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."
I though the problem with the airline industry wasn't plane capacity but the more nimble competitors cherrypicking the mist profitable connections.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
The wings for this plane are so big that they are floated out to see on a huge barge down the Dee Estuary in Wales, and taken by ship to be assembled with the reat of the plane in Toulouse, France. On the way, the wings pass on a special vehicle through several hunred yards of farm land and cross a main road. Thise Europeans know how to do big engineering projects.
I stole this
a $16 billion wager that airlines will order giant aircraft to ferry passengers between major airports over the next 20 years I think Airbus is making a really big assumption there. Dont we remember how the Concorde had to be retired due to almost no demand but high cost of running? And what if another September 11 incident occurs and knocks the airlines out of business again? Then surely Airbus will be in a big, big trouble...bigger than their plane
Boeing 747-400 has a wingspan of 211ft 5in (64.4m), max takeoff weight of 412,770kg and a maximum range of 8,430 statute miles.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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.
This seems to be just another chapter in a gradually emerging rivalry between the EU and the US. Other chapters have included:
- the great banana and steel trade war
- Freedom Fries vs french fries
- the EU vs Microsoft
- Germany and France vs the US over Iraq (although that may have had something to do with sanity vs idiocy too)
- the Euro vs the Dollar, especially in major oil and currency markets
- snooty French people vs loutish American tourists
- the new european GPS equivalent (Magellan?) vs GPS
- everyone on Earth lead by the EU vs the US over Kyoto
- the european vs US approach to Israel and the Middle East
- increasing secularism (EU, see for example banning of headscarves) vs increasing evangelicalism (US/Jesusland)
Anyway, all this adds up to something quite interesting over the next 20-50 years. We have one very old, very industrialised bloc of about 500 million people who have finally decided to stop killing each other for the first time in history and cooperate. Across the atlantic we have 250 million odd people who have been undisputed leaders of the world for several decades now. Other factors of great interest include the massive US military budget compared to Europe's relatively small one, and the big question of who will adapt better to a world without oil and with a powerful China and India in it.
Read Pynchon.
The aircraft is set to have "relaxation space, bars, duty free shops". We shall see.
In somewhat related news, Boeing recently unveiled a prototype section of its 7E7 Dreamliner:
e /s tory/4440746p-4194580c.html
http://www.thenewstribune.com/business/aerospac
From that article:
The 22-foot-long fuselage section represents the fruit of years of development by Boeing engineers in composite technology. At 19 feet in diameter, it is the largest pressurized composite airliner fuselage section ever built by Boeing or any aerospace company....
The huge structure is just one piece, not the thousands of pieces of aluminum and fasteners it would have been had Boeing made it of metal.
to see how the flying public reacts to the first accident or near accident on one of these things.
Personally, I welcome our massive economy-fare overlords. I fly constantly, but rarely have ever ridden in a 747. If they can take the bulk hub/hub passenger loads, I hope that will drive down prices across the network.
Even simply debarking from a full 747 from an unfavorable seat can take seemingly forever. This one will take a significant amount of time.
-Styopa
Hey, I don't care if I feel a little bit like cattle if I can get a direct flight across the US for under $200 on a major airline or to London for under $300.
Sometimes the price could make the whole difference between flying or driving or taking the train. And I just hope I'm not sitting next to a passenger who takes 1.5 seats.
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
Look, Airbus is showing us images of bars and water fountains inside these planes. Boeing did the same thing when the 747 first came out 35 years or so ago. I have flown in a lot of 747s and have NEVER seena bar.
I expect to be seeing 800 seat flights in the next few years that are just going to suck becasue the gates, customs and baggage handling have not caught up. As it is, I already prefer to take a 767 or 777 over a 747 for becasue the stampeede is smaller.
Boeing and Airbus have different philosophies regarding air travel. Airbus sees big planes going hub to hub, while Boeing envisions smaller planes going point to point. With more point to point travel, you can avoid so called mega hubs such as Chicago O'Hare and Atlanta.
It's also to important to note that Southwest Airlines is one of the more profitable airlines today, and they run a mostly point to point network. Guess which system the legacies run?
If you are looking for more amusing Boeing vs. Airbus threads, be sure to check out airliners.net.
I think you're on the right track. "Horses for Courses".
...
When I go home it's about 26 hours in a plane. If they can make it cheaper, I'm all for it. I'll fly Europe to Asia, then hopefully direct to Melbourne (Australia) and avoid Sydney. Perfect for the Titanic on wings.
But, while in Europe, I'm going basically short haul 1 to 2 hour flights. Small, economical, fast.
I'd say there's a market for both of these planes. Plenty of diverse travel types in different locations.
I seem to recall reading that one of these babies going to be so fuel efficient that it actually was more fuel efficient (with a nearly full load) than even driving a small car from A to B? 3 litres per 100 km or thereabouts? OK, aviation fuel against petrol, but still
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
If you book well in advance, your air tickets are less than 1 pound per flight . I was able to fly from Edinburgh to NW France via Luton (EasyJet and Ryanair) for 2 pounds total - The airline duty taxes and airport taxi fairs amount for another £45 pounds). It's only when you book at the last minute that the prices rocket up to something like 120 pounds per flight. Fortunately, most flights are less than 1 hour in duration (Edinburgh to London is around 400 miles - about the same as SF to LA) - By train this takes 6 to 8 hours.
Ryanair operate by avoiding the big city airports (London Heathrow/Gatwick, Paris) and using provincial airports. They used to do deals with the local airports, where in return for running a regular service, the airport would upgrade their facilities using local government subsidies. But this was ruled illegal under EEC laws.
The other important thing is to check in at least two hours before departure, as you are given a seating priority number based on order of check-in. While there aren't any seat reservations on the flights, order of entry is based on being disabled, having children with you, and then priority number. It really sucks being the last on the plane, as the only lockers left remaining for hand luggage are about 10 rows away from whatever seat you find. Easyjet actually herd their passengers into separately fenced queues based on priority number.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
It isn't so much that Boeing wasn't nimble enough in this case, it was too jingoistic. Remember the year (2001-2003) when everybody in the US (well, the white house and the mainstream media anyway) was all anti-french, "Old Europe", and all, becasue France and Germany wouldn't back the invasion? Well, that year Boeing didn't go to the Paris air show, where a lot of deals are signed. Airbus wasn't as stupid (they're not American anyway) and they got an order of 45 A380s from Kuwait airlines. That is a big order. An order that the extended version of the 747 then being planned did not get. So all of a sudden Boeing starts talking as if they made a strategy shift to smaller planes.
No one gives up a race they've been leading for 40 years just like that! Boeing was stupid, they should've gone to Paris and eaten french fries, they probably would've gotten some orders, and the jumbo jet wars wouldn't end up so lop-sided.
Hardly, interesting article in the Herald on Sunday (http://www.theherald.co.uk/) yesterday by Joanna Blythman under the byline that "Word is now getting out that the USA considers visitors from outside it's borders as enemy combatants" and discussing the increasing reluctance of Europeans, even nordic white ones, to travel to the USA because of all the hassle involved with all your new 'Security' measures.
Maybe folk need to ask why the US government is willing to subsidise a business model that is so obviously flawed?
Because the large airlines run their own (very expensive) pension systems which are insured by the federal government.
It's far cheaper to give the airlines support in the tens of billions of dollars to keep them afloat than to let them...hehe..crash and burn, and then have to cover pension liabilities in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
I'm sure the bars etc. exist - in special planes. Likewise, some engineers are already planning custom-order A380s. Yes, there are people with enough money to buy one as their private plane. One idea I happen to know about is building a bowling lane into the lower deck.
And no, swimming pools are not realistic. You can't keep that much water under control in turbulences. Which is the same reason I doubt one with a fountain was ever actually built.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
They tried to extend the top in the 747-500 and -600 but no airline showed an interest so it was shelved.
They probably will just run them on spent cooking fat or something. Face it -- it's now over 30 years since they first said we had enough oil left for maybe another 30 years if we were lucky. Anyone designing an engine today would be worse than crazy if they didn't bear in mind the possibility of having to adapt to an alternative fuel source during the engine's own working lifetime. Aircraft engines already are regularly stripped down and rebuilt, so the conversion can be done as part of regular cheduled maintenance.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Why can't we have concerts on board these flights, maybe a small club-like atmosphere in the upper decks, make the whole thing a little more interesting ..
That would be swell except for the fact that it would probably jack up the average ticket price by $100 or more. If a single olive in the salad costs $40,000 per year, what you're describing sounds pretty expensive, not to mention a logistics nightmare (they have a big enough challenge with peanuts and wing de-icer).
As for me, I hate flying as much as you do. But I love to travel, and I have very little disposable income. The biggest barrier to me being able to travel is cost, and I don't want to see that barrier get higher just so the flight will suck a little less.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
Keep in mind that the A340 is a 4 engine aircraft, wheras Boeing is focusing on 2 engine jets. The 777 had to comission new insanely huge engines in order to acheive that.
A relative who works for United says it makes a huge difference in maint times. 4 oil changes instead of 2. 4 engine overhauls instead of 2. etc.
Range: There are very few destinations that are more than 10,000 km apart. What are we talking about? 15 flights per day worldwide? Only so many people want to fly betwen Sydney and New York.
I think what Boeing is really doing here is finding markets where Airbus has nothing. They don't have a viable competitor to the 777 or the proposed 7E7. That's where the high margins lie. Why fight over a super jumbo when you can clean up in other markets?
There's a difference between "people living next to the airport" and "people living in the middle of nowhere that suddenly have to deal with sonic booms every hour".
Concorde was restricted to supersonic flight over unpopulated areas - it flew from the UK coast to the US coast supersonic, so no sonic booms every hour over anyone in the middle of anywhere. It was America "not invented here" syndrome at its worst. I have lived under two Concorde flightpaths in the UK (no-one ever believes you when you say you used to see Concorde go over you house several times a day), guess what it was quieter than any of the Boeing 7x7's that went overhead. Not that they make much noise most of the time compared to the roads.
Because of the way the Concorde was designed, it had both a higher takeoff and landing speeds. The engines were also frightfully noisy. Combine the two, and the noise of a Concorde on takeoff or approach is far higher than other commercial jetliners. Thus the noise complaints were real and justified, not some political lobby.
Want proof? The city of New York banned Concorde overflights and landings for a year after the US government lifted the ban; Concordes would fly in and out of Washington DC rather than NYC. In addition, the country of Malaysia also banned Concorde overflights because of noise issues.
Of course, it's easier for Europeans to think that this is some anti-US bias rather than real technical issues with the aircraft.
There are a number of reasons why Concorde was allowed to operate out of Dulles. It had very long runways. It was in the middle of nowhere. The airport was a "white elephant" that was severely underused, and local and state politicians were desperate for anything that would bring more traffic and business to the airport.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Guess what?
There's no point to flying across the US in a Concorde if it can't go supersonic. You can't go supersonic over habitated areas, that means you can't go supersonic over the US, because it's almost universally populated, even if sparsely...
And, like you pointed out, it DID fly to the US, just to the East Coast, and across the Atlantic, where it wouldn't bother people.
There is no reason why the Concorde COULDN'T fly around the US, it just can't fly around the US supersonic.
I have no idea what the hell your point is. You say the US was afraid of the Concorde because it wasn't invented here, then point out that everywhere else restricted supersonic flight over populated areas and that it DID fly to the US too...
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
Having just 'done' a conference in Orlando and now flown back to the UK I have to say that the security 'experience' wasn't as bad as expected from all the wailing noises made by the UK press.
Have to agree though, the airline food (Virgin Atlantic) was 'the usual stuff' - and they considered a carb-laden brakfast of banana + fruit tub + Orange Juice to be a 'diabetic meal'; I soon put them straight on that - and down came an omlette, sausages and ham from first class!
AT&ROFLMAO
Please remember, it is the airline, not the aircraft manufacturer, that installs the seating. Boeing and Airbus have nothing to do with the hideous seating arrangements the airlines inflict on the public.
Planes are the wrong solution for the problem. What we should be using are Airships or Zeppelins. Instead of cramming people into a steel tube, you can create a small flying hotel and all for lower fuel costs than a jumbo. Admittedly, it's slower than a plane, more like a very fast yacht, but people used to put up with far worse in the last century and these days we have tele-conferencing, email and reliable phone systems so there should be less urgency in flying for most of us.
And just imagine flying across the Atlantic whilst sitting round a dining-table. Hell, larger ones might even have space for a small kitchen. We (the species) need to slow-down and make better use of the technology we have. I mean, hasn't anyone else ever seen Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? - "No ticket!" Didn't it look grand?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Actually, back when it was flying, the Concorde flights from New York would go supersonic right off of Cape Cod at around 8:45 in the morning, if i remember correctly. There was an audible but brief rumble where i was in south coastal Massachusetts, but it didn't even approach being a nuisance.
Speaking as a European, I'd like to congratulate the United States on its latest airliner.
Seriously. 50% of the A380 subassemblies come from the USA. Boeing is playing the "it's an evil foreign plot to topple American dominance of the aerospace industry!" card, but that's just self-serving FUD. Remember, for each $280M A380 that sells, American companies pick up 50% of the assembly work. Similarly, large chunks of Boeing's products come from EADS, BAE systems, and other non-American contractors.
So let's get over the jingoistic flag-waving and evaluate this rather impressive piece of hardware on its actual merits, shall we?
I can't believe you say the concorde is quiet. I admit I never heard one land but during take off they are the loudest planes at the airport. I wouldn't want the already loud engines to accompany sonic booms also.