The Airbus A380 took off on first test flight today. It seemed to go quite smooth. Would you like to ride on this plane? Would you like to see U.S. airlines purchase this plane?

Personally, I'm mixed. If boarding, exiting, customs and immigration, and baggage claim takes longer, I would say no. If the plane goes faster and there are more things to do on the plane once airborn, I would say yes.

I do like the fact that you can fly from smaller cities in the U.S. directly to other countries (like Memphis, Orlando, Cleveland) and wouldn't want to go back to the days where all international flights were out of New York and LA.

Any comments?

A few months ago I posted a thread expressing my concerns about the safety of the A380. This is because last year I was in a scary situation where we had to evacuate a Boeing 777 after an engine caught fire on take-off. Everyone was OK, but it made me question the safety of a huge plane like the A380. If you've never been in an evacuation, let me tell you it is a stampede, so I thought it would be a lot worse with a giant plane.

I got some good responses from knowledgeable Fodorites regarding safety of the A380. I was assured that it has many evacuation routes and has been tested thoroughly so it can be evacuated in 90 seconds. This puts my mind at ease regarding safety. I was also told you would board and exit on 2 decks so it won't take as long as you might think. My only remaining concern is a long wait at baggage claim, but yes, I'm ready to buy a ticket.

I don't buy the "lounge/gym in the sky" line they're selling to make people excited about the A380. Airlines will abandon those promised perks to focus on herding as many passengers on these behemoths as they can. I'll also be surprised if Airbus truly delivers their lofty cost-cutting projections on these planes. And what are the maximum speeds on A380s? Will they be faster than the B747s? Wouldn't surprise me, although I would bet fuel burn considerations would keep full-speed flights few and far between.

Who's the biggest purchaser? Emirates, who is betting on people willingly flying through Dubai as an international hub. Doesn't sound appealing to me, sorry.

I don't understand the comment about flying from smaller cities. The airports' terminals will have to be modified to handle these planes, after it's determined that they have runways that can handle the gross weight of a fully-loaded A380 (and are sufficiently long-- I wouldn't want to try to take off from Orange County in one of these, for example). And how the hell are they going to fill a plane flying out of Cleveland to, say, Sydney? I don't see it.

Plus the plane is just fugly. Can't get around that.

Remember Concorde? I'd be afraid the new thing is as unsafe.

I doubt cruising speed will be much different from 330/340 or the 777. All slower than the 747.

Seriously, I can't remember when is the last time I decide on a particular itinerary based on plane type. Main concern are always schedule, price, and FF program. I won't even hestitate to fly regional jets.

Now, I'm not saying I don't care at all, but other factors are more important.

MMMMOOOOOOOOOOO!

When I flew back from Sydney on Qantas two years ago, Qantas played a video about the future and the A380. They mentioned that some people though they could have a sauna on the plane. Like "get real." If I sat in a sauna, I would want a shower, and you know how much trouble some of us have been having in getting a second bottle of water.

What I ment about flying from smaller cities was, for example, If American flew an A380 from JFK to Paris, they might have to cancel their Miami and Dallas direct flights to fill the JFK flight.

I don't really see how evacuating the upper deck can possibly go as quickly as the lower deck -- what, after all, constitutes an "exit row"?

Looks like a nightmare to me, anyway -- even if they've worked out the quick-exit in emergencies.

Anyone remember the Bunuel movie, Viridiana? (sp) After we saw it and people were shuffling somewhat slowly to the exit, a slightly frantic voice in the back was heard: "can we get out of here, please?" Everyone laughed nervously.

Same thing here.

Someone buy me a a First class ticket on the A380 and I'll jump on in a New York mimute!!!!! It would be amazing to be able to take long 10-18 hour flight (thinking US - Australia)on this kind of airplane. I'm still disappointed that even if I could come up with the money, I will never be able to fly on the Concorde

HKP, if I'm not mistaken there are doors on the upper and lower decks which could also be used for escape. The bad news is that your ride down the slide would be longer from the upper deck. Speaking as one who has had the "thrill" of going down an emergency slide, I would very much prefer the lower deck.

As P_M says, there are exit door on each level, so it's just like evacuating two seperate planes.

One issue that has come up, though, is the stairs. In an emergency, passengers may be confused and try to use the stairs instead. I believe when they do the evacuation drill, they will have the stairs blocked.

Just came in from HK to LA on a 747 in F on Cathay Pacific. Wonderful flight, totally relaxed, luggage was number 4 this time and I was out of customs in about 15 minutes total. It took longer to get through security in terminal 4 for my AA flight to MIA this evening.

Anyway, my point is this. Sitting in the nose of a 747 is a wonderful way to fly. My clothes are fresh, I slept like a baby, ate like a pig. Drank some very expensive Chinese tea and wine, etc. etc., but as I was leaving the customs area I saw the first economy folks coming in and they looked like they went through hell. It will be the same with the 380, no difference in the back.
If anything, it may be worse just because of the size of the giant. It will take longer to board, disembark, longer lines for immigration and customs.

I will line up to fly the giant the first chance I get, but only in first or business. I can't imagine sitting in row 70 in the upper deck.

Virgin is the only one airline that may live up to the hype. They will probably have a lounge area and maybe something else, but again, it will probably be only for business or first class passengers. Most other airlines will pack them in the back without any bars, lounges, showers, etc. Don't fool yourself thinking otherwise.

BTW, watching evening news in HK yesterday or day before, I saw a very major news story about the 380. Many of the governmental transportation departments in different countries are not happy with the current A380 evecuation procedure. They are indicating that they will insist Airbus rewrites it and tests it before they will allow the plane to land in their country. Can't tell you any details as I wasn't really paying attention, but the one piece of the story that stuck with me was the fact that the German government was one of the concerned bodies. A huge part of that plane is made in Germany, which means lots of jobs.

FainaAgain said 'Remember Concorde? I'd be afraid the new thing is as unsafe'

One accident in 36 years, even then caused by debris from another plane hardly constitutes an unsafe plane, maybe you'll have problems with flying the new Boeing 787 afterall the fatalities from 737's & 747's

The principle behind the A380 is that if flies from hub to hub i.e London - Singapore - Sydney not London - Orange County.

Airlines have so many problems getting landing rights at Heathrow that this is a major reason for them to buy them. Plus if they can differentiate themselves from competitors, in particular in Business or First Class where the main revenues are generated then this is a factor, that's why all the airlines are staying very quiet about their interiors.

Boeing say that the hub to hub won't work but when I look at the airlines that are buying the planes one thing strikes me, they are all very profitable.

In the US as in Europe wide travel, its different, point to point travel that the 787 is targeting has become extremely popular as a result of Southwest, Ryanair etc but for intercontinental travel to find 300 passengers each day to fly e.g Munich to Orange County is highly unlikely, so maybe the US Carriers CEO's know something the rest of the airline business doesn't, if so they should have shown the company's shareholders their wisdom a little earlier.

AAfrequequentflyer I think is right when he says that economy won't change much, maybe a little extra space here and there.

When you look at the dimensions of the plane such as length and height they are not much different to a 747 e.g length 3 metres longer, height 4.7 metres higher but this is mainly taken up by the higher tail fin, so evacuating the plane in terms of height is no different then being in the current upper deck of a 747, of course the difference is the number of people.

rjw_lgb_ca said 'Who's the biggest purchaser? Emirates, who is betting on people willingly flying through Dubai as an international hub. Doesn't sound appealing to me, sorry.'

Emirates is a great airline and is doing a fantastic job promoting Dubai and based on current projections it is believed that by 2015 Dubai will be the number one holiday destination in the world so obviously it does appeal to a great many including myself when I head off there next month.

Overall, I'll be definately booking a flight, although I think safety is always on your mind but when I see these huge Superliners such as the QM2, could you imagine having to jump off that or even be lowered in a lifeboat...I digress

Geordie

With respect, who cares if the US airlines buy the Airbus or not: ALL the carriers between Australia and Europe will have them by 2006 because that's the sort of long haul they are designed for. I wish they had them now because I'm off on yet another 21 hour flight next week. If I only had to cross the Atlantic, I wouldn't care if they dragged out the 'Spirit of St Louis'!

One thing I've never heard people mention is this - Airbus keep saying how much more efficient the A380 is, compared to the 747, seat-mile to seat-mile. But they don't say how much more efficient it is against other planes like the 777-300ER, which a lot of airlines are using to replace their 747s.

The 777-300ER is definitely more efficient than the 747, or else Air France, etc won't be putting them for their high-volume Europe-US flights like CDG-JFK. So, when it comes to non-slot controlled airports, what is the real advantage for say, Air France, to put two daily A380s against three daily 773ERs?

And, people keep saying slot slot slot... Hm, then why hasn't British Airways ordered any? Not only has its biggest operation in Heathrow, it also has to compete head-on with Qantas, Emirates, Singapore, etc... on UK-Australia flights. Is there something BA knows that others don't? Or is BA is napping, or sleeping through all this? I don't know, but can't help wondering.

For those flying Europe-Australia often, your answer is a non-stop flight and premium economy seats. The 772LR can do LHR-SYD non-stop, but not the return. But neither Qantas or BA has ordered this plane. BA does have World Traveller Plus on its international flights.

Anyways, I just don't see how an A380 will differ from a similarly equipped 747 for coach passenger comfort. The width of the fuselage in the main cabin is similar, both 3-4-3 seating. The curvature of the plane's wall will be different, but who cares? What's sure is that the A380 will be slightly slower than the 747. On a Europe-Australia route, you may have to spend 30-45 minutes more in the air.

Also a half empty A380 will be a costly plane to operate although the people in coach will enjoy stretching out.

If the plane has mechanical problems and there isn't another A380 available, it could be a big problem for the airlines.

rkkwan - you make a lot of valid points

In the case of BA, from what I understand is that they have never been a launch customer for any new aircraft (except Concorde through politics) and that as they have a relatively new fleet of 747's and a lot of debt they do not see the need of rushing in to buy the A380.

Many analysts believe they will eventually have to order to compete effectively with Qantas, Singapore etc on the kangaroo route but I think its more interesting that Cathay Pacific haven't been persuaded, especially as I heard that a presentation by Boeing to them that included the original designer of the 747 (pulled from retirement) for the 747 ADV, went down like a lead balloon.

The 777-LR is able to do LHR - SYD but it can only carry around 295 passengers but I think it is still being evaluated as an option by Qantas and BA for a certain number of flights. I think for a company like Qantas they will continue to need hubs such as Bangkok and Singapore to support their Frankfurt, Rome , Zurich etc routes.

Interestingly, Qantas today announced that they will carry 501 passengers on their A380 and therefore it will be interesting to see their layout.

I think its good for passengers that we now have two world class manufacturers who are really trying to launch innovative products. Long may the competition continue!

Geordie

As said in previous responses, yes if I was flying first or business class. No, if flying coach. It is very unpleasant flying coach on a 747 now days. Yeas Coach passengers do pay a lot less for a ticket, but I would be willing to pay extra if coach class was improved. I can not imagine sitting with 300+ other passengers for 18 hours in coach with nothing to do.

A fully loaded A380 will carry more than 800 people. Those nice bars and shops will not be in most of the planes.

I read yesterday that the biggest purchasers have been from India. Huge numbers of people moving from one part of the country to another.

At more than 1/4 billion USD these babies will need to be max'd out to make them work. In the US people are moving to smaller regional airports, very few of which will be modified to handle such a huge and heave aircraft.

Also, the A380 has NOT YET been certified for timely evacuation. They claim a full load can get out in 90 seconds of less but have not proven it to the various aviation authorities.

Dubai as the #1 vacation spot in the world? You've got to be kidding.

I am not interested in riding in one.

mm

Biggest purchase, as noted above, is Dubai-based Emirates, with over 40 jets (confirmed and option). No Indian carriers have ordered any A380s.

With oil coming out of the ground, and a relatively small population, those government-owned airlines in the Gulf don't have the same financial constraints as other airlines.

They also have a large emigrant work force, mostly from India and SE Asia; which require cheap seats (and a lot of them) to go back and forth.

As for being a tourist destination, I don't know... But looking at its rapid development, it does remind me a lot of Hong Kong in the 70's when I was growing up there.