[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I think they are referring to a 747-8 which is basically a souped-up 747 with technology from the 787 Dreamliner.

True, 748 is short for 747-8. A388 is short for A380-800 etc. Save a lot of time when discussing airliner models

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by glideslope

LOL, ok. What is the use in evacuating 800+ Members of the German Athletic Club if your airframe can't be delivered?

There is no doubt that the A380 *will* be delivered.

Originally Posted by glideslope

Another 3-5 month delay for EK announced yesterday.

Apparently thanks to the Engine Alliance (GE + P&W) engines (GP7200), not because of the airframe. SQ will stilll be receiving their frame in 2006 on schedule. They chose Rolls engines. Wise choice apparently

Originally Posted by glideslope

Airbus is also going to be required to test another wing to 150%. 146% won't let the Whale land in the USA.

Hahaha - as if The A380 can land in the USA as it pleases if approved by EASA and JAA. If the FAA has issues with the wing-stress test then it will just approve the A380, but for a little less MTOW and that only matters to US airline operators of the A380 - of which there are none. The A380F uses a strengthened wing, stronger than the A388 pax version.

So, you are wrong. The FAA doesn't interefere with non-US operators so as it is their opinion doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by glideslope

It's still 2-3% overweight.

And it performs 2-3% better than expected. It evens out to

Originally Posted by glideslope

No operators believe a single word out of Airbus' mouths any longer.

Why not?

Originally Posted by glideslope

Operators are going to have to stuff so many pax in this thing to make money they very well may look at the 748 in place of it.

Since the operation of the A380 is better than expected, I think the A380 operators will be quite pleased.

Originally Posted by glideslope

The A350 is DOA, and Boeing is already well into the 737NG replacement.

The A350 will be flying in 2011 and Boeing better be designing the 737NG replacement! Airbus sold two A320s for every *one* 737 Boing sold last year!! I'd say Boing is in trouble with its 737NGs and they'll be fading into the sunset soon enough. I just wonder what engines Boeing will use on their 737NG replacements, because that's pretty much the only area that can be improved much upon.

Originally Posted by glideslope

The 380 is like the Concorde. A huge exercise in Nation Pride with no realistic outlook on the market. Except, at least the Concorde engineered well.

Less than 20 Concordes were ever "sold", but I agree it was an engineering marvel. The A380 has sold close to 200 already, so any comparison to the Concorde (as a business model) is not possible. The A380 is already a relative success and it has only been flying for 11 months.

Originally Posted by glideslope

Go ahead and squirt your ketchup. 10 years from now Airbus will be part of Boeing/BAE Systems. Or did you not notice BAE selling their 20% stake in Airbus today?

No, didn't miss that - but it is unlikely BAE will merge with Boeing. But if they will then Airbus will perhaps repeat history and whoop Boing's ass while they're restructuring (see MD/Boeing merger and the 90s)

Other than that, Airbus will for obvious reasons never be a part of Boeing and EADS will buy the BAE stake in Airbus. That's my bet.

cheers

W-Y

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by glideslope in December 2005

It won't even come close to the 300 airframes required to break even. Airbus is praying for 200 orders, and that seems unlikely at this point.

I thought I might bring this up again: there are currently 159 orders and options for 70 more for the A380 (both the freight version 800F and the passenger aircraft 800). 27 of the 159 are freighters. This means they are already close to breaking even (it is expected that Airbus breaks even after selling somewhere between 250-300 aircrafts) before they have even delivered the first one.

Just a comparison: there are 18 747-8Fs on order with 10 more as options by only two customers (Airbus has sixteen different customers for its A380). Boeing has not sold a single 747-8I yet.

The Dreamliner sells much better. It has currently 345 firm and 43 pending orders which is well ahead of the A350 (100 firm orders and 82 pending).

On another note, there are many more variants of the 787 and some of them do not directly compete with the A350, but other Airbus aircraft (except for the A380 for obvious reasons ). The 787 will also compete and/or replace some of Boeing's models (e. g. the 757-300, the 767-300ER and -400ER as well as the 777-200).

[Weyland-Yutani]

Good post Oreo Cookie

cheers

W-Y

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

There is no doubt that the A380 *will* be delivered.
W-Y

Looking like Summer 2007?

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Apparently thanks to the Engine Alliance (GE + P&W) engines (GP7200), not because of the airframe. SQ will stilll be receiving their frame in 2006 on schedule. They chose Rolls engines. Wise choice apparently
W-Y

Ok, I'll give you that. I've always been a RR fan.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Hahaha - as if The A380 can land in the USA as it pleases if approved by EASA and JAA. If the FAA has issues with the wing-stress test then it will just approve the A380, but for a little less MTOW and that only matters to US airline operators of the A380 - of which there are none. The A380F uses a strengthened wing, stronger than the A388 pax version.
W-Y

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

So, you are wrong. The FAA doesn't interefere with non-US operators so as it is their opinion doesn't really matter.
W-Y

Think so? Sit back and watch Geo Politics. It's not 1957 any longer.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

And it performs 2-3% better than expected. It evens out to
W-Y

There are no independent reviews of these claims. See below.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Why not?
W-Y

They overestimate their engineering ability in Press Releases. Started with the 343.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Since the operation of the A380 is better than expected, I think the A380 operators will be quite pleased.
W-Y

LOL, go ask SQ and EK how they feel these days. Your not doing enough research.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The A350 will be flying in 2011 and Boeing better be designing the 737NG replacement! Airbus sold two A320s for every *one* 737 Boing sold last year!! I'd say Boing is in trouble with its 737NGs and they'll be fading into the sunset soon enough. I just wonder what engines Boeing will use on their 737NG replacements, because that's pretty much the only area that can be improved much upon.
W-Y

The 350 is going to need a redesign before it sells. The fuse is too small in diameter, and they can't stretch it without a new wing. Even though Noel dreams about sales, they are still dreams. Another Airbus Market Miscalculation.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Less than 20 Concordes were ever "sold", but I agree it was an engineering marvel. The A380 has sold close to 200 already, so any comparison to the Concorde (as a business model) is not possible. The A380 is already a relative success and it has only been flying for 11 months.
W-Y

Ok, I'll agree. A relative success it is.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No, didn't miss that - but it is unlikely BAE will merge with Boeing. But if they will then Airbus will perhaps repeat history and whoop Boing's ass while they're restructuring (see MD/Boeing merger and the 90s)
W-Y

Geeze, here we go with the dreams thing again.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Other than that, Airbus will for obvious reasons never be a part of Boeing and EADS will buy the BAE stake in Airbus. That's my bet.
W-Y

Take a close look at the composition of BAE's BOD. I'd say Boeing already has a foot and a half in the door.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

cheers
W-Y

Cheers.

[glideslope]

For the record I do love the A320.

[TETENAL]

The A380 is delayed for at least another half a year due to production problem and the A350 is a major flop. This isn't looking too good for Airbus.



At least EADS boss Forgeard could sell his shares before the stock plummeted, earning millions. He didn't know about the Airbus problems at the time he sold he says.

[Sky Captain]

The insider trading rumors aren't helping either.
I am happy to hear Airbus is taking the time to re-engineer a problem rather than let production go on.
A really smart move. Safety over profits.

[voodoo]

No, the A380 is not delayed, there are production delays on certain frames. The A380 will finish certification on time and the first planes will be delivered in October/November this year. The problem is that there can be up to six month delay on subsequent deliveries until production ramps up.

There seems to be a problem with suppliers and wiring. I wouldn't be surprised if Airbus is biting the bullet and going back to copper wires from aluminum.

The A350 is still an offering from Airbus with more than 100 orders. I reserve judgement on that until I see what Airbus does at Farnborough.

BTW I do so hope Forgeard is fired as soon as possible. His ineptness the last years led to the A350 indecision.. more importantly he hasn't let go of Airbus. I think he still controls it more or less.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The insider trading rumors aren't helping either.
I am happy to hear Airbus is taking the time to re-engineer a problem rather than let production go on.
A really smart move. Safety over profits.

100% agreed.

V

[TETENAL]

EADS boss Forgeard and Airbus boss Humbert now have resigned over the problems with the A380.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...424819,00.html

[driven]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The insider trading rumors aren't helping either.
I am happy to hear Airbus is taking the time to re-engineer a problem rather than let production go on.
A really smart move. Safety over profits.

Well ... having another tail fall off an airplane in flight isn't going to raise confidence in their products.

[aberdeenwriter]

...

[driven]

What was he testifying about?

[aberdeenwriter]

...

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by driven

Well ... having another tail fall off an airplane in flight isn't going to raise confidence in their products.

This has nothing to do with structure.

On a side note: the A300 accident you are talking about was caused by pilot error, not structural design failure. Why is it so hard to understand that when pilots run their planes to the ground it is not the fault of the company that made the plane?

V

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by voodoo

This has nothing to do with structure.

On a side note: the A300 accident you are talking about was caused by pilot error, not structural design failure. Why is it so hard to understand that when pilots run their planes to the ground it is not the fault of the company that made the plane?

V

I agree.

http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/47...21-070406-1124

[aberdeenwriter]

...

[badidea]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Can this thread also accommodate OTHER EADS business?

Short answer: No!

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by badidea

Short answer: No!

Wise answer.

[imitchellg5]

I don't like Airbus. I guess that just comes from living in Washington. My dad worked on both Air Force Ones at Boeing. I've been on the first.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

I don't like Airbus. I guess that just comes from living in Washington. My dad worked on both Air Force Ones at Boeing. I've been on the first.

So you don't like McDonnell-Douglas for the same reasons?

V

[exca1ibur]

Seeing how Boeing owns McDonell/Douglas, I'd guess he does.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur

Seeing how Boeing owns Mcdonald/Douglas, I'd guess he does.

McDonald?



McDonnell Douglas





V

[driven]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I agree.

http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/47...21-070406-1124

Not sure why you would repost my message on another web-site and then use it as some weird introduction to political issues.

Not cool.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by voodoo

McDonald?



McDonnell Douglas





V

fair enough...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Randman

Window seats are for flying rookies.

Oh, I don't know that window seats are for flying rookies, at all!

If you can hold your own B&B for the duration of the flight, a window seat means not being disturbed for the duration.

Can't say that in any other seat.

And if you are able to restrict your visit to the lew to only once in a non-stop L.A. - Singapore run then you are inconvenienced only once.

[analogika]

Agreed.

Window seats primarily mean having a wall to one side of you that you can lean up against and that won't bump into you all the time or spill their coffee on you etc.

[driven]

I've always considered window seats to be unhealthy on long haul flights. Don't you have to move around to keep the blood from clotting?

(Besides, I'm VERY clostrophic ... if I can't get an aisle seat I'll wait for the next flight that has one ... seriously.)

[Mastrap]

I'm 6'6". Emergency exit seats all the way when I am paying, business class when somebody else (client) is.
A couple of weeks back I had to fly from Toronto to Thunder Bay and back in one day. A tiny little plane, so low I could not even stand upright. That was one uncomfortable flight.

[driven]

I fly between 250,000 - 500,000 miles in a given year. Unfortunately company policy states that I have to fly coach so business class is out unless I want to burn some miles for an upgrade. (Elite status on two different airlines allows me to upgrade for free, but the upgrades are rarely available.)

I go exit row when I can, but that's not often available either unfortunately.

[Mastrap]

Coach on international flights? Sheesh, that sucks.
(I am not talking about flying once a year to Europe of course, but with your mileage....)

[imitchellg5]

I fly a ton and I love window seats especially on overnight flights. 777 window seats in United first class are awesome ( I fly for free!)

[driven]

Heck, even I can deal with Window seats in first class.

[aberdeenwriter]

I've never flown First Class. Is it really dancing girls and pedicures, champagne and reclining lounge chairs?

[Mastrap]

Pretty much so.

[driven]

Some airlines even offer lapdances. :-)

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by driven

Some airlines even offer lapdances. :-)

WOW!



Any chance of smuggling pot-laced brownies aboard? Flying high in the friendly skies?

[voodoo]

UA (ref. to 'friendly skies') first class isn't all that compared to real first class like on Singapore Airlines

The A380 will introduce a new meaning to first class!

V

[Buckaroo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg1uy...=plane%20crash

[driven]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg1uy...=plane%20crash

Weird video. Pretty funny if not so tragic.

[Mastrap]

Why are you posting a video of a 1988 plane crash?

[Buckaroo]

Just for the heck of it.

I don't like the 380, and I'll never fly in it. It might be an ok airplane, but it ain't for me. I don't care much for cattle car airplanes.

My favorite is the 737.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg1uy...=plane%20crash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

The stupid narrator is wrong. That plane is not flown by a computer but rather two human pilots who made a big mistake costing six people their lives.

Why the **** are you posting this anyway?

V

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by voodoo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

The stupid narrator is wrong. That plane is not flown by a computer but rather two human pilots who made a big mistake costing six people their lives.

Why the **** are you posting this anyway?

V

Because it's about an Airbus crash. I still don't understand the point of it. That was a "learning experience" for Airbus, and every airplane they built after that benefited from what they learned. Expensive lessons are lessons none the less.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Because it's about an Airbus crash.

It has nothing to do with the thread or the 380 and quite distasteful. The plane in question was a 320-100 and was being flown at an attitude so that the horizon was not visible and the pilots were not situationally aware.

Again, very distasteful and has nothing to do with this thread.

V

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Because it's about an Airbus crash. I still don't understand the point of it. That was a "learning experience" for Airbus, and every airplane they built after that benefited from what they learned. Expensive lessons are lessons none the less.

Wasn't that crash due to pilot error?

[driven]

Well ... we went from flying lap dances in first class to tragic crashes. This thread is all over the map.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by voodoo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

The stupid narrator is wrong. That plane is not flown by a computer but rather two human pilots who made a big mistake costing six people their lives.

Why the **** are you posting this anyway?

V

My memory may be failing me, but I believe you are wrong. This wasn't all pilot error. In fact now that I think about it, it was NO pilot error. The pilot tried to pull up and the plane's computer refused to obey his control stick. This was 100% computer error.

The plane basically flew itself into the trees. I believe it was on it's first flight.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

My memory may be failing me, but I believe you are wrong. This wasn't all pilot error. In fact now that I think about it, it was NO pilot error. The pilot tried to pull up and the plane's computer refused to obey his control stick. This was 100% computer error.

The plane basically flew itself into the trees. I believe it was on it's first flight.

This was not the airplane's first flight.

This was 100% pilot error because they were attempting to demonstrate a "feature" that just happens to be inhibited below 100 feet in the landing configuration. They forgot that the feature was not available in that regime and by the time they realized it, it was simply too late to recover. To restate, the pilots knowingly put the airplane in that condition and let it progress to the point that recovery was impossible.

For what it's worth, put a Boeing or any other airplane in that same condition and it won't recover either. This had nothing to do with the computer. It was 100% pilot error.

Chris
Experimental Test Pilot and A320 Instructor