Quoting Thorben (Reply 47): I respect other people's opinions. But why would the trend be using smaller aircraft?

Using your logic, it will never be enough--eventually someone would have to build a quadruple decker to keep up with the proposed growth. The trend will be towards smaller, lighter, and more efficient planes, with lower operating costs. As fuel costs have risen, fares have not, and what has been demonstrated is that passengers are sensitive to fare increases. The A380 is not efficient, not light, and not small. And fuel costs are not going to decrease, the only hope is that their growth rate will slow in the coming years. You refer to the Asia market, where landing fees are based on the weight of the aircraft, this indicates to me that the A380 on its surface already has a stike against it.

You are blinded by your passion for Airbus--but unfortunately, the A380 is going to be a failure in business terms. It was a nice idea, but poorly planned, and awfully executed. The prior leadership of Airbus has failed the employees of the company and the taxpayers of the contributing countries, and ironically he seemingly has to answer to no one.

Boeing was smart to push the Sonic Cruiser as a counter product to the A380, while Airbus was touting the A380 as a cruise ship in the sky. Then once the EK order was secured, and Airbus announced the launch of the A380 officially, Boeing reveals the concept of composite technologies. Too late for Airbus to adapt it design to lighter materials, so it is committed to soon-to-be-obsolete technology.

The American aircraft maker has already proven its capabilities with composite technologies in the military aircraft market. That is why it did not matter what Airbus when saying:

"787 is a Chinese copy"

"787 is rushed and ridiculous"

Boeing had already proven it knows the technologies involved in creating a composite aircraft, so the Airbus attacks were weightless. Airbus, had four reinventions of the A350 before they settled on a design to sell after the 787 started gaining momentum. By developing the 787, Boeing is able to apply one set of R&D to redesigns of successful models 737, 747, etc...

Try out this link, I think you'll like what you read:
http://www.vialls.com/boeing/giantkiller.html

The author makes some good points, but I disagree with him on most points.

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): Boeing had already proven it knows the technologies involved in creating a composite aircraft, so the Airbus attacks were weightless

As a point of information, the only exemplars of series production composite aircraft to date are here in the states. The technology was largely developed with *gasp!* Department of Defense dollars in the F117 and B2 programs.

One thing they require is damned large autoclaves and there's no room for error. I worked with some samples for the development engineers at Douglas....vacuum bag the assembly, put it in the autoclave, bake till well done, and if you lose vacuum, toss it in the garbage. I signed a lot of paper charts in that deal.

To cook a fuselage or a set of wings is going to be a big deal.


The only all composite aircraft civil that was ever produced outside of a homebuilder's shop was the Beech Starship-designed by Bert Rutan. As it stands, it was far more expensive to build and maintain than anyone thought possible-the result being that Beech bought them all back except for one or two and they're in storage in the desert....nice feature on Discovery Channel not too long ago.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 52): Airports have been building infrastructure to reflect the market demand, and not the other way around. The prevailing market trend in the last 25 years -- and thus the market demand -- was to have infrastructure in place that would allow higher frequency on dense routes with smaller and smaller planes. Personally, Thorben -- I truly don't understand how you could dispute this

I would dispute this because the airports I know are preparing for the A380.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 52): More and more cities are getting nonstops, overflying traditional transit points, with smaller and smaller planes

Quoting Commavia (Reply 52): That customer who use to fly two airlines, perhaps 3 or 4 stops, including a 747 across the Atlantic from JFK to London or Paris, now flies nonstop from his home airport right to a major European hub on a 767. That is why the trend is "using smaller aircraft."

Not where I live. If I want to go to the US or somewhere I fly to Frankfurt and then to some American hub and then to the final destination. In the last couple of years, we had only one flight outside of Europe and the Mediterranean, and that was Mongolian Airlines to Ulan Bator. Now we have two more, Delta to JFK and Continental to EWR. Ok, then maybe I can save going over Frankfurt, but I don't think we'll ever have a direct connection between Berlin and places like San Diego, Indianapolis, Orlando, Bismarck, or so. And the same is true for the rest of Germany. Lufthansa tries to make MUC a second hub, mainly because FRA is at its limits. And what is the difference for people from Hannover, Stuttgart, Bremen, Dresden etc. if they have to fly to MUC or TXL instead of FRA to go to the US?? Do you think that HAJ will have 199 destinations in 87 countries in a couple of years?? With small planes like the 717 ULR going daily???

Quoting Commavia (Reply 52): Airports with capacity problems -- NRT, HND, SIN -- are expanding, and many cities -- Seoul, Hong Kong, Nagoya, Osaka -- have built new airports altogether in the last 10 years because they recognize this trend

All the airports you mention are hubs in my eyes.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 52): BA's use of 747s to the U.S. is declining dramatically.

I looked it up yesterday, they send six 744s daily to JFK, 3 to ORD and 3 to LAX. What do you think they will to in the future? Use 25 787-3s daily to JFK? One per hour? Or use 100 787-3s daily to 47 American destinations? Where are those slots at LHR supposed to come from?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 52): you put up a nice list (especially liked cargo Cargolux, charter Corsair and non-European El Al, Saudi, Singapore and South African)

I just wanted to assure you that the "endangered species" is far from extinction. Besides, I've flown Singi from FRA to JFK and all others I mentioned fly the 747 across the Atlantic, like it or not.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 52): but the reality that your attempt misses is that all of these airlines, too, are slowly moving away from larger 747s

They are moving from the 747s to A380s, 773ERs, and A346s.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 52): Several Asian airlines -- namely SQ and CX -- are already beginning to move away from 747s

Didn't CX buy some of SQ's 744s?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 52): IIRC, SQ plans to completely get rid of 747s in the next 10 years and replace them with smaller, more efficient and more effective Airbus and/or Boeing products that better match the current market.

Yep. Among those are 18 773ERs and 10 A380s. Plus options. Plus the 773s they already have.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, I don't think you'll convince me of this point-to-point and smaller-with-more-frequency thing. In my eyes it doesn't work in theory and it won't work in the reality. But I'll just sit back and wait.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 52): For now. Several Asian airlines -- namely SQ and CX -- are already beginning to move away from 747s. IIRC, SQ plans to completely get rid of 747s in the next 10 years and replace them with smaller, more efficient and more effective Airbus and/or Boeing products that better match the current market.

CX has just introduced more B747s and will soon decide to purchase either B747 Adv or A380 - or both.
SQ getting rid of the B747s? You want to tell me they won't look into the B747 Adv?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 52): Capacity at airports -- particularly in the dynamic economies of Asia, the Americas and the Middle East -- is up, as is demand from customers -- particularly business travelers -- for more frequency at the expense of flying enormous airplanes.

First of all, capacities at airports won't go up as fast in the US and Europe. Second, though capacities are up in Asia, most A380 customers are located in Asia or the Middle East - strange, isn't it? Third, frequencies are nice but not everyhwere added frequencies mean increased flexibility. Ever checked when Europe-Asia flights usually operate?

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): The A380 is not efficient, not light, and not small.

It's very efficient when filled. And airlines will use it on routes where they can fill it.

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): -but unfortunately, the A380 is going to be a failure in business terms.

You must be a relative of Nostradamus...   

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): It was a nice idea, but poorly planned, and awfully executed.

Poorly planned - how exactly?

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): The prior leadership of Airbus has failed the employees of the company and the taxpayers of the contributing countries, and ironically he seemingly has to answer to no one.

Yeah, these bastards have not been able to reach record profits, just very high profits. We should sue them.  

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): Boeing was smart to push the Sonic Cruiser as a counter product to the A380, while Airbus was touting the A380 as a cruise ship in the sky.

Yes, very smart to raise expectations and then abandon the project...

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): Too late for Airbus to adapt it design to lighter materials, so it is committed to soon-to-be-obsolete technology.

Let's hope the A380 airlines will listen to you...you could save their business.   

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): "787 is a Chinese copy" "787 is rushed and ridiculous"

Have you ever taken manufacturer propaganda serious? Remember when Boeing said in the 1980s there wouldn't be a market for an aircraft like the A320?


Regards
Udo

Quoting Thorben (Reply 47): I quote: "Over 1.6 billion passengers worldwide use the world's airlines for business and leisure travel. Research indicates that by 2010, this number could exceed 2.3 billion."

Well, the 737 has almost as many sales as the a380 can hold pax ,this year. Also that's when most of the these smaller/new a/c will be in the air . Looks like the airline industry will be ready !

Quoting Udo (Reply 42): Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 39): However,Airbuses last 2 a/c were heavy The last two days were full of rain, too.

Classic Udo ! lol

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 49): Are your academics in Europe as corrupt as you say Gellman is?

Pretty much.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 50): And most of the American users here are only trying to bash Airbus planes in order to improve their self-esteem. I think you'll notice that soon.

Sounds like you're overcompensating for something.

Dougloid,

The Starship was an anomaly, overbuilt by a ridiculous factor because the FAA lacking any experience or experts in composites was too scared to give it type certification. The end result was a far too heavy airplane that didn't meet any of its performance expectation.

As to the Airbus, I have no doubt that it will be a successful commercial hit, unless Boeing decides to jump on the bandwagon with a superjumbo of its own (extremely unlikely) in which case no one will make any decent profit.

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): The A380 is not efficient, not light, and not small

What a great statement. I reckon' it is not small. And probably not very light either. But no airplane on earth beats its efficiency. It has the lowest fuel-consumption per passenger of all existing aircraft. And even the 787 has to prove itself against that.

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): You refer to the Asia market, where landing fees are based on the weight of the aircraft, this indicates to me that the A380 on its surface already has a stike against it.

OK. So a Cessna 182 pays a smaller landing fee? Ever thought about how many Cessna 182s you would need to transport the same amount of passengers?? Come on, this is Math in third grade.

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): Boeing was smart to push the Sonic Cruiser as a counter product to the A380, while Airbus was touting the A380 as a cruise ship in the sky. Then once the EK order was secured, and Airbus announced the launch of the A380 officially, Boeing reveals the concept of composite technologies. Too late for Airbus to adapt it design to lighter materials, so it is committed to soon-to-be-obsolete technology.

Hey Soylentgreen! Isn't this more stupid that what I said?

What do you think the A380 is made of? Concrete? It was Airbus who first used all these composite materials in civil aircraft, in the A340/A330 series. The only effect this Sonic cruiser was that nobody ordered the 787 in the beginning, because they all looked at it, saw this shark fin, and said: "Well, another one of Boeing's fantasy planes."

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): You are blinded by your passion for Airbus

Maybe. But I if people tell me nonsense, I'll tell them.

Quoting Soylentgreen (Reply 55): That's as stupid a comment as one can come up with.

Man, just look at other threads and you'll see what I mean. And think a little more before you say things like that.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So! Spent enough time before the PC now, time to enjoy Friday night. I'll leave for today.

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): The trend will be towards smaller, lighter, and more efficient planes, with lower operating costs. As fuel costs have risen, fares have not, and what has been demonstrated is that passengers are sensitive to fare increases. The A380 is not efficient, not light, and not small.

You are right on one point: the price.
The A380 will be the best plane for high density routes to decrease the prices.
And about the point-to-point vs hub strategy, think about this:

If you have 100 airports you need 9900 flights to make all combinations between them, with one hub, you need only 198 flights.
The hub strategy, while less conveniant for the passengers, is way more simple to handle for airlines, and is the best option to reduce the costs.
However, it can only work if big planes are filled (the A380 for example).
The A380 is not efficient ? Well, I bet it is.



[Edited 2005-09-16 17:16:10]

Quoting ZRH (Reply 10): Here you can see how trustworthy this article is. The A 350 will carry slightly fewer passengers than the B 787??? It is the other way round. Perhaps this journalist does not understand anything about aviation.

He's off the mark but not my much. The 350 in a three class does carry fewer pax than the 787 in a three class, and thus fewer in a two class as well given equal comfort levels. The 787 has more floor space so there's not way aroudn it. Period. When Airbus talkes about the 350 capacity they use a 2-class model, where the 787 uses the 3-class. As far as slot constraints and the 380, there are few markets that actually encounter this. The rest are open season for smaller aircraft.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 64): The 350 in a three class does carry fewer pax than the 787 in a three class, and thus fewer in a two class as well given equal comfort levels. The 787 has more floor space so there's not way aroudn it. Period. When Airbus talkes about the 350 capacity they use a 2-class model, where the 787 uses the 3-class.

I'm sure you have a source for that claim?


Regards
Udo

Do a little self education:

http://www.boeing.com/nosearch/exec_pres/ParisAirShow_2005.pdf



As for the 350.. ACI Technical Affairs committe briefing from Airbus.

It shows:

350-800 36 Business @ 60" and 222 Economy @ 32"
350-900 36 Business @ 60" and 280 Economy @ 32"

Airbus has conveniently pulled the presentation they gave from the ACI website. It was there for over a month. Boeings remains as do others on the 380.

http://www.aci-na.org/asp/committeeindex.asp?page=225

[Edited 2005-09-16 18:38:14]

Quoting Thorben (Reply 56): I would dispute this because the airports I know are preparing for the A380.

Good for them. Nobody said they weren't. Many airports are preparing for it. Many others aren't, because for those many airports, it would be a completely waste of time, money and resources.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 56): Not where I live.

Great argument, very impressive.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 56): Now we have two more, Delta to JFK and Continental to EWR.

Thank you for proving my point.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 56): Ok, then maybe I can save going over Frankfurt, but I don't think we'll ever have a direct connection between Berlin and places like San Diego, Indianapolis, Orlando, Bismarck, or so.

Again -- you've really mastered the art of argumentation. I, too, don't expect TXL to get a nonstop to SAN or IND in the near future, just as I don't expect anybody to begin nonstop JNB-ANC service in the near future. What does that possibly prove or bring to this argument?

Quoting Thorben (Reply 56): All the airports you mention are hubs in my eyes.

Did anybody say they weren't?

Quoting Thorben (Reply 56): I looked it up yesterday, they send six 744s daily to JFK, 3 to ORD and 3 to LAX.

JFK sees 6x 744, 1x 777 -- it used to be 7x 744. ORD sees 2x 777, 1x 744, and LAX sees 3x 744.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 56): What do you think they will to in the future? Use 25 787-3s daily to JFK?

More 787s, more 777s, less 747s. Did I not already make that clear.

Quoting Udo (Reply 57): First of all, capacities at airports won't go up as fast in the US and Europe.

Agreed, as there isn't as much need there. Those economies aren't growing as fast as the ones in Asia, and capacity is already more constrained in Asia than in the U.S., where airports have been gradually invested in for decades.

*********

Look, Thorben -- we could go on like this, back and forth, all day.

I could care less if you reply to this post, as this will be my last post on this thread. I'm getting a little tired of hearing the same arguments, from the same people, about why they are so sure the A380 is going to revolutionize air travel, and saying that just because people happen to disagree with them -- and happen to be American -- the arguments they put forth, how ever reasonable or logical, must be just blind pro-American, anti-Europeanism. Honestly -- I could care less what you think about my motives for thinking the way I do. I know they are genuine, and based on logic rather than national pride.

The bottom line is this, Thorben -- I do not think that the A380 was built to be reflective of the current airline industry and the current global air travel market. I think it was built to utilize available European government R&D subsidies so Airbus could justify and prove the success of the "European project." The A380 is simply too big for most routes, and I think that while in the short-run it will no doubt fill up in certain select markets (LHR-SIN-SYD, LHR-DXB, LHR-HKG, et al) I think that the long-term trend (based on what has happened in international aviation over the last 2-3 decades) is for more and more frequency, and smaller planes. Again, I simply don't understand how you could possibly dispute that looking at the schedules offered by U.S. and European carriers across the Atlantic today versus 20 years ago, but apparently you just disagree. That's fine -- I respect your right to disagree, but still think your perspective is completely wrong.

And no -- anticipating your response -- none of the above comments are in any way related to the fact that I was born and have been raised in America. I believe the way I do based on trends, history, economics, and the demands of the marketplace that I think are clearly evident based on consumers' continued preference for more flexible schedules including more frequency.

Cheers.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 67): Again -- you've really mastered the art of argumentation. I, too, don't expect TXL to get a nonstop to SAN or IND in the near future, just as I don't expect anybody to begin nonstop JNB-ANC service in the near future. What does that possibly prove or bring to this argument?

A-380 Range from San Diego is 250 miles due to terrain so unless Southwest buys some, it will never go to San Diego.

Does anyone recall Airbus ever forecasting that they'd have over 100 orders before first delivery? Way back in 2000, I vaguely remember that their target was to have "over 50" or so orders before EIS.

This thread got even worse than I had expected.

I will just say one thing: Even though the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (German federal court for administrative law) has become the only legal instance to deal with the Planfeststellungsbeschluss (the thing you need to build a runway or anything else that has something to to with airports), it usually still takes around 10 years to get a runway built.

So tell me, where do you want to get the capacity to fly in with 5 smaller airplanes when you can use 3 bigger ones, when you already have used up the extra capacity before another runway (which again takes 10 years) can be built?

So there really is not enough space to use smaller airliners. And I still do not think that smaller airplanes are more fuel efficient than bigger ones. It might be that the 787 is efficient, but does that make the A380 a dinosaur? No. The A380 is the most efficient airliner built so far. It is more efficient per seat than the 777, the A340, the A330 and the 747. With fuel prices getting more important every day, we need efficient airliners, and if you cannot use 5 787s, you will have to use the A380.

I do not want to compare the 787 and the A380 here, but I really get annoyed that some people always write in the way: Airbus = dinosaur technology, crap, bad, and only succesful because of subsidies, and Boeing = The best, no matter what. The fact is that both manufacturers build great airplanes that are being bought, and that both also offer products which nobody is buying anymore.

Michael

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 66): Do a little self education:

You should do some better self education. A350-800 and A350-900 will be clearly larger than B787-8 and B787-9.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts.html

http://www.eads.net/frame/lang/en/10...F00000000400004/1/74/40759741.html

http://www.flightinternational.com/A...2005/06/07/198871/A+cut+above.html

Quoting Commavia (Reply 67): Agreed, as there isn't as much need there.

Wrong. The need is there, just have a look at the two largest European airports.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 67): I do not think that the A380 was built to be reflective of the current airline industry and the current global air travel market. I think it was built to utilize available European government R&D subsidies so Airbus could justify and prove the success of the "European project."

Nice good night story.  


Regards
Udo

Quoting Joni (Reply 69): " or so orders before EIS.

I think you mean before launch.

Quoting Udo (Reply 57): Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): It was a nice idea, but poorly planned, and awfully executed. Poorly planned - how exactly?

A rejoinder on the "awfully executed" remark is conspicuous by its absence.

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 73): A rejoinder on the "awfully executed" remark is conspicuous by its absence.

Well observed.  
The project's execution is indeed partly questionable, but I wouldn't call it "awful".


Regards
Udo

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 54): The only all composite aircraft civil that was ever produced outside of a homebuilder's shop was the Beech Starship-designed by Bert Rutan.

The good folks at Raytheon might disagree with you.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 75): Quoting Dougloid (Reply 54): The only all composite aircraft civil that was ever produced outside of a homebuilder's shop was the Beech Starship-designed by Bert Rutan. The good folks at Raytheon might disagree with you

The guys are Raytheon no.....Scaled composites yes....they built the prototype.


But even then I think the folks at Dimonad Aircraft (Katana) and Sirrus might have some issues with that statement.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 75): Quoting Dougloid (Reply 54): The only all composite aircraft civil that was ever produced outside of a homebuilder's shop was the Beech Starship-designed by Bert Rutan. The good folks at Raytheon might disagree with you.

Not when they own Beech.

Quoting Udo (Reply 25): So Boeing's next plane larger than the B787 will cover up to 800 seats? Interesting...

The A380 doesn't cover 800 seats either, no matter what Airbus says

So can we all just beg to disagree with each other concerning whether or not the whale will be a success.
Let us table the discussions and revist the topic 5 years after it has been placed into service.

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 13): Yah , but heavy aircraft ! AB's last plane the "340" - as of lately , isn't doing so well & the a380 appears to be heavy as well when compared to the 747ADV . The a380 will easily be made obsolete within 20 years .

Could be obsolete within 20 years, but the only reason that could make that becoming true is the continuous improving the technology due to more competitivity (due to the broken Boeing monopoly) and to he rising cost of the fuel. In fact, like others have stated, the A380 is a marvel of technology either if u are pro-Boeing or pro-Airbus, like the 787 is.
Remember, if the A380 becomes obsolete within 20 years the 787 will follow its fate few years later... If not earlier.

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 53): You are blinded by your passion for Airbus--but unfortunately, the A380 is going to be a failure in business terms. It was a nice idea, but poorly planned, and awfully executed. The prior leadership of Airbus has failed the employees of the company and the taxpayers of the contributing countries, and ironically he seemingly has to answer to no one.

Who are you? The Holy God?
Only the time will tell and at the moment nothing can figure such a prevision. You speak about the A380 using the past when still no A380 have join commercial service.. Wait on your armchair about 2 years and watch what happens instead of make such awfully statements.

Ciao
Joe

Quoting L-188 (Reply 76): Quoting Areopagus (Reply 75): Quoting Dougloid (Reply 54): The only all composite aircraft civil that was ever produced outside of a homebuilder's shop was the Beech Starship-designed by Bert Rutan. The good folks at Raytheon might disagree with you The guys are Raytheon no.....Scaled composites yes....they built the prototype.

Raytheon people are perfectly aware that they are building the Horizon and Premier business aircraft from carbon fiber.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 22): I found a brief reference to it somewhere.....

would be very nice to read the report...i wonder how one can get it..

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 52): One thing they require is damned large autoclaves and there's no room for error. I worked with some samples for the development engineers at Douglas....vacuum bag the assembly, put it in the autoclave, bake till well done, and if you lose vacuum, toss it in the garbage. I signed a lot of paper charts in that deal. To cook a fuselage or a set of wings is going to be a big deal.

indeed, and I think this is the part where Boeing's experience is 2nd to none....they have already started to build the prototype fuselage..and they are ramping up production...I think they've got this part down to a science..they have been working on this kind of composite technology for years, if not decades.....

Airbus' Al-Li is an amazing "composite", but Boeings carbon-based composite is simply amazing....if the structure is as sturdy as Boeing is claiming, the weight reductions will be large..(hence the 20% savings).....there isn't any Al-Li derivative "composite" which will be able to match it (in terms of weight at least).......

also, with the way the 787 is going to be assembled, and according to the Gellman report, when the need for a VLA is truly needed, and if Boeing needed to (with the experience they are gaining with complete composite-based technology), they would be able to build a VLA which directly competes with the A380 much quicker, more efficient, and at a significant cost savings than the A380 (not to mention way lighter)......

According to the Gellman report, there is barely a need for a 380-sized aircraft manufacturer, let alone two aircraft manufacturers......and that is why Boeing didn't go with building something which competes with the A380...not that they couldn't or don't have the expertise....

Quoting Thorben (Reply 53): I looked it up yesterday, they send six 744s daily to JFK, 3 to ORD

what data were you looking at   ..BA sends 1 744 and 2 777's to ORD....and 5 744's and 2 777's to JFK..

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 67): Airbus = dinosaur technology, crap, bad, and only succesful because of subsidies, and Boeing = The best, no matter what.

Sounds about right to me!
Ausgezeichnet post.

Quoting Udo (Reply 68): Wrong.

Exactly!

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 60): If you have 100 airports you need 9900 flights to make all combinations between them, with one hub, you need only 198 flights.

Care to enlighten us on how you came up with this gem?   For p2p why make the assumption that you need to connect all of them? What about the equipment and fuel costs for all of these flight? Are all of the planes the same size in your model?

Don't you think the future holds a combination of point-to-point and hub travel?

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 60): The hub strategy, while less conveniant for the passengers, is way more simple to handle for airlines, and is the best option to reduce the costs.

hmmm... you seem to want to deny that point-to-point is a valid strategy, yet airbus is also working hard on p2p planes (350, 330)    What makes you say it is simpler for airlines to run pax through a hub? Does the higher risk of delay and pax/lx transfer figure into your calculations?

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 60): The A380 is not efficient ? Well, I bet it is.

How much are you willing to bet?   What exactly do you mean by efficiency?

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 67): Even though the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (German federal court for administrative law) has become the only legal instance to deal with the Planfeststellungsbeschluss

Sonntag looks like we need to contact the Bundesverwaltungsgericht for the Planfeststellungsbeschluss ASAP.   I just love these German super words, they sound real important.   

Quoting Thorben (Reply 53): I would dispute this because the airports I know are preparing for the A380.

So you only know about 15 airports?  

Quoting Thorben (Reply 58): What do you think the A380 is made of? Concrete?

Very funny comment. You're right that sometimes people accuse the 380 of being low tech, when in reality is currently the highest tech plane in production.

-iwok

Quoting N1120A (Reply 75): The A380 doesn't cover 800 seats either, no matter what Airbus says

Then let's say 650+ seater (3-classes) - will the next new Boeing larger than the B787 cover up to 650 seats like the A389?

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 81): Exactly!

Good to see you agree...  


Regards
Udo

Quoting Iwok (Reply 82): Care to enlighten us on how you came up with this gem?

This gem ? You are easily impressed by basic calculation.

Quoting Iwok (Reply 82): For p2p why make the assumption that you need to connect all of them?

Because "p2p" doesn't mean point to nowhere.
And if you want to make 2 flights, then the hub is obvious.

Quoting Iwok (Reply 82): What about the equipment and fuel costs for all of these flight? Are all of the planes the same size in your model?

My model ????

Quoting Iwok (Reply 82): hmmm... you seem to want to deny that point-to-point is a valid strategy

I don't. I was answering to "the trend is ...".

Quoting Iwok (Reply 82): Does the higher risk of delay and pax/lx transfer figure into your calculations?

You really want an answer for that ?

Dougloid, thanks for your long answer. Sorry if my post appear arrogant -didn't intend to.

I strongly disagree on the case of Gellman study. Let me repeat an older post here.

You have two manufacturers hesitating at entering a market. Considering huge investments and small size the market is very profitable if in monopoly (30% gross margin) but is suicide if two players enter the game and compete in price. Each thinks: if the other doesn't get in, I won't. If he doesn't, I will.

Now enters Airbus with repayable loans. Repayable only if the whole program is a success. That is to say: whatever you do Boeing, I will enter the market and won't loose even if you enter it also. Then Boeing can not enter it, hence Airbus earns a monopoly. The beauty is that the program becomes a success and Airbus can easily repay the loans.

Now back to the report. It would have been extremly useful to deter financial supporters (in this case eu gvt) from investing in a promise-to-death project. Plus of course it would always be positive for Boeing to cast shadow over projects of its competitor. That's for (unsubstantiated) suspicion.

Now I also contest the figures used by the report itself as my (probably not-enough educated) belief is that there is no way they could have correctly inferred the cost structure - let alone the discounted flow of future revenues.

So my belief is that this report was just "strategic meandering" in the fight-to-enter phase of the game and that it should be kept for this.

But you may be better informed in which case I would be happy to get your insight. In particular substantiating the high polarisation of future traffic onto p2p rather than hub2hub (one critical hypothesis of the Gellman report) would be appreciated.


PS: besides I am far from being able to judge from Pr. Gellman scientific credibility.

Quoting Udo (Reply 83): Good to see you agree

Just trying for a little humor, but....
Anyway, as many have noted before, the A380 really has no competition as a passenger aircraft in the VLA market. If the market develops, it should be a great success. It may be that orders of late have been slow because new buyers (at much higher prices) may be taking a wait-and-see attitude in regards to performance. No one can argue that slot restrictions may play a part in its success, although if that were the case, why no B747 passenger orders in the last several years? And Boeing is not disputing the existence of the VLA market, just its size. Except for the freighter market, it seems Boeing has developed the perfect B747 replacement already - the B777-300ER. It doesn't seem to me that adding 10% more seats to the B747 will save the day for Boeing jumbo.

Not to add fuel to the fire but unfortunately the financial community has it's doubts about the A380 (and the A350 for that matter as well !!).

Check out the latest Air Finance Journal and their recent Investor Operator Poll: http://www.airfinancejournal.com/index.asp

Not very good news I'm afraid. In the new aircraft category the 787 was overwhelming favored with a "surprisingly strong response in its favour"

To summarize, responses for most successful new aircraft:
787 = 74%
A380 = 11%
A350 = 6%
ERJ-190 = 8%

Quoting L-188 (Reply 73): But even then I think the folks at Dimonad Aircraft (Katana) and Sirrus might have some issues with that statement.

Point well taken although not in the same size and weight class as the Starship

Quoting Comanche (Reply 57): The Starship was an anomaly, overbuilt by a ridiculous factor because the FAA lacking any experience or experts in composites was too scared to give it type certification. The end result was a far too heavy airplane that didn't meet any of its performance expectation.

Not entirely sure I concur with the analysis...I can't even assume that it was overbuilt....you gotta understand it from the FAA point of view...novel structural technology. Novel is not always congruent with "good" or "smart"....
But I'll have to study up on the Starship.....there was a pretty nifty feature on Discovery Channel a couple weeks ago about the Starship....I wonder how the SDR's came out on the Starship.

There was one showed up here one time and with the pushers it sounded funny...

One thing's for sure....Beech or Raytheon or whomever has a big autoclave gathering dust, and a heck of a lot of experience building big composite structural assemblies and getting them through civil aircraft certification-that's gotta be worth a lot....I'd just bet all the people who worked on it are knocking down big checks at Boeing right now...

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 23): Nope. No GLARE for the A350. I made this point in a different thread earlier, which may have got a few folks here upset with me.

Could you please provide your sources for this again? I missed them (or a link to the other thread).

Quoting N1120A (Reply 75): The A380 doesn't cover 800 seats either, no matter what Airbus says

Corsair is famous for their 560 PAX in a B747. The A388 has 50% more floor space. A rough multiplication (which might or might not bo so adequate) leads to 840 PAX.

That any airline wants to fly all-economy with 840 PAX or that this preserves a reasonable range is another question though...

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 79): According to the Gellman report, there is barely a need for a 380-sized aircraft manufacturer, let alone two aircraft manufacturer

This is very precisely the point I question. That some well-known University big signature conveniently explains why the market in the future 20 years are p2p rather than hub2hub. Without backing evidence (since none can exist) but models based on hypotheses that can be refuted.

FYI Coca-Cola once wanted bo buy a small drink maker in a certain country. They were contempted by anti-trust authorities for becoming a monopoly. They argued to the contrary that Coke was in competition with any drink without alcohol including ... milk. And they too had presitgious scientific signatures to back their claim.

I won't judge on whether it is a shame or not. Just that it has already happend so that the authoritative argument is not enough to hide a lack of perspective.

We are still to discover what the market trend is. My personal belief is that both will coexist and will even reinforce each-other.

And for sure considering my number of vacation days and my salary I wouldn't hesitate to pay even a 100% premium for direct flights. I still doubt they will be offered within the next 10 years where I would need it.

Quoting JoeCattoli (Reply 77): Could be obsolete within 20 years, but the only reason that could make that becoming true is the continuous improving the technology due to more competitivity (due to the broken Boeing monopoly) and to he rising cost of the fuel. In fact, like others have stated, the A380 is a marvel of technology either if u are pro-Boeing or pro-Airbus, like the 787 is. Remember, if the A380 becomes obsolete within 20 years the 787 will follow its fate few years later... If not earlier.

I must respectfully disagree . As many have stated before , the a380 is an a/c which was designed using existing technology , where as the 787 is a new and revolutionary a/c . Composite fuselage, completely new interior , etc etc .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787
http://www.asiatraveltips.com/news05/318-787Dreamliner.shtml

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 90): I must respectfully disagree . As many have stated before , the a380 is an a/c which was designed using existing technology , where as the 787 is a new and revolutionary a/c . Composite fuselage, completely new interior , etc etc .

I respectfully disagree with that. The A380 uses newest technology almost everywhere. Think about pressuration of the hydraulics and so on. And the engines, while not bleedless, certainly are the quietest and most efficient in their class ever developed.

The efforts to get the weight down also lead to the use of many new materials.

So it is certainly not old technology used for the A380. About the interior, the plans for the A380 are also pretty revolutionary, as well, even if only a few things will be implicated.

Michael

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 84): This gem ? You are easily impressed by basic calculation.

So, what was the basic calculation?

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 84): Because "p2p" doesn't mean point to nowhere. And if you want to make 2 flights, then the hub is obvious.

Why would you want two flights to get somewhere?

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 84): I don't. I was answering to "the trend is ...".

So are you saying the trend is that there will be no p2p?

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 84): You really want an answer for that ?

Yes.

Cheers
iwok

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 91): Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 90): I must respectfully disagree . As many have stated before , the a380 is an a/c which was designed using existing technology , where as the 787 is a new and revolutionary a/c . Composite fuselage, completely new interior , etc etc . I respectfully disagree with that. The A380 uses newest technology almost everywhere. Think about pressuration of the hydraulics and so on. And the engines, while not bleedless, certainly are the quietest and most efficient in their class ever developed.

I do not agree that 5000 psi hydraulic systems are anything other than an effort to save weight by raising the pressure and a dicey venture. I worked on the MD11 which had a 3700 psi system, all titanium lines swage and welded fittings and that kind of pressure is leak city, no matter who designs it or builds it-and the longer the runs of line are, the more potential leak points you have.

I also worked on product development on the C17 and that uses a 4,000 psi system. I asked a design engineer whether they were provisioning a repair kit for the aircraft and he asked me why? I said, well, I'm just an hourly inspector and a high school graduate at that, but even I know that if a hydraulic system uses ordinary pressures and AN/MS hardware if it breaks you can find parts enough on any airport or mill supply to get it going. This rig you've got has none of that....and one well placed 7.62 round in a hot LZ and your entire aircraft is going to be written off.

They looked at me as if I was mad.

Well, your 5k psi system is in the same league.

Now....before you tee off on me for being a Xenophobe yank.....that's the REAL WORLD or aircraft service out on the flight line. A 5000 psi hydraulic system is a candidate for maintenance nightmare of the decade award.

And I do not think much of bleedless engines either, so I am heartened that Airbus did not drink from that poisoned chalice either....

Look at it this way...you need bleed air to run your environmentals...if you don't use bleed air you gotta do it some other way...what do you use? A full time APU? That uses up the fuel you saved.....Vapor air conditioners and combustion heaters? Nahhhhhhhh....motor driven compressors for pressurization? Not....It's a maintenance nightmare....

As far as the T-900 being the most efficientand quietest, I think the jury's still out on that one...until the other candidate is certified and flight tested we won't know any of that.

Quoting Glacote (Reply 89): This is very precisely the point I question. That some well-known University big signature conveniently explains why the market in the future 20 years are p2p rather than hub2hub. Without backing evidence (since none can exist) but models based on hypotheses that can be refuted.

did you bother to read the report? its over a 100 pages long..I read the entire report, and he backs up his explanations with a lot of conviction and facts....

it wasn't "conveniently explained"..there was hundreds, if not thousands of man hours put into that research paper...it was well organised, documented, and provided exceptional/empirical data......

of course, nobody can predict history, but the data and the extrapolations made from the report were quite intriguing and powerfully argued!!

Worth mentioning too that one of the co-authors was George W. Hamlyn, who was previously Strategy Director for Airbus North America. So they'd have had exact knowledge of the sort of costs Airbus were facing and the sort of prices they were achieving.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 94): did you bother to read the report? its over a 100 pages long..I read the entire report, and he backs up his explanations with a lot of conviction and facts.... it wasn't "conveniently explained"..there was hundreds, if not thousands of man hours put into that research paper...it was well organised, documented, and provided exceptional/empirical data...... of course, nobody can predict history, but the data and the extrapolations made from the report were quite intriguing and powerfully argued!!

Hey bruthah....you gotta wonder why the Gellman shadow project assessment gets the Airbus side of the house all irate.....especially when they know for sure that Gellman and Boeing "got it wrong".

Folks, if, as you say, the entire report is sheepdip, then you've got nothing at all to ponder over, you and Noel and John can all larf your arses off and bank your winnings while Boeing goes down the toilet....it was a waste of paper and time and money.

Another question the Airbus fans have yet to ask is "Why would Boeing go out in the market and make business decisions based on perjured data?" It doesn't make sense...this is not a political campaign...do you see any business that expects to continue in business saying "Well, let's go and buy bad data and then make bad decisions that won't pan out."?

Airbus was required to conduct a project assessment as part of a joint trade agreement between the US and the EU that dates back to 1992. Airbus never DID a project assessment or if they did, it was never released.
Consequently the closest thing to one was created with the information available...

One way of looking at it is, Boeing goes to the most astute people in the transportation industry, says "Here's fifty grand. Do what Airbus should have done so we can figure out what they're trying to do and what we should do."

That's what's called competitive intelligence in industry. No earthly purpose is served in purchasing bogus information unless you assume that the whole idea was to discredit Airbus and throw them off their stride. If that was the purpose, it didn't work....

See, it's just a piece of paper....that seems to throw some cold water on a lot of assumptions that people have made about the shape of the airline business in years to come and consequently, what types of aircraft will be needed and how many of them....if competitive intelligence and research is the sort of thing that makes you crazy and start flailing around, then a cold shower is called for....and a nice big glass of grape Koolaid.

There probably is no grand cosnpiravy here...

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 93): Look at it this way...you need bleed air to run your environmentals...if you don't use bleed air you gotta do it some other way...what do you use? A full time APU? That uses up the fuel you saved.....Vapor air conditioners and combustion heaters? Nahhhhhhhh....motor driven compressors for pressurization? Not....It's a maintenance nightmare....

Doug, I may be mistaken... but I think the idea is to use an electrically driven air compressor. You still have the same heating and cooling problems that you have with bled engines.

One interesting thing about bleedless, it allows for higher bypass ratios which lead to increased combustion/thrust efficiency. The issue with hi by-pass ratio engines is that the bleed system had a big negative impact on the transmitted thrust. Thats why cabin air is only 50% flushed.

In the old non-by-pass days bleeding the air had a much lower impact on thrust (the pressures are much higher in compressor stage 1) and hence cabin air was 100% flushed.

Anyway, to your point, it never hurts to take a real critical look at all these new technologies that the engineers are claiming are the next best thing since sliced bread.

-iwok

Folks,

I think any assessment of the A380 program progress is extremely premature given that we've only got only prototype flying! Once F-WXXL starts its test program next month we'll get a far better idea of how far the test program has progressed, mostly because F-WXXL's structural design is very close to production standard, and F-WXXL will use updated Trent 970 engines, too.

Quoting Iwok (Reply 90): So, what was the basic calculation?

OK, let's explain the basic math. Arf.

P2P: 100 airports need to have a link to the 99 others. Number of lines = 100*99.
Hub: 1 hub has to have a link to 99 others, both ways. Number of lines = 99*2.

Still in the dark ?

Quoting Iwok (Reply 90): Why would you want two flights to get somewhere?

Ouch. You really need precise explanations.
If you want to go from A to B, but there's no direct flight, you'll have to take 2 flights: one from A to C and then one from C to B.

Quoting Iwok (Reply 90): So are you saying the trend is that there will be no p2p?

Still not. You have a twisted mind.

Quoting Iwok (Reply 90): Quoting Sebolino (Reply 84): You really want an answer for that ? Yes.

Lol.
The answer is: it's OBVIOUS that my calculation doesn't take the cost of oil and the age of the plane or anyrhing else into account.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 89): I respectfully disagree with that. The A380 uses newest technology almost everywhere. Think about pressuration of the hydraulics and so on. And the engines, while not bleedless, certainly are the quietest and most efficient in their class ever developed.

I'm not an a/c engineer . However , I find it curious that AB will follow Boeing & construct the a350 using composites , not GLARE ! Which was used extensively on the A380 .


Dave

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 91): also worked on product development on the C17 and that uses a 4,000 psi system. I asked a design engineer whether they were provisioning a repair kit for the aircraft and he asked me why? I said, well, I'm just an hourly inspector and a high school graduate at that, but even I know that if a hydraulic system uses ordinary pressures and AN/MS hardware if it breaks you can find parts enough on any airport or mill supply to get it going. This rig you've got has none of that....and one well placed 7.62 round in a hot LZ and your entire aircraft is going to be written off.

Interesting...what has been the operational experience with the C-17 in regard to the hydraulics?