A380 flies

Seismosaurus

Philosopher
Seismosaurus
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
6,092
So the A380 has made its first successful flight. Saw it live on the news, it was a magnificent sight seeing that huge thing rolling down the runway and then lifting off.

Is this the end for the 747? From what I understand, the A380 can operate off of existing runways and terminals - it fits into the standard sized "box" on the ground. With our skies getting more and more crowded, is buying an A380 more sensible than buying two 747s? (Or two A380s instead of 3 747s or however the numbers work out.)

Just how worried is Boeing about all this? I read that they junked their own double decker in favour of a near-supersonic passenger jet, then junked that. Meanwhile stories like this claim that Airbus is already outselling Boeing.

Any thoughts?
 
Seismosaurus said:
So the A380 has made its first successful flight. Saw it live on the news, it was a magnificent sight seeing that huge thing rolling down the runway and then lifting off.

Is this the end for the 747? From what I understand, the A380 can operate off of existing runways and terminals - it fits into the standard sized "box" on the ground. With our skies getting more and more crowded, is buying an A380 more sensible than buying two 747s? (Or two A380s instead of 3 747s or however the numbers work out.)

Just how worried is Boeing about all this? I read that they junked their own double decker in favour of a near-supersonic passenger jet, then junked that. Meanwhile stories like this claim that Airbus is already outselling Boeing.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

First, let's get one thing straight:

That. Is. One. Big. Plane.

:)

Second, it can't land in most airports:

A wingspan of 79.8 metres (261 ft 10 in) means the A380 is too large for most airport docking bays.
Source
Click to expand...

Problem is, the wings are so wide that the two outer engines are outside a normal runway, which means that there is a risk of the engines sucking up gravel, causing an accident.

That. Is. One. Big. Plane.
 
It's not really intended for most airports though; the idea is that you load it up with people and fly it to a major hub, and then they get onward flights to their smaller destinations.

The problems with terminals were the same ones faced by the 747 when it was first introduced. I rather suspect that they'll be overcome in the same way.

It is rather large, isn't it? :D
 
It certainly is one big plane.

As for the runway thing, I didn't know that. They say they've already got orders for 175 IIRC, so it certainly seems that there are enough runways around to make operating them viable.

With that many flying around, I would think that wider runways and such will slowly start appearing?

Did the 747 have these kinds of issues when it came out?

(And yes, it certainly is one BIG plane.)
 
I hear there are 20 airports in the world that can support the A380 today, and Airbus expect there to be 80 worldwide by 2010.
 
Seismosaurus said:
As for the runway thing, I didn't know that. They say they've already got orders for 175 IIRC, so it certainly seems that there are enough runways around to make operating them viable.
Click to expand...
Qantas has ordered (I think 4) of these things. None of the Australian airports can currently handle the A380 though they will all have been upgraded by delivery time. Melbourne airport began work to widen it's runways a couple of months ago, I don't believe any other changes were needed.

Seismosaurus said:
(And yes, it certainly is one BIG plane.)
Click to expand...
I think it's got a touch of Super Guppy in it, with that fat oversized head. I don't think it looks anywhere near as funky as the 747.
 
Iconoclast said:
Qantas has ordered (I think 4) of these things.
Click to expand...

They have 12 on order at the moment, according to Airbus. Third in advance orders after Emirates who've ordered 43 (!) and Lufthansa (15).

139 orders so far. Don't know how that compares with pre-orders for other types.
 
Some 14 customers have committed to 149 A380s so far. Customers include 11 passenger airlines, two parcel delivery firms and one aircraft lessor. Dubai-based airline Emirates will have the largest A380 fleet with 45.
Source
Click to expand...
 
richardm said:
Third in advance orders after Emirates who've ordered 43 (!)
Click to expand...

I noted the "!" after Emirates, they are based out of Dubai and are the major regional carrier in the Mideast. Their stragety for buying these is to dominate the long-haul market from Europe/Asia with some flights from Mid-East/USA, making them a truly world-wide carrier. As they have been pretty successful to date, don't be surprised to see them succeed.

139 orders so far. Don't know how that compares with pre-orders for other types.
Click to expand...

Not as many as they want, IMHO, given development costs. May be more of a market as airports adjust and freighter business comes on-line (only new 747's being built today are freighters)

but yes, that is one big airplane.
 
Hutch said:
I noted the "!" after Emirates, they are based out of Dubai and are the major regional carrier in the Mideast. Their stragety for buying these is to dominate the long-haul market from Europe/Asia with some flights from Mid-East/USA, making them a truly world-wide carrier. As they have been pretty successful to date, don't be surprised to see them succeed.
Click to expand...

It wasn't so much that I thought they'd be unsuccessful, it was just my mind boggling at how much that many aircraft of that type would cost :eek:

Re: orders; I was getting my info from here . Perhaps they've shifted a few more since the end of March.
 
I would think that a few airlines would be hesitant to place an order before it flew. Now that's happened maybe they'll get more orders.
 
Not that I don't adore the big new monster, but its got a ways to go to rival the 747.

As far as I know (and I don't have a definitive link), the 747 went 27 years without an accident due to mechanical failure, with TWA flight 800 being the first incident:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec97/twa_12-9.html

That might be just domestically though.


Either way, I consider that a pretty impressive safety record.

While I don't doubt the A380 will be an excellent flying machine, I don't think its fair to compare it with late 1960s engineering. We'll see if it can hold onto the title for 35 years. :)
 
Furious said:
Not that I don't adore the big new monster, but its got a ways to go to rival the 747.

As far as I know (and I don't have a definitive link), the 747 went 27 years without an accident due to mechanical failure, with TWA flight 800 being the first incident:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec97/twa_12-9.html

That might be just domestically though.


Either way, I consider that a pretty impressive safety record.

While I don't doubt the A380 will be an excellent flying machine, I don't think its fair to compare it with late 1960s engineering. We'll see if it can hold onto the title for 35 years. :)
Click to expand...

Late 1960s technology is what it's competing with...

As for safety, that remains to be seen but is the safety record of a plane all that a significant factor in how widely it is used? Of course you have to be above a certain threshold, but do people really go out of their way to choose the plane that crashes 0.000001% of the time instead of the one that crashes 0.000002% of the time?

I would say that factors such as unit cost and operating costs are far more important in determining how many of these will be bought. This source claims the A380 is 15-20% cheaper to operate than "today's largest aircraft".
 
GE just won the engine bid for the 747 Advanced, which will fill a gap between the B747 and the A380.

So, the 747 doesn't appear to be dead.

Plenty of airports will be able to handle the A380.

The only real questions about the A380 are profitablility and reliability, and whether it lives up to promised performance.
Only time will answer those.

I am not sure what the fuss is about the number of pax for A380. There have been 550 passenger 747's. One of them crashed, too.
JAL Flight 123 was the 747 with the improper rear bulkhead repair where 505 pax + 15 crew were killed.

Now, the A380-900 model will carry 656 people, but that is not coming for a while yet.
 
That is one huge honkin' plane. Can't wait to ride on one. Of course, even with all that space they'll find some way to make the seats so small that even Alley McBeal would have to squeeze to fit.

You know, the first time one of these babies goes down, there's going to be hell to pay...
 
LTC8K6 said:
I am not sure what the fuss is about the number of pax for A380. There have been 550 passenger 747's. One of them crashed, too.
JAL Flight 123 was the 747 with the improper rear bulkhead repair where 505 pax + 15 crew were killed.
Click to expand...

The 550 figure is for a fairly loose-packed layout with big first class seats and all. They say if they did lower-class seating throughout, the plane would hold 800. And that's the basic model - all they need for it is for an airline to choose the option.
 
Well, I must point out that if you don't live next to a hub, using lots of these planes means not 1, but 2 connections, every time.

Small plane to hub, big plane to other hub, small plane to destination.

I can see big planes for people like Air NZ, Quantas, and hte like who have to go A LONG WAY a lot of the time. I can't see the need in most places in the USA, though, even for transatlantic.

We'll see.

jj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom