What's going on with the A380?

[xfeed]

My guess is that Airbus Industires has bitten off more than they can chew trying to outdo Boeing. Can anyone shed any light on if this project is actually going to go forth?

I wouldn't put any money on this but I don't think it will come to fruition, at least not in the guise they are trying to sell it as (i.e. no double deck for safety reasons). I see the company going bankrupt (not to mention sued by the airlines who have already placed orders). I think Boeing will rescue the company, however, and they will joint venture. Is this a crazy thought?

Without a doubt the Boeing planes are far better than anything Airbus has manufactured. This is just my opinion, though. I'm sure others will disagree.

[BBriscoe]

To be honest, I completely disagree.

2 years ago I was very sceptical towards Airbus and philosophy behind their aircraft. However, since flying them, I have completely changed my opinion of them. They are very different to Boeing and other aircraft, and it is this 'difference' that makes people feel uneasy about the Airbus aircraft. People are afraid of change, and Airbus has changed a lot of the way in which aircraft are handled.

I transfered off the B744 fleet to the Airbus short haul fleet (long story!) and before my conversion training I was very uneasy about the Airbus aircraft, especially after flying the queen of the skies! However, I have fallen in love with the A320 and A319.

Now, I have no preference to either Boeing or Airbus.

In answer to your first question, there is no way Airbus will go bankrupt, especially with the way their orders are going at the moment. The A380 project is definitely going ahead, in fact Airbus are in the process of just finishing their final assembly building for the A380, if I'm not mistaken?

Airbus aircraft are just as good quality as the aircraft being produced by Boeing at the moment. This is shown in their delivery figures for last month, which are almost identical.

If it's not Airbus OR Boeing...I ain't going!

[regor]

Can anyone shed any light on if this project is actually going to go forth?
Production of the A380 officially began in January 2002, when the first metal cutting began in the Airbus plant near Nantes.

RR, PW and GE all have an engine in production in line with customer orders.

This aircraft is going to happen!

US certification is due around July 2005, with the first aircraft due to enter service in 2006.

With the skies reaching ever higher congestion, the Airbus thinking of less planes with more PAX seems to be a sensible step forward.

Most people seem to be polarised as either in the 'Boeing' or 'Airbus' camp, but you cannot argue with the facts.

There are 97 confirmed orders for the A380, and with no credible Boeing equivalent even on the drawing board, Airbus will continue to take ground in the long haul market.

[JJflyer]

Sure it will fly, but so did Spurce Goose and the Brabazon... With SARS gaining momentum in the market area where the Big Bus was seen to get a big share of orders. Add the economical problems... I would not be surprised to see airlines deferring or cancelling orders.

JJ

[PAXboy]

It might be delayed but it will fly. The world has limited runway slots and an increasing demand. This machine is one solution to that.

The 747 was built because Boeing accepted the order from PanAm, both of them bet the farm and both won (to varying degrees!)

The A380 will take time for people to get used to it, there will be many suspicions from uninformed people. For myself, I am not that bothered as I consider the chances of getting out of any machine in an emergency to be a matter of pure luck. Where you are sitting and where the problem is. Where the machine lands up and so forth. In the 380, these points will have more variables but not so as to stop me flying in it.

[HZ123]

It will fly and from a commercial point there is some concern from those that have not placed orders.

Excepting they will not fly with 600 - 700 people at first but with 500 plus it will enable the likes of Emirates to vastly increase the Business / First areas and be able to completely undercut the other non A380 operators making vast inroads to there presently reducing yields. It therefore follows that the same equation will be applied across the pond. The beancounters are already depressed in cetain corporate HQ's.

Postscript several of the ramp vehicle manufacturers already have new vehicles specifications on the drawing board and a numbser of the aircraft / avaition support companies are in talks.

[G.Khan]

For the A380 to be a commercial success it will have to sell in the USA as well. At the moment there are no long haul American airlines prepared, (or able), to buy it. 97 firm orders is still a very long way from the break even figure that Airbus requires.

Interesting to note that some of the carriers with a big fleet of B744 are reducing the size of that fleet in favour of the B777, which is seen as the way to go. This will further limit the number of A380 required and they are only going to be commercially viable on certain routes, they are not really a 'replacement' aircraft, they are more of a totally new marketing concept and that concept is not supported by the travelling public around the world at the moment.

For the aircraft to be a true success the terminal facilities will also have to be up to A380 standard. Right now, at JFK, SFO and LAX, for example, a B744 disembarks through ONE forward finger. The investment required for supporting infrastructure is considerable and only a few airports have taken any positive steps towards achieving this upgrade.

If there is still time Airbus might like to consider cargo on the lower deck and pax on the upper!

[Rabbit]

Two things:

First: G.Khan says that to be successful it has to sell in the US??? Why I cannot understand. The 747 is considered successful and how many are operated by US operators ... not many. In the US they are upgrading from 767 to 777 in the main.

Second: The A380 has become the second most successful airliner in terms of sales numbers before manufacture after the A320. So I have no doubt things will proceed on track.

Have a nice day

[PAXboy]

With regards to airports upgrading their infrastructure ... until a significant airline of theirs places an order - they won't move.

The continued practice of many fields to continue loading/unloading 74x via a single door never ceases to amaze me. I can only presume that it is about saving staff handling, especially when the second air-bridge already exists!

Loading 400 folks one-at-a-time is numbingly stupid when everyone wants to make an on time departure. I note that carriers have pretty much given up trying to 'board by row number' as pax either don't read their ticket or don't care and staff, understandably, don't like to turn them back to wait their turn. We get pre-boarding for infant and elderly but nothing more. :hmm:

[G.Khan]

Rabbit - Your missing something, it is not a case of how many B747 are operated in the USA, more a case of how many were operated, the answer is a whole damn lot, starting with the -100 series through to the -400 series. Well over a thousand have been built now and yes, probably more -300 and -400 sold outside the USA than in but that still leaves hundreds that started their life on the US register.

Regarding your second point, the A380 is in a category of its own, if that category succeeds then the A380 could be a success but the A380 category is going to be quite small, I think you will find. The A320 was in an established and very large category.

[brabazon]

JJFlyer

Thanks for including the Bristol Brabazon (my doppelganger) in your post.

As big as a modern 747, the Brabazon was designed to carry only 100 passengers in Imperial Airways style luxury non-stop across the Atlantic, unfortunately by the time it flew in 1949 - there were many Constellations etc able to do it cheaper with stops also the Comet was about to enter service, even if that ended in the fatal crashes of 1953.

I'm sure the A380 will be a success, but it's certainly not an easy time for airlines or manufacturers at the moment.

[steamchicken]

I stand by my previous comments about the economics of the A-380. To recap, it is my view that the short-supply resources in modern aviation are those which make up costs per flight as opposed to per pax (per ton for freight dogs). These are (to simplify) ATC services, landing slots, ground handling and the like. Some other factors, like noise restriction and environmental considerations, are constraints but are not usually defined in money, although they are effectively extra costs. (Most major airports distribute slots administratively and through bilateral agreements. The problem of demand rising faster than supply can be adjusted in one of two ways - either by using the current system to ration slots, or by marketising and allowing the price to rise. The difference is only that the cost is implicit in an administrative system - airlines have to forgo profits if no slots are available - but explicit in a market system i.e. the company can obtain the slot, but has to pay upfront. Either way the effect is the same.) Political and environmental considerations mean that the possible number of aircraft movements (the supply of per-flight resources) will be limited for the foreseeable future. Growth in demand for air transport, though, will tend to create growth in demand for movements - obviously.

The squeeze can be dealt with in one of two ways - either let the price of air transport rise until the excess demand is priced out, or put more payload into the limited number of movements - i.e. bigger aircraft. Given that the biggest chunk of the cost of one flight is made up of fixed costs - ones which do not vary with load - it is always going to be efficient to up the load. (as revenue is determined by load x average fare) This is why load factor is important! Increasing the capacity costs - obviously - but I suspect that the cost per-seat rises more slowly than the possible revenue (the principle explains why oil tankers are so gigantic), making for a large economy of scale.

[qwertyuiop]

Regor.

Do you really believe the 380 will enter service in 2006? I doubt it will.

[ETOPS773]

In simple terms,Airbus have a great new toy and are hungry to sell it.
I`m not sure to date,but aren`t the biggest 747 operators in Japan? ANA (who are turning to airbus now) / JAL Cram the ******s into the 747s..been on one (ANA 744D)and if they can sell the A380D (if one is pencilled) to a Japanese operator,that will be a great start.

I think people are very scared of the change...will feel kinda weird I suppose,being so BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG.

[superspotter]

X FEED;
I would love to hear how you come to your conclusions regarding how Boeing is better than Airbus!
The fact of the matter is Airbus have been innovative, far-sighted and willing to forge ahead with the latest technology right from day one with the A300. Boeing, on the other hand just make do and mend................
Maybe you should take a trip to Toulouse and have a look at the HUGE hangars being readied for A380 production.

[411A]

Ah...well what about the very large Boeing order ANA just placed?
Maybe ANA were only joking....(think not).

[Rabbit]

G.Khan: Sorry mate, don't want to start an argument but the two item I mentioned are fact.
The 747 in percentage terms sold only small numbers to US operators. The large numbers and greater majority were sold to non US operators. Admittedly though, US operator orders were the ones that saved Boeing and got the 747 off the drawing board to become one of one worlds great aircraft.
Regarding A380 orders. If you want to talk about categories then I am referring to all jets since the 707. The A380 already has the second highest number of orders in history for a commercial airliner before first flight. The highest was the A320. So one could use that as one of the guideline towards describing it as "successful"

Have a nice day

[regor]

qwertuiop

I believe it is more than feasible for the A380 to enter service in 2006.

Although the aircraft is, technically, a new design, Airbus are continuing the practice of family commonality. This means a large majority of systems and components have already been proven on the existing range. So it's not such the feat of engineering as the 747 was.

With modern modelling techniques and complex fluid dynamics computer models, the majority of the flight handling characteristics can be predicted before the real thing ever gets into the air!

All of which shorten the time needed to get a design off 'the drawing board' and into revenue earning service.

R.

[Notso Fantastic]

Ever felt 'had'? XFEED has started the boring old Boeing v Airbus argument with a sideways question! Either that or he knows jack-all about civil aviation! Making some absolutely bone-shattering ignorant observations about the aviation industry today. Don't grace this with discussion!

[qwertyuiop]

Regor.

I know modern techniques allow a few "short cuts" but I can not believe an aircraft that is only on paper will be in service in 3 years. It will be an amazing achievment if it is! Do you want a bet?

[Notso Fantastic]

Are you sure you know what you are talking about? They are already cutting metal for the A380. Looking at the Boeing 747 history:
<<On February 9, 1969, the second 747 prototype did fly. Boeing test pilot Jack Waddell lifted the 630,000 pound behemoth off the Paine Field (Everett, WA) runway with ease. With the ability to carry more than 400 passengers more than 5,500 miles, the 747 opened up economic long-distance travel to the masses. Its size also caused problems for airports that had to make significant modifications to handle the 747.

First Commercial Flight
Pan Am, who made the first purchase in 1966, had the honor of taking delivery and flying the first commercial 747, dubbed Clipper Young America. Sadly, this plane was fated to be in the worst aviation accident of all time. But it was all smiles on January 21, 1970 when the 747 took off from New York's John F. Kennedy Airport and landed later that day in London.>>

Less than a year from first flight to service. Why should it be any different for the A380- probably far less of a technical jump today than the 747 was over the 707 age. I don't gamble- I'll let you keep your money!

[GlueBall]

And not to forget that the A380 will introduce the novelty of recycled potable water.

[Notso Fantastic]

The portable sewerage treatment plant is damn clever. Draining off surplus fluid, bake dry and burn in the central heating pack, along with the old newspapers.

[PAXboy]

Not to mention the Recycle Objectionable Pax button in the galley. This moves the awkward pax to the hold area.

Here, they are rendered down to their base materials (unless they are already base people, which is likely) and extra energy is extracted from them for use by the recycling plant.

If they turn out to be devoid of any purpose, they are jettisoned through the air lock, to lighten the load and save fuel.