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

[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.

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: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....

[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?
;-)

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: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?

[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)