Scrapping of A380
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is nonsense, and gobbledeegook.
The climate has always been changing.
The global scam of the same name, "AOC I am only joking right?", is a cobbled together mishmash of BS.
It is forgetting conveniently that the MWP (medieval warm period) was 2C warmer than today, the 1st century even warmer than that (Romans growing wine grapes on the Scottish border), and that nobody appears to have discovered the Vikings freighting stuff with 747s to Greenland which was ice free & green in the MWP.
I really give a flying F, what drumbeats are supposed to be beating, the pressure to be fuel efficient has always come from the price of fuel.
That depends on politicos, and who goes to war against who, always has, always will be.
Proof of concept is amply visible looking at the parks of obsolete Tupolevs stuffed into every single corner of Russian A/Ps while the people ferries use Airbus or Boeing over there... and that despite the cheapo Russian gas used to fuel it all up.
It destroyed Transaero, mismanagement did the rest.
Same rules of gravity will apply to Airbus if they carry on killing off stuff that made loads of money for BA (Concorde), set them up with a fleet of A320 instead (also Gov't financed) then set out toshow the world how to do it , relax on French govt cash, then take business decisions which are catastrophic for said tax payer. (not that Macron gives a damn really!).
It could be the beginning of the end for Airbus consortium much like other French fiascos such as Air Frantic or Super Phoenix.
The climate has always been changing.
The global scam of the same name, "AOC I am only joking right?", is a cobbled together mishmash of BS.
It is forgetting conveniently that the MWP (medieval warm period) was 2C warmer than today, the 1st century even warmer than that (Romans growing wine grapes on the Scottish border), and that nobody appears to have discovered the Vikings freighting stuff with 747s to Greenland which was ice free & green in the MWP.
I really give a flying F, what drumbeats are supposed to be beating, the pressure to be fuel efficient has always come from the price of fuel.
That depends on politicos, and who goes to war against who, always has, always will be.
Proof of concept is amply visible looking at the parks of obsolete Tupolevs stuffed into every single corner of Russian A/Ps while the people ferries use Airbus or Boeing over there... and that despite the cheapo Russian gas used to fuel it all up.
It destroyed Transaero, mismanagement did the rest.
Same rules of gravity will apply to Airbus if they carry on killing off stuff that made loads of money for BA (Concorde), set them up with a fleet of A320 instead (also Gov't financed) then set out to
It could be the beginning of the end for Airbus consortium much like other French fiascos such as Air Frantic or Super Phoenix.
The point remains that continuing to burn hydrocarbon based fuel, may, at some point actually result in penalties for those emitters beyond a certain threshold.
A market based measure is the objective, which incentives companies and indeed individuals to change their behaviour will be the hoped for outcome.
Presently, basing the decision on simply the price of the said commodity (jet fuel) in this case is perhaps not wise. That is the drum beat. 'Climate change' is what they call it, true or not, tax it they probably will.
For regulatory change in the EU and indeed outside, may see global emissions thresholds established for airlines that push costs at airlines and even maybe their customers.
Whether climate change is man made, natural or some combination of both is not the point. With global narratives focused on emissions, the price of fuel may not be the only consideration into the future.
The industry has got it wrong before.
It's certainly not the beginning of the end of Airbus.
Quite the difference: It shows that not prestige but business perspectives decide about their strategy.
Quite the difference: It shows that not prestige but business perspectives decide about their strategy.
Mmm. If you would please point us to the centre tank on the below picture, your idea will be much clearer.
The proposed, and since deceased, A380F would have had a different floor, for a very good reason. The same reason, actually, you'd want if you're carrying umpteen tons of a fairly dense liquid. So whilst the idea of having a Whale blasting around 200ft above a southern Californian wildfire sounds cool, the actual implementation of the idea may be a bit of challenge, barring the discovery of vibranium that is.
The proposed, and since deceased, A380F would have had a different floor, for a very good reason. The same reason, actually, you'd want if you're carrying umpteen tons of a fairly dense liquid. So whilst the idea of having a Whale blasting around 200ft above a southern Californian wildfire sounds cool, the actual implementation of the idea may be a bit of challenge, barring the discovery of vibranium that is.
Mmm. If you would please point us to the centre tank on the below picture, your idea will be much clearer.
The proposed, and since deceased, A380F would have had a different floor, for a very good reason. The same reason, actually, you'd want if you're carrying umpteen tons of a fairly dense liquid. So whilst the idea of having a Whale blasting around 200ft above a southern Californian wildfire sounds cool, the actual implementation of the idea may be a bit of challenge, barring the discovery of vibranium that is.
The proposed, and since deceased, A380F would have had a different floor, for a very good reason. The same reason, actually, you'd want if you're carrying umpteen tons of a fairly dense liquid. So whilst the idea of having a Whale blasting around 200ft above a southern Californian wildfire sounds cool, the actual implementation of the idea may be a bit of challenge, barring the discovery of vibranium that is.
In fact the OP's 3-4 hr Fuel load comment would fit pretty well with the "outer tanks" only and the trim tank part of that total fuel system.
I think all agree the challenge would be too great on a cost effective basis - a moral one has different principals to follow.
But I agree. Airbus will move on from the A380.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safe to say that both programs lost money, but the A380 was a financial disaster for Airbus of a different scale. They spent $25 billion on the program (six times what Boeing spent on the 747-8) -- and lost most of it.
in the long run, Boeing is going to pay $4 Billion just to update MCAS on the MAX....
forget about the engineering cost to design the MAX.
In reality, the A380 has to be one of the best aircraft ever designed (to date).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really cannot compare a new aircraft with an update...
in the long run, Boeing is going to pay $4 Billion just to update MCAS on the MAX....
forget about the engineering cost to design the MAX.
In reality, the A380 has to be one of the best aircraft ever designed (to date).
in the long run, Boeing is going to pay $4 Billion just to update MCAS on the MAX....
forget about the engineering cost to design the MAX.
In reality, the A380 has to be one of the best aircraft ever designed (to date).
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can blame the ENA for that, who have always been ultra strong in the management of the EUSSR also.
(Need a bail-out? No problem French always get a "passe partout").
No doubt you will find the "illuminated" management of AF and Airbus/ EADS are drawn from this "prestige" university ENA, spending their time studying how to
One wonders how the French survive at all.
They do have the highest level of tax in the world, so their project disasters will always be financed by the earnings of grand children, n'est pas?
They even now try to shut down their only great successes such as their NPPs and replace them with intermittent unreliable sources of energy.
Good examples:-
Euro Tunnel bailed out...
Air France bailed out several times, still loss making.
TGV - SNCF, now one of the most indebted companies in Europe... the subject of a vast bailout in 2018 forced by the unions.
(who spent most of last spring and summer striking to force the government to underwrite the debts).Still loss making,-
Two out of three French high-speed TGV trains are operating at a loss despite the high prices.
SNCF freight - loss making.,,,,314 million euros in 2016 - accumulated debts then amounting to 4 billion euros.
SeaFrance (was owned by SNCF) went t..ts up.(in October 2008 had been losing in the region of €3 million a month)
Superphénix FBR, shut still costing large amounts to dismantle having generated just 7700Gw/h electricity over 11 years,
closed 1998 still not dismantled fully until 2023.
Alsthom - several bailouts attempted mergers.
Airbus will move on from the A380.
If the French banking and insurance market fails, Airbus will be casualty number 1, so it may not be able to "move on", as you put it, and the blame will lie at the door of the 380.
(If you don't believe me look at what happened at Embraer in 5yrs)
Last edited by up_down_n_out; 16th May 2019 at 07:44.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ghent
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a bit JB... but the talk of water bombing... any merit in A380s being used for air to air fuelling? I can imagine the capacity is attractive but again the size present logistical issues not to mention presenting a bigger target...
Now if only air to air water transfer were a thing.. imagine a mama whale circling while the kids come back and top up the fire fighting tanks to reduce time/distance to base... Can't imagine many fires where the payoff would be worth the expense though...
Now if only air to air water transfer were a thing.. imagine a mama whale circling while the kids come back and top up the fire fighting tanks to reduce time/distance to base... Can't imagine many fires where the payoff would be worth the expense though...
Evergreen developed a 747 based water bomber about 10 years ago - before Evergreen went belly up. Global then picked up what Evergreen had developed and installed it into a 747-400 - the Global Supertanker. It has a capacity of ~18,000 gallons of water/fire retardant. Apparently it works OK - got used quite a bit during the big California wild fires last year. But, even with a ready supply of old 747s headed for the boneyard, there doesn't appear to be much interest in building another one even though the development work is pretty much done.
I don't know why the lack of interest in increasing the 747 water bomber fleet - perhaps a water bomber that big is just too limited and specialized. But whatever the reason, an A380 water bomber would run into the same issue(s), along with the added costs of development and the limited number of airports it could use.
I don't know why the lack of interest in increasing the 747 water bomber fleet - perhaps a water bomber that big is just too limited and specialized. But whatever the reason, an A380 water bomber would run into the same issue(s), along with the added costs of development and the limited number of airports it could use.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a Pineapple Under the Sea
Age: 61
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evergreen developed a 747 based water bomber about 10 years ago - before Evergreen went belly up. Global then picked up what Evergreen had developed and installed it into a 747-400 - the Global Supertanker. It has a capacity of ~18,000 gallons of water/fire retardant. Apparently it works OK - got used quite a bit during the big California wild fires last year. But, even with a ready supply of old 747s headed for the boneyard, there doesn't appear to be much interest in building another one even though the development work is pretty much done.
I don't know why the lack of interest in increasing the 747 water bomber fleet - perhaps a water bomber that big is just too limited and specialized. But whatever the reason, an A380 water bomber would run into the same issue(s), along with the added costs of development and the limited number of airports it could use.
I don't know why the lack of interest in increasing the 747 water bomber fleet - perhaps a water bomber that big is just too limited and specialized. But whatever the reason, an A380 water bomber would run into the same issue(s), along with the added costs of development and the limited number of airports it could use.
We spend so much money on the aerial effort - and see marginal benefits. The Global Supertanker is quite a sight to see - we've seen it here in California too many times over the past couple of years. But - it's horribly expensive to operate and weather and darkness keeps it grounded when it's arguably most useful (night time when fires tend to calm down).
Those tankers need to maneuver in mountainous terrain - it would be something to see an A380 trying to get low enough for an effective pass . . .
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poway, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's because, as we're figuring out, aerial firefighting is becoming increasingly ineffective against these "big" fires : https://www.latimes.com/local/califo...407-story.html
We spend so much money on the aerial effort - and see marginal benefits. The Global Supertanker is quite a sight to see - we've seen it here in California too many times over the past couple of years. But - it's horribly expensive to operate and weather and darkness keeps it grounded when it's arguably most useful (night time when fires tend to calm down).
Those tankers need to maneuver in mountainous terrain - it would be something to see an A380 trying to get low enough for an effective pass . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fox_xomGgFg
We spend so much money on the aerial effort - and see marginal benefits. The Global Supertanker is quite a sight to see - we've seen it here in California too many times over the past couple of years. But - it's horribly expensive to operate and weather and darkness keeps it grounded when it's arguably most useful (night time when fires tend to calm down).
Those tankers need to maneuver in mountainous terrain - it would be something to see an A380 trying to get low enough for an effective pass . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fox_xomGgFg
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Canada
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yebbut the A380 was cursed by having been publicly associated with the patron saint of boondoggles, our lady Grace Tepp-Ford.
Any project which invokes her name is doomed to be cancelled at great expense to both public and private funds.
See also TSR2 etc.
Any project which invokes her name is doomed to be cancelled at great expense to both public and private funds.
See also TSR2 etc.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted this on 18 July 2018 and at least twice years before that, "The A380 Should Never Have Seen The Light of Day"
"The A380 should never have seen the light of day. Boeing offered Airbus a joint effort which Airbus refused, that was the writing on the wall, Boeing cancelling all their plans for an ultra large long haul aircraft sealed the fate of the A380. It commanded, at best, a small niche market for a few of the major carriers on certain routes. Passengers like it but that alone doesn’t make it a commercial success. Possibly intended as a B747 replacement but the B747 had already been replaced by a number of both Boeing and AirBus big twins. Quite significant is the fact that right now there is no apparent market for the 10 year old airframes that are coming up for disposal at the end of their lease period. (Put most of this on PPRuNe years ago, wasn’t believed though!)"
"The A380 should never have seen the light of day. Boeing offered Airbus a joint effort which Airbus refused, that was the writing on the wall, Boeing cancelling all their plans for an ultra large long haul aircraft sealed the fate of the A380. It commanded, at best, a small niche market for a few of the major carriers on certain routes. Passengers like it but that alone doesn’t make it a commercial success. Possibly intended as a B747 replacement but the B747 had already been replaced by a number of both Boeing and AirBus big twins. Quite significant is the fact that right now there is no apparent market for the 10 year old airframes that are coming up for disposal at the end of their lease period. (Put most of this on PPRuNe years ago, wasn’t believed though!)"
There possibly is a new market for used A380's that current owners want to offload.
But it will be a new type of work -
That maybe a new online platform that has some departure date flexibility until X days in advance, then gets locked in with higher loads.
Tourist promotions for just off season destinations - flight accommodation packages for 800 people.
Cruise ship transfers.
But if there is a new market I believe it will be in the available capacity of +800 and other than RPT type operation, most likely with the flight ancillary to the real revenue obtained.
But it will be a new type of work -
That maybe a new online platform that has some departure date flexibility until X days in advance, then gets locked in with higher loads.
Tourist promotions for just off season destinations - flight accommodation packages for 800 people.
Cruise ship transfers.
But if there is a new market I believe it will be in the available capacity of +800 and other than RPT type operation, most likely with the flight ancillary to the real revenue obtained.