A380 "Too Big" Say Two Airline Execs
 

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_34a/...5523-1.html#3c
A380 "Too Big" Say Two Airline Execs
It's too big for some runways and terminals but is Airbus's A380 also too big for some airlines? According to the CEOs of two major U.S. airlines, the 550-seat behemoth will be shunned in the U.S. as too costly and too crowded. "I don't think the A380 is going to sell other than to cargo carriers in the U.S.," Northwest Airlines CEO Richard Anderson told Bloomberg News. Northwest operates about a dozen B747 models to haul cargo. Continental CEO Gordon Bethune said he doesn't think passengers will want to be lost in the A380 crowd. "What's in it for me to sit on an airplane with 500 other people, wait for my bags with 500 other people, check in with 500 other people," he wondered. He did fail to mention the A380 has room for such amenities as full-service restaurants and lounges. Continental operates an all-Boeing fleet. The A380 is Airbus's weapon in a high-stakes battle that will likely determine whether it will continue its newly won dominance over Boeing in the commercial jet market. For the first time this year, Airbus will make more airliners than Boeing. Boeing is answering the challenge with the 7E7 Dreamliner, less than half the size of the A380 but with similar range, something Bethune is cheering. "Nonstop is the real answer, not bigger."

Two airline execs say the A380 is too big!?!?! Time to pull the plug on the A380 project, Airbus!

:rolleyes:

Ahh, but Airbus isn't American, is it?

I remember the same argument about the B747 in the late sixties. Look what happened to their predictions.

:ooh: :hmm: ;)

Bethune is full of crap. Go to LHR, LAX, JFK and you'll be checking in or waiting for bags with a hell of a lot more people than the '500' he talks about....these airports handle multiple 747 arrivals at the same time (LHR T4 at 6am anyone?) and the addition of 1-2 A380s is not going to have the kind of dramatic effect on operations that he's talking about.

But didn't he used to work for Boeing?

Further to the posting of RICH49, and if the A380 were a product of Boeing and not Airbus then the Americans would be trumpeting it as the next major step in Civil Aviation. Methinks this is simply a case of "Not made in the USA". More power to Airbus!.

It's pretty questionable whether NW and CO would have the kind of long range heavy pax trunk routes that make A380 a runner. Just because they haven't shouldn't be carte blanche to slag it off because not many folks want to fly into DTW and EWR comparatively speaking.

NW and CO are good 777/7E7 candidates and good luck to them, but if they were able to fill enough seats to get 380s they would buy.

I think maybe they are worrying that 250 people will not be able to make it off the upper deck in an emergency evac without maiming or killing most of them. :E

747FOCAL from Seattle, Washington, where do you get your info from? :suspect:

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! :ok:

Some might argue otherwise, but the people I know who book tickets do so online. They couldnt care less which airline they fly with. 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. They will book a ticket from one company over another if its $1 cheaper. They really couldnt give a crap about the rest of the details and thats really what it comes down to. My understanding of it is that the A380 will utilize more effeciently a finite number of landing slots by virtue of its greater capacity? And also with more passengers for similar costs as other Airliners with less seats, hence making fares slightly cheaper?

Yup - 'Not invented here' syndrome from a couple of Spams.

The A380 programme is developing considerable momentum, and both wide body and narrow body Airbus products are beginning to outsell Boeing. In fact if they hadn't virtually given away 737s to O'Leary, their sales figures would be even worse......

A318-321 - Tailored for appropriate regional and short-ish haul routes. Airlines can move them around between routes to capitalise on high demand sectors. Friday evening - A321. Tuesday lunchtime, A319.

A330, 340 and 340-5/600 - Selling well on long-haul...


......and in theory ALL have common type rating requirements. Although hopping from a 318 to a 340-600 might prove interesting!

Other use of spaces.

Full-service restaurants, I somehow doubt this for safety concerns over fire hazards and turbulance issues.

There used to be lounges on some of the first two series of 747s but I believe they soon disappeared in favour of extra seating. Same also happening for restaurants in addition to the above reasons.

Now a bowling alley...

Of course! Because Europeans can't build aeroplanes, they'd obviously design one with upper deck exits that didn't work.

from http://denver.bizjournals.com/phoeni...y1.html?page=2

"Since it's a double-decker aircraft, the escape slides are tremendously long in some instances. The walls of one section of the test facility will be 60-feet high," Oney said. "It's a clear-span structure. That means there are no posts. It's required because of the type of testing that we have to do with these very large slides."




Early models of the A380 aircraft will accommodate 550 passengers in a three-class, two-level structure. Later models are expected to carry as many as 650 passengers.




The aircraft is so large, it has 16 emergency doors and requires 16 escape slides, compared to a 747 aircraft which requires 12, Oney said. Later models will have 18 emergency exits and require 18 escape slides, he said.




The longest upper-deck slide for an A380 will exceed 50 feet, while the longest upper-deck slide on a 747 is 46 feet, he said.




The slides are made of a nylon-based fabric that is coated with urethane or neoprene. They have to be packed tightly into small bundles placed at the foot of emergency exit doors.




The FAA requires Goodrich to conduct between 2,000 and 2,500 tests on the slides to make sure they can accommodate a large number of passengers quickly and withstand wind, rain and other harsh weather conditions.




The upper-level slides, which are wide enough for two people, have to enable the evacuation of 140 people per minute, Probett said. It's also an FAA requirement that the slides enable a 90-second evacuation of 550 passengers from the A380, she said.

Well my (U.S.) company has bought ten, with options for ten more. I've already got a bid in on the right seat.

Gordon Bethune is a current 757 captain, and was probably just asked his opinion off-the-cuff. Ask Continental's marketing people and you might get a different answer. As for NWA, they run an old (and paid for) fleet - it has served them well so far.

A word about nationalism and aircraft: my city (Mobile, Alabama, U.S.A.) is one of several making a play for the assembly plant for Boeing's next jet. All cities have one thing in common: a seaport co-located with an airport. Why? The jets will be mostly be fabricated overseas, then shipped to America for final assembly. Much like cars - you can buy a Honda made in the US, or a Ford made in Japan....

El Al packs this many in every 747 JFK TLV flight--and doesn't JAL also? ;)

Gordinho,

Not sure if I get the hidden meaning behind your question? :\ There is plenty of information available regarding the topic of PAX evac on the A380 from the upper deck. It has nothing to do with being good or not at building airplanes. It comes down to physical realities.

When they conduct the final cert test they are not going to have a bunch of soccer and rugby players filling those seats to see if they can get them safely off in 90 seconds, it will be a smattering of young, middle aged and old. Possible even some handicaps. The cabin will be dimly lit, they will step to a door that is some 40 ft in the air and brightly lit causing them to squint and check out just where they are going to fling themselves. Most people that high up are going to hesitate, looking around and at the bottom of the slide. The people just coming off the slide will be moving somewhere in the 26+ MPH range and piling up rapidly at the bottom.

I believe there has already been a test conducted with 200 people in France that sent 50 plus to the hospital. :E

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. :yuk: :{

I think the A380 will make a great Freighter just so you know. :ok:

More Boeing maskirovka. Or rather, bull!!!!!

Come up with your evidence for the A380 evacuation test you refer to - or retract. Piss or get off the pot!

I believe there is a thread regarding it somewhere here on PPRUNE. I said I believe because I am not exactly where I saw the information. The reality of PAX evac certification is real. They may very well pull it off......all I said was it will be no duck walk and will most probably need a little luck.

You ever jump off a 4 story building onto a slide before?


WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :E

747FOCAL,

To quote BahraiLad's quote, the longest slide on a 747 is 46 feet! I'm sure thats just as daunting.

I do agree though that evac cetrification is a problem but in my view it's the fact that the 90sec requirement is tested with no smoke, no noise, no panic, no heat, no fire etc. I can only speak for myself but in such a senario i wouldn't give a damn if I was sliding 46 or 50 feet!

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:uhoh:

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:ouch:

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. :(

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.

What I would worry about is WIND. A good 20 knot wind and the slides will flap like big flags.

Hi,

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

http://www.aviationboom.com/features..._interior5.jpg

BAe 146-100

146: No, they won't!!!

Too right - they don't even notice how many of those big drums are slung under the wings. :rolleyes:

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. :p

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)

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?

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?

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

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.

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 !!!!pot 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...
Cheers
Wino

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

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 ?

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

Wino

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

Funny there must be two Boeing Co.s out there :D

<<When Boeing launches an aircraft they have to borrow the money at market rates >>
I seem to recollect that the B747 design was part of a US government funded competition won by Lockheed.
Looking at the B747 cf the Galaxy it doesn't look to me as if Boeing had any intention of winning the government competition. :rolleyes:

(The foregoing is merely a personal opinion which may be quite erroneous.)

Gordinho,

__________________________________________________
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:

Part 25 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
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.:E
(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.:mad:
(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?

BlueEagle,
You asked,

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.

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.

"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?