Posted on 02/23/2007 7:18:21 AM PST by FreeManWhoCan
Correction: The article probably meant to say only customer for the FREIGHTER version of the A380.
The A380 was aimed at very long haul point-to-point flying between major airports (who would be expected to reinforce runways & taxiways as well as re-build gates to accommodate that beast).
It was a risky gamble regardless of the structure of EADS relative to other more 'normal' companies.
Y'know, they said the same thing about the 747 when it was built. At the time it was a "bet the company" project and, as I recall, Boeing came close to going out of business for a time. The early 70s phrase used to be: "Will the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights." Not to say that the A380 will succeed or fail on the technical merits, but I bet if it actually get produced, customers will start coming out of the woodwork. Also, all this crowing about the A380, kind of reminds me of the "John Gault Line".
I won't say your wrong, but I'd like to add that the thing that hurt Boeing back in the early '70s was the collapse of the SST (Super Sonic Transport). Also, most of Boeing's airliner work prior to the advent of the 747 was subsidized by the USAF, ie. the 707 was developed in parallel with the KC-135.
"most of Boeing's airliner work prior to the advent of the 747 was subsidized by the USAF"
What was the 727 developed in parallel with for the USAF?
On June 5, 1963, President John F. Kennedy formed the National Supersonic Transport program, which committed the government to subsidizing 75% of the development costs of a commercial airliner to compete with Concorde. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707)
No. I don't think that either the 727 or 737 had a military analog during development (but I don't think either plane preceded the 747 by that many years, either).
Saw a program on the 727 a while back. THAT was one great piece of aerodynamic design for the period. The airlines put a whole lot of requirements on that project that required some innovative design work.
The problem with the A380 in the market is that (for example) people don't want to fly from Seattle to New York on a 757, hop on an A380 to fly to Paris, then hop on a 737 to fly on to Venice. They want to fly from Seattle to Venice. The hub-and-spoke market concept has gone away. The market has fragmented to direct flights with smaller airplanes. The A380 is an airplane looking for a market based on a no-longer-existing market model.
IIRC, they only sold a couple in 2005, and they didn't sell a single one in 2006 (or maybe a couple very late in the year). The orders have literally dried up and the cancellations are just getting started.
Ah, the 727. Aircraft of choice for skydiving hijackers everywhere.
I always wondered why he never named it (even jokingly) as FredEx.
Boeing uses the same software for the 787, but made damn sure up front, that EVERYBODY in Boeing and subs around the world were using the same version of software - NO EXCEPTIONS. All continuing updates are studied, tested, scheduled & coordinated etc...
Interesting that Boeing uses Frog software and gets it right, and the Frogs use Frog software and get it wrong.
As an aviation buff, and one who gets excited about any advance in Aero & Astro, I can't say anything to fault the plane - it is a massive aircraft and a great feat of engineering that advances the technological field.
That said, its failure is primarily due to the utopian internationalist socialism that spawned it in the first place. Sort of like a feuding couple having a baby to "patch things up", Airbus was conceived to cement the European powers by the necessity of working closely together to handle such intricately complex projects as Aerospace inevitably brings.
But just as socialism fails on the local level - it failed at the international level. No country wanted to be the patsy that puts in more effort than others but receives less in the way of benefits. Airbush may also have ignored brutal market demand data, that might have argued against an 800-passenger plane versus 400-500. But this was not about such lowly things as profits - the A380 was primarily about making a Pan-European STATEMENT. And this is what often happens when people do stupid s--- like that.
Socialism loses again, hooda thunkit!
Bye bye ErrorBus
I understand that wake turbulance means that Air Traffic Control would have to grant a larger separation distance for the A380 -- something on the order of 50% more than any other 'heavy' IIRC. That wouldn't be too helpful to FEDEX either.
They dug from west to east?
Dreamliner dumped wireless entertainment system, 380 just couldn't get the wiring harness' right. Any 380 flying today or in assembly is probably custom wired - no two alike.
In your continental dreams.
Oddly enough, they dug from both ends and met in the middle. Right on target too. Must have been a mostly British operation.
Really? Have you any concept of the production subsidies provided by the State of Washington? How about the Export-Import Bank? I'm not sure that Boeing's subsidies exceed those of Airbus (others have made that claim) but they nevertheless amount to many billions of dollars per year.
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.