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.

the antonov 225 mriya has a wing span of 88m which is larger than the A380 wingspan of 80m, the antonov 225 can land and taxi in most large international airports. there shouldn't be a problem with the A380's foot print or wing span.

Whats really funny is we are debating just what has been all over the news in the past year. Very few airports are ready to handle the A380 with some spending 100s of millions to get ready. A lot of airports will not be able to do that for some time.

As far as the A380 diverting being a rare occurance, just look at how many times 747s and A340s divert in the past year. Eventually it will happen and when it does it will effect every aircraft that is using that airport as an ETOPs alternate. :)

I need to put a bit more clarity on why i started this thread.
The A380 freighter is not a problem Fedex are buying and will provide the ground infrastructure, which is probably there already.
My worries are that no American airline has bought the passenger version and is hardly likely to in the near future, therefore the Americans have no national urgency to provide the ground infrastructure required for the aircraft.
If most flights into the USA are on 747, 340,777,330, 767, 757 etc. which will land and dock at a gate so passengers are disembarked in less than 20 minutes why should the American airports provide similar facilities for the A380 when it will only be used by airlines who are in opposition to American interests. If the A380 has to land, taxi to a stand, and offload by steps and busses meaning some passengers may take more than an hour to disembark, unless the costs of flying to America on the A380 is much less than on the other aircraft, why bother?

This is the point I was trying to make....

If America continues to be so bloody paranoid about persons getting through homeland security ("I only want to see Mickey Mouse") There will be no requirement for Supersize gets to go there, a couple of old 70s era jets should cope with the demand !!!

Irishguy
 

The Ant is a Red Herring.

First there's only a couple of them
Second theyre pure freight so dont interact with terminal gates
Third Airports can stop the traffic and make special arrangements to get the thing from the runway to stand on the rare occasions it arrives

The point about the A380 is that it has o fit into normal ops and theres the rub.

Sir George Cayley

Americans allways find a way to make things harder for the outsiders; Before it was the noise of the Concorde, now its the size of the 3-eighty.

I agree with that. If they're smart they will not spend what they don't have. Thankfuly the rest of the world is very much interested on the new machine.

Americans could make a commercial double deck version of the C-5 Galaxy, couldn't they? just change the engines, and they'll be in the game.

I was engaged in the planning of the Terminal 2 in Frankfurt. Already back in 1993, airport architects were obliged to deal with the future dimensions of the A380, which definitely requires larger gates and more space at the docking positions.

Now Frankfurt, one of the largest European hubs, is going to built a new Terminal 3 with 75 aircraft stands as well as new maintenance facilities that are explicitely dedicated to the A380 ...

http://www.fraport.com/cms/capacity_...3_and_a380.htm

Well said 16 Blades. Methinks 747focal has more than just a passing interest. Could it be he lives near Seattle?

Airbus is currently beating the pants off Boeing because they are producing aircraft that the airlines want - not what Boeing think the airlines should have.

Of course Airbus have factored in all the information. Do you honestly think they would press on with production if (a) the runways couldn't take the weight, (b) the airports couldn't handle the extra pax, (c) there were insufficient MDA's available to take the aircraft if it got into trouble?

Come on. Boeing. You've had a good run at it. Stop bitching. Now there is real competition and you find yourselves well behind the curve. Fight back with a better aircraft - and that isn't going to be the Dreamliner.

Xeque,

Maybe you should ask the guys closer to home why they pushed off their orders for 2 years. I'll give you a hint. Air France and Virgin are both taking their A380 orders 2 years later than originally asked for because of the limited places you can fly them to.......oh and also because she is a fat lady right now and Airbus is fastly applying the ATKINS diet to her in hopes of sending her down the isle in a wedding dress that fits. :E

Nothing like a transatlantic feud!

Since when was the A380 to compete with the 747, the A340 is already handling that one quite nicely, as is the A320 vs 737.

Have to hand it to Airbus, that'll be 2 A/C they build with more than 2 engines, how many such beasts do Boeing manufacture?

Concorde's success, I believe, was due to it's limited numbers, had every Tom, Dick & Septic had them then it would have failed.

Of course, to operate such an A/C takes money, something which Panam didn't have!

Smart people don't use 4 engines when they build aircraft. The 777 and A330 are living proof of that.

A340 competing with the 747? Are you daft? :confused:

That comment is either ironic or stupid, I can't decide!!

Well I suppose I could have said it better, but I think most airline bean counters will agree. A 4 engine aircraft will never cost you less than the same opertion of a 2 engine aircraft.

Safetywise, I undertand the advantages of 4 vs 2, but realistically out of all the millions of flights how many have had multiple inflight failures? Percentage wise you would be more likely to win the lottery in six different countries on the same day and then repeat it again the next.. :p

Smart people don't use 4 engines when they build aircraft.

What would bean counters know about aviation and what excuse have Boeing got for the 747 never mind the B52!

No, not daft, realistic.

Quote:

The 15,740km (8500nm) ultra long range A340-500 and stretched 372 seat A340-600 are new variants of the Airbus A340 family, and are currently the world's longest range airliners.


Compared with the A340-300, the A340-600 features a 9.07m (35ft 1in) stretch (5.87m/19ft 3in ahead of the wing and 3.20m/10ft 6in behind), allowing it to seat 372 passengers in a typical three class arrangement. This gives Airbus a true early model 747 replacement and near direct competitor to the 747-400, with similar range, but, Airbus claims, better operating economics (per seat).

The 747 was designed when we had little to no history on jet engines in commercial service. Hence the designers designed them to the mathmatical probability of 10 to the -9th criteria and came up with 4 engines as having little to no chance of losing all 4 in the same trip. Now we have tons of data on engine reliability and have much improved reliability. Hence the 2 engine long range aircraft emerge.

the A340 family fails the test when it comes to productivity. Here are the test criteria:

TEST
PAYLOAD: How much can you carry?
RANGE: How far can you carry it?
BLOCK SPEED: How fast can you get it there?
OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY: What airports can you get it into and out of?
COST: What are the effects on direct and indirect operating costs?
STYLE: is it esthetically pleasing to the customer?

The A340 fails at its ultra long range capability by leaving a ton of PAX or cargo behind. Just ask Singapore about that one. I believe they still get a check from Talouse each month to cover the 80 plus PAX they have to leave behind each flight to get the 118 it can carry the full 15 hours.

At least 747 Classics can carry their design max weight the entire design flight endurance. And get it there a lot faster.

Better economics per passenger seat? they must mean the meal and drinks they don't have to feed the passengers they left behind..........:E

But which one was concieved as a cargo aircraft (but failed) and there for had the capability to carry large loads??? In my opinion Boeing have lost out to Airbus on this one.

(The 747 was designed when we had little to no history on jet engines in commercial service)

And ..... the B747-400, weren't B767 & A310 ER's in existence by then?

(Smart people don't use 4 engines when they build aircraft)

So what about the BAe146, the DHC7, many militaries etc. I guess only Douglas built good airliners, ones with less than 4 engines that is (post DC8 era), but then some tin-can manufacturer put them out of existence!

Just to add my tuppence's worth. If Boeing aircraft are so superior to Airbus (in general of course!), then why have Airbus now started out-performing Boeing in terms of airframe sales for the last x number of months? 747FOCAL mentioned bean counters etc. Surely the 'bean counters' wouldn't authorise buying the equipment if they thought they could make more money out of a different aeroplane?

"The 747 was designed when we had little to no history on jet engines in commercial service. Hence the designers designed them to the mathmatical probability of 10 to the -9th criteria and came up with 4 engines as having little to no chance of losing all 4 in the same trip. Now we have tons of data on engine reliability and have much improved reliability. Hence the 2 engine long range aircraft emerge."

Sorry, 747FOCAL, and far be it for me to challenge you on a subject so squarely in your back yard, but this statement just doesn't remotely correspond to my recollection of the B747 design evolution process.

Firstly, I think the guys who worked on JT4s or JT3s or Avons or Conways for years before the CX then B747 programme would take issue with the "little or no history" bit, not to mention the enormous significance of B47/B52 experience. Secondly, when Boeing wanted to build people a great big plane in the mid 60's to carry twice the B707 payload it HAD to be four engines, because Pratt's could barely exceed 40,000 lbs of thrust with the first JT9D. Don't you remember what an incredible achievement that thrust level was at the time? The payload/range goals and attainable thrust levels were the first-order determinants of the number of engines, not the reliability.

Now, now, stop upsetting our trans-atlantic friends.

Oh, by the way, who was it that presented them with the jet engine, and indeed the VSTOL aircraft, in the first place?