[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Troll 

But if someone said I could have a standard seat in a plane with 300 people or a bigger seat, a lounge, shops, place to walk around, maybe a shower or a gym in a plane shared with 500 people, I'd go for that option any day. On a long haul flight, space is the single most important factor for me. The point of the A380 was to give passengers more space on long haul flights and I would bet 90% of passengers would opt for more space instead of fewer fellow passengers.

Do you honestly believe they will waste space on the plane for a lounge, shops, and a shower/gym? Airlines have one thing in mind when it comes to filling a plane... and that's SEATS. The first 747's had lounges in them... that didn't last too long once they realized they could replace the lounge with seats and make more money. You many see a few planes outfitted with those amenities but the airlines will quickly learn that they can make more money buy getting rid of that stuff.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

..You many see a few planes outfitted with those amenities but the airlines will quickly learn that they can make more money buy getting rid of that stuff.

Do you really think that airlines still have to learn what they can sell?
You're right with the gym though! I don't think any holiday flyer will ever have one!

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Do you really think that airlines still have to learn what they can sell?

As a matter of fact, I do. Large corporations make stupid mistakes all the time. Remember "New Coke"?

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Do you honestly believe they will waste space on the plane for a lounge, shops, and a shower/gym? Airlines have one thing in mind when it comes to filling a plane... and that's SEATS. The first 747's had lounges in them... that didn't last too long once they realized they could replace the lounge with seats and make more money. You many see a few planes outfitted with those amenities but the airlines will quickly learn that they can make more money buy getting rid of that stuff.

I thought there was plenty of room downstairs for stuff like this where they wouldn't put seats. I'm sure I read that the luggage only fills up half the 'basement' and thus you can pack in the seats and also have a lounge etc.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I thought there was plenty of room downstairs for stuff like this where they wouldn't put seats. I'm sure I read that the luggage only fills up half the 'basement' and thus you can pack in the seats and also have a lounge etc.

I still believe that the airlines will figure out some other way to make money off the additional space. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of a lounge/bar/disco/bowling alley/whatever.... I just think that practicality will win out over the "cool factor" of a lounge.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I thought there was plenty of room downstairs for stuff like this where they wouldn't put seats. I'm sure I read that the luggage only fills up half the 'basement' and thus you can pack in the seats and also have a lounge etc.

Huh? Luggage goes in the cargo hold (which is actually pretty small for a plane it's size, due to the short overall length and space taken by the landing gear). Both the main deck and upper deck will be packed with 450-620 seats.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I still believe that the airlines will figure out some other way to make money off the additional space. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of a lounge/bar/disco/bowling alley/whatever.... I just think that practicality will win out over the "cool factor" of a lounge.

Well, first off, the seats are bigger in the A380 and the gap between them is bigger so irrespective of how many there are, you will have more space. Even in the max seat configuration, you still have more space.

Second, none of the airlines that have ordered planes so far have ordered them with max seats and Airbus is discouraging this.

Third, why do you think they won't make money off space that doesn't have seats in them? Don't you think people will spend more on duty-free items if they can see them displayed? That's cash generated and there's quite a healthy profit on duty-free stuff. Same goes for slot machines and bars. Virgin is the only airline that has advertised the gym so that's perhaps less likely.

Finally, if it were true that the only way to make money in the airline business was to pack more seats in, then there wouldn't be a business class on any flight. Obviously people do care about the service they get and the space they have so I would think that airlines see the prospect of offering more space and comfort as a drawcard which will translate into more money.

[badidea]

SIA01 (MSN3) just left Hamburg a few minutes ago - pictures should soon be available on airliners.net!

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by badidea 

SIA01 (MSN3) just left Hamburg a few minutes ago - pictures should soon be available on airliners.net!

Is it painted in SIA colours?? And is it with SIA specified interiors fitted??

[badidea]

Yes, of course - it's ready now (finally)!

[badidea]

[badidea]

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4...mage006hu2.jpg

[voodoo]

Wow!

It is READY!!! The era of the Super Jumbo A380 has begun!

V

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Is this real paint, or using "sticker" like they did in Asia-pacific tour?

[badidea]

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/8...mage008ne5.jpg

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

Is this real paint, or using "sticker" like they did in Asia-pacific tour?

It is real, that plane is ready for delivery!

V

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

It is real, that plane is ready for delivery!

V

Good!

Now, where are you in the last photograph... I don't think I have spot you??

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

It is real, that plane is ready for delivery!

V

When is Singapore Airlines taking delivery of this one?

[mduell]

French press says SIA may get their delivery in August or September; last time the public was updated it was planned to be delivered in October.

[TETENAL]

So things go much quicker now that EADS did away with this two CEOs oddity and settled on a single one.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

So things go much quicker now that EADS did away with this two CEOs oddity and settled on a single one.

You are confusing EADS with Airbus.

V

[analogika]

Why doesn't anybody tell me about these things BEFOREHAND?

It was a beautiful day; I live a half-hour walk from the Airbus grounds, and I would have had the time to take a look at this bird lifting off.

I read about it on the ****ing MacNN forums fifteen minutes AFTER it's gone.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Why doesn't anybody tell me about these things BEFOREHAND?

It was a beautiful day; I live a half-hour walk from the Airbus grounds, and I would have had the time to take a look at this bird lifting off.

I read about it on the ****ing MacNN forums fifteen minutes AFTER it's gone.

Well, yesterday noon I was walking around the company ground and wondered why there were so many busses everywhere until someone told me that everybody is going to the "SIA photoshoot" - I had no clue! After the photoshoot the plane was supposed to leave for Toulouse!
I didn't go because I still had work to do....
Today at around 10.30h a colleague asked me if I wanted to come to watch the takeoff at 10.45h!
I said, what? Today? I thought it left yesterday?
Well, it didn't!
So we went to the runway and still had to wait until 11.30h until it finally showed up...

That's why nobody tells you - we don't have any exact info either!

Didn't you have to work anyway?

[veryniceguy2002]

25 October 2007 will be when the first A380 commercial flight starts!

Coming to an air space near you

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

As a matter of fact, I do. Large corporations make stupid mistakes all the time. Remember "New Coke"?

But this plane is NOT Chewbacca. And since the plane isn't Chewbacca the whole defense is gone.

<some rhyme here>

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

But this plane is NOT Chewbacca. And since the plane isn't Chewbacca the whole defense is gone.

<some rhyme here>

No . . . it's Chew Choon Seng not Chewbacca.


The chief executive of Singapore Airlines, Chew Choon Seng, has confirmed details of the plane's inaugural commercial flight, which will take place 10 days after its launch in Toulouse, France, on October 15.

[Andy8]

Ouch!

THE Airbus A380 has hit an airport hangar in Bangkok, forcing the world's largest passenger jet to delay its take-off today on a demonstration tour.

The bump caused slight damage to the left wing of the double-decker plane, an Airbus official said

See the post in this link from SecTac - you can see the A380 arriving at Chang Mai without its winglets.

[Andy8]

[veryniceguy2002]

No big problem without the winglets (or Wing tip fences as called by Europeans), as it is used for reducing aerodynamic drag of the wing thus fuel efficiency of the A380. No other problem will be affected. Airbus engineers probably happy in one sense because it gets them an opportunity to measure fuel efficiency of A380 without winglets (at least for one side) in real life, compare with the simulated result!

[Andy8]

We get to see a low level (300 metre) pass down Victoria Harbour of the A380 tomorrow morning between 8am-8.30am for those of us in Hong Kong.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

No big problem without the winglets (or Wing tip fences as called by Europeans), as it is used for reducing aerodynamic drag of the wing thus fuel efficiency of the A380. No other problem will be affected. Airbus engineers probably happy in one sense because it gets them an opportunity to measure fuel efficiency of A380 without winglets (at least for one side) in real life, compare with the simulated result!

Right, I'm sure their elated that the plane was pushed back into the hanger wall so the could test Fuel Burn with out the Winglets. On the start of major Asian tour no less. Good call on their part.

[Andy8]

The sun came out to shine this morning for the low level flight this morning. I was impressed!

[mduell]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

No big problem without the winglets (or Wing tip fences as called by Europeans), as it is used for reducing aerodynamic drag of the wing thus fuel efficiency of the A380. No other problem will be affected. Airbus engineers probably happy in one sense because it gets them an opportunity to measure fuel efficiency of A380 without winglets (at least for one side) in real life, compare with the simulated result!

Wingtip fence isn't just a European phrase, it's the name for the type of winglet device that Airbus uses. The wikipedia article on wingtip devices covers the various types quite well.

I read one news report that said they took both wingtips off, even though it could fly with only one on.

[Sealobo]

A380 Fly-by this morning... just to share a few.





More Pix

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Andy8 

Ouch!


See the post in this link from SecTac - you can see the A380 arriving at Chang Mai without its winglets.

did the airplane hit it or did the pilot?

[OreoCookie]

It was the push-back vehicle operator's fault. I guess he wasn't used to such a big plane. Neither the pilot nor traffic control weren't to blame.

[cSurfr]

Is Airbus still using Kapton wire? I sure hope not! Anything that can self destruct when it get's too hot is bad news! We have it all over the DC-10

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Right, I'm sure their elated that the plane was pushed back into the hanger wall so the could test Fuel Burn with out the Winglets. On the start of major Asian tour no less. Good call on their part.

I always took you as willfully ignorant of aviation. Not knowing the difference between winglets and wingtip-fences is proof of the opposite.

Simply ignorant.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I always took you as willfully ignorant of aviation. Not knowing the difference between winglets and wingtip-fences is proof of the opposite.

Simply ignorant.

V

Gotta love aerospace geek bickering.

It reminds me of when the D&D folks in jr high would argue over who had the most powerful player or whatever they are called.

Not that one has to have a degree in how to make a plane to see the this particular plane was a huge economic failure.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by cSurfr 

Is Airbus still using Kapton wire? I sure hope not! Anything that can self destruct when it get's too hot is bad news! We have it all over the DC-10

I heard it was just a big deal with faster, more compact planes. Then again that could just be a spin.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not that one has to have a degree in how to make a plane to see the this particular plane WAS [sic] a huge economic failure.

That is a rather bizarre statement to make about a product that hasn't been delivered yet, let alone discontinued...

Maybe a "degree in how to make a plane" (IIRC, that would be audiospace engineering) is not as important as a "degree in how to logical thinkering".

Or sumt'n.

[Kevin]

Copland was never delivered. But I think we both can agree it was a financial failure.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Copland was never delivered. But I think we both can agree it was a financial failure.

Give that one thirty seconds of brain-time and get back to us.

[Kevin]

But analogika, that was my point. Your little condescending quirps doesn't change the fact that lots of money has been lost on this plane.

You can even call teh Xbox a financial failure as well. And it would be the truth.

Right now they have went WAAAAAY over budget on the plane. When doing so, you don't reap the benefits you originally planned. And said venture turns into a financial failure. And it's true! It is!

Airbus stated they would need orders for 300 or more planes to break even on start up costs, never mind making a profit. Airbus made many many promises for this aircraft and have failed to deliver on any of them, in fact the plane has not even been certified yet? Orders have stopped, barely over half of the 300 required to break even.

Its biggest failing was trying to bamboozle its customers and failing to communicate the real problems it was enduring. It even accused its customers of making unreasonable demands for interiors, after having sold the plane with bars, duty free shops, swimming pools, exercise rooms, well maybe not pools. The end result is they really PO'd their customers, and as a result they may have lost future orders.

That doesn't say anything about the integrity of the plane itself.

Some people here are waaay too sensitive about a hunk of metal and some rubber tires.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

But analogika, that was my point. Your little condescending quirps doesn't change the fact that lots of money has been lost on this plane.

You can even call teh Xbox a financial failure as well. And it would be the truth.

Right now they have went WAAAAAY over budget on the plane. When doing so, you don't reap the benefits you originally planned. And said venture turns into a financial failure. And it's true! It is!

*sigh*

Apparently, no amount of brain-time is going to help this "logical thinkering" thing.

A "financial failure" is something that ends up having cost the company more money than it made (loss), or that misses stated financial goals by a wide margin.

It is rather disingenuous to call something a "financial failure" that hasn't even gone on sale YET, and even more stupid to legitimize this claim by calling on an example of something that NEVER WENT ON SALE AT ALL.

I'm sorry about the condescension, but I'm simply at a loss as to how else to deal with this kind of "argumentation".

There is not a single product in the history of manufactured goods that hasn't cost money before going on sale.

Yes, the Airbus A380 development cost a lot more than was planned, and yes, it's later than it was planned, but whether or not it's a commercial failure for Airbus is probably not going to be judgeable until the end of its production run.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I always took you as willfully ignorant of aviation. Not knowing the difference between winglets and wingtip-fences is proof of the opposite.

Simply ignorant.

V

Oh that's a bit harsh! Even we call our wingtip-fences winglets!
But by "we" I mean us DMU-Processes-Methods-Guys...the design department probably makes this difference!


On a side note...even more Airbus-Boeing similarities (and no surprise at all):
Flightblogger: Temporary Fasteners Causing Major Problems for 787 Program

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Oh that's a bit harsh! Even we call our wingtip-fences winglets!
But by "we" I mean us DMU-Processes-Methods-Guys...the design department probably makes this difference!


On a side note...even more Airbus-Boeing similarities (and no surprise at all):
Flightblogger: Temporary Fasteners Causing Major Problems for 787 Program

Oh it's Glideslope, the least he deserves is harsh comments. It was equivalent of a self declared Mac-expert calling the Apple-menu the "Start-menu".

Similar, yes. Same thing, not by a long shot.

PS when talking in English, I actually make the distinction between winglets and wingtip-fences.. maybe I am too indoctrined in the technical difference.. however ONE thing is for sure: Wingtip-fences are NOT the European term for winglets.

The 320s and 380s have wingtip-fences while the 330s and the 340s have winglets. It's one of the things that makes the 330 the most beautiful and elegant civil airliner design I have ever seen.

Airliners.net Photos: Northwest Airlines Airbus A330-323X

Airliners.net Photos: Scandinavian Airlines - SAS Airbus A330-343X

V

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Airbus stated they would need orders for 300 or more planes to break even on start up costs, never mind making a profit. Airbus made many many promises for this aircraft and have failed to deliver on any of them, in fact the plane has not even been certified yet? Orders have stopped, barely over half of the 300 required to break even.

Airbus has since revised that figure to 420+ over the first 20 years, even after reducing the IRR from 18% to 13%.

[glideslope]

Oh that's a bit harsh! Even we call our wingtip-fences winglets!
But by "we" I mean us DMU-Processes-Methods-Guys...the design department probably makes this difference!


For once I agree with you. Thank you.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Oh it's Glideslope, the least he deserves is harsh comments. It was equivalent of a self declared Mac-expert calling the Apple-menu the "Start-menu".

Similar, yes. Same thing, not by a long shot.

PS when talking in English, I actually make the distinction between winglets and wingtip-fences.. maybe I am too indoctrined in the technical difference.. however ONE thing is for sure: Wingtip-fences are NOT the European term for winglets.

The 320s and 380s have wingtip-fences while the 330s and the 340s have winglets. It's one of the things that makes the 330 the most beautiful and elegant civil airliner design I have ever seen.

Airliners.net Photos: Northwest Airlines Airbus A330-323X

Airliners.net Photos: Scandinavian Airlines - SAS Airbus A330-343X

V

Wow,

I suggest anger management therapy ASAP. You my friend need help.