A380 - Commercial Failure?

[Sunfish]

Personally, as a potential passenger, I think its too big. I do not like the idea of arriving, flying and processing through security, immigration and customs with 550 or more fellow passengers.

My concerns are statistical. Leaving aside the probability that airline management will further prune cabin staff/passenger ratios, and check in staff /passenger ratios, compared to a 250 seat aircraft, load factors being equal, there is more than twice the chance that:

1) There will be a medical emergency on board, with the attendant possibility of diversion and delay.

2)There will be an air rage incident with someone getting drunk, diversion or delay.

3) Some idiot will jokingly make a bomb threat or some white knuckle flyers will mistake a guy singing along to his MP3 player as a terrorist chanting to Allah. More diversion and delay.

4) There will be a real bomb threat from someone who doesn't like the French or the English.

5)There will be more than one football team on the aircraft and they decide to take each other on, in flight, more diversion or delay.

6) Idiot passenger who doesnt understand English or whatever language misses a boarding call and can't be found, necessitating more delay as the bags are found and unloaded.

7) Idiot family doesn't have Visa's and documentation, thus closing a check in counter for an hour as the entire staff and supervisor focuses on solving their problems.

8) Idiot passengers clog up and delay security screening by not speaking english, carrying laptops that must be screened, leatherman tools etc. etc.

9) Idiot passengers with 55 lbs of carry on baggage that has to be stowed in the hold, more delay.

10) Immigration lanes clogged up with fifteen Pakistani families arriving on the same aircraft without proper documentation, more delay.

11) Homeland Security discovers a passenger with a suspicious name on a watch list - more delay.

12) My bags will be last off the aircraft, more delay.

13) There will be 550 people in front of me in the Queue for a taxi. Yet more delay.

Since one of these things happens to me about every second flight, it will happen on average every flight in an A380. This aircraft can never be on time, or if it does, its a 13 to 1 miracle!

There is an old saying "He travels fastest who travels alone". Travelling on a 250 seat aircraft is therefore 250 times slower than travelling alone. Travelling on an A380 is going to be 550 times slower, unless check in, immigration, customs and baggage handling staff double their performance, which seems highly unlikely.

Can anyone explain why, as a passenger, I should rejoice at the coming of the A380? From where I would sit (steerage, down the back) there is nothing good to look forward to.

Boeing's B787 Dreamliner seems a more sensible solution to congestion.

[Packsonflight]

I guess this is more or less the same arguments as 40 years ago When the 747 did her madien flight.

[chiglet]

SF,
Try Manch-Sandford B743....525 pax
watp,iktch

[fireflybob]

>1) There will be a medical emergency on board, with the attendant possibility of diversion and delay.

2)There will be an air rage incident with someone getting drunk, diversion or delay.<

Solutions:-

1) Put a suitable number of qualified para medics on all flights

2) Put a suitable number of Security Personnel (aka Bouncers) on board to deal with problem passengers.

[MOR]

Most of these points have more to do with the airport than the aircraft. If the airports make no attempt to ramp up services to suit the numbers, of course there will be problems, but it is no worse than two 747s arriving at about the same time.

Regarding in-flight issues, you will now have twice as many flight attendants, so a statistically better chance of being able to deal with isolated problems. Much easier to withstrain a few unruly pax with 20+ cabin crew.

Plus, of course, the cabin crew could form a football team of their own, complete with reserves and coaching staff...

My main concern would be just how many people will be able to successfully exit the aircraft down the slides from the upper deck, in windy conditions. I suspect that many could fall off the slide to certain death or injury, as those slides look like they will whip around in any significant wind.

But I suppose I can console myself with the thought of all the hours I can spend in the in-flight gym, pumping aluminium...

[Che Xindamail]

Another cause for delay:

Sunfish himself occupying the flight attendants with outrageous demands and neverending whining. Just stay home "mate", and you'll never have to expose yourself to anything that's not "Ostrine".

Like someone said, it's airport capacity that can cause congestion, not which piece of metal we all arrive on if it happens to be at the same time.

Came back to my homebase a few days ago at the same time as three other widebodies. Talk about congestion.

[747FOCAL]

She will own the package freighter market. PAX will be limited.

[stagn8]

When the first train lurched into motion it was preceeded by someone waving a red flag, now they flood daily into Waterloo and Grand Central with plenty more than an A380 load and a noticeable absence of ambulances carting off the sick passengers. I think this is called progress.

Furthermore I will be a lot happier sitting in a shiny new A380 instead of a clapped out 30 yr old jumbo with a history of metal fatigue, bits dropping off, even breaking up in the air or going bang because the fuel tanks are wired up wrong... New planes mean new specs and better materials, from which we all benefit.

Don't be surprised to see A380's doing the Jersey bouncer one day at $10 a head !! (Ok they might have to extend the runway a bit first).

Congestion though will be an issue, mostly in the arrivals hall and immigration, and that will take some time to fix !! Airports are due a major rethink...:ok:

[flightleader]

Sunfish,

A380 is not meant for tiny places that cannot support it. Airports around the world are racing around the clock to upgrade themselves to accomodate her.
Most of your points are what if and most of them already has a way to deal with it as it has happen almost on a daily basis. When the pax have trouble,you can be flying a Piper Novajo,they will still have the same trouble.
Just one positive point for you to think, if a bomb goes off in A380,you will more likely to live than a smaller jet.

[West Coast]

"Just one positive point for you to think, if a bomb goes off in A380,you will more likely to live than a smaller jet"

Can you provide supporting data for your claim or you simply yanking my lariot?

[Lasiorhinus]

The same was said of the 747.

What amuses me most is the photos from inside the new beast - a glass 'feature wall' with water running down it is going to be very safe in a crash, isnt it?
Bars with wine glasses lined up, and bottles placed artistically around the bar... Right. Even light turbulence is going to wobble them all around, and a moderate lump is going to knock them all to the floor.

All this 'extra space' on board is all well and good, but I cant help but think of how many seats a low cost carrier could cram in if they wanted to stuff it to the gills...

[MOR]

Depends on the size of the bomb, surely?:E

On another note:

Airbus Announces A3XXXXXXX

Airbus Industrie today announced their new airliner.

The new aircraft, that can seat 4,000, comes complete with a small hospital, tennis courts, and a shopping mall.

Airports are racing to build new runways to suit the aircraft, which will not use traditional teminal gates, but will be marshalled to a remote stand where it will become a small town.

Officials said that they are continuing to examine ways of processing immigration and customs formalities. It is expected that the journey will take 12 hours, but the collection of baggage and clearing of customs and immigration will take three days.

The aircraft will be built of styrofoam and old, ground-up coffee cups. Taxiing the aircraft is expected to be "challenging".

[Rollingthunder]

"In Seattle, home to a sizable part of rival Boeing's operations, nobody seemed overly worried about the fact that the A380 actually flies.

The super-jumbo is "a very large airplane for a very small market," Boeing spokesman Jim Condelles said. "It's an engineering accomplishment that Airbus should be very proud of," he said. "We just don't see a market for 1,250 of these airplanes over the next 20 years."

Mr. Condelles was referring to Airbus's global market forecast for very large jets. Boeing sees demand for just 400 jets with 450 seats or more. If Airbus is right, it could enjoy a near-monopoly in that market while Boeing scrambles to catch up.

But some industry experts think Airbus -- which is almost certain to outsell Boeing for a second consecutive year in 2005 -- is more likely to end up with egg on its face after spending some €12-billion ($19.4-billion) over 11 years to develop the A380, including €1.45-billion in cost overruns.

"Airbus is being incredibly optimistic," said Frank Werner, an airline management specialist at Fordham University's business school in New York. "I don't think they're going to sell enough planes in a short enough time to make it financially viable."

Airbus has orders for 154 super-jumbos and has said it needs 100 more to recover its investment. But the weak U.S. dollar -- the currency in which passenger planes are sold -- and rumours of heavy discounts on the A380's $282-million (U.S.) sticker price have fuelled reports that the real break-even point may be higher -- possibly three times what Airbus says."

Globe and Mail

[kiwiman]

I am assuming that Sunfish posted with tongue firmly in cheek......no?!?

There are many issues which will be interesting to observe as the A380 saga unfolds. The biggest for me is its commerical viability and the opposing strategy that Boeing has taken.

But Sunfish's first paragraph is just silly - concerns about 550 other people going through security and immigration together? Last time I was a passenger going through a customs check, about five B744's had just emptied and we managed to get through alive

[Sunfish]

My point is, as a humble bit of self loading freight is exactly why I would prefer to fly in this thing rather than my preferred mode of transport, an A340?

I agree that two 747's landing together will stress immigration even now in some places.

However I'm only partly tongue in cheek.
I remember very well from the army days how fast you can move a small body of troops compared to a battalion - and these were trained people.

Statistically, the more people who are travelling together, the wider the "spread" of their velocities, and by definition, the aircraft cannot leave until the slowest is on board. I'm not talking about wheelchair pax either. This must mean that boarding an A380 must take more time per passenger than smaller aircraft unless facilities are seriously improved.

The difficulty of moving 500+ people through check-in, security, immigration and boarding is going to be an issue, especially the "wandering passenger" phenomenon which I'm not sure any number of ground staff can solve.

I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

[ironbutt57]

As mentioned above, the same fears were voiced when the 747 came to life...let's wait and see...wonder what Emirates is going to do with 50 of them???:confused:

[cattleclass]

I have to agree with the time and motion notion behind Sunfish's initial rant, the light racism not withstanding. I've been stuck behind a few fellow Aussies in HLR arguing the toss over Grandad,Grannies and workvisas! But my biggest issue is with being stuck in downstairs middle row back, no longer in any way shape or form enjoying the only real joy of long haul, the view of the world below, and breathing the re-cycled exhalation of 549 other souls. Will the A380 have these new auto darkening window panels as well?
Will there be a premium fare for window seats, and does any true 'plane-spotter know how many windows there are going to be,in relation to the number of SLF seats? :confused: cheers,j/x

[acbus1]

.......there is more than twice the chance that:

1) There will be a medical emergency on board...........
Then again, there is more than twice the chance that there'll be a Doctor on board. :p

[Che Xindamail]

Always interesting when American so called "experts" speak out about Airbus and the live-or-die scenarios of the A380.

Whenever somebody with stars-and-stripes on their shades speaks out about something not built in the land of the free, you can be sure any objectivity is gone. Just look at Dubya and Rummie, "Dumb & Dumber" comes to mind.

[eal401]

sunfish, every single point you mention is entirely valid for air travel now and has no bearing on the A380.

The exception is:

13) There will be 550 people in front of me in the Queue for a taxi. Yet more delay.

After all, what if you got to the taxi rank after 2 loads of 747s had arrived?

:rolleyes:

[Jordan D]

Apologies for not tackling the substance of the original post, but did anyone else think when they saw this thread, that it was one of 747Focal's .... it seems people just want to knock a new and revolutionary design, just because they didn't come up with it themselves.

Jordan

[yakker]

The problem will be at the airport, especially in the USA as for some reason they pass us all through security, removing belts and shoes. Afterall we have just got off the aircraft, and can no longer blow it up!

Actually loading/unloading the aircraft with passengers will be quicker. 525 split between two decks, 262 per deck, will be faster than boarding a 747.

[ironbutt57]

Che Xindamail.....the USA is the largest foreign supplier of 380 parts....maybe u percieve our leaders as dumb and dumber...but yours are crooked and crookeder...not too many illegal immigrants from my country in yours...but what about the other way around? don't think anybody is doing any "flag waving" here..just u flag stomping....

[PITA]

Chi Xindamail take your RACIEST crap somewhere else

[foxile]

Maybe I am missing something here but do the Japanese domestic 747s not already transport up to 525 people more than a few times a day?

What issues do they have in relation to the concerns with the 380?

[jettlager]

In my experience the Japanese are unique in their ability to board and disembark in an efficient and orderly manner.

[Packsonflight]

She is not that big, only 30% bigger than the 74. So the que at the taxistand will only consist of a 74 and an extra 73

[ShotOne]

Not a very well researched thread by sunfish -after all there are plenty of 747's flying around configured with 500 plus seats already.

As for the Boeing criticism of Airbus marketing strategy, well only time will tell -although it must be pointed out that over the last two years the Airbus marketers have been more successful than Boeing's, which might explain some of the sour grapes we've seen being spat at the A380

[frangatang]

The worst place for arrival is/will be the US ,queues for miles plus the ignorant fat gum chewing basta## that man the counters

[ironbutt57]

Or immigration in the UK, or India....kinda hard to tell one from the other!!!

[Bmused55]

ShotOne As for the Boeing criticism of Airbus marketing strategy, well only time will tell -although it must be pointed out that over the last two years the Airbus marketers have been more successful than Boeing's, which might explain some of the sour grapes we've seen being spat at the A380

That couldn't be any further from the truth.

Boeings forcasting has been the benchmark for many many years, since the days of MD and Lockheed on the commercial market. Their predictions and forcasts have guided many an company for years.
They are usualy fairly accurate.

Forcasting a market then winning or loosing due to marketing are two different things.

Back when the 737 was first developed Boeing predicted a 2000 strong market demand over 20 years... oh look... they sold that 2000 and more.

In the 70's they predicted 2000-2500 airframes for the 767 sized aicraft market over 20 years.
And guess what... there are about that many. A330s and 767s together. Maybe a little more.

And for your information, Boeing has been congratulating Airbus on its achievements with the A380.


And to those who are heralding the A380 a Revolution..... just what is revolutionary about it?
Its size?? No the An225 still beats it
Its Engines? No, still a JetA guzzling 4 holer
Its Materials? No, still mostly metal
Its interior? Who the heck knows... I guess it'll be all seats as airlines realise the 4 holer is too expensve in terms of fuel use NOT to fill it with seats.

The A380 is a brilliant engineering feat and masterpiece. If it performs as Airbus have promised then it will be their crowning achievement.
But it is not a revolutionary aircraft... it is merely evolutionary.
And if it fails to perform... its going to be an expensive flop.

Show me a plane that does the same job as the A380 but is lighter, flies further and uses a different fuel. That would be revolutionary.

[ExSimGuy]

Most large aircraft these days have two doors, and most airports have two jetways. But how many times do you see the jetway to the 1st class section roped off and everyone boarding/disembarking via the one door?

So what's the chances that even airports with jetways to both floors of the 380 will actually use them?

(don't get me wrong, I think the 380 is great - just wish that airports would do more to move us in and out!)

[Quod Boy]

I think it looks bloody marvellous.

I will be getting my hands on the beast in 06,cant wait.

I also think it will be hugely successful,moving lots of pax to points were slots are limited.

Well done airbus.QB:cool: :D

[Taildragger67]

Sunfish, old boy,

I myself am sceptical about the Airbus Whale, but that's progress. Personally I'll probably give it a wide berth for a year or two, just to let them iron out the initial bugs - not only in the aircraft itself, but also in in-flight service procedures etc. But even if I arrive in my 2005-build 747 or 2009-build 787, if it's at the same time as one of these monsters, the delay will be in the arrivals hall and will be the fault of the airport (lack of preparation) rather than Airbus or the operator.

I guess on the point of medical diversions, then yes, finding a suitable airstrip in some remote areas might be a concern.

But to cast the mind back - YSSY 16R/34L hasn't always been 12,999' feet long... in fact 07/25 used to be the main strip. The extension into the Bay only came about when soon-to-be pilots of the then-revolutionary 747 whinged that they'd not be able to safely do an RTO on the available length... so YSSY had to grow. Similarly, the int'l terminal used to be where the QF domestic tent is now pitched; when the 747 was being introduced, they built a shiny new gaff over the other side. The old concourse is now the B pier, but the whole thing is unrecogniseable from what the Queen opened in 1970.

My point being - progress has demanded higher capacity on some routes. The A380 is one (physically butt-ugly) solution to that. Infrastructure has no choice but to evolve with it.

[Che Xindamail]

Ironbutt & PITA-bread,

Wherein lies the racism in criticizing the land of the free?

I do post from Asia (look it up in an atlas, most interesting), but have you heard the term "expat"?

So you have no idea what my country or race is, but you feel obliged to make blanket statements about Asia (of which I doubt you know very much), as well as slamming the UK and India in your latest post.

Just face it, after Dubya, American credibility is not what it used to be, so how much value is an American opinion regarding Boeing vs Airbus? Biased in favor of Boeing at best.

Chex in da mail

[Andy_S]

Just face it, after Dubya, American credibility is not what it used to be, so how much value is an American opinion regarding Boeing vs Airbus?

What an absolutely ludicrous statement. How can you seriously attempt to link the validity of somebodys opinions or forecasts to the person who runs the country. You are effectively damning anything any American person or organisation may have a view on because George W. Bush is their president.

What appalling anti Americanism.

[DingerX]

First off, Airbus is in a bad way with the A380. Say what you will about Flag-waving yankees, the fact is the press is portraying Airbus as tending towards the desperate in getting A380 sales. In any negotiation of the sort, you don't convey the impression of desperation if you can avoid it, since, as we all know, the suits at the airlines are a merciless lot whose pursuit to keep costs down knows no pity. So to get the sales figures they've currently got, the folks in Toulouse had to cut some deals which are less than ideal for their bottom line.

Second, those who dismiss the anti-380 crowd as a bunch of goose-stepping, bush-loving yanks who think that the only things that cover that kind of distance non-stop should be loading JDAMs, not passengers, miss the point: While many of us have a soft spot for Boeings, Americans don't associate Everett, WA with patriotism. The A380, on the other hand, is a project heavily imbued with European ideology. Sure, the #1 contracting country, may be thet US, but the aircraft is a European design, the head offices are in Europe, the various places where the aircraft is assembled are in Europe, and EADS owns the company. Airbus' corporate image is European, and with good reason: money. Any large corporation has to deal with the local governments, and a dispersed organization like the various parts of Airbus assembling the A380 needs a strong reason for governmental support. Pan-europeanism and, yes, anti-americanism, are pretty darn good reasons. "If it's not for us, the Americans will make all the big planes" works pretty well in Brussels, in Paris, in Berlin, and in any number of other places in Europe.
In itself, this is nothing to shuffle one's feet about and bemoan; that's how modern capitalism works: the capitalists use their superior bargaining power to obtain from the governments the best conditions for them to make money (and yes, that means adjusting safety regulations where necessary).

The problem is when the project's symoblic importances eclipses its economic utility. A380 will be the biggest passenger aircraft to take to the skies. It's not just a plane anymore; it's become a symbol of pan-Europeanism, and that's dangerous. Unlike Boeing's 747, Airbus has tied their future as a company on this project (don't worry -- if it's an utter disaster, Europe will bail them out). The thing may do really well, but to outsiders, the underlying philosophy behind the project -- make the biggest thing flying and stamp "Made in Europe" all over it -- doesn't make business sense.

Concerning the specific questions about what the A380 passenger experience will be like:

If you want a nice A380 passenger experience, fly on one in the first few years. They are going to be nice. You may even see some of those incredible artistic renditions realized.
Again, that's how it works: create the buzz, get people to like the new plane.

Then whore it: 800 passengers crammed in two decks; a skeleton crew; Bathroom lines that run the length of the aircraft, with half the loos out of service before the whale burns off enough fuel to hit cruising altitude.

Boarding times? Those who predict 4 hour boarding times and those who see it happening in 20 minutes are both wrong. The time it takes to load and unload the A380 will be largely determined by economics. If an airline, say, pays cabin crew only for the time spent in the air, and ground crews by the hour, provided there's enough terminal space, boarding could be very long indeed. If on the other hand, the time spent at the gate is expensive, it will go faster.


I do like the idea of a couple football teams having a brawl in flight. That's why you put the team with the bigger guys on the top deck -- they'll have trouble squeezing down the stairs,and the smaller team will be at a double disadvantage should they attack.

[ironbutt57]

Thanx for the support andy s, unfortunately in "some places" "elected" officials do all the thinking for their citizens, (and if he's an expat, he's been there TOOO long)and I don't need an atlas to look it up, frequent Asia on a regular basis, and the remark about immigration officials was a retort to the poster who made a derogatory (albeit sometimes true) about American Immigration officers...

So chex in d mail cannot comprehend the difference between GWB's inane ramblings and the opinions of American people, or he just wants to express his own anti-American sentiments, whichever, who cares??...and what does any of this have to do with the commercial success of the A380 anyway? Chex in d mail might have forgotten that FEDEX and UPS have ordered the aircraft as well....mmmm last time I checked they were American companies....what sort of aircraft does YOUR country (of residence) produce "chex in d mail"? mmmm thought so!!!

So let's get back to the topic, of commercial success....I am of the opinion (mine, not GWB's) the A-380 will indeed be commercially successful, albeit on a limited basis from the offset, until infrastructure is well in place to support it...then who knows...let Boeing express their doubts, they're the competitor, what else are they supposed to do? Certainly GWB has nothing to do with it....we're not a police state like "some places" and remember all the naysayers when the 747 was announced...it broke the bank at Boeing if it had failed, so probably would have the commercial aircraft side of Boeing.....remember we had Lockheed and Douglas at the time...

On the other hand in the unlikely event the A-380 is a total flop, I somehow don't see Airbus going by the wayside...like the above poster said, it is the pan-european flagship...the 747 was just another product from just one of 3 competitors...and it ruled the skies 30+ years....lets see if Airbus can rise to the occasion!!!

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

There is no difficulty in finding people wanting to fly from x to y. Particularly if x and y are major airports near major cities.

The difficulty is getting the slots to do it.

This is most true for the non-legacy carriers who sometimes have a product and company far superior but can't compete against the incumbent slot holder. Who know the airlines I mean.

The only answer is a bigger aircraft. Its the only way to grow the business. And if your competitor buys them then the only option open to you is to grow less quickly or buy the same aircraft.

Its a nice position for the A380 to be in.

Personally I think Airbus has now completed a world class line up. From A318 to A380 they have it covered with a good product. When you look at the commonality then that become the killer feature. The flightdeck training saving ALONE for a world class airline is going to show on the bottom line. Never mind fuel burn, reliability or spares.

Can you fly an A318? Yes. OK - we'll hire you on our A380, you start on the line in 3 weeks...

Cheers

WWW

[Rollingthunder]

Used to have those manufacturer's decals that show the a/c in profile. You know A318, A319, A320. Also had one for the A3. Very short aircraft.

[BahrainLad]

Then whore it: 800 passengers crammed in two decks; a skeleton crew; Bathroom lines that run the length of the aircraft, with half the loos out of service before the whale burns off enough fuel to hit cruising altitude.

This would presumably be after United orders it then?

Air travel worldwide isn't all as bad as that which is found in the 50 states; try flying a proper airline for a change.

[ironbutt57]

Sounds like the Monarch version to me....

[Che Xindamail]

Be it Dubya, or other factors such as 911, the rhetoric out of the US has become more nationalistic and patriotic in the past few years. Being in the midst of all this nationalism, I dont' think Americans quite see it the way many of us do.

Because of this, I tend to take "expert" opinions with a pinch of salt, and don't underestimate the propaganda value of "twisting" the message in favor of Boeing, or any other company for that matter.

It may be that Boeing is absolutely correct in their judgement, and time will tell. I never had the experience of Boeings, but I had great pleasure in flying DC9s and MD80s as well as all different types of Airbuses. For a purely enjoyable flying experience I take a Douglas Aircraft anytime. I think one of the great shames in recent aviation history is the demise of Douglas, so I am not flag stomping but maybe just a bit more sceptical than others, Mr Butt.

[mattredd]

A huge barometer test would be the CX order because this will be the first A380 vs. 747a order. And if Airbus do win it, it puts the 747a into doubt as CX is probably a key customer for the 747a.

[MarkD]

So you own some 747-300s and you're upgrading but not to 744:

You can buy 787s and reduce Y, moving upmarket - kind of what AC is doing.

You can buy 2 x 787 and request more slots. If you operate to LHR, JFK, LAX etc. good luck with that.

You can buy an A380-800/900 and pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap - i.e. Emirates.

*all* of these are valid business models if you can make them work, depending on landing fees, loadies, gate fees, noise abatement, slots, crew cross-qual from 7x7/A3xx etc.

I prefer to observe A380 like Chou En Lai's verdict on the French Revolution - "it's too soon to tell".

[Wino]

When you start comparing forecasts for market sizes you guys are all forgetting something.

Airbus's launch aid tends to be structured in such a way that they don't have to start repaying loans untill X number of aircraft are sold. Therefore it is in their best interest to claim that they will sell 1000 airplanes and then only really sell 300. Then they don't have to pay the money back.

Boeing has to start paying interest on the money immediately and has to start servicing their debt immediately, so they have to get their prediction EXACTLY right or else they are out of business (which is what happened to Douglas and Lockheed before that)

So that is why Airbus's make wild pie in the sky predictions of howmany airplanes they will sell. It is their way of pushing back the date at which they have to start paying back money.

Cheers
Wino

[V1 Rotate]

I pax around the world quite a bit. All I want is to get from A to B as quickly and as hassle free as possible. I am not interested in massive lines and horrific delays.
There is nothing wrong with the A380 as an aeroplane. But the immigration, security and ground handling unions have no interest in promoting the Frech aircraft industry.
Sometimes I have waited for an hour and a half to get through US customs and immigration having arrived on a 777. I can see that the lines will last for 3-4 hours when an airport is confronted with 600+ pax in one go.
What will happen if 3 or 4 of these things arrive at the same airport at the same time?
Another point is how will busy places like LAX and DFW handle the traffic spacing? Surely they will need about 25 miles for vortice dissipation.
V1

[norodnik]

of course, some places (like LHR/LGW) have very little airport space available.

How many times do you have to wait ages to get into T4 because of some or other delay.

Given that the A380 is there to cater for growth, the number of movements is not going to decline. Therefore, where are they all going to fit ?I would imagine you get 4 380's in the space of 5 747's

Building new terminals is very expensive, if you don't want to do that, then you have to park it on a remote and bus the pax's, ummm anyone like the sound of that ???

I think the A380 will do ok. Airbus, though, have a bad track record of selling 4 engined long haulers so maybe they'll fail here as well. I think if they get to sell 500 it will be seen as a sucess (and if not, then there will be some large A380 airport restaurants at places you've never heard of!!)

[panda-k-bear]

Do you know what's really, really interesting? To take a look back at the market forecasts issued by Boeing over the last, ooh, 7 to 8 years. Just get hold of them and look at them. And watch how, as Airbus moved forward with the A3XX and the A380, after the point at which Boeing decided to let Airbus go it alone (don't forget - there were proposals to work together on this project in the early days), the Boeing forecast began to show a steady decline in demand for 500 seat and greater aircraft.

It's very interesting how Boeing have carefully manipulated their numbers to try and support their fragmentation argument over time. Very interesting indeed.

A few years ago, I swallowed their market forecasts - as has been hinted here, it was a Bible. They soon realised that and manipulated it.

I'm sure brand A do the same sorts of thing but they're figures in that market have been far more constant - and consistent with the earlier Boeing figures.

[ExSimGuy]

Its Engines? No, still a JetA guzzling 4 holer
And what's wrong with a 4-holer?

Even after listening to Rolls-Royce lectures on the statistical failure probabilities of modern jet engines, I still feel just a bit safer in a 4 than a 2.

Is it 'cos I'm getting old? I remember an incident in Nigel-Land when a captain was "repremanded" for carrying on to UK after losing a donkey on climb-out from Athens. What aircraft was it? An SVC-10! That thing could lose both Conways on the same side way before V1, and still climb out almost as fast as a Lightning! No trimming the nose "barely upward" on that one like you'd have to do with a 707 or 747. I think the captain concerned said that "he'd start looking for an alternate if he lost another one".

And from the ScareBus figures, it doesn't look as if it's going to be a "guzzler" either (unfortunately, the reason for the VC-10's demise :{ )

I'd rather have "Rule Britannia", but if even USA can't support 3 major aircraft manufacturers, the I guess us Brits will have to settle for "Rule Europa" :uhoh:

And anyway - how would you get enough thrust to lift the 380 off the ground with just 2 engines? RR and GE just don't make them that big:D

[Globaliser]

V1 Rotate: Sometimes I have waited for an hour and a half to get through US customs and immigration having arrived on a 777. I can see that the lines will last for 3-4 hours when an airport is confronted with 600+ pax in one go.

What will happen if 3 or 4 of these things arrive at the same airport at the same time?I can't believe the number of times I see this sort of thing being said.

The type of airport which the A380 is likely to serve is exemplified by LHR. Go out there at 5 am and see what's arrives in the first couple of hours. It's 747 after 747, and other widebodies whose capacity is of the same order of magnitude. Each of the terminals swallows 3, 4, 5 or more aircraft loads at once as it is.

[Pax Vobiscum]

Today's Economist (Airbus and Boeing (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3915112&fsrc=nwl)) has an interesting article on this topic. It points out that A380m orders have been 'stuck' at the 150-mark for some time.

Quote:

Unless Airbus can soon unveil some new orders for the A380, possibly at the Paris air show in June, scepticism will grow that the €12 billion ($15.7 billion) project will never earn a profit. Airbus needs to sell around 500 (out of its target sales of 700 over 20 years) to earn a real return on the investment.

Endquote

[Sunfish]

Thank you all for your comments. I would like to make a couple of points, that I will try and do a little less flippantly than my original post.

To those who say who cares? Two 747's arriving at the same time will create similar congestion, you are correct.

But Boeings dreamliner solution appears to have the capacity to AVOID flying to such airports by its city to city pairing idea.

I live in Melbourne, we will be ready for SQ's A380's before anyone else in Australia.

My real concern has been the ongoing economic effects of QF's hubbing strategy based around Sydney and its overall tight control of capacity that in my opinion is hurting every other city in Australia. The Boeing solution seems to address this.

[Gouabafla]

When I fly, I really want to be in a private Lear Jet and to arrive at small airports with no queues for customs etc. Unfortunately, I live in the real world and my company (I work for a charity) requires me to keep a very tight rein on my travel budget. No, I don't want to be in a huge metal tube with all those extra people and I don't want to stand in line for hours to get on and off said tube - but if it's cheap and the routing fits my needs, then I'll do it. The particular aircraft just doesn't figure into the equation when I buy my ticket and I suspect I'm not alone.

[MarkD]

Wino

Incorrect on the launch aid. A380 launch aid must be repaid 17 years from launch under WTO rules. So sez the Boeing funded study on the 380 that got everyone in such a flap recently.

You are possibly thinking of the money per frame Airbus paid on the 320s perhaps?

[Globaliser]

Sunfish: But Boeings dreamliner solution appears to have the capacity to AVOID flying to such airports by its city to city pairing idea.This theory is great for some areas, but as far as I can see not the areas and routes where the 380 is most likely to be used. One or both ends of the route is movement-constrained and/or the route between the ends is heavily congested and also movement-constrained. The former speak for themselves, and for the latter, take as an example the ever-more exotic routings that are being opened up between the Far East and Europe. It was not that long ago that if you missed your slot ex-Hong Kong for London, you could commonly expect a 45 or 90 minute delay waiting for the next available slot to fly over southern China.