It's kinda biggish

[beepbeep]

A380 finally moving on it's own power:

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Sweet!

What engines are they using on it?

[beepbeep]

81,500lb Rolls Royce Trent 900 I believe.

[Drago]

That first shot, from head-on, looks like Homer Simpson with that massive forehead!

Impressively large aircraft. Wouldn't want to fly on it though.

[vash]

is that the plane causing all the heartache over at boeing?

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by vash
is that the plane causing all the heartache over at boeing?

Well Being says market for large aircrafts is doomed and what people want nowadays is smaller point-to-point connections.

Airbus says that amount of slots at bigger airports is limited, so carriers need big and cost-effective aircrafts that can transfer greater amount of people between hubs.

Truth is probably somewhere in-between but Boeing seems to lack the funds to invest in product of this caliber and is investing into it's 787 project which is advanced long range mid-capacity point-to-point aircraft. Boeing also went with (controversial) stock-buyback programme which probably put extra strain on finances.

Anyway, A380 is friggin' huuuge! And this is just a short prototype "guppy"-version. Streched versions are to follow:



Personally, I find it quite ugly. It will probably be a good source of revenue for carriers though. They don't care about looks.

For me, there is only one good looking passenger A/C:

[IROC]

Too bad the majority of current airports are too small to accommodate an A380. I wonder how many of them are going to spend the money (not an insignficant amount) to accommodate a couple of planes a day?

I'm a Boeing employee (not in commercial aircraft) but I have to admit, that A380 is an impressive piece of engineering. I watched a show on the development and fabrication and it is truly a wonder.

Mike

[widebody911]

Did you hear about Airbus making a bid to set up a plant right next to Boeing in Washington?

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by IROC
Too bad the majority of current airports are too small to accommodate an A380. I wonder how many of them are going to spend the money (not an insignficant amount) to accommodate a couple of planes a day?

As far as I heard, most commercial airports (LHR, JFK, CDG etc.) are going to accomodate A380 w/o hitch. It's mostly inland american airports that are complaining about extra cost of A380-compatible gates.

There is nothing prohibiting you to dump pax on the tarmac and use busses to/from terminal in worst case. When 747 appeared, it was same situation.

[IROC]

Originally posted by beepbeep
As far as I heard, most commercial airports (LHR, JFK, CDG etc.) are going to accomodate A380 w/o hitch. It's mostly inland american airports that are complaining about extra cost of A380-compatible gates.

You're probably right. The article I read specifically mentioned US airports - of which I think only 3 or 4 were capable of accommodating the A380 or were going to upgrade.

Mike

[Drago]

Originally posted by widebody911
Did you hear about Airbus making a bid to set up a plant right next to Boeing in Washington?

That bid was shot down by the city of Everett, WA.

I think it was for engineering offices only, not a manufacturing facility. Too bad really as competition in the contract engineering arena would be nothing but a good thing for us Catia jockeys.

They are still looking at Moses Lake and Spokane...last I heard.

So, will the A380 make first flight in time for the Paris Airshow?

Rumor has it that Boeing will announce the 747 Advanced at the Paris Airshow (with kick-off customers onboard). With the A380 on static display this move may well steal some of Airbus' thunder....stay tuned.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Drago
That bid was shot down by the city of Everett, WA.

I think it was for engineering offices only, not a manufacturing facility. Too bad really as competition in the contract engineering arena would be nothing but a good thing for us Catia jockeys.


I think this is a different gig:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/207691_tankers13.html

Basically they're trying to nail the contract that the corrupt Boeing mgmt f'd up a few months back.

[Jeff Higgins]

I think an Airbus facility in the Puget Sound area would be a stroke of genius on their part. Boeing is all but set to leave Renton, home of 737 production. They have already shut down 757 production there, and there is excess capacity in Everett (home of the 747, 767, and 777) even when 787 starts production. Boeing could build everything in Everett and abandon Renton all together. Problem now is they are levelling every building they vacate in Renton. Maybe they don't want it left available for Airbus as an almost turn key operation. There are an awful lot of both former, and believe it or not current, Boeing employees that would welcome Airbus to the neighborhood with open arms. Boeing has burned a lot of bridges, not the least of which are the ones connecting them to their workforce. Airbus might be surprised at just how fertile they would find the fields around Seattle.

[dd74]

I've always wondered what the reason is for building this aircraft. I think it's interesting; it's certainly huge, but if a 767 can fly from L.A. to Europe, and a 737 from L.A. to Hawaii, and a 747 fly easily from L.A. to Asia, I would think all bases are fairly covered - these are just examples from L.A.X. being a hub, BTW. I agree if cargo were this plane's particular execution, then the bigger the better. But I'm not sure, otherwise. Maybe a profit can be made with the amount of passengers the plane can carry vs. cheaper fares.

[Drago]

Originally posted by widebody911

Jeff's got it nailed, as usual.

Thom, you are correct. The Airbus eng. offices was a rumor from a couple of years ago.

[Superman]

I think Jeff's got it nailed, too. If Boeing is abandoning Renton and demolishing buildings, then it might be in order to prepare the area for sale. I mean real estate. That's a big place they have, right on the outskirts of Seattle.

But yeah, when companies spin off divisions, I think they commonly overlook how much their competitors' performance will improve when they scoop up the people who've been set adrift. Boeing could find itself on the ropes in a hurry if they don't make the right moves soon. Moving to Chicago, laying off workers and playing industrial engineering/assembly line analysis games is a good way to become marginal IMHO. Boeing really does not seem to have the courageous, entrepeneurial spirit it once had. In business or any other competition, vince Lombardi was right. Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

The Concorde is my fave, but here's another beautiful-though-doomed airliner.

[M.D. Holloway]

Those will be used for international flights only? DFW is expanding - wonder if they are able to handle it?
Where can I find the list?

I thought GE got the knod for the motors? see what happens when I think...

[Robert Coats]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
The Concorde is my fave, but here's another beautiful-though-doomed airliner.

The De Havilland Comet was a beautiful aircraft. It still lives on in the British Nimrod, an ASW (anti-submarine warfare) and patrol platform:



Some details are at this link.

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by dd74
I've always wondered what the reason is for building this aircraft. I think it's interesting; it's certainly huge, but if a 767 can fly from L.A. to Europe, and a 737 from L.A. to Hawaii, and a 747 fly easily from L.A. to Asia, I would think all bases are fairly covered - these are just examples from L.A.X. being a hub, BTW. I agree if cargo were this plane's particular execution, then the bigger the better. But I'm not sure, otherwise. Maybe a profit can be made with the amount of passengers the plane can carry vs. cheaper fares.

Economies of scale and range. Airbus claims 25% lower costs per passenger, thanx to lower fuel-burn etc. It's still to fly so we don't know how good it is.

Air-travel is still expanding and some routes are already overbooked.

Bigger airport have finite amount of slots allocated for takeoffs and only way to move more people is to pack them more densely per flight. Also, certain carriers in middle.east are expanding rapidly and need big birds.

They are talking about packing bars and gyms aboard the A380 (!) but it might as well end up with streched sardine-can packing 800 pax in all-economy configuration