The A380: Boom or Bust?

[Howedar]

Airbus gets a fucking L-O-A-N that it has to pay back, none of it should be for R&D (according the 92 agreement)

Wait a sec: didn't I read somewhere the French government footed 60% of the A380's development costs?

Yes you're right, but Airbus still has to pay it back. The EU supports roughly three times less on R&D for Airbus than the US does for Boeing. And only with launch investments, not general R&D.

Now how about you just talk about the civilian side of Boeing, which is the only part relevant to this conversation.

The civilian division of Boeing must be kept profitable regardless of the military side, otherwise it would be eliminated. That's how companies work, you know.

[weemadando]

On several matters:

Economic matters - the 7E7 and A3480 are both airline execs wet dreams. One of them allows them to cram on passengers and thus have fuel efficiency like never before, the other allows for low cost running of "smaller" routes. The 7E7 however DOESN'T require major restructuring of airports and airport facilities. The huge bulk of passengers that has to be processed for each flight, not to mention the physical rebuidling of airports to cater for it means that its a main-route only aircraft.

Passenger matters - from an airline point of view, we never gave 2 shits about a passenger unless they spend upwards of 100,000 a year on tickets with the airline. The A380 is a perfect solution for high-volume routes that currently require many flights, most of which will only be partially loaded due to the fact that there's one leaving every hour. The 7E7 is also a good solution from that point of view in that it has excellent efficiency and carrying capacity and can easily replace 2-3 flights per day on smaller routes - or replace larger planes on less profitable routes.

Defense matters - the RAAF is at the moment buying projects from both Airbus and Boeing, the A320 refuelling project and the Wedgetail AWACS. Both supply large amounts of aircraft for defense purposes though Boeing does have a far greater dedicated military section.


Overall - the A380 and 7E7 are both likely here to stay (barring Comet-esque incidents) due to the fact they service different market portions. Though IMO its going to be the 7E7 thats the big winner in the long run, unless air traffic increases exponentially.

[MKSheppard]

When did this thread become about company profits? The example I cited shows Boeing dirrectly benefiting from R&D it was a$ked to do by NASA, and not having to pay for it by its self.

Do you have any proof that Boeing developed two different versions
simultaneously?

For all we know, Boeing took the NASA contract and completed it.

And when they were adding winglets to their aircraft in the late 1980s,
and early 1990s, they found that their work for NASA was not sufficiently
powerful enough, so funded an in-company development of the program
to allow them to do much more. I would imagine Airbus has their own
version of that program to do what they want.

[MKSheppard]

Lets walk through this again; Airbus $9 odd billion of its own funds in R&D, Boeing $2.8 odd of its own funds in R&D. The rest it gets from NASA and DoD contracts which subsidise its reasearch, and that it never has to refund.

Yeah, we all know how easy it was to turn Boeing's failed bid for the C-5
program into the 747 we all know and love. And it didn't come close to
bankrupting the company since all of the research and development
was already paid for.

You do realize that when the US Military calls for a brand new cargo
plane or fighter, the military funds most of the development so that
they own the design, and can transfer it from one contractor to another
if the original one doesn't measure up?

In fact, that's how it's been done; general threats of opening a second
production line of whathaveyounot with a nother company have been
sufficient to get contractors to shape up.

[weemadando]

The thing that most people have overlooked in this thread is probably going to be the BIGGEST earner for airbus - the air freight market.

With a plane that size with that kind of capacity and efficiency, having it operate major routes (ie China/US and Europe/US) will be a HUGE earner for companies that run with it.

[Stark]

What runway length does a plane like the new Airbus need? Many airports (like the one here in Brisvegas) are in the middle of cities now, and don't have any real room to add or extend runways.

[AMX]

What runway length does a plane like the new Airbus need? Many airports (like the one here in Brisvegas) are in the middle of cities now, and don't have any real room to add or extend runways.

Good question; there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about this online, and I couldn't find anything useful on the Airbus website.
It could be anywhere between 2400 and 4000m

[Col. Crackpot]

What runway length does a plane like the new Airbus need? Many airports (like the one here in Brisvegas) are in the middle of cities now, and don't have any real room to add or extend runways.

not only that, but when you try to expand a runway at most major airports in the US you stir up a flaming shit storm of biblical proportions. The NIMBY's fly out of the woodwork and end the polical careers of anyone they can who is associated with airport expansion.

We have that very problem here. The Providence airport is located in the city of Warwick, a massive suburban sprawl of a city. Anytime the business intrests in Providence, or the state government even mentions the fact that we need to extend the runways so the airlines can fully fuel 777's for direct service to California and British Coloumbia, seething lunatics march on city hall spewing rightious hellfire. And it's like that for just about every major or mid market airport in the states.

[Ma Deuce]

What runway length does a plane like the new Airbus need? Many airports (like the one here in Brisvegas) are in the middle of cities now, and don't have any real room to add or extend

It's been estimated that A380 would need at least 4,000m of runway, vs. 3,500 for the B747-400. Also, it's 80m wingspan (vs. 64m for the 747) would almost certainly require some runways and taxiways to be widened...

Here is the PDF where I got that 4,000m estimate, if anyone's interested.

[xcr]

But if I recall the 707 actually needed a longer runway than the 747, so most major airports would already have a runway with sufficient room to spare.

[CJvR]

Another thing that might favor the A380 is the crowded airports with limited operating slots. A big plane requires no more time to take of and land than a smaller machine freeing up runway time/passenger.

[Chmee]

Another thing that might favor the A380 is the crowded airports with limited operating slots. A big plane requires no more time to take of and land than a smaller machine freeing up runway time/passenger.

But more time to load & unload, and as anybody who has flown into Denver or O'Hare on a busy day knows, sometimes you arrive right on time but spend 15 minutes waiting for a gate to be available for your plane to pull into.

This thing will be a challenge to the infrastructure of some airports, but it's meant for only the major international hubs, it's not going to be coming into Memphis or Spokane.

[Col. Crackpot]

This thing will be a challenge to the infrastructure of some airports, but it's meant for only the major international hubs, it's not going to be coming into Memphis or Spokane.

Still, major airports like JFK and Logan are surrounded by ENORMOUS residential areas. They are filled with irate NIMBY's who will fight airport expansion tooth and nail. The city of Boston has been trying to expand the runways at Logan for the better part of a decade, but they can't because of anti-airport citizens groups.

[Chmee]

This thing will be a challenge to the infrastructure of some airports, but it's meant for only the major international hubs, it's not going to be coming into Memphis or Spokane.

Still, major airports like JFK and Logan are surrounded by ENORMOUS residential areas. They are filled with irate NIMBY's who will fight airport expansion tooth and nail. The city of Boston has been trying to expand the runways at Logan for the better part of a decade, but they can't because of anti-airport citizens groups.

Same here, Port of Seattle fought for over a decade to get Runway #3 at Sea-Tac, which is finally under construction. I think Amsterdam, my favorite airport, has 7 and counting.

[aerius]

It's been estimated that A380 would need at least 4,000m of runway, vs. 3,500 for the B747-400. Also, it's 80m wingspan (vs. 64m for the 747) would almost certainly require some runways and taxiways to be widened...

Well that sucker ain't taking off from Toronto as the longest runway at Pearson International is about 3390m long. Looks like I won't have to worry about A380's flying over where I live.

[Montcalm]

It's been estimated that A380 would need at least 4,000m of runway, vs. 3,500 for the B747-400. Also, it's 80m wingspan (vs. 64m for the 747) would almost certainly require some runways and taxiways to be widened...

Well that sucker ain't taking off from Toronto as the longest runway at Pearson International is about 3390m long. Looks like I won't have to worry about A380's flying over where I live.

That will also shut up those who expect this thing to make frequent flight to Montreal.

[Ma Deuce]

But if I recall the 707 actually needed a longer runway than the 747, so most major airports would already have a runway with sufficient room to spare.

That was only true of the 707 vs. the 747-100/200 series, and was due mainly to the 747's higher T/W ratio. The 707-320 requires a 3,200m runway, the 747-100/200 requires 3,100m, and the basic 747-400 requires 3,400m (the 747-400ER version requires 100m more). As I stated earlier it's estimated the A380 will require 4,000m.

Furthermore, all versions of the 747 have a T/W ratio approximately 50% higher than both the 707-320 and the launch version of the A380, although planned engine upgrades to the A380 will eventually give it up to 85% the T/W ratio of the 747-400. I'll see if I can find more detailed data concerning the wing area/loading of these aircraft...

[Ma Deuce]

That will also shut up those who expect this thing to make frequent flight to Montreal.

Well, neither Montreal or Toronto will be seeing this monstrosity in the forseeable future: Trudeau (formally Dorval) Interational's longest runway is 3,350m, and Pearson's longest is 3,370 (just barely enough to safely accomodate a basic 747-400). Both Pearson and Trudeau are well hemmed-in by the cities they serve, so I don't see either of them getting a runway extension anytime soon, probably never...

[Col. Crackpot]

4000 Meters of runway MINIMUM? WOW! Lets look at the capacty of the worlds busiest airports:

1: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport: 11889 feet/3624 m

too small for an A-380

2: Chicago O'Haire International: 13,000 ft/3963 m

too small for an A-380

3: London Heathrow: 12802ft / 3902m

too small for an A-380

4: Tokyo International: 4000 m exactly

at bare minimum of A-380 required runway length

5: Los Angeles International: 3685 m

too small for an A-380

6:Dallas Ft. Worth 4085m

at bare minimum of A-380 Required runway length

7: Frankfurt International 4000m

at bare minimum of A-380 required runway length

8: Charles De Gaulle International (Paris) : 4215m

large enough for an A-380 (I should hope so, they are building the damn thing!)

9:Schipol Airport (Amsterdam) 3800m

10: Denver International Airport 4877m***

Denver is a tough one. It is over a mile above sea level and the air is very thin, which is why it's runways are so very long.


So just who exactly are these being built for? There is one airport in the top ten that can handle the goddamn thing at takeoff! And there isn't a single airport in the world (yet) with the ability to load and unload passengers on a "Super Jumbo" airliner anyway!

[Chmee]

There are also apparently questions about the width of runways appropriate to accomodate the 380 ... Airbus says 45m is okay, but FAA may require 60m, which a limited number of new runways already conform to.

[AMX]

Hmm... Not the newest news, but if the construction work in Finkenwerder is any indication (where these things are built), an A380F with max fuel and 2/3rds freight needs a take-off distance of 2678 + 589 = 3267m; a normal (empty?) A380 can use the lenght that's already there (apparently, it had been extended to that for exactly this reason).
http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2003/10/ ... html?prx=1

re the estimate: Did you notice how they gave the method used for the estimate, but not the actual figures they used? They might have used bad data... the only number I found was the weight of approximately 600 tons - but the standard A380 shall have a max take-off weight of 560 tons, and even the A380F will only weigh 590 tons; figures up to 650 tons are planned later versions, IIRC.

[Ma Deuce]

Hmm... Not the newest news, but if the construction work in Finkenwerder is any indication (where these things are built), an A380F with max fuel and 2/3rds freight needs a take-off distance of 2678 + 589 = 3267m; a normal (empty?) A380 can use the lenght that's already there (apparently, it had been extended to that for exactly this reason).

Freighters require shorter takeoff distances than liners, because relieved of the concerns of passenger safety and comfort, they can affort to subject the aircraft to higher pitch/roll conditions. The eventual uprated-engine models of the A380 should be able to take off with only slightly more distance than a 747, but the launch model with it's rather low t/w ratio will still require quite a bit more...

re the estimate: Did you notice how they gave the method used for the estimate, but not the actual figures they used? They might have used bad data... the only number I found was the weight of approximately 600 tons - but the standard A380 shall have a max take-off weight of 560 tons,

If you didn't notice, they did give a graph showing the takeoff distance at various weights...

[Uraniun235]

This thing will be a challenge to the infrastructure of some airports, but it's meant for only the major international hubs, it's not going to be coming into Memphis or Spokane.

Still, major airports like JFK and Logan are surrounded by ENORMOUS residential areas. They are filled with irate NIMBY's who will fight airport expansion tooth and nail. The city of Boston has been trying to expand the runways at Logan for the better part of a decade, but they can't because of anti-airport citizens groups.

Drives me batshit insane with rage that people will move into an area right under the flight path of a major runway, and then start bitching about it.

[weemadando]

Another thing that might favor the A380 is the crowded airports with limited operating slots. A big plane requires no more time to take of and land than a smaller machine freeing up runway time/passenger.

Except the A380 will not achieve any of those things.

An airport with a limited space capacity is going to be fucked over by the A380, simply because passenger bulk will form into true swell and trough dynamics (very extreme ones at that).

You know how fucking irritating it is already waiting in queues at checkin counters and security checkpoints when you have a steady stream of flights with 200 people or so on them.

Imagine it when you have a single flight less often with ~600 people on it. It means that you're going to be getting passenger congestion like never before.

[Dahak]

They were afraid the Boeing 747 would be too large for airports back when it was introduced.
We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out with the A380...