Airbus A-380 Rollout

[dclaryjr]

The A380 is THE replacement for the old Boeing 747 . Boeing knows they were too late for a own replacement because Airbus was allready picking in the orders . That is why Boeing changed their stratigy on a faster plain rather then a bigger . The faster plain ( Dreamliner ) will certainly have it's public but a ticket on this one will be more expensive then the ones for a A380 . The A380 will be the long range machine for the normal ( not rich ) people who just want to get there at a reasonable price , the Dreamliner will be the one for the richer people for a faster connection . Remember that the 747 is allready at least 25 years on the market and the A380 will cut the maintance and fuel cost by a huge amount over a 747 and will as a extra bring more passenger over .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I guess we'll have to see how it plays out. The advantage of the Dreamliner isn't that it's faster--it's that it has a longer range and can avoid hubs. Stopping enroute and refueling costs money as well. Plus with today's security, I sure don't want to stand in a line with 700 people trying to board!! At any rate, the bottom line is that the flying public will have more choices available than they do now and that's a good thing.

[cdnvic]

wait 5 to 10 years and you will have casinos, beauty shops and anything to make some extra bucks on most planes!

How long did it take the cruise lines to realize that?

the first casinos on cruise ships came around 89/90, and since years you cannot find any cruise ship without it, - not talking about beauty shops, bar revenues, gift shops - everything for some extra money!

I'm still waiting for the promised gogo lounges in the top of 747s.

Then again, Singapore AL has a bar and a snack bar on their SIN-LAX route with their A340-500.

They can fit 800+ in all economy configuration.

cv

Edited January 21, 2005 by cdnvic

[TeaTotaller]

I think fast is better than bigger.

If the plane is falling down, many peoples will die because their bigger.

It can carry passanger more than the others plane and when it crashs it will burst very far.

It is take a time to check in.

If it has a few passenger, it will use a fuel more than the smaller plane.

[pyros]

I think fast is better than bigger.

If the plane is falling down, many peoples will die because their bigger.

It can carry passanger more than the others plane and when it crashs it will burst very far.

It is take a time to check in.

If it has a few passenger, it will use a fuel more than the smaller plane.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Faster is better than bigger : yes of course , but faster means more thrust ( power ) so for the same amount of people you will use more fuel by going faster . So , considering this , more fuel is higher price per passenger .

Plane crash , more death : correct , although , due to the very big lifting capabilaties , the plane will be very easy going ( like 747 but even bigger ) and possible mistakes are less likely to get into dissaster . Also , the plane is build with the new technoligies , and according to my perspective ( chemical engineer in the biggest chem concern ) new technoligy means easier to handle and safer all around . The 747 for ex. stays a plane which is on the market for 25 years ( or longer ) and is never gonna be a new plane anymore , even with new standards .

Check in time : yes , but that was the same problem with the start of 747's , airport will handle it in a couple of years without any problem

If not full then more fuel per passenger : again you are right , but that is why they only going to use it on the big routes , with a lot of passengers . There is no point of flying this plane on a local route were they are having trouble to fill already a smaller plane .

So on every point there is a answer , i'm not saying this is THE plane , but it sure looks like it ( like the 747 is now ) . Faster planes will be for the richer people who can afford a ticket ( look at high speed trains or Concorde or even Ferrari's ) , faster means more expensive per passenger , always .

[ProfessorFart]

I'm inclined to lean towards the fact that this plane will be safer as the technology is bang up to date.

[Steve2UK]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

O doubt it, but Virgin Air intends to install double beds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And Branson is quoted as saying that with both a casino and double beds on board, Virgin passengers will have TWO chances to get lucky.........

[gerry1011]

How cares if it will be a commercial success or not... The plane is there anyway.

We are passengers, and the A380 is the most extraordinary transport machine built since a long time. Like the 747 was in its time.

And it's European...

And it will be more confortable than the 747 I fly usualy back to Europe (I don't fly economy though)...

And the A350 will follow to beat the Boeing's Dreamliner...

and, and, ... still many things the americans don't want to hear, since it's not an american plane.

I will be one of the first to test that great new plane.

And I am sure that when the people will have the choice between a flight to Bangkok in an A380 and an old 747, they will choose for the luxury one...

[chingy_]

i miss home so i'll fly anything that take me there

[xbusman]

I hate to rain on everybodies parade but in transportation its 99% about weight. More weight = less freight. Everything is based on weight from fuel economy to structural integrity. The airbus is old technology, loosely based on Howard Hughes airframe designed and prototyped for the "spruce goose" and most importantly grossly overweight. The overweight condition could be fatal raising passenger/liter/kilometer rates above current aircraft which have launch coast already amortized and are far less money. Boeing did some very serious market research and found their customer base just could not support the larger aircraft, I dont think that Boeing would choose to walk away from a market they owned if it had any real potential. The market in aircraft is shrinking with a strong demand in direct flights. The cost to land multiple times in a trip is becomming very very expensive with airport landing fees skyrocketing. I think that both these companies have some very high powered agendas and have taken big gambles in a high stakes game, its going to be fascinating to see how this plays out.

[Rinrada]

Break even point on this "baby"is sales of 250.

I gather at the moment they have a confirmed order book of around 120 so a bit to go yet .

First time I saw a 747 was on the tarmac at Heathrow after landing following a gru-some 35 hours flight from AUZ on QUANTAS in 1970 (got deported ...another story )

The Route then was Sydney-Manila-Hong Kong-New Delhi -Teran-Athens-Rome-Amsterdam and finally Londons H,and you had to get off-on ...

No TV-videos and basic music (I think -not sure)Booze was insipid and you had to pay for it.........absolutely knackered.

Somebody commented that the "Jumbo"as it was to become could do the same flight in one go,with bigger seats and entertainment.....Naw NO way.... Dont believe it...... and ......looksee wot happened.

Now 35 years later and we got a bigger one in the A380.

Who said something once about "if man was ment to fly etc....."

Assumining no major hang ups I recon that Airbus will break even in 2 years time and hit the 1000 mark before the end of the decade.

(I might even have moved to Chaing Mai by then )

[cdnvic]

Those first 747-100s were limited to about 5000mi range, much less than todays versions. If you're feeling nostalgic I believe Orient Thai (1-2-Go) still has 1 or 2.

cv

[Bluffer]

.... I dont think that Boeing would choose to walk away from a market they owned if it had any real potential. The market in aircraft is shrinking with a strong demand in direct flights. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But some of those direct flights are the big people routes

London - bangkok or sydney

West Coast America - bangkok

etc

if an airline can use one plane instead of 2 to move X amount of people and pay 1 landing charge etc then they will.

And if you live in a medium town, the 7e7 is no guarantee that you can get a direct flight.

ie in the UK. Dont think that Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Belfast, Cardiff, Newcastle will have flights to Bangkok. So we will still need to connect at a bigger airport.

[britmaveric]

.... I dont think that Boeing would choose to walk away from a market they owned if it had any real potential. The market in aircraft is shrinking with a strong demand in direct flights. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But some of those direct flights are the big people routes

London - bangkok or sydney

West Coast America - bangkok

etc

if an airline can use one plane instead of 2 to move X amount of people and pay 1 landing charge etc then they will.

And if you live in a medium town, the 7e7 is no guarantee that you can get a direct flight.

ie in the UK. Dont think that Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Belfast, Cardiff, Newcastle will have flights to Bangkok. So we will still need to connect at a bigger airport.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on the market - if they see a high amount of customers from a certain location you can expect direct routes will follow. The new boeing will be able to accomodate where the goliath won't I'm quite afraid.

Edited January 25, 2005 by britmaveric

[cdnvic]

I think there's going to be a market for both aircraft.

The A380 because:

-Many 747s are getting old and need replacing.

-China's market is exploding and travel to/from the EU and North America will grow.

-Its cargo version will sell well as air cargo capacity is at a premium. (no seats to fill)

-Its new, and Boeing has nothing new in that class on the horizon.

New Competitors on the horizon: None

The 7E7 because:

-Many A310s and 767s are getting old and needing replacement.

-Flexibility. Good for long haul to smaller centres (NZ, Israel, etc) or domestic routes.

-Design. If the interior is anything like the plans, people will get very used to, and demand this kind of comfort.

New competitors on the horizon: A350 (long haul), Embraer190, Bombardier C-series (short haul)

It'll be nice to finally have some innovation to look forward to.

cv

[Jeff Jarvis]

Richard Branson may have casinos and hair salons in his fleet but you can bet that most companies will cram as many seats as possible.

More than likely, you still will be jammed in between a big fat guy and some screaming kid.

[rickshaw92]

(except Air Transat  )

Hear ya.