A380 IS A GAS HOG (SUV of the AIR)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some airlines put 290 passengers in a 747-400, e.g. BA and ANA. Some will put 475 seats in a A380, some 650 (EK)
Determining the CASM (Cost per Available Seat Mile) is the marketing guys favorite toolkit (selecting low density configurations for the competitor : Boeings Randy's) & the big public believes it.
I think it would be more fair to compare an 11 abreast A380s to 10 abreast 747s looking at seat widths..
Lufthansa selected both the 747-8i and A380-800 and say the A380 is more fuel efficient (not that it says much..)
Determining the CASM (Cost per Available Seat Mile) is the marketing guys favorite toolkit (selecting low density configurations for the competitor : Boeings Randy's) & the big public believes it.
I think it would be more fair to compare an 11 abreast A380s to 10 abreast 747s looking at seat widths..
Lufthansa selected both the 747-8i and A380-800 and say the A380 is more fuel efficient (not that it says much..)
Guest
Posts: n/a
For some reason unknown to me I was more comfortable coming back in a 340. The 777 ride was about the worst I ever had (going back to 1939).
Adding to that a 747 flying with a close to max. TOW will have to cruise a considerabel time at a lower initial altitude (think around FL290) before being able to stepwise climbing to higher, usually more favorable, altitudes economywise.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Philippines
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We still have to see the best of the A380.
SQ figures are pretty impressive compared to the 744, but remember it is still about 1% overweight.
What has allowed it to meet its performance guarantees is that during flight testing, it proved to be a little quicker than anticipated, so at guaranteed cruise, it needs less thrust, hence the good figures.
By the time they have got the weight right, and tweaked a bit on SFC, it really is going to be impressive.
8,500 miles range is just a matter of time.
SQ figures are pretty impressive compared to the 744, but remember it is still about 1% overweight.
What has allowed it to meet its performance guarantees is that during flight testing, it proved to be a little quicker than anticipated, so at guaranteed cruise, it needs less thrust, hence the good figures.
By the time they have got the weight right, and tweaked a bit on SFC, it really is going to be impressive.
8,500 miles range is just a matter of time.
N4790P
The 777 ride was about the worst I ever had (going back to 1939).
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dusseldorf
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Slip and Turn, you'll forego flying in the most quiet and comfortable airliner currently cruising the airways because it wasn't built in Seattle?
Wow, that's really intelligent!
As for the economics of the A380. There is currently one operator of the aeroplane, an airline who's a long-time 747 operator too. They've publicly stated that the A380 has surpassed expectations and contractual guarentees with regards to fuel burn. And yet, we have people pulling out fantasy numbers from some hat trying to slag it off. That's very telling, mainly of the intelligence of the poster that is.
Why is that that Americans have such a hard time with anything not invented in the US?
As for the 777; worst piece of wide-bodied crap I've ever had the displeasure of being flown in. Give me a 747 or A340 any day please, hell even an A330 will do it even though it suffers from the same problem as the 777; not enough engines. As a passenger I really could care less if a 777 burns x % less fuel than an A340 carrying the same payload - I'm looking for comfort, and having 4 donks spinning does wonders for my comfort level!
Wow, that's really intelligent!
As for the economics of the A380. There is currently one operator of the aeroplane, an airline who's a long-time 747 operator too. They've publicly stated that the A380 has surpassed expectations and contractual guarentees with regards to fuel burn. And yet, we have people pulling out fantasy numbers from some hat trying to slag it off. That's very telling, mainly of the intelligence of the poster that is.
Why is that that Americans have such a hard time with anything not invented in the US?
As for the 777; worst piece of wide-bodied crap I've ever had the displeasure of being flown in. Give me a 747 or A340 any day please, hell even an A330 will do it even though it suffers from the same problem as the 777; not enough engines. As a passenger I really could care less if a 777 burns x % less fuel than an A340 carrying the same payload - I'm looking for comfort, and having 4 donks spinning does wonders for my comfort level!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 vs B744/748
Talked to a former skipper of mine who had flown the A330, B744 and now the T7.....he has this to say: The B747 was originally designed for freight ( with the nose cone loading access ) and became very successful as a long haul pax aircraft; the converse is going to be true of the A380, it's designed as a mammoth long haul pax airplane but it is mostly likely to be very successful as a super freighter!
Anybody has any idea how the B748i is coming along? Boeing should make it more like the T7 with commonality in cockpit lay out and systems like the dreamliner..........commonality with the B744 sucks as everything seem pretty outdated!
Anybody has any idea how the B748i is coming along? Boeing should make it more like the T7 with commonality in cockpit lay out and systems like the dreamliner..........commonality with the B744 sucks as everything seem pretty outdated!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parabellum:
Oh dear, here we go again. An aircraft, maybe one of the biggest challenge in modern industry, built with considerable delay, what became apparant to be normal (because also the competitor had the same problem), and already 300 pieces on order, and you guys are talking about an economic disaster.
How many orders on the 747-100 did we have in the first few years? How long did it stay in service (and will it still be, including the 800s). You are far to shortsighted to give me a reasonable explanation as to how it will continue.
In a decade or two we will see thousands of those vehicles (well, if we solve the energy problem...)
Dani
for the A380, problem is it is too small to generate enough orders for the type to break even on cost.
How many orders on the 747-100 did we have in the first few years? How long did it stay in service (and will it still be, including the 800s). You are far to shortsighted to give me a reasonable explanation as to how it will continue.
In a decade or two we will see thousands of those vehicles (well, if we solve the energy problem...)
Dani
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those few doubters....
http://www.a380.singaporeair.com/con...deoType=suites
Just think, for the premium classes the era of luxury travel returns at long last........and for the rest of us it ain't too bad either......
Just think, for the premium classes the era of luxury travel returns at long last........and for the rest of us it ain't too bad either......
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geragau -
The 747 was designed from the outset as a passenger aircraft and freighter ( read Joe Sutter's book "747" -p90). Juan Trippe (PanAm) signed a letter of intent with Boeing in Spring 1966. Quite a bit of the technology stemmed from Boeing's bid for a very large freighter for the USAF contract, that was won by the Lockheed C5 Galaxy. Boeing's entry resembled the C5 except that it had a conventional tail as opposed to the C5's T-tail. It differed from the 747 design in that it had an anhedral wing.
Regarding the rumour about A380 fuel-burn, most new designs rarely matched the manufacturers' quoted figures - the MD11 being a good example. The 380 will need some 'tweaking' yet!
The 747 was designed from the outset as a passenger aircraft and freighter ( read Joe Sutter's book "747" -p90). Juan Trippe (PanAm) signed a letter of intent with Boeing in Spring 1966. Quite a bit of the technology stemmed from Boeing's bid for a very large freighter for the USAF contract, that was won by the Lockheed C5 Galaxy. Boeing's entry resembled the C5 except that it had a conventional tail as opposed to the C5's T-tail. It differed from the 747 design in that it had an anhedral wing.
Regarding the rumour about A380 fuel-burn, most new designs rarely matched the manufacturers' quoted figures - the MD11 being a good example. The 380 will need some 'tweaking' yet!
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani - You are dreaming!
It may well turn out to be the most technically advanced aircraft ever built and with the best fuel figures ever seen, no argument there.
Yes, several airlines do want it but in penny numbers, not in sufficient quantity to enable it to break even. For Airbus Industrie it is a mill stone around their necks, a Dinosaur. It has, without doubt, cornered a niche market but that is a very small niche compared to, say the B777 or the B787, despite the latter's delays.
Airbus thought they would replace the B747 and at the same time cater for natural growth with the A380. They got that wrong as the B777 has all but replaced the B747 along with some of the Airbus family. The A380 will come into it's own on high density routes where slots are at a premium, these do not equate to anything like the route structure of the B747-400 in it's hay day. The A380 is possibly a great aeroplane but a white elephant, nevertheless.
It may well turn out to be the most technically advanced aircraft ever built and with the best fuel figures ever seen, no argument there.
Yes, several airlines do want it but in penny numbers, not in sufficient quantity to enable it to break even. For Airbus Industrie it is a mill stone around their necks, a Dinosaur. It has, without doubt, cornered a niche market but that is a very small niche compared to, say the B777 or the B787, despite the latter's delays.
Airbus thought they would replace the B747 and at the same time cater for natural growth with the A380. They got that wrong as the B777 has all but replaced the B747 along with some of the Airbus family. The A380 will come into it's own on high density routes where slots are at a premium, these do not equate to anything like the route structure of the B747-400 in it's hay day. The A380 is possibly a great aeroplane but a white elephant, nevertheless.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dusseldorf
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parabellum
Quite a few of the airlines who originally bought the A380 in low numbers have since increased their orders. Do keep in mind that BA, to name but one airline, didn't go out and place an order for 57 747-400 on day one; the orders came in dribs and drabs(ish). Furthermore, we havn't seen the "real" A380 yet, namely the -900 version. Neither has the -800R (long-range) been launched yet.
Air traffic is still growing, and will continue to grow at a pace that airport and ATC development will be very hard pressed to match - if they can match it at all. As more and more people wish to fly, one solution is bigger aircraft.
It is also interesting to note that those airlines who have chosen the A380, with the notable exception of Lufthansa, have all said the 747-8I have no place in their future plans. SQ went one step further by saying the -8F does not offer sufficent savings over a converted -400 to justify the additional cost, bearing in mind that they have a rather large and amortised fleet of -400's which can be converted to freighters.
Quite a few of the airlines who originally bought the A380 in low numbers have since increased their orders. Do keep in mind that BA, to name but one airline, didn't go out and place an order for 57 747-400 on day one; the orders came in dribs and drabs(ish). Furthermore, we havn't seen the "real" A380 yet, namely the -900 version. Neither has the -800R (long-range) been launched yet.
Air traffic is still growing, and will continue to grow at a pace that airport and ATC development will be very hard pressed to match - if they can match it at all. As more and more people wish to fly, one solution is bigger aircraft.
It is also interesting to note that those airlines who have chosen the A380, with the notable exception of Lufthansa, have all said the 747-8I have no place in their future plans. SQ went one step further by saying the -8F does not offer sufficent savings over a converted -400 to justify the additional cost, bearing in mind that they have a rather large and amortised fleet of -400's which can be converted to freighters.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jay, very true.
One other argument very often goes missing:
Airbus had to design a very large aircraft since Boeing could subsidize its smaller aircraft families with the gains in the 747 sector. This has gone completly, the 747 is phasing out. The 800 will be the last number. The numbers produced have decreased tremendously. If there wouldn't have been an A380, big shots like EK would surely have ordered a 747.
Now Airbus has competing models in all sizes, that's what they wanted. Every line is competing directly with its immediate counterpart. It's no coincidence that since Airbus started with the A380, also the other member of the family have increased orders.
Even if AI will never make profits with the A380 (not my guess), it still generated profit in the long run for the whole market for AI.
Dani
One other argument very often goes missing:
Airbus had to design a very large aircraft since Boeing could subsidize its smaller aircraft families with the gains in the 747 sector. This has gone completly, the 747 is phasing out. The 800 will be the last number. The numbers produced have decreased tremendously. If there wouldn't have been an A380, big shots like EK would surely have ordered a 747.
Now Airbus has competing models in all sizes, that's what they wanted. Every line is competing directly with its immediate counterpart. It's no coincidence that since Airbus started with the A380, also the other member of the family have increased orders.
Even if AI will never make profits with the A380 (not my guess), it still generated profit in the long run for the whole market for AI.
Dani
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we are just going to have to wait and see but I won't be holding my breath! I stick to my belief that there is definitely a comparatively small market for the A380 but not enough now or in the future to make it a viable commercial proposition as a passenger aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the logic applied here, you just make an aircraft bigger, then stuff it with more pax and - magic - the fuel/pax ratio goes down. You just created a green aircraft. However:
First you have to fill it constantly, because the backdraft is, that with lower loadfactors this equation turns awfully wrong for the mammouths.
Second: No one has ever completed the equation with the cost and impact of the infrastructure these things require. Up to now the airports have gracefully beared these cost, mostly payed by the taxpayer.
Third: These biggies stuff up operations on airports. Have you ever taxied behind a 380? I have. Not only you ride the brakes, but the runway and taxiway occupancy increases considerably, as they bumble along and take ages to get into the the booths. This might change when more normal crews and not chief-astronauts will operate it. Seperation will however become a much bigger issue inflight. Does anyone take this impact into the equation?
I am quite anxious to experience DXB once they'll have a greater number of mammouths......
It's a fascinating, though ugly, aircraft, i admit. But costwise, I predict a more pragmatic, disapointed verdict in a few years.
First you have to fill it constantly, because the backdraft is, that with lower loadfactors this equation turns awfully wrong for the mammouths.
Second: No one has ever completed the equation with the cost and impact of the infrastructure these things require. Up to now the airports have gracefully beared these cost, mostly payed by the taxpayer.
Third: These biggies stuff up operations on airports. Have you ever taxied behind a 380? I have. Not only you ride the brakes, but the runway and taxiway occupancy increases considerably, as they bumble along and take ages to get into the the booths. This might change when more normal crews and not chief-astronauts will operate it. Seperation will however become a much bigger issue inflight. Does anyone take this impact into the equation?
I am quite anxious to experience DXB once they'll have a greater number of mammouths......
It's a fascinating, though ugly, aircraft, i admit. But costwise, I predict a more pragmatic, disapointed verdict in a few years.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think their will be a market for the a380 because:
Indeed, don't forget to mention the amazing inflight entertainment system !
- more then 1300 VLA's were sold in the last 40 years
- 700 747s will need to be replaced in the next 15 years
- air traffic is expected to more then double in 20 years.
- most airlines continue to buy bigger versions of aircraft.
- 80% of long haul travel takes place between hubs.
- Airbus has no credible competition in the VLA segment.
- people continue to prefer to live and work in congested / city areas.
- more and more hubs become slot restrained.
Just think, for the premium classes the era of luxury travel returns at long last........and for the rest of us it ain't too bad either......
!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GMDS,
I can't speak for other Airlines, but LH is running at least 3 flights per day FRA-JFK or FRA - EWR, additionally 2 MUC - JFK/EWR and just recently reinstated the DUS - EWR route. They are served either by 340 or 747. Now if there is to be growth in those markets, you need a new slot or a BIGGER aircraft. I can't see, how it would be difficult to fill an A380 on that route, maybe even two. This is also the reason I don't want to fly one, even though it would be very interesting technically. But going the same 3 - 5 routes all year would bore me to death...
Have you ever taxied in JFK? It takes a good hour from the RWY to the gate, the same to get out of there. If I wasn't too lazy to calculate it, I am sure I could prove you could walk it faster.
My point is - everything has it's place. The A380's is on high density routes with little slots available at DEP/DEST.
It will be a great success left in it's place and certainly won't replace my little CRJ on the MUC-FMO route...
Nic
I can't speak for other Airlines, but LH is running at least 3 flights per day FRA-JFK or FRA - EWR, additionally 2 MUC - JFK/EWR and just recently reinstated the DUS - EWR route. They are served either by 340 or 747. Now if there is to be growth in those markets, you need a new slot or a BIGGER aircraft. I can't see, how it would be difficult to fill an A380 on that route, maybe even two. This is also the reason I don't want to fly one, even though it would be very interesting technically. But going the same 3 - 5 routes all year would bore me to death...
Have you ever taxied in JFK? It takes a good hour from the RWY to the gate, the same to get out of there. If I wasn't too lazy to calculate it, I am sure I could prove you could walk it faster.
My point is - everything has it's place. The A380's is on high density routes with little slots available at DEP/DEST.
It will be a great success left in it's place and certainly won't replace my little CRJ on the MUC-FMO route...
Nic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very good arguments for the success of the A380.
In adition to that, the US needs also desperetly bigger models within the US. It's not only that international routes that are overcrowded. The US traffic system is completly over its limits. Also airlines are rapidly consolidating themselves, which gives them the possibility to run bigger machines. Instead of using a 767/787 every hour from one coast to the other, they should use one A380 every second hour.
An A380 might be a bit less agile on the tarmac than a narrow body. But it still uses less ressources than two 767s.
Dani
In adition to that, the US needs also desperetly bigger models within the US. It's not only that international routes that are overcrowded. The US traffic system is completly over its limits. Also airlines are rapidly consolidating themselves, which gives them the possibility to run bigger machines. Instead of using a 767/787 every hour from one coast to the other, they should use one A380 every second hour.
An A380 might be a bit less agile on the tarmac than a narrow body. But it still uses less ressources than two 767s.
Dani
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keesje - "700 747s will need to be replaced in the next 15 years"
and so they already have, by the B777 family and to a much lesser extent the Airbus A330 and 340 family.
Dani - no one can fault your hypothetical argument but the sad truth is that even under the best of commercial circumstances the market for the A380 will never exceed enough airframes to make it a commercially viable proposition. The Hamster Wheel continues to turn, we will just have to wait and see!!!
and so they already have, by the B777 family and to a much lesser extent the Airbus A330 and 340 family.
Dani - no one can fault your hypothetical argument but the sad truth is that even under the best of commercial circumstances the market for the A380 will never exceed enough airframes to make it a commercially viable proposition. The Hamster Wheel continues to turn, we will just have to wait and see!!!