A380
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
Hey folks! If this thread does not get back PRETTY RAPIDLY to discussing issues SPECIFIC to the 380 then all but a few posts will remain here while the rest go to a new thread entitled 'B v A again' or 'US v Europe again' - on Jet Blast
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Manchester.UK
Sorry BOAC.
Does anybody know why the initial production model is called the A380-'800'?
Does Airbus plan to stretch the fuselage in later variants, in other words is the launch model the 'B747SP' of the A380 family?
Any truth to the rumours that Airbus are planning a 'Combi' variant with Pax on the top deck and freight below?
Does anybody know why the initial production model is called the A380-'800'?
Does Airbus plan to stretch the fuselage in later variants, in other words is the launch model the 'B747SP' of the A380 family?
Any truth to the rumours that Airbus are planning a 'Combi' variant with Pax on the top deck and freight below?
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
From: I wish I knew
Errr.... BOAC, here is the original post...
So, in response to the original post... I remember seeing the article in Flight regarding the NPRM to apply ETOPS to four engine aircraft. However, it also mentioned that this would probably apply only to NEW aircraft. Older aircraft would have "Grandfather rights". In other words, current aircraft (including B747, A340, DC10, etc.) would be able to operate according to the way that they always have, i.e. non-ETOPS. Now, if engines are more reliable (as 747Focal points out by commenting that you don't need four engines when two are safe enough) why include a statisticly safer aircraft in ETOPS?
Considering that Boeing doesn't have any four engined aircraft in the pipeline, it appears to be protectionist, favouring a US company over an outsider. Therefore my answer to the question posed in the original post is "Yes, it appears to be happening already".
Cheers,
LP
Considering that the Americans scuppered Concorde as a commercial success by restrictive practices in the USA and used their influence in South America to achieve the same ends, do you think they will use the same tactics against the A380??
So, in response to the original post... I remember seeing the article in Flight regarding the NPRM to apply ETOPS to four engine aircraft. However, it also mentioned that this would probably apply only to NEW aircraft. Older aircraft would have "Grandfather rights". In other words, current aircraft (including B747, A340, DC10, etc.) would be able to operate according to the way that they always have, i.e. non-ETOPS. Now, if engines are more reliable (as 747Focal points out by commenting that you don't need four engines when two are safe enough) why include a statisticly safer aircraft in ETOPS?
Considering that Boeing doesn't have any four engined aircraft in the pipeline, it appears to be protectionist, favouring a US company over an outsider. Therefore my answer to the question posed in the original post is "Yes, it appears to be happening already".
Cheers,
LP
Nexialist
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 182
Likes: 2
From: Milton Keynes
Pontious,
My understanding is that the -800 designation is Airbus saying
"This is a fully developed aircraft, there will be no stretches, so buy now don't wait for the "better" version to come along, because there will not be one"
Whilst of course leaving open the possibility of the A380-900
My understanding is that the -800 designation is Airbus saying
"This is a fully developed aircraft, there will be no stretches, so buy now don't wait for the "better" version to come along, because there will not be one"
Whilst of course leaving open the possibility of the A380-900
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
L- P yes, despite my advancing years I still have a fully functioning mouse
It is just that there are some posts where my advancing age/deteriorating eyesight makes it hard to see the letters 'A380'.
EAL - it was a passing thought, but I thought better of it. It remains an option, of course. I'm sure yet another transatlantic bashing match would go down a storm on JB, though
It is just that there are some posts where my advancing age/deteriorating eyesight makes it hard to see the letters 'A380'.
EAL - it was a passing thought, but I thought better of it. It remains an option, of course. I'm sure yet another transatlantic bashing match would go down a storm on JB, though
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
From: leafy suburbs
ETOPs - Many airlines are starting to use ETOPs philosophy on 3, 4 engined aircraft. ie: a technician cannot service all engines eg: oil replenishment, change MCDs, fuel filters etc. etc. As for regulations, FAR, EASA and others on ETOPs diversion - I'll leave that to those who are up to speed on it.
The A380 just doesn't look right, large wing span, short fuselage (though I suppose it gives room for extending it using the same wings) There is a saying "If it looks right, it s right".
Why is it that a thread starts out with good intent that it usually ends in a mud slinging match - value others' opinions even if vastly different from your own.
As for preference for Airbus or Boeing - surely the airline bean counters work out which aircraft gives good value for money in Ops, maintenance and financial deals before deciding which one to buy? (Not because it is American or European) and hopefully not because governments apply pressure to buy home grown products!!
Phew glad that is off my chest
The A380 just doesn't look right, large wing span, short fuselage (though I suppose it gives room for extending it using the same wings) There is a saying "If it looks right, it s right".
Why is it that a thread starts out with good intent that it usually ends in a mud slinging match - value others' opinions even if vastly different from your own.
As for preference for Airbus or Boeing - surely the airline bean counters work out which aircraft gives good value for money in Ops, maintenance and financial deals before deciding which one to buy? (Not because it is American or European) and hopefully not because governments apply pressure to buy home grown products!!
Phew glad that is off my chest
Bear Behind
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 352
Likes: 1
From: Canadia, the French bit
Why the -800?
A friend who works for Airbus in the U.K. tells me there are 3 schools of thought.
1) 800 signal maturity
2) Asia sees number 8 as lucky
3) Figure 8 looks like A380 fuselage cross section
Which is true? I suppose we'll never know.
A friend who works for Airbus in the U.K. tells me there are 3 schools of thought.
1) 800 signal maturity
2) Asia sees number 8 as lucky
3) Figure 8 looks like A380 fuselage cross section
Which is true? I suppose we'll never know.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
From: LPPT
Once upon a time, there were these two kids that enjoyed playing together. One was called EU and the other was called US. For a long time EU had played with US toys, both at his house and US’s place. And they seemed to get along quite well.
One day EU’s father offered him some new toys, and EU was happy to have his own set of toys. The kids started to talk about their toys, “mine is much cooler than yours” and such, but they still played with each other nicely.
The day the father of EU brought home a brand new toy, the biggest they both have ever seen, US complained to his father about not having such a toy. US father told him that he had no money to buy new toys, so he had to play with the old toys he had.
US did not gave up in trying to level things up a bit, so he asked his father to talk to EU’s father about how unfair it was for one of the kids having a bigger toy than the other and the effects of that situation in both homes, which US father did. As you might expected EU father just laughed and told father US not to interfere with the kids playing, they would be just fine.
Finally when EU was preparing to bring his new toy over US’s house to play he managed to arrange a new set of playing rules: “In order to bring your toy in here make sure it is well cleaned, it doesn’t make too much noise in order not to wake up US father, and its not too big , because it could damage the house furniture while playing”.
Kids
One day EU’s father offered him some new toys, and EU was happy to have his own set of toys. The kids started to talk about their toys, “mine is much cooler than yours” and such, but they still played with each other nicely.
The day the father of EU brought home a brand new toy, the biggest they both have ever seen, US complained to his father about not having such a toy. US father told him that he had no money to buy new toys, so he had to play with the old toys he had.
US did not gave up in trying to level things up a bit, so he asked his father to talk to EU’s father about how unfair it was for one of the kids having a bigger toy than the other and the effects of that situation in both homes, which US father did. As you might expected EU father just laughed and told father US not to interfere with the kids playing, they would be just fine.
Finally when EU was preparing to bring his new toy over US’s house to play he managed to arrange a new set of playing rules: “In order to bring your toy in here make sure it is well cleaned, it doesn’t make too much noise in order not to wake up US father, and its not too big , because it could damage the house furniture while playing”.
Kids
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: London
In reply to the original question I don't believe they will. US gateway airports are in competition with each other to provide the feeder services in and out of smaller airports. The revenue from a plane load of A380 pax vs B747 is going to be greater and I would think higher landing fees will be charged.
I would also suggest there will be some prestige to be had from having A380s at your airport or in your fleet so eventually, the US majors will return to financial health I can see one or two of them making purchases especially those airlines with extensive Airbus fleets at the moment.
I would also suggest there will be some prestige to be had from having A380s at your airport or in your fleet so eventually, the US majors will return to financial health I can see one or two of them making purchases especially those airlines with extensive Airbus fleets at the moment.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
From: UK EAST COAST
USA-Flyer
Nice to get a response to the original question so far into the thread, it has all been interesting reading though.
I personally think that dedicated A380 ground facilities will be few and far between for the first few years, but we will see.
Nice to get a response to the original question so far into the thread, it has all been interesting reading though.
I personally think that dedicated A380 ground facilities will be few and far between for the first few years, but we will see.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 1
From: Cloud 9
In response to the original question, who's to presume the Americans will have such a big say in the future of commercial aviation advancement.
One shouldn't compare the A380 to Concorde, Concorde was a medium-haul airliner and it's true niche was the transatlantic market, it wasn't any good for flying longer-haul nor over land masses.
The A380 is a different kind of airliner and very suitable for Europe to Asia & Australasia etc. If the USA, for one reason or another, don't want to provide the appropriate ground facilities then I'm sure such airports as SYD, HKG, SIN, KUL, BKK will be only too willing and the USA may find itself being left in the dark ages.
Sure, in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc. USA might have led the airline world with Boeing, McD and to a lesser degree Lockheed but things have moved on. It's more or less Boeing vs Airbus these days, who will win, well only time will tell!
One shouldn't compare the A380 to Concorde, Concorde was a medium-haul airliner and it's true niche was the transatlantic market, it wasn't any good for flying longer-haul nor over land masses.
The A380 is a different kind of airliner and very suitable for Europe to Asia & Australasia etc. If the USA, for one reason or another, don't want to provide the appropriate ground facilities then I'm sure such airports as SYD, HKG, SIN, KUL, BKK will be only too willing and the USA may find itself being left in the dark ages.
Sure, in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc. USA might have led the airline world with Boeing, McD and to a lesser degree Lockheed but things have moved on. It's more or less Boeing vs Airbus these days, who will win, well only time will tell!
