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."
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 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
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.
Airbus is going for both capacity and range:
767ER (10,500km range carrying 245 passengers)
747-400ER (13,500km carrying 420 passengers)
777ER (13,500km range carrying 365 passengers)
7E7 (15,350Km carrying 250 passengers)
A340 (15,750km carrying 313 passengers)
A380 (15,100lm carrying 550 passengers)
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.
(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
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.