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.

 

Was A380 Part Of A Boeing Conspiracy?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

The A380 was never designed as a fit for most airports. I doubt you would see one landing at say Jackson Hole. Its economic advantage rests in moving large amounts of people in an efficient manner. Hub to hub as opposed to point to point.


As I said above, its the taxiways that are the problem atm, if you can land a 747 on the runway, you can very comfortably put a A380 down on that runway too as it has a shorter runway requirement.



In regards to the profitability of the A380 AWST in the same article said that the figure had been revised upward to the high end of the scale or 300 planes. But as the most heavily subsidized plane ever to fly the "loans" don't have to be re-payed until profitability with it.


This has been discussed before, and I have pointed out before that this repayment clause is triggered when the number of firm orders passes 1/3rd that required for the aircraft to become profitable, and thats already passed, although Airbus doesnt need to start repayments until the first aircraft is delivered to the customer. Im trying to hunt down the link I got this from, having jsut upgraded to OSX Tiger and loosing a lot of stored data in the process




The other note is that both planes are overweight. they have changed the area around the A380's windows to carbon fiber and no mention of the 787's problems as of yet, but this is not an uncommon issue for either companies planes in development.


Yes, all designers tend to be overoptamistic when it comes to weight it would seem
I dont think theres an aircraft designed yet that has come in under or on forcast weights first time round? The A380 has also had some of the internal fueltanks reconfigured with carbon fibre tops bonded to the rest of the tank for weight savings, and the crew rest areas have been made 'less lavish' too


Everyone seems to have missed the SECOND flight of the A380 which occured yesterday, and lasted just over 4 hours.




posted on May, 5 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   


Everyone seems to have missed the SECOND flight of the A380 which occured yesterday, and lasted just over 4 hours.


thanks for that info. By any chance can you say if the 380 is makeing the flight requirnments?
Range, furel burn, ect....



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Red Golem
thanks for that info. By any chance can you say if the 380 is makeing the flight requirnments?
Range, furel burn, ect....


From what Ive heard, nothing concrete, both flights went superbly well with no surprises at all, so I guess that includes performance as well.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
From what Ive heard, nothing concrete, both flights went superbly well with no surprises at all, so I guess that includes performance as well.


Those are great news... I mean, to me it doesn't matter what "Boeing integrists" say... It's the greatest plane at the moment and the fact the first flights are going all right are great news...



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

as posted by Richard Price
The A380 has also had some of the internal fueltanks reconfigured with carbon fibre tops bonded to the rest of the tank for weight savings, and the crew rest areas have been made 'less lavish' too

Let's hope that those changes add up to 4 to 14 tons, eh?
If this weight issue is not corrected, which personally I feel some to most of it will, the issue will then become not one of weight, but meeting those vaunted performance claims.



as posted by Richard Price
As I said above, its the taxiways that are the problem atm, if you can land a 747 on the runway, you can very comfortably put a A380 down on that runway too as it has a shorter runway requirement.

Currently, that is approx. 25 airports. There are only 4-5 American international airports that have gates big enough for the A380, let alone runways strong enough to handle the over-sized and over-weight beast.




seekerof



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
The plane haveing a greater weight then planed will also mean a shorter service live and probably more frequent maintance checks. That has always been the case with passanger air craft.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Richard,
By any chance could you tell me what the fusalage section of the A380 is made of? Al, composate, ect....?



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Currently, that is approx. 25 airports. There are only 4-5 American international airports that have gates big enough for the A380, let alone runways strong enough to handle the over-sized and over-weight beast.


Lets see. SFO, LAX, Kennedy, O'Hare, and??? Dulles maybe? Or DIA? or Atlanta? Thats fits the pattern of large Hub and spoke type airports.

One think that people missed in your earlier post was the Air Canada order. It is interesting to note that Air Canada was an all Airbus fleet and it ditching its A340's for the 777 some they have just taken delivery of.



[edit on 5/8/05 by FredT]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Further conspiracy, FredT?
Check this out. Because Air India went with Boeing instead of Airbus, here is what the whining French are doing:


Relations with France have taken a nose-dive after Air India opted for fifty Boeings to augment its fleet discarding competition Airbus, and the country may back out of supporting India’s bid for a permanent UN Security Council seat with veto powers.


Continues here:



What galled them, according to diplomats, was a feeling that India did not adequately reciprocate France’s declared friendship by being among the first P-5 states to support India’s bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council with veto power.

“Despite French insistence that the US was an unreliable ally,” said a diplomat, “India preferred the US somewhat blindly, and if the Americans are unreliable with us, they are going to be very unreliable with you. Those Boeings are not going to come in time for Air India to take commercial advantage, and it would be foolhardy to choose the F-16 over the Mirage.”

But the denial of the Air India deal has come as a breaking point for France, which diplomats say is reviewing support to India’s candidature as a permanent UN Security Council member, and it will likely now insist on a consensus for any expansion of the Council and its permanent members, and will lean in support of the Chinese position on this and other issues.

France won’t back India in UNSC expansion

:shk:




seekerof

[edit on 10-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Well, the French can be French.

But thinking outside the tube again here, time is money, money is money, and this beast doesn't make sense from an end customer (airline passenger) that has choices. Point to point in a smaller airframe would be my choice, as it is now when I can move away from a 747 at O'Hare to a 737 out of Milwalkee.

It is a vanity project just like Concorde was, proving that it's not just Americans who are into supersizing



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Further conspiracy, FredT?
Check this out. Because Air India went with Boeing instead of Airbus, here is what the whining French are doing:

France won’t back India in UNSC expansion


France has been against Indias inclusion into the UNSC long before this Air India incident - but it plays nicely into your antiFrench speel if you connect them doesnt it.

Lets talk about all the anti Israel motions the US has blocked before, only then can we really start a debate on outside politics in the UNSC.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
Point to point in a smaller airframe would be my choice, as it is now when I can move away from a 747 at O'Hare to a 737 out of Milwalkee.


Not on the routes the A380 will be flying, you cant. None of the routes that the A380 is destined for has ever been flown point to point, by any airline or any type of aircraft, its all hub and spoke at the moment because the volume of passengers does not warrant point to point.



It is a vanity project just like Concorde was, proving that it's not just Americans who are into supersizing


Interesting that it only became a 'Vanity Project' after the US pulled out of competing with Concorde.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Further conspiracy, FredT?
Check this out. Because Air India went with Boeing instead of Airbus, here is what the whining French are doing:


Wow. More French thuggery using their UN seat as leverage. Maybe we should start threatening to nuke countries that don't buy our products, want to start replacing dollars with Euros as currency reserve, etc....



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by Seekerof
Further conspiracy, FredT?
Check this out. Because Air India went with Boeing instead of Airbus, here is what the whining French are doing:


Wow. More French thuggery using their UN seat as leverage. Maybe we should start threatening to nuke countries that don't buy our products, want to start replacing dollars with Euros as currency reserve, etc....


And the US never uses it's UNSC seat for it's own selfish purposes



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
And the US never uses it's UNSC seat for it's own selfish purposes


I know of no example of using it for a purely economic reason of protecting its own industry...if you have an example of the U.S. using its UNSC seat against a country for not buying enough Boeings, Fords, or Big Macs etc., please post it.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Wow. More French thuggery using their UN seat as leverage. Maybe we should start threatening to nuke countries that don't buy our products, want to start replacing dollars with Euros as currency reserve, etc....


Impressive, coming from a person whoes country invaded two other countries in hte past 3 1/2 years, and has threatened nearly a dozen others in the same breath.

Want real thuggery? Look to the US.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Not on the routes the A380 will be flying, you cant. None of the routes that the A380 is destined for has ever been flown point to point, by any airline or any type of aircraft, its all hub and spoke at the moment because the volume of passengers does not warrant point to point.



Well, that's my point... to point. A analgous route that goes to a smaller airport from the big hubs, in my case Millwalkee to John Wayne instead of O'Hare to LAX. My in-laws are flying to england this month from the midwest and they won't be arriving at Heathrow, much to thier delight.

Interesting that it only became a 'Vanity Project' after the US pulled out of competing with Concorde.


Again, the economic arguments didn't warrant construction in either case, this isn't a hate-america-first issue, although that's what it seems to come down to on ATS threads all too often



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   
This is actually a fallacy realist, the Concorde economics that is.

The economics of the Concorde were perfectly sound until the advent of the 1973 fuel crisis, up until which point many airlines (including Pan Am) had signed up for Concordes. Up to the end of 1972 best predictions were for sales of up to 400 aircraft by 1985. This apparent success was the cause of much hand wringing in Washington and Seattle. The economics of the US SST didn't stack up because Boeing, in trying to outdo the Europeans, had made the 2707 just TOO ambitious with titanium skin, 300 passengers and a speed of Mach 3 (this is a sustained cruise remember not a short dash).

Of course the fuel crisis changed all that and every single commitmnet to buy Concorde had been withdrawn by 1977 except for BA and AF who had no choice.

The current vogue is to say that the US investigated the whole SST arena and made the right choice while the Europeans stumbled blindly on. The fact of the matter is that the US was desperate to build its own SST and the events of 1973 (4 years into Concordes flight development) provided America with a completely valid reason 'why' they did not pursue the 2707, the simple fact that no-one could have seen it coming does not appear to matter.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
this isn't a hate-america-first issue, although that's what it seems to come down to on ATS threads all too often


You should really try looking at ATS from a non American point of view sometimes - 'anti US' isnt the predominent feeling on this board, 'pro US and pro US products, anti everyone and everything else' most definately is.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join