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."

20 of 776 comments (clear)

  1. Airline Industry by N8F8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Airline Industry by R.Caley · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I though the problem with the airline industry wasn't plane capacity but the more nimble competitors cherrypicking the mist profitable connections.

      The long haul routes are hard to cherry pick, because they are, in general, handed out by governments, so they go to whoever buys the most politicians.

      AIUI, airbus is gambling on lower cost per seat per mile being attractive to the companies who have been handed some of those routes since it allows them to increase profit (or in the case of US airlines, lose less money:-)).

      That may give the big operators spare cash to compete on the short-haul and internal routes, or they may give up on those routes as not being worth the candle.

      Then there is the charter market. A big tourist operation may be able to fill one of these monsters per day to each of the the big destinations, again increasing the margin over having to put on a couple of jumboes.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
  2. Wings by basingwerk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 .sig
  3. Look forward to another round of US v EU by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Look forward to another round of US v EU by Italianjon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The biggest problem America faced in the demise of Boeing Market leadership was inertia. Airbus tried to be cost effective from the start, it started in a business environment where aerospace could not charge what it wanted, but was being forced to cut prices by the airlines. Aircraft manufacturers are doing the same. Working for a supplier for both major players I see this with each month further cost reduction targets are put in place. Boeing was slow to react to this, having lots of money it could afford to place engineers to pontificate problems. Where-as Airbus in it's early days put lots of computing power into models, then had a few engineers analyse the output from the computer models. It's costs were lower, as the computers were a fixed cost, and not salaried like Engineers. I think Boeing was just caught on the hop and didn't see the speed at which Airbus was making progress within the market. The other thing to note was at the Farnborough Airshow last year, Airbus were boasting a near cross product cockpit compatibility, in terms of the layout, this reduced crew transfer costs when they need to switch crew between aircraft types. They were also boasting two (well three including the A380) fuselauge ring shapes, less costs on manufacture and tooling. Whereas Boeing have a different cockpit layout per aircraft (although I do believe the 757 and 767 are the same) and they have a different fuselauge layout per aircraft model; totalling at least 6. The fact is Boeings costs were too high, and it has not been able to change direction and drive down costs quick enough due to its size. Boeing will settle into a good position within the market place, but I think it has been a victim of its own earlier success.

  4. Re:Really BIG Gamble by Tx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a little different, since it actually solves a lot of existing problems (or alleviates them somewhat anyway), whereas Concorde presented a whole bunch of new problems. The A380 has lower cost per passenger, better fuel economy, more eco friendly than existing large passenger jets.

    And certainly in the UK, and I believe much of Europe also, landing slots and airspace are what is in short supply at airports, packing more passengers on each airplane helps both.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  5. 7E7 by Skidge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In somewhat related news, Boeing recently unveiled a prototype section of its 7E7 Dreamliner:

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/business/aerospace /s tory/4440746p-4194580c.html

    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.

    1. Re:7E7 by borne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      yeah, you beat me to presenting this article from last week. so much for "Boeing has no plan for a competing aircraft."

  6. I'll be curious by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  7. Re:555 not 840 by dave1791 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:jumbo jets vs regional ones by mikael · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  9. It's actually worse by Nexus7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:jumbo jets vs regional ones by JimBobJoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:555 not 840 by Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  12. Re:7E7 vs A380 by JimBobJoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Megajumbos should use less fuel per passenger

    Yes, they do, but the breakeven point is obviously much higher. Depending on fare structure, it's entirely reasonable for a 767 and a 747 have a breakeven point of 65% maximum passenger loads. However, for the former, that's 143 passengers (assuming 220 total) and the latter that's 240 passengers (assuming 370 total.)

    There isn't really a "gravy point" with economy class seating at discounted pricing. A great example of that is Continental airlines flying 757s across the atlantic. Continental doesn't give a rats ass about what's in economy, because, for instance, on the Cleveland to London flight, a half full first class one way pays for the entire flight both ways. Everything else in the back cabin is either profit or an expense, depending on average price paid (and the 757 is a smaller aircraft overall that's cheaper to fly than a wide bodied aircraft. There are other routes on which Continental could fly a 757, but fly a 767 or 777 instead...why? Because those routes get lots of profitable cargo, which the 757 doesn't have room for. For this reason transatlantic flight routes are best chosen based on their ability to attract first and business class passengers, plus cargo regardless of the quantity in economy.)

    Super Jumbos are inherently inflexible on this point...since it takes a lot of first class passengers/cargo on such a big plane to pay off its costs. If there is a mad rush of economy passengers for a particular route, the airline is in a far better position to raise fares on 150 economy passengers than have 100 economy seats given away for free. It's not about quantity, it's about revenue per seat quality.

  13. Re:Right, but .... by blane.bramble · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:American version by Mr_Huber · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  15. Obvious Solution by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Interesting



    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.
    1. Re:Obvious Solution by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Interesting


      I beg your pardon, but you seem to have missed my point. The mention of modern communications technology -email, tele-conferencing, etc. - was to illustrate that for urgent communication there is now less need for fast travel than there previously was. If something is urgent, then most likely these chanels will be used more than the afternoon or day or even two days it takes to physically move someone to a meeting.

      Now so long as you see the reasoning behind that, then you see that the remaining make up of travellers is perhaps less speed-obsessed than it once was. I also think it is clear that this tendancy will increase.

      All of which means that perhaps taking a day to fly across the Atlantic is not so unappealing. Imagine having a cabin rather than crammed into a seat. You would have a bed, maybe a workstation if you are a business traveller. Also, subject to meeting attractive peoples of your preferred gender on the trip, you would no longer have to try and use the cramped toilet cubicle for sexual congresses.

      All in all, the trip would be much more attractive for any traveller who did not need the fastest transport available. As I was getting at earlier, these people should be a smaller proportion than in the last century. Also cost is much lower for an airship to run. Some people may be interested in cost savings. Not everyone has as much money to throw around as you. ;)

      I hope that explains my point of view better. I would like my Insightful mod now please.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  16. A380: Made in America! by charlie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?