zeio: anyone who defends scarebus isnt "in the know" in this industry.

My wife worked for Boeing for 18 years. She much prefers to fly on an Airbus plane when possible.

/thinks Boeing execs should be shot for the PR stunt that was the Sonic Cruiser
//do something new? Why bother?

Being located just under the "fly abroad every other year" in the financial scale, I haven't had a single flight as a kid. Flying had always seemed to me like an extremely prestigious and upscale experience.
When I finally got to fly, aboard a 767, economy class, all I could think of was "why did I think of this so highly?". Airport procedures aside, the legroom left a lot to be desired, and the interior was worse than most of the decent tour buses I've been on.
Hearing about all those plans to reduce leg space and cram more seats per row to shove more people into a single plane (A380, ahem) make me wonder- how much crap is the average flyer going to take?

If AirBus backs out of actually constructing the 380, what are the airports going to do with their facilities upgrade programs, currently underway and eing built specifically to accomodate te super jumbo?

Oy.

All of these statements denigrating the French "socialism" as compared to the Boeing "capitalism" are laughable. All aircraft manufacturers are heavily subsidized, including Boeing. If it wasn't for the bloated, make-work military business going their way on the guaranteed Pentagon gravy train, Boeing (and all other major aircraft manufacturers) would have gone out of business years ago.

Guess what? Commercial aviation is not profitable, no matter how you slice the numbers, all the way from the airplane factory to the carriers and airports. That's the big secret: Commercial aviation wouldn't exist anywhere without hefty government subsidies. In Europe, they don't attempt to hide this fact. In America, everyone deliberately pretends otherwise.

scotttothety: I was thinking France.

I'm curious. Why is it that people think that anyone who doesn't kiss the ass of a corporation is a socialist or "libtard"?

The rules of the market don't stop applying just because you've moved from the interactions of conglomerate entities to the consumer end of the flow of goods and money. It is not my job as a participant in the market to smile and bend over for any company or industry, just as it is not a company's job to smile and bend over for any other entity that would put it in a disadvantageous position. The job of the consumer in the market is to maximize their return for a given monetary investment, which entails being suspicious of motive and always seeking the true best given alternative instead of taking any company's word for anything.

Anyone who tells you "love the corporations" is an employee or investor in them, or simply delusional. The better mantra is exploit the corporations. They're trying to exploit you, using disingenous marketing and bean-counting economic principles to see exactly how little they can give you while still getting your money. So why should anyone simply trust that they're doing what's best for you? If they're giving it to you willingly, they could be giving you more.

/If you're exploiting, you're being exploited

alienchickenpie: how much crap is the average flyer going to take?

Actually the A380 figures to have more legroom than most other planes. Given the full decks, actualy crowding shouldn't be bad. At least not until some idjits crowd 600 seats onto the plane. But that'll be a while

Or rather - "if you're not exploiting, you're being exploited."

My last flight to NZ from California, Quantas goofed with my ticket, so they bumped me up to Business Class.

Let me tell you, if you are a pleb like me and have never flown Quantas Business class before, what a spectacular difference a 13 hour flight is between pleb-class and business class.

Those sky-beds are amazing. Not only to they fully recline, and infinitely adjustable (with an adjusting-remote that had bazillionty buttons) but each part of the bed/set had its own massagers, etc.

I love Quantas.

But there is no way I would pay the extra $2000 for it, myself.

If you are a business-class/first class veteran...you guys are lucky.

I'm sad I couldn't find a flight to Berlin on one.... I'll have to settle for a 747 or a 777.

Drakkenmaw: I'm curious. Why is it that people think that anyone who doesn't kiss the ass of a corporation is a socialist or "libtard"?

Airbus is based in part in France, dickface.

FLYNAVY: Haven't seen any evacuation tests....853 passengers off in 90 seconds. Doubt we will see it in the US. RR engines, cool, with Mercedes as part owner.


Wrong. BMW owns it.

canyoneer
and
Drakkenmaw

Very well stated.

WhyteRaven74

My wife worked for Boeing for 18 years.

Janitors like your wife can only afford Airbus-only Airlines like JetBlue, so I can understand why. Its ok to fly them if you have to.

Easy answer:

Put muthafarkin' snakes on the muthafarkin' plane.

2006-06-23 04:08:44 PM Glassoul

The A380 has not been a total bust, but its also not going to be anywhere near the success that Airbus/EU thought. They have sold 159 planes so far, but the last order came over 18 months ago. The Economist calculated that they needed to sell about 500 to cover both accounting and economic costs (though this was before the most recent delays). They'll probably need to sell closer to 600 now with the additional delays and the fact that they factories to build it will not be as efficient due to the lower number of orders. In a 20 year build cycle span that shouldn't be too difficult to achieve.

According to the Boeing spokeperson interviewed for the NYT article about the wiring issue (Monday?) they estimated that the worldwide market for aircraft in the 500+ seating class was about 300 aircraft. The spokesperson said "Airbus welcome to (that market)".

Let me count just a few of the hefty subsidies to the "civil" and "commercial" aviation sectors in the U.S.A., just off the top of my head, mind you:

1. The pilots and mechanics and engineers who design and manufacture and maintain and pilot these aircraft largely receive their training and experience during stints in the Yew-Naughted-States military. So, the human operators of the civil air industry are largely trained (at great expense) on the taxpayer's dollar. Air traffic controllers, too.

2. The production lines for most aircraft and other associated infrastructure - physical and human - is maintained by military contracts. K-YOU-ENN-TEE TV didn't create the market for Jet Rangers, the Army did. You don't just see them hovering above over-turned semis and traffic jams in West Meathead, PA, you also see them scouting over Fallujah and Ramadi and Baghdad. The dash-for-cash air ambulances all come off military production lines. Boeing made KC-135's right next to 707's for a long time, for example. There's a ton of capital cost defrayed (on very attractive terms, mind you) right there. You can think of many other examples for yourselves.

3. The subsidies to airports across America through the DoT. The FAA and the entire air traffic control system - all on the federal tax buck. What was Uncle Sam's share to build Denver International Airport? $1.5 billion? $2 billion? I imagine the accounting's a bit fuzzy, but you know it was a lot. All of the associated navigational infrastructure - radio beacons and landing lights and all of that stuff...across the continent. And the FAA does all the certification and accident investigation and so forth...on your dime, not Boeing's.

4. Direct military spending that props up these defense contractors/aircraft manufacturers. Boeing might pretend to maintain seperate books, but their stock floats right across the whole conglomerate. You buy shares in Boeing, and you're getting their military business, too. So Boeing's stock is directly underwritten by Congress through the Pentagon and its hefty, "cost-plus" (waste and corruption ridden) defense contracts.

5. Bailouts. How many times in the last twenty years - IN SPITE of all these already huge subsidies - have airlines needed to be "bailed out" by direct Congressional subsidies and "emergency aid packages?" Are you keeping track? It's well into the tens of billions of dollars over the period.

Need I go on? All you have to do is think about it for a minute or two. The idea that "captalism" is the driving force behind commercial aviation or the aviation industry overall in America is flatly ridiculous. That argument doesn't, ahem, fly. We subsidize our aviation sector as much as any other country on Earth...probably more so. The dirty socialist cheese-eating surrender monkeys do it openly and directly, while we intellectually launder the whole transaction through "national security" and the Pentagon.

Pbbbbbbt.

canyonner: "All of these statements denigrating the French "socialism" as compared to the Boeing "capitalism" are laughable."

Yes, laughing all the way to the bank with renewed capital, reformed management and biz principles, new jobs (not EU/union entitlements), tech growth and - gasp - PROFITS for everyday investors like you and me...uh, well, maybe me 'cause I'm almost sure you'll place the $2.86 cents you have to your name on the socialist pony.

zeio: They experiment and murder passengers with untested faulty product.

yes!

zeio: This goes to show you how evil Airbus is.

The DGAC has a different attitude about safety when it comes to home grown aeroplanes.

Uncle Karl: zeio
For such accusations you may wish to name an instance of that happening.

I don't think I've ever seen any rant as accurate as zeio's, it depends on what you really know about the biz.

Late to party, hope zeio sees this, hero!

canyoneer: The dash-for-cash air ambulances all come off military production lines.

Wrong . . . most air meds are 222's, 230's, 430's and 412's, none of which are military.

However, alot of what you say rings true, something most (many) people do not understand. The military and NASA have given us our way of life.

worthlessjuan

Its never too late to party! I hawk Airbus threads looking for any credible Boeing hate. I never find it. Just blind love for Airbus and excuses being made and people being ok with an Airplane having no regard for pilot input being "more correct" than the Airbus computer systems.

I mean, some guy here actually claimed his wife worked for Boeing for 18 years and seeks out Airbus aircraft? Please. I know several engineers who had worked there both permanent and contracting and they said that safety was primary to every project, even the door handle on the bathroom is taken seriously. Also, they do way over-design the aircraft and keep secret the real limitations of the aircraft because they believe in the safety limits and not exceeding them beyond the margin of safety. Airbus will print its limits - the real safety limits - Boeing will reserve a lot of that limit in safety margin. People never really know just how far past the limit a Boeing aircraft can go. And from the Heritage of the B17 and B29, on to the B52, there is nothing but true stories to back up Boeing craft going way beyond the call of duty.

The only military aircraft that Airbus makes is a rip off of the C-130 Hercules. They competed with that airplane about 50 years late.

sabreWulf07

You are a god amongst men. Thank you for working for one of the last great true mega-corporations that makes a kick ass product.

Thanks, thank you, thank you.

That airbus tire problem is so getting added to my rant against Airbus.

HotRodLandYacht

MD-11/DC-10 and the L1011 were fairly ass.

I was in an L1011 that scraped its ass on the runway during takeoff. SCARY. The DC-10/KC10 strato-tanker were seemingly capable of tearing ass in terms of top speed, but they always seemed a bit lumbering in terms of efficient climb rate. The military does not want to do another buy from the civilian space like the KC-10 due to the fact that the DC-10's they go, mostly ex-Delta craft, where beat up pretty good when they got them.

The tri-jets were underpowered and the Sioux City disaster proves the flight control surfaces were not wired up redundantly enough, all controls being routed on the top of the aircraft.

Boeing routes the control lines 2 on the top and 1 on the bottom of the fuselage.

canyoneer

If it wasn't for the bloated, make-work military business going their way on the guaranteed Pentagon gravy train, Boeing (and all other major aircraft manufacturers) would have gone out of business years ago.

Lies. Guess they don't deserve credit for the Dash80, the B52, the B29 or the B17. Man these people killed Hitler and imperial Japan and you crap on that? Freak.

Also, dude, Boeing has to compete with Lockheed. They just lost the design bid for the JSF. EuroCrud companies don't even build anything that could compete for the bid. Euro AirForces are stocked with crud that they losers of US aircraft military bids could whip ass on.

Anyways, Boeing has to fight tooth and nail for every dollar on the Commercial and Military side. Other companies viscously compete for the military contracts and in the commercial space Jerk Chiraq pays Aribus to suck and Airbus has France say crap like: Thailand, if you don't buy 6 A380 you get no tsunami aid.

So please, please please gather up some facts like I did. Read the book. Do your homework. Boeing does not get a privileged existence from the US government. Boeing defeated fascism and defeated Japanese imperialism. Boeing bombed commies, Boeing bombs camel jockeys and they do it for a fair price. Heck, in WW2 they did it for barely any profit at all.

Explain why the F-22A and the JSF F-35 are both non Boeing contracts despite Boeing owning Northrop/McDonnell-Douglas.

Walljasper

If AirBus backs out of actually constructing the 380, what are the airports going to do with their facilities upgrade programs, currently underway and eing built specifically to accomodate te super jumbo?

Im sure the EU, France and Airbus strong armed the HELL out of those airports to support the unsafe couldnt land in a crosswind to save its life A380. If they build it and it doesnt come, they are screwed. Airbus does stuff like that.

Did you know they thought they would build 200-300 Concorde's (270 was required to recoup the cost of development)? Same failure, different scale, different plane.

Drakkenmaw

your whole economies to scale stuff is obvious. But who cares? If I am an airline and these creeps promised a list price and jacked it, of if I'm an airline and these creeps jack the price because orders fall through there is even less incentive to buy.

Concorde all over again. Sad really.

Here is Drakkenmaw: "la la la , I'm farking oh, here dee gerdi here is a thread about planes, bork bork bork. Oh here de derdi , oh look, someone talks about prices, bork bork bork, and oh, herd de gerdi, I'll just say something about economies to scale, bork bork bork, it really isn't saying anything but the obvious but I'll feel all important and bork bork BORK. Now I pollute the thread with things that don't refute airbus sucking or being priced more per seat or costing more per seat to operate which is the real price over time thing the airlines have to be careful of bork bork bork herde gerdi bork bork. "

It's true. First class pays for the gas.

Except on an MD-80/MD-83. Those pieces of crap are all cattle. First class is more like first ass.

Zeio -
The B737 doesn't have a fuel dump system either.
Stop with the fanboyism. I like Boeing too, but you're annoying as hell.

zeio,
Since you're the Boeing xpert on here, whats the real deal on the tanker contract cancelling in the middle of the night. Not that the Hornet doesn't make a nice tanker, it's a waste of an attack fighter. Thanks for the HOrnet & the Bell Boeing Osprey. If the USMC will stop screwing the pooch maybe Navy can get enuf to do some good over here. Need em online like yesterday.

Wow zeio, you really are Boeings little biatch.

I've seen some video of Boeing's 777 landing at a 45 degree angle to the runway during crosswind tests. I'd like to see a A-380 try and do that without tearing the landing gear to pieces and possibly losing the aircraft.

BuzzBoy: I've seen some video of Boeing's 777 landing at a 45 degree angle to the runway during crosswind tests. I'd like to see a A-380 try and do that without tearing the landing gear to pieces and possibly losing the aircraft.

If you are ever in Wichita, you get to see all the test flights. Cool stuff.

I realize there will be yearly increases in price, but its bad form to announce it so near the bad news. It shows poor management all the way around.

What IS it with the rash of corporate execs who don't know jack shiat about the law of supply and demand?

zeio, the FAA's phone number is 1-866-835-5322 - I urge you to give them a call, seeing as they're obviously in need of someone with your deep technical understanding. Can you believe it, the dunderheads have been issuing airworthiness certificates to Airbus planes ? You sound like you're just the man to set them straight. True, we'd miss out on someone with your rapier wit and overall social grace, a huge loss, but we'll muddle through, I assure you.

That out of the way: The 747 product line was getting old, and either A or B had to come up with a jumbo replacement. Both companies are well aware that it's a high risk market and that there's not enough volume for two competing products in that range, and so it became a matter of seeing who blinked first. The upside: Make a good product (and maintain a good image), and you can live off a good design for decades. That's what the 747 did for Boeing.

Airbus decided to go for it, and frankly, it's way too early to say whether the A380 will be a success. They may have made the right decision. Boeing held off - they may have wished to cash in on the 747 for a while longer, or they may have decided that the investment in the jumbo-carrier niche paid off too slowly, or that the gamble just wasn't worth taking. They, too, may have been right.

It's too freakin' early to tell.

Oh, and both companies build really good, reliable airplanes.

FLYNAVY

Frankly, the 767 KC-767 project being put on hold may bode well for the armed forces and Boeing. The Air Force states that it would prefer more smaller tankers rather than larger ones. The 767 may have been "too big."

The question is would stubby 777 or a 787 be better for the project? I'm hoping that this would happen. The 777 would offer a huge "wartime" capacity, and the 787 would be very efficient at creating in sky gas stations.

The KC-30, the Airbus A330-200, is not yet operating as a taker just yet. The MD/Boeing guys have done: DC-10/KC-10, KC-135/Dash-80/707 and there are operational KC-767, I believe Italy just bought the KC-767 for their air force.

I think Boeing has the experience needed to deliver an effective long term Strato-tanker program and has proven itself in the past. I think that the 777, 787 and 767 offer reliable twin engine design that drastically reduces operating costs. The channel for parts and mechanical expertise is readily available.

I think there were some serious ethical concerns about the KC-767 and how that project was handled. There was bribery and lots of underhanded dealings going on. It is similar to Nixon in Watergate. Why spy illegally one someone you were going to beat in a landslide? Same goes there. Why did Boeing feel the need to fast-track the KC-767, well, it may have been to save the 767 line and all the associated jobs. Once the line closes it will cost a bit more to revive the KC-767.

Personally, I would consider using the 787. Efficiency is the word of the day, if we are to be flying 250-500 flying gas stations a lot of the time, let's have it be efficient. I think one concern for 2 engine designs is combat survivability, but lets face it, if you can knock one nacelle off then air superiority has broken down and things like tankers are sitting ducks.

I think the other concern is that the tanker MUST be able to fulfill both Air Force and non-air Force refueling. I don't think last I checked that the KC-767 has a proposal to service Air Force and non-Air-Force craft. I think that dual fuel bladders - one for Navy and one for AF and both types of refueling systems should be present on all aircraft.

If I was Boeing right now I would design a 787 and a stubby 777 with dual refueling capability and propose. The 767 is dead IMHO, let it RIP, it was a godsend of an aircraft, with stories like the Gimli Glider incident, it is a proven platform but the endemic design is dated.

I hope Boeing wins the contract, I would be writing furiously if EADS was even considered seriously for this role.

Kyoowashugi

The B737 doesn't have a fuel dump system either.

At least the landing gear works.

Erik_Emune

Can you believe it, the dunderheads have been issuing airworthiness certificates to Airbus planes ?

After flight 587, no. I think that US companies that operate Airbus would be in even deeper crap if they acted against Airbus. The Government either pays the Airlines' bill or lets the safety of Airbus slip to keep things profitable.

That out of the way: The 747 product line was getting old, and either A or B had to come up with a jumbo replacement. Both companies are well aware that it's a high risk market and that there's not enough volume for two competing products in that range, and so it became a matter of seeing who blinked first. The upside: Make a good product (and maintain a good image), and you can live off a good design for decades. That's what the 747 did for Boeing.

Boeing is smart. They dumped the tube design for the next super large aircraft design. They are going to enhance the 747 with a re-engine from the 787 (I think it will be bleedless as well, that should be interesting.) The 747-800 design exceeds the design requirements for passenger travel, offers combi designs that are popular with overseas carries, and offer a long legacy of planes that tend to only fall out of the sky when severely neglected or blown up by terrorists or flow into each other or the ground by careless pilots. The 747-800 is very intelligent because Boeing will be able to charge top dollar in the 500 seat arena. The 550-800+ seating arrangement of the A380 had a maximal market size of 250 maybe 300 aircraft, Boeing knows this from past experience. The MD-12 was offered years ago and no one ordered it. A lot of the A380 orders are from Airbus coercion, some were legitimate by Singapore Airlines (but they will be pissed when they find out the landing gear in the rear doesn't steer and 4 gigantic engines cost a lot to maintain.) Boeing risks little offering a 747-800.

Now the 787 is a stroke of genius. I cant wait to get on that aircraft. For what looks like the final tube design from Boeing, it looks to be the ultimate piece of passenger aircraft hardware. Composites, high efficiency and a high cruise mach (.85). For 250-350 passengers, 787 is a no brainer.

Boeing is correctly thinking point to point air travel will increase. The 777-LR will enable New York to Pakistan direct flights. This is what people want. They don't want to hurd themselves in with 700 other folks switching from one A380 to another in Frankfurt. We want direct point to point travel. I'm willing to pay for it, lord knows, anyone who has done the Sales Engineer thing will agree. Direct flights are really essential to doing business properly, no one wants you to show up late because your plane screwed you on a connector.


Airbus decided to go for it, and frankly, it's way too early to say whether the A380 will be a success. They may have made the right decision. Boeing held off - they may have wished to cash in on the 747 for a while longer, or they may have decided that the investment in the jumbo-carrier niche paid off too slowly, or that the gamble just wasn't worth taking. They, too, may have been right.

Just like with the Concorde, which was supposed to be built 275+ times to recover development cost, it is much easier to make radical designs and build things that aren't needed when you know your governments need you really badly not to fail. I think EADS has been managed poorly and think that they free spend other people's money. I believe just recently the received several billion in subsidy. Without the subsidies Airbus really couldn't exist. Whether that is ethical or not is subjective, I don't think it is.

I have written Singapore Airlines and JetBlue and others who have purchased Airbus. I told them I will not travel with them due to soliciting Airbus. I give reasons. I think that making money off of folks here in the US, particularly JetBlue, you should buy American designed product.

Oh, and both companies build really good, reliable airplanes.

I do not like the assumptions or the margins Airbus uses. I strongly believe Boeing to have sounder design principles, much more experience in aircraft building, more successful products, more versatile product. I simply prefer them for reasons that seem obvious to me. Both anecdotal evidence and facts support my prejudice, but to those who like them, feel free to fly on them. To each his own.

NoImSpartacus

Not a biatch. I just want the two companies to compete in a meritocracy, something Airbus tries very hard to subvert and back door deals and tie Aircraft deals to EU aid packages.

zeio, that almost sounded coherent. Congrats. It's of course your prerogative to pick airlines depending on their fleet, but it does appear a tad silly. As said before: Both A & B build fine planes - maintenance and crew training have a much larger influence on your safety. I guess you need a windmill to tilt against - to each their own.

I for one bear no ill will against Boeing - the 787 is very likely going to be a cool plane. The 747-800, on the other hand - another stretch of a design that's what, 40 years old ? Ingenious, but surely not that impressive.

Incidentally, the rear landing gear on the A380 has steering axles on the inboard 6-wheel bogies. The content of sabreWulf007's post is simply incorrect - the pictures show the results of an "abusive test" where Airbus purposefully disabled the steering (yes, it's there) and then had a tow tractor maneuver the plane outside the allowed limitations. The gear performed as designed, even when abused in this manner.

(The post has other factual errors - as stated, the 380 does indeed have steering on its inboard bogies, the load per wheel is in fact lower than that of many other heavy aircraft and the wheels are arranged in two outboard 4-wheel bogies and two inboard 6-wheel bogies - not in four 4-wheel bogies as stated.) I'm sure sabreWulf007 posted it in good faith, but it's not a very precise description.

You mention design margins several times - could you elaborate on that ? I'd like to see the numbers.

Erik_Emune

You are right about the A380 body gear, it is steer-able. The under-wing gear carriages are not. The plane in the pictures test was pulled at the nose gear by 72 degrees, the operational max is 60 degrees. The steering of the underbelly gear was disabled for the test. The plane was under maximum load weight.

The pictured test was successful and the under wing was not damaged and were able to still be retracted later.

The interesting thing to note is that the tarmac / bitumen was torn up slightly due to the load, but it is doubtful that the load is more than a 777-300ER or something similar.

In a given B vs A argument, real things must be reported. sabreWulf07 ; spread the word that A380 carriage was a success and one will have to gloat about the 787 and 777 lineup being better in different departments beside the landing gear and its viability.

The plane is able to make, with a 60 degree turn and the three steer-able gear carriages enabled a full 180 degree turn in the 60 meter width allowed. (Actually it was 56-57 meters, close, but makes the same cut as a 747.)

Ill bring the A hate, but only where it is deserved. Landing gear doesn't seem to be an area of reproach.

Erik_Emune

As far as margins go, I knew a mechanical guy over there that claimed at times strength of things where 300% of what was required for the range of stress in an application. The numbers for these are kept secret, according to him and others, so as not to give people the true limits of the aircraft, but just the advertised limits. He is believable - I don't get the sense he had any inside company fear mongering things to tell - and if he knew something was bad over there, he wouldn't have anything to lose by telling all...

One other thing I can think of with regards to the A380 is the wake turbulence is likely to be extreme.

Another would be the rated number of cycles the aircraft can be subjected to. If it doesn't exceed the rated cycle rating, this could become a problem. A300s don't age particularly well and one can see that 707s and 747s and other aircraft of the Boeing ilk save maybe pre-600 737s and 727s seem to last forever. If the A380 proves mechanically reliable and the service intervals of it are estimated properly and are not more frequent, then it could potentially make itself a Jumbo jet replacement.

The one other thing that could be an issue with this big guy is crosswind. It would seem that in a nearly out of gas scenario and an incoming typhoon after a long transpacific flight crosswind on a near empty plane that big could be severe.

The other thing that struck me was the range didn't drastically expand the 747-400ER and the planned 747-8/747-800 ranges, meaning the 777-LE Worldliner will eat all the distance business sup for sure.

Also, back to the margin thing. I believe the wing load test failed - the wing failure should occur at 1.5 times the predicted load minimum, and the wing structure failed at 1.44 time the load limit. This is where I think Boeing could goes the distance - the 777 wings broke a 1.51 times the load limit and Boeing predicted where the wings would buckle in the static load test and they predicted it perfectly. Boeing knew the limits, Airbus found out during the test.

WOW to quote Bruce Willis in Armageddon
"this is a goddamn greek tragedy".

ILFC one of the two biggest aircraft leasing firms in the world is already seriously threatening to cancel its order for 12 A350 aircraft unless Airbus redesigns it because they are not happy. Then to further antagonise a seriously Irate customer Airbus announces Monday major delays in its A380 programs under the guise of some bullshiat wiring problems(you know its way more serious than that). ILFC announces the next day its now seriously considering cancelling its $3 billion order for 10 A380s so what does the Airbus management do? you got it, jack up the prices "Brilliant".

Air Transport World(pops)

I wonder if any of this has anything to do with the A380 failing to meet its designed static stress test ultimate failure goal by 5% back in February. The ramifcations here are huge we're talking redesign, retooling, retesting, major weight penalties in order to beef up the wing root and possibly even scraping all the wings they've produced to date. I wonder if this had anything to do with Forgeards decision to dump a metric shiatload of his stocks back in March or April.

A380 Static Wing Stress Test Failure(pops)

Stay tuned folks for the next edition
"Storm clouds on the horizon. Airbuses weather radar on the fritz" hilarity will definitely ensue.

zeio:

"The B737 doesn't have a fuel dump system either".

"At least the landing gear works".

Yes, the gear works but they're still trying to get the yaw dampers to work correctly and not lock up. Those wingovers and uncontrolled dives are hell on crew and passengers.

zeio:
Thanks for the quick answers. Course, we're used to Boeing's quick responses, always 24/7 is your motto I think [thought we put in some long days], haha, seriously thanks for all the support all you Boeing guys give us Navy guys. & yeah having a nice huge tanker soon for those trips over the mountains would be a real big help [why should AF have all the fun]. & to cut Boeing some slack on the strato-tanker deal, I think the Pentagon was pushing the schedule pretty hard from their end because we were hammering em hard from our end & then pffft, it was a subject no one up the food chain wanted to talk about. U based @ El Segundo? Work with Chris Chadwick? Anyway, thanks, time to hit the rack here.

/who knew you could have a serious technical discussion on Fark?
/oh yeah farkers, Boeing looks like it's going to save the US tax payers $1 billion + on the Super Hornet multi year procurement $8.6 billion contract. Sweet.

BuzzBoy
Yes, the gear works but they're still trying to get the yaw dampers to work correctly and not lock up. Those wingovers and uncontrolled dives are hell on crew and passengers.

Funny, not a single hull loss for 737-500,737-600,737-700,737-800 and 737-900, nor the BBJ/BBJ2 or BBJ3. None. The only fatalities are two, one in Chicago slid off the runway and killed a boy in a car (pilot error, touchdown too far in on runway), the other a 19 year old passenger went crazy and other passengers beat him to death. So 737-NG, 0 fatalities. Of the 737-100 to 737-400, barely any accidents in top tier airlines in the US/Canada, Japan, Korea and Europe. It seems only people in Africa, South America and other dirty lawless places take ancient 737s, mistreat them, and then fly them into the terrain on purpose. Again, not Boeing's fault.

So while you claim Boeing has problems, seems like they aren't killing folks with those problems. Over 5100 737 have been built and delivered, and over 2500 of those are the death-free 737-NG. I think that's the most death-free aircraft ever built ever.

BuzzBoy

Oh, yeah, the A380 failed the wing load test. 1.44x load failure during test. 1.5x load failure required minimum.

People, you want to fly on a plane so big and heavy which during emergency maneuvers could create fantastically high loads on the wings knowing that Airbus is just trying to scrape by the safety margins on wing loads?

Then that vertical stabilizer and both engines just falling off that A300 on flight 587 was just "cute." I'm sure the passengers that ALL DIED on that aircraft were happy about the ride into NY city.

zeio:
Re: 737,....you're forgetting the one I referred to in Colorado Springs, I think it was United. There was also one in Panama, Boca Airlines. On both, the rudder kicked over and they went into a dive. On both, the yaw damper assy. was found locked to one side.

Boeings are built like tanks. I read in a book on 727 development / testing that an empty 727 was dead-dropped from 16 ft. with no damage to gear or fuselage

Come on, now...

zeio Oh, yeah, the A380 failed the wing load test. 1.44x load failure during test. 1.5x load failure required minimumThat's engineering for you. You test, you find a problem, you correct. And the comparison to the 777 is hardly relevant. The A380 wing is a much harder engineering problem - it's the first partly-composite wing of that size. The 777 wing is an evolutionary design based on the 757 and 767 wings - that territory is much better known.

People, you want to fly on a plane so big and heavy which during emergency maneuvers could create fantastically high loads on the wings knowing that Airbus is just trying to scrape by the safety margins on wing loads? Designing for 1.5 is not "scraping by", you're just being polemic. You may note that Boeing, too, aimed for a 1.5 loading in the 777 wing. That's because 1.5 x maximum loading is an insanely high load. (Say, where's that Boeing 300% margin again ?)

Then that vertical stabilizer and both engines just falling off that A300 on flight 587 was just "cute." Who called it "cute"? You fly planes outside the design envelope, and you can overstress them. Once you do that, things start breaking. It sucks.