Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boeing 747-8 vs A380: A titanic tussle
FlightInterational.com ^ | 14/02/06 | Staff

Posted on 02/15/2006 3:43:53 PM PST by Paleo Conservative

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

1 posted on 02/15/2006 3:43:55 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

The 380 is going to cripple Airbus.


2 posted on 02/15/2006 3:45:41 PM PST by CWOJackson (Tancredo? Wasn't he the bounty hunter in Star Wars?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Nothing like handicapping American companies that have to compete against foreign companies which are subsidized by their governments.


3 posted on 02/15/2006 3:48:56 PM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
The Boeing aircraft will triumph in Asia where Boeing has agreed to source parts in return for aircraft sales.

However, there will be a day when China enters this market with their own designs, then it will be all over.

4 posted on 02/15/2006 3:56:38 PM PST by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Ok you air craft design engineers, help me understand something. Why the double deck? Why not a wider body instead?

It is my understanding that an airplane with wings below the fuselage is less stable than when the body of the plane is 'slung' below the wing. So it would seem to me that a double decker would be even more unstable. Lastly, a wider body could be used to create a lifting frame but I would not see it impacting the stability of the aircraft.

Since I see that others are going with the double deck, I must be missing something.
5 posted on 02/15/2006 3:58:32 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
...there is no improvement from the 1960s comfort standard,” says Carcaillet.

Sure there is... the passengers don't have to wear polyester.

6 posted on 02/15/2006 3:58:51 PM PST by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

The A380 can only operate at a handful of airports around the world because of its massive size. It is too heavy, even Airbus engineers admitted it was over target weight, and too large. The 747-8 will be able to operate at every airport the current 747-400 can. Plus, can you imagine trying to get off a plane with 550-600 other people? Talk about the long turn around times airlines will be faced with!


7 posted on 02/15/2006 4:00:00 PM PST by abercrombie_guy_38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
The big problems (literally!) for the A380 are:

1. You need strengthened and widened runways and taxiways to handle a plane far wider than the 747 and also weighing around 1 million pounds!

2. You need a terminal gate with increased handling capacity for the plane.

3. You might even need to increase wake turbulence separation for the the A380.

Small wonder why airlines are finding the 777-200LR, 777-300LR, 787-8 and 787-9 vastly more attractive, since they don't need expensive revamping of most current international airports.

8 posted on 02/15/2006 4:01:31 PM PST by RayChuang88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Boeing has more cash than France :)~


9 posted on 02/15/2006 4:08:28 PM PST by fhlh (Polls are for strippers and liberal spinsters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

The Plane can't have an overly-wide body because they have to use airports that are designed for todays jets. Thats why Airbus will have a problem with the A380 it's wider than the 747 derivitive. Thats what I have heard.


10 posted on 02/15/2006 4:09:07 PM PST by puppypusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; namsman; ...

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.

11 posted on 02/15/2006 4:09:19 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88
There's plenty of other issues.

As designed and flown it doesn't have the structural strength or power to deliver as promised; once they factored in the extras (showers, clubs, stores, etc) it would be overweight, underpowered and structurally weak. That is why they immediately had to delay the intended rollout date...and the modifications are going to cut into cost/performance estimates.

It's a design dinosaur, taking 40 year old design and construction to an extreme.

It's inflexible for changing routes. Yes, an airline could condense two-three flights into one, however, it can't work backwards. If that route is suddenly less productive you can't leave one third of the plane at home. Also consider the fact that you now offer one flight time a day, not two or three like your competitors.

Lastly, look at the L1011. It was one of the best airliners ever built. Soon after it started operating one went down in the Florida everglades when a 5 cent light bulb burned out...and pilot error. Because of the high loss of life and media coverage orders for this new plane dried up over night, airlines already flying them sold them off and the company building them eventually went under. WHEN a 380 goes in it's going to be horrible.

12 posted on 02/15/2006 4:11:36 PM PST by CWOJackson (Tancredo? Wasn't he the bounty hunter in Star Wars?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan

You owe me a keyboard!


13 posted on 02/15/2006 4:18:29 PM PST by irishtenor (At 270 pounds, I am twice the bike rider Lance is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
and the company building them eventually went under

Lockheed? They're still around but of course, no longer in the commercial airline biz.

14 posted on 02/15/2006 4:19:37 PM PST by Citizen of the Savage Nation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fhlh

Never get in an argument with somebody who buys ink by the railroad car...

Never try to outspend somebody who can print his own money...


15 posted on 02/15/2006 4:20:34 PM PST by gridlock (eliminate perverse incentives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Citizen of the Savage Nation
I should have said their division.

The L1011 was an excellent aircraft that's gone on to become a great air cargo carrier.

16 posted on 02/15/2006 4:21:12 PM PST by CWOJackson (Tancredo? Wasn't he the bounty hunter in Star Wars?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

John Leahy is quick to make, and he is unconvinced that his rival will manage to break out from the freight market. “Our competitor sold a few 747-8 freighters. This’ll be the first time in the history of aviation that anyone has made a successful programme out of just freighters,” he says.


Airbus's arguments are like listening to islamics bitch about victimhood. Its always the same line of whining baseless crap.
The new passenger version of the 747-8 was only annouced a few months ago.


17 posted on 02/15/2006 4:24:05 PM PST by Proud_USA_Republican (We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Paleo Conservative

The A380 is Airbus's

A) éléphant blanc

B) Edsel

C) All of the above

D) Same difference


19 posted on 02/15/2006 4:31:32 PM PST by TeddyCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
No matter what the critics say about the 747-8I being a " OLD DESIGN " ... still ? the 747 ( IMOHO ) looks more modern, aerodynamic, and stylish than the A-380.
20 posted on 02/15/2006 4:44:15 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson