Hi, I'm new here and haven't really read all the postings about A380, and so please forgive me if I ask a question that had been discussed previously. I have a few questions about A380 that seems to not be covered in news articles.

1) Given the size and weight of A380, if it makes an emergency landing at some high-and-hot airports (e.g., Denver), can it take off again?

2) Has Airbus discussed any special plans to group luggages? I already have a hard time finding my luggage from a B-747 flight, imagine a flight with 200 more people.

3) While A380 can carry more people and thus reduce the number of flights needed to carry the same number of people from one hub to another, its large size would spell problem for some taxiway operations. So will non-A380 airlines be negatively impacted at airports without reconfigured runways?

4) If I were a terrorist, A380 would be my weapon of choice. It has a lot more fuel capacity than 767 or 757 used on 9/11. Are there any special mechanisms to prevent someone unauthorized to take control of aircraft?

5) I doubt any airline would put in restaurants or other stores in A380. All they want is more seats so more people can be flown for $. Has any airline actually stated those retail plans?

6) Can A380 fly on just two engines? How about two engines on the same side of the aircraft?

7) How in the world does Airbus expect people to use the emergency doors from the second deck? I heard they requested computer simulation because they don't want to test using real people.

Anyway, I would apprecate some candid answers to these questions.

G Huang

Originally posted by GHuang
Hi, I'm new here and haven't really read all the postings about A380, and so please forgive me if I ask a question that had been discussed previously. I have a few questions about A380 that seems to not be covered in news articles.

I should be able to take off if they needed too, they could do it with a minimal fuel load and no passaangers, but I think Deenver should pose no problems.

You are right about the luggage. I can't imagine two unloading at the same time. What a mess if its not handled properly.

AWST did an article about A380 operations and taxing will be impacted to some digree but its probalble can be handled by good runway mangement.

Non of the Airlines that purchased the a380 have indicated that they will do the restaurant/ shop thing. Even in the go go 70's airlines quickly removed thier upperdeck bars and put in seats.

Im not sure about the engine requiremtns for the plane. It should be able to fly with 2 engines. Its not as implausable as it sounds, the 777 can take off with an engine failure right after V2 so I can't imagine the a380 to de disigned any differnet.
The escape from the upperdeck im not sure about. It is a requiremnt to get an airworthiness cerftification to have an escape plan, and you can evacuate the upperdeck of a 747.

The resturarant idea would have to charge rent at a premium, but then that's only looking at a passenger's fare for every passenger space they take up... I'm sure they'd generate enough revenue off it..
Also, you have to consider that how many more people will be wanting to fly one of these things if they've got more luxorious facilities in them for people to stretch out in..... I think they'll be a huge success because they have the capability to travel long distances whilst providing much higher comfort levels.

Originally posted by GHuang
Hi, I'm new here and haven't really read all the postings about A380, and so please forgive me if I ask a question that had been discussed previously. I have a few questions about A380 that seems to not be covered in news articles.

Hi!!

1) Given the size and weight of A380, if it makes an emergency landing at some high-and-hot airports (e.g., Denver), can it take off again?

In most cases, yes. Basically the A380 is an upgraded A340 ER series (well, its a lot more than that, but the A340 ER is a flying testbed for the A380 and the A380 wont be that much heavier in most configurations).

Take off speeds are generally less than landing speeds, and the A380 has a huge wing area to generate needed lift.

Bear in mind this question also stands for the 747, which can land at most strips but not take off again.

2) Has Airbus discussed any special plans to group luggages? I already have a hard time finding my luggage from a B-747 flight, imagine a flight with 200 more people.

Yes, as we speak the 'hub' airports (Heathrow etc) are being updated to accomodate the massive amounts of baggage. Generally the idea is that the plane is operated as two seperate flights to the same destination. The upper deck is booked in under one flight number and the lower deck under another, with the baggage for both in different holds (front and rear).

This allows the upper and lower decks to be serviced at seperate luggage carousels at arrivals. And I see no reason why it shouldnt work

3) While A380 can carry more people and thus reduce the number of flights needed to carry the same number of people from one hub to another, its large size would spell problem for some taxiway operations. So will non-A380 airlines be negatively impacted at airports without reconfigured runways?

The A380 is generally only going to be flown to hub airports, and thus there are few that arent currently preparing for the A380. Also there should be no further needed space than the A340, which currently operates to these airports, the main consideration is the load bearing weight of the taxiways.

In general, if it can take a 747, it should take a A380 is the rule.

4) If I were a terrorist, A380 would be my weapon of choice. It has a lot more fuel capacity than 767 or 757 used on 9/11. Are there any special mechanisms to prevent someone unauthorized to take control of aircraft?

600 passengers?

The main reason 9/11 worked was because it was pretty much unprecedented. Up until then the standard response taught to passengers was "sit tight, the hijackers will land the plane and demand stuff. Negotiations will happen, and you are better on the ground than in the air in any case."

The flights involved in 9/11 were also not full, with most having less than 70 passengers on board which were more manageable.

It would be pretty much impossible to fight off the 600 passengers who all now have visions of you flying them into a building. 9/11 changed the world, the passengers will fight back now.

5) I doubt any airline would put in restaurants or other stores in A380. All they want is more seats so more people can be flown for $. Has any airline actually stated those retail plans?

As someone else said, no they havent. But the same has happened to all planes released pretty much The 747 was supposed to have bowling alleys, cinemas, saunas etc in and few of those ideas happened!

6) Can A380 fly on just two engines? How about two engines on the same side of the aircraft?

Yes it can, and it can even fly on a single one for a short period of time. Having both engines on the same side of the aircraft is slightly less efficient than one on each, but it can still fly. This is a UK Civil Aviation Authority requirement for the A380 to operate out of Heathrow, the plane has to be able to loose 3 engines on takeoff and be able to come round to land safely.

7) How in the world does Airbus expect people to use the emergency doors from the second deck? I heard they requested computer simulation because they don't want to test using real people.

They are using special slides using a different high pressure gas than the lower deck ones, to maintain rigidity for the full 4 minutes required. (although both the CAA and the FAA require you to empty the plane in 90 seconds).

As far as I know, the rating needs to be done with real volunteers, as theres no way to really simulate 'panic' or confusion except with real people.


Interesting tidbit: the Boeing 777 is rated to carry one less passenger than it can seat. When they were doing the evacuation drills, one passenger refused to go down the slide, thus the FAA would only rate the aircraft for the number of passengers that got out. Boeing didnt rerate the plane because of cost reasons.

Anyway, I would apprecate some candid answers to these questions.

G Huang

Hope I helped!!

Richard

I think this project will be a bust just like the Concorde because there are graphs and charts that show that more and more people are using smaller jets to get around and only use big jets to go overseas that is why the Boeing company did not try and build a bigger jet but a smaller one the 7E7 but well just have to wait and see.

The trouble with Concorde was that whilst it was designed to take passengers away from the 707 and DC-8 it appeared in service long after the 747, Tristar and DC-10 had transformed the economics of commercial flight. Those factors are still very valid and although there are more and more smaller airliners being bought by the airlines there is always going to be the need for very large aircraft. Boeing are just sore that they missed the boat and now realise that the 747 cannot hope to compete with the A380. First they tried to muddy the waters with the sonic cruiser, that was very pretty but sadly never a serious prospect, now they have the much more practical 7E7 (will this be the 787 once built? After all the 757 was developed as the 7N7). However the 7E7 will have no impact whatsoever on the A380, it is much more likely to damage sales of the A321 and A330 which it directly competes with. For the first time since the 707 debuted in 1958 Boeing is not the world leader in commercial aircraft and I never thought I'd see the day. Maybe JSF took their eye off the ball? Who knows.

[edit on 7-7-2004 by waynos]

Before we even know how this aircraft will play out boeing is still the world leader in commercial aviation do you know how many747 have been sold and how long they have been around and they will make more money than before with the 7E7 they don't want to compete with making a bigger plane its not needed also with the way the oil prices are going up I doubt any company can afford to by this new air bus plane also lets not forget boeing may have lost the JSF project but they won the UCAV and drone project so its not a total loss also they build numerous rockets and missiles and space vehicles so they are doing good.

I'm not saying Boeing are all washed up, far from it they are undoubtedly at, or very very near. the top of the world aerospace tree.Also their record in the commercial market since the age of the Jetliner began is without equal. I wasn't referring either to the fact that the A380 is 'better' or 'more advanced' than the 7E7, A380 is very advanced but the 7E7 is the most grounbreaking new airliner since the Concored, or DH Comet, but in overall terms, It is a fact that Airbus has outperformed Boeing in the commercial sector for the past two years, what I'm saying is maybe this happened not only because of Airbus' superb efforts but also Boeings involvement in JSF which was new ground to them (don't forget their previous fighter was the P-26!!!)

I do roughly know how many 747's have been sold and how marvellous this aircraft has been over the last 35 years. Let me say that again, 35 YEARS!

New technology has been integrated into the 747 during its whole life but the basic airframe is very old and it cannot compete with the all new A380. Its like saying the F-15 will always be better than the F/A-22 because its been around so long, there are so many of them and they have been continuously updated along the way. You must recognise that such a statement would be nonsense, so it is with the big Airbus and the 747.

You yourself point out how there are sooo many 747's yet you also say a big jet is not needed, two contradictory standpoints are they not? I think what you may mean is 'ANOTHER big jet is not needed' which has been Boeings desperate cry since they realised the A3XX was for real, and believe me for a long time the official view at Boeing was that the A3XX would never happen and that the 747 would rule for decades. That illusion has been shattered and they don't like it, and I don't blame them! They must be furious that the world lead they worked so hard far and so clearly deserved has just vanished, I wouldn't be surprised if heads rolled over this issue. However to say that the A380 isn't very good and/or is not needed is a rather transparent way to try and get your credibility back. Boeing is now depending on customer loyalty and the proven track record of the 747 to carry them through in the absence of a genuine competitor. Remember that in 1953 the Lockheed Constellation was king and Lockheed viewed the prospects of the upcoming Jetliners as dubious at best in the face of their trusted, proven and even loved aircraft, its like that again but this time, in my opinion, Boeing have made an even bigger mistake because the A380 is an aircraft Boeing could have done themselves, and surely would have without all the other distractions, including the take over of MDC as well as the JSF I believe.

Getting back to the point:

Originally posted by GHuang
7) How in the world does Airbus expect people to use the emergency doors from the second deck? I heard they requested computer simulation because they don't want to test using real people.

I read in a magazine that is sitting in my school sanitorium that nearby to my school (in the south-east of the UK) airbus had contracted out this problem to asses the speed of getting all those people out so quickly. To test this they company this was contracted out to made a mockup inside a building (as in it was built basically a big room, they did not have a real life example or mock aircraft out in an airport) and they had the doors and floors at the correct heights. 'Inside the aircraft' everything was setup as it would be for a maximum passenger configuration with everything (including the trolleys stewards (and stewardesses use) and they shook the test bed to simulate a rough landing then had all the volunteers exit the 'aircraft' down the exact chutes that will be used and simulated it all exactly as it will be (even went so far as to ask a few people to act as if they were unconscious and to see if they could be evacuated).

Apparently the volunteers all evacuated in about the same amount of time as a 747 (or less time I can't remember) so all is not lost!

If I could also ask a question though:

I heard in Air Forces Monthly in an article which featured a paragraph or so on the airbourne laser (of which I haven't seen any articles or speculation on recently) and it said that the 747 was possibly the most adapted aircraft ever, do you reckon that the A380 being bigger will be able to oust the 747 from this role of most adapted aircraft?

Argue away!

[edit on 7/7/04 by Infidellic]

Originally posted by waynos
For the first time since the 707 debuted in 1958 Boeing is not the world leader in commercial aircraft and I never thought I'd see the day. Maybe JSF took their eye off the ball? Who knows.
[edit on 7-7-2004 by waynos]

It will really boil down to who's outlook on air travel is correct. Smaller city pairs or gigantic hubs. Therew will be a market for the A380 in slot limited high volume airports like london paris etc. But only so many. If Airbus cannot sell alot to cargo carriers, it may be like the Concord, an awesum feat of tech, but never sold in massive numbers. It is hard to gague thier true breakeven point because of all the government subs. adn essentailly free loans. Airbus is really like a subsideary of the EU.

I hope both the A380 and the 7E7 do very well wich i think will happen. But overall boeing will make more money with there jet because its 20% more fuel efficient then other jets of the same size, plus it just looks cooler and is more aerodynamic.

It is an awesum looking plane. However, I heard that the "shark"tail may not make the final design

For the first time since the 707 debuted in 1958 Boeing is not the world leader in commercial aircraft and I never thought I'd see the day. Maybe JSF took their eye off the ball? Who knows.
[edit on 7-7-2004 by waynos]

- That's true and maybe they did.

It will really boil down to who's outlook on air travel is correct. Smaller city pairs or gigantic hubs.

- True. Except the 'small city pairs' idea flies in the face of the experience of the last near 40yrs.

....and there's now the not-so-small-matter of this now being a pitch for a paper plane versus a real one. Not to mention this being an arguement for Boeing to shut down the 747. In other words, it's mostly bogus nonsense.

There will be a market for the A380 in slot limited high volume airports like london paris etc. But only so many.

- Are you serious? They've already sold over 100, the aircraft hasn't even flown yet (but it's about to), there are options for al least that again and almost every old 747 flying stands a fair chance of being replaced by an A380 version - are you seriously suggesting lower unit costs suddenly stop mattering? This is an aircraft at the begining of it's development cycle and it has a very bright future, don't you worry about that my friend.

If Airbus cannot sell alot to cargo carriers, it may be like the Concord, an awesum feat of tech, but never sold in massive numbers.

- Did the 747 only sell to transport Co.s? This is not a credible point IMO. Some will be sold to transport co.s (like the 747) but most will fly people - as the current order book clearly shows.

It is hard to gague thier true breakeven point because of all the government subs. adn essentailly free loans. Airbus is really like a subsideary of the EU.

- You really don't know much about Airbus or the EU, do you? It's interesting propaganda and all, but, totally wrong.

Airbus is a single company formed from the many parts of the aerospace industry throughout the various participating european countries.

It is absolutely NOT a part of the political union of the european countries that is the EU.

Airbus publish public accounts and it is clear from these that they need to sell between 250 and 300 A380s (depending on varients/currency movements etc) to break even on the project.....which they are well on their way to doing.

Sorry and all but Boeing dropped the ball on this, that's the truth of it and, amusingly, almost every one of the arguements raised against this aircraft were levelled at the 747 and, just as amusingly, the answer is much the same for today as it was then. Lower costs will be the clincher. End of.

The technical arguements attacking the A380 are ALL either utterly bogus or quibbling details in the process of being dealt with (certain airport & runway up-grades in certain airports) and stand no serious examination whatsoever....just as was the case over 30yrs ago when the 747 appeared on the aviation scene.

In the matter of competition and the economics? The WTO moniters our little 'spats' and disagreements but the USA has to understand that europe will compete in a genuine market but, we do 80% of our total trade amongst ourselves. We are a union of over 450millions now. We have our own world currency.

This means if you want to be free and fair about things, great, we can work it out and it'll, no doubt, be to our mutual benefit. BUT if the US tries to dictate to us, force or 'rig' the market then the US can merrily get lost.

Airbus may well have had 'state' connections of a kind in the past (at the time of it's start up - and in a time when much of europes air industry was state owned anyway) but not now - and in any case it's not really, in practise, that much different from US companies kept afloat by 'defense' subsidy and even out-right tax payers bail out.

I find the attitude of Americans hilarious when it comes to 'strategic' industries and so-called 'free enterprise'......cos Americans would be such devotees of the 'free market' and be happy to completely lose their hi-tech industries and depend on foreign companies wouldn't they? Aye right.

LMAO.

[edit on 8-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

[edit on 8-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

[edit on 8-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]