victor009
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:51 am

Great Article On A380

Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:46 pm

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.
 
nema
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:18 am

Great Article On A380

Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:21 pm

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!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Great Article On A380

Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:31 pm

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.
 
victor009
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:51 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:59 am

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 avatar
antoniemey
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:38 pm

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:20 am

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.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:40 am

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
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1549
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:10 am

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!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:43 am

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.
 
Norlander
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:39 pm

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:28 am

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
 
col
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:47 am

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 avatar
OA260
Posts: 20987
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:38 pm

Nice article , thanks for sharing .
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:43 pm

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.
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:16 pm

"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
 
swallow
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:23 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:32 pm

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
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:48 pm

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
 
nema
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:18 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:45 pm

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!
 
MadameConcorde
Posts: 9199
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:08 pm

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:56 pm

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
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:16 pm

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.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:22 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:30 pm

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.
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:28 pm

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.
 
wolbo
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:09 pm

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:01 pm

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
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:12 pm

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.
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:39 pm

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...
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:36 pm

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
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:08 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
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.

- but what he - apparently - means by "position to be profitable", is profitability for manufacturer...

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
The 787 and A380 are of roughly similar technology vintage, except for the extent of CFRP usage.



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
the 787 gets most of its efficiency boost from engines and systems, not structures

- these seem to be in contradiction to each other... 787 is of about the same technology as 380, but has comparable CASM disregard being much smaller, but this efficiency comes not from structure but "engines and systems" - that is what I would call technology... Am I not getting something?
 
nema
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:18 am

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Come on Rix, youve been a member since 2000 so dont deny your awareness of the obvious
There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

Great Article On A380

Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:58 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
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.

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 that the 787 is far beyond the A380 in tech.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
The 787 and A380 are of roughly similar technology vintage, except for the extent of CFRP usage.

That makes about as much sense as saying that the DC7 is of the same technological vintage as a Caravelle or Comet.
Again, very few people in a position to know have that view of the facts - and those that do tend to have some sort of connection to Airbus. Airbus itself would not be building the A350 if it did not think the 787 was a game changer. Before their customers convinced them of this, some of their spokesmen even called the 787 a "warmed over 767". Fortunatly, Airbus's newer bosses seem to be smarter than that. Lets hope they are also more honest.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
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.

What matters is the percent of carbon fiber by weight or by volume. The 787 has much, much more of the stuff when you measure this way. That is indisputable. Since the 787 and A380 are not of equal size, a comparison of just the weight of carbon fiber used is meaningless. I could easily have the same amount of body fat as a marathon runner - does that make me healthy? Unfortunately, it is the percent of fat that matters in that case.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
The A380 even has power-by-wire flight control actuators, something the 'more electric' 787 still does using traditional triple-redundant hydraulics.

The 787 is almost all electric. It uses almost no blead air. The A380 has bleed air all over the place. We could go on and on here. There may be a few odd things that the A380 is superior in, but for the things that matter the 787 has it better. What extra tech advantage the A380 does have over the 777 and A340 is mostly used to carry its extra deck and accommodate existing airports - there was little margin left to provide an economic advantage. The A380 does have a significant CASM advantage over the 747-400, 777 etc. but that is almost entirely due to size. Again, Airbus admits this.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
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!)

The 747-8 does not have to carry as much weight to support its second deck as the A380. Boeing put a lot of 787 tech in it - these are many of the "systems" you mentioned as contributors to the efficiency of the 787. As you mention, engines are a big contributor to fuel economy. The 787-800 will take its engines from the 787 - and these are more modern than those installed on the A380. The 747-8 is fully optimized for its current size - no allowances are made for growth. That also adds efficiency. For passengers, the 747-8 has a slightly higher CASM than the A380 - which is understandable due to the size difference. So for passenger carriers it comes down to what size of plane you need. For cargo, the 747-8 wins hands down in all but a select few markets.

I would predict that in overall orders (passengers + freight) the 747-8 will eventually get at least as many orders as the A380-800.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
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.)

CFRP not only has a sizable weight advantage over aluminum - it also allows more flexibility with the shape of the plane and the positioning of its systems. It is simpler to assemble and easier to repair. Plus, a clean sheet design has advantages of its own over derivatives. Even if a big twin only matches the A380-900 in CASM, it will be preferred because of the advantages of smaller planes. The A350 and the 787-10 are already projected to beat or match the A380-800's CASM, despite the latter's size advantage. Build a family of 787 tech planes the size of the A380 family and you have decisively beet the A380 in CASM.

The marvel of the 787's structure is that it can get any significant gains from it at all. From the 707 to the 777 - just about all the efficiency gains in airplanes have come from engines and systems, with a little bit contributed by aerodynamic advances. It is true that more than half of the 787's gains also come from engines and systems. But a lot also comes from the airframe - for the first time in recent memory. That is made possible by CFRP.

Also, keep in mind that many of the 787's systems can be made still better. Boeing switched from bleed air to electric not because of the savings they can get now, but because progress in that field makes much greater savings possible later. 787 tech can get much better then pre-787 tech can. For example - The A380-900 will still be stuck with the same bleed air systems as the -800, but electric systems in any new frame would be much better then we now see in the 787-8. There are many other threads and sites that go into reasons for this....

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
Of course, 'Zvezda's law' is that a smaller airplane need not beat the bigger airplane's CASM-- merely match it.

That is true. The 787-8 comes close to matching the A380's CASM, yet it is half its size. This is like a 70 seat regional jet matching a 737-700 in costs per seat mile. Do you have any idea what would happen to the A320/737 series if you could match their CASM with a large RJ? My wild guess is that there would be only a quarter the number of 737 sized planes as there are in real life.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
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.

(than the current 777)

The main reason many A380's are going to be used for luxury travel is that it has a larger floor area per unit of weight carrying capacity than other planes. It has little to do with any advantages it has over previous aircraft. You fly in perfect luxury on a DC-8 if that's your thing. If you have an A380- high-class traffic will make more money with it or lose less, in many situations. However - this large amount of floor space has cost the whale jet most of the freight market, and has added a bunch of weight that competing types do not need to carry. Thats what comes from building a mostly aluminum plane with a second full length deck. Also an A380 with fewer, larger seats is easier to fill. That doesn't necessarily make it more profitable for the airline

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
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)

That is true. I was speaking from the perspective of a manufacturer. Do you seriously believe that, if allowed to turn back the clock, that Airbus would again make the decision to build the A380? Will they ever break even on it? I can't see how any honest observer would believe that, given its high costs and the A350/787's unbelievable advances. Airbus's current statements, and those of others with interests in the project, come simply from a desire to make the best of a bad decision and are entirely predictable. The vast majority of neutral observers believe the A380 was a mistake at least from the perspective of profitability, and in the long term, market share as well.

Nobody is denying that the A380 is a bad plane, or even that it will make money for some operators. The DC-7 and Concord were fine airframes also. But they were not successfull in economic terms.
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:21 am

Quoting NEMA (Reply 26):
youve been a member since 2000 so dont deny your awareness of the obvious

- 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 is that some particular "enthusiast" decided to post exactly the kind of junk that starts "wars", ruins topics and makes this forum worse place than it should be. Absolutely obvious thing is that I still did not get answer on my question, nor any explanation of what the above mentioned junk was intended to mean. Still waiting.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:46 am

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 27):
Just about everyone from the AW&ST editors to Aboufia and Boyd acknowledge that the 787 is far beyond the A380 in tech.

 checkmark  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 the 748 and A380 together in the same bag. They're both very good airplanes, but they are of a different technology vintage.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 27):
What matters is the percent of carbon fiber by weight or by volume. The 787 has much, much more of the stuff when you measure this way. That is indisputable.

I would certainly not dispute that. I was just pointing out a fact that comes as a considerable surprise to people who view the A380 as just another aluminum airplane. I don't count you among those; you obviously know better.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 27):
The 787 is almost all electric. It uses almost no blead air. The A380 has bleed air all over the place.

 checkmark  and solid state variable frequency generators are not unique to the 787.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 27):
We could go on and on here.

Well, could we? I'm sort of at a loss. There are technologies found on either airplane that you won't find on the other, and many technologies found in both. I'm just not so sure one list is so much longer than the other, as you seem to imply.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 27):
CFRP not only has a sizable weight advantage over aluminum

This raises another interesting conundrum... why is the 767-300ER more structurally efficient than the 787-8 ? (it's a nice puzzler... the answer is that CFRP can be used to make a high aspect ratio wing with better L/D, without adding too much weight... thus increasing the overall efficiency of the airplane, if not the structural efficiency.)

Don't get me wrong: CFRP is a superior material, but its advantages don't always show up where you might expect.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 27):
Even if a big twin only matches the A380-900 in CASM, it will be preferred because of the advantages of smaller planes.

 checkmark  that is why the A380's slice of the market will never be proportional to the 747's. However, even if the slice is smaller, the pie is becoming a whole lot bigger.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 27):
Build a family of 787 tech planes the size of the A380 family and you have decisively beet the A380 in CASM.

Not decisively, unless someone builds a BWB to go against the A380-900. But the question is moot: the VLA market is too small to allow another entrant. That was intended as the A380's secret weapon from the start, and time will tell how it pans out. There will always be a market, if only a niche, for raw capacity. But for sure, Airbus didn't expect that CFRP twins (including their own) would match the A380's CASM so soon.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 27):
Do you seriously believe that, if allowed to turn back the clock, that Airbus would again make the decision to build the A380?

No, I don't believe they would, had they known they would cock up the program so badly. If they hadn't done that, and the break-even point had been 270 airframes, they would be doing just fine today... even with the new CFRP twins nipping at the A380's heels.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 27):
Will they ever break even on it?

Possibly. They probably won't make much return on investment.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 27):
Nobody is denying that the A380 is a bad plane

Freudian slip, no doubt  Wink
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:30 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 29):
Possibly. They probably won't make much return on investment.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 27):
Nobody is denying that the A380 is a bad plane

Freudian slip, no doubt Wink

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 is a good plane". I neglected to switch out "bad" for "good" I'm glad I ain't writing my resume today  Smile.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:31 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 25):
The A380 is quieter and smoother, and burns much less fuel per kg of payload.

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 part, that's immaterial to the specific argument. The argument was from SQ that once the customer sees the flight experience they offer in the A380, other 744 carriers like JL and NH MUST buy the A380 to offer the same comfort.

That is false. My assertion still stands, that SQ is justifying the A380 with a fallacy because they are first to fly it and heavily invested in it's success. This is one of these perpetual myths that comes directly from the Airbus marketing machine and people swallow without question. And I guess because the plane is "big" they assume that must mean it somehow can hold products other planes can't.

There is nothing stopping JL or NH or any other carrier from putting an even BETTER in flight product into an A330 or 777 or 787 or A350. And yes, they could even put it in a DC10, though it wouldn't make financial sense. Heck, CO could put the R class product in the front of a TATL 757 (though it would be loud of course).

The J experience on the A380 and the 77W for SQ is basically the same product, and in the 777, it's actually a little more spacious than the upper deck of the A380 with higher ceilings, bigger bins, straighter side walls, wider aisles. The Y seats are also supposed to be functionally the same (though the A380 might be wider, not sure). It's the F that is different, and mostly it's a "cabinized" version of the 77W with some tweaks now that they've seen how the product functions in service. Call it 77W F2.0. But a comparable product can be fitted onto the 777 if SQ chooses. EK is doing just that...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:49 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 32):
The argument was from SQ that once the customer sees the flight experience they offer in the A380, other 744 carriers like JL and NH MUST buy the A380 to offer the same comfort.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 32):
That is false.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 32):
though it wouldn't make financial sense.

 checkmark  very well summarized. I see we agree Big grin
 
nema
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:18 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:08 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 24):
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.

Interesting and appreciated reply WingedMigrator, are there copyright lnfringements then?

Quoting RIX (Reply 28):
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 is that some particular "enthusiast" decided to post exactly the kind of junk that starts "wars", ruins topics and makes this forum worse place than it should be. Absolutely obvious thing is that I still did not get answer on my question, nor any explanation of what the above mentioned junk was intended to mean. Still waiting

I think that you are a trouble maker, you know exactly what i meant and to some extent i added those comments in the hope that the usual negative two and fro stuff might not appear. Then you appear with your nonsense. Its easy when you are hiding behind a keyboard. Keep it aviation or leave it out.
There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:34 pm

Quoting NEMA (Reply 33):
i added those comments in the hope that the usual negative two and fro stuff might not appear

- so, you started trash-talk in hope no more trash talk would appear?  Smile Quite a way to keep the place free of junk - starting to put it oneself. "Keep it aviation", yeah?  Smile Still, you owe me the answer.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:27 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 28):
my poorly expressed point was that in terms of technology, the A380 is much closer to the 787 than it is to the 748

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 same, except for GLARE. Structure and aerodynamics are comparable. 787 has a bunch of things that are very different from either the 747-8 or A380, so I'd put the two jumbos in a bucket together before I put the 787 and A380 together.

Tom.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:46 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 23):
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.

I know you mentioned this in your post..but here's a nice little graphic Smile........and only 15 minutes away from my house.. biggrin 

Now would I love to see this fly (obviously this photo is some kind of photoshop edit).... Wow!



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 28):
Don't get me wrong: CFRP is a superior material, but its advantages don't always show up where you might expect.

theoretically manufacturing and maintenance could be where one would see a marked improvement(s) in cost and savings...and I think that is what has helped Boeing sell so many frames so quickly (besides the obvious efficiencies inherent to the plane).....
"Up the Irons!"
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:53 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 35):
only 15 minutes away from my house..

10 minutes from mine Big grin Big grin

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 34):
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 same, except for GLARE. Structure and aerodynamics are comparable. 787 has a bunch of things that are very different from either the 747-8 or A380, so I'd put the two jumbos in a bucket together before I put the 787 and A380 together.

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 CFRP center wing box. First CFRP pressure bulkhead. Entire rear 40 feet of the aircraft is CFRP. The 748 has minimal use of structural composites... certainly less than the 777.
Flight controls: A380 is fully fly-by-wire, the 748 still has a bunch of cables and pulleys that are demanding 'innovation' in terms of integration with modern avionics
Hydraulics: A380 is 5000 psi, with only two circuits backed by another two electric circuits. Even the 'more electric' 787 still has the good 'ol triple redundant hydraulic circuits (albeit at 5000 psi as well)
Aerodynamics: L/D of the A380 is significantly better than the 748's (or their ranges would not be what they are)

Let's just agree to put them in three different buckets then, shall we?  Wink
 
express1
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:08 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:14 pm

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 return the favour now Boeing have their problems with its B787. It seems that both companies are capable of backstabbing each other and not just being one sided.

dave
David.S cavanagh since 1961,if you can do better,then show me.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:46 pm

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 general press' is it?
The article is fair, it does not for a moment shy away from the many troubles A380 has had, it's also fair as it reflects the general, sensible, moderate stance of The Economist.

Nothing wrong in sourcing, for general info, from places like Wikipedia, so long as those who do have enough basic grounding the subject at hand, to see BS, plain bias, or just ignorance to be able to to screen it out .
Which has happened here, accepting of course that in this case, the source was sound.

Aside from that, I remain convinced that the main market for A380, is not traditional carriers, for example, that analyst often quoted here, from Teal Group, Aboulafia, saw BA's order for 12 plus 7 options, as 'proof' that A380 is a niche.
Well yes, a niche for BA and others, not a niche for EK, arguably not for SIA either, with I think more to come from emerging markets.
But he was right that had BA not brought A380, with the constraints of LHR and serious environmental limitations, Airbus would have had some explaining to do.

I also think Airbus made a mistake in developing A380F far too soon, we now know how those resources could have been better used.

The argument of 'which is most advanced' is sterile, of course 787 has many new features, it's a good few years later in development and Boeing starting with a clean sheet, which several not so good years at the time, had to be technically ambitious for the purposes of efficiency.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:27 pm

Quoting Express1 (Reply 37):
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 return the favour now Boeing have their problems with its B787. It seems that both companies are capable of backstabbing each other and not just being one sided.

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.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:14 pm

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 16):
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.

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 bill now include costs associated with the delays.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 16):
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.

Fedex and UPS have left the door open, they had to act with the delays to meet their capacity demands. The order cancellation was purely due to the delays.

Oversize cargo is only one part of the industry, and for real oversize cargo, the 747F is not suitable either. Most airlines are very happy with side loading for the pallets and containers.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
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 that the 787 is far beyond the A380 in tech.

Many people see Richard Aboulafia/ Teal Group as paid consultants of Boeing. In my view, they only seems to have negative things to say about Airbus.

I dont see the 787 as being "far beyond", the A380 has hundreds of patents attributed to it, the 787 does use A380 developed systems and protocols as it is the new benchmark. In many respects the leap from 744 to A380 is larger than the leap from A380 to 787 in terms of technology. In terms of efficiency, there is no jump at all between them, the 787-8/9 is still behind the A380.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
Again, very few people in a position to know have that view of the facts - and those that do tend to have some sort of connection to Airbus.

Walter Gillette, V.P. 787 Engineering said in the December 6, 2004 issue of Aviation Week, the 787 will have 20% better fuel efficiency, 8% from the more efficient engines, 3% from improved aerodynamics, 3% from more efficient systems, 3% from weight savings using composite materials, 3% from the synergy of the last three items.

Now that is in comparison to the aircraft it is replacing, primarily the 767. When comparing those percentages with regard to 767 technology, the A380 has a similar magnitude in improvement to the TSFC over the RB211/CF6 etc on the 767, like the 787 it has an advanced high speed wing, with advanced airfoil section, the A330 would have that level of aerodynamic improvement over the 767. Systems wise, the A380 would have similar levels if not better efficiency, and composite wise it would have similar improvements. On the composites front, there is a bigger jump in composites in terms of percentage by weight from the 777 to the A380, than from the A380 to the 787.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):

What matters is the percent of carbon fiber by weight or by volume. The 787 has much, much more of the stuff when you measure this way. That is indisputable. Since the 787 and A380 are not of equal size, a comparison of just the weight of carbon fiber used is meaningless.

Your logic is flawed, the 777 has about half the composite volume as the A330/A340, or about 1/3 of the A380.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
The 787 is almost all electric. It uses almost no blead air. The A380 has bleed air all over the place. We could go on and on here.

The only "more" electric bit is the air-conditioning and wing anti ice, the rest of it is very similar, or less electric than the A380. Downstream of the air-conditioning system the ducting an plumbing, pressurisation control etc is almost exactly the same between the 787 and A380. The 787 is using the same pressurisation control system as the A380.

The energy used to compress the air is not free, it is still being drawn from the engine via the generators, and to generate the additional electrical load you have to strap another generator onto the engine on the 787.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
The A380 does have a significant CASK advantage over the 747-400, 777 etc. but that is almost entirely due to size. Again, Airbus admits this.

Nope, dont think that is the case at all, it has a lot of new technology which is why it is so good.

Do you have a source that shows Airbus says that ?

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
The 747-8 does not have to carry as much weight to support its second deck as the A380. Boeing put a lot of 787 tech in it - these are many of the "systems" you mentioned as contributors to the efficiency of the 787.

The 748 has a very low composite usage, and system wise it is very similar to the 744 so airlines will have commonality with existing 744 fleets, it will not have a "a lot of 787 tech in it".

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
The 787-800 will take its engines from the 787 - and these are more modern than those installed on the A380.

Not a lot of difference, TSFC of the Trent 900 is in the order of 0.51, the GEnx on the 748/787 0.50, the engine on the 748 is not as good as the 787 because the fan is smaller which reduces some of its propulsive efficiency. Also the 748/787 will fly lower than a A380 on a long haul flight using more fuel.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
For cargo, the 747-8 wins hands down in all but a select few markets.

I agree, mainly because Airbus has told the market is is not progressing on with the A380F at this time.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
I would predict that in overall orders (passengers + freight) the 747-8 will eventually get at least as many orders as the A380-800.

Dont see that being the case at all, partially because of BCF conversions to the 744, availability of A340 and 777 frames, as well as the 777F. The next 6 to 12 months you will seen a number of new airlines ordering the A380 for passenger operations, the 748 will be relegated mainly to freighter operations.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
CFRP not only has a sizable weight advantage over aluminum - it also allows more flexibility with the shape of the plane and the positioning of its systems. It is simpler to assemble and easier to repair. Plus, a clean sheet design has advantages of its own over derivatives.

Dont write off metal being in aircraft, in fact, Advanced Hybrid Structure (such as GLARE) is seen as the way forward. Have a look at the last page of this presentation http://www.asipcon.com/2006/06_proceed/Wednesday/1200_Bucci.pdf

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
The marvel of the 787's structure is that it can get any significant gains from it at all. From the 707 to the 777 - just about all the efficiency gains in airplanes have come from engines and systems, with a little bit contributed by aerodynamic advances. It is true that more than half of the 787's gains also come from engines and systems. But a lot also comes from the airframe - for the first time in recent memory. That is made possible by CFRP.

That is false. The main gains are engine related, lighter and more efficient engines means lighter wings, and lower fuel payloads, then less thrust, with a circular reduction in wing weight, fuel payload, and thrust requirements.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
Also, keep in mind that many of the 787's systems can be made still better. Boeing switched from bleed air to electric not because of the savings they can get now, but because progress in that field makes much greater savings possible later. 787 tech can get much better then pre-787 tech can. For example - The A380-900 will still be stuck with the same bleed air systems as the -800, but electric systems in any new frame would be much better then we now see in the 787-8. There are many other threads and sites that go into reasons for this....

Nothing will stop Airbus from changing how it delivers air conditioned air to the ducting that carries it around the aircraft. The air-conditioning system on todays A320 is not the same as the system from 20 years ago.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
My wild guess is that there would be only a quarter the number of 737 sized planes as there are in real life.

I doubt that very much.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
The main reason many A380's are going to be used for luxury travel is that it has a larger floor area per unit of weight carrying capacity than other planes. It has little to do with any advantages it has over previous aircraft.

I disagree. They are about 15-20% more efficient than a 773ER, passenger growth over the next 15-20 years will double from the levels it is today.

But I think the A380 will go to passenger airlines, and 748F aircraft to freight airlines.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
However - this large amount of floor space has cost the A380 most of the freight market, and has added a bunch of weight that competing types do not need to carry. Thats what comes from building a mostly aluminum plane with a second full length deck.

I was of the understanding the A380F floors were to be composite.

http://www.infosys.com/industries/ae...laborate-airbus-a380-freighter.pdf

The A380F frames that have gone (Fedex/UPS) are due to the airframe being late, nothing else.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
Also an A380 with fewer, larger seats is easier to fill. That doesn't necessarily make it more profitable for the airline

The worlds most profitable airlines disagree, they are ordering A380s, and no reason why A380s/A350s, and 787s cannot exist in an airline to compliment each other.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):

That is true. I was speaking from the perspective of a manufacturer. Do you seriously believe that, if allowed to turn back the clock, that Airbus would again make the decision to build the A380?

Yes, but I dont think they would have skimped on upgrading their CATIA licences.

To meet the future growth the industry needs both fragmentation (787/A350) and consolidation (A380).

The justification for the A380 is on the consolidation front, where passengers are going from a big hub to another big hub is more cost-effective, gives you hub dominance which leads to a global network of linking major hubs which is why we have OneWorld, Star etc.

Fragmentation on the other hand is where the 787/A350 come in, it allows carriers to by-pass hubs, develop new markets, allows frequency on thin routes, it is what the business traveller's desires. But airport curfews & passenger convenience mean all flights are constrained to limited time windows.

Look at a simple market, like from the USA to China, gowning at about 6% per annum, 90 % of that traffic is going to three main destinations, Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, with 70% of the passengers come from either New York, Los Angeles, or San Francisco.

It seem logical that a high capacity aircraft would be used across those ports, and if direct flights into places like Xiamen or Tianjin from Washington, Boston, Chicago, or Honolulu a 787 size aircraft would be used.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 36):
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 CFRP center wing box. First CFRP pressure bulkhead. Entire rear 40 feet of the aircraft is CFRP. The 748 has minimal use of structural composites... certainly less than the 777.

Correct http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...acrobat/fast_32_p03_08_adva380.pdf
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Great Article On A380

Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:37 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 37):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 35):
only 15 minutes away from my house..

10 minutes from mine  biggrin  biggrin 

...we'll have to have a "BWB Meetup" sometime.. biggrin  highfive 

Quoting Express1 (Reply 38):
Ain't it funny, Boeing were laughing at Airbus when they had problems with the A380

...? confused  Provide just one form of proof of that....if anything, Boeing has taken the opposite view...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
Many people see Richard Aboulafia/ Teal Group as paid consultants of Boeing. In my view, they only seems to have negative things to say about Airbus.

 redflag ...they call it as they see it, it just so happens the past few years it was Airbus making the mistakes...try going back to the late 90's and see what they were stating about Boeing.....

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
Walter Gillette, V.P. 787 Engineering said in the December 6, 2004 issue of Aviation Week, the 787 will have 20% better fuel efficiency, 8% from the more efficient engines, 3% from improved aerodynamics, 3% from more efficient systems, 3% from weight savings using composite materials, 3% from the synergy of the last three items.

..however, it doesn't address all of the issues (savings) such as.....

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 36):
theoretically manufacturing and maintenance could be where one would see a marked improvement(s) in cost and savings...and I think that is what has helped Boeing sell so many frames so quickly (besides the obvious efficiencies inherent to the plane).....

Regards...
"Up the Irons!"
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:01 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 37):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 34):
I'm not sure I agree with that. From a systems architecture point of view, the 747-8 and A380 are quite similar.



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 37):

Let's just agree to put them in three different buckets then, shall we?

Done.

Quoting Express1 (Reply 38):
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 return the favour now Boeing have their problems with its B787. It seems that both companies are capable of backstabbing each other and not just being one sided.

Boeing didn't say anything even remotely resembling a giggle regarding the A380 delays. I think you're confusing Boeing-boosters and the press with Boeing itself. Both A & B understand what each other are going through and they are always very careful to be respectful..."There but for the grace of god go I."

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
In terms of efficiency, there is no jump at all between them, the 787-8/9 is still behind the A380.

No, it's not. It's achieving equal or better economics (for almost all planned routes/configurations) at a smaller size.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
The only "more" electric bit is the air-conditioning and wing anti ice, the rest of it is very similar

What "rest of it"? The only thing the pneumatic system does is air-conditioning and anti-ice.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
Advanced Hybrid Structure (such as GLARE) is seen as the way forward.

Airbus disagrees with you. Metals and GLARE-type materials are fleeing the A350 at a significant pace.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):

That is false. The main gains are engine related, lighter and more efficient engines means lighter wings, and lower fuel payloads, then less thrust, with a circular reduction in wing weight, fuel payload, and thrust requirements.

The main *performance* gains are engine related. The main maintenance, cabin environment, and cost gains are directly due to CFRP and those gains, from an airline perspective, may well prove to be bigger than the performance gain.

Tom.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:42 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 43):
The main *performance* gains are engine related. The main maintenance, cabin environment, and cost gains are directly due to CFRP and those gains, from an airline perspective, may well prove to be bigger than the performance gain.

 checkmark  Another way of saying that there is more to CASM than fuel burn. A good thing to remind ourselves.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:44 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 43):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
The only "more" electric bit is the air-conditioning and wing anti ice, the rest of it is very similar

What "rest of it"? The only thing the pneumatic system does is air-conditioning and anti-ice.

I must amend that...the pneumatics also do engine start, except on the 787.

Tom.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Great Article On A380

Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:15 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 42):
.they call it as they see it, it just so happens the past few years it was Airbus making the mistakes...try going back to the late 90's and see what they were stating about Boeing.....

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 about the A380. Call me cynical, but I have not seen him "call it as they see it", especially relating to the 787 problems at the moment.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 43):
No, it's not. It's achieving equal or better economics (for almost all planned routes/configurations) at a smaller size.

The 787-8/9 will not better than the A380 on long haul routes in terms of fuel burn per pax. The 787-10, if it ever becomes more than a paper aeroplane will be about equal, but it will lack the range of the A380.

The 343 was a similar match in terms of seat costs for the 744, all it ended up doing was complimenting the 744, not replacing it, it achieved the match in seat mile costs in much the same way the 787/A350 is, efficient engines, advanced materials, advanced systems. All I see happening is history replacing itself, the 787/A350 will compliment the A380.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 43):
What "rest of it"? The only thing the pneumatic system does is air-conditioning and anti-ice.

The only difference between the 787 and A380 with the pressurisation is the method used to generate the compressed air, downstream of the packs, it is all very similar.

The 787 cannot fly with a total electrical failure, or total hydraulic failure, where the A380 can. I must stress that the likelihood of such events are extremely rare, but possible.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 43):
Airbus disagrees with you. Metals and GLARE-type materials are fleeing the A350 at a significant pace.

Did you look at the presentation, or did you just come out with the comment ? Did you see the strength, design, and corrosion properties ?

Airbus has always been more proactive than Boeing in using advanced materials in their aircraft, the 787 is the first time Boeing has had a higher composite content in one of their aircraft for some time. But smart aircraft design uses the best material for the job, a 787 that was 100% composite would be heavier and cost more than the hybrid airframe it is now.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 43):
The main *performance* gains are engine related. The main maintenance, cabin environment, and cost gains are directly due to CFRP and those gains, from an airline perspective, may well prove to be bigger than the performance gain.

The cost of a new aircraft, about 40% of the total cost relates to the cost of ownership, 60% relating to the cash/direct operating costs. The cash operating costs are broken down into about 22% for landing and navigation fees, 30% for fuel, 27% for flight crew, and 22% for maintenance.

Recently Lufthansa made some comments about this "The next step will be to look into the smaller-sized long-haul jets that could supersede its A340 and A330 fleet. According to Buchholz, the 30 A340-300s are economically viable in Lufthansa's case, as many of them are now fully written off and are now even cheaper than a 787 would be from a total cost perspective. Lufthansa writes off its aircraft in 12 years and has no plans to change that policy." from http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...channel=comm&id=news/LUFT09147.xml

The "cabin environment" push is a red herring, most long haul jets these days don't have a cabin altitude above 6000 ft, and cabin humidifies are already available.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:10 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 46):
All I see happening is history replacing itself, the 787/A350 will compliment the A380.

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 and point-to-point routes period (at least economically year-round).  Smile
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Great Article On A380

Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:59 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 46):
All I see happening is history replacing itself, the 787/A350 will compliment the A380.

On that we are in agreement.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 46):
The 787 cannot fly with a total electrical failure, or total hydraulic failure, where the A380 can.

The A380 can't fly with total electric failure. No FBW airliner can.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 46):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 43):
Airbus disagrees with you. Metals and GLARE-type materials are fleeing the A350 at a significant pace.

Did you look at the presentation, or did you just come out with the comment ? Did you see the strength, design, and corrosion properties ?

Yes, I looked at it. I have no quibble with Alcoa's assertion that advanced hybrid structures will become popular (although they're highly biased in that regard). However, you were that one that said "advanced hybrid structure (like GLARE)." My point was that even Airbus is reducing, not increasing, use of GLARE.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 46):

The "cabin environment" push is a red herring, most long haul jets these days don't have a cabin altitude above 6000 ft, and cabin humidifies are already available.

If a metal long-haul jet flys with a cabin altitude at 6,000 ft (which lots do) then a 787 (or other composite fuselage) can do it at 4,000 ft (or something like that). You always have a trade between pressure and cycle-life of the fuselage. Absolute numbers aren't as important as the fact that the fatigue resistance of composites will allow you to hold a lower pressure altitude than an aluminum fuselage. It's all relative.

Cabin humidifiers are available but you pay for their use directly in increased corrosion of the fuselage. On a 787/A350, you should be able to ramp the humidity up without a corresponding increase in maintenance cost.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 46):
The only difference between the 787 and A380 with the pressurisation is the method used to generate the compressed air, downstream of the packs, it is all very similar.

That's true, but it misses the point. The problematic parts of the pneumatic system are the thermal anti-ice ducts and the ducts between the engines and the packs. Pneumatics are routinely one of the biggest delay-drivers on commercial airplanes because they're a hard system to design/build/maintain due to the high heat and fire-detection system they require. Getting rid of all the pneumatics coming off the engine is a major maintenance improvements.

Tom.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Great Article On A380

Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:38 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 48):
The A380 can't fly with total electric failure. No FBW airliner can.

Every FBW aircraft I have flown can, its called emergency electrical configuration. All conventional electrical busses are not available.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 48):
My point was that even Airbus is reducing, not increasing, use of GLARE.

I don't think that is true, they are using more GLARE than ever, and replacing "older" types of alloys in different applications. GLARE is good to use with composites due to the glass laminates.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 48):
Absolute numbers aren't as important as the fact that the fatigue resistance of composites will allow you to hold a lower pressure altitude than an aluminum fuselage. It's all relative.

I dont think that is true either, you can make airframes from new generation alloys that can outperform CFRP, Concorde was an example of convention metal airframe that will outperform the 787. As for maintaining 4000 ft where others are maintain 6000 ft, the maximum pressure differential from say the A340 to the 787 would be less than 0.5 psi.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 48):
Pneumatics are routinely one of the biggest delay-drivers on commercial airplanes because they're a hard system to design/build/maintain due to the high heat and fire-detection system they require.

Must be so prevalent that thinking back I dont remember having a delay associated with one in the last decade. The only pneumatic system problem I have ever had was an unserviceable APU, and having to use ground air for air conditioning and start.

I would love to see the size of the GPU required to start the 787 with an unserviceable APU.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 910A, Alexa [Bot], alggag, ContinentalFan, exunited, FLIHGH, flyabr, fun2fly, Google Adsense [Bot], gr8slvrflt, PEK777, qfvhoqa, shamrock350, smokeybandit, Wingtips56, yellowtail, zaphod42 and 252 guests