AIRBUS A380 RULES!

[Trislander]

This morning Boeing officially announced the shelfing of its plans to create it's version of the superjumbo - the 747-X.
While some Boeing fans might be upset, it means that there is no competition for Airbus and the A380's may quite literally, rule the skies of the future as far as large capacity, long range, cost efficient airliners go! That means more money into Europe and a success for Airbus Industrie. I believe that the A380 is going to be a hit with the airlines because low cost air fares and large capacity for the airlines is the market desparately required for the future. What are your views everyone?
Tri

[er82]

Give me a plane that I can fly myself anyday. What's the enjoyment in letting a machine do it all for you?!

[Trislander]

I'm sure that the flying will be just like evry other widebody airbus, but I'm just talking abouth the concept of the idea. Europe revolutionised air travel by introducing the Concorde 30 years ago, now they will do it again with the launch of A380.
Tri

[Frederic]

Who knows? I am personnally more pro airbus, but having said that I think that a good product needs good competition to retain its quality. I think Boeing is just waiting it out to see if the A380 is going to be a succes. They might be planning to come up with something way more modern in the future. If they start develloping that now they might bring it on the market 5-8 years later than airbus, but then they'll also have a way more modern product... Just a hunch!

[747FOCAL]

The A380 will make a decent freighter, but will never make certification for PAX aircraft.

[xyz_pilot]

747FOCAL

Why?

[Roc]

Trislander,

Glad you are happy about this event, However, before you start popping champagne corks, you may want to ask why did Boeing not pursue this 747X? Airbus should be given credit for taking a risk, and it may pay off handsomely, or bankrupt them! the hard economics of the situation is that they have to sell close to 500 at list prices just to recoup the developement monies, that is assuming no cost overruns or other problems, so far they have sold 60..so they have a long way to go. I just can't see Boeing sitting on their hands and not developing something better!! If they don't then Airbus will dominate the market, and deservedly so. Be proud, but don't start the celebration yet, and by the way, the Concorde was a great aircraft, still is, but revolutionary?? your grasp of the industry is a little simplistic. Enjoy the party.

[O\ZON]

Dont get me wrong... im also pro Airbus

It will be good to see Airbus really dominate the very large aircraft market.

But what about the new Boeing aircraft... the "Sonic Cruiser" or whatever they call it... Now thats a revolutionary aircraft.

The A380 isn't revolutionary, its just bigger

O/Z

[knows]

From a commercial point of view Boeing have really lost the plot. I don't envy the shareholders.
The 767 and 757 derivatives (specifically 76 400 and 75 300) are proving hard to sell. The 737 is old hat. The 717 was another silly idea with little customer interest. Now they pull out of the large aircraft race completely!
Add to that, some crazy scheme to launch a 250 seat M0.95 thing. Just what the operators are looking for ! NOT.

[Flight Safety]

These are interesting times and interesting decisions on the part of Airbus and Boeing.

How it plays out depends on who is assessing the market correctly. Either the market will develop more towards long range point-to-point service as Boeing thinks, or it will develop more towards long range large capacity hub-to-hub service as Airbus thinks. BTW, I would watch regulatory developments closely for the next several years, to see if lawmakers try to force this issue one way of the other.

If Boeing is right then the "sonic cruiser" will be a commercial success in the burgeoning long range point-to-point market. If Airbus is right then the A380 will be a commercial success in the burgeoning hub-to-hub market.

Each company has now staked the lion's share of its R&D dollars (for most of this decade anyway) towards their respective views of the future airliner market.

I stress however the "commercial success" of these positions. The Concorde serves as an illustration of how this competition could develop. While the Concorde is clearly a technology success (and a very fine airplane) it's also clearly a commercial failure. While both BA and AF can turn an operational profit with the aircraft, the aircraft manufactures never recovered the R&D costs that were spent, because they didn't sell anywhere near enough airframes to recoup those costs. Boeing decided back then not to build an SST because they perceived that the market wasn't there, and they were right. Regarding the current order backlog for the A380, does anyone remember how many Concordes were on order, and how many airline customers there were who placed orders, when the Concorde was being developed?

To get an idea of which company might be right, just look at where R&D dollars have been spent during the last decade or two, and look at what aircraft models are actually being purchased by the airlines in large numbers, and what newer models have been selling well in the last decade or so. It seems clear to me where the market is going.

Boeing is restricted to turning a profit in the airframe manufacturing business, while Airbus has other options. Boeing cannot afford to always be the "technology" leader if that technology does not turn a profit. Again European Airbus has other options.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[Hung start]

Yes 747Focal, why??

Roc, I still think that Concorde was quite revolutionary and still is (fully aware that the russians were a little ahead).

[Waldo Pepper]

I like Sonic cruiser..me fink it is prity airplane and peeple like prity airplanes..

[genius-747]

a380 is not even built yet, nor a prototype flly build. but i look frward to it.
nice one tri.

[HPN]

Seems like Boeing is the one innovating more than Airbus on this occasion.

The proposed .95 Mach Boeing Yellowstone plane is far more revolutionary that a VLA (either A380 or 747X), those are more or less just bigger versions of todays tried and true designs, with a few tweaks.

[aeroguru]

How so good freighter and not(assumed) good pax machine?Where is the equipment to offload/onload upper deck?Pax can walk down steps a la b747.Don't know if airbridge/jetwalks will go that high.

[aeroguru]

A colleague who listened to a Boeing guy said that Boeing would allow Airbus to win a certain amount of orders for the 380 so as to commit them to production which would prove a financial liability to support.
I still think the B747X will be made but not yet.

[JJflyer]

Sad to hear about the B747X. This would have been a lot better freighter, you could say the ultimate freighter. And lots cheaper that the scarebus.
You could use existing loading equipment and have a maindeck soooooo long that you could fit prettymuch anything in it.

JJ

[Roc]

Hung Start,

I mean no disrepect to the Concorde, I'd love to fly one, but it really didn't revolutionize anything. However, maybe 50 years in the future when SST's rule the sky, it may well be regarded as revolutionary. With this new announcement of the Boeing Cruiser, and the A-380 we will all be treated to some interesting times in the near future, I saw a picture of the new Boeing concept, and its pretty cool.

[Flap 5]

There are a couple of points here:

1. What is being said here about the A380 was said about the 747 33 years ago.

2. It is a little strange to say that Concorde was not revolutionary. It came about around the same time as the 747 and nothing has beaten it yet. Do you think that going at M0.95 (about 50 knots faster than the 747) is going to make a lot of difference? Hardly a quantum leap after 35 years is it?



[This message has been edited by Flap 5 (edited 31 March 2001).]

[alosaurus]

Some inside info from European manufacturers market research depts.
-All the Airbus partners have produced their own forecasts each created indepenently of AI in Toulouse (can't rely on one source when you are taking such a risk)Even the worst forecast showed a marketplace which would support the 500 break even level.Boeings forecasts are not as optimistic but still support one aircraft type breaking even.
-Frederic the delay of 5 to 8 years would miss the peak requirement period of the most important market for this size a/c (Pacific).Even the delay so far has lost AI some of this market(it was intended to launch in 1999)."Way more modern"-AI are way ahead of Boeing on the civil technology front.The two main developments which would be mature enough to gain certifiction in 5 to 8 years have been fully evaluated by AI and its partners they are not cost effective (fly by light and lightweight composite wings)
ROC again.Of course Concorde was revolutionary ,look at the other aircraft being produced in 1969.
-Hung start "Russians ahead" their aircraft was built from pre production drawings supplied by the French (watertight as ever).A good advert for never trying to build before testing is complete.
_The A380 is not revolutionary in the way Concorde was (more akin to the 747).Boeings MD at the time said it was betting the company on the 747 and some will remember it came very close to losing its bet.AI is doing the same.
-Regulation killed the mass of American orders for Concorde.AI is designing the A380 to avoid these problems (hence it is so much smaller than their mid 90s proposals.
-Whoever said the new Boeing would be cheaper than AI think again.Book price for a 747 $175M,way over what it costs to build.Boeing subsidizes its smaller aircraft with this cash (worst recorded example 737 being offered for $21M to Swissair ten years ago).
This is why Airbus has to bet its company on the A380,it cannot afford Boeing to build another 1200 747 s with competition only at the very bottom of its range (the A340-600 provides long thin route overlap )
-Concorde was a commercial disaster for BAC and Aerospatial...the A380 will make Airbus the worlds No.1 Airframe manufacturer.
BTW I would still prefer to fly a Boeing from a pure pilot integration standpoint.

[Wiley]

Trilander, (your post dated 30 March): "Europe revolutionised air travel by introducing the Concorde 30 years ago..."???? "Revolutionised air travel"? Maybe for a very small number of celebrities, and they could only afford to use it after it was heavily subsidised by the British and French taxpayer. It runs (sorry, 'ran') at a profit only because the two governments 'forgave' all the enormous R&D costs when they sold them to BA and AF.

--------

O\ZON, (your post of 30 March):" The A380 isn't revolutionary, its just bigger" I concur entirely, (although I accept there will be many innovations 'under the skin', e.g. in weight saving, composite materials use and the production process). But why in the world didn't Airbus planners display the same courage and innovation over the A380 design that they did over the introduction of FBW? This megajet is a fudge, breaking no real new ground (I hope that's not a Freudian slip), and unless it's backed by millions and millions of Euros in subsidies, (coming from the seemingly bottomless pockets of long-suffering European taxpayers), it could well go the way of another aeroplane that was just a bigger version of what was already flying - Howard Hugh's 'Spruce Goose'.

------

'Flight Safety makes some very valid points in his post. (He argues far more politely the point I was making in disparaging 'Trilander's' rather sweeping claim regarding Concorde.)

If I had a million of two to invest, (if only!), I think I'd be backing the 'many-different-points-to-points' option that Boeing seems to be following rather than Airbus' megajet option. But I've been wrong before.

We can only hope there'll be room for both in the future commercial aviation market, but I believe Airbus is being a little one-eyed here. Where an airline from country 'x' (e.g. the many growing but not huge economies of Asia and the Pacific Rim for example) can still operate its Boeing (or Airbus) 250-350 seater on ALL its route network, including the major European or US hubs, an airline with an A380 as its flagship will be quite limited on the routes it is either operationally or economically possible to fly it on.

On the other hand, an A380 operator could always buy one of Boeing's new superfast jets for its thinner, 'point to point' routes.

I know what airline I'd rather have my shares invested in.

'Flight Safety' made another point that tallies very closely with my own opinion, and it's one worth noting in the rough and tumble of commercial decision making that : "Regarding the current order backlog for the A380, does anyone remember how many Concordes were on order, and how many airline customers there were who placed orders, when the Concorde was being developed?" Hmmmmm....

[CargoRat2]

A380 a decent freighter?? A decent parcel carrier perhaps. Freighter - no way. Airbus was TOLD to build a nose door by the freight airlines years ago. I think I can even dig up a diagram of an A3XX study with a nose-door. Finally they came back & said it was "too difficult".
With reference to the previous B747X cancelled thread: It seems now that we're looking at a 6-9 month delay while additional enhancements/refinements are made.

------------------
rgds Rat

[Pielander]

I'm a little confused as to exactly which niche in the market this Boeing Cruiser is aimed at. The long range point to point idea has thus far failed to catch on. The idea of flying at M0.95 on top of this also seems odd, since it might shave 10% off long range flight times at best, but at what cost? Are people really going to want to pay a ridiculous premium just to get to their destination a tiny little bit quicker? Flying point to point from regional airports should save more time than that in itself, without having to develop a revolutionary aircraft, so let's take it one step at a time shall we? Sure, it looks cool - very sleek and elegant, for a <white> elephant :)

The A380 on the other hand is making a similar conceptual leap as the 747 originally did, i.e. not really a very big leap at all, but rather a step in the right direction given the direction the industry is presently headed. This is a well thought out project, and that's why there were 60 orders before a single sheet of aluminium was cut. The commercial failure of Concorde was a different matter entirely, owing entirely to the noise-abatement fraternity drawing the line at having to replace their greenhouse windows every time the thing flew overhead.

[Trislander]

To be honest it is a matter of individual points of view on whether you think a certain new breed of aircraft is revolutionary or not. As someone said, the concorde only revolutionised air travel for a select wealthy few, but it is still a revolution for international flight altogether don't you think? Boeings "Sonic (the hedgehog) Cruiser" will only knock about 2-3 hours at most off a long range 747 type flight. WOW! well do you think that that is going to revolutionise air travel for the future? Maybe slightly cheaper than travelling on the Concorde but not much off an LHR-JFK flight is it? maybe one hour. Concorde can do that trip in 3 hours! As for the A380, that will bring down the prices of seats for ultra long range flights dramatically, it will mean that less wealthy people can travel further per £/$ than before, and in a much higher level of comfort (ie with bars, restaurants, gyms, cinemas and the like. Now that will be a revolution. And so was Concorde. The proposed 747X didn't get enough interset from the airlines compared to the A380. What is revolutionising about a normal 747 with 50-100 extra seats? Nothing!

Airbus
------
Boeing

Tri

[justapplhere]

Absolutely no doubt here chaps. As commercial aviation manufacturing will demonstrate - it's bye bye Boeing and Hello
the BIG European.

So sorry all yank friends but its a done deal !! (unlike the hastily cobbled design in response) !!

[Flap 5]

Sub orbital flights taking one hour between London and Sydney - that would be revolutionary for the 21st century! But M0.95 sounds like more of the same to me. Much like Boeing have always been since their revolutionary 747.

[Flight Safety]

Pielander said:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The long range point to point idea has thus far failed to catch on.</font>

I don't see this as being accurate at all. Think about the airliner development that's taken place in the last 20 years.

There has been 2 main classes of airliners developed (or significantly enhanced) in this time frame. The 737/757/A320/MD80 series (and perhaps others) which are short haul, small to medium capacity, high cycle airliners, which are the single aisle airliners. The other main class has been the widebody twin aisle airliners, the A300/A310/A330/A340/767/777 airliners. BTW, jumbos and regional jets I consider to be separate classes from these 2 classes.

The widebodies are where most of the R&D effort has been focused for the last decade, and most of these models have been developed for lange range, medium to large capacity, point-to-point transcontinental-transoceanic routes. In this series the model enhancements of the last decade have added more capacity and greater range. In fact some of these models now possess the longest ranges of all airliners, and this has happened precisely because these enhancements were driven by the market demand for long range point-to-point service.

It seems logical to me that the next airliner models appropriate for this market segment should include faster (near transonic) speeds, great range, and capacities similar to the existing widebody fleet. I think however that any new airliners will still need to be fuel efficient, as I think this will remain important for this market segment. After the latest 777 and A340 models enter into service, what would be the next logical step in developing this class of airliners? Something like the "sonic cruiser" would seem logical to me.

Least you think otherwise, the widebody long range, point-to-point airliner is also a highly profitable airliner for both Boeing and Airbus.

------------------
Safe flying to you...


[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 02 April 2001).]

[Roadtrip]

T-Lander -
Bars, Restaurants, Gyms, (maybe a swimming pool too?)!!?? Please. We all know what the 380 will turn into -- another cattle-car transporting the haj or herds of tourists on discounted holiday tickets. If you look back at Boeing's hype on the 747 you'll see the same nonsense with bars, staterooms, etc.

Selling cheap seats doesn't usually make an airline much money. AAL is making more money now that they have removed seats from their aircraft. More traffic from walk-up business travellers. There's nothing particularly innovative about the 380 concept -- just a bigger plane (that will be limited in it's destinations and usage). If Boeing thought there was a profit in making one, you can bet they'd have the plans on the board now. They may have acquiesed whatever market there is for the superjumbo to Airbus in favor of something else. This Airbus/Boeing rivalry is really a good thing. Neither company could afford to fund R/D for both a superjumbo and a next-gen transport concept. I'm not sure that Boeings sub-mach cruiser is necessarily it, but it'll be something. The world needs both Airbus and Boeing. You know what happens when one company has a monopoloy, don't you?

Which is the best aircraft?? It's the one that pays the best 12yr Captains pay!!!

[Pielander]

Flight Safety

I admit that I may be a little out of touch with the real statistics, and I believe that there is good economic sense behind point to point operations, but it was the following quote that led me to my conclusions:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
November 1998:

British Airways announces that it will not resume regional transatlantic services to New York from Glasgow and Birmingham for Summer 1999. Neither of the services operate in the winter season due to poor demand and financial performance.

From the British Airways Factbook 1999-2000
</font>

Of course, this in itself is not likely to cause Boeing strategists to lose any sleep, but I think it is an interesting (and surprising) bit of information.

I think a far more relevant argument against the Sonic Cruiser would be to compare it, strategy wise, to the VC10, then to consider the commercial success of the VC10 (or lack thereof).

[Wino]

I think the reason that they are going for the very high cruise numbers is so that they can cruise it HIGH without losing time.

Get above 37000 and you start to take some steep groundspeed penalties. To make it up they got to get to a higher mach number. If they can get the higher mach number at the high altitude, they will get multiple benefits, not the least of which is the ability to go DIRECT. They would forexample get above the organzied track systems etc...

I think the emphasis on this aircraft is actually getting high, not fast. Fast is a byproduct to make the aircraft fit within accpetable scheduling guidelines. If they stayed at .80 and stepped up into the mid 40s the aircraft would be crawling over the ground...

Getting high lets em climb over the jetstream as well, furthering their advantage in the winter going west...


Cheers
Bohica

[Pielander]

Wino

Why groundspeed penalties at high altitude? Speed of sound is supposed to remain relatively constant above FL360, so TAS @ M0.81 @ FL360 should be very similar to TAS @ M0.81 @ FL450.

[Wino]

I know from personal experience that 35 to 39 is about a 40 kts hit for TAS... As I don't fly anything that goes higher (Im stuck in a bus) I can't tell you above 39, but 35 to 39 makes for a poor groundspeed...


Cheers
Wino

[Pielander]

Lies, damned lies and ISA charts! :) :) :)

[basil fawlty]

Personally i would prefer not to be around when the first "accident/incident" occurs involving this 550 seat monster. I know this is a pessimistic outlook but these things do happen, human error and all that.....
Also i don't see whats revolutionary about transporting an even greater number of the "riff raff" to Orlando, Tenerife or wherever. The old saying that travel broadens the mind is wrong- From what i observe it doesn't!!