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 22nd Aug 2003, 12:52
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Cool

its always quite comical listenig to the 747's battling for FL320 to cross the pond, while we're already up at 370 in a nice A330 having breakfast on a nice sliding tray table!!!
Oblaaspop - Exactly. It is areally nice to be a pilot nowadays, isn't it? Let the computers do the job, play with the sidestick a bit on landing, and enjoy listening to the comedy show, when those poor bastards in their old dinosaurs struggle with weight.

Ah, thank goodness we don't need to bother at all. But of course at home we still tell everybody, how bloody difficult it is to be a pilot, and how much we enjoy to sit there for hours, fiddling with our thumbs... Imagine there was a time, when pilots handfly an airliner below 10000ft? Unthinkable....

Ok, enjoy your breakfast on your tray table. Your job sounds really a challenge....
Burger Thing is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2003, 17:49
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Around
Posts: 61
for a similar thrash across the pond with a full load (35t) the 340-300 will go straight to 370 ex JFK, (and 360 ex LHR. ISA conditions). Slowly though, about 34mins for a C2 powered a/c and 29mins C4.
An ATC buddy of mine has figured out how the A340 manages to climb. It is because of the curivture of the earth.
Fresca is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2003, 07:43
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 10
Tacking slightly back towards the post subject re. certain folks who think the A380 is too large. Does anyone around today incharge of a major think the 744 is too large. For their own airlines maybe, but not for the likes of, Lufthansa, Singapore and Emirates etc. who seem confident (quite rightly) of filling the thing.

By early in the 2010's everyone will have forgotten about the whole size issue and be happily scooting through the sky without a second thought. Besides that stretch -900 is it? will probably be in the offing then if not already airbourne and It'll all start over, 650 in three classes. The "can't be done too big! and no-one will buy it" brigade will be out in force again.

Isn't it just part of the show when you launch a bigger aircraft of whatever type you get the same old chat?
Pickled Props is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2003, 19:33
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Have a look down a 747 upper deck slide, you will see what he means. On the day it ain't gonna work.
I've looked down an A340-height slide (in a cabin sim) and shat myself, so no doubt I would have similar feelings at the top deck of an A380/747.

But, emergency egress from a 737 is frightening enough if the aircraft behind you is on fire and people are desperate to get out. In that sort of situation, I would take my chances going down the slide, no matter how uninviting it looked.

(And by the way, how many passengers willingly chuck themselves down huge, high slides at water parks day-in, day-out on their holidays? Some of those are near vertical, without any form of enclosure, hardly even a barrier.)
BahrainLad is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2003, 20:32
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hello Kitty City
Posts: 207
The slides for the A380 are fully enclosed at the top (and for about 10m down either side)....not to keep the rain off....but rather to hide the horizon. That way the punters wont (supposedly) be able to tell just how steep and long the slide is.
Yahoo.
jungly is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2003, 20:48
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Enclosed to hide the horizon....... Nothing like jumping into a black hole when your already terrified. Me thinks the covers will go away if they slow people down because they are afraid to jump into it.

When your at the water slides you are surrounded by an atmosphere nothing like an aircraft emergency. And..... likely a fine young scantily clad lass has just headed down in front of you and you want to catch up!
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2003, 21:55
  #67 (permalink)  
ft
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Oh my. I guess the chase for a new smoke screen is on, now that the Chronic Snoozer went on a much-deserved very early retirement.

Well, it is entertaining. Two tickets and a bucket of popcorn please!

(Government loans, defense research grants, whatever they elect to call it. A rose is a rose is a rose!)

Cheers,
Fred
ft is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2003, 22:01
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Ft,

Thats Sonic Loser to you!!!

The debate is not who is bigger or better between Boeing and Airbus. This is a discussion regarding the size of the A380 only. Personally, I think she will be a great freighter.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2003, 00:41
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 39
Posts: 133
A380 slides

Have to agree with everyone with the slides. Just did my cabin crew training with Monarch, going down a single lane slide in their 757 mock up. That in itself was rather daunting, picking up a considerable speed before hitting the deceleration pad which really does get u up on your feet and throws you forward.

A number of people, even after a few times down the slide were falling over at the bottom, forcing us to slow down the evacuation at the top.

Change the scenario to that of the upper deck of a A380, fire, smoke, darkness... People will be crushed to death at the base of the slide.
MonarchA330 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2003, 00:58
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Hopefully, somebody around here will have oportunity to film the evac test and post it for all to see. Maybe a Pay Per View event
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2003, 18:34
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Cool

B747FOCAL

Re: Your comments concerning Airbusses and Tails. So no Boeing has ever lost a tail? Boeing DO build 737's and 747's don't they?

I've never heard of an Airbus's rudder throwing it out of control, or the rear pressure bulkhead ripping the fin off an aircraft, or a Airbus experiencing such a catastrophic depressurisation that it un-zips itself over the Pacific,or blows out a cargo door,complete with a section of fuselage and some pax.

We agree on that it would be a good freighter.It will also be a mighty fine Hub-to-Hub High Density Medium/Long Haul/Ultra Long Haul Pax and Pax/Freighter Combi aircraft. My employer has ordered 25 firm with about another 20 on option (it may even be 45 firm by now). I'll let you know what it flies like.
Pontious is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2003, 18:48
  #72 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,545
or the rear pressure bulkhead ripping the fin off an aircraft
If you must get into childish argument at least get your facts right.

That incident was not a design fault but a repair incorrectly carried out.
M.Mouse is online now  
Old 27th Aug 2003, 21:41
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Pontious,

Please be logical......

Airbus does not have anywhere near as many older high cycle aircraft flying as Boeing does. When the day comes that they do I am sure that you will see various like type incidents that you have stated. Though I do pray they don't.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2003, 23:02
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Cool

747FOCAL

Some of the older A300's were manufactured in the mid 70's. That means that they are as old,if not older, as some of the 732's and 733's. I was taxying out just the other day and was treated to the sight of a 707 landing. Now that is still a good looking,well-built aeroplane and a tribute to the people who built her. I regret not having flown one of those.
I enjoyed my 6 years flying 757rockets and cut my teeth in ETOPS on 763ER's. 2 aeroplanes that I won't hear a bad word said against, but my current employer put me on the A330 and this aircraft will take some beating. I think Boeing will seize the initiative again with the 7E7. I certainly hope so.

I stand by my comments concerning the A380. But there will be enough aircraft orders for fleet replacements of older generation aircraft to go around for both Boeing and Airbus. I mean not every aircraft is as solidly built or as simple to maintain as a trusty old 707.
Pontious is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2003, 00:47
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Pontious,

They are as old, but there is nowhere near the numbers. The odds that you will have a catastrophic event go up exponentially when you have a lot more units.

When the US military stops flying their version of the 707 they will be almost 100 years old.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2003, 22:25
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Boeing has for some time been on the back foot in terms of aircraft design, they have not turned out anything new for ages, the 777, 747 QRX, 737NG are fairly old designs.

Friends of mine who were design engineers with Boeing have commented that Boeing have lost large numbers of their good engineers, and have pointed out their inability to make simple modifications is becoming a joke, like crew rests.

It literally takes thousands of people to get a new aircraft certified these days, and you cannot teach engineering experience at college.

Boeing has learnt lots from Airbus, they now use the same software that Airbus uses to design their aircraft (CATIA was used for the 777). Unlike Airbus, Boeing has not been investing in the future, but resting on past achievements. Boeing also has been applying Airbus technology to their products, the 737NGs employ a more optimised wing, however its still 4% less efficient than the older A320 wing, and has higher V speeds than the 737OG which was 15% less efficient than the A320.

It is interesting to note that Boeing manufactures A320 wing boxes, and the A330/A340 landing gear doors for Airbus.

I made several comments when the sonic cruiser was announced to the effect that it will not be built, its not a feasible engineering project, they have done no headworks on the ground to build the aircraft in, its just a marketing ploy, anyone in Seattle knows it was from day one.

The A380 is a feasible engineering project, the current debate in this thread is about escape slides, its and engineering challenge that has been met, just put enough holes in the tube to get the 52 t of passengers out in 90 seconds. The first centre wing box is complete, the manufacturing/assembly facility is looking good.

Whilst its great to see all the history around Boeing Field and the other plants in Washington state, seems most of the future is taking off from LFBO.

Time will only tell to see if Boeing has lost too much of its intellectual capital to get another new design out the door, the automotive industry just pays a lot better these days in the US.

In my view these comments were nothing short of a buy American call for the 747X stretch 504 pax against the European A380 555 pax, and to take some of the aviation press of Airbus which passed more milestones on the way to getting the A380 airborne.
Zeke is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2003, 22:39
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Devil

Zeke,

Nobody is trying to make a buy this or that ploy. The discussion is around the size of the aircraft and do we think it is just too big.

You do have some good points and they are accurate surrounding all the Intellectuals flying the coop.

You gone down that slide yet?
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2003, 02:30
  #78 (permalink)  

mostly harmless
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: axis of chocolate
Posts: 183
Zeke

While I agree with most of your comments, I find it hard to believe that the Sonic Cruiser was just a marketing exercise.

On most heavily used international routes, slots are congested and there some slots are more valuable than others.

Obviously any airline is going to place its first SCs in the primetime slots. So they replace a 747 with a 250-seat SC, which will be mostly premium class plus fullfare eco. Either they give the surplus economy pax to the competition or they need a bigger plane to fly them off-peak.

Bigger plane = A380.

So the launching of the SC after the A380 inevitably supported the latter's sales among those airlines that face this trade-off.

What I have trouble believing is that Boeing would have risked supporting the A380's sales if they didn't think the SC was going to fly.

but I could be persuaded.

answer=42
answer=42 is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2003, 07:03
  #79 (permalink)  
Props are for boats!
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 51
Posts: 989
Its all coming down to economics. It all stops with the buck and how its spent. For my own opinion, I like Boeing much better than Airbuses, and allways will. But when companies like EasyJet a stalwart 737 operator order Airbus. Or Emirates in the UAE order 45 A380S. The blame for Boeings slump , must come down to Marketing and Product affordability. Airbus seemed to have triumphed in this area totally.

Also the availability of second Machines parked in the Mojave Desert, surely must make a dent in their market also. But there are as many parked buses aswell arent there? Maybe not, as the Airbus is more economical to operate, hence the Airlines retiring their costly Types first.


Sheep

still prefer boeing though!
Sheep Guts is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2003, 21:32
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 97
still prefer boeing though!

Why?
xyz_pilot 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.