I'm not sure why you are trying to stir things up here. IMHO you are throwing in your opinions without really backing them up. However I like these discussions if they are based on facts or thoughts, so I'll jump on the bandwagon here . . .
Hype? Yes! That's what they pay their sales department for. And Leahy is doing a good job on it . . .
How can some off you praise the A380. It's still not in the air. Parts are being assembled but the total picture is still on the drawing board
So we should refrain from praising aircraft until they have proven themselves in airline services. Sure is going to be quiet and boring on these forums . . .
Like people will praise Boeing for SC and now 7E7, like praising EMB for their new 170-195 range, people are keen to see new and bold product launches. Launching new airliners is an extremely rare thing these days, launching a new airliner that is bigger than the world has ever seen before will attract lots of attention [at least on these forums anyway!].
MTOW, power, speed, range. We all don't know. We have to believe Airbus for these figures. But can we trust Airbus. I doubt it, every salesperson will say his product can do the job when in fact it can't
You don't trust anybody but yourself. But apparently these untrusty Airbus figures were good enough to sell 120 airframes [with another 100 orso options] each valued at 150-240 million US Dollar [depending on discount volume]. Don't think reputable airlines of the likes of LH, AF, SQ [not to mention the EK-hype] would be investing billions of Dollars if they did not receive some sort of guarantee on these untrusty figures . . . you can rest assured that at stage of development their figures are accurate to within 1-2%.
The B747 is real, she flies, she's real, she breathes
Like it's been doing for 35 years now. Time to get retired and replaced with something more modern. [Pls no flamebait - not saying the 747 should be retired, just playing devil's advocate and showing the other side of the coin in this arguement . . .]. The DC-3 should never have been replaced.
Swimming pool, tennis court, bars, nightclubs all of these things can be on board of an A380. Yeah right, seats will fill up the plane, 100, 1000 who knows how many they can fit in
You know what . . . this is my favourite arguement. Many people [like yourself] don't realize that they just came up with a very strong sales-reason for the A380: Airbus has designed a plane whith "swimming pools, tennis courts, bars, nightclubs etc" that has better economics than current platforms. Take-out these features and replace them with even more seats and economics of this plane will be mind blowing! ["small' detail, is Airbus going to certify for more than 555 pax . . . ?].
That's also why EK has ordered so many of them. Most of them are going to be loaded with seats. EK doesn't need so many frequencies on their hub-orientated operation. One A380 will carry close the load of two 772's over on the same route. On some very long 15hrs+ routes they will throw in some specials for their premium customers [no tennis courts unfortunately]. You can count on it that these specials can not be matched by any other platform without destroying economics. So the A380 will be able to bring them two very distinct business opportunities: very-high capacity cattle class transport, and premium transport with unmatched space and specials.
The main question off course will be: how important are frequencies going to be on long haul markets. This will drive the market split between 747NG/A380 and 340/777/7E7 over next decades. The hype that Airbus is creating with the A380 is to try steer the market towards the hub-orientated operation. Boeing is doing the opposite hype with the 7E7. Reality will be somewhere in between.
I think that we can agree on at least one thing in your post: Time will tell . . . .
Edited for spelling
[Edited 2004-03-07 12:19:18]
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"