U.S. Airports say A380 improvements may not be worth it...

The A-380 and 787 aren't even suppose to be in direct competition with eachother.... I don't know what the argument is about, the A380 is taking a swipe at the 747's market i'm sure there's enough market for both types of airliners. I know that this has turned into a philisophical battle between both corporations in regard to what the future of air travel should be like but sheez, I am sure both aircraft will sell very well.

That said I hope Airbus continues to kick Boeing's arse and increases marketshare

thanks,
drfunk

oh and the 747 was originally designed as a competitor for a defence contract for a heavyweight transporter for the military, which the C-5 Galaxy ended up winning.

thanks,
drfunk

I try to stick with Boeing products when flying. Well, I pay for the ride so may as well ride what I'm comfortable in. Nothing wrong with Airbus, just a little inexperienced still, when guarding my a__ in flight.
Dallas

Originally posted by drfunk
That said I hope Airbus continues to kick Boeing's arse and increases marketshare

Of that I have no doubt. Airbus is already whinning about getting subsadies for the A350. Boeing simply cannot compete against planes that are being built and sold at possible below market prices to build market share and serve as a giant high tech E.U. jobs program I have dubbed "The E.U. Deal"

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by drfunk
That said I hope Airbus continues to kick Boeing's arse and increases marketshare

Of that I have no doubt. Airbus is already whinning about getting subsadies for the A350. Boeing simply cannot compete against planes that are being built and sold at possible below market prices to build market share and serve as a giant high tech E.U. jobs program I have dubbed "The E.U. Deal"

Diddums. Get it through your head please, the launch aid Airbus gets is totally consistent with what Boeing and the US government agreed to in 1992, it certainly takes an american to bitch about something that was agreed to with full knowledge of what it meant! Prove that Airbus sells aircraft at below cost (there is no such thing as market prices - its a misnomer generally used by US corporations when carrying out price fixes in respective markets) - you cant.

Lets see what happens when the 1992 agreement is updated later this year - Im willing to bet Boeing gets its arse spanked badly too (as well as Airbus), as it currently receives illegal subsidies through Japanese manufacturers of its parts.

Oh, and the US defence department is one of the largest, if not the largest employer in the world, and the vast majority of its projects are produced purely with job creation or retainment front and center - tell me that Boeing isnt kept afloat by its defence grants and subsidies.

And to add something positive and not just mud throwing to this discussion, i have recently discovered that the A380 was designed with a short range TWO engine version fully in mind. There is minimal costs and requirements in removing two of the engines from the aircraft either during manufacture or later on in its life, to turn the aircraft into a high capacity regional or vacation route aircraft. It also takes a A318, A319, A320, A330 or A340 pilot just 3 days of cross training to convert fully and legally to the A380 (or any other aircraft in that list) through the use of Cross Crew Qualification based flight decks - every deck is the same, with minimal changes for aircraft specific features. The flybywire capability (which I know some of you dont like - but hey, as a computer programmer, Id rather place my trust in a computer than in a bunch of mechanics) removes a lot of the overheads in running the specifics of the aircraft from the crew, so an A318 pilot will find the A380 as easy to fly as the aircraft he came from. This has the same effect as the updates in technology did on the removal of the flight engineer in practically every modern aircraft.

Originally posted by FredT
a giant high tech E.U. jobs program I have dubbed "The E.U. Deal"

hehe nice play of words on the new deal

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by mwm1331

However waynos yo must also remember that it was as a direct result of such complaints and the inconvenence of the sonic boom whch led to the less than sucessful comercial and finacial performance of the concord. The simple fact is that while the concord was a triumph of engineering it never made enough to recover devolpment cost as a result of these types of issues.

That was exactly my point.

They weren't even 'issues' it was 'scaremongering' pure and simple and it worked. At one time Concorde held 400 orders and options, including an order from Pan Am, but they all evaporated.

Of course I'm not blaming this for Concordes ultimate failure in the commercial sense, that was much more to do with the 1973 oil crisis and the sheer economy afforded by widebodies.

Its just symptomatic of how new 'foreign' breakthroughs are recieved in the US which generally seems to succumb to hyperbole more easily than some other countries, sweeping generalistation though that is.

Waynos if as you contend the sonic boom issue was just scaremongering why wsn't the concord allowed to fly supersonic over france? Or the UK?
The fact is the commercial failure of the concord was due to logistical issues. There was no way for the concord to fly supersonic overland without damaging structures on the ground. As a result the routes it could fly were limited which prevented it from even reaching breakeven.

Wonderful. Another gas guzzling cattle car to pollute the skies and cram a whole bunch of people in.

Why the # boeing and Airbus dont throw this money into building faster, more fuel efficent planes to make travel times shorter is beyond me. Or really revolutionize the airplane industry and come up with new concepts. How about sub orbital planes? Or design planes with totally revolutionary in concept instead of building big planes to cram as many bodies in as possible.

When someone in the friggin airline industry actually revolutionizes air travel and does something positive for the environment in the process, then Ill be impressed. But really, I dont see the point in constructing this stupid big ugly ungainly sky beast any more than I see the point in accomodating it.

Really people. Its the 21st century. Fuel guzzling monster jets are so last century. Build some friggin rocket planes, then Ill say cool.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Wonderful. Another gas guzzling cattle car to pollute the skies and cram a whole bunch of people in.

As I said before, your beefs with the airline in this regard.

Why the # boeing and Airbus dont throw this money into building faster, more fuel efficent planes to make travel times shorter is beyond me. Or really revolutionize the airplane industry and come up with new concepts. How about sub orbital planes? Or design planes with totally revolutionary in concept instead of building big planes to cram as many bodies in as possible.

Both the 787 and the A380 are super efficient, they both burn a LOT less fuel than current generation aircraft, and both are a lot quieter. Supersonic hasnt yet been done efficiently.

To move away from current designs costs a LOT of money, you cant suddenly wake up today and think 'lets go build something fantastic' - it costs money in research, development, testing etc. Current designs build on knowledge gained from previous developments, and therefor cost less. When developing something radical and new, you rarely have previous data to expand on, so you have to do it all yourself.

When someone in the friggin airline industry actually revolutionizes air travel and does something positive for the environment in the process, then Ill be impressed. But really, I dont see the point in constructing this stupid big ugly ungainly sky beast any more than I see the point in accomodating it.

Be closed minded then, thats your choice. You dont call better fuel efficiency and noise control something positive for the environment?

Really people. Its the 21st century. Fuel guzzling monster jets are so last century. Build some friggin rocket planes, then Ill say cool.

Not sure if that is a joke, but do you realise just how much sh*t a Space Shuttle launch puts out into the atmosphere? The main pollutant is aluminium, quite a few tonnes of which is spewed into the air, and most of it stays suspended there, causing damage to anyone who inhales it.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by bigx01
the 380's first design is for passengers not cargo, a 747's design was first based on passengers with the conversion to cargo later. thats why the cockpit is high and not in the middle like the 380 is. in 747 cargo planes the nose lifts up for easier cargo loading/unloading and large container loading. this is why the distinctive hump was on the first 747. take a look at a 380 and its not designed for large container transport as a cargo carier. so once again a 747 will have the advantage as a cargo carrier.

now if airbus had truely designed it as a dual purpose aircraft they would have made the cockpit the same height as the upperdeck

Considering the vast majority of civilian cargo freighters do NOT get loaded and unloaded through the nose, I cant see where you are coming from.

Surely if it was such a big problem, most freighters would be front loading, but they arent, so it mustnt be such an issue as you are claiming. 99% of civilian freighters are converted (either during their life or at build time) versions of passenger aircraft.

taking things that are not in context are you. no one said that i'm claiming there was a problem with freighters. take a close look at what i said. but i do see that you searched the internet and posted what i said in this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Looking at more sources, this is what Ive discovered:

Trippe origionally wanted a longer 707, but Boeing declined. Boeing then came up with an idea for a double decked aircraft, and built a fullsize mockup of the cabin and invited Trippe over. When viewing the upperdeck, Trippe declined the second deck idea because it caused him to suffer from vertigo (

) but said that he liked the flight deck on the upper deck because it would allow for greater cargo access through the nose. He then initially put a bar in the upper decked area, later putting paying passengers there instead.

Theres a lot of sources to back up this version of events, so Id be inclined to believe it.

www.flug-revue.rotor.com...

Trippe also wanted a forward viewing window in the nose of the 747, which was declined as too heavy, as well as a bar and lounge in the lower cargo deck, which was also declined by other airlines who put ... cargo there!

seattlepi.nwsource.com...

Apologies if they are due, my post was more based on this:

Originally posted by bigx01
the 380's first design is for passengers not cargo

and your mention then thereof that teh 747 was built with cargo in mind. I wasnt intending on saying there was anything at issue with this information but reading it then I probably thought you were saying that lack of a front loading capability is an issue, and you can see by my further posts that I dont consider your information wrong, it was more a case of 'the 747 is pretty much an exception where civilian freight carriers are concerned, because the vast majority of the cargo carrying aircraft types out there are straight conversions from passenger types, and this has little to no effect on their overall usage, but yes there will be cargo that the 747 will cary that the A380 wont be.

There is an A380 frighter version under consideration where the forhead of the aircraft swings open to provide full frontal access to the top deck.


Heh, how come we havent butted before?

[edit on 21/2/2005 by RichardPrice]

Originally posted by mwm1331

Waynos if as you contend the sonic boom issue was just scaremongering why wsn't the concord allowed to fly supersonic over france? Or the UK?
The fact is the commercial failure of the concord was due to logistical issues. There was no way for the concord to fly supersonic overland without damaging structures on the ground. As a result the routes it could fly were limited which prevented it from even reaching breakeven.

I don't think there was ever any intention of overland supersonic flights. The scaremongering element came from the mass protests and street demonstrations that were whipped up by uninformed people who seemed to think that Concorde was going to 'break every window in New York', apparently just by being there. Because of stuff like this there was a huge movement against even allowing Concorde to land in the US in the 1970's and because of this regular services to key destinations were delayed or even denied. This situation was only ended when Braniff began operating a pair of Concordes to Dallas. This opened up the markey somewhat but it soon settled back down to a London - NY service which was the one that made money. The intention with Concorde was always meant to be to cut down travel times with supersonic dashes over unhinabited areas like oceans. In this respect is was a complete success, I already stated the reasons why (I believe) it was a failure economically in a post higher up.