Maiden flight of Super Jumbo

[Dr Mordrid]

Hey...you can't be wrong all the time

Dr. Mordrid

[The PIT]

You know ... that was my first reaction as well.

Same here imagine crashing that into a city as well at rush hour.

[cjolley]

...
The A380 may well have sucess as a cargo craft. I'm sure a version with a hinged nose and tail ramp is high on the Airbus list of things to do, if for no other reason as a hedge on their passenger bet.

Dr. Mordrid

But, if the hub & spoke model does go and the industry switches to long range mid sized craft, they may have to compete with a cargo craft market awash with cheap used 747s.

[Dr Mordrid]

Cheap used 747's plus all the new ones Boeing is building. Last I heard orders for the 747 cargo version are still robust.

Dr. Mordrid

[Technoid]

Dr Mordrid, cjolley, you both sound as if you owned stock in Boing

[cjolley]

Dr Mordrid, cjolley, you both sound as if you owned stock in Boing

Hell no.
I'd just as soon it stay their gamble and not mine

[Umfriend]

I think it is questionable whether the hub-and-spoke model is going down. The only problem with it is that the legacy carriers find, again and again, that small new entrants will simply pick the routes of there hub-and-spoke network that are succesfull and thus capturing part of the passengers who are actually not using hub-and-spoke. But there is not enough room to have flights from each destination to each other.
non-domestic flights will likely be cheaper in large aircraft and international aviation is still set to grow.

[VJ]

Plus Boeing has bet that airlines are going to move away from the hub and spoke model.
They don't have a reputation for betting wrong too often.
Thus the 787 Dreamliner.
The A380 is the ultimate hub to hub aircraft.

I feel both opinions are complimentary. Just consider the fact that British Airways has 3 flights an hour from Hong Kong to London: there will still be a need to carry many people from hub to hub (i.e. business travel between capital cities).


Jörg

[Brian Ellis]

Many airports are already traffic saturated. They simply do not have the slots available to allow 3 times as many landings and take-offs. If you take routes like LHR-JFK, for example, the A380 could free up 10-20% more movements at both ends. Same for other busy airports like Changi, B'kok and CdeG, which is why S'pore Airlines was the first A380 client as their bottleneck is runway space. A Cessna or an A380 takes up the same runway space, so one large aircraft is better than three smaller ones.

The Boeing concept will fail for other reasons, as well. Aircraft maintenance costs and aircrew costs will be much higher (you will need 2 - 3 times as many highly-paid pilots and maintenance bods), even assuming the fuel costs per passenger km are the same (which they aren't). I agree that it would be nice to do Edinburgh>Sacramento in a single hop or Marseille>Nanjing, but there simply won't be enough passengers to justify such routes. Long haul flights are all essentially between centres, i.e. hubs.

As for freight A380s, there are already several orders, including from US companies, such as Federal Express.

I agree that A380 orders have not yet reached break-even, but they are nearly ¾ of the way there and new orders are expected from a number of ME and other Asian companies over the next year or two.

[Umfriend]

A Cessna or an A380 takes up the same runway space, so one large aircraft is better than three smaller ones.

I agree with you analysis but have one comment on the statement quoted. This is actually not true. There needs to be a certain time between flight-take-offs and landings due to aircraft induced turbulence, and this time is longer for the A380 compared to any other aircraft, including the B747-400ER. Relative to the number of people transported it will still be advantageous for the A380, but not on 1 one-for-one basis.

[VJ]

Actually, normal differences are 2 or 3 minutes, depending on the weight of both aircraft . This is defined in 3 categories (not sure of all three anymore , but I'll look it up this weekend).

I haven't read that the A380 will be in a new category, and if it isn't, there will be no need to change the time slots.


Jörg

[Umfriend]

Hmm, can't find it either. I remember having read something to that extent but now wonder whether that may have been about the concorde or something? I'm pretty positive I've read this on the A3XX though.

[VJ]

H - HEAVY, to indicate an ACFT type with a MTOW of 136 000 kg or more
M - MEDIUM, to indicate an ACFT type with a MTOW of less than 136 000 kg but more than 7 000 kg
L - LIGHT, to indicate an ACFT type with a MTOW of 7 000 kg or less.

These are the categories... Depending on which plane follows which, the current delay can be up to 3 minutes.

And actually, according to this:

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0103/FR0103a.htm

Gustav Humbert, chief operating officer of Airbus Industrie and head of development and production expect the A380 to generate less wake turbulence than a 747...

(and wake turbulence is THE reason for the separation minima)

I noticed the A380 has winglets both directed upward and downward at its wingtips. This might help to reduce wake turbulence...


Jörg

[rylan]

Don't forget that to accomodate the A380 the airport has to refit/redesign its terminals with new jetways. I don't believe there are any plans as of yet for airports in the US to accept the A380, and I'm sure world wide its only limited to a few major ones like London, Hong Kong, Shanghai. From what I've read the A380 isn't being targeted for routes to the US.

[VJ]

True... Landing the plane isn't an issue at larger airports, but accomodating for the required taxi-space (wingspan!) is...

It would suprise me that no airport in the US would be adapted; I read differently (NY, LA, Detroit, ...?)...


Jörg