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 superjumbo production launched on may, 7 2004

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
my guess is that this plane is going to see very limited use. the operating costs ALONE would seem enough to bankrupt any airline flying these continuously.

...
NATURALLY these people build planes that are not cost-effective to fly... that's why they do it..

Sorry, but that is a perposterous idea.
The whole point is that it is supposed to revolutionize travel.. Restuarants and shops will be charged rent to be part of the aircraft, that'll help pay costs...
I mean these people are investing billions in these planes, they of course will consider how much it costs to fly.... That is such a stupid statement, sorry, I am absolutely cringing....
These people are professional aircraft designers! They are spending BILLIONS on these aircraft, they do consider this sort of thing! I'm very tempted to throw you on my ignore list after that comment.




posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Boeing wont go bankrupt they also build jets and other military equipment and contracts with the military are much higher than with other companies.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichP
The A-380 costs marginally more to purchase than a 747, but costs only 75% to fly the same routes as a 747. It can carry more passengers at a lower cost, with a comparable flight time. The airlines that buy it will be laughing.


ah, well that's a lot more efficient than i had expedted it to be! thanks for the info.



Originally posted by RichP
Every airport which an airline has expressed interest in flying an A-380 to has already started upgrading its terminals to allow passengers to embark and disembark on both levels at the same time should an aircraft capable of such a feat


okay, so they're upgrading the terminals. what about the runways? this thing has to be a beast when it comes to landings. both in weight and landing distance.


Originally posted by browha
I'm very tempted to throw you on my ignore list after that comment.


go ahead. i'll see it as your loss. i was just adding my two cents, but i guess that's a problem. i had, at the time, no idea what the propsed operating costs of the aircraft are so it seemed like an okay thing for me to say/think when comparing it to other aircraft such as the a-320, 757, and 767. i never claimed to be always right on everything, and don't think of myself as an authority on anything here on ATS. i guess that's why i like the "deny ignorance" motto so much. but anyway, like i said before: your loss!

EDIT:

Originally posted by browhaNATURALLY these people build planes that are not cost-effective to fly... that's why they do it


also, i was thinking from the point that airlines SEVERELY undersell their tickets. so if they kept underselling the tickets for an aircraft of this size, no matter how efficient, it would still not be any better or more revolutionalizing.

[edit on 6/28/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Heh, sorry, was in a wierd argumentative mood.
But alas,
these people do take these things into consideration, they are designed to be as efficient as they can and produce the highest profit margin they can.
I really dont think they would be selling them unless they are profitable (obviously, if the airline chooses to run it at a loss, that's their choice, but the aircraft would be designed with profit in mind)....
I mean there's no point doing anything at a loss unless it's completely revolutionary (eg flying to space)



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichP

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
my guess is that this plane is going to see very limited use. the operating costs ALONE would seem enough to bankrupt any airline flying these continuously.


The A-380 costs marginally more to purchase than a 747, but costs only 75% to fly the same routes as a 747. It can carry more passengers at a lower cost, with a comparable flight time. The airlines that buy it will be laughing.


Airbus is claiming a 15-20% reduction in cost per seat mile a common guage in the airline industry. However, this may not always be the most accurate gage as evidenced by the following article.
web.mit.edu...

However the A380 model makes sence if it exclusively used to transport people between major hubs that are also high density routes to airports that are slot limited. There is a market, but the question begs for how many planes? As we are seeing with all of the legacy carries teetering on bankruptcy, on of the reasons is the hub and spoke system employed by many carriers.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:38 AM
link   
[

-koji K.

Every airport which an airline has expressed interest in flying an A-380 to has already started upgrading its terminals to allow passengers to embark and disembark on both levels at the same time should an aircraft capable of such a feat (A380 at the moment, 747 possibly), so you shouldnt be sat on the tarmac any more than you would in a a-340 or a Boeing 767/777. Infact, (dis)embarkation times should be LESS than a 747 currently takes.
No really, look at Virgins delay on delivery of thier A380's. LAX is not going to be ready for a while for them. The problem is not getting people off the plane. You can use every door and people will flow out of the plane like lemmings. Its really how you handle them in the terminal. You can bet that the concepts like stores etc on these planes will never be implimneted. Every avalible space will be used for seats. Future stretch versions in all likelyhood cary 800 or more passangers. Can you imagine 3-4 of these planes arriving at once? What a mess.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by FredT
Ah Airbus. Funny how they kick and Scream about US aerospace company mergers yet stay silent on thier European Government owned airline kickbacks, interest free loans, and on and on.


- Ah come on; tell it like it is/was please!

Europeans didn't just get fed up with US aerospace co. claims regarding dodgy "mergers" it was that whole slice of subsidy dressed up as military expendature that really pissed us off.

You don't think anyone was fooled over that bull# crap & the $7k toilet seats, $4k ashtrays etc etc do you?

As for the idea that the world's airlines aren't interested in lower unit costs per passanger on intercontinental & transcontinental routes!?

Away off and seek medication.....or the next line in dumb Boeing propaganda.


Ah yes more propaganda from the "continent". The bottom line is Airbus and the EU spout fair trade at every oppurtunity, yet thier practice is a different matter. Ask the people of Pratt and Whitney Canada about fair EU trade practices. The A400M Transport is suing engines from a EU company despite the fact that PW bid was lower and offered a better engine. Typical of thier trade practices. How many A380 orders are comming from government owned airlines. Spare me the fact that despite AF and Luftansa have gone public, they remain at the beck and call of thier govenments. The ME and Asian airlines have ordered them because they make sence and Airbus has little risk involved because of the no fault (maybe even no payback) loand they recived from the EU. They can aggressivly market thier planes and sell them at an attrition based cost.

There is no denying that such a large plane will have lower cost per seat mile than a classic 747-400ERX. What remains to be seen is if the business model Airbus is pushing is correct.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

ah, well that's a lot more efficient than i had expedted it to be! thanks for the info.


No problem, I work in the business, so I like to pass on good info




okay, so they're upgrading the terminals. what about the runways? this thing has to be a beast when it comes to landings. both in weight and landing distance.


THe A380 takes no longer than the A340 to land and take off, weight is a minor issue, but if an airport takes 747s then apparently it should handle A380s without any problems weight wise.




also, i was thinking from the point that airlines SEVERELY undersell their tickets. so if they kept underselling the tickets for an aircraft of this size, no matter how efficient, it would still not be any better or more revolutionalizing.


Actually airlines oversell aircraft these days, if a scheduled (not charter) flight has 328 seats (767), then the airline typically sells 340 tickets. This may seem stupid, because then its got to pay compensation to those it turns down for the flight, but paying out $100 in compensation to 3 or 4 people is less than loosing $1800 when 3 people fail to turn up for a flight.

If airline travel was in such a downward spiral, tell me why every major airline in the world made a pretax profit last year?



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   




okay, so they're upgrading the terminals. what about the runways? this thing has to be a beast when it comes to landings. both in weight and landing distance.


THe A380 takes no longer than the A340 to land and take off, weight is a minor issue, but if an airport takes 747s then apparently it should handle A380s without any problems weight wise.


I have read somewhere that as the A380 will use more wheels......given the equations for pressure (the main factor in runway stability for landings) the more area there is (more tyres) then the less pressure exerted. Apparently there will actually be only marginally more pressure than a 747. However most airports (like London Heathrow) do not have a problem with the runways but with the taxiways. The runways are strengthened already for harder landings but the taxiways are not. This along with the aforementioned terminals is where most airports are spending most of their time and money upgrading. Stands also have this problem (where the pressure is concentrated for longer periods)

Or so I have read



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infidellic




okay, so they're upgrading the terminals. what about the runways? this thing has to be a beast when it comes to landings. both in weight and landing distance.


THe A380 takes no longer than the A340 to land and take off, weight is a minor issue, but if an airport takes 747s then apparently it should handle A380s without any problems weight wise.


I have read somewhere that as the A380 will use more wheels......given the equations for pressure (the main factor in runway stability for landings) the more area there is (more tyres) then the less pressure exerted. Apparently there will actually be only marginally more pressure than a 747. However most airports (like London Heathrow) do not have a problem with the runways but with the taxiways. The runways are strengthened already for harder landings but the taxiways are not. This along with the aforementioned terminals is where most airports are spending most of their time and money upgrading. Stands also have this problem (where the pressure is concentrated for longer periods)

Or so I have read


Your right, more wheel will spread out the PSI footprint that the plane has. Most of the runways around the world will be fine for the A380. Its the terminal infrastructure that will have the problem. As far as the taxi ways, I read that strenght was not an issue more than the width of them



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
[

-koji K.


Every airport which an airline has expressed interest in flying an A-380 to has already started upgrading its terminals to allow passengers to embark and disembark on both levels at the same time should an aircraft capable of such a feat (A380 at the moment, 747 possibly), so you shouldnt be sat on the tarmac any more than you would in a a-340 or a Boeing 767/777. Infact, (dis)embarkation times should be LESS than a 747 currently takes.
No really, look at Virgins delay on delivery of thier A380's. LAX is not going to be ready for a while for them. The problem is not getting people off the plane. You can use every door and people will flow out of the plane like lemmings. Its really how you handle them in the terminal. You can bet that the concepts like stores etc on these planes will never be implimneted. Every avalible space will be used for seats. Future stretch versions in all likelyhood cary 800 or more passangers. Can you imagine 3-4 of these planes arriving at once? What a mess.

i completely agree! i know they have plans for certain airports to get special facilities for these planes, but.. i dunno... once they start being more commonly used, im sure messups or terminal unavailability or not enough of those things they use to attach the plane doors to the terminal will cause delays boarding and disembarking... when it comes to air travel, i assume the worst..

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I think this new plane will be a big flop just like the concorde was (only the concorde should never haad been put out of service- the only passenger plane that i could describe as sexy)here are my reasons

1. Development and production costs: It took allot of money to design and build this plane, so even if they get a respectable amount of orders Airbus will be in deep trouble
2. airline slump: with the exception of inexpensive startup companys, many airlines are downsizing and not really making a profit. how will this mega plane sell if everyone is getting rid of planes rather than buying them
3. fuel costs: a plane that big will drink allot of fuel and it will cost allot to buy fuel
4. Hub philosophy: the A380 relies on the old hub and spoke ohilosophy of airlines. Now a days people are demanding more direct flying, and this system is being phased out. Medium planes are more apropriate than large ones.

The 7e7 seems to fit all of these criteria, so I think it will do better.

I leave for France on July 8



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
I think this new plane will be a big flop just like the concorde was (only the concorde should never haad been put out of service- the only passenger plane that i could describe as sexy)here are my reasons

1. Development and production costs: It took allot of money to design and build this plane, so even if they get a respectable amount of orders Airbus will be in deep trouble
2. airline slump: with the exception of inexpensive startup companys, many airlines are downsizing and not really making a profit. how will this mega plane sell if everyone is getting rid of planes rather than buying them
3. fuel costs: a plane that big will drink allot of fuel and it will cost allot to buy fuel
4. Hub philosophy: the A380 relies on the old hub and spoke ohilosophy of airlines. Now a days people are demanding more direct flying, and this system is being phased out. Medium planes are more apropriate than large ones.

The 7e7 seems to fit all of these criteria, so I think it will do better.

I leave for France on July 8


I think Airbus may break even, but so far the Boeing prediction of market fragmentation is holding clear. The A380 as you said be held hostage to mega airports as part of the hub and spoke system. FOr high density long haul routes to airports that are slot restricted the A380 makes sence. How many planes will needed for that? The 7e7 will be perfectly slotted for the fragmented market. The A380 may see more sucess in the freighter market



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Ah yes more propaganda from the "continent".


- er, so if you say something it's got to be fact and if I say something it gets written off as propaganda?


The bottom line is Airbus and the EU spout fair trade at every oppurtunity, yet thier practice is a different matter. Ask the people of Pratt and Whitney Canada about fair EU trade practices. The A400M Transport is suing engines from a EU company despite the fact that PW bid was lower and offered a better engine.


- maybe if you actually knew the full ins and outs of the deal (ie the total 'package') you might be qualified to make such comments, my guess is you don't and that your comparison of what was the better deal doesn't stretch much beyond beyond reading a spec list.


Typical of thier trade practices.


- yeah, better all round deal, that's us.

Sorry but this sounds a lot like US bitching that europe has it's act together in this area.

We're a trading area of nearly 500million people now and we will work to our - or agreed - rules, but not the USA's rules.

We do 80% of our trade internally within europe so we're quite happy to agree practises with the USA but you will either co-operate and work to the rules genuinely with us or, frankly, you can merrily get lost.


How many A380 orders are comming from government owned airlines. Spare me the fact that despite AF and Luftansa have gone public, they remain at the beck and call of thier govenments.


- what? would this be anything like the US airlines and their recent multiple multi-billion dollar bail-outs?

Is tax-payers money/Gov involvement only OK when it's the US doing it?

Come on, wise up. No-one is happy to see their airline industry go belly-up. Ultimately the Gov. will step in every time if it gets really bad.

.....and no, you can't have it both ways, many of europe's airlines are quoted private companies now.....and what?


The ME and Asian airlines have ordered them because they make sence and Airbus has little risk involved because of the no fault (maybe even no payback) loand they recived from the EU.


- LOL. Very funny. So you think we're giving them away!? You have to look at it in a peculiar way to come up with that in relation to civil aircraft. Now military stuff? That's a different story (partly because it's so much more common and seemingly accepted)

Do you want to go through the export-guarantee system? Do you want me to point out the 'free' stuff the US Gov has given away - especially when it comes to military kit....presumably you give a damn afterall that's your tax-dollars?


They can aggressivly market thier planes and sell them at an attrition based cost.


- because you've been through the accounts and know this for a fact?

Aye right.


There is no denying that such a large plane will have lower cost per seat mile than a classic 747-400ERX. What remains to be seen is if the business model Airbus is pushing is correct.


- on that we agree (except I don't really see what is so "classic" about the old Boeing).

But I would say that Airbus have yet to get it significantly wrong.....and the latest 'concerns' are totally due to outside events and not a faulty business model.

[edit on 29-6-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

[edit on 29-6-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   

I think Airbus may break even


- to break even Airbus has to sell between 250 and 300 aircraft. (source - www.campusprogram.com...)

Current confirmed orders are already over 100.

It hasn't even flown yet.

Don't worry, calm yourselves, it's well on course to be a financial success.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   

How many A380 orders are comming from government owned airlines. Spare me the fact that despite AF and Luftansa have gone public, they remain at the beck and call of thier govenments.


I can only say for british airlines but there is no Government owned airlines in the United Kingdom (i.e. the British Government owns no airline or has a majority stake in any) and I believe that Virgin Atlantic (British airline) was one of the first to announce their intention to purchase/use the A380 (A3XX as it was then known). Being non-government funded this would be a big step and shows their faith in the operating efficiency of the aircraft. Still it remains to be seen



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join