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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

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



The A380 in terms of cubic meters of space.. I did a hypothetical passenger load out of one (AN-225) in another thread on here.

Osiris



kix

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Imagine a 89 fare from JFK to LAX in a brand new 380 owned by Jet blue?
or a 299 fare one way by American or Delta in a brand new 787.


see.....when money talks the 380 will always win.......

and just imagine the CARGO...$$$$$$



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Imagine a 89 fare from JFK to LAX in a brand new 380 owned by Jet blue?
or a 299 fare one way by American or Delta in a brand new 787.


see.....when money talks the 380 will always win.......

and just imagine the CARGO...$$$$$$



And how do you justify that price?? (I'm genuinely curious the math you used there).. and for a 5.5 hour flight, I'll take the non-cattle car approach thank you (I don't fly discount carriers due to a seat pitch of approximately 1"
)

Osiris



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
the 380's first design is for passengers not cargo, a 747's design was first based on passengers with the conversion to cargo later. thats why the cockpit is high and not in the middle like the 380 is. in 747 cargo planes the nose lifts up for easier cargo loading/unloading and large container loading. this is why the distinctive hump was on the first 747. take a look at a 380 and its not designed for large container transport as a cargo carier. so once again a 747 will have the advantage as a cargo carrier.

now if airbus had truely designed it as a dual purpose aircraft they would have made the cockpit the same height as the upperdeck



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by otlg27

Originally posted by kix
Imagine a 89 fare from JFK to LAX in a brand new 380 owned by Jet blue?
or a 299 fare one way by American or Delta in a brand new 787.


see.....when money talks the 380 will always win.......

and just imagine the CARGO...$$$$$$



And how do you justify that price?? (I'm genuinely curious the math you used there).. and for a 5.5 hour flight, I'll take the non-cattle car approach thank you (I don't fly discount carriers due to a seat pitch of approximately 1"
)

Osiris


A380 flies on 20% less fuel than the 747, and seats more passengers, which means that you need less pilots and equipment to move said customers, and that you can move more passengers in less time, which fits the equation of time = money. In the airline industry the cost of a flight is hopefully surpassed by the airfare paid for said flight. A bigger plane carrying more people per flight on less fuel in the same amount of time (or quicker) with less downtime (newer planes, better engines and design) is obviously going to induce competitive prices.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:38 AM
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



However waynos yo must also remember that it was as a direct result of such complaints and the inconvenence of the sonic boom whch led to the less than sucessful comercial and finacial performance of the concord. The simple fact is that while the concord was a triumph of engineering it never made enough to recover devolpment cost as a result of these types of issues.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigx01
the 380's first design is for passengers not cargo, a 747's design was first based on passengers with the conversion to cargo later. thats why the cockpit is high and not in the middle like the 380 is. in 747 cargo planes the nose lifts up for easier cargo loading/unloading and large container loading. this is why the distinctive hump was on the first 747. take a look at a 380 and its not designed for large container transport as a cargo carier. so once again a 747 will have the advantage as a cargo carrier.

now if airbus had truely designed it as a dual purpose aircraft they would have made the cockpit the same height as the upperdeck


Considering the vast majority of civilian cargo freighters do NOT get loaded and unloaded through the nose, I cant see where you are coming from.

Surely if it was such a big problem, most freighters would be front loading, but they arent, so it mustnt be such an issue as you are claiming. 99% of civilian freighters are converted (either during their life or at build time) versions of passenger aircraft.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331

However waynos yo must also remember that it was as a direct result of such complaints and the inconvenence of the sonic boom whch led to the less than sucessful comercial and finacial performance of the concord. The simple fact is that while the concord was a triumph of engineering it never made enough to recover devolpment cost as a result of these types of issues.


That was exactly my point.

They weren't even 'issues' it was 'scaremongering' pure and simple and it worked. At one time Concorde held 400 orders and options, including an order from Pan Am, but they all evaporated.

Of course I'm not blaming this for Concordes ultimate failure in the commercial sense, that was much more to do with the 1973 oil crisis and the sheer economy afforded by widebodies.

Its just symptomatic of how new 'foreign' breakthroughs are recieved in the US which generally seems to succumb to hyperbole more easily than some other countries, sweeping generalistation though that is.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Two things to rember in regards to US airports and the A380. Alot of the airports around the world may not make the modification. Those that do will be the ones that have high 747 traffic already. Think Pacific Rim, Middle East, Paris (No brainer), london etc. initally JFK and LAX will be the US hubs San Francisco is most likely next. I don't know about O'Hare as its waaaaay to crowded already. Also not most American based airlines fly 767 and 777 for long haul flights with NW and United being the exceptions with 747 that are mostly used for Trans Pacific operations because of load factors.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
As a frequent international traveller I would avoid flying on the new A380.
The hassle of long lines to board and waiting for imigration and baggage at my destination is not an option.
I fully support the Boeing venture to produce the new 7E7 which is aimed at the business traveller market.
No "Cattle Truck" for me.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by halo_aura
A380 flies on 20% less fuel than the 747,


Ok, I'm so sick and tired of reading this... get your facts straight.. it's 20% less fuel per passenger mile. *Not* 20% less fuel. That's an important distinction, because while it's 20% less fuel per passenger mile, it's about 25% more passengers. So it actually burns as much or more fuel, just carries more pax.


and seats more passengers, which means that you need less pilots and equipment to move said customers, and that you can move more passengers in less time, which fits the equation of time = money. In the airline industry the cost of a flight is hopefully surpassed by the airfare paid for said flight. A bigger plane carrying more people per flight on less fuel in the same amount of time (or quicker) with less downtime (newer planes, better engines and design) is obviously going to induce competitive prices.


I never argued any of that. However, my reply was with respect to the thoughts of a cheap ticket from a discount carrier flying from NY to LA. Discount carriers run even higher numbers of PAX with smaller seat pitched. REGARDLESS of how cheap it is, small seat pitches do not appeal to me, which is what I said in your post. You seem to be arguing with me about a cost point, that I personal (and said so in my message), don't care about.

I never disputed it would lower costs, but do *I* want one of those $89 trips from NY to LA with my knees in my chest the whole time; NOPE.

Osiris



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by otlg27

Ok, I'm so sick and tired of reading this... get your facts straight.. it's 20% less fuel per passenger mile. *Not* 20% less fuel. That's an important distinction, because while it's 20% less fuel per passenger mile, it's about 25% more passengers. So it actually burns as much or more fuel, just carries more pax.



There are two ways of getting costs down - burn less fuel, or carry more passengers for the same fuel burnt. Any other arguement is semantics.



I never argued any of that. However, my reply was with respect to the thoughts of a cheap ticket from a discount carrier flying from NY to LA. Discount carriers run even higher numbers of PAX with smaller seat pitched. REGARDLESS of how cheap it is, small seat pitches do not appeal to me, which is what I said in your post. You seem to be arguing with me about a cost point, that I personal (and said so in my message), don't care about.


Guess what, this aircraft has never been marketed for that route, and it probably wont appear on that route for a while yet. Your issue here is NOT with the aircraft, its with the AIRLINE - how the hell can you blame an aircraft manufacturer for something the airline does?



I never disputed it would lower costs, but do *I* want one of those $89 trips from NY to LA with my knees in my chest the whole time; NOPE.
Osiris


Quite simply - dont buy from that airline. Buy from a different airline.

This arguement that 'oh my god - Im going to be stuck in a 3 inch square seat with my knees up in my armpits' is a stawman arguement - it has nothing at all to do with the aircraft. You are buying a ticket from an airline, and it is the airline that determines how the aircraft is going to be used and its the airlines that outfit the interior of the aircraft.

There are plenty of 747s being used for this $89 'I have to share my seat with 23 different people' ticket approach, but i dont hear anyone bitching about that....



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Hmm, "Smaller is better."

This sounds to me like Boeing is making excuses.

I seem to remember Boeing starting work on a BWB, set to be the LARGEST airliner in all of history, even bigger than the A380, it's massive size(3 decks) will hardly be accomadated and accounted for.

It is a giant wing, that's all it is.

But still, people thought the same thing when the 747 came out, people doubted it would even fly.

But this just goes to say that none of us will know the true outcome, until it actually happens, so we can sit here all day and yap about how bad of an idea it is to have a giant plane, or we can just go on with our lives and see what happens.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Personally I hope the 380 falls on its ass.......it is a subsidy built airplane built with the purpose of give Boeing a black eye.

Airbus makes fine aircraft no doubt but it is a subsidized aircraft.


Boeing bought Douglass so the race is on and yes I want Boeing to win...



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Aircraft are a symbol of American power and ingenuity. It is a national pride thing too. We Americans shoould build and fly our own aircraft as that is one of the things this country is known for. So I hope Boeing comes out on top as well.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice


I never argued any of that. However, my reply was with respect to the thoughts of a cheap ticket from a discount carrier flying from NY to LA. Discount carriers run even higher numbers of PAX with smaller seat pitched. REGARDLESS of how cheap it is, small seat pitches do not appeal to me, which is what I said in your post. You seem to be arguing with me about a cost point, that I personal (and said so in my message), don't care about.


Guess what, this aircraft has never been marketed for that route, and it probably wont appear on that route for a while yet. Your issue here is NOT with the aircraft, its with the AIRLINE - how the hell can you blame an aircraft manufacturer for something the airline does?


Since you insist: WHERE the hell did I blame the airplane. Not once did I attribute the way low-cost carriers deck out their planes to the plane itself. Stop defnding Airbus when I'm not even *&^& attacking.. sheesh..




I never disputed it would lower costs, but do *I* want one of those $89 trips from NY to LA with my knees in my chest the whole time; NOPE.
Osiris


Quite simply - dont buy from that airline. Buy from a different airline.


That was my entire freaking point.. please go and READ rather than spouting off like some illiterate fanboy. *Nowhere* did I say this was due to the a380. I was *responding* to someone's post about a Jet Blue possible $89 fair. I was responding that said *theoretical* fare would not appeal to me, and gave the reasons.

Then after I did that, all your Airbus apologists and fanboys jumped down my throat, when I said *nothing* to knock the A380. Not one damned thing.



There are plenty of 747s being used for this $89 'I have to share my seat with 23 different people' ticket approach, but i dont hear anyone bitching about that....


For the last time, I was responding to one particular post and did not in any way, shape or form correlate that response with the A380. The only thing it had to do with the A380 in my mind was that the post was on this thread. I was merely pointing out that cheap isn't for everyone.

Now kindly *READ* this post before flaming me over something I didn't even say.

Osiris

[edit on 19-2-2005 by otlg27]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
My my my, you take this all a little personally dont you - my post was more generally, not precisely directed at you, as others have used the 'cattle transport' arguement before. You just happened to be the last in the thread that gave a post that I could build on. Indeed several of my points agreed with your points.


Originally posted by otlg27

Since you insist: WHERE the hell did I blame the airplane. Not once did I attribute the way low-cost carriers deck out their planes to the plane itself. Stop defnding Airbus when I'm not even *&^& attacking.. sheesh..



You didnt, but others did.






Quite simply - dont buy from that airline. Buy from a different airline.


That was my entire freaking point.. please go and READ rather than spouting off like some illiterate fanboy. *Nowhere* did I say this was due to the a380. I was *responding* to someone's post about a Jet Blue possible $89 fair. I was responding that said *theoretical* fare would not appeal to me, and gave the reasons.

Then after I did that, all your Airbus apologists and fanboys jumped down my throat, when I said *nothing* to knock the A380. Not one damned thing.


I was reiterating your point. Now whoes getting all defensive?




For the last time, I was responding to one particular post and did not in any way, shape or form correlate that response with the A380. The only thing it had to do with the A380 in my mind was that the post was on this thread. I was merely pointing out that cheap isn't for everyone.

Now kindly *READ* this post before flaming me over something I didn't even say.


As I state at the top of this post, my reply was to the cattle transport arguement in general - in no way did I infer that you blamed the A380 - it just seems that the cattle transport arguement gets used whenever theres an A380 thread, and I was using your posts to signify the arguement.

I do apologise if my wording incriminated you, it wasnt intended, but the manner in which you have replied is totally over the top, and frankly I find some of the language used offensive.

I would appreciate it in future if I didnt receive irate and potentially insulting u2u messages - especially when you have replied to the subject on thread, there is no valid reason for it. And if you consider my above post a 'flame', then you obviously havent been around this forum, or indeed the internet, all that long, it was a structured reply which was ontopic and onthread.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I bit the bait and as a result the post was rubbish, now it has gone to the forum in the sky


[edit on 19-2-2005 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
My my my, you take this all a little personally dont you - my post was more generally, not precisely directed at you, as others have used the 'cattle transport' arguement before. You just happened to be the last in the thread that gave a post that I could build on. Indeed several of my points agreed with your points.


ok valid.. I may have been a bit harsh, for that I'm sorry..



I do apologise if my wording incriminated you, it wasnt intended, but the manner in which you have replied is totally over the top, and frankly I find some of the language used offensive.


Well I accept your apology, and hope you accept mine. I perceived your post as an attack and responded in kind.



I would appreciate it in future if I didnt receive irate and potentially insulting u2u messages - especially when you have replied to the subject on thread, there is no valid reason for it.


The reason you got the u2u is if you wanted to have an arguement about, I was going to have it in private and spare the general public from the rest of it. Given we weren't actually arguing there was no point. So again, sorry.



And if you consider my above post a 'flame', then you obviously havent been around this forum, or indeed the internet, all that long, it was a structured reply which was ontopic and onthread.


Firstly, I've been around the internet a *long* time, and BBSes before that. My first valid internet email addy was arround in about 1991 if I recall correctly. A lot of people flame in different ways. Some scream, while some make subtle comments and deride the others 'nicely'. It's all the same thing. Your reply may have been on thread and on topic, but as you quoted my post extensively, with little to no 'general' commentary thrown in, that made it a reply to me. I responded as such.

So in short, sorry if I took it the wrong way, but honestly I don't think it's that hard to see why I perceived it in the way I did.

Osiris



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join