A380 IS A GAS HOG (SUV of the AIR)

[airfoilmod]

Dani

Odd example to use to promote the 380. The first computers used vacuum tubes ("valves" in Britain). They consumed power at prodigious levels, required massive cooling systems and computed roughly at the level of a medium priced cell phone (to be generous). They also occupied a volume equivalent to a large Home. Are you suggesting that the 380 is a "pioneering" A/C? Developed as a "proof" of cutting edge technology? At best it is the result instead of "bigger is better". There are no breathtaking advantages to the 380 over other (arguably more flexible) A/C. It is a wonderful achievement; the end result, though, of an idea that was "cutting edge" in 1963, with the first blue lines of the 747.

[Dani]

No, I'm not refering to an old computer, but to the shortsightedness of some ppruners/Boeing manager/analysts - not so much of airline manager, they got it.

Dani

[airfoilmod]

OK

Criticizing an A/C is short sighted? Any technology has its fans and detractors; I assure you the people who have 250M Euros to spend won't write checks based on cheerleading and fan base. This isn't a high school argument about whose football team is better. What as yet unimagined world changing impact is the 380 going to potentiate? Miniaturization? Engines that run on sea water? Sorry, all I see is a massive result of an exercise in current Technology. If it is wildly successful, that's fine with me. In the near term, our industry is looking at lighter loads, which means smaller aircraft. If you can teach people to love the 380, great. I'm waiting to see what Herb Kelleher does. Try to tell pax to congregate in groups of 430~ and fly at very specific times only, that would help your 380. (Charter?)

Airfoil

[Dani]

Hey, I'm no fan of A380 or any other aircraft in general (except the one I fly but that's something else). I'm talking about the economic and ecologic applications and implications. I would love to see a transport vehicle running on sea water, but as long as we don't have it, we have to go with something else. It would be great if everyone who wants to fly has his own private jet, preferably supersonic. But I think that's not possible. You see the prices of oil going up, that's because we use a tremendious lot of it (and because of speculation, ok), and the problems will only become bigger.

So, eighter you accept it or you will realize it later - until then, keep discovering...

[18-Wheeler]

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

[attributed to Thomas J. Watson, president of IBM, 1950s]

Myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...amous_misquote

[Dani]

"A380 IS A GAS HOG"

Myth.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...2&postcount=42

[airfoilmod]

I guess

It may be the Internet, but why the instantaneous "gotcha" syndrome? Aviation is a massive industry involving dozens of mobile and rapidly evolving technologies; "New" Types are struck years before they enter the Fleet. The paradigm of Aviation, with all the hyper-tech, is that Market vectors, Weather, Resources (Fuel, Human) drive what is essentially an economic Guessing Game. Flying a Heading is Wisest until mid Route and the unexpected. Given how my family makes a living, you might think I'd be a rabid Boeing nut. Not so, the Real World is full of the unexpected.

Gas Hog? Don't be ridiculous, competition (a good thing) won't permit it.
Razor thin Fuel advantage? Maybe, but other factors drive acquisition and Bottom Line. I enjoy PPRuNe immensely, but at times the lack of respect and patience (not PPRuNe's responsibility) is annoying. We may be heading for some belt tightening as an industry/service provider, and I'd really like to see some Inter Flag cooperation and support, a little like yesteryear, maybe.

Airfoil

[Dani]

Agree on most of your argument, TnB.

But it's quite an unfair comment to compare the infrastructure for a 40 year old (fuel hog) compared to a brand new class of VLA, of which only 2 examples are in service yet!

That's just as ridicolous as blaiming the missing civil airports when there were only Boeing Clipper flying boats around and were quickly exchanged by land-borne airliners after second world war.

Dani

[Denti]

But the A380 was not built for such a reason. It was built to take 500 pax over crowded routes to crowded airports with even more crowded slot times i.e. LHR and it was designed to do it cheaper than a 744 can.

Actually it was build and certified to carry 850 passengers around. Of course that would be a one class layout and you cannot carry those nice first class suites around simple because you don't have the space to do so. It is each airlines decision how many seats you wanna put in that beast.

[c130jage]

Dani
But it's quite an unfair comment to compare the infrastructure for a 40 year old (fuel hog) compared to a brand new class of VLA, of which only 2 examples are in service yet!


Three actually.

[18-Wheeler]

But it's quite an unfair comment to compare the infrastructure for a 40 year old (fuel hog) compared to a brand new class of VLA, of which only 2 examples are in service yet!

True enough the Classics are a bit thirsty, but the -400's aren't.
They burn a little more than a 340-600 and are much faster, so I imagine the fuel burn per sector would not be a great deal more.

[Denti]

850 pax config? Yet to be seen.

You are right of course if you mean the current configs used out there. However it was used during certification flights and of course the evacuation testing done in hamburg. Actually evacuation trials were done after 71 seconds (iirc) and therefore they can increase pax load considerably in larger versions if airbus ever builds them, talk about a 1000 pax airplane.

If current operators put 400 less seats in there than they could it is their own decision and i would expect they have it calculated on that basis, but of course the per passenger fuel consumption has to be worse than in a high density configuration.

[Bolty McBolt]

From the airbus web site
Maximum ramp weight 562 tonnes

Maximum takeoff weight 560 tonnes

Maximum landing weight 386 tonnes

Maximum zero fuel weight 361 tonnes

Maximum fuel capacity 310,000 Litres

Typical operating weight empty 276.8 tonnes

Typical volumetric payload 66.4 tonnes

850 pax config?
I don't know the international standard for average weight of pax for weight and balance purposes. But I seem to remember 77KGs as a figure + luggage would give avaerage weight per pax at about 105 KGs plus.
850 PAX would be very close to 90 tonnes or probably greater considering the size of hand luggage carried and people are getting larger.
Math is not my strongest suite but I doubt we will see to many 850 seat varients being built.
But it is only an opinion and we all have one of those

[Dani]

Open your eyes. Now four

WOW! It's four! I'm so overwhelmed...
That still doesn't give you the numbers needed to have the infrastructure built already. Just wait a few years, then every airport with a 10 000ft runway will also be able to accept an A380. To be A380-ready is a excellence-label for every airport.

Dani

[212man]

Gas Hog...

I shall ponder on that as I settle down into this seat tomorrow evening and sip my first champagne.....

[Dani]

Quote by Bolty McBolt:
Math is not my strongest suite but I doubt we will see to many 850 seat varients being built.

Not only math is not your strongest point but also English, logic and aviation knowledge

The key word lies in the word "typical", which means "in general", "normally". Of course an 850 pax machine wouldn't be built for the long haul routes. They would be high density machines like the 747s within Japan (if we remember). Eighter you fill the tanks or the cabin, that's how goes the saying. Also applicable to other airliners. You cannot have everything. So you choose what is best for you.

Also you have to consider that the present A380 is the first step in an evolution, there will be newer and more advanced models. And as you can see with the 747, the latest models have very few things in common with the earliest machines.

More to come...
Dani

[darragh]

Having just had a couple of trips on the A 380 in the last few weeks and also a couple in the 777, i will say this: the A380 is the most comfortable commercial plane to fly in by a mile! The economy ride is amazing! Quiet, great lighting, awesome entertaiment system and size of TV screen! The 777 on the other hand, Yuk! (And i am a big fan of Boeing) We also climbed straight to FL350 after take off!

[Bolty McBolt]

The key word lies in the word "typical", which means "in general", "normally". Of course an 850 pax machine wouldn't be built for the long haul routes.

Correct. An 850 seater would be heavier than the "typical weight" due to all the seats on board. I have reweighed many aircraft and I am quite ofay with the terms.

WOW! It's four! I'm so overwhelmed...
That still doesn't give you the numbers needed to have the infrastructure built already. Just wait a few years, then every airport with a 10 000ft runway will also be able to accept an A380. To be A380-ready is a excellence-label for every airport.

I think the point TnB made is that as it stands now a huge majority of the B744 transits happen at only 50 airports. The B744 was previously the largest pax transport aircraft in operation and the A380 has now replaced it in many but not all roles.(theoretically)
Seems like the A380 is a typical wide body airbus.
Good for certain roles but not equivalent to the Boeing counterpart/redundant.
Why on eath would an airport authority spend all the money to up grade its run way and terminal facilities for little return in traffic.
In OZ Melbourne (MEL) widened the run way and put extra air bridges in to handle the BIG bus but it stands to gain only 14 transits a week for the near future.
The airport fees will bee horrendous if passed directly on to the operator.
So before any airport becomes "A380-ready" market forces will dictate first, not a strive for "excellence" which is virtuous but plays little part in todays business models.


DANI
As you now seem to be the resident A380 apologist I will bow out of this thread as it seems you are emotively involved.
rgds
Bolty

[chornedsnorkack]

However it was used during certification flights and of course the evacuation testing done in hamburg. Actually evacuation trials were done after 71 seconds (iirc) and therefore they can increase pax load considerably in larger versions if airbus ever builds them, talk about a 1000 pax airplane.

79 seconds.

But this does not matter. Even if a manufacturer should demonstrate by testing that they can evacuate all passengers in 10 seconds, it is still not allowed to have more than 110 seats per exit pair. Airbus 380-800 has 8 exit pairs, so the seat count cannot be stretched past 880 unless exits are added. The evacuated configuration was 538 on lower deck, 315 on upper deck, so that if A380 is stretched, it shall need two extra exit pairs - for both decks. I do not quite see where the sixth main deck door would go. B747-800 has the same issue: as the -400 can have 539 main deck seats, a stretch would raise a need for sixth door pair.

[keesje]

chornedsnorkack: I do not quite see where the sixth main deck door would go. B747-800 has the same issue: as the -400 can have 539 main deck seats, a stretch would raise a need for sixth door pair.