Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Great Article On A380  
User currently offlineVictor009 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 109 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14992 times:

Found a great article on A380, its birth, ups and downs, joy and sorrows. After all the criticism's the aircraft is gone through its come out in flying colours. A380 has out performed and shocked the people who were involved in the program with some great results and performances in all conditions.

Hope all goes well with the entry and more orders to flow in soon. Well the trend is already began with

BA with 12
Group Marson with 4 and looks like
NWA, IT, 9W, AI and also few Japanese airlines closing monitor SQ's A380 .

Hope you like the article, enjoy

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9944806


Regards

VJC


XWB- The one to fly.
78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNema From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 14993 times:

Well i agree, it is a very nice article, just wait now for the.... 'Boeing, i only like you' ...a.net members to find reason to rip it apart as they tend to on this aviation enthusiasts website!!!

I like all aircraft and their manufacturers by the way.



There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 14993 times:

Quoting Victor009 (Thread starter):
looks like NWA, IT, 9W, AI and also few Japanese airlines closing monitor SQ's A380

IT 9W AI sure
NW JL NH mostly a.net conjecture turned "fact"



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineVictor009 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 14753 times:

Quoting Nema (Reply 1):
Well i agree, it is a very nice article, just wait now for the.... 'Boeing, i only like you' ...a.net members to find reason to rip it apart as they tend to on this aviation enthusiasts website!!!

Totally agree mate, i hope they dont do it

its like press comparing A380 vs B787, they got no clue sometimes what they write

Regards
VJC



XWB- The one to fly.
User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1569 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14753 times:

Hrm... that may just work as a source for a paper I have to write. (Granted, I got to pick the topic, but finding sources that could be deemed "Credible" has been somewhat taxing)

Good article either way, though.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2213 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14753 times:

Quoting Nema (Reply 1):
Well i agree, it is a very nice article

No wonder, much of it is sourced from Wikipedia... compare them side by side and similarities are striking (although I wouldn't call it plagiarism, since there is a lot of rephrasing)  Smile


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14753 times:

Awwe, don't fret guys -- we'll be nice!

My favorite part of the article is this quote:

"Few industries are more given to self-dramatisation than the aviation business."

The author must be an a-netter junkie!


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 14753 times:

Also, while the A380 may be trying to kill off the 747, Boeing's biggest "cash cow" over the years has to be the 737 series. Second would have to be the 777 at this point, a high cash margin widebody with only 6 versions and 1000 orders so far. The 747, while it sold 1400+, went through a great deal of derivative development that must have cost a pretty penny. 747-100, 200, SP, 300, SR, D, 400, 400ER, plus all the cargo and combi versions, and now the 748I and 748F. Not to mention the crashes that likely cost them a pretty penny in legal costs.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineNorlander From Faroe Islands, joined Sep 2007, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14753 times:

Nice article, good rundown of the program. Personally I think that the market for A380s is not as gloomy as most think, as I see the airline industry following the similar trends of other industries. The growth will be in both no-frills and high comfort. What is left behind is the middle product, the business class product as it was defined in the 1990s. On the no-frills the A380 competes with it's huge capability and this article quotes SQ officials proclaiming the A380 having an edge in the high comfort segment as well.

If they manage to equip the A380 business/first sections to become the best office in the sky, they'll have an unbeatable market for connecting the financial capitals of the world. Which coincidently are the same cities that see the VLA traffic today. This becomes most apparent when comparing the top 20 list in Economist article with Global city network analysis done by Prof. Peter Taylor. The overlap is quite striking with only a few cities not appearing on both lists.



Longtime Lurker
User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2116 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14753 times:

Very good article. I think the Singapore Airlines comments are very true. When this hits SQ service, then flying other carriers 744's will be a bit of a let down. What they have done with the 773ER was excellent, and introducing it to the 380 will have people wanting to fill it (me for one).

Quoting Nema (Reply 1):
Well i agree, it is a very nice article, just wait now for the.... 'Boeing, i only like you' ...a.net members to find reason to rip it apart as they tend to on this aviation enthusiasts website!!!



Quoting Victor009 (Reply 3):
Totally agree mate, i hope they dont do it

Reply 1 and 3 why even write this!!! You are asking for a response, which then starts the playground fights! I am interested in the 380 and other peoples comments on the 380, taunting others to comment starts the topic interest collapse in my eyes. Just hope nobody responds and ruins another 380 post.


User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13530 times:

Nice article , thanks for sharing .

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13530 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Good article. Nice summation.

Hopefully one day someone will do an exhaustive article on her like The Seattle Times did for the 757 and 767. Or a book about the entire program.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13531 times:

"Singapore believes that life for 747 operators, such as All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines, faced with direct competition from airlines flying the A380 will be hard. Mr Forshaw adds: “A lot of customers are sitting back, but they'll have to move at some point. We're very confident this aircraft really is a game-changer and everybody will have to play by the new rules.”"
I remember a thread not too long ago were many people were arguing this exact statement as it was made by a fellow a.net member, looks like his opinion is shared with people in the business.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13530 times:

Good article by the Economist. This is a great endorsement of the 380 coming from its blue-chip launch customer. It looks like first impressions obtained during pilot training and other flights are good. Lets wait for more of such comments once the big bird enters commercial service.

Quote: 'The debate about hubs versus point-to-point flying is also a largely sterile one: one doesn't exclude the other and it will be horses for courses.

This is a great summary of the p2p v h2h debate. There is room for both points of view in the market. I guess both marketing departments have fuelled this debate.

Quote: 'Boeing's emotional investment in the 747 and the difficulty it has in coming to terms with the end of its long reign as the flagship of long-haul travel is understandable'

Hmm... Does this explain some of the mud slinging at the 380?



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1082 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13530 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Good article. Nice summation.

Hopefully one day someone will do an exhaustive article on her like The Seattle Times did for the 757 and 767. Or a book about the entire program.

Like this?
http://books.google.com/books?id=KcaYjPhRnWUC&dq=A380+book&psp=1



DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlineNema From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13530 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5):
No wonder, much of it is sourced from Wikipedia

Rather bold statement to suggest the article was sourced from Wikipedia and not in fact the other way round. From where do you qualify your direct comment? As i understand it, Wikipedia is a a free content, multilingual encyclopedia written collaboratively by contributors around the world that anybody can edit or add too.



There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10895 posts, RR: 37
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13530 times:

I love only Concorde.  wave 

I like other planes. All the other planes. That also includes Boeing.  airplane 

I wish commercial success to the A380 and a long life up in the air.  veryhappy 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13530 times:

Quoting Swallow (Reply 13):
Quote: 'Boeing's emotional investment in the 747 and the difficulty it has in coming to terms with the end of its long reign as the flagship of long-haul travel is understandable'

That is the basis for some of it. Airport issues, evacuation requirements, and wake turbulence are other reasons for skepticism, but these are red herrings. They are non-issues or have been solved. The more intelligent reasons a lot of knowledgeable people are skeptical about the A380 can be summed up as follows...

1. By Airbus's own admission, almost all of its CASM advantage comes from size alone. The technological advantage the plane has over predecessors like the 777 and 747 was used up by the need to carry the weight of a 2nd deck, the need to allow for the freighter and stretched versions, and the need to avoid being too big to use existing airports.

2. The Aforemented Freighter version has a limited market and may never be built. The 747-8 is more efficient in all cargo markets except package freight - and the biggest package freight hauler (Fed Ex), has canceled its order. The A380 cannot carry outsize freight like the 747 can. It has a longer range, but this is not as important to cargo haulers. The 747-8 the only very large, new freighters on the market now - although conversions and the 777/A330 provide some indirect competition. Freight is the bread and butter of the very large aircraft market.

3. The A380 and 747-8 are the last planes built with pre-787 technology. Because of the new tech and the inefficiencies mentioned in #1 above, the A380 has a similar CASM range to the 787 and the planned A350. This will likely push a lot of traffic onto smaller planes, because smaller planes have lower trip costs, a better revenue mix, and allow more frequencies. This is Zvezda's argument and I find it persuasive. Though there is a limited market for both planes, the 747-8 is in a better position to be profitable because it requires only a 2-3 billion dollar initial investment,
versus a 12-15 billion dollar investment in the A380.

4.The aforementioned technological disadvantage is especially tough on the propose A380-900 and-700. By the time these are built, the A380 will likely be technologically obsolete. Boeing's "Y3" will be in the pipeline. Stretched , improved versions of the A350 and 787 will beat them decisively in CASM. In the vast majority of markets, you can't compete with a smaller plane unless you have lower CASM. Even if there was a large enough market, a lot of resources that were planned for these later versions will have to go to the A350. So the A380 will have to succeed with the A380-800 or not at all. It is difficult to imagine any new airliner succeeding unless it has at least some prospect for being a member of a "family". Only children do not do well in this industry.

5. A large percentage of the A380's market is from Emirates. If I read things correctly, no other airframe has as large a percentage of its orders from Emirates as the A380 does. If Emirates fails, a lot of money now credited to the A380 program will no longer come in.


Skepticism of the A380 does not necessarily equal hatred of Airbus, or belief is Boeing's inherent superiority. Even if current thinking is correct and the A380 never makes back anything close to its development cost, Airbus will survive. Boeing has been in worse shape than Airbus is in now and recovered. Boeing is also very prone to complacency - as we may now be seeing in its response to the A350. Airbus's A350 and their cost cutting restructuring program are the main things to watch if one is interested in Airbus's future. How much money they lose with the A380 is much less important.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10553 times:

Quoting Swallow (Reply 13):
This is a great summary of the p2p v h2h debate. There is room for both points of view in the market.

Of course there is, and not many have denied this. The issue boiled down to whether there was enough market for the A380 to become profitable for Airbus. You could easily have 400 A380s placed with very satisfied customers, but Airbus having a poor ROI on the project.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10553 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 18):
You could easily have 400 A380s placed with very satisfied customers, but Airbus having a poor ROI on the project.

Though that is driven more now because of the delays and cost overruns that delay introduced.


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10554 times:

Quoting Swallow (Reply 13):
end of its [747] long reign as the flagship of long-haul travel

- VLAs are no longer "flagships of long-haul travel". In addition to being the biggest you need to get appropriate market share. 747 was already far from getting enough orders to keep this status (however, may be still keeping it by number of currently flying machines). It's yet to be seen whether 380 gets such a market share, but the "flagship" title hardly will be inherited from 747 - since 747 would hardly be able to keep it to the moment 380 "is ready".

Oh, and as for this:

Quoting Nema (Reply 1):
'Boeing, i only like you' ...a.net members to find reason to rip it apart as they tend to on this aviation enthusiasts website!!!



Quoting Victor009 (Reply 3):
Totally agree mate, i hope they dont do it

- so, where are those "a.net members"? I asked a question, I'm waiting.


User currently offlineWolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 488 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10554 times:

Quoting RIX (Reply 20):
- so, where are those "a.net members"? I asked a question, I'm waiting.

You don't have a lot of patience if you're already waiting before you've hit the post message button.  Wink


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10555 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 12):
I remember a thread not too long ago were many people were arguing this exact statement as it was made by a fellow a.net member, looks like his opinion is shared with people in the business.

No, it's shared with the launch customer who's staked their future on the plane. Whether it comes to pass or not, what do you expect them to say? They are pushing hard to create an aura around their A380.

Again, the problem is, they have already proven you don't need an A380 to provide this level of product. You can provide it on a 77W. And should they choose, they can put "R" class on the 77W. You can provide it on an A345 (just as EK). So the bizarre idea that 744 operators will need to buy an A380 is one I don't get. JL and NH are already putting top new products on their own 77Ws. Other carriers are following suit in India. There is nothing stopping them from putting better product on the 744s they have now, or a 748, or an A350-1000 for that matter.

Despite all the SQ hoopla, the A380 is a flying container in which you can put "stuff." Don't get me wrong. It's a big, new, wonderful flying container. I want to fly on it, to see what it's like. But you can put the same "stuff" in other aircraft should you desire. And I want to fly on them, too!



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10554 times:

Quoting Wolbo (Reply 21):
You don't have a lot of patience if you're already waiting before you've hit the post message button.  Wink

But I already typed it in, man... and pressed "Preview The Post"!  Smile Or, actually, you may be right: it should have said, "I'll be waiting right from the moment I press "Post Message"...  Wink

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 22):
they can put "R" class on the 77W

SQ going supersonic?!! Oh, actually, they already did it once  Smile...

Quoting Columba (Reply 12):
this aircraft really is a game-changer

- I'm yet to see this game that is going to be changed, and why life of those "faced with direct competition from airlines flying the A380 will be hard" . You need the capacity - you get it, disregard what your competitor is doing. You don't need the capacity - you'll make your life hard if you do get it - again, disregard what your competitor is doing. I also don't quite understand, BTW, how 787 is a game changer - it's just more efficient, which allows to open more routes in addition to what is already well known as point-to-point. Unless game changing (in case of 787/350) is that VLAs immediately lost their seat-mile cost advantage. Still, not a "revolution", as, again, whoever needs the capacity will get VLA.

Last true game changers were Comet/B707/DC8/VC10/Tu104...


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2213 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10556 times:

Quoting Nema (Reply 15):
Rather bold statement to suggest the article was sourced from Wikipedia and not in fact the other way round.

In fact the other way around is downright impossible, since the material in the Wikipedia article pre-dates the Economist article.

Quoting Nema (Reply 15):
From where do you qualify your direct comment?

I am one of the major contributors to that article, and I know it very well, having edited all parts of it at one time or another over the past two years. Reading certain passages of the Economist article rang a bell rather strongly. Compare for yourself.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 17):
The A380 and 747-8 are the last planes built with pre-787 technology.

That is either an uncharitable statement, or an ignorant one. The 787 and A380 are of roughly similar technology vintage, except for the extent of CFRP usage. Even so, each A380 contains a similar amount of CFRP (~35,000 kg) as a 787-- fractionally less, of course, but nevertheless a surprise to many A380 detractors. The A380 even has power-by-wire flight control actuators, something the 'more electric' 787 still does using traditional triple-redundant hydraulics. There is no doubt that the 787 is very technologically advanced, but I object to your lumping the A380 into the same technology category as the 747-8 (with flight control cables and pulleys-- heavens!)

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 17):
Though there is a limited market for both planes, the 747-8 is in a better position to be profitable because it requires only a 2-3 billion dollar initial investment, versus a 12-15 billion dollar investment in the A380.

What matters for market share is how profitable each choice might be for the airlines, not for the respective manufacturers. The airlines don't care if Airbus lost their shirt building the A380... if they see a good plane, then they'll buy it (either A380 or 747-8)

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 17):
The aforementioned technological disadvantage is especially tough on the propose A380-900 and-700. By the time these are built, the A380 will likely be technologically obsolete. Boeing's "Y3" will be in the pipeline. Stretched , improved versions of the A350 and 787 will beat them decisively in CASM.

The -700 will never be built. The -900, if it is built, will not be anything close to 'technologically obsolete'. The bigger CFRP twins, even a future tube-with-wings 'Y3', may match it on CASM, but will definitely not beat it by any decisive margin. (This is a common misconception among CFRP fans... the 787 gets most of its efficiency boost from engines and systems, not structures.) The fuel burn numbers in particular look very favorable for an A389, as has been previously discussed in A389 threads. Of course, 'Zvezda's law' is that a smaller airplane need not beat the bigger airplane's CASM-- merely match it.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 17):
So the A380 will have to succeed with the A380-800 or not at all.

Flawed premises do lead to flawed conclusions.  checkmark 

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 22):
Again, the problem is, they have already proven you don't need an A380 to provide this level of product. You can provide it on a 77W. And should they choose, they can put "R" class on the 77W. You can provide it on an A345 (just as EK). So the bizarre idea that 744 operators will need to buy an A380 is one I don't get.

The A380 is quieter and smoother, and burns much less fuel per kg of payload. This not only enhances a given cabin product, but makes it more cost-effective to operate. To turn your argument around, I doubt you'd still agree if I said that you could realistically put an "R" class product on an L-1011. Big grin


25 RIX : - but what he - apparently - means by "position to be profitable", is profitability for manufacturer... - these seem to be in contradiction to each o
26 NEMA : Come on Rix, youve been a member since 2000 so dont deny your awareness of the obvious
27 Cloudy : That is not the opinion of most of the aviation community. By a long shot. Just about everyone from the AW&ST editors to Aboufia and Boyd acknowledge
28 RIX : - the obvious thing since 2000 is that pretty often some "enthusiasts" start, to put it polite, "trash-talk" here. The obvious thing in this thread i
29 Post contains images WingedMigrator : my poorly expressed point was that in terms of technology, the A380 is much closer to the 787 than it is to the 748, hence my objection to lumping th
30 Post contains images Cloudy : Well, an editing slip. First I was going to say "Nobody is saying that the A380 is a bad plane". When changing it to "Nobody is denying that the A380
31 Ikramerica : That first part is true, it's quieter. The smoother, we'll have to see in practice, as the 777 is not exactly a bumpy aircraft. As the for the last p
32 Post contains images WingedMigrator : very well summarized. I see we agree
33 NEMA : Interesting and appreciated reply WingedMigrator, are there copyright lnfringements then? I think that you are a trouble maker, you know exactly what
34 Post contains images RIX : - so, you started trash-talk in hope no more trash talk would appear? Quite a way to keep the place free of junk - starting to put it oneself. "Keep
35 Tdscanuck : I'm not sure I agree with that. From a systems architecture point of view, the 747-8 and A380 are quite similar. Material selections are largely the
36 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I know you mentioned this in your post..but here's a nice little graphic ........and only 15 minutes away from my house.. Now would I love to see thi
37 Post contains images WingedMigrator : 10 minutes from mine Structure: A380 is 25% CFRP... GLARE is 2% or so, gets a lot of press, but is not a significant factor. First airliner with a CF
38 Express1 : Ain't it funny, Boeing were laughing at Airbus when they had problems with the A380, now the tables are turned, its Airbus who's turn it is to now ret
39 GDB : I'm sure I'm not the only one here who spits blood at much of what I see in the general press on aviation. But, The Economist is not really 'the gener
40 Stitch : For the most part, Boeing and Airbus have both staked the "high ground" when it comes to discussing the problems each other's programs have undergone
41 Post contains links Zeke : I doubt that figure for the 748 is accurate, the "simple" 773ER/772LR derivative cost more than "2-3 billion". The A380 development is at about 18 bi
42 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...we'll have to have a "BWB Meetup" sometime.. ...? Provide just one form of proof of that....if anything, Boeing has taken the opposite view... ...
43 Tdscanuck : Done. Boeing didn't say anything even remotely resembling a giggle regarding the A380 delays. I think you're confusing Boeing-boosters and the press
44 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Another way of saying that there is more to CASM than fuel burn. A good thing to remind ourselves.
45 Tdscanuck : I must amend that...the pneumatics also do engine start, except on the 787. Tom.
46 Post contains links Zeke : Yeah right, he has been quoted in the past week of so about 300 times being positive and upbeat about the 787 delays, he never once was like that abo
47 Post contains images Stitch : Which is what they only really can do with each other, since a 787/A350 serve trunk-to-trunk routes adequately and an A380 can't serve trunk-to-point
48 Tdscanuck : On that we are in agreement. The A380 can't fly with total electric failure. No FBW airliner can. Yes, I looked at it. I have no quibble with Alcoa's
49 Zeke : Every FBW aircraft I have flown can, its called emergency electrical configuration. All conventional electrical busses are not available. I don't thi
50 Stitch : that should be "cannot serve"...
51 RIHNOSAUR : " target=_blank>http://books.google.com/books?id=Kca...psp=1 HEY !! I have this book!!!! It was a gift from my wife, I love it it, I truly recommend i
52 Tdscanuck : If you have an emergency electrical configuration, you still have electric power somewhere. By definition, that's not a total electrical failure. It'
53 777STL : #1. Boeing wasn't laughing at anyone, that's the nature of business, it could just as easily happen to B. #2. The problems Boeing is having aren't an
54 Stitch : I see them as equals, in that they were both issues that the parent corporation thought they had under control, but in reality did not. Airbus believ
55 777STL : In black and white terms, yes. But a problem with second party companies, outside of the company, is much more understandable than an internal proble
56 TristarSteve : But the difference is that the two air starters you need for a B777 are available at airports the world over, The two you need for a B787 will be new
57 Stitch : But many have argued that Boeing should have kept closer tabs on their suppliers and just "taken their word for it". Boeing had delivery targets that
58 Jacobin777 : You don't have to take my word for it, you can certainly look up the information yourself.......but there is ostensibly a fundamental difference in t
59 Tdscanuck : The 787 isn't supposed to require any new ground equipment...it's got two ground power receptacles just like a 777. If you can power a 777 you can po
60 Cwillett : testing the search: DC10
61 Zeke : Tom, As far I know the 777 has 2 GPU connectors, and the A380 has 4, one for each bus. But in reality, none are required for a ground start, that can
62 Aither : My mountain bike has more percent of carbon fiber than the 787... so that makes my bike more technologically advanced than the 787 !!! There is a lot
63 Tdscanuck : OK, now I understand what you're getting at, sorry for being slow on the uptake. Yes, I agree with your understanding, a 787 with no APU will need tw
64 AirframeAS : Thats a pretty inaccurate statement considering that the A380 hasn't seen pax service nor making any money yet.
65 RIX : The idea of original A350 would work perfectly well then. Somehow, Airbus decided to go the same moronic way as Boeing did. Apparently, you didn't sh
66 Stitch : It did both, yesterday, though the monies did admittedly go to charity.
67 Post contains images Astuteman : The question, though, is how economically this can be done on other aircraft....... With the caveat that the CFRP wings, designed as such from the ou
68 Flysherwood : Messrs. Gallois even admits that the break even point of the A380 is higher than the current projection of 420 frames.
69 AirframeAS : I thought SQ isn't putting the plane into service until Oct 25th as been rumored on these forums....
70 Stitch : It flew paying passengers. I define that as "pax service". *shrug*
71 OldAeroGuy : Did it? I thought the charity flight would be from Singapore to Sydney.
72 Stitch : Darned if I know. Maybe it was just a publicity flight. Anyway, the thing is going to fly in revenue service in a matter of weeks, if not days. So I
73 OldAeroGuy : No stone tossing intended.
74 Post contains images Stitch : My apologies, sir. It was intended as a general comment, not a direct one.
75 Tdscanuck : To be fair, all of the known engineering data for the A380 suggests that's it's technically fantastic...meets or exceeds all expectations for perform
76 Victor009 : Thanx Tdscanuck, thats what i meant. Regards VJC
77 Post contains images Astuteman : Despite being acknowledged by the manufacturer as c. 5t overweight......... Be interesting to see how the weight-reduction programme affects performa
78 OldAeroGuy : This was compensated by offering a 9t takeoff weight increase (560t to 569t).
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...
Cool Video On A380 posted Thu Oct 4 2007 21:30:50 by Victor009
SQ To Put PC In Every Seat On A380 posted Mon Aug 27 2007 01:04:11 by WGW2707
SQ Suites On A380 posted Fri Aug 17 2007 08:02:50 by UA777322
CX Holding Off On A380; Interested In 787/350 posted Wed Aug 15 2007 13:37:02 by Kaitak
Anyone Announced Seating Plans On A380's? posted Sun Aug 12 2007 06:37:40 by CXfirst
A350 Avionics To Expand On A380 Systems posted Mon Jul 16 2007 15:24:52 by EI321
Any Updates On A380 Progress? posted Tue Jul 10 2007 17:14:07 by GRIVely
Carson Vs. Leahy On A380 Airshow Stunts posted Wed Jun 27 2007 23:08:33 by WingedMigrator
Main Deck 10 Abreast On A380, Unrealistic? 11? posted Sat May 5 2007 01:37:28 by Keesje
3 Point Seatbelts On A380? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 18:41:35 by Readytotaxi