So Airbus has debuted the A380 and everyone is all excited about a giant plane. The images and pictures look pretty cool, but personally I think Boeing is on a better path with its smaller 7E7, but I suppose that's up to the market to ultimately decide... except for the fact that the Europeans have never been too fond of the free market.
The ceremony also provides a great deal of political currency for Europe's four most powerful leaders.Prime Minister Tony Blair will be there, as will President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso will also attend.
The first prototype of the Airbus A380 observed by plane spotters
Will the A380 provide luxury for the few, or be a coach for families on holiday?In fact, the presence of the politicians is far from spurious. Without government assistance, the A380 would probably never have been built.
Billions of euros have been handed over in "launch aid loans" in recent years - under generous repayment terms - to assist Airbus's development of the A380.
This has angered the US, which is home to rival aerospace giant Boeing.
It's a fact that America's reluctance to assist Boeing makes it much more difficult for the company to compete on the world stage, and the same goes for America's aircraft operators. I still doubt that the post-9/11 aline bailout was a good idea, but if American companies had gone out of business they may have been replaced by subsidized foreign companies. Subsidies can only go so far and so long, however, because they naturally weaken the country doing the subsidizing. In a sense, if American air travel had been taken over by foreigners we could have free-riden on the European desire for nationalized airlines -- thus transferring money from the Eurpoean taxpayers to ourselves.
Anyway, the main reason I like the Boeing 7E7 better than the Airbus A380 is that I think hubs are a thing of the past. People don't want to fly from where they live to a hub and then on to their destination. Humans aren't packages, and human airlines shouldn't operate like FedEx. People want to fly directly to their destination, which means longer flights with smaller, more efficient planes, and that's what the 7E7 is all about. There will always be a place for giant planes, and for intercontinental travel they certainly make sense, but I expect most people will prefer direct flights when they can get them.
The other factor is safety. Although the measurement methods are somewhat controversial, Airbus tends to have a worse safety record than Boeing. Airplane accidents are measured by flights rather than by distance or hours flown because most accidents happen during take-off and landing. Although there are more accidents with Boeing planes than with Airbus planes, Boeing planes also fly far more than Airbus planes, so the Boeing accident rate is lower. However, this isn't true for all comparable plane models; the Airbus A320 has a lower accident rate than the Boeing 737, for example. In most other classes the Boeing planes are superior. Why? Perhaps they're built better, but it's also likely that the countries who buy Airbus planes don't maintain their fleets as well as countries that buy Boeing planes. It's complicated, as you can see.
Update:
Brian Micklethwait explains how the EU is screwing Thailand by forcing them to buy six A380s, and Dustin Choe elaborates on why the A380 is impractical.
so anyways, i guess i will start off with simple logistics. very few airports in the US can even support the weight of the a380. this will force many airports to upgrade and remodel to accomodate the plane. i am unsure about the condition of foreign airports, some may be able to handle this plane already. there will also be some minor changes made to terminals because it will take 2 to 4 jetways to load and unload the passengers. i have a feeling that if any US airline can even afford the $240 million plane, they will likely be the economized 800+ seats version to decrease the cost per passenger. and as per FAA rules, the plane must be able to be evacuated within 90 seconds and this is something i would like to see.
There's more.
Don't forget that Airbus at the last minute (2 years ago) had to hire dozens of American firms to help in the final design of the plane. Besides from the EU tax payers, if it wasns't for a Kansas aerospace engineering firm, the A380 would tip over in mid flight! EU subsidies can sometimes mean money in America's pocket. However, this may not fare well with the consumer who is getting a product that is not necessarily superior since the market did not even demand a superjumbo jet. In fact, there is no market for the A380 at all. Airbus is virtually giving away its planes, merely to appear as if its selling more than Boeing. But the truth is, Boeing still has larger profits than Airbus, despite Airbus taking over as the world's largest commercial jet maker. If it's the world's largest commerical jet maker, then why isn't its profits greater? Ask the EU tax payer how he feels about that....
I'm OK with it.
The increased efficiency of a large jet will make increasing economic sense as oil becomes more expensive. It already make environmental sense, even if it needs some subsidy to compete.
its seems to me that the US is playing down the A380 just to make themselves feel better. the A380 is a splendid plane which boeing haven't got answer for.
and as for some of the comments stating that even though boeing has more accidents its still safer than airbus because there is more of them is a joke its a very poor argument.
The A380 is a far more superiour plane and as for 7E7 which will become a bit of a dodo for boeing
Allan: Oh gosh yes, I feel so bad about the EU's giant penis airplane.
Do you really think Boeing doesn't have an "answer" for the A380, as in, they couldn't design a giant plane? As Johnn already mentioned, many of the key technologies required came from the US aerospace industry. Boeing made a purposeful decision not to go that route. You may be right in thinking that the A380 is the right solution for the future of air travel, but that has nothing to do with how anyone "feels" about it.
As for safety, safety ratings are clearly more important than the absolute number of incidents.
Clearly, Airbus wins.
BUT not becausee oof the airplane (it's a big, fat n' rather heavy giant with thrusters)
It's because of the timeframe.
Many airlines are replacing their old fleet with new jets, and the 7E7 ain't coming fast. So, even the giant dosen't suit the airlines' destination/market target, vanity kicks in.
The A380 is JUST like the Bugatti Veyron. No real meaning, not even practical (coz people like to have more departure times), just a halo unit for Airbus.
And I seriously doubt about Emirates needing it.
I praise Boeing for their smart move (comfort point-to-point aircraft).
I just hope they will survive.
I guess I'll chime in and add to what was already quoted from my blog. as far as the timing goes, it's a moot point. it's not like the a380 will be taking sales away from the 787 because they need a plane now as opposed to a couple years down the road. planes are purchased years in advance.
also, boeing will be transforming a couple 747 to be the biggest airplane created, EVER. it will hold more volume than any previous plane. it will actually be used to ship the 787 fuselage back to the states
A beautiful Plane. Americans should not be afraid of a little competition. I think it challenges complacency and stimulates the mind to greater things. Think of it as a honor that europeans want to trounce the americans so, it keeps us on our feet. The only uneasy feeling i get about the plane is its size and terrorist's might think of it as a great way to do harm. I pray to God that it never happens! other then that i applaud the europeans. I'm also confident in American ingenuity. The American Airline Engineers have done okay so far haven't they?
The fact that everyone seems to be missing is the financial pressures that both of these companies will face if either of their products fail. Boeing in no way can afford for this to fail, and I don't think that it will, and Airbus has sank too much into this airplane to watch it fail.
The one good thing about the Airbus aircraft is that it has forced Boeing to become innovative and streamline its business process entirely. It is about time someone gave Boeing a kick in the butt
Boeing may not receive outright subsidies from the U.S. government, but it effectively receives the same in the form of massive military contracts from the U.S. government. You think every penny spent on Boeing military equipment is a necessary expenditure? Please, it's the same thing as a subsidy for its civilian aviation division.
GBJ: Well, considering that Boeing's military and civilian divisions are seperate entities, not really.
Jason, I agree with you in that Boeing can't afford for the 7e7 to fail. (Which I feel is out of the question, it can't fail). However, Airbus will lose nothing from the A380 failing. That's why they are about to battle it out with the WTO, Airbus doesn't have to repay the loans from the EU if it fails. Which is bull.
The A380 and 787 (aka 7E7) are not competing directly against each other. The A380 is a 500+ seat super-duper jumbo while the 787 is a extra-efficient mid-sized wide body. The A380 is designed to have casinos and bars in it. It's silly to pit the two against each other. A more suitable match would be 747 vs A380 or 787 vs A350.
Personally, I'm rooting for Boeing, being American, but I can certainly see why Europe and Airbus is so proud of the A380. That thing's huge!
This is a question of vision. The two companies are forcasting two different visions of the future. For certain, the A380 is a marvelous aircraft, but so's the Concorde, which was a commercial failure. Boeing is banking it's commercial airplane division on the forcast that poin-topoint travel is the wave of the future. Airbus is banking on the idea that hub flying will remain firmly in place for the life of the aircraft. Actually, Airbus isn't really risking a thing because of the "launch aid".
And let's talk about subsidies, shall we? The so called "subsidies" that Boeing gets are not specifically for Boeing. They are available to ANYONE who opens up shop in the States to build airplanes. Lockheed Martin gets them, and so did McDonnell Douglas (rest in peace). Nothing prevents Airbus from moving to the U.S and getting the same tax breaks. So the argument that Boeing is subsidized is as wrong as two boys holding hands in church.
It all comes down to who's read the market correctly. Personally, I think Boeing made the right call. The 787 will foster a whole new line of aircraft, and in ten years will render most of the Airbus's obsolete. The A380 will sell, but I really don't see it selling a whole lot. They will become somewhat of an oddity, and only be seen at a few major centers. I really don't think it will be commercially viable, because I just don't think the seats will get filled. The A380, as wonderful a plane as it is, will wind up being a flash in the pan and there won't be many flying ten years from now.
Michael: Good point about the differences in how the subsidies are handled. I agree with you as far as the A380s future. I hate flying through hubs.
Lots of interesting points here. I really have no idea which company's vision will become reality. Regarding the lounge/casino plans for the A380, I recently read a blog comparing this idea to MGM Grand Air. Fancy staterooms,bars,etc. It failed. Airline travel is a commodity. I believe that, while people PREFER to fly direct, they are WILLING to go out of their way to save money. The 800 seat A380 may be the best chance for huge profit. I am not a cow, however, and don't want to be herded into a massive airplane. One must also consider the length of time an 800 seat plane will sit on the tarmac waiting for the loading of 800 sets of luggage. Furthermore, how many airports have the room for 800 people to wait at one gate?
Finally, Boeing has no answer? Please. It's not like the A380 dwarfs the 747. If Boeing could build the 747 in 1968 (commercial service in 1970), it's pretty safe to assume they COULD build something bigger today.
The thing is that one should not compare A380 to the 787, this 2 diffrent plane types. More sensible is to compare 787 to the A350, and when you do so you will see that the specs are almost identical even if a small advantage for the A350 in accomdating no. of passengers and range.
As for the future of the A380 one will have to see, intressting is that many airlines has put their trust and belives in the A380, such as Quantas, Lufthansa, Air France, Singapore Airlines, Fedex (cargo), UPS (cargo) etc.
As for safety...please, i'll fly anytime Airbus instead of a Boeing....look at the accident rate that boeing's had, cabin preassure failure, reversing engines (in mid air) and so on.
DN: The reason the A380 and the 7E7 (787) are being compared is because they are the new offerings from the major plane builders, and they reflect the beliefs that those companies have about the direction the industry will be taking over the next decade.
MW: What i think is that there is no this or the other, i think that some routes will always have a great number of passengers such as LON-NYC, SIN-LON, PAR-NYC, SYD-NYC etc. the option you have on those routes are not many, to use the A350 or 787 will not be sufficient(230-250 passengers). I think that the A380 is a good call what goes for Airbus to offer any type of plane suited for the type of route.....then again the future will show.
MW: Correction SYD-NYC is not possible for the A380.
Is there just a little bit of sour grapes (ill feeling) by all you Americans? Worlds first AND only supersonic commercial airliner and now the worlds LARGEST commercial jet.
If this plane had been devised and built in the U.S. by Boeing, no doubt they would all be talking about how fantastic it is?!?
No matter, surely the point is that as a world we should be looking to work together to reduce pollution. The A380, seat for seat, is 35% more efficient and less polluting than any other plane flying today.
As someone said above, Kansas designers stepped in to save part of the project and there has been employment all over the world boosted by this project.
Let's celebrate, not throw sour grapes!
I am an engineer for Rolls-Royce (UK engine manufacturer), and one of the reasons the A380 is going to be a success is largely due to the outdated engines, software and efficiency of the 747. The sales for the A380 have come about due to airlines other options....the 747. The engines from all 3 engine manufacturers for the 747 are outdated inefficient and old! The A380 is the only viable option for current airlines wishing a large haul aircraft. If you go out and buy a coach, you don't buy one that requires larger overhead costs than a current model available. The A380 has the efficiency and cost per mile benefits that airliners require. As I work for RR I want both aircrafts to succeed (787 & A380) and I truly feel they will. I, and many companies agree with Dennis Nucamp, you have specific routes out there that just require huge aircraft, hence the A380, but on the flip-side you still require small efficient point to point aircraft, the 787. And for the Americans out there, if you feel that the A380 is not a good plane I would seriously ponder just how many jobs it has created for you....Goodrich, Lucas, Alcoa, SPS, Bristol Industries to name but a few. This is a global industry with global suppliers. The Rolls-Royce Trent 900 for the A380 and the Trent 1000 for the 787 has a large supply structure in place in the states, and you should all remember this (current stats are 80% of engines are made outside of the UK).
The comments made about "Boeing could make this but they just don't want to", I feel are quite childish, nobody from Airbus or any european subsidurys have ever made such comments. Nobody doubts Boeing's skills as both Engineers and innovators, what people need to understand is that these are two very willing and able companies trying to survive in a very competitive global market.
And finally just remember the worldwide public will decide on the way forward for air travel. Which way you decide is up to you, whether you are English, French, American etc...and as most sensible people feel there is such a things as co-existence. In twenty years time you will still see the Airbus sky and the Boeing sky.
I think the a350, 787 and a380 will all do well as long as they perform well.
The A380 will take its place in history as being the largest plane ever manufactured. But I imagine that history will repeat itself. Many people remember back to the 1970's and the early part of the 1980's when airlines were flying the B747 bewteen points in the mainland of the United States. See how quickly American Airlines got rid of their B747 fleet?
The point is that the A380 will isolate itself as a plane only to service on routes over the Pacific Ocean. People dont want to wait over an hour to deplane. After an overnight flight you just want to hit the shower. I wish both competitors success.
I am quite interested in seeing what happens. Airbus does have a relatively low cost per seat. Yet during the off-peak season, a plane may fly only 20% full. Considering that the A380 is so large and heavy, is it still feasible for an airline to continue using the A380 during this time? On the other hand, in such a situation it is quite feasible to fly a 787…
In resource constrained settings, the A380 seems to promise greater affordability for air travel & to that extent is a wonderful idea.But then concern is "can airliners in such countries afford the planes?" considering the fact that they are specialists at buying old fashioned "fairly-used" planes.For now I know Boeing rules the Nigerian sky. This much I know.I wish both companies luck.
To Harry G: No airline will ever fly a A380 20% full, usually airlines are good in predicting no. of passengers MONTHS ahead (know this since i worked for an airline). If it comes to that there is not many passengers the airlines will of course use smaller planes, no airlines has only A380 in it's fleet.
Dennis Nucamp
I think the A380 will be quite successful for three reasons: 747s are too old and I deliberately avoid going on any flight using them, A380 is a good replacement; A380s will be great for the cargo market which is skyrocketing right now compared to the passenger market; A380 will be good for certain heavy routes, for example in East and South-East Asia, where there is heavy population density and fewer airports.
However, all that said, I would personally still prefer to fly in the new 787: I don't want to be in a huge "cattle-car" 800 person monster; and apparently Boeing is focussing more on comfort with the increased humidity, better lighting, etc.
Even when the B747 was in its heyday I wasn't fond of it because it was big. I do not like big aircraft. I will deliberately try to avoid the A380 due to its size, but that's a personal thing.
I also hate layovers. So the 787 sounds like the winning proposal to me but I honestly do not believe there will be enough point-to-point cities of the distance to support it. I hope both companies have done their research, and that the market can support both aircraft.
F YOU SHITTY AMERICAN.
SUBSIDIZED MY ASS, THE 787 IS MUCH MORE SUBSIDIZED THAN ANYTHING WITH THE MILITARY BACKING UP.
IF YOU BELIEVE FREEDOME IS HAVING LARGE CORPORATIONS CHEW UP YOUR FAT AS - HAVE A MACDONALDS HAMBURGER AND GO FUCK YOURSELF.
LAND OF THE FREE.
LAND OF THE ENDLESS GREED.
US IS A SHITHOLE.
I know this is old but I got it from google and thought i'd add my 2 cents.
The large airline market is dead. There aren't any domestic 747 flights in the US, and I doubt there are many left in the world (not too sure about the middle east) but I know Japan does still use some Domestic flights that are very congested, and shit sells quicker then Airbus in Japan.
The best the A380 can do is replace the 747s which I doubt they do becuase most airlines have trouble filling 747s as it is, adding bars on the top in some airlines just to try to get a couple extra passangers and use up the extra space.
Most airports in the US probably won't ever handle the A380.
The only brihgt spot for me is the Virgin ones that will or want to have a Casino and have like a cruise in a plane. But you have to wonder what the price will be, probably like double what first class is on a 747 flight just due to how much cost per passanger they are losing.
Boeing is doing the right thing by doing the 787, with fuel cost high they need a new extremely fuel efficent plane, also a 747 version of this will come out that might even beat out the A380.
There is a reason there are only 150 orders for the A380, and 388 for the 787. There is a reason 747s who were so common are being phased out slowly, the jumbo jet era has been dead since the early 90s. The super jumbo jet era will never begin.
This thing might break Airbus, BAE sees it coming and are trying to unload there shares. The A350 was a complete failure, wow does the 777 make it look like a peice of crap.
As for safety of the planes i see a good future for airbus, seeing on the discovery the types and amount of training and evacuation training personel has i would fly an airbus anytime and who cares about hubs if you can just wait in the casino.
furthermore remember one of the boeing 7/7 types having a flaw in its tail design sometimes making it unable to steer correctly , several planes crashed that way
I build 777's for a living so I have absoulutely nothing at stake in this argument. The 787 is being built for the most part by outside contractors and assembled under the supervision of a couple hundred people in my union about 800 feet away from where I work. That said it would appear that the A380 is about to tank. They have failed the FAA evacuation tests as well as several other certifications and therefor can't fly in the United States. I believe that most airlines and cargo carriers that can't get what they need out of either the 787 or 777-300ER will most likely have their needs filled by the 747-8 which is due to come online in the near future. The simple fact of the matter is that there are 200 airports in the world able to accomodate a 747 and merely a handful able (or willing) to accomodate the added infrastructure of the A380. I'm sorry to see that Airbus has apparantly failed but at least I'll keep my job a little while longer as a result.
Hey Yoda. You fuck yourself. I feel sorry for the fine family oriented European's (such a family lives next to me here in Corporate Capital NJ)who have to deal with your punk ass class of weekling cry babies. Someone should spank you - you should go do some concrete work (go build a runway), you're likely capable but a piss ant who wouldnt want to get your hands dirty.
I go on international flights four times a year and almost all the flights i rode were on boeing 777's. sometimes i was able to ride a 747 but it wasnt even half full. the jumbo jet market is dying, no one wants to be herded into a plane like cattle.
Hail,
The big airline is not dead, the future will feature both super large airliners flying hubs and the smaller more direct routes.
The reason is simple...volumes and complexity are increasing rapidly. More people want to fly, and the permutations of individual travel preferences/budget is increasing too.
First the comet (amazing in silver), Concord then the A380 - works of art my friends.