A380 -- The Reveal

[der bastler 0]

http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp

http://www.airbus.com/A380/default1.aspx

http://www.eads.com/frame....06.html

Lot's of VIPs, many tv channels reporting live from Toulouse --but no OFPOfftopic thread? Anyway, 747 or A380, Boeing or EADS, who will prevail?

A380 specs

And, speaking of Airbus, what do you think of the A400M?

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html

[theavonlady 2]

Didn't Boeing drop their competing jumbo?

[Itseme 0]

I think the A380 will take the place of the B747, cause its more modern and has more passerger capabilties. Butonly if its not going to crash at the first ltakeoff and flight.

The A-400, which will introduced in 2009 is similar to the hercules or the L-100, but Germany is actually thinking about leasing the C-17, to use it in crisis until A-400 is introduced.

[theavonlady 2]

I think the A380 will take the place of the B747, cause its more modern and has more passerger capabilties.

It's not that easy. It opens up new options but it's overkill for others and there are existing 747 owners that are interested in a smaller plane - not a larger one.

All this from reading Businessweek.

[Llauma 0]

I think the A380 will take the place of the B747, cause its more modern and has more passerger capabilties.

It's not that easy. It opens up new options but it's overkill for others and there are existing 747 owners that are interested in a smaller plane - not a larger one.

All this from reading Businessweek.

I'm sure that European and Asian airlines are still looking for big planes. USA on the otherhand might hold back a few years but in the end they'll get the biggest planes.

[ozanzac 0]

For long range, high density routes, a larger aircraft than the 747 will be a blessing.

The carrier will need less aircraft, thus less maintainance, and less fuel expenses, to shift more people/tonnage, in less trips.

To be honest, I can't wait to see this monster in the sky.....I still get impressed whenever I see a 747 take off, or land.

[Akira 0]

Didn't Boeing drop their competing jumbo?

The B747Adv looks like it may be killed. Most likely they will decide to focus on developing the 7E7 rather than put resources (and money) into developing two projects at once.

Quote[/b] ]I think the A380 will take the place of the B747, cause its more modern and has more passerger capabilties.

Despite the rhetoric from both manufacturers, the 747 will retain a niche in which the load factors do not require an A380. "Modern" does not always signal an improvement, and it certainly doesn't guarentee success (take the 717 for example). Plus given the state of some airlines, it will not make sense for some carriers to order A380s.

Quote[/b] ]I'm sure that European and Asian airlines are still looking for big planes.

Singapore Airlines is the lauch customer for the A380 (JAL is the launch customer for the 7E7). Asian markets will always have a demand for large capacity airplanes. It's possible a Japanese (or Chinese) airline might convince Airbus to make a domestic version of the A380, like Boeing did with the 747. Shorter range, higher capacity (500+) 747's have been used in the domestic market of Japan for sometime now.

[denoir 0]

Buying a new fleet is very expensive while the various airlines are economically in an all time low. I think there's a distinct possibility that it will be a flop.

This might be the best thing ever happend to Boeing

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]For long range, high density routes, a larger aircraft than the 747 will be a blessing.

The carrier will need less aircraft, thus less maintainance, and less fuel expenses, to shift more people/tonnage, in less trips.

Less aircraft do not always mean less maintainance. It depends on the aircraft. Also lower costs depends more on fleet homogeneity (like Southwest) and individual parts than just having less planes.

Also calculating a fleet requirment (and profit margin) for a given route depends on a lot more than more people on a given plane. Less trips also certainly doesn't mean increased margins....in fact it usually mean less. The more the plane is on the ground, the more money it is losing. Airlines need to factor in load factors, plus turn around, plus per km seat cost, (and more) to determine if a given plane will yield a profit for a given route.

[Bernadotte 0]

Akira, how do you know so much about the airline industry?

[Akira 0]

Akira, how do you know so much about the airline industry?

I'm getting my Masters in Aeronautics Specializing in Management and Safety....(I intend to go into Airport Operations).

Also it is a hobby...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

nice image comparing the new airbus to the former king Boeing

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,426397,00.jpg

4 months ago during a small inner-german trip I landed next to an Antonov waiting for liftoff. This one really looked like a monster

[-33ker 0]

I've read that the Airbus transports 20% more passengers than the Jumbo but with 15% less costs.

And it will introduce a new standard of travelling with bars, and shops on board!

[Akira 0]

nice image comparing the new airbus to the former king Boeing

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,426397,00.jpg

4 months ago during a small inner-german trip I landed next to an Antonov waiting for liftoff. This one really looked like a monster

Former king? If you mean in size then you are correct (though the 777-300 is longer as is the A340-600). The only real impressive size is the wing-span and wing area (as you need a crap load of lift to fly that thing).

But if you are assuming by market, then you are premature. For one it hasn't even flown yet. Two, as already stated, the 747 will remain in a definite niche. It is doubtful that Boeing will ever green-light a 747Adv, as they have already lost development time to the A380, and given that the 747-400ER is still recieving orders, it would be unwise to sink more finances into a new development program (especially since sales are slow).

Quote[/b] ]And it will introduce a new standard of travelling with bars, and shops on board!

It will be interesting to see if any of that comes to fruition, as that means airlines would have to give up precious space (and weight) to shops that may or may not generate as much revenue as a bank of seats in the same space. Airplane design such as this (and the 7E7) rarely make it past airline revenue needs.

Quote[/b] ]I've read that the Airbus transports 20% more passengers than the Jumbo but with 15% less costs.

Possibly true, but hard to gauge at this time because as I've stated it hasn't actually flown yet. Given that the 747 is a 40 year old design with equipment and engine upgrades, it is not hard to believe that it would transport more for less. The 777 is generally more economical than the 747 as well.

[-33ker 0]

The A380 has about 50% more legroom.

[aviel 0]

I was there   nananananaaaaaaaaaaa naaa i just came back and expected to see a A380 thread,

lol...

one word: objects on the Tv are bigger than they appear.

i found out that peapole think, the A380 will overrun the B747, well, my nice pilot anwser is NO:

if you have a 79.90 Meter wingspan, you are a very BIG plane, a B747 is 64.44 Meters of wingspan, most airports in the world will not be able to handel a 79 meter wing double deck monster!

[Akira 0]

Something else that has not been covered as much is that the major airports slated to be destinations for the A380 either won't have the necessary support capability by the time the A380 enters service, or are refusing to have to foot the bill to modify their existing infrastructure to fit this one plane.

[Lionclaw 0]

nice image comparing the new airbus to the former king Boeing

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,426397,00.jpg

4 months ago during a small inner-german trip I landed next to an Antonov waiting for liftoff. This one really looked like a monster

Yikes! I never imagined that the A380 is so much bigger than the 747!

[denoir 0]

There is the story of navigation/air traffic control  and flight-control systems.

GPS based navigation is being currently set up as standard in Europe. Asia is following that as well. The US is for some reason beyond comperhension trying to block it, but it's unlikely they'll hold out. The old system uses a set of radio towers to map out fixed flight routes - often not optimal ones. The GPS based system on the other hand allows for the airplane to take the shortest path and the air traffic control is fully automated.

Anyway, this requires major updates on the computer systems on existing aircraft. The Airbuses already have them by default. So if you're forced to do expensive upgrades on your fleet, you might as well buy new aircraft.

Then there's the question of flight-control systems. Boeing is about 20-30 years behind Airbus on that one. The Airbuses have fly-by-wire systems that increase pilot control, drastically increase safety, and reduce fuel consumption. So it's safer and cheaper to operate - which again makes them very attractive.

This is nothing new for the A380, but these advantages showed in the smaller planes. That's why Airbus overtook Boeing two years ago or so. So from that point of view, there's certainly hope for the A380.

Quote[/b] ]Something else that has not been covered as much is that the major airports slated to be destinations for the A380 either won't have the necessary support capability by the time the A380 enters service, or are refusing to have to foot the bill to modify their existing infrastructure to fit this one plane.

Oh, I wouldn't be too worried about that. In Europe there's too much political interest. In Asia, there's even more, with the exception of perhaps South Korea and Japan, Asia is mostly economically very tied to Europe, so they'll do it.

The transatlantic connection might suffer, but it would be strange had it been any other way. There's too much political interest there to let Boeing's main competitor get its way.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh, I wouldn't be too worried about that. In Europe there's too much political interest. In Asia, there's even more, with the exception of perhaps South Korea and Japan, Asia is mostly economically very tied to Europe, so they'll do it.

I'm not worried about it. But Airbus should be concerned. Especially if it turns political (a la Concorde) and tied to the trade lawsuits between Boeing and Airbus. You might like to dismiss the US, but it is a significant part of the aviation community and flying public.

Not only the millions needed for new terminal infrastructure to house the A380, but the safety requirements of the FAA that have been in place for some time. The A380 is the first Category 6 plane (747 is catagory 5), and because of this increased runway spacing is required. Airports designed to handle the 747 might not have the required runway widths for the A380. And its not simply a matter of adding 50 feet to each side of the runway. It is a lengthy process (and expensive) and requires the shutting down of the runway. Airbus is currently working with the major US airports, but as I said...its a lengthy process.

But there is at least a year and a half before the first one is flyin' so we will see.

Other than Singapore Airlines and China, Asia has a tendency to lean to Boeing, especially since many of the countries are now partners in the 7E7 production.

Quote[/b] ]There is the story of navigation/air traffic control and flight-control systems.

GPS based navigation is being currently set up as standard in Europe. Asia is following that as well. The US is for some reason beyond comperhension trying to block it, but it's unlikely they'll hold out. The old system uses a set of radio towers to map out fixed flight routes - often not optimal ones. The GPS based system on the other hand allows for the airplane to take the shortest path and the air traffic control is fully automated.

Ummm. Not sure where you found this, but the FAA is actively advancing GPS systems. Some airlines in some routes use GPS based on prescribed FAA requirements rather than the airway system, especially in the current state of the airlines and costs of fuel.

I assure you European, American, Asian, Oceanic, and S. American airlines use both GPS and the old airway system.

Quote[/b] ]

Anyway, this requires major updates on the computer systems on existing aircraft. The Airbuses already have them by default. So if you're forced to do expensive upgrades on your fleet, you might as well buy new aircraft.

GPS systems have been available on Boeing planes since the introduction of the glass cockpit in the 757/767 family in the early 80s, and GPS landing comes standard with the 737NG family (as does HUD), not with the A320 family.

Quote[/b] ]Then there's the question of flight-control systems. Boeing is about 20-30 years behind Airbus on that one. The Airbuses have fly-by-wire systems that increase pilot control, drastically increase safety, and reduce fuel consumption. So it's safer and cheaper to operate - which again makes them very attractive.

Boeing has fly-by-wire on the 777 and the 747-400 from the 90s. Airbus is indeed ahead in that they offered it first and through their entire family of planes.

Quote[/b] ]That's why Airbus overtook Boeing two years ago or so.

Phil Condit [sp] si the reason Airbus over ran Boeing. That and arrogance.

PS: It should be noted that I am not a fan of the AvsB argument. I don't favor Airbus or Boeing.

EDIT:Clarified.

[denoir 0]

I'm not worried about it. But Airbus should be concerned. Especially  if it turns political (a la Concorde) and tied to the trade lawsuits between Boeing and Airbus. You might like to dismiss the US, but it is a significant part of the aviation community and flying public.

The US is relevant as a competitor, and to some extent as a destination for trans-atlantic flights. The latter less so. The Europe-Asia lines are of greater importance for Airbus. Longer distances and more (?) passangers.

Quote[/b] ]Not only the millions needed for new terminal infrastructure to house the A380, but the safety requirements of the FAA that have been in place for some time. The A380 is the first Category 6 plane (747 is catagory 5), and because of this increased runway spacing is required. Airports designed to handle the 747 might not have the required runway widths for the A380. And its not simply a matter of adding 50 feet to each side of the runway. It is a lengthy process (and expensive) and requires the shutting down of the runway. Airbus is currently working with the major US airports, but as I said...its a lengthy process.

The FAA's restrictions are only relevant for flights to and within the US.  For domestic flights in the US, there's no chance in hell that the A380 will ever be used. It's too big and it's not Boeing.  The same goes of course for the rest of the world (not the Boeing part). This concerns only the major international airports and they're bound to comply. Anything else would be an economic disaster for them. Due to the politics involved, you can count on all the major European airlines (Lufthansa, British Airways, Air France, KLM, SAS..) getting the A380, and they put together are significantly larger than all the other airlines in the world put together.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]There is the story of navigation/air traffic control  and flight-control systems.

GPS based navigation is being currently set up as standard in Europe. Asia is following that as well. The US is for some reason beyond comperhension trying to block it, but it's unlikely they'll hold out. The old system uses a set of radio towers to map out fixed flight routes - often not optimal ones. The GPS based system on the other hand allows for the airplane to take the shortest path and the air traffic control is fully automated.

Ummm. Not sure where you found this, but the FAA is actively advancing GPS systems. Some airlines in some routes use GPS based on prescribed FAA requirements rather than the airway system, especially in the current state of the airlines and costs of fuel.

I assure you European, American, Asian, Oceanic, and S. American airlines use both GPS and the old airway system.

I don't remember the details of it - saw a documentary about it a few years ago. The story was that a Swedish engineer (hence my original interest) designed a fully GPS based air traffic control system, that besides cutting down on fuel costs, would increase safety (no more human air traffic controllers making errors). He patented it and managed to promote it within the EU where it was agreed that it would be a suitable system to introduce. When it was brought up internationally, everybody agreed except the US which refused and wowed to block any attempts of replacing the existing system. The reason IIRC, was simply because it wasn't an American patent.

So they faught on for a couple of more years, until Europe and most of Asia and Latin America announced that they'd be introducing the new system, with or without the US. AFIK it's already in place now using GPS/EGNOS and is the primary navigation system. The old one still exists, but is supposed to be removed once Galileo comes into full operation.

That's at least what I remember. I didn't manage to find any links about it as I don't know the nomenclature.

Quote[/b] ]Phil Condit [sp] si the reason Airbus over ran Boeing. That and arrogance.

You don't think it has anything to do with the Airbus being a newer generation of plane, that is more comfortable and safer for the passengers, and cheaper to operate?

Airbus A320 family aircraft is the preferred choice for airline passengers says Survey

Quote[/b] ]

The Airbus A320 Family aircraft is the preferred choice of 57 per cent of airline customers, a survey of single-aisle aircraft passengers has revealed. This is 33 per cent higher than its nearest competitor.  

Skytrax, the London based aviation research organisation, conducted a survey between March and May 2003 resulting in 69,308 completed passenger questionnaires. From this group, 25,625 respondents said they had experienced travel in both the A320 Family and the 737NG. Passengers surveyed included those travelling with full service and low cost carriers based in the United States, Europe and Latin America.  

Passengers selected their preferred choice of aircraft type, examining a variety of cabin comfort features, such as cabin noise, cabin width, cabin ambience, seat comfort, overhead bin space and ease of embarking and disembarking.  

The A320 Family aircraft emerged as the preferred choice in all the different survey categories - and nowhere more so than in passengers’ perception of cabin width. Over 59 per cent of passengers find the A320 cabin width provides a more comfortable cabin.  

The cabin width issue is well summarised by one Malaysian passenger who commented : "The A320 is wider than the B737NG, making it more comfortable in terms of elbow space and the width of each seat." This is supported by a British business traveller who said, "the A320 wins for me every time, I know the cabin width difference over the 737NG is minimal but it makes a real difference."  

Asked which aircraft provides the most ’spacious’ and ‘welcoming’ cabin, 56 per cent of the global survey audience chose the A320 Family. Amongst the North American market, the A320 Family aircraft has significant support, echoed by a business traveller from the United States who said "The A319/320 is a more spacious and inviting aircraft than B737NG."  

A US low-cost carrier, flying exclusively A320s, achieved some of the highest passenger satisfaction ratings in this survey. Among the airline’s passengers - who have flown both A320 and 737NG aircraft types - a majority 63 per cent favoured the A320. In all other cabin comfort sectors, the Airbus A320 was given higher ratings, giving it a 65 per cent majority.

[ralphwiggum 6]

is it me or is there some kind of 'mine is bigger' mentality going on between Airbus and Boeing?

[EiZei 0]

is it me or is there some kind of 'mine is bigger' mentality going on between Airbus and Boeing?

Considering that boeing is not introducing anything bigger than good old 747 id say no?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Of course airports need to adapt to the new size of this monster-plane, but that has been the case everytime a newer and larger plane was introduced. Whether it will take 3 or even 7 years for the Airbus to be able to land on most airports is not important.

However what is important is that it is those years ahead of Boeing. They wasted time developing concepts of which none is going to be put into practice. Years lost!

And if you are in doubt that the Airbus is going to succeed well then look at XXL planes sold this year by Boeing. Was it around 7-10 orders? And all orders were frighters! Not much, considering that the market is growing.

The Airbus on the other hand already has sufficient ordering requests. The sales are ahead of expectations.

All your doubt is in vain, the plane has a working market concept, it will dwarf the Boeing in long hall flights. And in a few weeks it will lift off and soon enter the market. Boeing is behind a full concept and development period.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I was there   nananananaaaaaaaaaaa naaa i just came back and expected to see a A380 thread,

lol...

one word: objects on the Tv are bigger than they appear.

i found out that peapole think, the A380 will overrun the B747, well, my nice pilot anwser is NO:

if you have a 79.90 Meter wingspan, you are a very BIG plane, a B747 is 64.44 Meters of wingspan, most airports in the world will not be able to handel a 79 meter wing double deck monster!

Just out of curiosity, how did you get a ticket?  Considering the numbers and tickets were tightly controlled you must have interesting connections.  I know several senior managers at Airbus in Toulouse who were not allowed to attend due to ticket restrictions.

I have to say these sort of "press inspired" comments make me laugh.  The entire design concept of the A380 is to service the main flight routes.  This mean all the runways that will handle the largest 747 aircraft will also easily handle the A380.

The 80mx80m envelope of the biggest A380-800 was designed to fit inside the American imposed standard footprint set in the early 70's by Boeing and US Government at the advent of the 747.  A standard Boeing foisted on the world just the same as Boeing is conveniently now claiming Airbus is doing.

The issue of aircraft handling on airports isn’t about the noise, wake turbulence or any other technical issue.  Its about the airport's terminals ability to de-plane up to 900 people at one gate.

The "pilot's view" to be brutally honest is totally irrelevant to the debate.  Most pilots I know would kill to fly the A380 just out of curiosity and having talked to a Long haul BA Pilot about it I think most of them will be jumping up and down to convert.

The airlines view is a much better way to look at this.  The A380 has a lower ratio of cost per passenger than a Boeing 747-400 or even Airbus' own A340-600.  On paper the projected servicing costs are lower then the largest 747.  Maintainability is allegedly cheaper relative to flying hours due to the design than any other large scale commercial transport.

Long term the figures and cost of ownership will change as the aircraft's eccentricities are found out and the design refined - just like the redesigns of the early 747's.  

Considering the decline of air travel since 9/11 most of the bigger long haul airlines are looking at the A380 as a way to reduce the number of aging airframes and replace them with a smaller fleet that can carry the same or an increased number of passengers at a reduced cost.  This doesn’t mean that they will replace every 747 with an A380.  It means that where is financially viable you will likely see these giants more often.

As for the FAA restrictions...that’s a joke...anyone remember Concorde?  Most people on these boards will probably be about 15 years too young but if you do some research you may find some interesting parallels.

In the 60's as Concorde was being developed (subsidised by the governments of both Britain and France) Boeing was developing its own "Super Sonic Transport" (SST).  Unfortunately for Boeing its design did not mature fast enough to compete with Europe’s design.  Being something like $250-500 million (reports vary - but about the equivalent of 1.65 billion now) over budget and heavily in debt to the US government in grants etc several US Senators began a movement to stir up public opinion about the safety of a Supersonic aircraft ever flying over the US.  

Reasons were stated that were scientifically unproven and sometimes quite ridiculous.  Ranging from damaging the Ozone to breaking windows due to the supersonic booms over the airports.  

Quote[/b] ]An angry resident back then was shown on tape saying, “You can't talk on the telephone and your house starts shaking. If this comes in, we're afraid our houses won't be there too long.â€

When a hearing was help to discover the truth it lasted days with several Senators giving "evidence" that by the end of it were clearly seen for what they were, just to be politically motivated obstructionism.  

It now seems that something very similar is happening again.  The argument about the ability to handle these 'European' aircraft in US airports is being touted again.  And again it seems to be inspired by a few Lobbyists geeing up some members of the US government.  Even now the US still claims that Airbus is 'unfairly' funded by its European governments despite changing its own tax laws and statutes to make the giving of "research grants" (which far exceed the Loans given to the Airbus partners) given to Boeing legal within the US without being construed as 'supporting a monopoly'.

It’s a fact that there is a US vs. Europe war of nerves and politics going on when it comes to heavy industry and market dominance.  But it goes far deeper into the core of governments and national egos that it ever did into the actual manufacturers themselves.

I worked for Airbus for nearly half my civilian working life so perhaps i have a slightly skewed perspective but some people around here really need to do some research rather than just listening to the rubbish broadcast by the News agencies and governments.  It seems like even though the aircraft hasnt even left the ground some people are treating like its just crashed into a nursing home for retired nuns.  Look for the facts and then make up your own mind dont let the media or un informed idots brain wash you.