Building a monster of the skies

Independent Digital (UK) Ltd ^ | 02/23/2003 | Michael Harrison

[July 4th]

I heard a lot about the A380 before 9/11. I figured the design might have been scaled back afterwards. Apparently not. It looks like those Richard Reid types will have a new target, 500+ people at a time.

[dark_lord]

I suspect this thing is doomed, because:

(1) Imagine how long it will take to get on and off this monster. Given a choice, people will fly smaller planes.

(2) This thing will only be profitable flying between heavily travelled areas. So it can't be profitable on most routes. That is, a competitor might fly 3 trips between two points for every one that this one flys. This gives the competitor more flexibility for travel times.

(3) Imagine the impact if one of these is pulled out for maintenance. Getting everyone offloaded and onto other flights.

(4) Airlines are lower cost if they fly fewer types of airplanes. So this is just another airframe that requires specialized pilot and mechanic training, and parts.

DOOMED.

[Flavius]

hope it comes with 500 escape pods

[Flavius]

hope it comes with 500 escape pods

[Billy_bob_bob]

I am certainly no expert, but I am thinking that this is exactly the wrong design at the wrong time. From what I can tell the future belongs to smaller jets landing at smaller airports working on some sort of point-to-point strategy, and this future will place more emphasis on smaller and even civil airports and less on commercial airports. So this new Airbus strikes me as a purposeful move in the wrong direction, and I predict it will be only a modest success at best.

However, I freely admit that I could be totally wrong. It will be interesting to see how this all works out.

[holyscroller]

And after the kiss-off the French have just given us, they can take this plane and eat it. I'll NEVER fly it. And I've got some pretty long-term boycotts to my credit. (Haven't had a Seattle PI in my house since 1967, haven't bought anything from Tyson since I found out about their funding of Slick. Boycotts are easy, and it's one little way we can each vote "NO!" with our shopping choices.

[unspun]

Yes, it will be used for flights between heavily traveled cities. Airports will redesign terminals for them. Asia should be its ace in the hole.

[rebel_yell2]

My guess is that you are off-base. I fly over 100,000 miles per year, mostly on 747-400s that are packed to the max, especially in Asia. Those planes carry 400+ persons, so this plane is not really that much larger. It supposedly will have a lower cost per seat. But I think that Boeing is working on a stretch 747 that can compete. These planes definitely can make money on the long-haul trans-pacific routes.

[SirChas]

Does this use "fly by wire" like the other airbus acft?

I think Boeing does not use this in their acft, but correct me if I'm wrong. To me it's ok in a fighter where you can eject, but on on airliners I just feel uncomfortable knowing how computers can have their own mind sometimes.

Any comments from people that know more about this than me?

[justlurking]

This plane will probabably be used like the 747 and 777: long transcontinental or international routes (with exceptions, see below). It will take a while to load and unload them, but as the flight time approaches 8 hours, it will be a reasonable percentage of the total leg time.

But, you are correct: it will only be used on heavily traveled routes, where it can replace two or more smaller planes. However, passengers might not care for the reduction in convenient schedules (i.e. one flight at 11 AM, instead of a flight at 9 AM and a flight at 1 PM).

Japan uses special versions of the 747 that are short-range, but have many seats packed closely. They are used for inter-island shuttles. For various reasons, the number of aircraft operations per hour/day at their airports are constrained, and this would allow them to expand service with the same number of planes.

[mhking]

Brings new meaning to the term "Big A$$ Plane" --

"Hold muh beer 'n watch this!" PING....

If you want on or off this list, please let me know!

[justlurking]

Does this use "fly by wire" like the other airbus acft?

It's likely.

I think Boeing does not use this in their acft, but correct me if I'm wrong.

The Boeing 777 is fly-by-wire.

[SirChas]

I guess I'll just have to accept computers in flight control.

Flight attendant, could I have another drink please? Make it a double!

[ContentiousObjector]

Send one of these over to Alaskan Airlines, they will be able to cram atleast 1000 people into an A380.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Will all passengers have to board through the same door? Something like this might work OK with multiple boarding tunnels at a gate.

[Ronin]

It these things were anywhere near as potentially profitable as the Euro-weenies are making out, Boeing would be building them -- or a Boeing version of them.

The fact that Boeing has looked into this market and has decided against putting in any chips leads me to believe that they either have a better idea or are willing to let the froggies work out the bugs before they commit.

Either way, if Boeing doesn't want to play, I'll stand pat too.

[Myrddin]

This reminds me of the lesson learned by the tuna seiner industry. The boats in San Diego ranged from family owned 400 ton converted banana boats to 2200 ton super seiners with a helocopter and airplane aboard. The 400 ton boats were always profitable and manageable. 1200 ton boats could go on longer trips (more fuel) and seemed to be an optimal size. At 2200 tons, the first fish caught during the trip was beginning to rot before the vessel could be filled. A odd thing happened. There was a succession of terrible accidents resulting in all of the 2200 ton boats sinking. I suspect this new monster aircraft will have something in common with the 2200 ton tuna seiner. Too big to be economical (you have to keep the seats full to cover the payments. Partially filled won't do). Too slow to load/unload. Too much to lose if it gets attacked.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"But Airbus will need to sell considerably more than 250 planes if the taxpayers of the UK, Germany, France and Spain are to get back the $5.1bn in launch aid provided by their governments."

Ouch.

[TomSmedley]

sounds like a government jobs project.