Airbus 380
Dec 11th, 2004, 08:19 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus 380
Has anyone heard how much reworking of airport gate hardware will be required to handle the Airbus 380?
It seems to me that if all 500 plus passengers have to exit through one door, there is going to be a long wait for the people in the rear.
I looked at pictures of the prototype and it looks huge to me!
Perhaps we exit on the tramac with ladders like I have at CDG on numerous occasions.
I suppose airlines are signing orders for that behemoth! Anybody know what is likely to happen?
It seems to me that if all 500 plus passengers have to exit through one door, there is going to be a long wait for the people in the rear.
I looked at pictures of the prototype and it looks huge to me!
Perhaps we exit on the tramac with ladders like I have at CDG on numerous occasions.
I suppose airlines are signing orders for that behemoth! Anybody know what is likely to happen?
Dec 11th, 2004, 08:33 PM
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After posting, I kept looking around. I found this information:
To date, eleven customers have announced firm orders for a total of 129 A380s, including 17 freighter versions.
The term "to date" was not specified.
To date, eleven customers have announced firm orders for a total of 129 A380s, including 17 freighter versions.
The term "to date" was not specified.
Dec 11th, 2004, 08:35 PM
#5
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess this was what I was reading - the A380 website.
http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_backgrounder.asp
http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_backgrounder.asp
Dec 11th, 2004, 08:37 PM
#6
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 12,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Ryanair and EasyJet 737s, you can enter and exit from either the front or the back. I think for all of those flights I have taken you have to walk onto the tarmac. I suppose that's a slight inconvenience, but I have to do that for Alaska Air propeller flights too. And last summer at Heathrow, we had to exit onto the tarmac (no gate available).
Would most passengers be troubled if they had to climb a few steps from the tarmac? I haven't seen ladders - only ordinary stairs. If CDG really does use ladders, I would find that very uncomfortable. I'm not sure what disabled passengers do, but presumably there is some accommodation for them in these cases.
Would most passengers be troubled if they had to climb a few steps from the tarmac? I haven't seen ladders - only ordinary stairs. If CDG really does use ladders, I would find that very uncomfortable. I'm not sure what disabled passengers do, but presumably there is some accommodation for them in these cases.
Dec 11th, 2004, 09:01 PM
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me correct my use of the term ladders. I guess stairs would be a better term. It was not like the ladder I use to go up on my roof.
These devices were rolled to the aircraft door and we descended.
We then walked to a bus that took us to the passport control center.
As a related question, one that I cannot turn up in a search of Internet is this:
Are any 747's still flying on commercial routes??
The last I heard was that they were so fuel inefficient that airlines were withdrawing them from service. Delta seems to be using 777s and 767s for long distance hauls out of Atlanta these days.
Any factual evidence for that statement?
These devices were rolled to the aircraft door and we descended.
We then walked to a bus that took us to the passport control center.
As a related question, one that I cannot turn up in a search of Internet is this:
Are any 747's still flying on commercial routes??
The last I heard was that they were so fuel inefficient that airlines were withdrawing them from service. Delta seems to be using 777s and 767s for long distance hauls out of Atlanta these days.
Any factual evidence for that statement?
Dec 11th, 2004, 10:05 PM
#9
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob, here is another article about the A380 and airport readiness to accept them when they start flying in 2006.
http://www.rcaanews.org/webletter04_.../art4_a380.htm
Are there 747s still in service? Lots and lots of them. 1100 according to the Boeing website. I see scores of them every week -- parked at the gate, taking off, landing or on the tarmac -- here at my airport. United, Lufthansa, British Airways, Singapore, JAL, Korean are some carriers I see. I'd rather look at them than fly in them -- not my favorite aircraft to ride in. They are regal though -- remember the the postage stamp commemerating the 747?
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/747evolution/1.html
The 747 will be around for quite some time, I would guess.
http://www.rcaanews.org/webletter04_.../art4_a380.htm
Are there 747s still in service? Lots and lots of them. 1100 according to the Boeing website. I see scores of them every week -- parked at the gate, taking off, landing or on the tarmac -- here at my airport. United, Lufthansa, British Airways, Singapore, JAL, Korean are some carriers I see. I'd rather look at them than fly in them -- not my favorite aircraft to ride in. They are regal though -- remember the the postage stamp commemerating the 747?
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/747evolution/1.html
The 747 will be around for quite some time, I would guess.
Dec 11th, 2004, 11:46 PM
#10
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer the original question - Yes, it depends on the airport. For example, Virgin Atlantic has delayed its introduction of the A380, as airports like LAX that it flies to are really behind in accomodating the new plane.
Works are probably underway in other airports like Dubai. Emirates has ordered 40+ of the plane.
747s are still used widely across the globe, just not domestically in the US. The US airlines that fly them are UA and NW on its routes to Asia. Many airlines are still receiving new passenger 747s, including Qantas & China Airlines, though many of the older ones are converted to freighters.
Works are probably underway in other airports like Dubai. Emirates has ordered 40+ of the plane.
747s are still used widely across the globe, just not domestically in the US. The US airlines that fly them are UA and NW on its routes to Asia. Many airlines are still receiving new passenger 747s, including Qantas & China Airlines, though many of the older ones are converted to freighters.
Dec 12th, 2004, 02:00 AM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am curious to see how passport control will handle the arrival of 500 plus passengers, esp. if other international flights are arriving at about the same time. Lord help anyone who's in the back of an A380 that lands at Philadelphia airport.
Dec 12th, 2004, 03:42 AM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments: Two smaller planes carry 500 passengers. I have spent hours in an entry line at Heathrow when there were multiple landings. Immigration hall at Newark looks ready for Airbus 380 passengers.. Queue problems/delays are a function of aisle width and door size. Clearances for wider wings may be biggest problem. Another problem or requirement will be landing strip weight limits.
Dec 12th, 2004, 04:59 AM
#13
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to airliners.net, some 747 configurations already carry upwards of 500 passengers, so the A380 is not that big a step upward from what some airports are already handling. There is a huge difference in aircraft weight, however - the A380 will be approximately 50% heavier than a B747-400, so that might be an issue for some airports.
Dec 12th, 2004, 06:20 AM
#14
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAL and ANA both fly high-density 747s on their <b>domestic</b> routes, with 500 seats. But as they are domestics, you don't have the immigration/customs problem.
Most airlines put under 400 seats on their international 2-, 3- or 4-class 747s. For example, NW's 2-class 744 seat 403, and some of JAL's plane for JFK service has only about 300 seats (or less).
Main problem with airports is the wingspan of the 380, which at 261'10", is 50 feet more than a 747-400 (~211'). Taxiways, parking stalls, have all to be modified to accomodate the 380, even if you are just using one jetway for loading/unloading.
[It is just slightly longer than a 340-600, so length won't be a major problem, though some 346 operators have early problems at some remote airports which have only one runway and no taxiway, and the plane has to turnaround at the end of the runway to prepare for takeoff or after landing.]
Most airlines put under 400 seats on their international 2-, 3- or 4-class 747s. For example, NW's 2-class 744 seat 403, and some of JAL's plane for JFK service has only about 300 seats (or less).
Main problem with airports is the wingspan of the 380, which at 261'10", is 50 feet more than a 747-400 (~211'). Taxiways, parking stalls, have all to be modified to accomodate the 380, even if you are just using one jetway for loading/unloading.
[It is just slightly longer than a 340-600, so length won't be a major problem, though some 346 operators have early problems at some remote airports which have only one runway and no taxiway, and the plane has to turnaround at the end of the runway to prepare for takeoff or after landing.]
Dec 12th, 2004, 06:46 AM
#15
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hundreds and hundreds of 747s are in service. My all time favorite plane to fly. The first class on Cathay is in the nose. It has that special "private club" feeling. I also flew F on Cathay on the Airbus 340-600, not the same. The service and seats and food and staff were the same but I felt like sitting on a regular plane, not the "special" feeling of a 747.
I actually do believe that the Airbus 380 will not be the big success that the 747 was and still is. When Airbus started planning this giant, times were different and air travel was just about to burst into the huge success that was promised 50 years ago. Unfortunately in the last 10 years or so, air travel has changed and now it's nothing like the planners thought it would be by now.
The LCCs are proving that point to point travel is the way to go and also that you have to have multiple offerings during the day to make people come your way. Having a 380 run once a day between Tokyo and Beijing will not work, although there may only be a total of 600 passangers needing this service on a daily basis, they all have different time schedules. Running an economical A320 or B737 few times a day is the answer.
These giants will have a market, but from what I've been reading the orders have slow down drastically and it's not looking good at the moment.
Still, I can't wait till the day I take a flight on one of these giants.
I actually do believe that the Airbus 380 will not be the big success that the 747 was and still is. When Airbus started planning this giant, times were different and air travel was just about to burst into the huge success that was promised 50 years ago. Unfortunately in the last 10 years or so, air travel has changed and now it's nothing like the planners thought it would be by now.
The LCCs are proving that point to point travel is the way to go and also that you have to have multiple offerings during the day to make people come your way. Having a 380 run once a day between Tokyo and Beijing will not work, although there may only be a total of 600 passangers needing this service on a daily basis, they all have different time schedules. Running an economical A320 or B737 few times a day is the answer.
These giants will have a market, but from what I've been reading the orders have slow down drastically and it's not looking good at the moment.
Still, I can't wait till the day I take a flight on one of these giants.
Dec 12th, 2004, 08:03 AM
#16
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think if one looks at who's ordering the A380, there will be questions. I know I have.
Of the ~130 of so planes ordered, at least 1/3 (~45 planes) are from one airline, Emirates. Yes, they have oil in their sand, so they can afford <b> to buy </b> the planes, but can they fill it with enough passengers to make them profitable? Their current fleet has about 60 330/340/777, so you're talking about doubling the number of available seats.
Apparently, they're looking at the success of Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific as their model, but keep in mind that Dubai has <1 million residents, while Singapore over 3M and Hong Kong 7M. And SQ and CX are not just going to hand over traffic to Emirates without a fight.
And look at who else are ordering the A380! Singapore is definitely going to use them on European service like into Heathrow. Same thing with Qantas. And Qatar Airways & Etihad are two other Gulf State airlines with A380 orders.
Now, are there really THAT many people who needs to fly to the Gulf or through the Gulf (e.g. to/from Australia)? How are they going to fill all those seats? $400 roundtrips from New York to Dubai, including 3 nights of hotels? Are you interested?
What's <b>also</b> amazing is that Airbus keep saying these will be great between congested slot-limited city pairs. Hm, well, BA flies like 7 daily trips LHR-JFK (plus EWR), but they haven't ordered any. Neither has AA, which flies the same route 6 times a day (& 5 times ORD-LHR). JAL, which flies two 747 daily NRT-JFK hasn't ordered, and the other Japanese airline ANA ordered a whole bunch of 7E7 instead.
So, how big is the market for the A380 really? And right now, I think we'll see a lot of low fares between Europe and Australia via the Gulf States or Singapre, as competition there will be brutal. Good deal for Europeans vacationing in Australia.
Of the ~130 of so planes ordered, at least 1/3 (~45 planes) are from one airline, Emirates. Yes, they have oil in their sand, so they can afford <b> to buy </b> the planes, but can they fill it with enough passengers to make them profitable? Their current fleet has about 60 330/340/777, so you're talking about doubling the number of available seats.
Apparently, they're looking at the success of Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific as their model, but keep in mind that Dubai has <1 million residents, while Singapore over 3M and Hong Kong 7M. And SQ and CX are not just going to hand over traffic to Emirates without a fight.
And look at who else are ordering the A380! Singapore is definitely going to use them on European service like into Heathrow. Same thing with Qantas. And Qatar Airways & Etihad are two other Gulf State airlines with A380 orders.
Now, are there really THAT many people who needs to fly to the Gulf or through the Gulf (e.g. to/from Australia)? How are they going to fill all those seats? $400 roundtrips from New York to Dubai, including 3 nights of hotels? Are you interested?
What's <b>also</b> amazing is that Airbus keep saying these will be great between congested slot-limited city pairs. Hm, well, BA flies like 7 daily trips LHR-JFK (plus EWR), but they haven't ordered any. Neither has AA, which flies the same route 6 times a day (& 5 times ORD-LHR). JAL, which flies two 747 daily NRT-JFK hasn't ordered, and the other Japanese airline ANA ordered a whole bunch of 7E7 instead.
So, how big is the market for the A380 really? And right now, I think we'll see a lot of low fares between Europe and Australia via the Gulf States or Singapre, as competition there will be brutal. Good deal for Europeans vacationing in Australia.
Dec 12th, 2004, 09:22 AM
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been a very informative discussion. I don't recall now where I saw it, but the newspaper article must have been Delta specific. That airline has no 747s in its current fleet.
I just booked a flight to Munich, and the aircraft on the route is the venerable Boeing 767-300. Other long distance routes use the Boeing 777, and in a tight configuration in cattle class I might add.
The 380 has intrigued me because I wondered if such a huge airliner would be able to operate in many places.
Was an aircraft larger than the A340 really needed!! The A340-600 carries 380 passengers according to the Airbus blurb on the web. And a new A350 is on the drawing boards with a reported delivery date in 2010. It is a long range aircraft, something line 15,000 kilometers or better than 9,000 miles.
Boeing of course is countering with the 7E7 in 3 versions according to the web site. But these are not super huge aircraft; Boeing says that all of them will carry less than 300 passengers.
The 747 is now manufactured in the 747-400 and can carry over 500 passengers in a 2-class configuration.
Airbus is not without competition.
But it looks like we now have two super companies battling for supremacy.
I just booked a flight to Munich, and the aircraft on the route is the venerable Boeing 767-300. Other long distance routes use the Boeing 777, and in a tight configuration in cattle class I might add.
The 380 has intrigued me because I wondered if such a huge airliner would be able to operate in many places.
Was an aircraft larger than the A340 really needed!! The A340-600 carries 380 passengers according to the Airbus blurb on the web. And a new A350 is on the drawing boards with a reported delivery date in 2010. It is a long range aircraft, something line 15,000 kilometers or better than 9,000 miles.
Boeing of course is countering with the 7E7 in 3 versions according to the web site. But these are not super huge aircraft; Boeing says that all of them will carry less than 300 passengers.
The 747 is now manufactured in the 747-400 and can carry over 500 passengers in a 2-class configuration.
Airbus is not without competition.
But it looks like we now have two super companies battling for supremacy.
Dec 12th, 2004, 09:38 AM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Airbus has been outselling Boeing for the last 3 years. Airbus is on top in the commercial airplane manufacturing sector.
Boeing just had a corporate shake up because of their weak sales. They replaced their chief in the sales department.
Boeing just had a corporate shake up because of their weak sales. They replaced their chief in the sales department.
Dec 12th, 2004, 05:52 PM
#20
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 37,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched a documentary on the building of this plane a couple of months ago...fascinating..parts of it are made in many different countries and then brought together for assembly. I think there was some mention that this plane has a really long range before they have to re-fule. It will be interesting to see how the various airport accommodate them. Wow...can't wait to see one.
