It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Airports say A380 improvements may not be worth it...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I just saw this article on CNN, and it very much shadows my opinion that the cost associated with the A380 may not be worth the benefits.

www.cnn.com...

Long and short, Only a few airports can see doing the improvements, and even those cannot see the cost/benefit to such a large undertaking. I can really only see 4 or 5 airports making the improvements to receive the jumbo jet.




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
That doesn't look very reassuring.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
So basically what this article is saying is that the airports which airlines currently have no plans to fly too have said that its too expensive for them to upgrade, while those that airlines have committed to flying from are upgrading...?

None of the comments made in this article really surprise me, the A380 was always going to be a niche aircraft for the first few years of its life - other airports will gradually be upgraded as and when they find the need or during the course of natural progression.

The A380 has been in development for nearly 15 years now - most of the comments in that article were people who have had 15 years to do something, and now have to justify not doing anything during that time.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I just can't see the U.S. using the A380 for anything other than the NY to London, NY to LA, or LA to Tokyo routes. We as Americans are spoiled, and are willing to pay more for a direct flight in the U.S., rather than a cheaper HUB route. (Atlanta, btw, is one of the U.S.'s biggest hubs, in terms or layovers and transfers). A380 will be international only in the U.S.

Given that, I think the A380 has huge potential in Europe and Asia, where there is more willingness to be tracked around in a big "cattle car" with 555 of your closest friends. The big cities will create the need for the A380, just as they are the biggest 747 customers.

But, in the U.S. , the A380 will just be a novelty, niche aircraft.

Now, whether Airbus makes any money on the aircraft is another matter alltogether....



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
When I read the piece it took me back thirty years to when Concorde was coming out, prevailing opinion in the US was that it would 'blot out the skies' (I don't know how big they thought it was, lol) or that it would 'shatter every window in New York'. These were genuine comments I came across at the time (reading Flight, I was 11!) and the A380 article with its 'it could crush tunnels' type comments took me right back there


It makes me wonder if perhaps this could be a symptom of the latest US political moves against Airbus, after the 'subsidies' row? To discredit the aircraft at home and create doubts in the market?

I know its not the US Govt that is saying any of this but you never know where pressure has been applied.

I realise this sounds incredibly paranoid but us Brits have been here before with VC.7, VC.10, TSR.2, SR.177 etc etc.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
When I read the piece it took me back thirty years to when Concorde was coming out, prevailing opinion in the US was that it would 'blot out the skies' (I don't know how big they thought it was, lol) or that it would 'shatter every window in New York'. These were genuine comments I came across at the time (reading Flight, I was 11!) and the A380 article with its 'it could crush tunnels' type comments took me right back there


It makes me wonder if perhaps this could be a symptom of the latest US political moves against Airbus, after the 'subsidies' row? To discredit the aircraft at home and create doubts in the market?

I know its not the US Govt that is saying any of this but you never know where pressure has been applied.

I realise this sounds incredibly paranoid but us Brits have been here before with VC.7, VC.10, TSR.2, SR.177 etc etc.



Follow the money and i bet Boeing is behind some of this!!!!!
There have already been rumours that they are telling airlines that if they buy the Airbus then they wont get any new boeings again.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by paperplane_uk]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I can't believe Boeing would say that to potential customers, imagine the response? "OK, Stick yer 787 pal, we'll have the A350 instead!"

On the other hand I can't help thinking that if the A380 was called the 'Boeing 797' the airports would be bending over backwards to accomodate it.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
I just can't see the U.S. using the A380 for anything other than the NY to London, NY to LA, or LA to Tokyo routes.


Mmmm. What about all those Paris, London, Rome, to USA routes, etc. You're just thinking internal US, not country X to US.

This isn't surprising anyway, European aircraft are outdoing US aircraft so expect an increasing pissing war over the matter.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by halo_aura

Mmmm. What about all those Paris, London, Rome, to USA routes, etc. You're just thinking internal US, not country X to US.

This isn't surprising anyway, European aircraft are outdoing US aircraft so expect an increasing pissing war over the matter.


None of those routes warrant an A380, since they can all be serviced by 767s or A330s flying direct routes. Basically, at the moment, we ARE seeing all the 'important' international hubs being upgraded, and that is exactly the market that the A380 is being aimed at, so theres little lost there. As Ive said before, you will see these 'rogue' airports gradually be upgraded as natural progression and refurbishment happens - I for one certainly dont think the A380 will be the last of its type, and its insane for airports to ignore the sector when it becomes widespread.

As an aside, Ive noticed that a LOT of news sources have, since the A380 was unveiled a few weeks back, made the assumption that Airbus thinks 'bigger wins' and Boeing thinks 'smaller wins' purely because Airbus have released the A380 and Boeing have released the 777-200LR and the 787. This has irked me, because it blatantly isnt the case. Both manufacturers have smaller planes both in current production AND being developed, theres certainly no compartmentalisement (now theres a word and a half!) on either part. It is possible for a company to have multiple products!



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Interesting..

I wonder how much Boeing had to do with this decision? Airbus in the begining wanted to build this aircraft with Boeing as a joint venture, Boeing turned them down flat, stating that the 747 fills predicted projections.

Shame, really it is a vast improvement on the 747 in nearly all respects, i think that Boeing are aiming all the hops on the 7E7, launched/showcased today.

I would love to see the RAF buy a few of these for the fleet. a380 tanker support! lol

- Philip



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
Shame, really it is a vast improvement on the 747 in nearly all respects, i think that Boeing are aiming all the hops on the 7E7, launched/showcased today.


It was the 777-200LR that was showcased today, not the 787. Completely different aircraft.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I apologise, my mistake, I saw a brief showcase on the BBC news, and assumed that it was the 7E7.

- Philip



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Beside all the luxury of such a large airliner, isn't the point of it all to hire fewer pilots flying fewer planes. Are there any fuel-cost benefit ratios here per passenger? What are the statistics?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Man, you have to admit the 7E7 is one sexy airplane. Just look at those lines...





The airbus is just big. It will serve a purpose, but the Boeing is a nicer plane.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Enthusiasts can enjoy the looks of a plane as much as they like (but be honest there's not really that great a variety in the looks of the civil stuff these days) but as far as the airlines are concerned it all comes down to economics and no-one can match the A380's economics on the long haul....

.....and sooner rather than later the environmental effects are going to start getting more involved in this. Reducing the number of flights is going to be come a big deal in all of this which means bigger aircraft carrying more people in fewer flights.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I dont think that article stated something that isn't allready known. Obviously every airport that can handle the 747 isn't going to expand to handle the A-380 unless there is a large need for it.

I love how the 787 looks, nice and aerodynamic and streamlined. A good lookin plane. I also like the A-380, because of its impressive size.

Question: What is biger the Antonov-225 or A-380?


soulforge
We as Americans are spoiled, and are willing to pay more for a direct flight in the U.S., rather than a cheaper HUB route.

Americans??? I dont think anyone is spoiled, everyone in the world prefers point 2 point travel, the Airbus is only good for larger country crossing journey's, which there is a big and growing market for. Boeings 787 is what people want, think about...If you are going on a vacation, lets say Mexico, do you want to go straight there, or stop in one or two other cities and deal with different times, higher chance of a delay, takes more time away from you, adds stress. Then you spend a week in the sun and feel all relaxed only to do that all over again to get back home making you gain some stress back. I know I prefer point 2 point, but if going to Germany then i would expect more swaping planes, but for shoter routes...No.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Only big hub airports were invisioned for the A380 at any rate, so its doubtfull than smaller ariports will even bother. Its not all that surprising.

Just as a little FYI, Singapore Airlines is the expected to be the first with a A380 in service, and it will be a 3 class configuration with less than 500 passangers according to AWST.

Now, if the economics are based on 555, how does that effect the efficency factor? Hard to tell esp if the ofset that with more cargo.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The A380 is a very nice aircraft, but I won't hide that I am biased in saying America should use American aircraft; I hope Boeing's aircraft is more successful than the A380 in America.

The A380 is a lot better than the 747 though (which it should be, considering it is a far newer aircraft). It is larger, yet burns 30% less fuel, I think it is easier or cheaper to maintain, etc...



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Go 787! *throws fist up*

The airport that's 10 minutes from me can supposedly accomodate the A380 as it is.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I can't believe Boeing would say that to potential customers, imagine the response? "OK, Stick yer 787 pal, we'll have the A350 instead!"

On the other hand I can't help thinking that if the A380 was called the 'Boeing 797' the airports would be bending over backwards to accomodate it.


Well my friend at the risk of sounding flip: DUH!

Ofcourse US airports would bend over backwards to upgrade for a US plane.. the same way European airports are bending over backwards for Airbus.

Having said that, while I don't believe the weight is a major issue, having to shut down xxR or xxL to take an A380 for landing/takeoff, *would* be a major PITA.

Osiris



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join