A380- MELBOURNE MONDAY 14th
Evertonian
380 cannot do the the required Melb to LAX
Fair old size, that thing: coming over the piano keys I thought that we'd have no problems keeping up with it, but size is deceptive, and we were pushed to catch up
Never seen so many spectators, every approach road was full of parked cars: easily 3000 around the airport 
Never seen so many spectators, every approach road was full of parked cars: easily 3000 around the airport
)
Grass looks nice and the concrete too.
Shame about the fat ugly duckling in the picture.
If it ain't Boeing..............
ya gotta laugh hey, it can't do what it was designed for????????????? WHAT A SURPRISE.
Big white fat elephant.
And the cockpit looks crap too.
Shame about the fat ugly duckling in the picture.
If it ain't Boeing..............
ya gotta laugh hey, it can't do what it was designed for????????????? WHAT A SURPRISE.
Big white fat elephant.
And the cockpit looks crap too.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone on the ground at SYD or BNE: how has the 380 seemed so far in manoeuvering around taxiways and onto stands etc?
edited:
got curious about the range point - these are the published ranges:
airbus.com A380-800 range with max pax 15,000km
boeing.com B744ER maximum range 14,205km ("typical city pairs Melbourne-Los Angeles")
edited:
got curious about the range point - these are the published ranges:
airbus.com A380-800 range with max pax 15,000km
boeing.com B744ER maximum range 14,205km ("typical city pairs Melbourne-Los Angeles")
Last edited by MarkD; 14th Nov 2005 at 02:12.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark D
From my info on 380 range. Yes it has longer range but this suffers heavily depending on pay load.(dont know full details) This is why the QF config was changed from 540 seats to 474 (same as SQ)
If not for the seating config change the 380 would not be able to complete MEL - LAX fully loaded.
The 747-400ER can be filled to the gunnels and does it every day.
Your manouvering question..When the 380 is in LAX there are many adjacent taxiways which need to be closed to all other aircraft due to wing tip clearances....but there are plans to fix
SUNFISH..
I understand the cost per seat mile but my point is..
If you are only going to purchase 6-8 of these 380 aircraft (not 20)at almost double the price of the nearest competitor plus retool, retrain, reconfigure terminals, etc etc the cost of seat per mile is going to have to be substantially lower to recoup the out lay for this aircraft.
747 operating cost is a given..not a promise
and perhaps you have not seen the drama that surrounds a reschedule of an aircraft and equipment change. eg a 747 with a 380 or vice versa. Send one set of tech crew home then call others in, more or less flight attendants required. Different catering, new trucks required for upperdeck loading etc.
All this costs money and is ongoing, Cuts into your cost per seat mile.
Only time will tell and shiney new aircraft keep the spotters happy.
From my info on 380 range. Yes it has longer range but this suffers heavily depending on pay load.(dont know full details) This is why the QF config was changed from 540 seats to 474 (same as SQ)
If not for the seating config change the 380 would not be able to complete MEL - LAX fully loaded.
The 747-400ER can be filled to the gunnels and does it every day.
Your manouvering question..When the 380 is in LAX there are many adjacent taxiways which need to be closed to all other aircraft due to wing tip clearances....but there are plans to fix
SUNFISH..
I understand the cost per seat mile but my point is..
If you are only going to purchase 6-8 of these 380 aircraft (not 20)at almost double the price of the nearest competitor plus retool, retrain, reconfigure terminals, etc etc the cost of seat per mile is going to have to be substantially lower to recoup the out lay for this aircraft.
747 operating cost is a given..not a promise
and perhaps you have not seen the drama that surrounds a reschedule of an aircraft and equipment change. eg a 747 with a 380 or vice versa. Send one set of tech crew home then call others in, more or less flight attendants required. Different catering, new trucks required for upperdeck loading etc.
All this costs money and is ongoing, Cuts into your cost per seat mile.
Only time will tell and shiney new aircraft keep the spotters happy.
Bolty, I'm sure that somewhere, in one of the airlines purchasing this beast, there is a sane accountant who has done the necessary cashflow and internal rate of return calculations that show a better return then the Boeing 747.
Remember that the A380 is only going to get cheaper, in terms of seat mile costs, as the fuselage is stretched, the weights increased, more power from the engines etc. It's at the start of its development cycle. I suspect that the 747 is very near the end of its cycle.
Every now and then someone in the industry makes a quantum leap in performance. I'm not sure that the A380 is a qantum leap. I'm hoping the dreamliner is becasue I don't like the idea of arriving anywhere with 474 of my closest companions.
Remember that the A380 is only going to get cheaper, in terms of seat mile costs, as the fuselage is stretched, the weights increased, more power from the engines etc. It's at the start of its development cycle. I suspect that the 747 is very near the end of its cycle.
Every now and then someone in the industry makes a quantum leap in performance. I'm not sure that the A380 is a qantum leap. I'm hoping the dreamliner is becasue I don't like the idea of arriving anywhere with 474 of my closest companions.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bolty said
Come on mate, have a think about what you are writing before you start tapping away on your keyboard. If the aircraft can't do MEL-LAX how on earth is it going to manage the far more restrictive sector of LAX-MEL. Take off 300 pax to fit on the 25 tonnes plus of extra fuel needed.
Also the list price for the A380 is currently US$292m (AUS$400m) compared to the 400ER list price is US$236.5 (AUS$324m). Hardly double the cost.
380 cannot do the the required Melb to LAX
Also the list price for the A380 is currently US$292m (AUS$400m) compared to the 400ER list price is US$236.5 (AUS$324m). Hardly double the cost.
Last edited by The Librarian; 14th Nov 2005 at 09:37.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, anyone know what sort of approach they got onto rwy 34 at MEL today? Did ATC hit them with the NAREL STAR, rwy 34 with the visual transition? Or did the ATC'ers have a little pity and instead set them up at about a 10nm final? It'd be kind of interesting/entertaining to see something that massive going over EN at 2500' and then pitching down to pick up the 34 profile!
Or did the ATC'ers have a little pity and instead set them up at about a 10nm final? It'd be kind of interesting/entertaining to see something that massive going over EN at 2500' and then pitching down to pick up the 34 profile!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ron & Edna,
Yes, it was the NAREL STAR for 34 with (what I think) were radar vectors for a 12nm final (could have been the 34 VOR - can't remember this late at night!).
We were all praying for the right base over EN - but not to be...
Was surprised to say the least - thought it would have been longer. Kinda reminded me of a fat kid who'd ate too many pies. Certainly had some great wing flex on touchdown.
One things for sure - the French love their flaps...
Yes, it was the NAREL STAR for 34 with (what I think) were radar vectors for a 12nm final (could have been the 34 VOR - can't remember this late at night!).
We were all praying for the right base over EN - but not to be...
Was surprised to say the least - thought it would have been longer. Kinda reminded me of a fat kid who'd ate too many pies. Certainly had some great wing flex on touchdown.
One things for sure - the French love their flaps...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seat cost in simple terms is operating cost divided number of seats. Operating costs are fairly static. Therefore if the original number crunching was based on 540 seats, but now it can only do MEL/LAX with 470 seats, then the seat cost will have increased by about 540/470 (= 15%) from the original projections. Only the bean counters will know if this is still cheaper than the B744. If QF management were smart they would have put performance penalty clauses in the contract so that if the Dugong (sorry A380) fails to meet the Airbus marketing hype, they will get suitably recompensed.
Last edited by Mr McGoo; 15th Nov 2005 at 06:17.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We really don't know EXACTLY why QF is dropping it to 470 seats. A lot of the stuff bandied around here may well be just speculation and rumour. At the end of the day, if the reason is a performance one then, yes, there may well be penalties payable by Airbus. OTOH, if QF is doing it purely to match a competitor's product (i.e. not wanting to appear cramped and tight vs the SQ product) then Airbus ain't gonna be liable for that.
In the end it's all about balancing an airline's product (P/J/Y and what you get in each), perceived value (what people are prepared to pay for that product), costs and overall yield. And obviously we want to maximize that yield. If you increase the number of J-class sets, for example, yes, less seats overall but you are charging more per J-class seat and hence may actually be increasing yield overall. Perhaps that's going to occur at the 470-seat level?
We really don't know - this sort of info is tightly guarded within the inner sanctums. God forbid should a mere pilot learn the truth....
In the end it's all about balancing an airline's product (P/J/Y and what you get in each), perceived value (what people are prepared to pay for that product), costs and overall yield. And obviously we want to maximize that yield. If you increase the number of J-class sets, for example, yes, less seats overall but you are charging more per J-class seat and hence may actually be increasing yield overall. Perhaps that's going to occur at the 470-seat level?
We really don't know - this sort of info is tightly guarded within the inner sanctums. God forbid should a mere pilot learn the truth....
Last edited by Ron & Edna Johns; 15th Nov 2005 at 06:53.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It twas the plenty arrival (instrument procedures, VOR approach) as requested by the crew.
And from another thread the aircraft was not prevented from doing a fly by of the city, they were simply advised that aircraft were being delayed after their arrival and the crew of the airbus decided not to delay anybody else further.
So MJ, ring 3AW back up and tell them that ATC DIDNOT prevent a city circuit due noise.
Or send an apology to me personally at: [email protected]
And from another thread the aircraft was not prevented from doing a fly by of the city, they were simply advised that aircraft were being delayed after their arrival and the crew of the airbus decided not to delay anybody else further.
So MJ, ring 3AW back up and tell them that ATC DIDNOT prevent a city circuit due noise.
Or send an apology to me personally at: [email protected]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calligula
You are trying my patience!!!
Don't push your luck too far!!!
Woomera
P.S. ACMS's waste of band width was the final straw. Enjoy your week of rest and relaxation!!!
You are trying my patience!!!
Don't push your luck too far!!!
Woomera
P.S. ACMS's waste of band width was the final straw. Enjoy your week of rest and relaxation!!!