If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Contra Costa Times)   AirBus set to unveil big-ass airplane that can seat up to 800. That's twice the number of screaming toddlers onboard a 747   (cnn.com) divider line 322
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

16861 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2005 at 3:34 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



322 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-01-17 05:06:11 PM
jph:

And the Boeing 747 exists because it was created for the C-5 competition, which the Galaxy won. Boeing already had designs around, and decided to proceed anyhow with a civil version.

I was actually not aware of that. I leanred something. Thanks!
 
jph
2005-01-17 05:06:23 PM
darth_shatner:

The 7E7 is a smart idea. Passangers hate transiting and it costs airlines lots of money in landing fees and maintenance ( landings and takeoffs are hell on planes ). I think there will be space for both players.


More than you know. The reason the Japanese airlines went with it is because, in Japan, landing fees are based upon aircraft weight. Thus a if a composite aircraft like the 7E7 can haul the same number of passengers with less weight in the airframe, they save money. It's a big deal because Tokyo Narita has the highest landing fees in the world.
 
2005-01-17 05:06:45 PM
CoolHandLucas Last I heard UPS were going with the civilian-ised C17 for freight.
The A320 engine go-around was because the pilot was fighting the aircraft. It's also ancient history. We could go back to the 767 thrust reverser and fuel cutoff problem if you really want :-)
Oh and for the record, I'm not a "wannabe aviation know-it-all", unless you classify people who fly the aircraft before they're even built as wannabes. 6-axis full-motion simulators - yeah baby. We get to work on all the coolest shiat years before they ever fly for real.
 
2005-01-17 05:07:03 PM
2005-01-17 03:42:36 PM chrisell


It's been known about for ages. This is the first *finished* model, ready to fly.
wnatw Boeing have nothing like it in the works. The B747X got cancelled and they're going for a single-deck Boeing 767-replacement called the 7E7. Boeing's problem is that the 7E7 relies on as-yet non-existant technology. The A380 is a done deal and will fly.

Lukket, What have you been up to now?
 
2005-01-17 05:07:40 PM
2005-01-17 04:49:27 PM jph

The shame of it is that we need a third competitor. It would have been nice if McDonnell Douglas had not misstepped (mainly on the MD-11), but the real root of their downfall was when they competed with Lockheed in the 1970s. It murdered the civil divisions of both companies. Then Lockheed dropped out, and McDD screwed up by overpromising with the MD-11.

Lockheed designed a jumbo jet (the Lockheed 500) to compete with the Boeing 747, but they were unable to get any airlines to take a chance on it. They were able to sell it to the US Air Force and it became the C-5 Galaxy (it is still in service today). They also built a widebody jet to compete with the Douglas DC-10 (the L-1011 TriStar), but AFAIK none of these are in civilian service any more.

/used to build plastic models of jetliners as a youth
 
jph
2005-01-17 05:08:56 PM
zymurgist:

ATA operates the L-1011 in the U.S.-for who knows how long, since ATA is on the rocks. There are L-1011s in service overseas, and in the RAF, though for the latter, it's being replaced.
 
2005-01-17 05:09:33 PM
Actually, another note about the Boeing strategy: NASA has been working on a system of small semi-autonomous/autonomous jets to make use of the copious amounts of underused landing strip in the US (an article, NASA SATS project site). This paragraph in the article reminded me of this:

While Airbus is betting airlines still want to fly from one big airport hub to another the philosophy behind the A-380, Boeing is betting airlines want to be able to fly from every airport which the 7E7 can, but the A-380 cannot.
 
2005-01-17 05:10:20 PM
zymurgist
Have Delta retired all their L1011's? I can't remember. I know they used to fly transatlantic a lot but I think you're right - they've all been replaced with MD11s and 767s now.
 
jph
2005-01-17 05:11:37 PM
chrisell:

Delta got rid of their L-1011s a few years ago. The MD-11s and L-1011s have both been replaced with 777-200s and 767-400s (not necessarily in that order.)
 
2005-01-17 05:11:55 PM
Man, I wish I could fly one of those suckers, but alas, I am just an enthusiast. A poor one at that, or else I'd take flying lessons.
 
2005-01-17 05:12:47 PM
The A380 is going to sell sooo well in asia, hehehe. I love Airbus. Great plane. And together with the A350....

Boeing, watch out!

BTW, doesn't Boeing get subsidies too? Or tax benefits or something?
 
2005-01-17 05:12:47 PM
I wanna ride on top.
 
2005-01-17 05:13:30 PM
MajorXero

The 225's predecessor, the An-124 is probably the one you're thinking of.

That's it. I remember seeing all those wheels under the fuselage. However, I still seem to remember thinking that it looked rather large. Probably because I was seeing a bunch of 737's nearby.
 
2005-01-17 05:14:40 PM
I just looked at this image again, and you can see they've already painted it up in house colours, but there's white plastic liner covering up the "Airbus A380" at the front and the coloured stripes and "A380" logo on the tail and back of the body. The wingtips are uncovered though and show the Airbus house stripes.

 
2005-01-17 05:16:35 PM
Which company makes the Soul Plane?
 
2005-01-17 05:16:49 PM
Item 1:
The good old days of regulated air travel in the US allowed for a roomy 747 with coach lounges and upper deck bars because the government set the price and routes for the airlines. When that control disappeared so did the amenities.
(listen to Arlo Guthries Alices Restaurant for a nostalgic look back at regulated air travel)

Item 2:
The Airbus allows for 35% more passengers than the 747-400. That means 35% more people have to make their connections on time. Airbus has no input on improving airport flight connections so this giant is going to end up languishing on the gate tarmac waiting for everyone to make the hub connection or more likely a lot of people will get left behind. So the carriers will have to allot some of that new capacity to catch up on stand by passengers left behind on the last flight.
The most important factor in airport growth is gate cycles, the industry will have to reshuffle the entire hub schedule that will force passengers to spend an inordinate amount of time waiting for connections. Youre going to get a cheap flight but it will cost you an extra days worth or 2 of time sitting in the airport.

Item 3:
This plane is not meant for the use of Americans it is marketed to the rest of the world, so it will be about as frequent a visitor to our shores as the concord was. In the developing world market they only have hubs as of now. Most countries have a handful of airports and the rest of your trip is by other means. So a big arse plane is just fine.

Item 4: And the real reason it was built.
Tony Blair and the other presidents of the big European countries wouldn't be caught dead flying in a "me-to" 747-400 Air Force One knock off, but you can sure bet that when orders "slack off" the EU will order up a fleet of Luft Force Uno's. A fleet of giant blue birds with gold stars crossing Europe packed to the rim with useless plutocrats. Those lounges and bar mock ups aren't for the airlines, they were made for the real big wigs to get a funny idea about EU status symbols. Then Putty Poot will get jealous and invade Georgia so he can convert the AN-25 into the Czar Jedin. This is how all the big world wars started.
 
2005-01-17 05:17:53 PM
jph

Hey, you're right about the ATA L-1011's... I saw some of those on the ground at BWI about a year ago. The L-1011 is unmistakable... it doesn't really look like any other plane I've ever seen.

I work for Lockheed Martin and I saw an article in the company newsletter (I think it was last year) about the last of the L-1011's going into retirement. I don't have that issue any more, though.
 
2005-01-17 05:18:45 PM
For those of you who are easily fooled by the purty photos and ideas of casinos and such, keep in mind that these niceties will not exist in such form, and what does exist will not be available for the great unwashed in business and especially coach. Airlines that try to cater entirely to first class don't do very well: think of
MGM Grand Air


American carriers, aside from cargo outfits like FedEx and UPS (that should tell you something) are unlikely to pick up on the A380 anytime soon. The plane is great for high-capacity routes where the FAA won't tell them that there are too many people on-board. Jumping from the second story in an emergency won't be much fun.

Imagine 500-800 other people's air being recycled for hours and hours? They should give flu vaccines while people are waiting at the gate to board.
 
2005-01-17 05:20:30 PM

Quack Quack
 
2005-01-17 05:21:23 PM
Sure, but can it go from New York's Idlewilde Airport to the Belgian Congo in 17 minutes?
 
2005-01-17 05:21:52 PM
zymurgist:

That's it. I remember seeing all those wheels under the fuselage. However, I still seem to remember thinking that it looked rather large. Probably because I was seeing a bunch of 737's nearby.

Oh no, the 124 is still a freakin monster. They had to use one to carry one of the A380's engines because it was the only cargo plane big enough. (Can't find the image of it)
 
2005-01-17 05:23:13 PM
jdjoker - most aircraft components are built in different places from the final assembly. It's been like that since WW2.

All of you comparing the 7E7 with the A380

Apples and oranges. The two aircraft are not designed for even similiar roles. They'll both be successful, assuming both will actually be produced.

The 380 does have a place in the modern airline. They will never run between New York and Miami, for example, but New York - London, etc, will be the perfect market for this aircraft.

Most of the first A380's will not be operated in North America, at least to start. Almost all of the current buyers are in Asia. The traffic there more than justifies the size.

CoolHandLucas

The problem with the computer system in Airbus aircraft is long since fixed, however, even now, when something anomalous happens on an Airbus craft, it's common for the problem to be computer related (ie. false positives). This in itself contributed to one near accident (Air Transat A330 ran out of fuel over the atlantic because the pilots attributed the low fuel warning to a computer problem. The aircraft glided to land on the Azores, and nobody was hurt).

I'd fly an Airbus any day of the year.
 
jph
2005-01-17 05:23:58 PM
MajorXero:

You mean, "the only cargo plane big enough" that they could easily rent. The C-5 could do it, but those are obviously all spoken heavily committed to Iraq and Indonesia.
 
2005-01-17 05:24:38 PM
zymurgist:

That's it. I remember seeing all those wheels under the fuselage. However, I still seem to remember thinking that it looked rather large. Probably because I was seeing a bunch of 737's nearby.

Found it. (clickypops)
 
2005-01-17 05:25:04 PM
MajorXero
This would be it :
 
2005-01-17 05:25:58 PM
jph:

You mean, "the only cargo plane big enough" that they could easily rent. The C-5 could do it, but those are obviously all spoken heavily committed to Iraq and Indonesia.

Well yeah. It's a military craft. I don't think the US would be too keen on renting out one of their military craft for a commercial product that isn't even American. hehe
 
2005-01-17 05:26:35 PM
MajorXero Dammit - beat me by 26 seconds . Damn you calculatron!
 
jph
2005-01-17 05:26:39 PM
MajorXero:

For what it's worth the GE90-115B is significantly larger than the GP7200.
 
2005-01-17 05:27:56 PM
WOOHOO! First greenlit submission w/(essentially) original title!

/Seriously, guys--you slightly edited my title but didn't change the source to "CNN"?
 
2005-01-17 05:29:04 PM
My former employer Alcoa makes the fasterners that are used in the A380. And considering Alcoa's terrible quality, and that each A380 has over 1 million alcoa fasteners in it, I sure ever fly in one of those things!
 
2005-01-17 05:29:15 PM
dang...if only I had been spending all that money on TF then I too would get to play decoder ring with the big kids.
 
2005-01-17 05:29:38 PM
chrisell: Dammit - beat me by 26 seconds . Damn you calculatron!

Well, I'd already been searching for it for 5 minutes when I posted it. :)

jph: For what it's worth the GE90-115B is significantly larger than the GP7200.

I'm sure. I never said the engines on the A380 were bigger, just that they needed the Ruslan for help. :-)
 
2005-01-17 05:30:23 PM
frostyservant

Yours certainly wasn't the first submitted, but it was one of the first submitted without a truely dumbass headline. Mostly terrorism related.
 
jph
2005-01-17 05:32:48 PM
MrNeutron:

You worked for Huck?
 
2005-01-17 05:36:20 PM
For all of those of you who think this is an America vs. Europe thing, bear in mind Airbus have over 25 suppliers of parts for the A380 in America...
linky
 
2005-01-17 05:36:30 PM
Looks like the thread's died.
 
2005-01-17 05:36:50 PM
MajorXero

The semi tractor sitting next to the 124 gives a pretty good indication of the size of the plane.

/wonders how many Fiat 124 Spyders an Antonov 124 could carry
 
2005-01-17 05:37:08 PM
jph: I worked for Alcoa Automotive, and we used Huck Rivets in the products we made.
 
2005-01-17 05:37:58 PM
zymurgist: wonders how many Fiat 124 Spyders an Antonov 124 could carry

13,000 (roughly)
 
2005-01-17 05:40:12 PM
nothing to see here, then
 
2005-01-17 05:45:06 PM
Yeah. Big plane. Definitely big plane.
 
2005-01-17 05:47:03 PM
Woohoo! Last post! :-)
 
2005-01-17 05:48:15 PM
chrisell: Woohoo! Last post! :-)

You wish. :-D

/will probably not be last post either.
 
2005-01-17 05:50:14 PM
costermonger:
Ah, I see.

/Needs to get TF



You thought there would be a secret comment here, didn't you? You fools!
 
2005-01-17 05:51:51 PM
jph:

The An-225 did have a military start, as it was derived from the An-124, which was developed for the VVS (Soviet Air Force) in response to the C-5 Galaxy. Before 1991, the An-124 was only used by the VVS.


Don't forget one of the main initial jobs for the AN-225: hauling around that Buran space shuttle clone that never quite made it. The 225 was to serve the same job as the NASA 747 that flies around the shuttle (when necessary). The topside humps were the attachment points. Then the Buran tanked, and the Russians figured out that the 225 still made one heckuva cargo plane.
 
jph
2005-01-17 05:53:19 PM
shark:

I thought someone already mentioned that point. Anyhow, and actually, it served as the replacement for the M-4 Bison, which was originally intended to perform that role. It was a piss-poor lifter, just as the Bison was also a piss-poor bomber.
 
2005-01-17 05:56:08 PM
Hmm. So Boeing don't have an equivalent aircraft...
I guess it's time for the US aerospace industry to pull the same kind of stunt they did with Concorde.
They can't lobby Congress for a ban on supersonic flight over land this time, so they'll have to try something more direct; perhaps some discreet pressure/bribery directed at the New York Port Authority, say threatening to change the all-up-weight limits after airport modifications are complete.
Cartels - you gotta love them...
 
2005-01-17 05:56:41 PM
400 more passengers for terrorists to blow up?
 
2005-01-17 05:59:14 PM
Boeing will still win this battle.

Who the hell goes to big city airports anymore -- unless you live in or very close to that big city? It's all about shorter time travelling going in and out of smaller, minor market, airports now.

These big planes can't go to smaller airports.
 
2005-01-17 05:59:28 PM
Oh goody, just think, once they start letting people use cell phones on planes you'll be able to hear 500 people saying "hey, it's me.. yeah, I'm on the plane!"
 
Displayed 50 of 322 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report