman.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20driver:
Just to complete your list, there is also a Lufthansa Boeing 737 flying DUS-JFK, and another one is flying DUS-ORD. Business class seats only on both flights.
DC10RealDriver:
There were also about 1 million German soldiers who died in Verdun.
Regardless of that, I agree with you, the French did stand up for their freedom.
Just to complete your list, there is also a Lufthansa Boeing 737 flying DUS-JFK, and another one is flying DUS-ORD. Business class seats only on both flights.
DC10RealDriver:
There were also about 1 million German soldiers who died in Verdun.
Regardless of that, I agree with you, the French did stand up for their freedom.
The all B class 737 really represents a stealth threat to the A 380, and other wide bodies. For most routes the airlines are relying on a few B class passengers - 10% or so - to pay for the most of the flight. If those passengers get siphoned off it really is going to wack the route economics big time. I'm sure all business 787 service LHR_HKG is going to be far more attractive than waiting for them to load 550 bodies into an A380. I’m surprised Virgin hasn’t looked at this idea.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ManagedNav has
And I wonder whose fault it is that Lockheed and Douglas are no longer in the airliner business? I have a sneaking suspicion it's not that of Airbus. (It may not even be Boeing's).
However, the Sonic Cruiser, the 767-400, the tanker deal and the insider USAF kerfuffle, the end of the 717 and 757... some of that has to be laid at Harry Stonecipher and co.'s door and no protectionism will protect them from further business screwups.
The unexpected awarding of the Marine 1 contract to the US101 will have given a (small) shiver to the comfort zone Sikorsky and Boeing have been resting in.
Are we in Jet Blast yet???
a degree of protectionism in me that says "Why make it easier for an aircraft that is built to directly challenge the survival of Boeing, our last standing US aircraft manufacturer?"
However, the Sonic Cruiser, the 767-400, the tanker deal and the insider USAF kerfuffle, the end of the 717 and 757... some of that has to be laid at Harry Stonecipher and co.'s door and no protectionism will protect them from further business screwups.
The unexpected awarding of the Marine 1 contract to the US101 will have given a (small) shiver to the comfort zone Sikorsky and Boeing have been resting in.
Are we in Jet Blast yet???
zed3
Given your trip on Privatair - how would you rate the concept of a small all business class jet versus sitting on top of a 747-400 or eventually an A-380. Which would you chose if you were offered a choice?
I haven't flown on Privatair myself but I'd go for it if it was offered and someone else pays.
Air travel is one of the very few items you but where all price levels are lumped together into the same physical package– i.e the Ritz doesn’t do motel 6 rooms on the same premises and Tallivent doesn’t serve Macdonalds in the back section. It seems that air travel is waking up to this.
Given your trip on Privatair - how would you rate the concept of a small all business class jet versus sitting on top of a 747-400 or eventually an A-380. Which would you chose if you were offered a choice?
I haven't flown on Privatair myself but I'd go for it if it was offered and someone else pays.
Air travel is one of the very few items you but where all price levels are lumped together into the same physical package– i.e the Ritz doesn’t do motel 6 rooms on the same premises and Tallivent doesn’t serve Macdonalds in the back section. It seems that air travel is waking up to this.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ManagedNav,
it serves your purpose (although I'm not quite sure what it is, considering your conflicting statements) to call the A380 or any Airbus aircraft a French aircraft, completely ignoring the fact, that the French money value is less than a third in any Airbus aircraft, the remainder being provided by other European manufacturers. You also don't seem to know, or choose to ignore, the American money value. With GE or PW engines and US avionics, the American money value easily surpasses the French part.
There are presently about 100,00 people in the US working for Airbus suppliers.
On another subject, since you have experience on DCs, Boeings and Airbuses, would you enlighten us why you rate the A320 so lowly?
And yes. you must be a troll, otherwise you would not turn out what you have been sending to this board.
it serves your purpose (although I'm not quite sure what it is, considering your conflicting statements) to call the A380 or any Airbus aircraft a French aircraft, completely ignoring the fact, that the French money value is less than a third in any Airbus aircraft, the remainder being provided by other European manufacturers. You also don't seem to know, or choose to ignore, the American money value. With GE or PW engines and US avionics, the American money value easily surpasses the French part.
There are presently about 100,00 people in the US working for Airbus suppliers.
On another subject, since you have experience on DCs, Boeings and Airbuses, would you enlighten us why you rate the A320 so lowly?
And yes. you must be a troll, otherwise you would not turn out what you have been sending to this board.