I’m rooting for airbus. I hate to see one company have a monopoly on anything.
It certainly is an impressive aircraft, but as said before, how practical is it? Just doesnt’ seem to be feasible if you ask me…
Note - The Airbus will not fit into current airline gates, this means the major airports will have to rennovate. Kennedy has already started. The French believe that bigger is better.
Boeing believes that the standard size, more efficient plane (the new dreamliner) is more appealing to current airlines and will fit in the current airport gates.
I guess we will see whose strategy will be the winner.
Tom Y. [8-]
The idea is to put the nosewheel at JFK and the tailskid at heathrow, passengers get on one end and off the other.
I don’t much care for the economics of the thing, it exists, it flies and it’s impressive.
Congratulations, Airbus! [:D]
mutters Why did they have to change their house colours after Revell AG issued that kit…? [;)]
I thought Airbus had surpassed Boeing for some years now, as industry leader. Never mind though.
For your info: The A380 will be at le Bourget in France (http://www.paris-air-show.com) on 18-19th june. And she will be flying there.
Concerning accidents with 800 people on a large kerosine tank? Come on: sure, accidents happen, and surely as wel with this giant some day. Still, it’s the safest form of transport, even beating a walk in the park by foot. And off-topic indeed…
You can say that about just about everything → From Ford Pintos to the SST
Airbus has had it fair share of issues with it’s aircraft as well as Boeing/Mcdonnell Douglas and the like
No Mechanical item is perfectly safe
repeat after me “Population Control”
Kudos to Airbus for taking the concept and making it happen.
Its a nice looking bird and its nice to see it airborne. I don’t feel right trying to find something detracting to say about it. One of the English classes I teach is for an outfit that Airbus farms out some of its component machining to, so I am earning money due to their existence.
However, I do have to wonder just how many air routes are well travelled enough that one of these beasts will routinely run at full capacity or near full capacity along it.
When I travelled here from Canada in July (nose end of tourist season) one leg of the trip was from Vancouver to Amsterdam. Vancouver is one of Canada’s largest cities, definitely the largest in the west. As I understand it, Amsterdam is one of those cities considered a “gateway” to Europe, in escence you go there and get smaller flights to smaller points on the continent.
I flew at the nose end of tourist season from one of Canada’s largest cities to one of Europe’s “gateway” cities (and a very popular city in its own right) on an MD-11 trijet that was flying at 2/3 capacity if that.
Question is; if a big airline like KLM isn’t flying MD-11’s at full to near full capacity between a major North American city and a major European one, how are they going to fill up an A380 or a Boeing equivalent for that run? I doubt it will happen for any airline that chooses one of these monsters, they’ll fly routinely at partial capacity and the tickets will cost an arm and a leg to offset that fact.
I’m certain some success will be seen with these big birds, but I don’t think anyone should be holding their breath waiting for that big windfall thats being projected by some.
Bigger can be better, but if you make anything too big, it will eventually collapse under its own burdens (figuratively speaking of course)
I wish Airbus the best but with their track record on mishaps, I think after the first major one they’ll all be mothballed [B)](and looked as a city killer[xx(]{800+ pac’s = 1 township or city ), if you look back at Boeing when the 747 was on the drawing board they too had a double decker design but dropped it for the bubble style we see today for reasons of what will make the most money for them & the carrier, because you’ll never get 800+ people want to go to the same place at the same time and with the War On Terrior [}:)]it’s a ripe choice of a target[:(]
It was quite entertaining to see that behemoth land yesterday. My vote goes to Airbus. I do like the fact that Boeing is pushing technological boundaries to increase efficiency, and doubtless, the fuel savings of the Dreamliner will save any potential airline millions in fuel, but then again, seeing the sheer size of the A380, it just doesn’t fail to impress.
Regarding upnorth’s question about filling that beast, they’ll probably go with reducing the number of flights offered each day to force more passengers onto a single plane. This will help reduce the number of trips and accordingly the costs. I guess we’ll just have to see how it shakes out. The DC-10 was a pretty good airplane that got a bad rap for a couple of fluky accidents that weren’t really any sort of reflection on McDouglas. The aviation market is strange and answers to some odd twists of fate.
Nothing against Airbus. I’ll fly on anything that stays in the air and gets me to my destination. Until Sept. 11, I worked for a company that supplied materials to Airbus and Boeing. But I don’t think there is a lot of new technology in the 380. It is still a tube with wings, like the 757 or any other. I still see impraticalities. How big is the terminal gate going to be for 800 people to board? How many doors will they board through? It takes something like a half an hour to board a 737. How long to get off the thing? The more they fly though, the fewer flights may be needed. That can reduce traffic at major airports. If you want to fly, you go when the schedule says you go. Just some rambling thoughts.
It doesn’t look like it should fly. I wonder what the glide characteristics are?[(-D] I would imagine seeing it fly would be like seeing the Spruce Goose back in the day. Good luck to all involved, including Boeing.
Eddie
Overkillphil:
I suspect you are very right about airlines reducing their number of flights to be able to fill one of those birds.
Wayne:
You make a very good point about how long it may take to board one of them, I suspect two hours minimum for a near capacity flight.
Both these facts could backfire for airlines choosing to use the A380 or Dreamliner. When they reduce flights, they reduce options that passengers have. Part of good business is to offer your customers options, if you don’t, they go to others who will.
As for the boarding time, well, people don’t pay for airline tickets so they can sit on the ground inside the plane forever, people can only be expected to have so much patience.
I suspect if the airlines who use either the A380 or the Dreamliner take too many options away from passengers in the scheduling of flights or tax the passengers patience through long times on the ground, the folks that will be seeing the real profits are the smaller airlines or charter carriers that can’t afford these big birds, but do operate ones big enough to make the big trans oceanic hops.
These smaller operators will be able to keep more scheduling options open and keep boarding times down to reasonable limits.
I can’t imagine being able to find 800 people in the same place at the same time all with the same destination. It just doesn’t strike me as possible.
As far as I can tell, the A380 will only take 800 passengers in the high density configuration. This is only planned for japanese domestic flights.
For trans atlantic/pacific flights it wil have a much smaller number of passangers.
800 is the maximum number, but 500/600 wil be much more feasible for normal configurations.
I commend Airbus for getting that thing off the ground[tup][tup][tup]
Whether they make money or not, who knows.
Airbus feel they need to sell quite a few of these to break even, so of course the market will be flooded, seeing as ALOT of airliners now days are really trusting fate as far as being airworthy goes.
Corporations and businesses need to keep shareholders happy, not customers.
Some folk gave the Concorde a bad rap, they lasted 27 odd years AND they had the safest record of anyone as far as commercial craft go, no losses of life from crashes.
May Airbus can pull it off, maybe not, but I would fly that thing, just for the thrill of it[:D]
Sorry, but I don’t share the excitement some of you have. It is impressive but I look at it as more American JOBS lost! Steve Jones
Not if Boeing pulls their finger out and gets the Dreamliner off the ground[;)]
I’m glad to see the A380 finally airborne. It has been a long time coming. I know there is a lot of debate about the 787 vs. A380, but it may be a compromise. There is going to be a market for both that is not exclusive. You might be able to argue that one will make more money than the other, and I think in the long run, the 787 will have a better profit margine. I don’t believe that either company will be going out of business in the forseable future.
By the way, Airbus did surpass Boeing as the largest comercial aircraft producer a year or two ago. And remember that many of these concerns people have about the A380 were voiced when the 747 came out and it seems to have done quite well. I do think we are approaching the upper limit of aircraft capacity though and this may be as big as airliners get.
Congrats Airbus, Boeing, now it’s your turn…
Well, other countries need employment too. We’re not the only ones around…