As Randy Baseler put it, with the A380F, you're flying around over 40% more airplane structural weight for only 5% more revenue payload!
Baseler also addresses the longer range of the 380.
So, while Boeing is making leaps of 20 ft to a design that is closing in on ~40 years old; Airbus is throwing down an aircraft like the 380, 49% larger than the Boeing 747-400.
THAT is progress.
Boeing, what has happened? You used to lead the world, now you are polishing a 40 yr old design, and crowing about your achievements.
With Airbus, the pilot is a voting member...with obvious results when flying in thunderstorms.
With Boeing, the pilot is the commander.
‘Nuff said.
With Airbus, the pilot is a voting member...with obvious results when flying in thunderstorms.
With Boeing, the pilot is the commander.
‘Nuff said.
IIRC the Airbus A380’s owners are having difficulty finding runways that can withstand its gigantic weight, while the Boeing 747 & variants can land at almost any scheduled airlines airport. Boeing seems dumb like a fox to me.
What’s wrong with design upgrades? Works for the C-130 and its 55+ year old airframe.
Are they making the coach seats any wider? Sitting in the middle seat of a 737 is torture unless one is stick twig thin and neighbor is not a whale.
I flew the Sydney to Singapore route a couple months after the first A380's entered SQ service. Nothing special except the business class seats were weird. The seat and back were about three feet wide with a long seat belt that didn't really hold one in place side-to-side, and the little compartment where one's feet go after reclining the seat was offset to one side. I was in a starboard side seat so it was offset to my right. Result: impossible to get comfortable and pain in my hip once I got up after an 8 hour flight.
And after the recent engine failures on a couple Qantas A380's I will try as much as possible to stay with B747's for any really long haul flights.
Both are Ultra-Large, meant for only Airports that can handle them and meant for the long distance intercontinental flights.
So if the 747-8 has less of a carbon footprint and costs less per seat, it may edge out the A380 in the publics mind IMHO.
Boeing is an aircraft manufacturer - they either make a profit or go out of business. The 747 is a cash machine and the 747-8 is as modern as any commercial aircraft flying.
Airbust is a socialist program to provide employment - doesn't matter if they make money or not, and they won't make money on the A380.
Plus, when the last A380 is flown to the boneyard, the aircrew will fly back home on a 747.
As Randy Baseler put it, with the A380F, you're flying around over 40% more airplane structural weight for only 5% more revenue payload!
Baseler also addresses the longer range of the 380.
“Airbus is throwing down an aircraft like the 380, 49% larger than the Boeing 747-400.”
That just won’t fit in to many of the world’s airports, severely limiting the markets in can be used in.
This aircraft, on the other hand, can use almost any 747-capable airport on the globe.
The big airbus is a piece of crap, only suited for arabs with too much camel competition. Tell me when they can reliably match two electrical fittings together ;).