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

American version

[AtariAmarok]

Where's the American version, that holds 400 jumbo passengers?

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

Re:American version

[EinarH]

It's the cargo version, Stupid.

Why do you think UPS ordered it?
;-)

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:American version

[nosfucious]

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 ...

Re:American version

[CaptainZapp]

Hmm .. sounds like Boeing is likely to increase share in 'many, smaller domestic markets' while Airbus is likely to increase share in single large international flights market.

Why do you think that Boeing can suddenly regain the market share lost on medium type planes to er... Airbus?

In the regional markets both companies are pretty much irrelevant.

Re:American version

[Steffan]

It's the cargo version, Stupid.

Isn't that the same as coach class?

Re:American version

[Linker3000]

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!

Re:American version

[Mr_Huber]

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.

Re:American version

[jafac]

On the way back I had been pre-warned that the queues at LAX for security were horendous and they were. It came out of the door and went down the whole length of the terminal.

The cure for this;
If you live sufficiently far from a major airport (50+ miles), book your flight from your closer regional airport instead. Bite the bullet on the connection, and skip the long security queue. Takes about the same amount of time, but instead of waiting in that long line, you spend your time in the terminal reading, sleeping, or ogling hot stewardesses.

Airline Industry

[N8F8]

I though the problem with the airline industry wasn't plane capacity but the more nimble competitors cherrypicking the mist profitable connections.

Re:Airline Industry

[R.Caley]

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.

Wings

[basingwerk]

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.

Re:Wings

[caluml]

Thise Europeans know how to do big engineering projects.

Don't include us English in that. We can fuck up any big construction scheme. The French, however... Did anyone see that bridge that is higher than the clouds? That's worthy of a Slashdot story in itself.

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: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.

Re:Wings

[wsapplegate]

> Did anyone see that bridge that is higher than the clouds? That's worthy of a Slashdot story in itself.

Indeed :-)

Re:Wings

[Eunuchswear]

Finally, Germany, France and Italy (of the countries that spring to mind) all recognise that their economies lose far too many days to unnecessary strikes,

The French economy, being effectively a union free zone, loses almost no days to strikes, necessary or not.

(There are a few days lost a year in the civil service, which is somewhat unionised.)

Some figures:

1. Days lost to strikes, 2000:
   

   Switzerland 0.38
   Japan 0.55
   Germany 1.41
   France 8.04
   UK 11.07
   Netherlands 15.31
   USA 19.04

   Working days lost per 1,000 inhabitants per year.

2. Unionisation:

   Germany 30%
   UK 29%
   USA 13%
   France 9%

   Table 1. Trade union density, Europe, Japan and USA

3. Unionisation in the private sector in France:

   State & local govt, public hospitals: 15.1%
   Nationalised companies, social security: 15.6%
   Private companies: 5.2%

   "myths & realities of unionisation in France" (in French, pdf

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

Re:Wings

[Moofie]

You conveniently fail to mention the State mandated 35 hour work week, and the generous vacation policies.

So, no, you might not have unions in France. What on earth would they agitate for?

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

[dantheman82]

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.

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

[mgs1000]

We have a few regional carriers that make money. It's just the government still wants to subsidize the big, bloated carriers.

For instance, The U.S. government has a law (The Wright Amendment) to protect the American Ailines from competition with Southwest.

Re:jumbo jets vs regional ones

[mikael]

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.

Re:jumbo jets vs regional ones

[JimBobJoe]

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.

Re:jumbo jets vs regional ones

[rsun]

Actually, the Wright Amendment protects Dallas Fort Worth Airport (paid for by large government subsidies) from competition from Dallas Love Field. It's purpose was make DFW a virtual monopoly so that it can recoup it's costs (both to the government and the state/cities that invested in it). Southwest uses Love for it's flights due to the lower costs associated with that airport rather than any specific provision in the Wright Amendment. AA has at times considered competing with SW at Love, but has never (that I know of) actually done so since DFW opened.

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:More really old "news"

[Sanity]

This plane's info has been available for quite a while, even on Airbus' website.

Information about the plane has been available for years, but today (or is it tomorrow?) is the official unveiling.

555 not 840

[Red_Winestain]

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]

Re:555 not 840

[dave1791]

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.

Re:555 not 840

[Pig Hogger]

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.

The original plan for the 747 called for an elaborate bar below the cock-pit with a huge picture window right in front of the plane. But it was apparently nixed because some dude thought that the passengers would be frightened by lightning if the plane had to fly through a thunderstorm...

Re:555 not 840

[SpongeBobLinuxPants]

I have flown in a lot of 747s and have NEVER seena bar.

They had to take them out, seeing the pilots at the bar kept making the passengers nervous.

Re:555 not 840

[Tom]

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.

Re:More really old "news"

[JamesD_UK]

I could be very much mistaken but I believe that they mean 'unviel' as in they actually now have an aircraft and that this is it's official press 'launch' with all the associated ceremony.

This is quite exciting for me, I once did some work on a project related to the A380 when it was still very much on the drawing board.

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 ....

[Detritus]

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.

Re:Right, but ....

[volsung]

The wingspan of the 747-400 is 64.4 m, and the wingspan of the A380 is 79.8 m, not to mention that the max takeoff weight of the A380 is 50% more than a 747. Airports are definitely going to need to do some checking to make sure those extra 15m and 400,000 lbs aren't going to clip or crush something in the taxiway.

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.

Re:Right, but ....

[marc_gerges]

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.

Re:Right, but ....

[blane.bramble]

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.

Re:Right, but ....

[amabbi]

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.

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.

Re:Right, but ....

[Detritus]

If you look at FAA regulations over the past few decades, they have been very aggressive in their efforts to reduce noise from jet aircraft. That includes foreign and domestic carriers, and all aircraft, no matter where they were manufactured. Many older aircraft were forced out of service in the USA because their owners couldn't justify the cost of the "hush kits" they would have to install on their aircraft to meet USA noise standards.

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.

Re:Right, but ....

[rob colonna]

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.

In comparison,

[dj245]

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.

Unveil!

[F4Codec]

I imagine wrapping this up to unveil will probably be the hardest part of the event.

• Sticky tape - check,
• String - check,
• very large finger to put on the knot - check,
• Ribbon, who has the ribbon??...

Look forward to another round of US v EU

[caitsith01]

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.

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:Look forward to another round of US v EU

[Matje]

If you added up the defence budgets of all 25 members of the EU, how would it compare to that of the US?

Europe (combined) is not nearly in the same ballpark as the US (see this graph for instance http://www.globalissues.org/images/USvsWorld2004To p25.gif ).

Me thinks (as a European) that's a good thing :)

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:Look forward to another round of US v EU

[R.Caley]

increasing secularism (EU, see for example banning of headscarves) vs increasing evangelicalism (US/Jesusland)

It's not clear there is significantly increased secularism in Europe. The headscarf thing is more an instance of the long standing level of French institutional secularism (paranoid bordering on religious-from-the-other-side) being applied to Islam, which has become much more visible in recent decades.

The current UK governemnt is slipping away from secularism. The level of protection given to the church of england is unsupportable on equality grounds, but removing it is politically impossible, the least spine-demanding way out of this is to hand out similar protection to any sufficiantly large group who can claim to be a religion. Hence, we have a proposal for what is ,indirectly, a universally applicable blasphamy law, though with any luck the Courts may sit on it.

The only lightish spot is that the demands from the christian (especially catholic) organisations that the proposed new EU constitution be explicitly religious in foundation were seen off.

Perhaps Europe seems to be getting more secular from the US POV. Ever since the 50s and the `under God' thing the US has been going in the other direction so fast that it would be hard for Europe to keep up.

Re:Look forward to another round of US v EU

[etyam]

I think you are right. There will be an increasing rivalry between the EU and the USA. Esepcially now that the EU seems to get their act together with the euro and common trade policy. In itself that is not so bad, I just hope the old alliances will not erode too much.

Your last point is crucial, I think. There is a strong secularism here in Europe. Less and less people adhere to Christianity and more in humanism/liberalism. At the same time America seems to experience an upswing in religious fervour. Personally I strongly oppose religion, but all this does mean that the traditional common values between Europe and the USA are getting less common than they used to be. Many Europeans truly can not understand the re-election of President Bush and some of his policies. Just like, for example, many Americans truly can not understand ethical policy in my home country The Netherlands or French politics in general.

What also is quite harmful is Donald Rumsfeld trying to divide Europe with "Old" and "New Europe" or the German Chancellor campaigning on a thinly veiled anti-Americanism. Some separation is inevitable after the end of the Cold War. But there is still a lot that binds the EU and the US together.

Re:Look forward to another round of US v EU

[Italianjon]

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.

Re:Look forward to another round of US v EU

[birdman17]

the big question of who will adapt better to a world without oil

This would be my main question - what are they going to fuel these giant planes with in 20 years? Or 10 years? Or even 5 years? Already, fuel prices are causing airlines headaches, and most airlines are operating in the red as it is.

I suspect the future of flight might look more like this than this.

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:Look forward to another round of US v EU

[t482]

Works for the whole world eg canada

have included:
- the great banana and steel trade war
Canadian cattle ban and softwood lumber war
- Freedom Fries vs french fries
Well perhaps poutine :-)
- the EU vs Microsoft
Haven't seen anything here - but it could happen.
- Germany and France vs the US over Iraq (although that may have had something to do with sanity vs idiocy too)
Canada as well didn't join.
- the Euro vs the Dollar, especially in major oil and currency markets
Canadian dollar is up 40%
- snooty French people vs loutish American tourists
tourists everywhere are annoying. Just wait for the Chinese hoards.
- everyone on Earth lead by the EU vs the US over Kyoto
Canada as well
- the european vs US approach to Israel and the Middle East
ditto
- increasing secularism (EU, see for example banning of headscarves) vs increasing evangelicalism (US/Jesusland)
Guy marriages in Canada were supported by our supreme court.

Honestly I think under Bush the US has been polarizing itself against the whole of the rest of the developed world/OECD.

An interesting book on this topic is "Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada ..." which explores the growing differences between Canada and the US. Canada is probably the country the closest to the US in shared culture, history, and geography (perhaps with the exception of P.R.)

Re:Look forward to another round of US v EU

[jafac]

Many of your points - the US-side of them, isn't real. It's manufactured propaganda.

Do you think more than 5% of Americans are really dumb enough to ask for "Freedom Fries" at McDonalds?

The Airbus/Boeing rivalry is somewhat silly - but when you look at what it implies: That Boeing has trouble competing in a global market with Airbus. . . "therefore, we must allow Boeing to merge and merge with competitors until it's big enough" - - and soon, there's no more competition in the domestic commercial aerospace industry.

All this is is irrational justification for deregulation, and corporate welfare. And irrational justification for worse things. ..

I agree, there IS a conflict brewing. But about 90% of it is manufactured propaganda by rightwing extremists in the US. Fearmongering by people who are afraid, or whose grip on reality is tenuous at best to begin with. These are the same people who pulled the strings within the Reagan Administration to forestall our conversion to the Metric system.

Your contention that it adds up to something quite interesting over the next 20-50 years is an understatement. When the rightwing extremists get their way, the outcome is almost always a 6+ figure bodycount. In this case, probably an 8 or 9-figure bodycount.

Aha! Factoid measurements!

[Xpilot]

almost the length of an American football field

How many volkswagon beatles lined up side by side would be needed to encircle the Earth 12 times as is needed to match the height of stacked A380 planes from here to the moon?

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.

Big is Beautiful?

[Starfinder]

It seems the airline industry is going in two separate directions. Airbus is going for capacity while Boeing is going for distance. The problem with this airbus is that is is so big, it will only be able to land at the major hubs. This will take traffic away from the smaller airports and increase the load placed on the major airports. Boeing's 7E7 seems to be a better idea to me. Personally, I would rather fly Concorde!!

Re:Big is Beautiful?

[Richard_at_work]

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)

Re:Big is Beautiful?

[ednopantz]

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?

Re:Really BIG Gamble

[Tx]

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.

On hold

[paranode]

It was put on hold until the in-flight McDonald's could be properly integrated with the cabin.

Bloomberg = IE

[realkiwi]

Nice link that does not work in Firefox, very helpful...

Official Launch January 18

[gtoomey]

according to this Wikipedia entry

The aircraft is set to have "relaxation space, bars, duty free shops". We shall see.

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: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.

7E7

[Skidge]

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.

Re:7E7

[borne]

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

I'll be curious

[argStyopa]

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.

Re:I'll be curious

[digitalchinky]

Most of the airports that will receive this thing will have to be modified - this means additional walkways for the upper deck - so basically, it's not going to be any faster or slower than a 747.

Last time I was at Hong Kong international they were already at work on this.

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.

Enticing Terrorist Target

[COLUG]

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.

That is an impressive list of superlatives for a vehicle vulnerable to someone with a laser pointer and a grudge.

Re:Enticing Terrorist Target

[Rolo Tomasi]

Just write on the side: If you blow one of these up, we'll make bombers out of the others.

Re:Enticing Terrorist Target

[jimmyfergus]

Just write on the side: If you blow one of these up, we'll make bombers out of the others.

Yeah, but as with all the US and Israeli responses to terrorism, will we actually be able to work out who to blow up, or will we just blast the population who happens to be where we think the terrorists might have been at some stage.

Information and pics of the A380

[Nalez]

Airliners.net has some good information on the A380 aircraft, and the history of the devlopment.
You can also see tons of pictures of the A380, both the ground test aircraft and the first flight aircraft.

Some stats for the interested...

[Richard_at_work]

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.

7E7 vs A380

[havaloc]

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.

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:7E7 vs A380

[Anspen]

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.

This gets thrown around in almost all news articles about Boeing vs. Airbus but I'm not sure it's actually true. Airbus *has* a complete range of aircraft, including the medium sized, long range point to point. If the 7E7 can fulfil it's promises of greatly reduced operating cost (and anyone wanting a competitive aeroplane market should hope so) it could certainly keep Boeing in the game. However it's really not such a big bet for Airbus to assume there will be a significant market for large hub-to-hub aircraft. Especially since for the foreseeable future it's likely to be the only game in town (the 747 being heavily outdated in comparison). A lot of travel will continue to be between large hubs, either because it's cheaper/easier, or because a lot of people want to go from London to New York or from LA to Tokyo.

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?

The budget airlines are more profitable because they standardise planes, cherry pick lines and have cheaper staff. Beyond that, they generally *can't* fly the big routes because of slot scarcity. (Just try to get a slot, any slot at Heathrow).

Re:7E7 vs A380

[killbill!]

This is the case because oil is still relatively cheap. Expect this to change in the future.

Btw the high-density 747 (think 600 people that do not seem to care about knee injuries ;p) is heavily used for short-range flights... in Japan. I'm talking direct flights here. It's just that the land is crowded enough that there are very few landing spots, but many many passengers.
Expect the same to happen in China or India, but with the A380. Especially since their rail network sucks (unlike in Japan).

Re:7E7 vs A380

[JimBobJoe]

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.

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.

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.

For once michael isn't fucked up

[thelizman]

The A380 is taking the tack the 747 took, in that much of the room is generously allocated. Large amounts of seating room per seat, even in coach, and things like minibars and waterfountains occupy space that airlines will likely turn over to single-seat 24ft^3 passenger spaces. If reconfigured, you can stuff 800 souls onto one of these planes.

Lots of great A380 pictures

[nazgul000]

Lots of great pictures of the A380 are accessible from this search page. Pictures cover part shipment by barge and truck, as well as the build and rollout of the first two A380s (#1 an engineering test platform that won't fly, and #2 that WILL fly).

economist.com article a lot better

[managementboy]

I find the article at Airbus v. Boing (pun intendet) a lot better. Cheers

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.

It's actually worse

[Nexus7]

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.

Re:It's actually worse

[amabbi]

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.

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.

Re:It's actually worse

[amabbi]

The fact is deals are signed at air shows. Sure, there is a lot of planning, but there's a lot of planning that goes into going to an air show too. If Boeing tells then they're not going to the show, it sends a messages right there that they're more in the business of wanking off to euro-bashing than making planes, building relationships with people. I mean, if you can't have an understanding about an air show, that is a symbolic FU to the airlines that come there.

Your facts are completely, completely wrong. First off, Boeing didn't boycott the 2002 show. Second, "inking" of deals isn't a matter of sitting down and signing a paper. First, you sign a memorandum of understanding, then a letter of intent. Then you and your lawyers haggle over legal details, and then you and your businessmen haggle over monetary details, and then you and your technical people haggle over specifications and delivery dates. You then have to make deals with the engine manufacturers, and then deal with the interior fittings. If you're adding a new aircraft type, you then have to deal with the unions of the pilots, flight attendants, machinists, ramp workers, etc. etc. Signing at air shows (which Boeing didn't do regularly beforehand or since) has nothing to do with an aircraft manufacturers' presence at the show. And since Boeing was in attendance at Farnborough in 2002, it's a moot point anyway.

Re:Really BIG Gamble

[LWATCDR]

This plane will cause it's own set of problems.
1. Have you ever flown on a 747? It takes forever to load and unload the people and the baggage. Unless they make new gates that use at least two doors the problem will be twice as bad on the new Airbus.
2. That 95 passenger miles per gallon is only when the plane is full. You better have a lot of people that all want to go to the same place at the same time.
3. It is so big. That even hangers for 747s may not be big enough for it. That means new construction. I am not sure about this last one and it may be just big enough to fit in existing hangers. I know they limited it's wing span to fit existing gates.

It maybe a winner. Boeing is betting the other way with the 777 and the 7E7. Boeing seems to think the ideal size of a jet liner is around 280-400 people. Boeing's solution to lack of landing slots is to have more flights to other locations. That way it could be just as cheap to fly from say Atlanta to Manchester as New York to London.

Of course Boeing also has a MONSTER blended wing that could carry 2000 people. It will be interesting to see if we go with more small and flexible or HUGE.

Airbus is in trouble

[tzanger]

That google image link has Google textads for ebay... "Airbus A380 for sale. aff Check out the deals now! www.eBay.com" and "Low Priced Airbus A380 Huge Selection! (aff) ebay.ca"

Personally I find that frickin' hilarious.

Re:Boeing as a rival

[Italianjon]

They tried to extend the top in the 747-500 and -600 but no airline showed an interest so it was shelved.

Re:Peak oil

[ajs318]

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.

San Francisco (SFO) is A380-ready.

[MtViewGuy]

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.

Re:Great move, now can we ..

[GojiraDeMonstah]

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.

Re:Fly where?

[stridebird]

It's a pronunciation problem that got out of hand...it's called the war on tourism.

Re:Really BIG Gamble

[guacamole]

Airbus has to sell approx. 300 A380s to break even. They already have pre-orders for over 150. I think it can be considered as a great success already. I don't think it'll be _that_ though to find additional customers for the other 150 units. We have a new modern plane with virtually no competition (747 is older and is not really in A380s class. THere exist rumors that Boeing might shut down 747 production soon).

Now Boarding

[EEBaum]

AirFrance A-380 Flight 3842 to Paris will now begin boarding rows A39 to A57 at gate 34. Passengers not already in line are advised to enter the end of the queue, located in terminal G, just past the third McDonald's on your right.

Ireland and big engineering projects

[zoney_ie]

Yeah we know how to do big engineering projects... like a giant spike. Also known as the world's tallest sculpture (i.e. anything taller that other countries have built actually DOES something, e.g. Eiffel Tower - radio transmitter).

Re:Easy For Airbus....

[mr_death]

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?

Ah, you're quoting propaganda from Airbus. Take a look at US DoD procurement, and you'll see two to three contractor teams fighting tooth and nail for 8% profit, which is hardly a subsidy.

Even if you do think 8% is an illegal subsidy, EADS (the parent company of Airbus) has exactly the same problem with its military contracts. So, the EU/US trade war comes down to Airbus launch aid, which is huge (IIRC, 4 Billion Euros for the A380.) Personally, I think it is time for US airport to charge a $10million penalty (er, "landing fee", or "airport improvement fee") for every A380 landing. Watch A380 sales dry up, watch the French squeal like pigs, and watch launch aid dry up in a heartbeat.

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)

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.

Back of the envelope (with some help from Google)

[fbform]

3 litres per 100 km or thereabouts? OK, aviation fuel against petrol, but still

The current international price of aviation turbine fuel is about $450 per 1000 liters, which is probably lower than gasoline/petrol prices (comparing bulk prices of course) at whatever airport you are. This is partly because aviation fuel has longer alkanes and is more similar to kerosene, and partly because it doesn't need to be as hair-splittingly fractionated as gasoline.

The fuel efficiency of the A380 has been reported as "95 miles to the gallon per passenger", which should probably read "95 passenger-miles per gallon". (The mpg doesn't increase with more passengers). Assuming Imperial gallons here (BBC report), and assuming a complement of 555 passengers, the consumption comes to 16.34 liters of fuel per kilometer, or about 225,000 liters (180 tons assuming a density of 0.8 kg per liter) for a trip of 7500 nautical miles (13900 km). That number seems believable.

Now to estimate the price:
A380 fuel cost, for 225,000 liters: $101,250.
555 passengers need about 139 cars (assuming 4 per car). Assuming a fuel efficiency of 11 km/l (26 miles per US gallon), that is 175,645 liters of gasoline, which by US retail prices would come to approximately $88,000. European gas prices would probably make it higher than $100,000. I don't know about European *bulk* prices for gasoline.

Interesting numbers. How does the A380 compare to the 747, the 777 and the A340 in terms of fuel efficiency?

WTF?

[Verminator]

Large passenger aircraft do not cruise on all their engines, typically.

Huh? Where does this interesting tidbit come from?

Generally speaking, the only time airliner engines are throttled back to idle in flight is just prior to being shut down due to being on fire.

"Crossing the Atlantic on one engine" in a 747 would be quite a feat. Lots of rudder trim, I guess.

The engines are run at equal power settings. Period. Airline operators don't play around with asymmetrical power settings.

Additionally, engine hours are based upon running time, not power settings. An engine running at idle for 1 hour accumulates the same time as an engine running at METO power.

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.

Obvious Solution

[h4rm0ny]

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?

Re:Obvious Solution

[h4rm0ny]

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.

FedEx

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nothing new here at FedEx. We have already put in an order for quite a few of the cargo versions of this aircraft. As far as widebody goes, we use Boeing's MD-11, MD-10, DC-10, and Airbus A300 and A310. The largest is Boeing's MD-11 and if our calulations are correct, the new A380 cargo will carry more cargo with only 75% of the fuel it takes at present. On our LAX run, we have 4 MD-11's that go from MEM to LAX and back nightly. With the A380, We could cut that to two A380's and save a ton on fuel. Our orders for the A380 will be mostly for high volume flights like LAX, ORD, JFK, and most international flights.

Yow that is a big plane

[nazgul000]

Here's a picture of A380 #2 just after painting...

Airbus now also offers a upgraded A330 to compete

[scotty777]

The A350 2 engine (competition for the 7E7) bird is an A330 with new wings, and new engines. This will be relatively cheap to develop (2-4 Billion). Unfortunately, the fusalage will be aluminum, and will have a low cabin pressure and humidity. Passengers will be subjected to the usual 8,000 foot cabin altitude at 10% relative humidity (same as A380, 747, 737, 777, etc).

The 7E7 is the only all-composite passenger aircraft. The composite fusalage construction permits higher cabin pressures and humidity. This results in far better passenger comfort, especially on long flights. I addition, very large windows are possible.

A380: Made in America!

[charlie]

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?

Re:The SUV of airplanes, this A380

[abelsson]

oh wait... its kinda like getting your ass saved in a world war, then spitting on the graves of those that saved your ass a scant 40 years later.

Geez! When will you please stop beating that old horse? Dudes, you only get a limited amount of fucking gratefulness for every good deed. And I hate to break it to you, but we-saved-your-asses-in-WW2 is all used up by now. You don't see us whining about how we saved your ass in the revolutionary war, now do you?

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: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?

Europe vs. USA, or, is this really anti-American?

[theolein]

I've seen the usual round of slashdot trolling in this thread, that happens every time some piece of new technology is invented or some scientific landmark is achieved outside the US. Likewise, there's a good number of anti-American trolls here who like to have a good laugh when something fucks up in the US.

Then there's the rest of us.

I see that quite a few Americans, when feeling nationally challenged because the biggest civil aircraft in the world is no longer American, like to point out how the Boeing 7E7 is more comfortable, takes less time to board and exit, and is more practical, in that it can fly between smaller airports, than the A380.

At the same time, the European pundits point out that the A380 can fly huge amounts of passengers over a longer distance, etc.

And a good number of pundits try to paint this as a clash of philosophies, in that the efficient small craft versus the huge megajumbo craft is what will happen in the future.

I think they miss out the point: These two craft are aimed at significantly different markets. No one will buy an A380 to fly from Paris to London (a few hundred kilometers) or buy a 7E7 to fly from Singapore to London. Sure, long haul routes with low passenger frequencies, such as from Buenos Aires to London will probably not see an A380 and some high frequency long haul non hub routes will not see an 7E7, but that is the general aim of the market. These aircraft do not really compete.

The real competition to the 7E7 is still to come, and has been announced, in the form of the A350, which is a modernised A330, with newer non bleed engines like those of the 7E7, new wings and more composites.

And this is where the real compeition between Airbus and Boeing is being fought: The family of planes.

One of the major reasons that Airbus has been so successful is that it has built almost all of its planes in modularised form in order to optimise components, which means that Pilots trained on an A318 can fly the whole small Airbus family - A318, A319, A320 and A321. It also means that technicians can service all of these planes if trained on one, and that spares etc are shared amongst all of them, lowering the cost to both airlines and manufacturers.

There is a similar thing in the A330 and A340, and even the A380 uses a similar cockpit layout to the A340. And the A350 will be usable by those who have used A330s in the past.

I think a large amount of Boeing's marketing criticism against Airbus is simply because Boeing missed the boat on the new large market. They were actually doing design and market studies togethr with Airbus in the mid 90's until they pulled out because British Airways, their supposed launch customer, wasn't interested. Boeing then went on with a number of utter rubbish campaigns, from the idea of stretched 747X which was then shelved when it failed to garner enough attention, to a ridiculous Sonic Cruiser concept, which was more of a marketing exercise to take attention away from the A380, until they finally realised that they had to come up with a new product and started the far more realistic and achievable 7E7.

Airbus's planes have been less spectacular than Boeing's, but they offered real advantages in cost (Training, maintenance, spares). Boeing's leadership is where the blame lies for spending so much time on hairbrained campaigns and FUD instead of doing some real product development.