A380 problems
Join Date: May 2003
Location: x
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew Syd - Singapore return this week aboard the Singapore Airlines A380, my first flight in it.
Overall impressions very good. Had to fly economy, the seating is larger and more comfortable than my recolelction of the 747 and other long haul aircraft. Suggest sitting upstairs on the outer isles where there are two seats only, not three, and due to curvature of the fuselage, there is a bin (and more space) under the window, same as upstairs on a 747.
Re hydraulic problems, the subject of this thread, I can confirm that we were delayed by one hour out of Singapore due hydraulic problems. The pilot said that hydraulic oil was discovered on the tarmac under the plane, so it had to be checked. Much activity by the maintenance personell was evident.
Flew return sector in the downstairs aft cabin and I strongly suggest avoiding this cabin due loud hydraulic motor actator noise from rear airframe, plus much more pax traffic heading for the toilets.
But I was very impressed with the A380. It is now my aircraft of choice and the Singapore product is good. Next week I am Qantas to LAX, in economy, so I will see how that goes with interest...
Overall impressions very good. Had to fly economy, the seating is larger and more comfortable than my recolelction of the 747 and other long haul aircraft. Suggest sitting upstairs on the outer isles where there are two seats only, not three, and due to curvature of the fuselage, there is a bin (and more space) under the window, same as upstairs on a 747.
Re hydraulic problems, the subject of this thread, I can confirm that we were delayed by one hour out of Singapore due hydraulic problems. The pilot said that hydraulic oil was discovered on the tarmac under the plane, so it had to be checked. Much activity by the maintenance personell was evident.
Flew return sector in the downstairs aft cabin and I strongly suggest avoiding this cabin due loud hydraulic motor actator noise from rear airframe, plus much more pax traffic heading for the toilets.
But I was very impressed with the A380. It is now my aircraft of choice and the Singapore product is good. Next week I am Qantas to LAX, in economy, so I will see how that goes with interest...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
budgie - refer Wiley's post - although dragun's burn calcs are not far off the mark.
Baseline is punters are CHOOSING 380 over 744's ....
argue the numbers but pax perception = revenue reality
Baseline is punters are CHOOSING 380 over 744's ....
argue the numbers but pax perception = revenue reality
Fuel Burn
Any truth to the rumour that the yet to fly 747 800 is expected to burn at cruise something in the order of 7 tonnes and hour as opposed to the A380 that burns 13 ?
boeing boeing.. gone
Seat mile costs is what the airlines are interested in. If Boeings figures are accurate then it is 13% more efficient than the B747-400 and 6% more efficient than the A380. According to their web sight it is designed to fill the 400-500 seat pax market.
Seat mile costs is what the airlines are interested in. If Boeings figures are accurate then it is 13% more efficient than the B747-400 and 6% more efficient than the A380. According to their web sight it is designed to fill the 400-500 seat pax market.
Seat-mile costs for the 747-8 Intercontinental are 13 percent lower than the 747-400, with 2% lower trip costs. The 747-8 Intercontinental is more than 10 percent lighter per seat than the A380 and consumes 11 percent less fuel per passenger. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 21 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 6 percent compared to the A380.
gassed budgie, me thinks that was a classic wind up post there by whoever put that up
Haven't been on the 380 long but one thing that does impress is the performance of the thing, most flights have certainly been up there in terms of approaching MTOW and every time as A380-800 driver has stated we can quite easily make the low thirties. As a side note, on the way to LHR the other night, had been flying for approx 11 hours and realised that we were now just reaching the MTOW of the 744.....pretty impressive. If only it drank a little less juice and every accountant would have a hard on
Haven't been on the 380 long but one thing that does impress is the performance of the thing, most flights have certainly been up there in terms of approaching MTOW and every time as A380-800 driver has stated we can quite easily make the low thirties. As a side note, on the way to LHR the other night, had been flying for approx 11 hours and realised that we were now just reaching the MTOW of the 744.....pretty impressive. If only it drank a little less juice and every accountant would have a hard on
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sombrero CA.
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New vs Old Technology
How old is the 744 technology.Current cockpits are what?...15 years old?
The Airbus A380 should and does have all the goodies.
When(if) the 787 gets off the ground then comparisons should be made.
Then we should have a reasonable idea of how good/bad/indifferent the dugong is.
The Airbus A380 should and does have all the goodies.
When(if) the 787 gets off the ground then comparisons should be made.
Then we should have a reasonable idea of how good/bad/indifferent the dugong is.
As a side note, on the way to LHR the other night, had been flying for approx 11 hours and realised that we were now just reaching the MTOW of the 744.....pretty impressive.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB, with respect, in QF ops the A380 (all 4 class config.) carries 48% more passengers (450) than a QF B744 in 4 class config. (307)
The 744 doesn't even come close. The A380 has 50% more floor space than a 744, so whichever config. is chosen the 380 will fit approx 50% more passengers when comparing apples with apples.
When and if the bean counters ever get around to matching the A380 seat plan to what the market really wants. ie. more econ and premium econ, the difference will be even greater.
As for 773's, no doubt they would be good, but do the numbers on LAX-MEL and the tripler comes out pretty poorly.
The 744 doesn't even come close. The A380 has 50% more floor space than a 744, so whichever config. is chosen the 380 will fit approx 50% more passengers when comparing apples with apples.
When and if the bean counters ever get around to matching the A380 seat plan to what the market really wants. ie. more econ and premium econ, the difference will be even greater.
As for 773's, no doubt they would be good, but do the numbers on LAX-MEL and the tripler comes out pretty poorly.
Last edited by Trent 972; 17th Oct 2009 at 06:27. Reason: Add links to QF seat plans
"More satisfaction for the crew!" Why?
Trent 972, I agree with you re the seating figures but there is still the problem of the serious weight penalty. I suspect that you'll soon see the B744 Pacific config aircraft altered to increase the Economy/premium economy seats at the expense of some business class seats.
Unfortunately, as with all Airbus products, changing the configuration of the Dugong is prohibitively expensive as bulkheads form part of the structural integrity of the aircraft. A source who is at the heart of the problem recently indicated that no change in config for the Dugong is economically feasible until after the 12th aircraft is delivered. The experts from "Commercial" got it wrong again (a la the A330 configuration) and it's too costly to correct.
Last edited by Going Boeing; 17th Oct 2009 at 06:40.
The Tripler is a "sexy" aeroplane to fly - the Dugong, unfortunately, isn't!
And even as a pilot, there has to be something "sexy" about hauling nearly 570 tonnes of the latest aerospace technology into the sky with 288 000 lbs of thrust behind you.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most of us, both beancounters and aircrew, would agree that the only real problem is how much of that 570 tonnes is dead weight. It is a very heavy beast before you start adding fuel or payload, and the engines have to cary the dead weight before they start carrying payload.
That said, as others have already noted, it brings a whole new level of comfort (or in current configurations, legroom, at least) to the paying passenger. It remains to be seen how long it will take the beancounters to crib that extra leg room with extra seats to make the ca'ching! factor look more agreeable. Remember, the 74 started out with lounges and bars. They were soon replaced with closely packed seats. I don't think too many people would want to imagine (for example) what a two class EK 380 configured for DXB-BOM is going to look like.
Or a Jet* 380 configured for MEL-SYD.
Wait a few years and you won't have to imagine it.
That said, as others have already noted, it brings a whole new level of comfort (or in current configurations, legroom, at least) to the paying passenger. It remains to be seen how long it will take the beancounters to crib that extra leg room with extra seats to make the ca'ching! factor look more agreeable. Remember, the 74 started out with lounges and bars. They were soon replaced with closely packed seats. I don't think too many people would want to imagine (for example) what a two class EK 380 configured for DXB-BOM is going to look like.
Or a Jet* 380 configured for MEL-SYD.
Wait a few years and you won't have to imagine it.
Wait a few years and you won't have to imagine it.
I think I ended up carrying something like 570 pax in it on one trip.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caution - Very simplistic mathematics following:
744ER @ MTOW 412 tonnes divided by 307 revenue seats available equals 1,342 kilograms aloft for each available pax seat.
A380 @ 569 tonnes divided by 450 available revenue seats equals 1,264 kilograms aloft for each available pax seat.
WOD, in his post 22, is right on the money. For a horse designed for a specific course the 380 wins hands down.
The 380 wing is designed to carry 650 tonnes, indicating the growth potential for the design. The 380 is the dawn of a new beginning, whilst the 744, as great as she has been, is a 'has been'.
Bring on the B748 to hopefully keep the progression alive.
744ER @ MTOW 412 tonnes divided by 307 revenue seats available equals 1,342 kilograms aloft for each available pax seat.
A380 @ 569 tonnes divided by 450 available revenue seats equals 1,264 kilograms aloft for each available pax seat.
WOD, in his post 22, is right on the money. For a horse designed for a specific course the 380 wins hands down.
The 380 wing is designed to carry 650 tonnes, indicating the growth potential for the design. The 380 is the dawn of a new beginning, whilst the 744, as great as she has been, is a 'has been'.
Bring on the B748 to hopefully keep the progression alive.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 380 is the dawn of a new beginning,
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 380 is an awesome bit of kit. I have said it before- the pax love it, the pilots love it.