Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17957 times:

11000 pounds per this article. Various posts have alluded to this, but this is the first I've seen from a reputable news organization.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...IRATES-URGENT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

Quote:
LONDON, Oct 27 (Reuters) - The biggest buyer of the world's biggest airliner, Dubai-based carrier Emirates [EMAIR.UL], said on Friday the Airbus A380 was 5.5 tonnes overweight in addition to being two years behind schedule.

However, it said it had not yet started negotiations with the plane maker regarding these issues.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
151 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17962 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
11000 pounds per this article. Various posts have alluded to this, but this is the first I've seen from a reputable news organization.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...=qcna

It has been known for a while the plane is a tad overweight...but with the engine SFC's being better than anticipated, it has "compensated" for the weight and basically the A380 is "hitting its numbers" or is quite close to it...

Cheers



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17935 times:

That would be almost exactly 2% of OEW, a bit more than you'd expect considering that the fuel burn targets are being met or exceeded, but pretty much OK, I suppose.

The source doesn't say if this is related to EK's configuration or the plane's basic structure.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17901 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 1):
It has been known for a while the plane is a tad overweight...but with the engine SFC's being better than anticipated, it has "compensated" for the weight and basically the A380 is "hitting its numbers" or is quite close to it...

Yup. Not as good as Airbus wanted, but as good as required.

Alas, with the recent snipes about the 787 being "portly", I expect this news, if true, to be bandied about in counter-sniping, but in the end, it shows that even if the 787 should end up beyond her target weight despite all of Boeing's efforts to address it, it does not automatically mean the 787 will not be as "good as required".


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3515 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17905 times:

The airplane has been flying for some time now and it is known that it meets or exceeds all performance guarantees.

User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17904 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 1):
Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
11000 pounds per this article. Various posts have alluded to this, but this is the first I've seen from a reputable news organization.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...=qcna

It has been known for a while the plane is a tad overweight...but with the engine SFC's being better than anticipated, it has "compensated" for the weight and basically the A380 is "hitting its numbers" or is quite close to it...

That doesn't fix payload at all, and the aircraft is payload limited.

And, I might add, 5.5 tons over what figure????

We still don't have a baseline weight unless Clark is referring to the airbus furnished basic operating weight figure of 608,400 pounds.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17871 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 5):
We still don't have a baseline weight unless Clark is referring to the airbus furnished basic operating weight figure of 608,400 pounds.

Close to 2% over OEW then? Similar to where Boeing finds themselves at present on the 787; Boeing maintains they'll hit the performance targets nonetheless.

[Edited 2006-10-27 15:07:45]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3398 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17801 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 4):
The airplane has been flying for some time now and it is known that it meets or exceeds all performance guarantees.

 bigthumbsup 

I guess if the planes overweight but more efficient so it uses the fuel quantities predicted this isn't a problem


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17742 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 5):

That doesn't fix payload at all, and the aircraft is payload limited.

That's a different topic... Wink

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 5):

And, I might add, 5.5 tons over what figure????

We still don't have a baseline weight unless Clark is referring to the airbus furnished basic operating weight figure of 608,400 pounds.

IIRC, it's 2.5% over "promised" OEW....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17721 times:

Intriguing.

Yet airlines, well Singapore Airlines, still maintain that it is maintaining its performance guarantees.

Or maybe there's a recovery plan for the A380's weight.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17692 times:

Maybe the title of the thread should be
"Rolls Royce" saves Airbus

Ruscoe


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17667 times:

Apparently, EK is looking into this before speaking to Airbus about it:

Dubai-based carrier Emirates [EMAIR.UL], said on Friday the Airbus A380 was 5.5 tonnes overweight in addition to two years behind schedule.

However, it has not yet started negotiations with the plane maker regarding these issues, Emirates President Tim Clark told reporters while visiting a new lounge at London's Heathrow Airport designed to handle Emirates' A380s.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17553 times:

Dow Jones is also reporting that:

Heathrow, ENGLAND (Dow Jones)--Emirates Airlines President Tim Clark Friday said the Dubai-based carrier hasn't ruled out the possibility of further delays in deliveries of Airbus' A380 airplane.

"It would be foolish to say we do not expect anything further," Clark told reporters at London's Heathrow airport...


http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20061027-706175.html


User currently offlineCricket From India, joined Aug 2005, 2972 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17494 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 14):
Dow Jones is also reporting that:

Heathrow, ENGLAND (Dow Jones)--Emirates Airlines President Tim Clark Friday said the Dubai-based carrier hasn't ruled out the possibility of further delays in deliveries of Airbus' A380 airplane.

"It would be foolish to say we do not expect anything further," Clark told reporters at London's Heathrow airport...

You live and learn I guess! Kind of like what happens after a relationship turns sour.



A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17422 times:

Folks...let me explain.

More weight on the basic airplane probably has a negligible effect on performance. No problem there.

But there ARE structural limits.

If the BASIC operating weight of 608,400 still stands, and the zero fuel weight of 795,869 pounds still stands, that means you have 187,469 pounds to dispose of as you wish before you reach ZFW (which is a structural limit) on cargo, passengers, or a mix.

If, on the other hand that 5.5 tonnes is IN ADDITION TO the basic operating weight that takes you to about 620,500 pounds give or take, and that all comes out of what you can carry before you reach the structural limit.

To give you an idea of what 12,000 pounds means in real terms, if you consider that the FAA figure for an adult male passenger is 190 pounds and an average baggage load of 30 pounds for this hypothetical person-although the airlines budget for more-that is 55 fewer passengers you can carry.

Again, we do not have a 'starting point' of honest to god scale weights so all this is sort of hypothetical...but it's not a good sign.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17388 times:

Perhaps we can at least agree now why Qantas, SIA, and presumably others, are only planning to carry 500 passengers or less on the A380, instead of the oft-quoted 555 maximum?

If the loading yardstick is still 100kg. average per passenger, 11,000lbs. = 5,000kg. = 50?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17359 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 16):
But there ARE structural limits.

Dougloid, I think most here knew that the A380 will have structural limits...in fact, when it comes to hauling pax and cargo simultaneously, its a terrible plane when compared on a ratio basis to say the A300, B777 or hypothetical B787-10



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17286 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 18):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 16):
But there ARE structural limits.

Dougloid, I think most here knew that the A380 will have structural limits...in fact, when it comes to hauling pax and cargo simultaneously, its a terrible plane when compared on a ratio basis to say the A300, B777 or hypothetical B787-10

If I had to take a guess, Jacobin777, I'd *guess* that Airbus plans to certify the GW and ZFW of the A380 conservatively so as to avoid problems with regulators, and will issue service bulletins (after certification is obtained) that will up the ZFW and revise the AFM. They might have more trouble upping the GW and as a result will have to reduce the amount of fuel they can carry which will have an effect on range.

That's if they're acting like normal people faced with this issue would. There ARE internal communication issues in that company.

The other thing is what the effect on weight of the modifications necessary to get the wiring right will cost in weight.


User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17229 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6):
Close to 2% over OEW then? Similar to where Boeing finds themselves at present on the 787; Boeing maintains they'll hit the performance targets nonetheless.

Boeing doesnt admit that the FINAL 787 will be 2% overweight . They are currently at around 2% over what they'd like to be ( still within contractual margins) however they are investing both money and engineering recources to bring that figure down .


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17195 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 19):

If I had to take a guess, Jacobin777, I'd *guess* that Airbus plans to certify the GW and ZFW of the A380 conservatively so as to avoid problems with regulators, and will issue service bulletins (after certification is obtained) that will up the ZFW and revise the AFM. They might have more trouble upping the GW and as a result will have to reduce the amount of fuel they can carry which will have an effect on range.

I think that is a fair assessment, but I don't really know all the intricacies of the post-certification (who does..lol)....

That being said, even if they have to reduce the amount of fuel, it will be a small amount..also, as time goes on, they will be able to adopt new technologies which would potentially offset the curret weight issues...

All-in-all, I think its a scratch and the plane will be ok for what it was intended to do when offered back in 2000/2001......while EK is saying one thing, SQ is saying its meeting their criteria in terms of performance (of course, one really doesn't know how it will perform until SQ use it for a while)..but it seems SQ is confident in the capabilities of the A380

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 19):
The other thing is what the effect on weight of the modifications necessary to get the wiring right will cost in weight.

I would say that will probably be at most a "scratch" too..but one never knows....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17122 times:

Quoting Joni (Reply 2):
the fuel burn targets are being met or exceeded

Source please? I've read this on A.Net, but nowhere else. Even the EADS A380 update said no such thing. If they were exceeding fuel burn targets, Airbus would be trumpeting the fact - very notable that they are NOT.

Quoting Danny (Reply 4):
The airplane has been flying for some time now and it is known that it meets or exceeds all performance guarantees

It is known by who? Again, outside of A.Net, where is this published?

Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 9):
Yet airlines, well Singapore Airlines, still maintain that it is maintaining its performance guarantees

Was the statement by SQ anything other than comments from an executive? No data there, either.

Bottom Line: we still have no real evidence of A380 performance, good or bad.
Except that we now have a statement that it is indeed overweight.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17100 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 21):
.while EK is saying one thing, SQ is saying its meeting their criteria in terms of performance

Occurs to me that EK (who are stuck with having to route everything through Dubai, and therefore can't avoid flying Dubai-Sydney) are likely to be a lot touchier than Singapore at any possible reductions, however 'minor,' in range/payload. Singapore's longest run, as far as I know, would be Changi-Heathrow, which is nowhere near as long.

Qantas wouldn't be too happy either, given that Melbourne-Los Angeles is definitely an extreme-range trip.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineRj111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16985 times:

First plane(s) off the production line syndrome?

User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16986 times:

This is something I've been wondering about, and instead of starting a whole new thread on it, maybe it can be addressed here.

The A380 has, of course, undergone significant flight testing at this point, and I recall reading that Airbus and various customers are pleased with performance so far. My question relates to airliners, such as the MD-11, that ultimately disappoint their customers. At which point in flight testing or in service life do these shortcomings become evident? I imagine the right answer is "it depends" so let me try to narrow it down a little: Will excessive fuel burn on the order of a percentage point or two usually become evident in flight testing, or is that something that tends to show up only once the aircraft is in service?

I'm not trying to cast doubt on the performance of the A380, but right now it makes sense to ask this question in this context. And this is something I've been curious about for a while.

[Edited 2006-10-27 17:14:32]


New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17608 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 22):
Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 9):
Yet airlines, well Singapore Airlines, still maintain that it is maintaining its performance guarantees

Was the statement by SQ anything other than comments from an executive?

 scratchchin 

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 22):
Bottom Line: we still have no real evidence of A380 performance, good or bad.
Except that we now have a statement that it is indeed overweight.

And where did that statement come from....

LONDON, Oct 27 (Reuters) - The biggest buyer of the world's biggest airliner, Dubai-based carrier Emirates [EMAIR.UL], said on Friday the Airbus A380 was 5.5 tonnes overweight in addition to being two years behind schedule.


Indeed. From a source as reliable, or as unreliable as SIA could be considered.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
25 Poitin : A significant statement. "Tell me Mr. Clark, what did you know that you are not telling us and when did you know it?"
26 Widebodyphotog : The figure EK was given was most likely relative to the Manufactures Empty Weight (MEW). Not EK's specific OEW for their A380 configuration, which is
27 NAV20 : Manni, please see #23 above. Given that all the airlines have different route structures, It is perfectly possible (even likely) that some of the cust
28 OldAeroGuy : As I recall, many A.net posters declared that the A380 OEW problem was "solved". It appears that the solution was to accept the OEW penalty.
29 Khobar : The information regarding A380 fuel burn comes from Airbus, and only from Airbus. For example, "A380, which completed its ninth test flight over the w
30 BrightCedars : Well lads, between the options of "on time delivery or slight delay and better than contract performance" on offer by Boeing and "way behind deadline
31 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I've read in quite a few places (reputable resources) that the fuel burn is indeed performing better than originally anticipated... The 2% overweight
32 Zvezda : The article is not too clear about which weight is over. However, since there is the suggestion that SQ will seek compensation, that suggests that the
33 HB88 : I know it isn't satisfactory as real evidence, but all the recent internal briefings I've seen (as in briefings given to Airbus employees that contai
34 Zvezda : Yes, SQ originally had hoped to start the WhaleJet on SIN-HKG-SFO-HKG-SIN. This plan was dropped and SQ decided to start with LHR when it became appa
35 Manni : My comment was not made to cast doubt over the statements made by the SQ or EK executives. I tried to point out the inaccuracies of the poster I quot
36 Zvezda : Good point. We have little reason to favor one statement over the other other than our own biases. The little we have is: Which statement was more sp
37 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Ok..thanks for info.. ....that is what I thought..if the A380 can't do HKG-SFO/LAX routinely without decent payload/range throughout the whole year,
38 Zvezda : The B747-400 has to make a tech stop about 5 days per year and it goes out lightly loaded more often than that. CX and SQ wanted significantly better
39 Post contains images PLANEKRAZY777 : If Airbus needs to drop 11000 pounds on the a-380, they should just tell all pax to lose 20 pounds, Iti'l do alot of people good.
40 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Which if the A380 can't deliver would be problematic....a tech stop for the A380 will get a bit costly... I'm curious if the 748I will be able to ach
41 Stitch : I have been led to believe that it can. However, in SQ's case the 748 with the new interior has an identical seat count to the 744 with the old inter
42 Khobar : SQ's statements are not entirely consistent with what Airbus has stated in the past. For example, Airbus PR says the A380 has a lower than expected f
43 BOE773 : The Engine Alliance engine's data for fuel consumption accumulated so far during flight testing is coming in ahead of the consumption data for the RR
44 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Interesting.... ..hence my comment of SQ will go by the way of the A380... ...I see CX going for the 748I...they have stated it a few times this is a
45 Post contains links Areopagus : NASA Langley Research Center says otherwise. Initial flight tests of the MD-11 indicated an unacceptable range shortfall of over 400 nmi. McDonnell D
46 Baroque : If indeed it is meeting performance targets and is "a bit on the heavy side" RR must have done a really good job. If GE were to maintain the lead in
47 Post contains images Zvezda : I stand corrected. Thanks!
48 Baron95 : All this talk about the A380 meeting or exceeding performance targets and/or guarantees does not stand up to scrutiny. After all the real data that Ai
49 Tootallsd : Isn't that why they are installing gyms in the belly of the beast?
50 FlyDreamliner : Except that guarantee for delivery thing..... if it is over weight and having range/payload issues, the A380 program is in a real tough spot. Let's s
51 Post contains images SJCRRPAX : The way I figure it the Asian Carriers will be only 11,000 pound overweight, but an American Version would be 50lbs *500 pax's + 11,000 pounds = 36.0
52 TeamAmerica : I lost my internet connection and was unable to reply 'til now, but several posters above have done a good job in my stead. You have valid point in t
53 Baron95 : Because SQ is an A380 cheerleader. They have created a whole marketing campaingn and corporate identity around the A380. The "First to Fly it in 2006
54 Post contains images Calags : Hehe. Every ticket comes with a complimentary/mandatory gastro-intestinal purge (barf back and enema bottle provided for free) prior to boarding.
55 BOE773 : You made an excellent point there, Baroque. This must happen again for the A380 to be competitive CASM wise with the 747-8.
56 Zvezda : The headwinds are much more severe on LAX-HKG than ORD-HKG so the still-air distance can sometimes be greater. Also, UA go out lightly loaded from OR
57 Zeke : The maximum is well over 800. The generic 3 class manufacturers configuration is 555. You know this already. Using your logic the 773ER at SQ must be
58 RIXrat : If as some of you said that the 5.5 tons overweight was a non-issue, why did Clark even mention the subject. Something must be gnawing in his belly ev
59 Khobar : Just improve the seal and duration on the vacuum toilets. That'll do the trick.
60 Zvezda : If that was what Nav20 meant, then you're right -- it was a silly argument and you deflated it nicely. I suspect what Nav20 meant was that all (not j
61 Dougloid : That could well be that the number that they were given was that of a green aircraft-which is still a closely guarded secret as far as I've heard. In
62 Scouseflyer : He likes the sound of his own voice.......
63 Max Q : Amazing, it's OEW is more than a DC10 at maximum take off weight. Lot of dead weight to cart around...
64 Post contains images BeechNut : Effect of too much weight is more than just on cruise fuel consumption. As pointed out there are the structural limitations. Unless the excess weight
65 NAV20 : Just applying Ockham's Razor, Zvezda, looking for the simplest explanation. Way back at the 'reveal' (January 2005?):- 1, Airlines were talking about
66 GEnxPower : From all I have heard, GE & PW (let's give PW credit here too) are indeed doing better in fuel burn than RR's Trents on the A380. Or at least, "RR, G
67 Jacobin777 : Of course, until the plane is at at the tarmac getting serviced for its next flight, nothing is certain..however, one does get a "general feel" by th
68 BOE773 : Would you happen to have a source for that information, GEnxPower? I would be interested....Thks. GE; leading the world's airlines ahead.
69 PVG : I don't get it. They can't deliver on time. The plane is overweight and will not allow its users to use it the way that they had originally planned to
70 Zvezda : The decision to use more Al wiring was made in August 2001. Airlines such as SQ and QF have fewer than the nominal number of seats in all their aircr
71 Zeke : Nav, You are missing a point, to offer a different product airlines are configuring their aircraft to differentiate them from older aircraft (read 74
72 Zeke : I was of the understanding that the seat count at SQ never changed, and QF dropped theirs to compete. They tell me that the QF inflight magazine rece
73 Sllevin : This also assumes that the Zero Fuel Weight of the aircraft will go up to cover the weight. If the ZFW remains the same, regardless of fuel consumpti
74 Post contains images Zvezda : Virtually all airliner cancellations take the form of VS's cancellation: a very long deferal that later becomes a conversion to another type. This is
75 Post contains images Ikramerica : This is likely the real cause. The new SQ business class is very inefficent in terms of space compared to the old Raffles Spacebed. When the A380 air
76 Post contains images Zvezda : I've had scores of flights in inclined flat seats (mostly on SQ and some on LH, plus a few on other carriers) and I like them. I don't slide down and
77 Post contains images Astuteman : It is, of course, entirely possible, and in fact, likely, that better than expected drag is in fact the prime cause of any reduced fuel burn. Airbus
78 Post contains links Zvezda : RE: Airbus A380 Range, HKG-LAX? (by PhilSquares Sep 4 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2309382 RE: SQ To Receive Its First A380 On ... (by PhilSquares Oct 2
79 Astuteman : Thanks for those, Zvezda. I shall read + inwardly digest. Regards
80 Post contains links Leelaw : ...Airbus has blamed a series of delays in getting the A380 ready for customers on wiring issues. But some industry analysts have speculated that wiri
81 Lumberton : It makes sense to the airline execs who ordered the aircraft originally. No doubt the boards, who also bought the business case, would be looking for
82 Post contains links NAV20 : I'm sure that a proportion of Al wiring was always intended, Zvezda. But wasn't one of the recent excuses for production delays that the proportion o
83 Zvezda : The increase was decided in August 2001.
84 Poitin : This seems to be the case from what I have seen. Originally, all the the large diameter wire -- power buses and such -- where to be AL and it was lat
85 OKelleyNYC : NAV20, this is something that I don't understand. Given that there is going to be a "struggle" between the airliners and the manufacturers of the air
86 NAV20 : As you suggest in your post, OkelleyNYC, we'd have to see the contract documentation to determine where the buck stops in this particular area. My GU
87 Post contains images Zvezda : Not all, just a lot more. Very small diameter wires are still copper, IIRC. Someone posted a link to an article about it within the last week, but I
88 OldAeroGuy : What you say above is true for the portion of the payload-range curve where the airplane becomes Max. Takeoff Weight (MTOW) limited. Unless Max. Zero
89 BoomBoom : Is this what you are referring to? SOURCE: For Airbus, Making Huge Jet Requires New Juggling Acts, WSJ May 27, 2004.
90 Zvezda : Thank you!
91 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1161...04801406594.html?mod=moj_companies
92 Post contains links TeamAmerica : Zvezda's reply37: or my own reply53: answers your question. As for my alleged bias, Did you bother to note that I said: In another thread Break-even
93 NAV20 : Thanks, BoomBoom. Funny about history - whatever you're researching, a battle or a political movement or a social trend or whatever - there's always
94 Poitin : Not according to what ElGreco said -- 24 ga is about as small as you can get. However, I hope you are right. I am looking to see which story is corre
95 Post contains images Lightsaber : I wish I could help. My sources are pretty tight lipped right now. You haven't seen the average American lately, have you? And I'm talking both conti
96 Poitin : But what electrical wire? The way it was explained to me was just the heavy gauge in 2001 and all, or almost all, including the IFE wiring in 2004. T
97 PolymerPlane : From my understanding reading Clark's statement, Airbus actually guarantees the MEW, not the OEW. OEW doesn't mean shit. MEW is weight of the aircraf
98 Post contains images Stitch : When announced, the A380 had the best CASM available. That will no longer be the case once the 787, 748, and A350 enter service, but will it still be
99 Ikramerica : i know. it's why I said, like AA, they are moving toward this product while others are running from it. yes, there are people who say they don't mind
100 Zvezda : The WhaleJet will have roughly the same CASM as the A350-1000, B747-8I, and B787-9/10. However, to be competitive, a larger airliner needs lower CASM
101 Baroque : Which would be all the more remarkable if the thing is a bit on the porky side!! It all looks like a mystery wrapped in a conundrum ........ We can o
102 TeamAmerica : The purchase price of the aircraft is a factor in operating costs. Given the discounts and compensation due to delays, the airlines are getting a bar
103 Rheinbote : Usually you have a number of "allowances" or "margins" factored into the design relative to "target" values as an "insurance". It's not uncommon to h
104 Zvezda : It's reasonably clear from Clark's quote that MEW is above guarantees.
105 Rheinbote : That would suggest to me that a) MEW is above target by more than 2-3% or b) the guaranteed MEW is frivolous.
106 Ken777 : And that might be the long term problem for Airbus and the 380 program. I believe Boeing is going to be pricing aggressively when putting the 748i up
107 Post contains links BoomBoom : What can I say, Mr. Clark is a very fussy customer. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9067-2425433,00.html
108 Post contains images Poitin : Maybe if he firm orders 45?
109 Post contains images TeamAmerica : EK wants a B748SP!?!
110 Rheinbote : Eventually Clark will find out that money can't buy everything. He's a potent but not at all the only customer. Unless he's willing to buy half the p
111 Stitch : More like the 747-500, which was to offer close to 9,000nm range.
112 TeamAmerica : The Times articles says EK wants a smaller B748, not just longer range. IIRC the 747-500 proposal had an extended upper deck...a bigger 747, not smal
113 Post contains images Stitch : Yes, the 745 would have held around 460 folks, so if Boeing can somehow eek another 700nm out of the 748I to get to 8700nm, she'd be the 747-500.
114 Post contains images Jacobin777 : While Boeing will certainly listen to EK, I think Boeing will listen to CX and BA just as much..especially BA who have a huge 747-400 fleet...granted
115 TeamAmerica : OK, I see what you mean, but my reading of the article is that Emirates wants the range and less than the 460 seats of the B748i (recognizing that se
116 Dougloid : The other thing we haven't seen on the A380 is anything resembling a CG envelope which could restrict loading even further. At this point we're talkin
117 Poitin : Unless Clark can order 50 for himself or get enough of his buddies to commit to to make up the difference, it probably will not be worth Boeings effo
118 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..yeppers, that's what I'm basically saying...
119 Post contains links Zeke : This would have to one of the poorest posts you have ever made, nothing factual about it. SQ would never start a new aircraft on such a route, I have
120 474218 : Didn't the A380 wing fail about 2% below where Airbus engineers said it would? Now the A380 weight is about 2% over what Airbus engineers said it woul
121 Poitin : Great minds think alike! Good question -- what is happening? No, they got a little carried away with their weight reducing -- about 30 kilos out of h
122 Stitch : That is true for SQ's new layout, but is it true for CX's? It just looks more like a furnishings and IFE improvement more then a significant increase
123 Zvezda : No, the wing breakage test depends on MTOW, not MEW or OEW.
124 Post contains links Khobar : Not that it really matters, but the original message is incorrect - the weight is not 11,000 lbs but rather 12127.5 because the article talks about to
125 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Been wearing glasses for over two decades... If you want to believe CX isn't looking into the 748 heavily over the A380 (or the earth is flat), then
126 Zeke : Please, you cannot read that anyway to mean "SQ originally had hoped to start the WhaleJet on SIN-HKG-SFO-HKG-SIN" which I replied to. It is a planne
127 Zeke : I am sure they are looking at all aircraft. In the mean time, back at what has been said, e.g. David Turnbull, CEO, "If Airbus do build the A3XX, cer
128 Post contains images Jacobin777 : And how long ago was that? not to mention this recent quote.. "Cathay has been considered a significant driver of the 747-8 program but has yet to co
129 Post contains links Zvezda : RE: SQ A380 First Flight? (by Philsquares Dec 8 2004 in Civil Aviation)#ID1852516
130 Post contains links TeamAmerica : 1st Quarter of 2000. (per http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/fa3xx.htm) Air Transport World, March 2005. http://www.atwonline.com/magazi
131 Zeke : My quotes go to show the thinking over the last five years, one a while back, one more recent, one from the CEO, one from the COO. Your excerpt does
132 Zeke : Thanks for finding that, as I said it is a planned destination, but to use that to say they wanted to start on that route is totally false.
133 Jacobin777 : How about this.. "Cathay Pacific Airways' love affair with the 747-400 is set to continue for "many years yet," according to COO Tony Tyler. "* *atwo
134 Zvezda : I suggest you read it again. Focus on the word "start". A few years back it was also reported in the aviation press that SQ planned to start their Wh
135 Zeke : Yep, and a number of additional 744 freighters and second hand 744 aircraft were purchased. They do not reflect statements directed at the 748. They
136 Post contains images Jacobin777 : If anything, it shows that if anything, CX isn't interested in expanding the amount of seats like some carriers such as EK are.... The 748I provides
137 Khobar : Are you suggesting SQ will only fly the A380 to those listed destinations and nowhere else? Interesting...
138 Ken777 : The SC eventually translated into a few orders for the 787. At the time Boeing was talking about the SC the airlines were very interested as they wer
139 Post contains images Astuteman : Until I see you interrogate "negative" A380/Airbus statements made recently on Airliners.net , like:- "The A380 break-even is well over 1000 frames n
140 Joni : From reading this you could almost get the impression that we're not discussing a plane that is set to meet/exceed it's performance targets. Which, o
141 Post contains links and images TeamAmerica : @Astuteman Hmmm...the "1,000 frames" comment was indeed me, and it was intended as hyperbole. My point in that thread was that breakeven is realistall
142 RIXrat : And who the hell is Zeke? He keeps popping up here, but there is no info on him. According to A.net, he doesn't exist. How can he just slip in?
143 Stitch : He is a pilot for CX, is he not?
144 RIXrat : Re Zeke, that's really cool. Have multiple servers and multiple E-mail addresses and you can start a topic and carry on a heated discussion with yours
145 Post contains images Zvezda : A tempermental pilot who knows more about some of the technical issues here than just about anyone and less about business and economics than just ab
146 Poitin : About right -- He says he lives in Hong Kong. He also knows the rules, FARS and such better than most ministers know the Bible.
147 RIXrat : Zvezda, So, Zeke is not your arch enemy Darth Vader (if I may date myself), but a decent fellow to have a fight with in the interests of who knows mor
148 Post contains images Zvezda : Yes, or at least know where to find them quickly. Oh my! I hope I don't have any enemies here. Naturally, there are some people here whom I have more
149 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Re: Zeke I think some of you missed an unfortunate exchange that occurred yesterday. Several posts have been deleted and I can only assume that there
150 Jacobin777 : Zeke is a very smart person, his knowledge and experience adds quite a bit to A.net...there are a couple of gripes I have against him (which I've told
151 Post contains images Astuteman : Quite possibly, TA, quite possibly. As I said, "snipping" at individuals is not generally in my nature, and therefore I will endeavour to take more c
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...
MktWch/Reuters: VS Says It Could Change A380 Order posted Mon Jul 17 2006 16:52:50 by N328KF
EK: Largest A380 & 748 Customer!?! posted Mon Oct 16 2006 22:46:23 by Soundtrack
EK (?) Orders 3-5-3 A380... posted Mon Apr 11 2005 12:15:59 by 764
Eads Co-head Says A380 Flight In April posted Thu Mar 3 2005 09:04:36 by Jacobin777
Boeing Says A380 No Match For 747 In Orders posted Wed Jan 12 2005 23:04:21 by Jacobin777
More Talk That The A380 Is Overweight posted Fri Jun 18 2004 21:45:00 by BCAInfoSys
UTA Plane Crash - 727 Was 10 Tons Overweight posted Tue Mar 30 2004 00:03:36 by BA
EK's Tim Clark On A380: "We Need That Aircraft" posted Tue Nov 7 2006 23:15:42 by PlaneHunter
Emirates Tim Clark On EK A380 Order.. posted Tue Nov 7 2006 22:35:09 by Keesje
Clark Says EK Has Cancelled A340 posted Fri Oct 27 2006 17:40:27 by Lumberton