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."

Comments

jumbo jets vs regional ones

[gmailflows]

The trend towards super duper jumbo jets comes at the expense of the smaller regional jets which were all the rage 5 to 10 years ago. Companies like Bombardier and Embraer have run into trouble selling their small and mid sized jets as the airline market in general has tanked post 9-11. The only real growth area of the airplane manufacturing business is these jumbo jets, as their sheer volume (with the 555 seats) allows them to keep individual prices lower given the cut-throat pricing that discount airlines can provide. The moral for the consumer is that the quality of air travel will continue to decline. I personally prefer to fly in a small jet where I can feel less like cattle, screened, and herded into these flying apartment buildings that rather than afford greater space just pack in more and more people so as to struggle to make a profit in what is essentially a state-subsidised market in crisis... :P

Re:jumbo jets vs regional ones

[Albanach]

I personally prefer to fly in a small jet where I can feel less like cattle, screened, and herded into these flying apartment buildings that rather than afford greater space just pack in more and more people so as to struggle to make a profit in what is essentially a state-subsidised market in crisis.

You might like small planes, but these are why the market in the US needs state subsidies. Take a look at the UK / Ireland and their low cost opperations. All the flights are on 737s or their equivalent. The big operators are Easyjet and Ryanair. This is real no frills stuff, but we're flying across Europe for under $100 return while Americans are paying more than that per leg. These airlines are posting profits too ($226 million Euros for Ryanair in 2004). Maybe folk need to ask why the US government is willing to subsidise a business model that is so obviously flawed?

Re:jumbo jets vs regional ones

[SubtleNuance]

The moral for the consumer is that the quality of air travel will continue to decline.

My #1 concern when travelling - cost. Lower tickets mean I can afford to travel more often. Not only do I want 'low standards' on my flight (i'll pack my own lunch thank you), I ONLY want point-a-to-b-service you CANNOT add value to moving my meat-bag to my vacation destination. While I travel im in the "you cant bother me zone". From the time I wake in the morning of departure to the time I arrive at my destination, I REFUSE to allow any outside insanity to bother me. I flow through the travel process like a ghost, i read, i wait, i munch snakes - i decompress. a 'high value' flight means nothing.

to fly in a small jet where I can feel less like cattle, screened, and herded into these flying apartment buildings

Bah. I will sit cross legged on a floor, with half-height head space if it means i can go abroad for all the vacation time I have (and be able to afford it).

12hrs of discomfort in exchange for the privilage of 2 or 3 weeks abroad every year vs. every 2nd or 3rd year is fine with me.

Re:jumbo jets vs regional ones

[standards]

The trend towards super duper jumbo jets comes at the expense of the smaller regional jets which were all the rage 5 to 10 years ago. Companies like Bombardier and Embraer have run into trouble selling their small and mid sized jets as the airline market in general has tanked post 9-11.

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?)

Big planes are great for reducing costs between large cities - say, New York to Tokyo. Or SF to London. Instead of two flights using two birds and two crews, you can do it once. And with modern, efficient, and quiet engines. And that's a huge cost savings all around.

And to get carriers to unload their 747s, you've got to make it compelling. A much more efficient plane with even more capacity is bound to result in airlines unloading the 747. It costs a lot of money to operate per passenger mile. The 747 expense has become too great.

But many flights these days are regional, and will remain that way. All of those 737 flights between cities will remain, and will continue to grow. Why have a 500+ passenger jet fly that can go 5000+ miles fly a 1500 mile vacation route that serves only 320 passengers? A couple 737 flights sounds better in that application.

So the smaller jets aren't going away - it is the 747 that's leaving commerical passenger service.

Re:jumbo jets vs regional ones

[TargetBoy]

>>The big operators are Easyjet and Ryanair. This is real no frills stuff, but we're flying across Europe for under $100 return while Americans are paying more than that per leg.

Right. And one leg of most of my flights in America is a longer distance than flying across Europe.

Re:jumbo jets vs regional ones

[corngrower]

I think Boeing also realized the market for larger than 747 passenger aircraft, but I expect they saw that Airbus was designing a plane to meet that market, and they didn't think the passenger market would be big enough to support another one. So rather than design one, and have both Boeing and Airbus loose money in the market, they just shelved the idea for now.

On the other hand, a Boeing insider tells me that they are considering making a very, very large cargo plane, one that could transport a number of those 40 ton containers. It would dwarf a 747.

Re:jumbo jets vs regional ones

[Moofie]

Totally, because the name on the airplane is the most important part of making people, like, not die on it.

Huh?

Re:American version

[medraut]

Will that be supersized?

With all that space I sure hope they managed to find a better place for the multimedia boxes they put under the seats in Cattle Class. If you're anything over 6ft, you suffer.

Medraut

Right, but ....

[Anonymous Coward]

The plane is also the same kind of dimension as the B747, so that no US airport can "refuse" landing ;-)

European industry has learnt a lot from the Concorde failure where the US air lobbies has successfully limited the airport landing slots.

Re:Right, but ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, because normally when people that live next door to airports starts to whine abouth noise, both the airports and american companies spend millions fighting for their "right" to fly 24/7. But when some European company started to plan the Concorde introduction in USA, all of a sudden; total silence, both from airports and all other industry associations. Strange indeed.

Re:More really old "news"

[Teun]

Unveil it? What the hell? This is not even remotely new information.

So?
The roll-out is a landmark and can be signalled as such by tech sites like /.

I'm interested in the aircraft industry but don't frequent their news sites as much as some other fields of interest.
Then when such a landmark comes along I find it nice to be reminded, especially when in a discussion forum people can give their opinion about what is no doubt a new class of airliner.

Re:Easy For Airbus....

[Interfacer]

Boeing is being sponsored by the US govt too, so don't give me that holier than thou bullshit.

there has been a years long dispute between boeing and airbus. airbus got sponsored while boeing got govt loans with 0 interest, or loans they didn't need pay back (sonthing like it anyway).

imo this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

big business buys politicians. always has always will.

Re:Easy For Airbus....

[Teun]

And why no "Boeing too"?

Just because the US government does it more stealthy through for example "defence contracts" that for "reasons of national security" cannot be shown to the public?

Although the legal mess that came about after the contract negotiations for new tanker planes is encouraging.
At least this is some sign the US military is willing (or is it forced?) to look further than domestic manufacturers.

Re:Look forward to another round of US v EU

[dago]

This reminds me of an old Newsweek (europe) cover a few years ago, this was about Netherlands and sayed something like "Gay marriage, drugs, euthanasia : are the Netherlands showing the future of europe ?"

So, you can add those 3 things to your agenda, and also
- International Court of Justice
- landmine ban treaty
- America's cup 2007

Re:American version

[EinarH]

It's the cargo version, Stupid.

Why do you think UPS ordered it?
;-)

Hmm...

[CaptainZapp]

Airbus is going for capacity while Boeing is going for distance.

So does one exclude the other? I wouldn't think so.

Well, admitted. It's probably somewhat hard to cram 550 odd people into a 7E7, but where does it say that the A380 has a smaller range?

Personally I think Boeing started to lose it after the 747. Granted, the 767 was successful, but at the cost of a lot of lost 747 sales. I think they didn't sell a single passenger version of the 747 since 2002.

What I believe lead to Boeings "demise" was what happened to a lot of companies when they got fat and lazy: Arrogance! After they bought MD Douglas they thought they remained the only game in town, because those [and this is my fully fictional fantsay] "dumb Euros can't distinguish their arse from a hole in the ground anyways." Well, guess what. They where wrong! Dead wrong!

I also think that Boeings reasononing that "not selling 747s prooves that there is no market for super jumbos any more." is spurrious at worst and wishful thinking at best. Or would you place a $5'000'000'0000 order on a 35 year old plane design, when you know that a product is released in acouple years that doesn't only incorporate all of todays aviation knowledge, but is also likely to reduce operations costs by a significant amount? Provided of course that you can fill them adequately. Not bloody likely

I don't think that Boeing is beyond recovery. But they will first have to stop to whine, start to listen to their customers again and being willing again to take risks (they had a 600p plane in the pipeline, which was scrapped not too long ago).

While I personally agree that I rather fly on a smaller plane, I do think that the massive changes in the East (China / India) will literally scream for such large jets in the not too far future.

We'll see.

Re:Look forward to another round of US v EU

[Pig Hogger]

Things should get really interesting here. As I understand it, Airbus and the European aerospace industry in general has been gradually overtaking Boeing and the US industry for a decade or more now. This plane is sort of symbolic - after 40-odd years as the only game in town, the 747 is suddenly no longer the biggest passenger plane suitable for regular use.

You have to account the end of the cold-war, which meant the drastic reduction of the huges disguised subsidies to Boeing and Douglas and Lockeed whenever they landed a big USAF contract for overpriced military planes...

Make no mistake, Boeing was able to flatten canadian, british and french passenger jetliners because most of it's development costs have been borne by military bomber contracts like the B-47.

Re:Wings

[Anonymous Coward]

They built the statue of liberty and helped the american's win the war of indepdence.

Just because they didn't go on your war for more oil doesn't make the worthless.

Re:Official Launch January 18

[bloggins02]

The aircraft is said to have "relaxation space, bars, duty free shops"

Funny, that's what they said when the double decker 747 came out. Of course, we all know what really happened: they converted that space into more passenger seating as fuel costs skyrocketed. Something tells me the same thing's going to happen this time around, too.

Re:American version

[NardofDoom]

Okay, let's cram you in a seat with six inches less legroom than you need for four hours with screaming children, crappy food and a worse movie and see how much you like it! After, of course, you're scrutinized like a criminal, forced to partially disrobe at a "security checkpoint" and herded through loading like an animal.

I hate flying.

Re:7E7 vs A380

[killbill!]

I think Airbus was right to bank on large planes.

Why?

• Rising oil prices. Megajumbos should use less fuel per passenger (I think, gotta google that). If fuel prices keep rising (peak oil and stuff), the smaller commuter planes suddenly make less sense.
• Chinese / Indian economic boom. At the rate things are going nowadays, Asian airlines will be using those for short-range direct flights. Just like the Japanese do with the 747. Distances are huge in China or India, and both the rail and road systems suck.

Re:Fly where?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy! Yes!

Americans really *do* need to get out more!

I lived in the US between 1960 and 1989 and boy, do I *never* want to live in the US again!

I live in Northern Italy now - it's like heaven (Lombardy) vs hell (Texas).

Why do Americans think they have such a great lifestyle - it looks like total consume-to-the-max shit to me.

Re:Wings

[boule75]

Sir Norman Foster was the Architect, not the Engineer.

The Engineers were wholy French: the Eiffage company, heir of Mr. Gustave Eiffel's company.

For your delight, please note that this is bridge was privately funded: Eiffage will earn a toll for each vehicle crossing the bridge during many years to earn the money they just invested in the Bridge, and then the state will own it.

The A380 is a Corvette

[michaelmalak]

Chevrolet marketed the Corvette not for profit, but rather so that Camero purchasers would feel like they were getting a Corvette-lite.

Airbus will be able to claim the Corvette for the next quarter-century. Boeing is right when they say the market is not there for ferrying 600 passengers at a time -- that passengers prefer point-to-point flights rather than hub-to-hub. But the market exists, and Boeing is neglecting to mention the growing market for overnight cargo. FedEx is the A380's biggest champion.

But the market is not big enough for two players. Since the A380's announcement, Boeing has been flirting with 747 mods, such as this one that turns the currently unused rear attic into private but windowless sleeping cabins. But Boeing couldn't generate sufficient interest (i.e. firm pre-orders).

Boeing will be left to pursue the unglamorous but profitable mid-size and long-distance markets. E.g., the 777-200ER will combine 300-440 capacity with one of the longest reaches available, possibly enabling Europe<->Australia routes for the first time.

The next big glamour will be the Concorde replacement. Currently, the thought is that supersonic travel can never be made economical enough; that customers would rather bask in luxury aboard an air-yacht like the A380 than pay the price for an unsubsidized supersonic airplane. And given the technical hurdles of the sonic boom (which I think can be solved, but not for the next 30 years), supersonic travel would be limited to only over oceans, which is counter to the current point-to-point market demand.

Given that Boeing recently backed out of supersonic research, it'll be a good long while before it can reclaim the glory crown from Airbus. For 35 years, Boeing held the crown with the 747, inspiration of countless Hollywood movies. Now it's Airbus' turn for the next few decades.

Boeing will continue to be profitable, but without the glory.

Re:The A380 is a Corvette

[EmagGeek]

""Boeing will continue to be profitable, but without the glory.""

US Shareholders do not expect glory. They expect profits.

Boeing is being very smart not to try to compete with the A380. After all, the A380 program is the recipient of millions upon millions in legally questionable bailout money already, so there's no reason Boeing should throw good money at competing with it until the legal hurdles are worked out. The A380 still may never come to fruition, so the wait-and-see stance is appropriate.

Re:Wings

[Xrikcus]

Using USPTO statistics alone isn't really a valid way to back up your point, is it. I agree that the US does have the most patents issued, but if you move out of the domestic market the rate is much reduced.

http://www.european-patent-office.org/tws/tsr_2003 /ch3.pdf contains what appear to be more helpful statistics, putting Japan at the top of the patent table. A slight caveat on that is that the study focuses on Patents of Invention, rather than those of Industrial Design, or copyrights

US vs France

[Thomas Miconi]

The interesting point here is that almost all the cases you mention can be summarised, not as US vs EU, but as US vs France.

- the great banana and steel trade war: France is probably the only banana producer in Europe (overseas territories), plus there was the question of specific import agreements with former French colonies (Lome agreements). As for steel, the steel giant of Europe, Arcelor, is mostly based on French production sites (my dad works in one of them).

- Freedom Fries vs french fries: self-explaining :)

- the EU vs Microsoft: this may be the exception. This was pretty much a Brussels-centric affair, with little to no coverage in national medias.

- Germany and France vs the US over Iraq : people often forget that it was Schroder who first opposed any war in Iraq. However Germany has never had much weight in international politics. France has much more clout, so the world hears them more. However in this situation it's not so much US vs EU, as US + UK + Poland against the rest of the whole damn world.

- the Euro vs the Dollar: ok, this is also a real EU issue, the European Central Bank has total control over monetary affairs now.

- snooty French people vs loutish American tourists: well we're still quite happy to take their money :)

- the new european GPS equivalent Galileo vs GPS: Like almost all matters related to space, it was initiated by the French. The French initiated, designed, funded and built most of the Ariane project as well. The toughest part was in convincing the Brits, who were quite happy with buying US-made rockets.

- everyone on Earth lead by the EU vs the US over Kyoto: see war in Iraq. You really have a problem with your administration, but you knew that already.

- the european vs US approach to Israel and the Middle East: It's quite ironic that, pre-1967, France was Israel's best friend in the West ! The French helped Israel start their nuclear programme. At that time, the US were quite wary of Israel, because they had ties with the USSR and showed sympathy with socialist ideals (kibbutz anyone ?), which was enough to draw both defiance from the US and sympathy from De Gaulle's France.

That was before 1967, when Israel invaded what is now known as the Palestinian territories, and "the little country that could" was suddenly seen as a nation of religious fanatics who invaded other people's lands because their god told them to - not exactly the best way to make yourself popular in arch-secular France.

- increasing secularism (EU, see for example banning of headscarves) vs increasing evangelicalism (US/Jesusland): the only country that banned headscarves in school, AFAIK, is France. They did take some flak from some other EU countries - in particular, from Britain.

Thomas-

Re:Fly where?

[bluGill]

It is what you make of it. There are places I can live, and places I could not live. It is your fault if you cannot see the beauty of Texas. It is my fault if I cannot see the beauty of Italy. (I've never been to Italy)

wager? what wager?

[scotty777]

Most of the invested money was "borrowed" from the governments of France, Gremany UK, and Spain. The terms of the "loans" specify that if the market projections were wrong, then the "loan" doesn't have to be paid back.

If the loan is paid back, it is at an extremely low interest rate, far below the prevailing commercial rates. Why can't you and I get a loan like that?

Maybe you and I didn't come up with yet another aerospace prestige project, like the Concorde, or the Arianne rocket.

Re:Look forward to another round of US v EU

[Pig Hogger]

So? In Europe, governments have no problems giving-out straight subsidies to important industries. It's solely an anglo-saxon/bourgeois ideological conception that the State shall not involve itself with the Economy; only thing is that anglo-saxon countries still do it hypocritically with huge inflated defense contracts...

Same thing with farm subsidies; the US is a notorious hypocrite there, bitching against European farm subsidies while pouring lots of money to US farmers...

Re:The SUV of airplanes, this A380

[hohakkar]

Your problem is that you're not thinking big enough. Were you building busses instead of SUVs and actually filling them to capacity, people probably would be applauding.

Big can be both economically and environmentally viable. Especially so in the case of air travel. SUVs, however, are neither.

Re:7E7 vs A380

[killbill!]

Huh? I didn't know Halliburton even cared about astroturfing on slashdot!
I never said oil supplies were going to run out within a decade. I merely said that that prices were going to rise enough to make small planes unprofitable.
I am aware that as prices rise, more drilling sites will become profitable. But the fact that rising prices increase viable reserves does not change the fact that they did rise in the first place!

Economics will keep our oil prices cheap and supplies plentiful for centuries.

Nonsense. You do know the amount of oil on this planet is determined by geology, not economics, right?
What economics tell you is merely that oil will never "run out", but that once it gets rare enough, it will be so expensive that nobody will be using it anyway. So yes, economics will keep supplies at a sufficient level for centuries, but definitely NOT cheap.

Re:The SUV of airplanes, this A380

[Edmund Blackadder]

People do not like SUV's because they cause too much pollution and waste too much resources for the emount of useful work they do.

This plane will actually use less fuel and cause less pollution per passenger than the smaller planes.

As far as "spitting on the graves" why does everyone assume that the soldiers that died in ww2 are guaranteed to love Bush's imperialism?