Airlines Reconsidering A380 orders: EADS Stock tanks

Originally posted by waynos
Maybe it wont fit US airports (s'n-word').

Wrong they will they be able to use most facilites . In addition, they are also projected to be more fuel efficent then a comparable a380 with the same seating capcity.

The 747-8 is more than 12 percent lighter per seat than the A380 and will consume 11 percent less fuel per passenger than the 555-seat airplane. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 22 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 4 percent, compared to the A380. Both the 747-8 Intercontinental and 747-8 Freighter can use the existing infrastructure and ground equipment at most airports worldwide.
Source

Shots, I was being ironic. Also, I have read the article that I linked to so I know your quote comes from the 'what Boeing says' part of it. Not surprisingly Airbus doesn't agree and I don't think either you or I know enough to say for sure who, if either of them, has called it right yet.

Originally posted by shots
In addition, they are also projected to be more fuel efficent then a comparable a380 with the same seating capcity.

You'd like to think so...

They are fundamentally two different aircraft.

The 747-8 is the upper limit of the 747 series, so fuselage, wingbox and undercarriage are at their structural limit.


The A380-100 meanwhile, is the baby of the range, with an overdesigned wing, fuselage and undercarriage.



[edit on 22-6-2006 by kilcoo316]

A slightly more neutral report says:

For starters, the combination of General Electric's (GE) new GenX engines and aerodynamic improvements means the 450-seat 747 will have 18% lower trip-mile costs than the 550-seat A380, while maintaining similar seat-mile costs.

www.businessweek.com...

Here being a comment on the article itself:

This article is overbiased in on Boeing's side. As a B744 pilot, myself, I know the reality is that in every one of the numerous competitions that the 747 "next gen" version has been put up against the A380 it has lost. All of them. The reality is that Boeing's business plan is to push the 777-300ER as it has far better economics and almost the capacity as a 747. The 747-8 is a spoiling move that will be very lucky to get orders from passenger airlines. 747's have been disappearing from airline fleets to be replaced with new aircraft already. There are few airlines that have not made a decision to replace their 747s. For example, Cathay Pacific is replacing its 747's with the 777-300ER or the A340-600. The 747-8 has been excluded from the final list. No airline wants '60s technology, and believe me, they all see this aircraft as '60s technology. The basis of this story is ill informed, fundamentally flawed, and childishly anti-European.

Oh, and surely since the 747 is an old [1960s] design, the new A380 should have a sooo much better fuselage interior?

Certainly that was the rule of thumb for the A330/350... which is a much younger design



Edit: Damn quote tags

[edit on 22-6-2006 by kilcoo316]

Originally posted by waynos
Shots, I was being ironic. Also, I have read the article that I linked to so I know your quote comes from the 'what Boeing says' part of it. Not surprisingly Airbus doesn't agree and I don't think either you or I know enough to say for sure who, if either of them, has called it right yet.

HMMMM.... Wheres the link that will substantiate your claim that airbus does not agree and says they will not be able to use the airports

Neither Airbus nor I really thinks that, I say again *I was being ironic*, I was referring to earlier arguments on this site that the A380 was too big.

It is *your quote* that Airbus disagrees with, the quote you posted was just Boeings opinion, not actual fact.

I think it will be interesting to see what IFLC does and how that affects more orders from other people. They seem to be the industry leader when it comes to plane owners, so I'll be interested to see if the rest of the industry does a lemming like run to follow IFLC.

Originally posted by waynos
It is *your quote* that Airbus disagrees with, the quote you posted was just Boeings opinion, not actual fact.

No No you made the statement "Not surprisingly Airbus doesn't agree" not me.

And No I do not think it was an opinion by Boeing as you claim. You might want to look up the length of the 777 then get back to me. It has no problems using the facilities so the argument that it would be too long is moot.

The 777/300 is 242ft 4 inches long and the current 747-400 is 231 ft 10 in, add 11 ft to it and you get 242 ft give or take a few inches so there is no reason to doubt it can use current facilities

[edit on 6/22/2006 by shots]

The only thing with ILFC and QATAR at the moment is it is seemingly all threats, maybe jockeying for a discount? There can be no doubt though that a rash of cancellations would be a serious blow IF it happened.

Shots; What are you rambling about???? WTF has the 777 got to do with anything? Did you understand a single word of my last two replies? Maybe you should go back to the top of the page and start again.

YOU posted this quote earlier.

The 747-8 is more than 12 percent lighter per seat than the A380 and will consume 11 percent less fuel per passenger than the 555-seat airplane. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 22 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 4 percent, compared to the A380. Both the 747-8 Intercontinental and 747-8 Freighter can use the existing infrastructure and ground equipment at most airports worldwide.

THAT is what is Boeings opinion. THAT is what Airbus disagrees with.

forget the bit about it being too big, you clearly have no grasp of what was posted and my attempt top explain what I was on about has failed. Do you know what 'irony' means?

[edit on 22-6-2006 by waynos]

[edit on 22-6-2006 by waynos]

One more try;

No No you made the statement "Not surprisingly Airbus doesn't agree" not me.

Yes I did, Airbus does not agree with the quote you posted from the Boeing website, this is already covered in the link I posted on page two of this thread.

And No I do not think it was an opinion by Boeing as you claim.

Of course it is, you lifted it from thier own website, the same comments are reported on Flight's site and attributed to the Boeing Commercial Airplanes VP.

You might want to look up the length of the 777 then get back to me. It has no problems using the facilities so the argument that it would be too long is moot.

No I don't, an argument raged on here for a long time that the A380 was too big, therefore, as I have told you three times already, that was an ironic remark because the Boeing is longer than the 'too big' Airbus. It was not serious and was even flagged with the word 's'n-word'' at the end of it.

Originally posted by waynos
Shots; What are you rambling about???? WTF has the 777 got to do with anything?

I was referring to its length and it can land that is what.

YOU posted this quote earlier.

The 747-8 is more than 12 percent lighter per seat than the A380 and will consume 11 percent less fuel per passenger than the 555-seat airplane. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 22 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 4 percent, compared to the A380. Both the 747-8 Intercontinental and 747-8 Freighter can use the existing infrastructure and ground equipment at most airports worldwide.

THAT is what is Boeings opinion. THAT is what Airbus disagrees with.

You have yet to furnish a link where Airbus has made that statement so it is just your allegation they made the statement. Now can you prove they made the statement or not?

The link is on page two of this thread on a post of mine which you have already quoted me from. So are you saying you didn't bother to read it before you started arguing?

For example;

Airbus’s Carcaillet says the huge cost advantages Boeing claims for the 747-8F are again due to “gross exaggeration” of the A380’s fuel burn and weight – the latter to the tune of 13t. “The reality is that the A380F’s cost per tonne is comparable to that of the 747-8 on short ranges,” he says, adding that “comparisons at short range ignore the unique non-stop range of the A380F”. He says that on long-range flights with maximum structural payload, the A380F’s cost per tonne is 15% lower.

I'd say thats a disagreement with Boeings claims, wouldn't you?

[edit on 22-6-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
For example;

Airbus’s Carcaillet says the huge cost advantages Boeing claims for the 747-8F are again due to “gross exaggeration” of the A380’s fuel burn and weight – the latter to the tune of 13t. “The reality is that the A380F’s cost per tonne is comparable to that of the 747-8 on short ranges,” he says, adding that “comparisons at short range ignore the unique non-stop range of the A380F”. He says that on long-range flights with maximum structural payload, the A380F’s cost per tonne is 15% lower.

I'd say thats a disagreement with Boeings claims, wouldn't you?

Yes that is a disagreement but nowhere is there any mention of length and the inability to use current facilites as you claimed.

The claim that the A380 is too big was from several threads about the plane throughout the last year or so. It's NOT an official claim, it was made by some people at varying airports, and by many members. If you had followed all the A380 stuff, and all the Airbus vs Boeing threads, you would see them.

asked by shots
Yes that is a disagreement but nowhere is there any mention of length and the inability to use current facilites as you claimed.

I know, I never said there was. How many times do you need this spelling out for you?

Look, from thoughout the last page I have said the following;

1st reply

Shots, I was being ironic.

2nd reply, in more detail

Neither Airbus nor I really thinks that, I say again *I was being ironic*, I was referring to earlier arguments on this site that the A380 was too big.

3rd reply, getting desperate;

forget the bit about it being too big, you clearly have no grasp of what was posted and my attempt top explain what I was on about has failed. Do you know what 'irony' means?

4th reply, exasperated;

o I don't, an argument raged on here for a long time that the A380 was too big, therefore, as I have told you three times already, that was an ironic remark because the Boeing is longer than the 'too big' Airbus. It was not serious and was even flagged with the word 's'n-word'' at the end of it.

Even after all that you are still trying to argue a point that was a throwaway one liner made in jest?

So, in conclusion, you are either doing it on purpose, or, you are incredibly stupid. Which is it?







[edit on 23-6-2006 by waynos]