Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will The A380 Be Like The Concord  
User currently offlineCalpilot17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 109 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10532 times:

Will the a380 be like the Concord and only enjoy the prestige of being like the concord in that it will serve only a limited niche market and receive a lot publicity, or will the airplane be as proposed, a cash cow.


Gear Down For max career Advancment
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10355 times:

They are completely opposite concepts

Fuel costs killed Concorde's order book, as did lack of capacity and range. The A380 is the other side of that, high capacity and efficiency.

When the 747 was produced at roughly the same time as Concorde, the airlines went for capacity and economical operation. Nothing has changed in that sector.

The A380 is targeted at an existing market for subsonic efficient planes.


User currently offlineJaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10344 times:

Right now in terms of sales the A380 has been very succesful. I believe they have sold about 129 of them, and that all the delevery slots are filled for the 1st 2 years. They also have many more potential customers in the pipeline such as Thai, UPS, and SAA, among others, so hopefully some of these orders will be announced in the upcoming airshow.

User currently offlineRabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1005 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10311 times:

do you mean concord, massachusetts? thats the place where thoreau and emerson lived, right? for sure, thoreaus fake hut is no cash cow at all (actually, you can visit it for free), although a lot of people use to go there.

i think the A380 will be very different from that. its most important function was to kill boeings monopoly on very large planes. for 20+ years they could charge whatever they wanted because there was no competition. but beyond this important function, some airlines seem to be willing to pay for the A380.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10298 times:

They've actually sold way less than predicted by Airbus themselves (500 firm orders before the end of 2004)...
And of those 129 orders (which include options btw...) over 100 were placed within the first few months when ordering was open and are at the introductory price which is below construction price.

Yes, the A380 may well end up like Concorde in that it will be in service in very small numbers on a limited number of routes.
If you count in that a part of those 129 are cargo aircraft that will never see passenger service and will fly mainly at night the chances of ever flying one are even less.

Then you have to remember that at one time there were well over a hundred orders for Concorde as well, all of which (except the AF and BA orders which were government mandated) were cancelled when the EU and US introduced prohibitions against civilian aircraft overflying land at supersonic speeds.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10288 times:

I think a better title for this thread would be, "Will the A380 Be Like the MD-11" That would be a better comparison. The MD-11 also did well in terms of advanced orders but it did not meet its specs. That is a more realistic risk facing Airbus. The Concorde was more unique in a lot of ways.


User currently offlineJHSfan From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 469 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10268 times:

  • The Concorde was made in very small numbers only - A380 will be made in more.

  • The Concorde went Mach 2 Smokin cool - A380 will NOT!

  • A380 will have more than one class onboard - had the Concorde more than one luxurious class?

  • In general the cheapest price for a seat in A380 will be much lower than the price was on the Concorde. More people will be able to say: I have been flying on an A380! (= reduced prestige).

  • How many airports will be able to receive the A380 in the future? I guess that this issue will be a limiting factor for the use of A380 in it's first years of service. Could make this a bit more fashionable than the other planes.


  • The Concorde was a (multi seat) Ferrari Smokin cool, the A380 will be a big luxurious bus.  Smile
    I just don't think the A380 reach the same level of fame as the Concorde.

    Yours in realtime
    JHSfan



    Look at me, I´m riding high, I´m the airbornmaster of the sky...
    User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13149 posts, RR: 78
    Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10259 times:

    I think the comments above say it all really, however there might be one thing similar, Concorde also suffered from senior US politicians saying that they'd never allow Concorde to land in the US, funnily enough just their own (mostly government funded) SST project was axed.
    A case of 'if you can't beat them, stop them').
    In the end it was worked out, but along with the fuel price hikes it did for Concorde
    .
    Now there are concerns that some US airports like SFO are dragging their feet on preparing for A380, not quite the same as the situation with Concorde landing rights, but as orders for A380 gather, as Boeing seems not to offer a direct competitor, as an election year looms with the usual protectionist calls from some US politicians, pressure might mount to invent a reason for making A380's life difficult in the US.

    I've seen from previous posts that your one of those 'Airbus wins by government subsidies' types, not so, in any case Concorde provided some valuable lessons on how to do, and not do, a multinational airliner programme, which Concorde was the first of.

    Also, remember that the 'orders' for Concorde were mostly options, the situation with A380 is very different.

    But I suspect there is an element of wishful thinking in the title of this post.


    User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10248 times:

    Then you have to remember that at one time there were well over a hundred orders for Concorde as well, all of which (except the AF and BA orders which were government mandated) were cancelled when the EU and US introduced prohibitions against civilian aircraft overflying land at supersonic speeds.

    Concorde was fatally damaged by fuel costs. That's what turned the airlines off.

    The other issue was range. A Concorde could not perform transpacific routes.

    The overland issue wasn't as important as those two factors; transoceanic routes are by their very nature not over land for any considerable time.


    User currently offlineCalpilot17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 109 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10235 times:

    The reason why I make the comparison is because they are both high profile major undertakings with many risks involved being made by a multi national company. And they both face(d) problems with available routes and airports.

    The a380 is a extreme with is shear size as the Concord was a extreme with its speed.



    Gear Down For max career Advancment
    User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10203 times:

    It is an extreme engineering project, but doesn't have those killer problems that Concorde had.

    Namely high fuel burn per passenger. A ton of fuel per head from LHR to JFK isn't economical!

    Concorde did have some spinoff benefits though. Rolls Royce developed the Olympus core into a very successful marine engine, and the experience of materials and manufacturing across European borders has all been worthwhile.


    User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10155 times:

    The a380 is a extreme with is shear size as the Concord was a extreme with its speed

    I don't see the A380 as an extreme plane. It is a normal development more than 35 years after the 747. A bigger aircraft to responds to bigger needs: What's extreme?

    Reading your stupid post in another thread, I suspect that you would not have stated this if Boeing were developing this aircraft...  Yeah sure



    E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
    User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13149 posts, RR: 78
    Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10147 times:

    Not really, A380 is nowhere near as big a risk technically as Concorde was, it is a step up from 747, but nowhere near as big a step from 707/DC-8 to 747.

    With Concorde BAC and SUD were not only undertaking a huge technical challenge, but were learning the hard way about multi-national co-operation, had this part been done better, Concorde's costs could have been reduced by up to 25%

    In fact, Concorde was a step on the way to Airbus, the early fly by wire on Concorde was just one of the technical innovations that were realized with Airbus.

    One thing though, Pan-Am and TWA (the only 2 US carriers with really suitable routes for Concorde) cancelled their options for Concorde before the fuel crisis, because they were both in financial trouble, the recession of the early 70's was bad, also PA and TWA both had ordered too many 747s which they were struggling to fill, the last thing they needed was another advanced type to introduce, the early months of 747 service were plagued with problems, in particular with the early JT9D engines.

    A380, like all airliners, will be offered in a range of versions, with Concorde you had a 3500 mile range aircraft certified to seat up to 128 pax.
    Concorde B, a study for some improvements, was too late, had it been in the running sooner a few more (but only a few) airlines might have ordered as the economic situation improved, for example LH, Concorde B could do Frankfurt to New York non stop, with Concorde you needed two cities that were major financial centres for plenty of business traffic, mostly separated by ocean.
    Hong Kong or Tokyo to Singapore is another example.
    http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html

    The A380 is a much more flexible machine.
    BA made Concorde into a money maker by the mid 1980's, after they took over all responsibility for it and got imaginative and aggressive with marketing.




    User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10105 times:

    Not really, A380 is nowhere near as big a risk technically as Concorde was, it is a step up from 747, but nowhere near as big a step from 707/DC-8 to 747.



    There is also the change in the way Airbus uses construction materials to consider. Introducing GLARE and other composites to a much greater degree in the structure of the A380 presents its own challenges, so the A380 is an engineering move forward for them as well.

    There is another aspect too, the GP7200. Pratt and GE combining on a project!


    User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10068 times:

    Fuel costs killed Concorde's order book

    actually noise killed the Concorde. In a supercruise Concorde was the most fuel efficient plane ever made by man, but unfotunately it was too noisy to fly supersonic over land. When not in a supercruise Concorde is thirsty.


    User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10053 times:

    A ton of fuel is still a ton of fuel, no matter how fast you go or how efficient the engines are at any given point.

    A 747 moving 400 passengers across the Atlantic doesn't use anything close to 400 tons of fuel.


    User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10047 times:

    i wasnt haing a go WhiteHatter i was just pointing out Concorde was one hell of a plane

    User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9991 times:

    I know  Wink/being sarcastic

    Economics just were not on it's side. The other killer was the inability to do transpacific runs, which is what the US carriers wanted it for.

    That's always been something they have wanted to offer, a fast service into Asia and Australia for business travellers.


    User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13149 posts, RR: 78
    Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9960 times:

    It's worth remembering that Concorde's range was not that different to the airliners in service when it was developed, a B model could have done Transpacific with a stop at Hawaii, but by the time it was in service the widebodies were here, which was not foreseen in the early 60's.

    Some US carriers optioned Concorde for runs to South America as well as the hope that limited overland would be allowed for US coast to coast, BA Concorde, on charters, was able with permission to operate supersonically over Northern Canada, as OAG did on it's last flight from JFK to Seattle.

    But it is hard to see any parallels between Concorde and A380 except at the most superficial levels, A380 has been designed for a market radically different to when Concorde was designed.

    Concorde in many ways was more akin to Apollo, at least that was what some NASA guys reckoned in 1997 when they visited BA Concorde Engineering, for advice on operating an aging fleet of unique air vehicles long out of production, like the Shuttle.


    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9752 times:

    A 747 moving 400 passengers across the Atlantic doesn't use anything close to 400 tons of fuel

    um, neither did Concorde  Laugh out loud


    User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9733 times:

    so how much fuel does it take a Concorde to cross the atlantic then?

    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60829,00.html

    One ton of fuel per passenger on Concorde

    [Edited 2004-06-14 03:06:09]

    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9694 times:

    ...ah, I see what you're saying.

    From the previous post, it seemed you were insinuating that Concorde required 400 tons to op.


    User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1257 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9671 times:

    Just a guess Roberta might of been referring to the fact Concorde was more efficient at cruise speed than at subsonic speeds--because, it is certainly not the most efficient aircraft of its era!


    CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
    User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1601 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9569 times:


    I suspect many potential customers are waiting as the 380 starts to run the numbers. If Airbus is on target it will sell the 250-300 they require to recoupe developement costs.

    If it goes the way of the 346 it could be a huge problem.

    Only time will tell.



    To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
    User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9567 times:

    That's what Roberta meant, fuel burn per mile per passenger in supercruise mode.

    It's the hideously thirsty afterburners needed for acceleration and takeoff that guzzle the fuel. Military jets are no different.


    25 Dreamcraft : Like I said in another discussion, I do think the A380 will be a flop. I don't think that it will meet it's performance targets (if the A345/6 models
    26 StevenUhl777 : Never... Concorde always ends with an 'e' Airbus always ends with an 's' The 380 will hold 5 1/2 times the number of people, and the fare paying passe
    27 Post contains images Dl021 : The A-380 will succeed as an airliner, of this there is little doubt. It will successfully carry the number of people advertised the distances promise
    28 AnsettB727 : *Snore* Why oh why oh why can't Boeing people just accept that this is a big plane that's going to happen, just the same way the 747 did? I teach teen
    29 WhiteHatter : Nobody can give a definitive answer to whether the A380 will be a success until 10-20 years into the future, when it has been in constant production/s
    30 Post contains images Tasha : Most everyone here seems to really be missing the point. The point is that the Concord was the only operational SST (not counting the TU144) - but not
    31 VS11 : Well, Concorde was a politically mandated project. It was bound by an agreement between France and the UK, and there was no clause for terminating the
    32 Gigneil : And of those 129 orders (which include options btw...) over 100 were placed within the first few months when ordering was open and are at the introduc
    33 N79969 : "Nobody can give a definitive answer to whether the A380 will be a success until 10-20 years into the future, when it has been in constant production/
    34 Cloudy : The 747 would have been a failure had the airlines that ordered it known how hard it would be to fill all those seats. It succeeded because the airlin
    35 Douglas7Seas : My opinion, and I'm not an aviation professional, is that the A380 serves a market already handled by the A340, A330, 747 and 777. Perhaps this will l
    36 Roberta : Like I said in another discussion, I do think the A380 will be a flop. I don't think that it will meet it's performance targets (if the A345/6 models
    37 Alessandro : Cloudy, so why was a short-range version B747 built then? As for comparing A380 with Concorde, I think A380 can be successful as cargo hauler, somethi
    38 Post contains images PW100 : . . . Concorde was the most fuel efficient passenger plane ever built when flying at supersonic speeds. Well according to Concorde Boy . . . First, I
    39 American762 : The A380 is nothing more than a new aircraft...it isn't revolutionizing air travel in a sincere way that the Concorde did. However for the first 2 yea
    40 GDB : At mach 2 a bit less than 50% of the 'energy' was provided by the engine thrust. 38,000 lb thrust (including reheat) on take off per engine, maintaini
    41 FRAspotter : JHSfan, The concord had 2 classes, first class and business class. They were just about the same however.
    42 Cloudy : Cloudy, so why was a short-range version B747 built then? As for comparing A380 with Concorde, I think A380 can be successful as cargo hauler, somethi
    43 RayChuang : I think there will be some demand for the A380-800, especially to and from airports that have slot control restrictions (there are a good number of th
    44 Scorpio : Jwenting, They've actually sold way less than predicted by Airbus themselves (500 firm orders before the end of 2004)... Airbus never predicted any su
    45 GDB : Concorde only had 1 class and it was identical in the fwd and rear cabin, regular pax did exercise seating preference, e.g. Sir David Frost, a very re
    46 VSXA380X800 : Will the A380 be like the Concorde. Well I guess what kind of answer you are really looking for. -High cost -How rare the aircraft is going to be seen
    47 VSXA380X800 : I don't see the A380 as an extreme plane. It is a normal development more than 35 years after the 747. A bigger aircraft to responds to bigger needs:
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    What Livery Will The A380 Be In @ LHR? posted Tue May 16 2006 10:40:58 by Artist01
    When Will The A380 Be In Australia? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 05:44:04 by Aviation
    Will The A380 Be Visiting BFI? posted Wed May 4 2005 16:23:50 by Qxeguy
    Will The A380 Be Able To Have Cargo In The Belly posted Tue Nov 23 2004 10:50:42 by Aviationfreak
    Will The A380 Be A Flying Hotel? posted Mon Oct 21 2002 22:23:20 by Bragi
    Will The A380 Be A Modern Day Titanic? posted Mon Jun 18 2001 17:59:33 by BA FOREVER
    When Will The A380 Visit The USA? posted Sun Nov 13 2005 15:19:05 by LTBEWR
    Who "buys" The A380 Or The 787? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 14:39:32 by MBJ2000
    BA And The A380 For The 2012 Olympics posted Thu Jul 7 2005 08:19:01 by Megatop
    What Will AIr Travel Be Like In 10 Years Time? posted Fri Dec 6 2002 07:48:25 by Trent_800