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 Dead?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I know there has been a back and forth between Airbus / Boeing supporters on ATS regarding each companies products and market strategy, but after reading today's (6/12/06) Wall Street Journal article on the A380 wake turbulence, I'm starting to wonder if this plane has a future.

If it only is used on high traffic hub location airports, it would seem that the volume of traffic that would demand a high rate of use will suffer if air traffic control has to limit takeoffs following the A380 takeoffs, eliminating it's advantage of higher capacity of pasengers.

If confined to specialty roles, can it be advantagous to carriers to invest in a fleet of such aircaft?




posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Interim air-traffic control guidance from the International Civil Aviation Organization says the plane, scheduled to go into service next year, produces 'significantly stronger' air turbulence than the largest jetliners now in use.

On the basis of flight tests and data analyses, the ICAO calls for minimum separations of 10 nautical miles for all aircraft following a landing A380, versus the typical five-mile mandatory buffer behind today's largest aircraft.

However the guidelines, released to the industry earlier this month, are tentative and almost certainly more cautious than the formal rules expected next year, the Journal admitted.
www.forbes.com...


A jet covers 5 miles in a very short time, so if it's doubled to 10 miles during the interim period, and then possibly reduced next year, I don't see this as any deal breaker.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
That's been the problem for the A380 from the start, that airports simply cannot handle the passenger loads for such a plane. Though the 747 was considered overly large for it's day, today the A380 is seen by many as overkill. Though I haven't kept up on the plane, it's a topic that keeps surfacing in the press. Aside from that and potantial customers, the last thing I read up on was that the wing fail stress tests, only by a small margin. The manufacturer stated they were please it was so close to their calcutaions. But the report still might scare some people off.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Time is money. Consider scheduling demands and the 5 mile / 2 minute delay in combination with air traffic control discretion and I think some bottlenecks occur.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Airbus did a test flight of the A380 with 474 volonters passengers in order to test the human aspect of the aircraft (good idea, anyway).

edition.cnn.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
A380 Dead?



I thought it had been a bit too quiet on the Airbus bashing lately.

The A380 hasn't even entered service yet but is more than 1/2 way to financial break-even.
If you honestly think that is "dead" then I suggest you see your doctor for some new and effective meds and take an extended lie down in a darkened room before taking a swift reality check.

Wake shmake, an obvious fig-leaf (that has been brought up many times before).

Seriously, what is this thread but another ludicrous and totally pointless Airbus bash?

It's a waste of bandwidth and should be locked down IMO.
Fred?



[edit on 4-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
The A380 should be dead. A stupid move by airbus. id never ride one of these things. Instead of making even bigger lumbering planes, why not work on making air travel FASTER and reduce peoples travel times. And work on safety and security of airline travel.

Airbus had a chance to overtake Boeing by being truly inovative and exploring unexplored territory. And what about making more fuel efficent and environmentally friendly planes?

The last thing we need is another gas guzzling monster jet in the skies so airlines can cram even more people in flights to make more money.

Airbus blew a great chance.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The A380 should be dead. A stupid move by airbus. id never ride one of these things. Instead of making even bigger lumbering planes, why not work on making air travel FASTER and reduce peoples travel times. And work on safety and security of airline travel.

Airbus had a chance to overtake Boeing by being truly inovative and exploring unexplored territory. And what about making more fuel efficent and environmentally friendly planes?

The last thing we need is another gas guzzling monster jet in the skies so airlines can cram even more people in flights to make more money.

Airbus blew a great chance.


Indeed.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Per passenger km/mile, it's always going to be cheaper fuel wise to travel at sunsonically than supersonically. It's pure physics. These newer turbofans engines are the most energy effecient internal combustion engines that have ever existed. Unless they develop some sort of antigravity drive with the ability to create a vacuum/plasma bubble ahead of or surrounding the craft to reduce aerodynamic drag, the subsonic jumbojet are likely to rule the comercial skies for quite some time.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The A380 should be dead. A stupid move by airbus. id never ride one of these things. Instead of making even bigger lumbering planes, why not work on making air travel FASTER and reduce peoples travel times. And work on safety and security of airline travel.

Airbus had a chance to overtake Boeing by being truly inovative and exploring unexplored territory. And what about making more fuel efficent and environmentally friendly planes?

The last thing we need is another gas guzzling monster jet in the skies so airlines can cram even more people in flights to make more money.

Airbus blew a great chance.



Faster is more expensive, and uses more fuel.

Do you think they have set out with the A380 to be not fuel efficient? It has also been designed with the environment in mind, with regards end of life disposal and noise emissions for instance.


So what do we need in the skies? [aside from the fact the A380 ain't a "gas guzzler"] Sometimes I wonder how Boeing and Airbus have managed to survive for so long while missing the "so seemingly obvious" to a great number of keyboard experts. Perhaps, just perhaps, its because they know something you don't.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
crgintx, I rememeber reading someones sig once, a quote from one of the wright brothers it went something like this "No man will ever be able to fly from new york to paris as mechanical engineering will never be able to provide the engine for a machine and if they could it would take three days" I know its not exactly as he said it but...............


Per passenger km/mile, it's always going to be cheaper fuel wise to travel at sunsonically than supersonically. It's pure physics. These newer turbofans engines are the most energy effecient internal combustion engines that have ever existed. Unless they develop some sort of antigravity drive with the ability to create a vacuum/plasma bubble ahead of or surrounding the craft to reduce aerodynamic drag, the subsonic jumbojet are likely to rule the comercial skies for quite some time



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   
The whole "Airports can´t handle it" argument is stupid. Airports serve a customer, and that customer is NOT the passenger, it is the airlines that are buying their slots there. So when the customer needs an improvement of the product to handle its new toy (the A380), airports WILL adapt to that. This is nothing new, airports have adapted and expanded since commercial flying began, they adapted to increased air transport, they adapted to the shift from piston to jet engines (and the boost of airplane size accompanying it), and they adapted to the demands the Boeing 747 put on them.

It is even cheaper now, because all airports with an "outer" infrastructure that can be used by 747 aircraft can also be used by the A380 (sizewise). The only adaption needed will be the "internal" infrastructure with more boarding checkpoints and luggage pick-ups.




Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
....

The last thing we need is another gas guzzling monster jet in the skies so airlines can cram even more people in flights to make more money.
....


Well, what we "need" is a technology to reduce seat/mile costs, which will eventually be filtered down to the Passengers. Because, in the end most people buy tickets first and foremost based on the pricetag, and only second because they trust the airline or airplane model (and I think we can agree that only well-run and strong airlines can obtain A380s). One way to achieve such higher efficiency IS a larger airplane.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The A380 should be dead. A stupid move by airbus. id never ride one of these things. Instead of making even bigger lumbering planes, why not work on making air travel FASTER and reduce peoples travel times. And work on safety and security of airline travel.

Airbus had a chance to overtake Boeing by being truly inovative and exploring unexplored territory. And what about making more fuel efficent and environmentally friendly planes?

The last thing we need is another gas guzzling monster jet in the skies so airlines can cram even more people in flights to make more money.

Airbus blew a great chance.

Alright Senor Scientist! You come up with a way!

Problem is they just don't have the technology yet, you need to give it time, but for now this is what we have.

The A380 for an aircraft it's size is not a gas guzzler, for the engine that it has, it is indeed very fuel efficient.

Airports have been designed so that they are always growing, evolving, that's a fact, there is not one Airport out there that is still the same from it's original conception, because airports grow, they change and adapt to the aircraft that are put on the market. Airports grow more with the Airliners than they do with the passengers. After all it is the Airliners that pay the Airports for the slots and hangers and storage space.

When it comes to flight, passengers come after the airlines, it's the airlines that are buying the planes, not the passengers, the passengers pay for the flights, they'll take what's put on the table, they don't have a choice, I know I've never had a choice on what plane I wanted to fly on when going to a different country, it was what plane they gave me.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I usually get sucked right into this type of thread. However on this occasion, I just want to ask; is it me or have I seen 'skadi the evil elf's post before? IT seems extremely familiar.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The A380 should be dead. A stupid move by airbus. id never ride one of these things. Instead of making even bigger lumbering planes, why not work on making air travel FASTER and reduce peoples travel times. And work on safety and security of airline travel.


And what do you think Boeing did with Sonic Cruiser? And where it ended?? In ...... Increasing the speed from Mach 0,85 to some Mach 0,98 will increase development costs twice or triple. Its because almost every part of the plane - fuselage, wing, engines, sensors - are currently designed for standard speeds somewhere around Mach 0,85. If you want faster, nearly supersonic airliner, than yes, but you need to develop every part of the plane once again.

PS: Airbus did Sonic Cruiser like studies named E2, but realized, that it is f... idea.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Problem is they just don't have the technology yet, you need to give it time, but for now this is what we have.


Sure we do. Its just classified. The XB-70 Super Valkyrie hit Mach 3 and it did it by riding the supersonic wave created by going supersonic(pretty effecient). We've had the F-16XL that was created in part to test SST technologies such as improved low speed handling(the main reason why the Concorde burned so much fuel was it's horrible low speed characteristics)through the utilization of vortex lift. These two craft both first flew over 25yrs ago and we have yet to see the tech devloped from these two programs make it into the public sector



Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The A380 for an aircraft it's size is not a gas guzzler, for the engine that it has, it is indeed very fuel efficient.


Correct. The A380 was designed with fuel effeciency primarily in mind. And it was also designed to alleviate congestion at airports. Air traffic has been increasing rapidly and airports are being overwhelmed. The A380 is an answer to that.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Hmmmmmm.
Double Hmmmmm.........

Most people in the Av forum know where I stand on Airbus


But: The role of the A380 as I say again for the like bijillionth time is for slot limited high volume hubs. Think JFK, De Gualle, Heathrow, Ohare, Tokyo-Narita, etc etc. Assuming those type of hub and spoke operations IT will be more cost effective for airlines assuming high load factors. Cost per seat mile (Which is not always the best way to look at overall efficiency BTW) should be low as well. Add to the fact that the airlines may be able to dispatch 1 plane instead of say a A340 and an A330 to cover the same route they save on MRO as well as the sometimes onerous landing fees etc.

Airbus has the ability to build aircraft on par or exceeding those from Boeing. The problems at Airbus stem not from any big engineering issue (I beleive they are making light of the wing failure issue however) but rather the old bugaboo bad management and politics which is a big issue for a company I still maintain is an elaborate EU jobs program.

THe issue with the A380 is one of profitability for the company rather than the airlines. The airlines have contracts with Airbus (as they no doubt have with Boeing) regarding specific fuel burn etc and will have to pay penalties to those airlines if they are not met. The airlines would not be buying them if they did not work for thier route structure etc. Look at who is buying them: We are talking a who's who or excellent airline management from Emirates to SIA etc. THe issue is paying back the huge development loans on a product that may not prove to be profitable thus giving Airbus and parent EADS an unfair compedative advantage, not having to pay back loans for some time.

The A380 profitability mark (which has been moved back with recent delays) will be made or lost IMHO in the freighter market. I doubt there will be 400+ orders for a commercial varaint, but if you factor in cargo, it may be 500-600 if the economics works out. Boeing may siphon off some business with thier -8 version and recently got EMirates to converts its A380F orders to the 747-8F. This may keep the Airbus numbers down to break even point perhaps. Its still much to early in the development cycle to know whats going to happen for sure.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Is there profit in the A380 as commercial hauler though? With long life spans and sold as basic versions there can't be a lot of numbers in the sales. A bigger plane needs to be full and takes longer to load and unload too. It is good to have an advanced product but the market does not have to be ready for it either.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Is there profit in the A380 as commercial hauler though? With long life spans and sold as basic versions there can't be a lot of numbers in the sales.


Thats the key to the A380. It will NOT make money as any other plane in any fleet unless its load factors are high. Thats why you will NEVER see one fly from say Oakland to Orange County, you could never get it full enough to operate it at a profit. But say Singapore to Los Angeles you could fill up 1 huge plane with one dispatch per day. A pair of A380 could trace the route back and forth every day with good load factors. Thats were it is viable.

I have never question if the plane would make money, rather its subsadies and unfair compedative advantages it gets from its generous loan and launch aid payed for directly by European taxpayers.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join