Will the world need the A380 in 2006 ?
It sure is an ugly sucker though. How much overweight is it?
A380
One point which most people seem to have overlooked is that by definition, the A380 will not be flying into your local airport.The whole point is that it will fly into 'hubs' where intending passengers for the smaller towns and cities on our planet will change to smaller aircraft to complete their journey. Take a look at the companies who have ordered the aircraft, and where their bases are. The Chinese are very interested in the A380, and that, to my mind at least, speaks volumes.
The whole hub and spoke system has worked (generally) satisfactorily in the US for at least 20 years. The rest of the world, driven by population explosions in our towns and cities, is starting to catch up.
Don't be deceived by the talk of bowling alleys, gyms etc. Remember the big bar in the early 747s? Only VS (to the best of my knowledge) has kept them on the newer fleet of 74s. There are a few older models with them still fitted, but they are operated by state-subsidised airlines. The bean counters will make sure there are plenty of seats on board. They rule the world these days, whatever business you're in.
I'm old enough to remember the problems of the 747 when it was first rolled out, and all the naysayers who declared it would never fly/make money/attract passengers. History has given us the answers to that.
Whatever your opinions, let's accept it for what it is - a huge step forward in technology and industrial co-operation. As to the lower air fares - dont hold your breath!
The whole hub and spoke system has worked (generally) satisfactorily in the US for at least 20 years. The rest of the world, driven by population explosions in our towns and cities, is starting to catch up.
Don't be deceived by the talk of bowling alleys, gyms etc. Remember the big bar in the early 747s? Only VS (to the best of my knowledge) has kept them on the newer fleet of 74s. There are a few older models with them still fitted, but they are operated by state-subsidised airlines. The bean counters will make sure there are plenty of seats on board. They rule the world these days, whatever business you're in.
I'm old enough to remember the problems of the 747 when it was first rolled out, and all the naysayers who declared it would never fly/make money/attract passengers. History has given us the answers to that.
Whatever your opinions, let's accept it for what it is - a huge step forward in technology and industrial co-operation. As to the lower air fares - dont hold your breath!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jetteson in your dreams, I would suggest! AirBus are probably the ones running scared right now, they are millions, if not billions of US$ down the pan and are now gambling on the future of the A380.
BEagle What a disappointment! You an intelligent and educated man with years of service behind you!
Wouldn't put a lot of money on it but I'd guess, (from your posting history etc.), you are now an employee of Airbus or an affiliated partner. All power to your elbow but you should try to stay objective and leave the dreaming to the fairies.
As for a name? Well they called the 747SP the FLUF, later transferred to the 737 and I think this one might well be called the BUF. It certainly doesn't look good.
BEagle What a disappointment! You an intelligent and educated man with years of service behind you!
Wouldn't put a lot of money on it but I'd guess, (from your posting history etc.), you are now an employee of Airbus or an affiliated partner. All power to your elbow but you should try to stay objective and leave the dreaming to the fairies.
As for a name? Well they called the 747SP the FLUF, later transferred to the 737 and I think this one might well be called the BUF. It certainly doesn't look good.
Last edited by Omark44; 19th Jan 2005 at 11:19.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's all the fuss?
Wasn't the 747 originally designed to be a "double decker", but was downscaled because no one believed it would be able to fly? (Not unreasonalble considering the powerplants and limited manufacturing techniques available at the time.)
What Technology is in the 380 that is NOT available in a new 747?
I haven't seen the specs for the 380 but what kind of operating cost numbers are they advertising? And how are they comparing to the '47?
VRT
What Technology is in the 380 that is NOT available in a new 747?
I haven't seen the specs for the 380 but what kind of operating cost numbers are they advertising? And how are they comparing to the '47?
VRT
Paxing All Over The World
I understand that the upper deck bulge is there for aerodynamic reasons and was intended as a crew rest area. Pan Am made it into a lounge for 1st Class, so that everyone had two seats for the flight. It was not long before that idea was ditched!
I have also heard that the flight deck was put up top, to allow for the freighter version to have it's lift up nose and load wide palletts from the front.
But I sit to be corrected.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
I have also heard that the flight deck was put up top, to allow for the freighter version to have it's lift up nose and load wide palletts from the front.
But I sit to be corrected.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Although I would very much like to fly a A380 one day, I have to say I'm not so sure about the level of success it will enjoy, especially in the short to medium term.
I think there are routes that could benefit from the introduction of this aircraft but they are pretty limited. As several PPRUNE'rs have pointed out, these days travellers (business in particular) prefer frequency and convenience if they only have to pay a small premium for it.
Take BA as an example. One of their busiest routes is UK<-->New York. They have ten or more services a day on three different aircraft types, with each aircraft type being further subdivided into different class/seating arrangements. Even if BA were given an extremely competitive deal on A380s, I doubt if they would want to consolidate their flights as it would lose them premium passengers.
OK, if you wanted to take 700 bucket-and-spaders to Orlando then it might work but the increased turn-around times would lead to less utilisation. Also, Airbus are claiming only a fairly moderate reduction in seat/mile costs over smaller aircraft - so what will the reality be with all those extra Kg's?
The Far East seems to have more fertile ground in terms of trunk routes and city pairs - and the Mid/Far Eastern carriers are those who have expressed most interest in the A380. Freighter versions should also be popular & show some real advantages.
One thing that crosses my mind about operating with more passengers is the increased likelyhood of a medical diversion. I have diverted more for this cause than any other in my longhaul career. Unless there is a on-board doctor on permanent duty, I feel this could be a BIG problem...
There are many airfields worldwide on which you could safely land an A380 but hardly any on which you could:
a) Leave the runway and be confident of not hitting something
b) Find a stand which would fit and
c) Not completely block up the airfield for everyone else.
I feel nervous with my 200' wide machine sometimes: can't think what 263' span would be like.
Oh, and one more thing; where the **** are they going to put them all at LHR?
I think there are routes that could benefit from the introduction of this aircraft but they are pretty limited. As several PPRUNE'rs have pointed out, these days travellers (business in particular) prefer frequency and convenience if they only have to pay a small premium for it.
Take BA as an example. One of their busiest routes is UK<-->New York. They have ten or more services a day on three different aircraft types, with each aircraft type being further subdivided into different class/seating arrangements. Even if BA were given an extremely competitive deal on A380s, I doubt if they would want to consolidate their flights as it would lose them premium passengers.
OK, if you wanted to take 700 bucket-and-spaders to Orlando then it might work but the increased turn-around times would lead to less utilisation. Also, Airbus are claiming only a fairly moderate reduction in seat/mile costs over smaller aircraft - so what will the reality be with all those extra Kg's?
The Far East seems to have more fertile ground in terms of trunk routes and city pairs - and the Mid/Far Eastern carriers are those who have expressed most interest in the A380. Freighter versions should also be popular & show some real advantages.
One thing that crosses my mind about operating with more passengers is the increased likelyhood of a medical diversion. I have diverted more for this cause than any other in my longhaul career. Unless there is a on-board doctor on permanent duty, I feel this could be a BIG problem...
There are many airfields worldwide on which you could safely land an A380 but hardly any on which you could:
a) Leave the runway and be confident of not hitting something
b) Find a stand which would fit and
c) Not completely block up the airfield for everyone else.
I feel nervous with my 200' wide machine sometimes: can't think what 263' span would be like.
Oh, and one more thing; where the **** are they going to put them all at LHR?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B747 was originally Boeings best effort in a competition to provide a freighter for the USAF and was designed with a lifting nose cone. The competition was won by the C5A Galaxy so Boeing then turned their attention to making the B747 a passenger aircraft for the commercial market.
Zones,
EK and others in TLS this week went to Airbus and have asked for a streached A380, they want a 1000 seat aircraft for relatively short range high denisty routes.
FullWings
"Also, Airbus are claiming only a fairly moderate reduction in seat/mile costs over smaller aircraft - so what will the reality be with all those extra Kg's?"
15% reduction is not what I would call fairly moderate, if any aircraft had 15% advantage, its a significant advantage.
VRThomas
"Wasn't the 747 originally designed to be a "double decker", but was downscaled because no one believed it would be able to fly? (Not unreasonalble considering the powerplants and limited manufacturing techniques available at the time.)"
Dont know about that, however Boeing never did not conduct any upper deck evac work to get the aircraft certified. The 744 is certified for 660 pax, but no operator ever gets close to that number as engines never got big enough.
"What Technology is in the 380 that is NOT available in a new 747?"
The list is very extensive, Boeing with the 744 still have not got the concept of ECAM, still uses paper checklists.
Many of the technology advancements for the 380 have been driven by its size, like the hydraulic system, if everything was at conventional pressures (3000 psi) you would need hydraulic hoses 750mm in diameter.
Omark44,
BEagle does not work for Airbus, AFAIK been flying Boeings for well over the last 10 years of their career.
Max Angle
No x-wind probs I have heard of, most jets are certified so that they do not need to aligned with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft aligned with the centre line.
With its mass its easier to fly the 380 over a smaller aircraft in x-wind or gusty conditions, the momentum of the aircraft makes life easier. Similar with the 744 over a 738.
Good to see they will have it flying earlier than planned, and will be visiting losts of places which will suprise many ! The box teh aircraft fits in is not that much bigger than a 747, C5 etc.
EK and others in TLS this week went to Airbus and have asked for a streached A380, they want a 1000 seat aircraft for relatively short range high denisty routes.
FullWings
"Also, Airbus are claiming only a fairly moderate reduction in seat/mile costs over smaller aircraft - so what will the reality be with all those extra Kg's?"
15% reduction is not what I would call fairly moderate, if any aircraft had 15% advantage, its a significant advantage.
VRThomas
"Wasn't the 747 originally designed to be a "double decker", but was downscaled because no one believed it would be able to fly? (Not unreasonalble considering the powerplants and limited manufacturing techniques available at the time.)"
Dont know about that, however Boeing never did not conduct any upper deck evac work to get the aircraft certified. The 744 is certified for 660 pax, but no operator ever gets close to that number as engines never got big enough.
"What Technology is in the 380 that is NOT available in a new 747?"
The list is very extensive, Boeing with the 744 still have not got the concept of ECAM, still uses paper checklists.
Many of the technology advancements for the 380 have been driven by its size, like the hydraulic system, if everything was at conventional pressures (3000 psi) you would need hydraulic hoses 750mm in diameter.
Omark44,
BEagle does not work for Airbus, AFAIK been flying Boeings for well over the last 10 years of their career.
Max Angle
No x-wind probs I have heard of, most jets are certified so that they do not need to aligned with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft aligned with the centre line.
With its mass its easier to fly the 380 over a smaller aircraft in x-wind or gusty conditions, the momentum of the aircraft makes life easier. Similar with the 744 over a 738.
Good to see they will have it flying earlier than planned, and will be visiting losts of places which will suprise many ! The box teh aircraft fits in is not that much bigger than a 747, C5 etc.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too much too soon, or just too much?
After further research I see that the 747 program investigated stretching the upper deck full length for the 47-300 (SUD) developement. Why didn't they persue it further? Was it a technical decision or a marketing choice. Was anyone there???
In so far as the hydraulics Etc. Neccesity is the mother of invention. I have no doubt that in this day and age that pretty well ANY system could be adapted to be as big, or as small as required. From monster machines to nanotechnology, anything is possible.
Maybe I am too "old school" but some of the conversion to electronic and automatic displays have not neccessarily been more effective as. Having a checklist in your hand helps to keep the crew in the loop and focussed on the task at hand. Some of the FMS operations are truly baffling and are slowly nudging the pilots towards more data entry technicians. All lot of the navigating we do is just not that complicated that we require this level of computer control. Complacency is one of our arch enemies up there after all.
I am still hesitant to give Airbus the credit they seek for this overweight, overbudget, overrated(?), behemoth.
VRThomas
In so far as the hydraulics Etc. Neccesity is the mother of invention. I have no doubt that in this day and age that pretty well ANY system could be adapted to be as big, or as small as required. From monster machines to nanotechnology, anything is possible.
Maybe I am too "old school" but some of the conversion to electronic and automatic displays have not neccessarily been more effective as. Having a checklist in your hand helps to keep the crew in the loop and focussed on the task at hand. Some of the FMS operations are truly baffling and are slowly nudging the pilots towards more data entry technicians. All lot of the navigating we do is just not that complicated that we require this level of computer control. Complacency is one of our arch enemies up there after all.
I am still hesitant to give Airbus the credit they seek for this overweight, overbudget, overrated(?), behemoth.
VRThomas
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I remind you that it was the americans who built the first "ugly sucker" that could supposingly carry 750 persons?
It was in 1947, called the "spruce goose", which had a wingspan of 97,2m (versus 79,8m A380) and a wing area of 1061m² (versus 845m² A380)
But in my opinion both airplanes look nice in their specific way.
http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_...ont1.html#desc
It was in 1947, called the "spruce goose", which had a wingspan of 97,2m (versus 79,8m A380) and a wing area of 1061m² (versus 845m² A380)
But in my opinion both airplanes look nice in their specific way.
http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_...ont1.html#desc
"BEagle does not work for Airbus, AFAIK been flying Boeings for well over the last 10 years of their career."
Wrong. I've never flown a Boeing (apart from one GCA in a B-52G at Barksdale in 1979). I don't actually work for anyone except myself having left the RAF. But I do some consultancy on an aircraft programme which uses an Airbus platform. Involvement with industry has been very interesting - the spin coming out of certain aerospace companies in particular.
Incidentally, there was once a 'double deck' Super Super VC10 project - but Nigel went for the 747 instead and that was the end of it!
Wrong. I've never flown a Boeing (apart from one GCA in a B-52G at Barksdale in 1979). I don't actually work for anyone except myself having left the RAF. But I do some consultancy on an aircraft programme which uses an Airbus platform. Involvement with industry has been very interesting - the spin coming out of certain aerospace companies in particular.
Incidentally, there was once a 'double deck' Super Super VC10 project - but Nigel went for the 747 instead and that was the end of it!
Guest
Posts: n/a
....
It's all down to cash. Most airlines want to shove more pax on a plane, and they want them to spend more cash. This aircraft is so big a few airlines are going to have casinos on board.
-All this is controlled incidently, by a small joystick, such as your 6 year old child would use, to crash planes on MS Flight Simulator.
And if you think getting the pax are going to be just spending cash on the aircraft, think again. Emerates have 36 orders for the A380, it's going to be a taxi service to it's terminal in Dubai to spend even more cash. The airlines who are doing the same as this such as Air France and Lufthansa aren't pleased about this, but who would want to go to Charles De Gaule to spent cash anyway? IT'S A TIP!
Overall thought, this aircraft is going to revolutionise air travel, because most airlines arn't going to fill it up with pax, (Which is a good idea, because they'res always 10 or 20 who never turn up for their flight, or come at last minute) these planes are so big they are going to fill them up with aminities.
So really the A380 will serve as a pleasure plane, until airlines need the space for seats in the future, saving them a bombshell.
They don't build aircraft without doing the maths.
-All this is controlled incidently, by a small joystick, such as your 6 year old child would use, to crash planes on MS Flight Simulator.
And if you think getting the pax are going to be just spending cash on the aircraft, think again. Emerates have 36 orders for the A380, it's going to be a taxi service to it's terminal in Dubai to spend even more cash. The airlines who are doing the same as this such as Air France and Lufthansa aren't pleased about this, but who would want to go to Charles De Gaule to spent cash anyway? IT'S A TIP!
Overall thought, this aircraft is going to revolutionise air travel, because most airlines arn't going to fill it up with pax, (Which is a good idea, because they'res always 10 or 20 who never turn up for their flight, or come at last minute) these planes are so big they are going to fill them up with aminities.
So really the A380 will serve as a pleasure plane, until airlines need the space for seats in the future, saving them a bombshell.
They don't build aircraft without doing the maths.
One reason Boeing dropped the two deck option was it ended up costing too much in terms of added weight for the second floor. I've seen the same comment repeated by other designers. (Douglas and others looked at this at various times)
It would be interesting to see the take off weight per seat of the 747 vs the A380 vs say 777 or 340. Need to use the same fuel uplift for a chosen range.
Also re flight deck crew - will the A380 be a 2 or 3 body operation (Not considering relief crew)
The problem I see is that unless you fill all those seats - every empty seat is making any seat mile advantage go bye bye very quick.
It would be interesting to see the take off weight per seat of the 747 vs the A380 vs say 777 or 340. Need to use the same fuel uplift for a chosen range.
Also re flight deck crew - will the A380 be a 2 or 3 body operation (Not considering relief crew)
The problem I see is that unless you fill all those seats - every empty seat is making any seat mile advantage go bye bye very quick.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea of the B747 prototype being a 'double decker' design was clearly an idée fixe of Juan Tripp, Pan Am's then head.
Apparently, the double deck mockup that Boeing presented to Pan Am was a charade, designed not to sell this version of the747, but to kill it. It was clearly a descendant of the Stratocruiser, with two intersecting lobes (the lower one larger, and the upper deck beginning where the lobes met at a seam, roughly 2/3 the way up, similar to an egg in an egg cup) with an upper deck at 25ft of the ground.
When Pan Am's top technicians and Captains were looking at the mockup, the idea of an evac from more than 25' off the ground and the lack of underbelly space for cargo was miserly - especially for an aircraft this size.
'The Boeing engineers had ideas for a different cross section. A single circle, passengers would be 16'off the tarmac, and there would be 9 seats across, with two aisles, and spectacularly wide - about 20'. What the Pan Am techs liked was the underfloor cargo space - there was room for 2 8x8 containers side by side. Juan Trippe had insisted that future cargo would be as important as passengers, and Boeing listened.
The source of this info is from: "Widebody- The Making Of The 747'
Clive Irving
ISBN 0-340-59983-9
A really wonderful read that goes back to Boeings B47/B52/B707 days in devlopment of the swept wing jet aircraft.
Apparently, the double deck mockup that Boeing presented to Pan Am was a charade, designed not to sell this version of the747, but to kill it. It was clearly a descendant of the Stratocruiser, with two intersecting lobes (the lower one larger, and the upper deck beginning where the lobes met at a seam, roughly 2/3 the way up, similar to an egg in an egg cup) with an upper deck at 25ft of the ground.
When Pan Am's top technicians and Captains were looking at the mockup, the idea of an evac from more than 25' off the ground and the lack of underbelly space for cargo was miserly - especially for an aircraft this size.
'The Boeing engineers had ideas for a different cross section. A single circle, passengers would be 16'off the tarmac, and there would be 9 seats across, with two aisles, and spectacularly wide - about 20'. What the Pan Am techs liked was the underfloor cargo space - there was room for 2 8x8 containers side by side. Juan Trippe had insisted that future cargo would be as important as passengers, and Boeing listened.
The source of this info is from: "Widebody- The Making Of The 747'
Clive Irving
ISBN 0-340-59983-9
A really wonderful read that goes back to Boeings B47/B52/B707 days in devlopment of the swept wing jet aircraft.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus was asked about the overweight issue with the 380 and their response was that they "took care of it".
With the new materials and engineering technology available now, I wonder if Boeing could carry on with their fully extended upper deck design, strap a bunch of Trents under the wings and be able to justify performance numbers that would induce a few preliminary orders?
Why not? Or is the 744 enough?
VRT
With the new materials and engineering technology available now, I wonder if Boeing could carry on with their fully extended upper deck design, strap a bunch of Trents under the wings and be able to justify performance numbers that would induce a few preliminary orders?
Why not? Or is the 744 enough?
VRT
Paxing All Over The World
VRThomas: In your earlier post, you express concern about electronic check-lists and routing, suggesting that the benefits of paper are still valid. They certainly are - for those that grew up with them!
I am in my 40s and grew up with paper so, although I have been involved with I.T. + Telecomms (+other things!) for over 25 years, I still prefer a peice of paper.
My 27 year old nephew who Captains J41s [although now converting to heavies, says proud uncle
] considers electronic flight bags as very interesting, as he grew up with computers. My teenage neice and nephew are even happier with a computer. So, electronic check-lists are not wrong or bad but they might be more difficult for older people to adapt to.
Another example, when my grandmother was in her 80s, push-button telephones came along I offered to get her one to make dialling easier with her arthritic fingers. She said, "Oh no dear, I wouldn't know which button to push!" So she used the rotary dial telephone until we called the undertaker... What we grow up with is, usually, what we like!
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
I am in my 40s and grew up with paper so, although I have been involved with I.T. + Telecomms (+other things!) for over 25 years, I still prefer a peice of paper.
My 27 year old nephew who Captains J41s [although now converting to heavies, says proud uncle
] considers electronic flight bags as very interesting, as he grew up with computers. My teenage neice and nephew are even happier with a computer. So, electronic check-lists are not wrong or bad but they might be more difficult for older people to adapt to.Another example, when my grandmother was in her 80s, push-button telephones came along I offered to get her one to make dialling easier with her arthritic fingers. She said, "Oh no dear, I wouldn't know which button to push!" So she used the rotary dial telephone until we called the undertaker... What we grow up with is, usually, what we like!
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"... What we grow up with is, usually, what we like!"
Good thing I grew up around pretty girls, and big jets!!!
GTFA
I hate it when the instructions are in the "read Me" files of a program you don't know how to open!
Good thing I grew up around pretty girls, and big jets!!!
GTFA
I hate it when the instructions are in the "read Me" files of a program you don't know how to open!
