A380
 

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??

note. I know Concorde was a brilliantly succesful aircraft, but originally more than a 100 orders became about 10, when the Americans effectively said no..

Your kidding right?

It was America's fault? The airplane couldn't fly the atlantic with bags AND people. America isn't the be all end all. If it was a good airplane it would have found a market somewhere.

Actually NO concordes were sold. They were GIVEN to BA and AirFrance and even so the economics were dicey at best

Cheers
Wino

Considering FEDEX has a large FIRM order for the aircraft and for which they've presumably analysed the cost/benefits of operating the A380F then thats one bit of USA business that would not be too pleased if such a tactic was adopted.

Spookily enough I'm writing this in the UPS environment (SDF in KY USA)

Wino, how right you are. Concorde was a technological success, and a commercial failure of immense proportions.

If anything helped do for Concorde, apart from the environmental issue of noise, it was the massive hike in oil prices in the early 70's.

oh oh here we go again :p

Why are people so afraid of the A380 :confused:
I guess that says a lot about its future success :E

You better grab your hats when it starts to fly :D

Actually what killed Concorde was the Paris crash. If I remember right this was caused by it hitting some FOD which had fallen off a DC10 on the runway. Confidence was lost, in France in particular, as the accident report was critical of some AF practices with regard to maintenance (tyres in particular) if my memory serves me right. BA however modified its ac after recommendations to imrove the fuel tank protection and some re entered service. Unfortunately Airbus, the DA for the ac, decided to stop supporting the ac as AF decided to retire its remaining Concordes and Airbus being mainly French led weren't interested that BA ac had a good 10 years service left in them and BA wanted to still fly this magnificent ac. Sad thing is after the USA tried to ban the ac in the end we gave them one for a museum!

Anyway the A380 will not be scuppered by the USA as there is a lot of US equipment in/on it and as already been pointed out FedEx have purchased the ac. Sadly the Americans love to shout Airbus are subsidised as Boeing now has competition, but if they take a good look at themselves they'll see Boeing are subsidised by the US government too(KC767 et al). The main thing is competition is a good thing and both companies produce good ac. Long may it continue.

The only thing that is going to slow down the A380 is it's shear size. It can't fly into many airports as of yet so that limits it potential. That will probably change in the future, but it will be many years before it can compete with the 747-400 because of where you can go with it. 20 years from now the A380 may well be a success, but only it will have any affect on the outcome. :)

That's funny Wino, I could have sworn I flew a Concorde with 100/100 seats taken across the Atlantic in the Summer.....perhaps I was imagining it?

The problem that some Americans have is that they have an unjustified inferiority complex. Theirs is a great nation, yet they need constant reassurance that it is so. Thus when something comes along that is bigger/faster/better than what they have, they get very tetchy.

Yes Concorde was extremely fast. Yes the A380 is extremely big. But why worry when you created flight itself and built the aircraft that revolutionised it?

Yeah Bahrain, but where did you BAGS fly?

My next door neighbor was the pilot that did the technical evaluations for PANAM of the aircraft (He flew it and claimed to have bent the wing as well during the demo... not sure about that though) and said that when PANAM ran the performance numbers the bags would have to go on a seperate aircraft leading to the cancelation of the order. Very interesting Old guy btw.... Somewhere else I should type stories of his f84 and early panam days before I forget em so they are preserved.

Cheers
Wino

HOODED and Bahrain Lad,

Sorry guys, but the reason aircraft manufacturers make aircraft is so they THEY make a profit through selling sufficient airframes at sufficent prices. For Concorde, magnificent technological achievement that it was, to be considered a commercial success, it's MANUFACTURERS would have to have made a profit from it....That was not the case to the tune of untold BILLIONS of Pounds /Francs.

Would have love to have flown her...but glad I didn't foot the bill for building her.

In the the hold at the rear of the aircraft!!!

Most of Concordes passengers were business passengers on a "day trip" so only took hand luggage.:)

As for the A380, didn't the design brief state that it had to be able to "fit" into the same airports that a 744 can???

Folks,

Concorde itself may not have been a commercial success. But without doubt, Concorde laid the foundations for Airbus to be the commercial success that it is today. Without the technical achievement of Concorde, Airbus might never have happened!

747Focal said:
"The only thing that is going to slow down the A380 is it's shear size."

"Shear size"? Hmmmm, is this some massive new windshear sensor?

Dylsexlic yes......but I can still spell "cocktip" :uhoh:

Dylsexlic,

It can fit but crushing the runway is not what the airports will allow to happen. Realize this, an A380 that diverts to its ETOPS airport for whatever reason will shut down the entire ETOPS line because once down it won't be able to leave the runway. All of the sudden every aircraft that claimbed that airport as and ETOPS possible now has to recalc everything.

I was not putting the A380 down. All I said was it's going to take awhile to adjust the system.

It's kinda like buying a car and then they tell you "oh by the way, there are no roads for you to drive on" :E "Well cept a few and they are here, there and far between." :uhoh:

What's the A380's landing gear config? For it is that which determines its ACN, not just its AUW. The C-17 is huge, and can carry serious weight, but it doesn't require super-strong surfaces due to its triple-tandem main gear config (weight spread across a wide area)

And C-130s have always been able to operate from grass strips, despite a 70t+ max AUW.

I find it difficult to believe a successful manufacturer like Airbus would limit their market on an expensive new-design product like this. Anyone know better?

16B

any1 interested in boeing/airbus stuff, try this book,

Birds of Prey - Boeing V Airbus, A Battle for the Skies
Matthew Lynn
ISBN 07493-1402-8

and Flight International 21-27 Sept 2004 editorial

A380 ETOPS
 

747FOCAL,

I'd have thought that an A380 diverting would be fairly rare occurence, having FOUR engines.

I've never understood the facsination you guys have for continually trying to stretch the ETOPS boundaries when perfectly good 4-engined planes are available. Until someone pointed out that its because those perfectly good planes were Airbus, not Boeing.

So no entrenched interest there either ...

16 blades the A380 has two body landing gear assemblies with triple bogies and two wing landing gear assemblies with double bogies.

Access to airports will be limited not by ACN but wing span.

In fact the A380 will not do as much "damage" as the B777 pavement wise.
The B744 is a Code E wingspan whereas the 80m span A380 is in the new Code F categorey. The main landing gear is wider too requiring an increase in width of taxiway.

Airbus are pushing ICAO for agreement that their plane can operate just like a 747 but the jury is still out.

Meanwhile airports with the huge infrastructure change lead time need to know now to be ready for the aircrafts introduction

Sir George Cayley

No, but it helps if you know nothing about the subject.

The A380's gear will provide pavement loading less than a 747.