Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

A380 "Too Big" Say Two Airline Execs

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

A380 "Too Big" Say Two Airline Execs

Old 19th Aug 2003, 03:45
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,198
I'm not volunteering to test this slide

When exiting the slide at 26+ MPH on to tarmac is the best hoped for outcome compared to falling off the side on the way down, it looks pretty bad

Helmet and full inline skating protection gear highly recommended (wrist, knee elbow, maybe even hip pads for us older folks).

Me, I feel much safer sliding down snow and ice slopes in the mountains -- I'm allowed to bring my ice axe to slow down with

More seriously the upper deck slides will need a deceleration pad at the bottom
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 04:18
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
I agree coming off the upper deck of a 747 is going to be about as bad, but there is no where near the amount of people on the upper deck of a 747 series aircraft.

If they are trying to move that many people off the upper deck there will be some anxiety involved, people just can't ho hum there way to the door and expect to make 90 seconds. Have a few of them fall and get landed on by somebody moving that fast will certainly get people hurt. Imagine the bad press if somebody happened to get killed during the test.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 05:15
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 39N 77W
Posts: 1,630
Back to the original subject, it is probably accurate to say that the A380 is too large for most US airlines. Many of the major US airlines don't fly 747s for that matter.

But the A380 better succeed for my nephew's sake, here in the USA, who is building parts for it.

When United first configured their DC-10s there was a little lounge at the rear of coach. They laid out "party platters" back there so you could have a snack. How times have changed.
seacue is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 05:19
  #24 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
no smoke, no noise, no panic, no heat, no fire etc.
What I would worry about is WIND. A good 20 knot wind and the slides will flap like big flags.
Huck is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 05:48
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 921

So does nobody think airlines will go for this kind of cabin interior.

BAe 146-100
BAe 146-100 is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 06:04
  #26 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 63
Posts: 8,851
146: No, they won't!!!

I would also say that the vast majority of these people couldnt tell an Airbus from a Boeing and is not even the smallest factor in their decision.
Too right - they don't even notice how many of those big drums are slung under the wings.

Having watched this evening the usual unbuckling-of-belts-and-standing-up "before the aircraft has come to a complete halt", I do look forward to watching a whole deck of 250 nosediving when the boss hits the end stop.

The A380 will work, of that I have no doubt, for all the reasons stated above. As to the much vaunted 'lounge areas' that the early 74's had, they vanished for seats and I predict that very few (if any) of the fancy new ideas will fly. They are just there for headlines. I recall Airbus oferring the cargo level crew rest kitted out as a Temple for ElAl or a Mosque with Mecca direction finder for their neighbours. I don't think anyone has yet taken up cargo space for the purpose. (I sit to be corrected)
PAXboy is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 08:21
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: On a warm beach
Posts: 47
Dan Winterland says:

Well, by the time several hundred A380s are operating, the main aviation market will be Asia. So what a couple of US CEOs think won't matter too much!

I am asking this question as I do not have a clue. Is there really a market for several hundred of these behemoths? I understand that Asia has very long haul routes, but the main aviation market?
dudly is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 08:35
  #28 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Yes dudly my point has always been that there may not be a big enough market for, "several hundred" aircraft, Bahrainlads mention of, "one or two arriving early morning" may be a bit nearer the mark, in which case Airbus won't break even. Aircraft the size of the B777 or Airbus 330 seem to be the current favourites.

Of JFK, LAX, ORD, SFO which ones have plans to cater specifically for the A380?
BlueEagle is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 09:14
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bali H'ai
Posts: 409
Just my 2 sens worth.

Asia is the future market. or at least Asian carriers. It is significant that Malaysian, Singapore and QANTAS are among the lead purchasers.

Ever heard of the Kangaroo Route, all three operators thrive on this, and the numbers are not going down.

Have you tried a flight from South Africa to Asia, all the flights are full, I do this regularly and upgrades are becoming standard, there just aren't enough seats for the pax.

Good luck to the A380, Asia is the future.

Sultan Ismail
Sultan Ismail is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 10:03
  #30 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 7
It has nothing to do with being good or not at building airplanes. It comes down to physical realities.
That is exactly why the A380 will be successful. The question isn't whether the airplane is too big for the airlines ... the question is whether the airports are too small for the future. The answer is "yes". What I refer to is the fact that many airports are highly limited to the number of additional flights that could be added. All airports can handle additional passengers (with modification to baggage/security/transportation facilities). But most high-volume airports to not have the real estate (on the ground, or in airspace) to expand to handle significantly more flights. Assuming a growth market in the travel industry, the only answer is to have more passengers per aircraft.
cyrano_de_bergerac is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 11:54
  #31 (permalink)  
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
If you were to only account for 747s that were bought for their size then the 747 program would have been a giant flop that bankrupted boeing.

What people forget is the 747 was revolutionary not really for its size but its RANGE! By Boeing's own admission long before the A380 was even thought of, two thirds of all 747s were bought for their range, not their capacity. Now that there are aircraft like the 777 and the 340 that can do the same range with less people and make money, the demand for 747s has dropped off. The 777 was originally thought to be a medium range airliner, but the customers kept demanding more range. Boeing complied and increased the range of the 777, but they weren't happy about it, they knew they were killing the 747 in the process.

With Airlines now free to buy any number of aircraft with range that is for all practical purposes 1/2 the circumfrence of the earth, the demand for the A380 will be stictly based on traffic. With the continue fragmentation of routes with more point to point flying (Open skies coming to Europe and USA will be another example of this btw) requirements for larger aircraft will drop.

Will Airbus sell em? Of course they will. Will they sell them in greater numbers than the A300/310 (which lost money because they only sold a few hundred of them) not likely. But Airbus doesn't have to take financial considerations into effect when they launch a product.

When Boeing launches an aircraft they have to borrow the money at market rates to do the research, set up the line etc. Airbus got a shitpot of grants that made this part of the problem tough. Lets say Airbus sells 500 of em in 20 years (A VERY optomistic assessment) each aircraft already costs 60 million dollars before you clock in the first worker and cut the first piece of aluminum (principal+interest assuming around 5 percent interest) If you don't sell that many aircraft that quickly and deliver them, the interest compounds and things get REALLY out of control. OF course not having to make those calculations are a wonderful advantage airbus has...
Wino is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 15:18
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Red face

For me it works like this:

A-380 = More passengers - less flights = LESS JOBS

B-7E7 = Less passengers - more flights = MORE JOBS

Who cares about the mine is bigger than yours bullsxxt
Burger Thing is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 16:27
  #33 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 286
A380 - More passengers - Less Flights = Less Jobs ?

How does this work when the number of airports that will be able to cater for the A380 in the UK stands at about three, if you are lucky, about five years after it enters service ?

Initially, its use is going to be limited, but once more airports are able to cater for the beast, surely it would create more jobs.....more checkin staff, more baggage handlers, etc etc ?
TurboJ is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 16:38
  #34 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 59
B747FOCAL, are Boeing are any more scrupulous than Airbus when it comes to recruiting people for the evacuation test?
Gordinho is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 18:04
  #35 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 46
Posts: 2,818

so Boeing don't make money from sweetheart tanker lease deals and whatnot?

Funny there must be two Boeing Co.s out there
MarkD is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 21:22
  #36 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882

B747FOCAL, are Boeing are any more scrupulous than Airbus when it comes to recruiting people for the evacuation test?

If I understand the process, you are allowed to ask for volunteers. You can't go to a high school and get a bunch of hyperactive teens that will run and jump off of anything.

Here is what the FAA requires and I will assume the JAA is similiar:

Appendix J--Emergency Evacuation

Sec. J25.1

Emergency [Evacuation]

The following test criteria and procedures must be used for showing compliance with Sec. 25.803:
(a) The emergency evacuation must be conducted either during the dark of the night or during daylight with the dark of night simulated. If the demonstration is conducted indoors during daylight hours, it must be conducted with each window covered and each door closed to minimize daylight effect. Illumination on the floor or ground may be used, but it must be kept low and shielded against shining into the airplane's windows or doors.
(b) The airplane must be in a normal attitude with landing gear extended.
(c) [Unless the airplane is equipped with an off-wing descent means, stands or ramps may be used for descent from the wing to the ground. Safety equipment such as mats or inverted life rafts may be placed on the floor or ground to protect participants. No other equipment that is not part of the emergency evacuation equipment of the airplane may be used to aid the participants in reaching the ground.]
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this Appendix, only the airplane's emergency lighting system may provide illumination.
(e) All emergency equipment required for the planned operation of the airplane must be installed.
(f) Each external door and exit, and each internal door or curtain, must be in the takeoff configuration.
(g) [Each crewmember must be seated in the normally assigned seat for takeoff and must remain in the seat until receiving the signal for commencement of the demonstration. Each crewmember must be a person having knowledge of the operation of exits and emergency equipment and, if compliance with Sec. 121.291 is also being demonstrated, each flight attendant must be a member of a regularly scheduled line crew.]

(h) A representative passenger load of persons in normal health must be used as follows:
(1) [At least 40 percent of the passenger load must be female.
(2) At least 35 percent of the passenger load must be over 50 years of age.
(3) At least 15 percent of the passenger load must be female and over 50 years of age.]
(4) Three life-size dolls, not included as part of the total passenger load, must be carried by passengers to simulate live infants 2 years old or younger.
(5) Crewmembers, mechanics, and training personnel, who maintain or operate the airplanes in the normal course of their duties, may not be used as passengers.
(i) No passenger may be assigned a specific seat except as the Administrator may require. Except as required by subparagraph (g) of this paragraph, no employee of the applicant may be seated next to an emergency exit.

(j) Seat belts and shoulder harnesses (as required) must be fastened.
(k) Before the start of the demonstration, approximately one-half of the total average amount of carry-on baggage, blankets, pillows, and other similar articles must be distributed at several locations in aisles and emergency exit access ways to create minor obstructions.
(l) No prior indication may be given to any crewmember or passenger of the particular exits to be used in the demonstration.
(m) The applicant may not practice, rehearse, or describe the demonstration for the participants nor may any participant have taken part in this type of demonstration within the preceding 6 months.
(n) The pretakeoff passenger briefing required by Sec. 121.571 may be given. The passengers may also be advised to follow directions of crewmembers but not be instructed on the procedures to be followed in the demonstration.
(o) If safety equipment as allowed by paragraph (c) of this appendix is provided, either all passenger and cockpit windows must be blacked out or all of the emergency exits must have safety equipment in order to prevent disclosure of the available emergency exits.

(p) Not more than 50 percent of the emergency exits in the sides of the fuselage of an airplane that meets all of the requirements applicable to required emergency exits for that airplane may be used for the demonstration. Exits that are not to be used in the demonstration must have the exit handle deactivated or must be indicated by red lights, red tape, or other acceptable means placed outside the exits to indicate fire or other reason why they are unusable. The exits to be used must be representative of all the emergency exits on the airplane and must be designated by the applicant, subject to approval by the Administrator. At least one floor level exit must be used.

(q) [Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all evacuees must leave the airplane by a means provided as part of the airplane's equipment.
(r) The applicant's approved procedures must be fully utilized, except the flightcrew must take no active role in assisting others inside the cabin during the demonstration.]
(s) The evacuation time period is completed when the last occupant has evacuated the airplane and is on the ground. Provided that the acceptance rate of the stand or ramp is no greater than the acceptance rate of the means available on the airplane for descent from the wing during an actual crash situation, evacuees using stands or ramps allowed by paragraph (c) of this Appendix are considered to be on the ground when they are on a stand or ramp.

Does that answer your question?
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 21:24
  #37 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lincolnshire UK
Posts: 156
You asked,

"Of JFK,LAX,ORD,SFO, which ones have plans to cater specifically for the A380?"
They all do, although non of them will be shouting from the rooftops about it. You can be sure that those you mention - and others - will be getting ready for A380.
AirportsEd is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 22:11
  #38 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
The 747 passenger version was a stop-gap until the SST could be built.

The 747 was projected to end up being a freighter only aircraft - hence the elevated flight deck.
Huck is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 22:55
  #39 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 59
"Why do you think Airbus wanted to do PAX evac by analysis? Even they are a bit afraid they may not make it or maim or kill somebody to certify it...."

B747FOCAL, they may have wanted to use computer simulation but they weren't allowed to (correctly) so if and when the airplane passes the test it will be every bit as valid as the B747.

Will the upper deck slides on the A380 be single or double width?
Gordinho is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2003, 23:15
  #40 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CYYC
Posts: 410
I seem to recollect that the B747 design was part of a US government funded competition won by Lockheed.
It took 20 years for Boeing to pay off the R & D costs for the 747, so I don't think they had too much funding from the government. The current 767 tanker order on the other hand looks like it is just a subsidy in disguise. Read "Flying High" for a good history of Boeing. The author covers everything, good and bad, about the company.
goates is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.