Now that the Airbus A380 is flying, will France’s Jacque Chirac order one for his state aircraft - just so he can claim he’s got a bigger one than George Bush? 
14 Comments
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.ncobrief.com/index.php/archives/i-wonder-if/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Ha! Well until:
(1) JFK and the other major airports modify their taxiways, and
(2) Wake separation criteria for that monster is determined.
It may be a while.
Comment by Jaalinta — 20050301 @ 0715
Boeing wants to watch out… it’s in danger of being trounced by Airbus. The A380 is selling fast; 139 orders from 13 countries.
Comment by Robin — 20050301 @ 0745
I hope Boeing has to watch out. I work less than a mile from the 777 plant and all we hear around here is word of layoffs while Boeing hits up the city for more tax breaks and municipal improvments for their companys benefit. Boeing has been very gradually reducing its commercial production in favor of the very lucrative military contracts out there. For example, they are saying that they may have to shut down the 767 plant if they do not get the tanker contract. With local pressure on our senators and congressmen I think that the contract will come through. Maybe I’m just a little cynical though.
Comment by chaz — 20050301 @ 0821
My dad is a former 747 captain and loves Airbus gear. But he sees a major problem with the A380.
#1. Not very many airports can handle the A380, even on an emergency basis.
#2. Loading 800 pax is going to take over an hour.
#3. Imagine an emergency evac of 800+ people from a downed A380.
The cost savings is going to go right out the window the minute these things start flying at 85% capacity. Once that happens, you can kiss these puppies goodbye.
Comment by Brian — 20050301 @ 0856
In a “usual configuration” the A380 only carries about 550 passingers. But still, passinger boarding is a major concern.
Airbus and Boing’s estimates for the demand for long-haul super-jumbos differ greatly (1,100 vs.360). I think, long-term, Airbus’ estimate is closer to reality. But, it relies on continuing expansion of Asian economies, and them following the traditional hub-and-spoke model.
Here in the west, we are discovering that model’s limitations. Airlines are saying they want to distribute traffic over more regional airports - hense the 7E7, a smaller but more efficient aircraft.
Comment by Kevin L. Connors — 20050301 @ 1032
Thing is, major airports are going to HAVE to start looking at adapting to the A380 because so many major airlines are buying them. Their are particular implications for the air freight business; if UPS can’t land their 10 new A380s at JFK, they’ll go somewhere that can support them.
Personally, I hate flying on the crappy little planes that do US and European internal routes, I get well claustrophobic on them. Nice, big planes are just the ticket
Comment by Robin — 20050301 @ 1043
*there
Comment by Robin — 20050301 @ 1043
At least in the United States, UPS operates its own terminals.
Comment by Kevin L. Connors — 20050301 @ 1118
Except in airports where flights are limited (O’Hare, say), I don’t see the A380 increasing efficiency unless they figure out how to load through more than one door at once. Every minute the plane is loading instead of flying, you’re paying interest but not getting any revenue. The longer the flight, the less significant this is, but still. I’m continually surprised that they don’t design widebody’s for loading through more than one door. If you cut the time down to %60 of what it was, than you can probably add a flight a day on short hauls.
Comment by James Agenbroad — 20050301 @ 1238
He may have a bigger airplane than Bush but his b???s are still the size of small peanuts.
Comment by Pete — 20050301 @ 1944
1. Jaalinta’s comment brings up a good point - wake turbulence from that beast will be huge! NO ONE wants to follow it on final! Of course, loading is a big factor, and probably it will take a great big loan from France before any large number of US airports will want to spend the BIG $$$$ necessary to upgrade facilities, from runways to taxiways to terminals. Who, politically, in congress, wants to make the suggestion that WE pay for it?
Comment by Joe Comer — 20050301 @ 2107
“For example, they are saying that they may have to shut down the 767 plant if they do not get the tanker contract. With local pressure on our senators and congressmen I think that the contract will come through.”
That’s gonna be a tough sell. We just jettisoned the SecAf for his role in that fiasco, as well as a few other people. If it happens, it’s going to be a year or two from now after all the fuss has died down.
Comment by Stryker — 20050302 @ 0017
Don’t forget that Airbus is jointly run by British Aerospace; it’s not just a French company.
Man, I REALLY hate flying. Going to Rome in a few weeks and I’m actually dreading it.
Comment by Robin — 20050302 @ 1125
I just visited the Airbus A380 promo site. They say that the plane will still be cost efficient to with only about 60% of seats occupied and that the passengers could be loaded and unloaded from 2 doors.
Interesting to look at the company concepts for the deck with a bar and lounge (they have a nice Quicktime VR of them). I bet the airlines are looking at those and laughing. Which will the airlines choose, a lounge or a couple dozen more seats? Hmmm…..
Comment by Scott — 20050422 @ 0011