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.

 

A380, sucess or failure...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   
What do you think about the biggest passangerplane in the world, the A380. Is it doomed to failure because of it's massive shape or will it be the best plane in history...?







posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I think these planes are absoutly a success! When will they be coming to the United States?




They even have a bar!



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Here is a thread talking about this very subject.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
ok, didn't know it was posted before...



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
OK, let me preface this with that I could care less whether the plane was made in the USA or not.

While I don’t think the 380 will ever be a failure, I don’t think it will ever be a landslide success, even if Airbus makes some money. I don’t think “huge” planes will ever replace “big enough” planes that go faster, and fly more efficiently. Gargantuan planes will never revolutionize the travel industry today the way it would have 50 years ago.

Remember: The bigger the plane, the more logistics it requires to operate. To say: “well, its must be better and more cost effective, it holds 600 people…” is an uninformed remark.

The more people the plane holds, the more people, luggage, supplies, fuel, etc need to be loaded onto that plane between flights. That takes more time and logistics. The bigger the plane, the more special airport requirements it has. Not just runways length and width, but service equipment and such. How much larger do the boarding areas need to be to hold that many more people? How about 3 times the luggage coming down that conveyor? How much longer will it take that many people to board, seat, and put their carry-ons away? How about after the flight?

All this stuff sounds trivial, but it’s huge when it all adds up together. Airline success is based on logistics and efficiencies measured in pennies and seconds, and in these regards, bigger is never better.

How do I know? Well, I don’t work in the Airline industry, but I do work as a Logistics Analyst. My company makes its money from managing “intangibles”, just like the airlines.

For example: As early as 15 years ago companies used to build million square foot warehouses to store and distribute their products. Well, building a warehouse that size today is considered terrible business practice. Heck, storing product at all is a bad logistics. Its all about efficient and accurate FLOW, not how much can be stored. Faster and cheaper is where it’s at in today’s age of instant communication and near speed of sound travel.

Anyways, the 380 will be able to carry a metric butt load of people to all the major hubs. And in that regard, and ONLY that regard it will be successful. But a slightly smaller, faster, and more efficient plane will always be more successful than a huge one.

One more analogy: How come there aren’t trains that go to every single place that you need to go to? No train to the grocery store? How about the mall or the bank? They hold a lot more people than your car and they are fast, so why don’t you use it 100% of the time? Because it’s impractical, the LOGISTICS of it don’t work. I know it’s a silly analogy, but it makes the point. You will never see an Airbus A380 at anything other than an international airport, and that’s enough to limit any success it will have in the future.

A380: Good plane, will have its niche. But that’s it. The future is fast and easy planes, not big ones.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
There are already many airports in the US, including Hartsfield Atlanta, which is one of the busiest in the world that have said they won't accept the A380 because they would have to reinforce the runways, and build new jetways and terminals to support the thing. Add to that they can't handle the sheer number of passengers arriving at one time, and I think you have a big plane that will see some success, but won't be as big as the 747 and some other Airbus planes.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Everything that has been said about the A380 was pretty much said about the 747 once upon a time.

Not everyone adapted straight away but look how that turned out.

I expect the A380 to make money and thanks in part to an an increasing awareness of the environmental damage flights cause (and hence governmental & customer demand) I can easily see a time of same (or increasing passanger numbers) being flown on less flights on these super-sized craft.

America I expect (as usual) to resist what they don't make and to continue to deny the environmental effects, but, ultimately so what?
Some Americans will go for it anyway and the rest of the world is.



[edit on 17-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Ok, it's hard to offend me, but that generalization about Americans really offended me. My PERSONAL choice is to fly Boeing, but it has nothing to do with it being American. I have heard many stories of computer errors coming pretty close to causing major accidents with Airbus, including one that flipped nose over tail going into Moscow. Thank god they had the altitude to recover. I personally don't like the fact that there is so much computer control in their planes. I've heard that the pilot tries to do a manuver and the computer decides if it's safe and can be done.

You have to look at the time frame between when the 747 was built, and the A380. It's one thing to say that about the 747 when the biggest plane in the air at the time was a 707. They DIDN'T have the infrastructure to deal with a 747 at the time. We DO have much bigger airports now, and they CAN'T handle an A380. I work at an airport that's rather busy (2003 passenger count 18,690,888, total takeoffs and landings 301,919) and we are barely able to keep up at times. That's with flights spread out through the day. I can't even imagine how we would handle more than 1 A380 arriving in the middile of all the 747s, and other planes. I've counted up to 11 747s for one airline alone out there during the morning hours. One week a year Japan goes on vacation, and up to about 80,000 more visitors come in, during that one week alone. Japan Airlines usually has the last flight depart around 2pm, at 130 during that week I counted 6 747s, and 2 DC10s still waiting to depart. They were up to 20 flights per day, just for JAL alone. An A380 in the middle of that would totally overwhelm our facilities. Not to mention our runways. We have two runways that would be able to handle it, and that's only because we share them with the USAF and have C-5s go in and out on them.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Japan Airlines usually has the last flight depart around 2pm, at 130 during that week I counted 6 747s, and 2 DC10s still waiting to depart. They were up to 20 flights per day, just for JAL alone. An A380 in the middle of that would totally overwhelm our facilities.


It's time to build more airports then.
Even without the A380 it sounds like existing airports just can't handle todays air traffic.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Go back a few pages of threads, I'm sure you'll find atleast 4 A380 threads, since I posted 1-2.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   


It's time to build more airports then.
Even without the A380 it sounds like existing airports just can't handle todays air traffic.



We'd love to have at least another major airport, but it's hard when you're on an island that's 144 miles around. They keep talking about adding six more gates, but that wouldn't leave us anywhere to do maintenance on aircraft when they break and would require tearing down existing fuel tanks. We're pretty much maxed out on space as it is right now. We have businesses one way, that have nowhere to move to, and a USAF base right next to a USN base on the other side, and ocean on the third side. In fact one of our runways was built in the ocean, just so we wouldn't have heavy aircraft over the city after take off.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dances With Angels
I think these planes are absoutly a success! When will they be coming to the United States?




They even have a bar!


That is a concept photo of what airlines could do with A380s. So far Virgin is the only airline likely to have bars, salons, etc in their A380s.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Yoc can always disscuss about if the plane will be good or not... But the plane will be luxury, if the "bosses" decide so... It could have a gym, bar and even a library...



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Ok, it's hard to offend me, but that generalization about Americans really offended me.


- What offended you so much Zaphod 58?

Was it my comment about Americans generally preferring American kit?

Really? Is that 'offensive'? Wow. Toughen up to the truth guy.

Do you think that is news to anyone or an unfair and untrue comment?!


I have heard many stories of computer errors coming pretty close to causing major accidents with Airbus, including one that flipped nose over tail going into Moscow.


- You'll find all sorts of myths about computer glitches around the place......many are simply a lie or outright distortion of the true events.

Computers were a great method of taking a 'dig' at Airbus to begin with (cos their tech was so far ahead of Boeings for so long) but now of course it can hardly be used to attack Airbus as Boeing often use the very same systems!


You have to look at the time frame between when the 747 was built, and the A380. It's one thing to say that about the 747 when the biggest plane in the air at the time was a 707. They DIDN'T have the infrastructure to deal with a 747 at the time. We DO have much bigger airports now, and they CAN'T handle an A380.


- Just because airports were enlarged to handle the 747 is hardly reason to imagine that is the end of the story......just as they once enlarged to handle the fleets of 707's at one point.

This is a bit chicken and egg; but the planes come first and the airports will follow. Many have already changed, more will follow - some faster and some slower than others - as the share holders demand the long-term economic savings.

It's life and it is happening right now all over the world regardless of what you (or I) have to say about it.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
What's offensive is the crack that since I'm an American I'm not going to want anything to do with anything that isn't built in America. I don't care WHERE it's built as long as it's a good product.

As far as the computer problems go, how many Boeings have you heard about flipping nose over tail because the computer pulled up to high and the pilots weren't comfortable with the AOA, so tried to bring the nose down? I didn't say that Boeing didn't have computer problems, because I'm sure they do, however Boeing doesn't have as much computer control as Airbus does. But you're right, it's just Boeing taking a dig at Airbus, and everything I've read, no matter where it's printed or who says it is wrong.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Do you really believe that an Airbus flipped nose over tail? But wait! Do you seriously believe one did it AND THEN RECOVERED?



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What's offensive is the crack that since I'm an American I'm not going to want anything to do with anything that isn't built in America.


- No-one was talking about you or any other individal personally; I was refering to the obvious US preference to buy US.

If you want to deny this please feel free to give some details of how the US buys significant amounts of products from elsewhere (other than US products outsourced from abroad).


As far as the computer problems go, how many Boeings have you heard about flipping nose over tail because the computer pulled up to high and the pilots weren't comfortable with the AOA, so tried to bring the nose down? I didn't say that Boeing didn't have computer problems, because I'm sure they do, however Boeing doesn't have as much computer control as Airbus does. But you're right, it's just Boeing taking a dig at Airbus, and everything I've read, no matter where it's printed or who says it is wrong.


- As Waynos says, do you really believe this story?

Computer problems have been seen in Boeing and Airbus products, usually thankfully they are a rare event amd do not cause anything but worry for the flight crews and the manufacturer.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

If you want to deny this please feel free to give some details of how the US buys significant amounts of products from elsewhere (other than US products outsourced from abroad).


I believe that, over the past twenty years, Americans have purchased a couple of hundred cars from Japan and Korea.

As a matter of fact, there're three of them in my driveway as we speak.

And I have had three motorcycles from you-know-where (Triumph Tiger Cub, BSA Road Rocket, and Royal Enfield Interceptor) and even a car (Triumph TR-3B).

And if you have a problem with that, I'll Kick your butt....

...with my Doc Martens.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Yes I do believe that an Airbus flipped nose over tail. I read about it with quotes from the flight crew, and the incident investigators. The flight was going into Moscow, and was told to abort their landing attempt, so the pilot hit the go around button. He wasn't comfortable with the AOA when the computer pulled up, so he pushed forward to bring the nose down a little bit. The more he pushed forward, the more the computer pulled up, until they eventually went into a vertical stall, and went over backwards. He was high enough that he had enough altitude to recover before anything happened however.

The US buys thousands of cars, motorcycles, televisions, computers etc from abroad, none of them outsourced from here. There are millions of products a year that come in from abroad, including things like the robots we use in factories to build AMERICAN cars. heh.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I believe that, over the past twenty years, Americans have purchased a couple of hundred cars from Japan and Korea.


- LOL
OK, as far as cars go I'll buy that.

But we were (really) talking planes and you know as well as I that the US is pretty reluctant to buy anything other than US.

I know Airbus has made sales into the US but compare US purchases of European versus European purchases of US. You'll see what I mean.

.......and then there is the entire issue of how your gov & industry expects to sell to Europe but wouldn't dream of buying European.

Even the BAe Hawks you had to make in the US.....and before that it was, what, Canberras 40yrs ago, hmmm?


I have had three motorcycles from you-know-where T(riumph Tiger Cub, BSA Road Rocket, and Royal Enfield Interceptor) and even a car (Triumph TR-3B).


- Nice. My pal had a cub, neat bike.
But I suggest you escape the past a little and get a test ride on the new Trumpet Rocket 3, Jayzuss capital H my man, it'd curl your teeth!


(but much respect & cool to know you're a biker 'OTS'; I'm involved in a deep and long standing love affair with the last version of the Gsxr1100 myself. 150 genuine rear wheel bhp of motorcycle insanity!
......you should hear my Mrs scream on the back of it!
)


And if you have a problem with that, I'll Kick your butt....

...with my Doc Martens.


- Touché.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join