View Full Version : airbus 380
the flying titanic's body is complete
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/684291/M/
JohnHKart
10-07-04, 07:14 AM
"flying titanic" Hilarious!!!! I knew there was something about this that bothered me and those words definitely fit it.
John
Did you notice the copywrite 'French Frogs Airslides'. :laugh:
Man that's a big plane!
Sean O'Gorman
10-07-04, 11:27 AM
I thought this thing from Futurama was the flying Titanic?
http://members.chello.at/elizabeth/Futurama/Bilder/titanic3000.jpg
Michaelhatesfans
10-07-04, 11:31 AM
Hmmm... I don't like the look of that! I think I'll let them get a few hundred thousand miles on those things before I get on. :eek:
sundaydriver2
10-07-04, 03:35 PM
I will not fly on airbuses. Those POS scare me.
Michaelhatesfans
10-07-04, 05:02 PM
I will not fly on airbuses. Those POS scare me.
My friend who flys passenger planes for a living thinks the same thing!
I thought this thing from Futurama was the flying Titanic?
http://members.chello.at/elizabeth/Futurama/Bilder/titanic3000.jpg
you're a Bender fanboy.
and I wanna know what airport terminals are actually going to be able to fit the wingspan of that pig
oddlycalm
10-07-04, 06:45 PM
As the saying goes, "if it ain't Boeing I ain't going."
oc
As the saying goes, "if it ain't Boeing I ain't going."
oc
That's kind of how I feel, but it's rough these days with so many airlines flying connections with regional jets.
Hey, looks like Airtran flys 717s out of Dayton. :thumbup:
racer2c
10-07-04, 09:37 PM
Wasn't that infamous video of the plane barely clearing the trees at the end of the runway and then belly-flopping, killing many on board the maiden voyage of the first Airbus? If I remember correctly it was the first fly by wire passenger plane. (?)
That was an A320, the first airplane that could land while completely controlled by a computer. Only 3 people were killed in the crash, and about 50 were injured.
The crew and Air France maintenance officials, were sentenced to probation for manslaughter; the Captain was sent to prison.
More on that crash here: http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
I'm not a fan of all the creaking and groaning that a scarebus makes on take off, but I've always gotten there alive. :D
Evidence, including photographs, has now been exposed that an Airbus official at the scene switched the Digital Flight Data Recorder before the court hearing.
Yow! :saywhat:
Methanolandbrats
10-07-04, 10:20 PM
How many victims.............errr.........passengers fit in that cattle car? I think the law of diminishing returns applies.
Classic Apex
10-07-04, 11:18 PM
How many victims.............errr.........passengers fit in that cattle car? I think the law of diminishing returns applies.
Unfortunately, that was my first thought to. I wonder how many terrorists have already started drooling over this plane. :mad:
And now she's rollng out:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&u=/ap/20050116/ap_on_bi_ge/airbus_a380_s_debut_7&printer=1
In a standard three-class cabin configuration, the A380 will carry 555 passengers — one-third more than the plane it is designed to displace, the Boeing 747.
On a full tank, it will also carry them 5 percent further than Boeing's longest-range jumbo, Airbus claims, producing costs per passenger that are up to one-fifth below its rival's.
Meeting these targets has been "no picnic," Airbus CEO Noel Forgeard acknowledged Wednesday, when he also confirmed that the A380 is both over budget and slightly overweight.
Forgeard said the plane will weigh in about 1 percent heavier than its target of 277 metric tons (305 tons) but stressed it will still deliver on promised fuel efficiency and other guarantees, since the internal benchmark was deliberately overambitious.
He said the program's $1.9 billion overspend — 18 percent of its $10.7 billion overall budget at current exchange rates — would likely be trimmed by a renewed cost-cutting drive.
:eek:
EDIT: This thing looks like the crapwagon of the skies:
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050116/capt.sge.bzj03.160105154111.photo00.photo.default-384x256.jpg
-Kevin
redmist
01-17-05, 01:07 AM
550 passengers, wow, the terrorists are going to love these.
Um, no. I would not, could not in an A380.
Airbust has answered a question that hasn't been asked in 30 years. Unfortunately for them the question was answered, by Boeing with their 747. This ugly thing will fly but will it meet Airbust's performance numbers? Who knows. (Remember the MD-11 ;) )
As to answer Ank's question. As far as I know Heathrow's new terminal 5 will be A380 friendly. Several other airports (JFK and LAX) have either plans or work underway for this thing. From what I have read the work ain't gonna be cheap either. Some runways and taxiways will need to be lengthened and reinforced.
I will not fly on this thing. 550 people with two gates? Can you imagine how long it will take to get on and off this thing? Just think. This is only the first version. Next ones will be stretched..... Also Boeing is hitting back with their 747 X.
Further on what oc said. I am flying to Phoenix at the end of this month. I made sure that I wasn't going on an Airbust. So I am flying Continental (Embraer RJ from Albany to Cleveland and 737-800 from there to Phoenix).
Last note: That website that Ank got the pic from. Remember the old Speednet forum days? Remember how bad that was? This forum's Airbust v Boeing makes it look like nothing. They get really vicious.
JohnHKart
01-17-05, 06:47 AM
Wasn't that infamous video of the plane barely clearing the trees at the end of the runway and then belly-flopping, killing many on board the maiden voyage of the first Airbus? If I remember correctly it was the first fly by wire passenger plane. (?)
No that was not the first flight of that airplane. The flyby was botched because of a total lack of pre planning, and obviously failing to note the trees at the end of the runway..until it was too late among other factors. I think also I read that the tower on that field was lower than other airports, which the pilot was using to judge his altitude, that's one of the reasons he was so low.
John
The flyby was botched because of a total lack of pre planning, and obviously failing to note the trees at the end of the runway..until it was too late among other factors. I think also I read that the tower on that field was lower than other airports, which the pilot was using to judge his altitude, that's one of the reasons he was so low.
John
Let's not forget that the pilot ignored a strange noise in the cockpit. Sounded like "Whoop-whoop PULL UP"......
racer2c
01-17-05, 12:05 PM
550 people? Try 800 if they utilyze all economy seating. :eek:
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/01/17/airbus.380.reut/index.html)
http://www.airbus.com/A380/Images/Reveal/a380exclusive.jpg
^^^ massive f'ing image
racer2c
01-17-05, 12:24 PM
http://www.airbus.com/A380/Images/Reveal/a380exclusive.jpg
^^^ massive f'ing image
I see a UFO in that picture and it's not on the tarmac!
oddlycalm
01-17-05, 01:41 PM
While there is no doubt that there are a few airports in Asia where departure slots are already full, making planes with more seats the only way to increase passenger levels, for most of the world there simply isn't a market for very large and expensive airplanes. Ask Boeing, at times their 747 sales have approached zero.
As far as the Airbus venture is concerned, I find it ironic that the same countries that shout loudest about unfair trade are the very ones that have subsidized Airbus from day one. I'm left wondering if we will ever have an administration that will stand up to the EU trade shills.
oc
As far as the Airbus venture is concerned, I find it ironic that the same countries that shout loudest about unfair trade are the very ones that have subsidized Airbus from day one. I'm left wondering if we will ever have an administration that will stand up to the EU trade shills.
oc
werd.
"But Boeing gets defense contracts!!"
Contracts they have go to out and win, competitive business (although after their shenanigans, they're not getting any USAF contracts for a looooong time). Airbus gets all their R&D fronted ... wtf? who does that?
werd.
"But Boeing gets defense contracts!!"
Contracts they have go to out and win, competitive business (although after their shenanigans, they're not getting any USAF contracts for a looooong time). Airbus gets all their R&D fronted ... wtf? who does that?
Yeah, Boeing sure made a killing on that Joint Strike Fighter program. :rolleyes:
Yeah, Boeing sure made a killing on that Joint Strike Fighter program. :rolleyes:
they had the better design too... lockheed/british aero/northrop are so overweight we can make $500/lb. for a weight saving idea that they implement, this is up from $50 from earlier this year... come up w/ 10 pounds and boom, 5 grand spring break bonus :D
Looks a lot like the old flying Guppy........ :shakehead
they had the better design too...
I saw a special on the competition. I don't recall who won the flight trials part of it, but I remember thinking that there was no way on earth that the Air Force would go for something as ugly as Boeing's "frog mouth" design.
I saw a special on the competition. I don't recall who won the flight trials part of it, but I remember thinking that there was no way on earth that the Air Force would go for something as ugly as Boeing's "frog mouth" design.
Let's put it this way, foreign perceptions of the JSF's aesthetics were an important "factor" in the decision making process...
Also on the govt subsidies bull that .eu always spews, when that USAF aerial tanker contract gets re-awarded EADS/Airbus could win it instead of Boeing. So where the hell does that put EADS/Airbus then? :gomer: :rolleyes:
edit: turns out Airbus green-lighted A350 couple of weeks back, even if the A380 flops like it should, they'll be bringing in some profits
Let's put it this way, foreign perceptions of the JSF's aesthetics were an important "factor" in the decision making process...
Also on the govt subsidies bull that .eu always spews, when that USAF aerial tanker contract gets re-awarded EADS/Airbus could win it instead of Boeing. So where the hell does that put EADS/Airbus then? :gomer: :rolleyes:
As for frog mouths, don't forget about the Navy Corsair A-7A:
http://usn-ac-japan.hp.infoseek.co.jp/sqdn/va-97/a-7a(154358).jpg
Also, before Lockheed Martin was awarded the JSF contract, Boeing had just won the Ballistic Missile Interceptor Defense contract. It seemed to me the DoD was just spreading the contracts around evenly.
indyfan31
01-17-05, 04:19 PM
550 passengers??? It'll take longer to load the damn thing than it will to get to the destination.
Rogue Leader
01-17-05, 08:29 PM
Boeing does have the F-22 and the Air Force contract for that AFAIK. That plane will be around for a while, however it wont be ordered in anywhere near the volume of the F-16 etc....
Boeing does have the F-22 and the Air Force contract for that AFAIK. That plane will be around for a while, however it wont be ordered in anywhere near the volume of the F-16 etc....
Lockheed-Martin, not Boeing, designed the JSF and F/A-22 in Fort Worth, TX. The first one was delievered in October. As for fleet size it's been downgraded from 790 or so to 275 or so... which just makes each individual unit more expensive so as to recoup the R&D costs, something Airbus would never have to worry about...
F-35/JSF is the one that's supposed to replace the F-16 fleet, and just like USAF requisitions shifted from F-15 to F-16 due to costs vs. performance, same thing will happen with F-22 in relation to F-35/JSF
forgot, BAE systems, british aerospace, is 20% airbus owner and a JSF partner... so much for the "boeing gets military subsidies" excuse :rolleyes:
Boeing does have the F-22 and the Air Force contract for that AFAIK. That plane will be around for a while, however it wont be ordered in anywhere near the volume of the F-16 etc....
Yeah but the F-22 is just to replace the USAF F-15.
The JSF is replacing the:
1) Navy F-14 Tomcat
2) Navy F-18 Hornet
3) Marine Corps Harrier AV-8B
4) USAF F-16 Falcon
5) USAF F-117 Stealth Fighter (?) <--Maybe
oddlycalm
01-18-05, 03:03 AM
As for frog mouths, don't forget about the Navy Corsair A-7A Yep, and it's just-as-ugly-but-less-successful sister the Vought F8U Crusader. ;)
More shots of this thing:
http://news.com.com/Photos++Double-decker+Airbus+prepares+for+takeoff/2009-7337_3-5539981.html?tag=nefd.ac
Anyone else notice soemthing wrong with the last image? Something missing perhaps.... :eek:
-Kevin
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/p/2005/1182005fedexairbus500x329.jpg
All I can think of is, "That's a-lotta Champ Cars." You wouldn't even have to unload the transporters. Just drive 'em in. ;)
Sean O'Gorman
01-18-05, 06:21 PM
Hell, there is probably more room to race in that jet than there will be at San Jose. :laugh:
dando: :rofl: I never would've caught that!
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/p/2005/1182005fedexairbus500x329.jpg
All I can think of is, "That's a-lotta Champ Cars." You wouldn't even have to unload the transporters. Just drive 'em in. ;)As you can see, this is more suited for the Earl. It's made to turn left. :gomer:
As you can see, this is more suited for the Earl. It's made to turn left. :gomer:
I think the other engine is just out of frame. That's supposed to make it look BIG.
Wasn't that infamous video of the plane barely clearing the trees at the end of the runway and then belly-flopping, killing many on board the maiden voyage of the first Airbus? If I remember correctly it was the first fly by wire passenger plane. (?)
http://www.flightlevel350.com/picwindow.php?cat=19&pic=121
When are they scheduled to find out if this new one will clear the trees?
When are they scheduled to find out if this new one will clear the trees?
According to the article I linked to earlier in this thread, sometime before 3/3/1/05:
But the real sighs of relief won't be heard in Toulouse until later — sometime before March 31, Airbus says — when the A380 hauls its 280-metric ton (308-ton) frame aloft.
Spruce Goose redux? :gomer:
-Kevin
ilferrari
01-30-05, 08:20 AM
Do I sense a touch of national pride and jealousy in the petty remarks on this page?
The A380 has already secured 139 orders a year before it has even flown and is predicted to sell between 700 and 750 - 3 times the required number to break even. Customers already include the best carriers in the world - Singapore Airlines and Emirates, not to mention Lufthansa, Qantas, Virgin Atlantic, Korean Air, UPS, FedEx and others. This plane is so obviously the future of long-haul global travel. Internal flights in the States have nothing to do with it. It has set new standards in terms of fuel economy, emissions, pollution and production quality.
Show some respect to Airbus. Yes they are a European company that has overtaken and is streaking away from Boeing. Competition is good and Boeing can respond.
before it has even flown
That is the key phrase here. While I am sure that it will have no problem getting off the ground in a couple of months the big question is that will it meet the performance goals. Remember the MD-11? Secondly, we all know that Sir Richard Branson is no fool. Virgin was initially to be a launch customer. Now he has backed off and delayed deliveries for Virgin until the plane is in service with other airlines. Why? Because if it doesn't meet the goals he's cancelling his order.
Thirdly, how many airports will be able to handle this thing? Right now only Heathrow is getting ready to be capable. LAX is in planning mode right now. YYZ (Toronto) ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Same with YVR (Vancouver). JFK? Do they even have enough room to expand?
Do I sense a touch of national pride and jealousy in the petty remarks on this page?
Possibly, but that has to do with the fact that Airbus is, literally, dumping planes on the market. They don't really care much about making a profit. Did you know that Eastern got it's first 6 A300's for free? Airbus gets subsidies from the EU Government. That is a fact. Boeing reveals plans for the 7E7 Dreamliner (imo will be more successful than the A380) and Airbus panics. Goes to the EU for a 'loan' to develop the A350.
As I said earlier. Airbus answered a question that was asked 40 years ago. Unfortunately for them, Boeing answered that question perfectly with the 747. I think that Airbus might be a little late to the party. If it meets the performance goals I have no doubt that it will sell about 500 or so. Will it be as successful as the 747 has been? Doubt it.
The A380 is an impressive plane. But it is not as revolutionary as the 747.
Long live the Jumbo!
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/commercial/747400-k55649.jpg
for a canuck, mappy ain't so bad :)
the A380 is not the future of long-haul travel, point to point service is what customers want, customers don't want to fly from spoke to hub to hub to spoke to get where they're going. the only future the A380 has is in cargo where fedex has like 3 major global hubs. emirates has major orders because they're trying to turn dubhai into an intl megahub, good luck...
The 7E7-8 will can reach 8500 nautical miles. That's barely enough to get from JFK to Singapore. The 2nd gen 7E7-9 reaches 9500 nautical miles and therefore can reach the entire world. As a result of this pwnage, airbus wants govt loans for the A350 now too, because their "future" of air travel obviously isn't the future.
The whole goal with the A380 was to get in on the asian market, especially china. Well china is opening up their skies, more than doubling the amount of flights to the US this past year, and that will probably keep up over the next decade. With a larger amount of flights allowed out of China, you have no need for the cattle car A380.
The Bristol Brabazon
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/images/brabaz_frtr.jpeg
Rolled out in 1948. 230 foot wingspan -- 35 feet more than the 747 that rolled out twenty years later.
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/images/brabaz_eng.jpeg
Coupled 18 cylinder radials buring in the wing root driving contra-rotating props.
chop456
01-30-05, 12:58 PM
So that's where the Russians stole the Bear from, eh?
Since you can't make money selling seats, I think that figuring out how to take a passengers money while they are on board, is the future of airtravel.
This plane is big enough for a casino.
When the 747 was introduced, there was talk of similar things. They even pushed the idea of having a piano on board to play music. Extra amenities soothes people's fears about the size of the plane.
Once people were comfortable with the 747, the perks were removed and replaced with seats. Seats will create more revenue. If they want to have onboard gambling, they can do that in the seatback entertainment (in fact, some airlines already have this on international flights.)
Once people aren't freaked out by the size of the A380, the same will happen and it'll be just another bus with wings.
ilferrari
01-30-05, 06:37 PM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40728000/gif/_40728825_airbus_a380416.gif
As you can see, the size is not that much bigger than a jumbo. Alot of the talk about what is going inside is speculative and you probably won't see casinos or the like in 1st class.
Seats will create more revenue.
Ever been to Vegas?
Ever been to Vegas?
There's already gambling as part of the seatback inflight entertainment systems.
Ever been to Vegas?
the fundamental premise of Vegas is gambling.
the same does not apply to air travel.
not unless you plan on marketing solely to gambling addicts...
the fundamental premise of Vegas is gambling.
the same does not apply to air travel.
not unless you plan on marketing solely to gambling addicts...
Cruise ships? :)
In any case, Branson has already claimed to have plans for them:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17576-2005Jan18.html
He's nutty enough (read as creative) and has enough cash to give it a go. Whether or not they last, time will tell.
-Kevin
Forza Lancia
01-31-05, 05:26 PM
As an A380 subcontractor (our company, that is), I thought I should stand up for Airbus. According to this article in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2005-01-16-a380-usat_x.htm?POE=MONISVA), "half the aircraft parts, by value, are built by American companies... Airbus has suppliers in 44 U.S. states, and spends more than $5.5 billion a year on aircraft parts built in the USA." It's good to know that the USA still has some manufacturing expertise that even other industrialized nations want to import.
As an A380 subcontractor (our company, that is), I thought I should stand up for Airbus. According to this article in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2005-01-16-a380-usat_x.htm?POE=MONISVA), "half the aircraft parts, by value, are built by American companies... Airbus has suppliers in 44 U.S. states, and spends more than $5.5 billion a year on aircraft parts built in the USA." It's good to know that the USA still has some manufacturing expertise that even other industrialized nations want to import.
"in value" as in the GE engines :p
Steve99
02-01-05, 03:44 PM
As to answer Ank's question. As far as I know Heathrow's new terminal 5 will be A380 friendly. Several other airports (JFK and LAX) have either plans or work underway for this thing. From what I have read the work ain't gonna be cheap either. Some runways and taxiways will need to be lengthened and reinforced.
Our tax dollars at work so that the airlines can go broke flying this thing.
Steve99
02-01-05, 03:51 PM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40728000/gif/_40728825_airbus_a380416.gif
As you can see, the size is not that much bigger than a jumbo. Alot of the talk about what is going inside is speculative and you probably won't see casinos or the like in 1st class.
The key is that the wingspan is increased by 15 meters, which will require a lot of rework ($$$) of the airports to support it.
racer2c
02-17-05, 11:04 PM
Anyone catch the TLC documentary of the making of the A380? I'm watching it now.
Better than watching three monkey's weld together a chopper kit, but not as funny.;)
Let's see, huge parts being shipped 19" under bridges by barge, 20" in between homes by truck once a week in full production? Yeah, like that's going to work. :saywhat:
Methanolandbrats
02-17-05, 11:12 PM
I'm watching too. I can't help thinking buying two smaller, more efficient planes would make more sense. It's also kinda scary watching a bunch of mumbling French guys screw that thing together...buddy of mine bought a LeCar :D
racer2c
02-17-05, 11:20 PM
I'm watching too. I can't help thinking buying two smaller, more efficient planes would make more sense. It's also kinda scary watching a bunch of mumbling French guys screw that thing together...buddy of mine bought a LeCar :D
No doubt. They seem to be forgetting quite a few bolts. :D
french engineering == aggy
RichK would attest to this... of that I am sure :gomer:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6976582/
boeing launches their latest 777, the longest flying airfcraft in the world, airbus can ****ing suck on that.
The Doctor
04-27-05, 01:33 PM
Four hour maiden flight successful:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/27/airbus.launch/index.html
http://photos.airliners.net/middle/5/2/0/826025.jpg
Four hour maiden flight successful:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/27/airbus.launch/index.html
http://photos.airliners.net/middle/5/2/0/826025.jpg
Doh! I had just posted a new thread on this (too lazy to dig this one up again).
464 tons @ takeoff. :eek:
-Kevin
extramundane
04-27-05, 01:48 PM
Four hour maiden flight successful:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/27/airbus.launch/index.html
http://photos.airliners.net/middle/5/2/0/826025.jpg
Engineer Fernando Alonso said he and other crew members had enjoyed an "extremely comfortable" ride. "I sincerely believe there's a hell of a lot of potential in this airplane," he said.
The Doctor
04-27-05, 01:49 PM
Engineer Fernando Alonso said he and other crew members had enjoyed an "extremely comfortable" ride. "I sincerely believe there's a hell of a lot of potential in this airplane," he said.
Gotta do something in your extra spare time because of the self-imposed testing limit. ;)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/03/26/airbus.safety.ap/index.html
One man broke his leg and 32 other people suffered minor injuries during the exercise in which 853 people and 20 crew members from airline Lufthansa AG exited the plane on slides in a darkened hangar.
Aviation authorities mandate specific evacuation times for jet models, and the drill was a critical test for the jet, which will be the world's largest passenger model when it begins commercial service.
The double-deck A380 can hold as many 873 people, including crew.
Despite the injuries, Airbus said the plane passed its test, with everybody out of the airplane in about 80 seconds.
The European Aviation Safety Agency will confirm the test results this week. If the agency decides the test was a failure, the simulation would be repeated next Saturday.
Airbus had said that bringing 650 people out of the plane within 90 seconds would have been sufficient to meet safety requirements.
:shakehead
-Kevin
oddlycalm
03-26-06, 10:51 PM
The European Aviation Safety Agency will confirm the test results this week. If the agency decides the test was a failure, the simulation would be repeated next Saturday. Right, like there was actually any chance they would fail them. It coulda taken 5 minutes with a dozen people ending up stone dead and it woulda passed muster.
oc
Surprised they even disclosed the injuries :gomer:
Airbus had said that bringing 650 people out of the plane within 90 seconds would have been sufficient to meet safety requirements
And the Titantic met all the standards for the number of life boats required.
Look, the motion from everyone jumping on the slides didn't make the wings fall off, so what is there to complain about? :rolleyes:
Hard Driver
03-27-06, 06:01 PM
And the Titantic met all the standards for the number of life boats required.
Look, the motion from everyone jumping on the slides didn't make the wings fall off, so what is there to complain about? :rolleyes:
No the wings just fall off is you stress them. The wings did not meet the requirement of withstanding 1.5 times the "maximum load" likely to be placed on the part.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11391971/from/RL.1/
Look, the motion from everyone jumping on the slides didn't make the wings fall off, so what is there to complain about?
um, Airbus consistently rationalizing their inability to meet pre-determined req's? :)
I guess my sarcasm was a little too subtle. ;)
oddlycalm
03-27-06, 10:38 PM
I guess my sarcasm was a little too subtle. ;) Just right IMO, I laughed my tail off when I read it.
The real irony is what a Boeing aircraft would have to do in order to pass the EU tests. After going watching the process of getting our instruments CE certified and then seeing our European competition selling products that very clearly couldn't possible have passed the same tests, I have a clear understanding of what CE stands for; competition elimination.
oc
Just right IMO, I laughed my tail off when I read it.
The real irony is what a Boeing aircraft would have to do in order to pass the EU tests. After going watching the process of getting our instruments CE certified and then seeing our European competition selling products that very clearly couldn't possible have passed the same tests, I have a clear understanding of what CE stands for; competition elimination.
oc :laugh: :laugh:
I found a way to get around EU certification. Develop something that the cert houses don't know how to test, then buy them the equipment to test it with. Amazing how well you would do compared to other companies.
chop456
03-28-06, 02:32 PM
:laugh: :laugh:
I found a way to get around EU certification. Develop something that the cert houses don't know how to test, then buy them the equipment to test it with. Amazing how well you would do compared to other companies.
See: Ferrari, Scuderia. :D
Good thing this thread was brought back to life.
First a bit of background to my point. I have a friend I went to high school with who now flies for Air Canada. His dad was a Captain for Air Canada flying 767's before retirement. My friend started out flying Dash 8's and moved onto CRJs and then finally onto the Airbus A320 series.
Anyway. I have emailed my friend and asked him his take on the whole Airbus vs Boeing thing. The one (and only thing) that he likes about the A320 is that he doesn't have to worry about the control yoke getting in the way of his meal. That's it. Even though he is used to the sidestick he doesn't like it. He says it doesn't feel right. Kinda like using a non-force feedback joystick in Flight Simulator. Also the quality and fit and finish of the cockpit. While the instruments are the same used in Boeing's aircraft he says the other materials are of Hyundai-like quality. The ship that he flew last, a A319 that is only a year or so old, had buzzez and rattles in the cockpit from poor fit and finish. He also doesn't like the way it handles. He can't quite put his finger on why other than to say that sometimes it feels like the tail ain't quite connected.
He recently got his rating to fly the 767 but apparently there is a long line to get a seat as even A330 and A340 pilots want to fly the 767.
He also cannot wait until Air Canada gets their 777's and 787's.
"A350 SUCKS!"
Steven Udvar-Hazy, probably the most respected figure in the global business of buying and selling airplanes, predicted the current version of Airbus� A350 would sell poorly and leave Boeing to dominate the lucrative market for midsized wide-bodies.
He stunned a packed audience of some 700 aviation professionals here by calling on Airbus to scrap its existing A350 design and spend many additional billions on a brand-new airplane with a new fuselage and a new wing.
�That�s probably an $8 billion to $10 billion decision. Airbus is at a crossroads,� said Udvar-Hazy, founder, chairman and chief executive of the second-largest airplane-leasing company, Los Angeles-based International Lease Finance Corp.
Airbus had better make that decision before the Farnborough Air Show in England in July, he said.
His remarks were endorsed by Henry Hubschman, president of the world�s No. 1 lessor of airplanes. In an interview, he said he �completely� agreed with Udvar-Hazy�s message.
If Airbus sticks with its current design, Udvar-Hazy said, it will wind up with as little as 25 percent market share against the 787.
pretty funny read: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002896362_boeing29.html
The A-380 still has a way to go before entering commercial service. Deliveries have been delayed, and rumors fly about problems with weight, performance guarantees of range and fuel consumption, and even unconfirmed dark talk of structural integrity issues. Utilizing the emerging technology of composite materials in place of aluminum on an unprecedented scale, Airbus faces complex technological problems.
Boeing, meanwhile, has bet its resources on a smaller-scale airplane, the 787 Dreamliner. The market for small-to-medium-sized planes, seating about 200-250 passengers, is much, much larger than for the superjumbos. Very few routes require flying 500 or more people all at once, and very few airports can handle such behemoths smoothly. Los Angeles Airport, for instance, has no gates capable of handling an A-380, while San Francisco International, with its massive new international terminal, expects to steal business away from A-380 customers like Singapore Airlines.
Passengers are not wild about crowding in and then unloading such planes. Lines at customs processing alone are already daunting for 747 passengers. And business travelers prefer frequent flights, not one a day or two a week, as may be required by the larger passenger capacity of such planes. Superjumbos have compelling logic only in such airports as London Heathrow, Chicago O�Hare and Tokyo Narita, where runway capacity is very limited.
While Airbus seeks to deny Boeing the large profits from sales of the 747, a product whose engineering and tooling expense has been largely amortized, Boeing has gone for the mass market. The Dreamnliner�s promised performance is at least as economical per passenger mile as the A-380�s, so Airbus faces a challenge in convincing airlines that it is worthwhile flying such an airplane. And the issues of using composite materials are somewhat less demanding on the smaller scale of the 787 than for the much heavier 380, where stress forces are more acute.
Boeing building a strech 787: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2006/03/29/2003299872
chop456
04-07-06, 03:12 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/04/07/cnbae07.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/04/07/cnbae07.xml
Interesting.
Like this little tid-bit:
The sale would represent a major embarrassment for the Government, which has poured launch aid into Airbus projects, including the new double-decker A380, the world's biggest airliner, which will soon enter service.
Hmm... This is why Airbus can flood the market with cut-rate prices. They don't need to re-coup most of the development costs.
devilmaster
04-07-06, 10:40 AM
Hmm... This is why Airbus can flood the market with cut-rate prices. They don't need to re-coup most of the development costs.
Thats the same reason why I get so pissed when I see Bombardier on the side of the Pagoda.....
How much of Canadian taxpayers money went into that sponsorship?
Looks like the pig is gonna land @ Heathrow:
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA17043431147851550A000?source=PA%20Feed
-Kevin
A350 is going to be scrapped b/c of only 100 orders.
They're going to go back to the drawing board to come up w/ a brand new airliner like everyone told them to.
geniuses :gomer:
chop456
06-14-06, 06:09 AM
http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1150239790.html
Airbus revealed delays of at least six months in deliveries of its A380 superjumbo on Tuesday, in an embarrassing new setback that parent company EADS said could cut its earnings between 2007 and 2010.
The European planemaker said it would still deliver the first aircraft to Singapore Airlines in 2006, but would slow down deliveries from next year onwards because of problems with the installation of electrical wiring harnesses.
"We have had an industrial delay. It will shift the program to the right by six to seven months," John Leahy, Airbus' chief commercial officer said.
EADS said the delays would mean shortfalls in earnings, before interest and tax, of EUR500 million (USD$627 million) a year between 2007 and 2010, and acknowledged it would have to pay penalties to carriers which have signed up for the world's biggest airliner.
:gomer:
chop456
06-28-06, 01:46 AM
French regulators have raided the Paris headquarters of Airbus parent firm EADS, increasing the pressure on its embattled joint boss Noel Forgeard.
The officials from France's market watchdog are continuing to probe accusations of insider dealing at EADS centred on Mr Forgeard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5123004.stm
:gomer: :gomer:
TravelGal
06-28-06, 02:02 AM
Just noticed this thread is back. I've been reading about this debacle in the travel rags for the last month. Amazing. Two years ago I wouldn't have given two cents for Boeing's future and now the wheel has turned again. Lots of squalling from the Asian carriers. Looks like Sir Richard was right--again. ;)
coolhand
06-28-06, 03:43 AM
I am amused by this
Airbus loses another order to Boeing. (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/27/Navigation/177/207438/Airbus+misses+out+as+Qatar+Airways+looks+set+to+an nounce+20+Boeing+777.html)
:gomer:
ILFC may cancel $3 billion A380 order. (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aoWD6Z3zksqk&refer=home)
:gomer: :gomer:
Wheel-Nut
06-28-06, 09:21 AM
If I'm one of those airport operators that did a bunch of upgrading to accomodate the 380 :o . . . I'm starting to get pissed!!
If I'm one of those airport operators that did a bunch of upgrading to accomodate the 380 :o . . . I'm starting to get pissed!!
I read somewhere that the gov't is thinking on passing legislation that, unless a US carrier buys the 380, no taxpayer's money should be spent on upgrading any US airports. If Virgin, Air France, et al want to take the A380 to the US they should fork the dough to pay for the upgrades.
If I'm one of those airport operators that did a bunch of upgrading to accomodate the 380 :o . . . I'm starting to get pissed!!
Are there many that have made upgrades? When they had the big story about it's first landing at Heathrow I thought I heard only two airports had been upgraded for the thing.
Are there many that have made upgrades? When they had the big story about it's first landing at Heathrow I thought I heard only two airports had been upgraded for the thing.
AFAIK only LAX and JFK have been worked on. Don't know about ORD or MIA. Atlanta has ruled out any work, so has BOS. Obviously Fed-Ex's and UPS's US hubs are going to get work.
Wheel-Nut
06-28-06, 11:09 AM
Meanwhile, Larry Bauman, PE, CM, the Eastern region director for DMJM Aviation, relates the experience of four airports that are in preparation or are planning for the A380:
• At JFK International Airport, the A380 preparation is part of a $147 million airfield infrastructure development. Upon completion, the airport will have four gates that are A380-ready, in Terminals 1 and 4.
• At LAX, A380 preparation is part of an $87 million development program, much of it focused on airfield intersections. Two gates are being made A380-ready. The airport will also have four remote boarding gates specifically for the A380, though Bauman explains the remote handling will bring significant customer service issues.
• DFW will be a second tier airport for the A380 in the U.S., and Bowman anticipates that the airport will have two to six A380 operations per day once operations begin. The recently opened Terminal D was designed to accommodate three A380s. Bauman estimates that DFW will need to invest another $6.2 million in airfield modifications to accommodate the A380.
DFW steals enough tax money, they dont need to take even more.
Just driving INTO that damned airport to pick someone up requires you to pay $2 to Tarrant County & American Airlines :mad:
TravelGal
06-28-06, 01:41 PM
From today's E-News:
The superjumbo Airbus A380 has completed another step along the path to certification. All 16 emergency slides were deployed at the same time using only the aircraft's battery power. This is the largest number of evacuation slides ever inflated at the same time in any passenger aircraft.
Ank: but you gotta admit, that terminal D is pretty sweet--once you're actually IN it.
DFW crushes me...
Whenever I go to our Dallas HQ, I invariably become the "shuttle driver" for the VPs after meetings. :mad:
I wish I were selling for Boeing these days... bonus city on the Quatar 777 purchases ! ! ! :thumbup:
(excuse me while I go off to Boeing's employment link (http://www.boeing.com/employment/) ) :gomer:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.