Slashdot Mirror
Airbus Launches 800 Passenger Jumbo Jet
voma writes "Airbus, the world's largest planemaker, will unveil its A380, a $16 billion wager that airlines will order giant aircraft to ferry passengers between major airports over the next 20 years. The double-decker A380 plane has a wing span of 80 meters (262 feet), almost the length of an American football field. It's 73 meters long and weighs as much as 569 tons (1.2 million pounds) when fully loaded for takeoff. It will have a range of 8,000 nautical miles."
Unveil it? What the hell? This is not even remotely new information. This plane's info has been available for quite a while, even on Airbus' website. See their own website. Not only that, but one of the links in the article is just a blank page that says "Europe"...
Not to mention countless other places:
google
pretty pictures
chat about this back to 2001...
Although the maximum capacity is 840 (in sardine mode), the typical configuration is about 555. Compare to the typical configuration for a 747 of 416. [Reference]
It seems the airline industry is going in two separate directions. Airbus is going for capacity while Boeing is going for distance. The problem with this airbus is that is is so big, it will only be able to land at the major hubs. This will take traffic away from the smaller airports and increase the load placed on the major airports. Boeing's 7E7 seems to be a better idea to me. Personally, I would rather fly Concorde!!
Nice link that does not work in Firefox, very helpful...
realkiwi
Airliners.net has some good information on the A380 aircraft, and the history of the devlopment.
You can also see tons of pictures of the A380, both the ground test aircraft and the first flight aircraft.
It wasn't the "air lobbies" that doomed Concorde, it was environmentalists and other citizens who didn't want supersonic flight over populated areas, or Concorde's excessive noise and air pollution. They also helped to kill the Boeing SST.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Most of the airports that will receive this thing will have to be modified - this means additional walkways for the upper deck - so basically, it's not going to be any faster or slower than a 747.
Last time I was at Hong Kong international they were already at work on this.
A A380-800 carrying 550 passengers costs $270million.
A 747-400 carrying 436 passangers costs $215million.
Both work out at roughly $0.5million per passenger.
The Airbus requires the same length runway to takeoff and land, but it requires wider runways. Most airports can take the A380 currently, with only some having to expand runways or taxiways to fit.
The 747-400 has a range of 14,205km, with a max fuel capacity of 63,700gallons.
The A380-800 has a range of 15,100km, with a max fuel capacity of 81,900gallons.
That gives the 747-400 a rate of 0.2km/g.
And the A380 a rate of 0.18km/g.
Or, based on passenger numbers, the 747-400 has a rate of 1.02 gallons of fuel per 100km per passenger. The A380 has a rate of 0.9 gallons of fuel per 100km per passenger. (work all that out myself, phew). This gives the Airbus a more efficient fuel cost when carrying a full passenger load.
The A380 will be used mainly on the longhaul hub routes, such as LA to Hongkong, London to Hongkong, London to Sydney, London to New York, New York to Hongkong etc. You will see it on other routes tho, its just as good for those.
So far Airbus have sold 139 A380-800 aircraft, half of what it needs to break even.
That said, LAX was quoted in one news source (can't find article now) as already planning to make the necessary upgrades for an A380 to land.
Europe (combined) is not nearly in the same ballpark as the US (see this graph for instance http://www.globalissues.org/images/USvsWorld2004T
Me thinks (as a European) that's a good thing
US: 400 billion USD.
EU: 193 billion USD (160 billion EUR).
Source: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_07-08/EU.asp
The A380 is taking the tack the 747 took, in that much of the room is generously allocated. Large amounts of seating room per seat, even in coach, and things like minibars and waterfountains occupy space that airlines will likely turn over to single-seat 24ft^3 passenger spaces. If reconfigured, you can stuff 800 souls onto one of these planes.
For instance, The U.S. government has a law (The Wright Amendment) to protect the American Ailines from competition with Southwest.
Why do you think that Boeing can suddenly regain the market share lost on medium type planes to er... Airbus?
In the regional markets both companies are pretty much irrelevant.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Lots of great pictures of the A380 are accessible from this search page. Pictures cover part shipment by barge and truck, as well as the build and rollout of the first two A380s (#1 an engineering test platform that won't fly, and #2 that WILL fly).
I find the article at Airbus v. Boing (pun intendet) a lot better. Cheers
In terms of pure weight on the tarmac the A380 actually isn't 'worse' than the 747. It's been specifically built with enough set of wheels to be 747 compatible in that respect, so that hardly any 747 serving airport will need work.
Gate distances are compatible as well, however to make the bird turn around reasonably quick there's a need for double level terminals and jet bridges. That way one can move passengers in and out without forcing them through the bottleneck of the aircraft stairs. These facilities (as well as large enough immigration areas/multiple baggage carousels etc) is what some large airports are still missing.
San Francisco International Airport is one of the few airports around the world that is more or less ready to accept the A380-800.
I cite these reasons:
1. The two longest runways at SFO (Runways 28R/10L and 1R/19L) were widened recently to accommodate the wider stance of the plane. They've also checked these two runways to make sure it can handle the sheer weight of the plane.
2. They've widened a number of taxiways to accommodate the A380-800.
3. Most importantly, SFO's vastly-expanded International Terminal that opened at the end of 2000 was designed and built just when Airbus was finishing its design work on the A380. As such, the International Terminal has gates with 80 x 80 meter gate spacing and high-capacity Federal Inspection Service (Customs and Immigration) processing areas to handle the deboarding of multiple A380's easily.
There is still an issue of taxiway spacing, but SFO officials are working out taxiing procedures for getting the A380-800 on and off the runway quickly to avoid congestion problems, especially during the middle of the day.
Actually, the Wright Amendment protects Dallas Fort Worth Airport (paid for by large government subsidies) from competition from Dallas Love Field. It's purpose was make DFW a virtual monopoly so that it can recoup it's costs (both to the government and the state/cities that invested in it). Southwest uses Love for it's flights due to the lower costs associated with that airport rather than any specific provision in the Wright Amendment. AA has at times considered competing with SW at Love, but has never (that I know of) actually done so since DFW opened.
> Did anyone see that bridge that is higher than the clouds? That's worthy of a Slashdot story in itself.
Indeed :-)
Xenu brings order!
(There are a few days lost a year in the civil service, which is somewhat unionised.)
Some figures:
Working days lost per 1,000 inhabitants per year.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
This is the case because oil is still relatively cheap. Expect this to change in the future.
;p) is heavily used for short-range flights... in Japan. I'm talking direct flights here. It's just that the land is crowded enough that there are very few landing spots, but many many passengers.
Btw the high-density 747 (think 600 people that do not seem to care about knee injuries
Expect the same to happen in China or India, but with the A380. Especially since their rail network sucks (unlike in Japan).
Ah, you're quoting propaganda from Airbus. Take a look at US DoD procurement, and you'll see two to three contractor teams fighting tooth and nail for 8% profit, which is hardly a subsidy.
Even if you do think 8% is an illegal subsidy, EADS (the parent company of Airbus) has exactly the same problem with its military contracts. So, the EU/US trade war comes down to Airbus launch aid, which is huge (IIRC, 4 Billion Euros for the A380.) Personally, I think it is time for US airport to charge a $10million penalty (er, "landing fee", or "airport improvement fee") for every A380 landing. Watch A380 sales dry up, watch the French squeal like pigs, and watch launch aid dry up in a heartbeat.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
QUOTE -- "Airbus is clearly gunning for the 747 market - the 747 series of aircraft have the basic design and efficiencies of the 1960s. Boeing has let the 747 become a technical laggard, and Airbus has poised itself to shut down the 747 production line with a much more modern aircraft in terms of cost. (many thanks to Boeing's poor management - where are the institutional shareholders when you need them?)"
The 747 is on it's 6th or 7th iteration with so many improvements in engine, avionics and wing design that it has very little to do with the original 747. You could say that the basic shape is all they share in common.
The single biggest reason the Airbus costs less to make is because of EU "Launch" subsidies - European Union governments give Airbus free money to beat Boeing, blaming Boeing managemnt is the traditional non-informed escape route.
In real world costs the Airbus unit probably costs they same if not more than the Boeing bird - Boeings are all most made in the same state, often with 90% of the work done in the same building - Airbusses are made in multiple countries for political "spread the wealth reasons", floating Wings down a river for example.
Try a quick google search for "Airbus Launch Subsidies"
And incidentaly, 737's are not considered small jets, what the GP meant is the local feeder airlines flying Embraers 145's and Bombardiers CRJ's , ie. the "Regional Jets"
Joe
3 litres per 100 km or thereabouts? OK, aviation fuel against petrol, but still
The current international price of aviation turbine fuel is about $450 per 1000 liters, which is probably lower than gasoline/petrol prices (comparing bulk prices of course) at whatever airport you are. This is partly because aviation fuel has longer alkanes and is more similar to kerosene, and partly because it doesn't need to be as hair-splittingly fractionated as gasoline.
The fuel efficiency of the A380 has been reported as "95 miles to the gallon per passenger", which should probably read "95 passenger-miles per gallon". (The mpg doesn't increase with more passengers). Assuming Imperial gallons here (BBC report), and assuming a complement of 555 passengers, the consumption comes to 16.34 liters of fuel per kilometer, or about 225,000 liters (180 tons assuming a density of 0.8 kg per liter) for a trip of 7500 nautical miles (13900 km). That number seems believable.
Now to estimate the price:
A380 fuel cost, for 225,000 liters: $101,250.
555 passengers need about 139 cars (assuming 4 per car). Assuming a fuel efficiency of 11 km/l (26 miles per US gallon), that is 175,645 liters of gasoline, which by US retail prices would come to approximately $88,000. European gas prices would probably make it higher than $100,000. I don't know about European *bulk* prices for gasoline.
Interesting numbers. How does the A380 compare to the 747, the 777 and the A340 in terms of fuel efficiency?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
You conveniently fail to mention the State mandated 35 hour work week, and the generous vacation policies.
So, no, you might not have unions in France. What on earth would they agitate for?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Huh? Where does this interesting tidbit come from?
Generally speaking, the only time airliner engines are throttled back to idle in flight is just prior to being shut down due to being on fire.
"Crossing the Atlantic on one engine" in a 747 would be quite a feat. Lots of rudder trim, I guess.
The engines are run at equal power settings. Period. Airline operators don't play around with asymmetrical power settings.
Additionally, engine hours are based upon running time, not power settings. An engine running at idle for 1 hour accumulates the same time as an engine running at METO power.
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
Your facts are so wrong, and your premise is just plain stupid. Airlines don't decide to purchase planes at airshows; they talk to the manufacturer for months or even years trying to hammer out the specifications, the price, delivery slots, engine choices, etc. etc. The fact that Boeing wasn't present at an airshow means little; Airbus is actually quite known for delaying the announcement of a new order until an airshow (they like to make a big media splash, so rather than announcing an order as its finalized, they'd rather wait for an airshow to announce several orders.) The fact that Boeing wasn't there and Airbus was had _nothing_ to do with the A380 order.
In addition, it wasn't Kuwait airlines that order 43 A380's, it was Emirates.
This is nothing new here at FedEx. We have already put in an order for quite a few of the cargo versions of this aircraft. As far as widebody goes, we use Boeing's MD-11, MD-10, DC-10, and Airbus A300 and A310. The largest is Boeing's MD-11 and if our calulations are correct, the new A380 cargo will carry more cargo with only 75% of the fuel it takes at present. On our LAX run, we have 4 MD-11's that go from MEM to LAX and back nightly. With the A380, We could cut that to two A380's and save a ton on fuel. Our orders for the A380 will be mostly for high volume flights like LAX, ORD, JFK, and most international flights.
Here's a picture of A380 #2 just after painting...
The 7E7 is the only all-composite passenger aircraft. The composite fusalage construction permits higher cabin pressures and humidity. This results in far better passenger comfort, especially on long flights. I addition, very large windows are possible.
Your facts are completely, completely wrong. First off, Boeing didn't boycott the 2002 show. Second, "inking" of deals isn't a matter of sitting down and signing a paper. First, you sign a memorandum of understanding, then a letter of intent. Then you and your lawyers haggle over legal details, and then you and your businessmen haggle over monetary details, and then you and your technical people haggle over specifications and delivery dates. You then have to make deals with the engine manufacturers, and then deal with the interior fittings. If you're adding a new aircraft type, you then have to deal with the unions of the pilots, flight attendants, machinists, ramp workers, etc. etc. Signing at air shows (which Boeing didn't do regularly beforehand or since) has nothing to do with an aircraft manufacturers' presence at the show. And since Boeing was in attendance at Farnborough in 2002, it's a moot point anyway.
On the way back I had been pre-warned that the queues at LAX for security were horendous and they were. It came out of the door and went down the whole length of the terminal.
The cure for this;
If you live sufficiently far from a major airport (50+ miles), book your flight from your closer regional airport instead. Bite the bullet on the connection, and skip the long security queue. Takes about the same amount of time, but instead of waiting in that long line, you spend your time in the terminal reading, sleeping, or ogling hot stewardesses.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I've seen the usual round of slashdot trolling in this thread, that happens every time some piece of new technology is invented or some scientific landmark is achieved outside the US. Likewise, there's a good number of anti-American trolls here who like to have a good laugh when something fucks up in the US.
Then there's the rest of us.
I see that quite a few Americans, when feeling nationally challenged because the biggest civil aircraft in the world is no longer American, like to point out how the Boeing 7E7 is more comfortable, takes less time to board and exit, and is more practical, in that it can fly between smaller airports, than the A380.
At the same time, the European pundits point out that the A380 can fly huge amounts of passengers over a longer distance, etc.
And a good number of pundits try to paint this as a clash of philosophies, in that the efficient small craft versus the huge megajumbo craft is what will happen in the future.
I think they miss out the point: These two craft are aimed at significantly different markets. No one will buy an A380 to fly from Paris to London (a few hundred kilometers) or buy a 7E7 to fly from Singapore to London. Sure, long haul routes with low passenger frequencies, such as from Buenos Aires to London will probably not see an A380 and some high frequency long haul non hub routes will not see an 7E7, but that is the general aim of the market. These aircraft do not really compete.
The real competition to the 7E7 is still to come, and has been announced, in the form of the A350, which is a modernised A330, with newer non bleed engines like those of the 7E7, new wings and more composites.
And this is where the real compeition between Airbus and Boeing is being fought: The family of planes.
One of the major reasons that Airbus has been so successful is that it has built almost all of its planes in modularised form in order to optimise components, which means that Pilots trained on an A318 can fly the whole small Airbus family - A318, A319, A320 and A321. It also means that technicians can service all of these planes if trained on one, and that spares etc are shared amongst all of them, lowering the cost to both airlines and manufacturers.
There is a similar thing in the A330 and A340, and even the A380 uses a similar cockpit layout to the A340. And the A350 will be usable by those who have used A330s in the past.
I think a large amount of Boeing's marketing criticism against Airbus is simply because Boeing missed the boat on the new large market. They were actually doing design and market studies togethr with Airbus in the mid 90's until they pulled out because British Airways, their supposed launch customer, wasn't interested. Boeing then went on with a number of utter rubbish campaigns, from the idea of stretched 747X which was then shelved when it failed to garner enough attention, to a ridiculous Sonic Cruiser concept, which was more of a marketing exercise to take attention away from the A380, until they finally realised that they had to come up with a new product and started the far more realistic and achievable 7E7.
Airbus's planes have been less spectacular than Boeing's, but they offered real advantages in cost (Training, maintenance, spares). Boeing's leadership is where the blame lies for spending so much time on hairbrained campaigns and FUD instead of doing some real product development.