NEWS: Airbus Unveils Giant A380 Plane

Honestly you guys, talk about clutching at straws and raising really lame 'worries'. .

.....and I find it hysterical that some are really raising the Titanic on this?!

Jeez watch you don't fall off the edge of the world next time you venture beyond your village limits.

Anyhoo, back in the real world.......

The A380 'footprint' is equal or less than that of in-service aircraft today.
If an airport can physically handle a 747 it can handle an A380. As mentioned before the difficulty most airports have is nothing to do with weight but the spacing between adjacent A380 aircraft when the A380's much greater wingspan is taken into account.

But Airbus has been working with the industry for almost a decade on this so I doubt anyone here is the first to think about diversions and alternate landing sites.

www.airbus.com...

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The A380 'footprint' is equal or less than that of in-service aircraft today.
If an airport can physically handle a 747 it can handle an A380. As mentioned before the difficulty most airports have is nothing to do with weight but the spacing between adjacent A380 aircraft when the A380's much greater wingspan is taken into account.

If that were the case then why are airports spending hundreds of millon dollars rebuilding bridges on runways, widening taxi ways and last but not least building new terminals to handle them?

Did you know Singapore alone is spending over 900 million to handle this albatross? Do you think they are doing it for their health?

Also, I would like to point out that two airports have had the new terminals that had problems while building them, only to find out they had bad designs.

supporting links;
www.adetocqueville.com...

www.nynewsday.com...

Guess who designed them??????????????? Nuff Said

[edit on 1/19/2005 by shots]

[edit on 1/19/2005 by shots]

I certainly agree with your comments, dubiousone!

I will be observing with much interest, the first commercial flight of this aircraft and will be quite happy to watch the excitement unfold from a safe distance.

Well, I specifically address the point about Singapore upgrading her airport not for her health.

For the uninitiated, Singapore is but a tiny speck on the world map. But for a tiny insignificant speck of a nation (the Taiwanese Foreign Minister quite recently called Singapore a "nose snot" of a country for advising against the independence card), during the SARS crisis, Singapore Airlines turned in a profit of around US$200M. This is profit, after finance and operating costs, including taxation. Within 6 months post SARS, Singapore Airlines turned in a profit of roughly US$450M (again, this is net profit). Last year, net profit rose to around US$600M.

Now for the Singapore International Airport (called "Changi Airport"), it has consistently been "Best Airport In The World" for quite a number of years. I do not pretend to have the numbers, but most definitely, the airport operations brings massive revenue and much needed cash towards Singapore's GDP.

Please do not misunderstand. This post is NOT about how well and how good Singapore Airlines and Changi Airport is.

This post IS about how important the air transport industry is to a tiny teeny weeny country which is Singapore.

Spending USD900M to upgrade the airport services ? In order to maintain an edge in the air transport industry, USD900M is a very reasonable figure to invest towards Singapore's continued health.

SminkeyPinkey says: * * * raising lame worries * * * Jeez watch you don't fall off the edge of the world next time you venture beyond your village limits

Lame? I don't think so. Based on hard reality. Anyway, I'm just expressing my point of view. You're free to be on the maiden cruise across the Atlantic.

Edge of the world? It's been round since the dark ages.

Originally posted by shots
If that were the case then why are airports spending hundreds of millon dollars rebuilding bridges on runways, widening taxi ways and last but not least building new terminals to handle them?

- Well bridges are a special case in point. Their ability to handle sheer weight (as opposed to how that weight is 'spread' on the ground) is something unique to each one - as are the safety margins the authorities insist on them each having.

The issue over terminal buildings is one of improving the handling of the flow of people, luggage and like the runways and taxi ways, is, as I said, due to the A380's enormous wing span and the ability to 'fit' the planes side by side - as your JFK link shows.

Did you know Singapore alone is spending over 900 million to handle this albatross? Do you think they are doing it for their health?

- Lots of airports will be (and are, see US examples given previously) using this as a good reason to upgrade their facilities.

One might also point out that for an "albatross" one hell of a lot of cold hard cash is being shelled out to accomodate it the world over, hmmmm?

Also, I would like to point out that two airports have had the new terminals that had problems while building them, only to find out they had bad designs.

supporting links;
www.adetocqueville.com...

www.nynewsday.com...

Guess who designed them??????????????? Nuff Said

- Er, and what?

The example you have given shows the disaster at part of a terminal building in Paris.
What is this really to do with the A380 and where is the news here?
New buildings often have bugs, sometimes even catastrophic ones.

But for an "albatross" it's selling remarkably well (149 so far with break-even at 250-300 units).

Still, if you weren't laughing (no matter how unconvincingly) you'd be......" ", indeed, hmmmm?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Guess who designed them??????????????? Nuff Said

- Er, and what?

The example you have given shows the disaster at part of a terminal building in Paris.
What is this really to do with the A380 and where is the news here?
New buildings often have bugs, sometimes even catastrophic ones.

But for an "albatross" it's selling remarkably well (149 so far with break-even at 250-300 units).



Look above to bold print for your answer your question about the terminals.

As for orders????? Those can be cancelled or didn't you know that? Use 911 as an example orders were canceled both from Airbus and Boeing by some major carriers.

But the Toulouse, France-based company said gross orders fell almost 30 percent to 375 in 2001 from 520 in the year earlier, as the industry headed into one of its worst slumps ever.

Airlines cancelled 101 orders last year, dragging its net order intake down to 274 jets. Of those cancellations "90 percent are the result of companies faced with bankruptcy," said Airbus.

[edit on 1/20/2005 by shots]

Have you seen the bar on this thing ???





Good enough reason to fly in it, if you ask me

Originally posted by Pisky
Have you seen the bar on this thing ???

Good enough reason to fly in it, if you ask me

Granted Pisky I have to give you that, however allow me to point out most airlines will only serve two drinks per flight as I understand it. That may be different on International flights of that I am not sure. Also you can buy a drink seated with seat belts just in case

Like I said earlier only the rich will be able to afford to fly on the very first versions. I mean use common sense here, how many people to you think are going to use a gym or gamble and use the bar kindly note in your pictures there are no seat belts. That to me is unsafe.

Boeing seems to be more in tune with what airlines want in the future, and it is not bigger airliners. Large aircraft are efficient only when they are filled to capacity... According to my uncle Boeing believes the future are more airplanes like the 777 and 7E7... Planes that can be filled to capacity and give the airline the ability to make direct flights to regional airports (airports too small for planes like the 747 and A380). Additionally I believe the operational cost to a 777 is much less than what the A380 will be... THe A380 is a few decades too late IMO...

This may be so in the American market, but I'm not so sure in the European market. I can see the A380 working well in Europe, but not so in America...just the way air travel is used is so different between the two. I can see the A380 mostly going from major destination cities to other major destination cities...such as London, Paris, Madrid, Frankfurt, Rome, etc. You have less of that in the US, though perhaps an A380 from New York to Houston, or New York to LA would be a good idea, or of course, London and New York, I can see that one being a biggie. Much more limited application in the US I'd think....and this is mostly just do to the sheer number of flights available. Have you ever looked at a route map of the world...??? There's like 10 times the number of them over the US, hehe...

Granted Pisky I have to give you that, however allow me to point out most airlines will only serve two drinks per flight as I understand it. That may be different on International flights of that I am not sure. Also you can buy a drink seated with seat belts just in case

Airlines serve two sodas perhaps, but you can drink as much as you can pay for, hehe...(or in First, as much as you want... ) And yep, different often on International flights... Unless they scrapped it, there's even a class between First and Economy....Business class (some airlines got rid of it I think). The bar is often a busy place on the international flights....especially when you've got people from a non-drinking background (such as Arabs) who then can get away with the technicality of not being in or on the holy lands, hehe.... Sure, you can get a drink in your seat, but unless you like the one sitting next to you, a few hours may seem like a day. The bar is more for something to do and conversation...

[edit on 20-1-2005 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by shots
Look above to bold print for your answer your question about the terminals.

- Yeah, I clicked the link(s) and the one relating to the Paris tragedy was about the building designed by renouned international archetect Paul Andreu.

....and?

Do you think this is the one and only building to ever suffer a partial collapse like this?

As for orders????? Those can be cancelled or didn't you know that? Use 911 as an example orders were canceled both from Airbus and Boeing by some major carriers.

- That is true. It is also true that this was a temporary down-turn as many (especially Americans) refused to fly following 9/11.

Airlines cancelled 101 orders last year, dragging its net order intake down to 274 jets. Of those cancellations "90 percent are the result of companies faced with bankruptcy," said Airbus.

- Again this is true......and it is not especially news either.
The state of the entire airline business is something both Boeing and Airbus watch closely and which, from time to time can cause both problems; I do not deny this at all.
Some airlines operate wafer thin margins and can become casualties in the business......but the orders for A380 so far are all reputable 'big' airlines are they not?

The fact remains that A380 is far from being the "albatross" you like to imagine.
Compared to the initial 747 days it is doing magnificently.
We had all these quibbling complaints about redevelopment and structural re-engineering back then too and yet that plane gave public transportation a massive boost; my money is on the same happening with the A380 (and the A350 and 7E7 too, actually) in a few years.

Originally posted by Pisky
Have you seen the bar on this thing ???
Good enough reason to fly in it, if you ask me

- It looks great and if they (the Airlines) get the seat pitch right it'll be a joy but sadly I reckon most of the pics so far show a 'fit' the airlines won't actually make use of.
The 747 was supposed to have bars like this in the early days too.

1st and business class will get it, as for the rest of us....?

But then again when they fit them out to carry 800 - 1000 people and charge ticket prices accordingly maybe we'll be happy to forego the luxury.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by shots
Look above to bold print for your answer your question about the terminals.

- Yeah, I clicked the link(s) and the one relating to the Paris tragedy was about the building designed by renouned international archetect Paul Andreu.

....and?

Obviously you are not aware of the other airport that had a similar event HUH? He also designed one a middle east country and that also design flaws. I tried to find the link but the story appears to have been removed. I mentioned it to FredT when I found it. Fred to you recall the other airport, so I can furnish the proof. TKS

A question for you airline industry experts: Has there ever been a commercial airliner model that has not had at least one or more planes in the model line that crashed and burned?