Boeing Airbus A380: The Game-Changing Jet that Has Boeing on Edge

[scavok]

The A380 will be good for major hubs, LAX, Midway, JFK, Heathrow, etc. They'll also be excellent for international flights.

But the two major advantages to the A380 are also the two biggest flaws. It relies on the hub n' spoke system. NOBODY likes the hub n' spoke system. People like direct flights. Embracing a business plan that nobody likes, is not good business.

The second problem is that it will only be profitable for long flights with full airplanes. This means that there will only be a few routes are profitable. The 787 will be profitable on the same routes, as well as thousands of short and medium routes.

Right now, traditional airlines like Delta, United, Continental, US Airways, are all in serious financial trouble. On the other hand, airlines that focus on direct flights between cities, and not on the hub n' spoke system, are pulling in huge profits. Airlines such as Southwest, Jetblue, etc.

The 787 embraces the business plan of these airlines. It's small enough to land on just about any runway for jets, very fuel effecient, and requires much less maintainence due to use of composites. Meaning that direct flights will be even more profitable for airlines.

The A380 will have a market to fill, it will replace the 747 as airlines need them replaced, and I have no doubt that it will be profitable, but I don't think that it will be as large of a success as the 787.

Airbus also has started work on similar plane to the 7e7.

The A350 is just an A330, a 15 year old airplane, with new generation engines. Engines that were designed for the 787 no less. The 787 is a brand new airplane built from the ground up. Unless they can make the A350 very, very, cost competitive, or bribe some politicians, there's no reason to buy the A350.

Europeans are highly sucsessful in launching sattelites by Ariane rockets,leaving USA far, far behind.

Not really. The Ariane rocket program is excellent and is no doubt at the forefront of rocket technology, but I have no idea where you get the notion that the USA is "far, far behind."

The Ariane 5 ECA is capable of bringing 9,600kg to GTO. The new Boeing Delta IV Heavy is capable of 13,130kg to GTO. The Lockheed Martin Atlas V Heavy is capable of 12,650kg to GTO.

I can't find any figures on the Ariane 5's performance to LEO, but the Space Shuttle is capable of 27,000kg. As a comparison, the Delta IV Heavy is capable of 23,000kg.

http://www.arianespace.com/site/launcher/launcher_sub_index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Delta_rocket_evolution.png
http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsarchives/newsreleases/rec29/

Is it? IIRC, Boeing failed to win the prime contract for either the F-22 or the F-35. There are no other fighter contracts on the horizon, and there are no serious development efforts underway for a new U.S. bomber either.

Boeing is second bannana to Lockheed Martin in the defense sector and is primarily pitching modifications for military use of the 737 (it just won a 737 based anti-submarine patrol aircraft contract) and the 747 (in cargo and tanker and anti-ballistic missile laser configurations).

I'd say Boeing is pretty much in a 7E7 or bust situation.

They're "second banana" to Lockheed Martin, but you couldn't be more wrong about "7E7 or bust."

http://www.boeing.com/ids/flash.html
Just click on the "products a-z" and see all the defense things that they produce.

And the 747 anti-ballistic missile laser is absolutely incredible, I don't know why you would downplay that.

 

[1123581321]

you are really pissing some yanks from across the ocean off, so cool it, have a smoke, and don't get too cocky, boeing is no where near dead, and who needs super large aircraft anyway, where will it land?

Fibonacci

 

[stoned]

we all know europeans make very good automobiles and whole bunch of other mechanical thingy's, so i think airbus will beat boeing in the long run.

 

[gschjetne]

I keep being annoyed by all the boring 737's flying overhead. But the reason for its success is its versatility and efficiency. It can be used everywhere, from short domestic flights to medium haul international, and I think that's what the 787 project aims for as well. Like it has been said, the A380 will only make a profit at a few routes.

I still prefer Airbus, though, but that's just my euro-patriotism ;)

 

[hitssquad]

A380 safety hazards

http://www.aviationfirejournal.com/pdf/3.pdf

--
Sharing of information is key to the development of tactics and procedures for large scale operations like major aircraft crashes, or any large scale incidents. One of the issues I would like to present in this editorial is the use of composite materials (or “man made mineral fibers”) that are being more widely used in both the new A-380 and the Boeing 7E7 “Dreamliner.” Although composite parts were first used by Airbus 20 years ago, they have never been used as extensively as in the new Boeings, with most of the fuselage, wings and tail made of the materials.

An interesting news article recently published has aircraft manufacturers arguing about the hazards of composite materials in a post-crash accident or fire. Being a September 11th on-site rescue / recovery worker, I cannot begin to tell you about all the conflicting reports issued regarding the safety of the air quality at “Ground Zero.” It is only now, three years later, after more definitive analysis, that they are telling us about the extreme toxicity of the air that we were breathing. It is not a pretty picture, and the effects have already been seen and remain to be seen. even in my case.

Australia has conducted research and planning regarding the postcrash hazards of composite materials, however even their own “experts” tend to down play the health hazards. My point is that we have all known for years that composite materials are bad stuff when involved in a fire. If some of the more definitive study and analysis reports were looked at more closely, such as the Acute Respiratory Toxicity of Advanced Composite Materials produced by U.S. Naval Health Research Center Detachment, there would be no question in anyone’s mind as to the dangers of these materials.

The fire services and ARFF are now facing a two-fold problem — the fire fighting and evacuation problems of ultra-large aircraft such as the A380, and the post-crash fire hazards of composite materials in these and other new aircraft. It’s time that we take a closer look at developing procedures on how we are going to operate and protect ourselves, rather than wasting time listening to those that are arguing that there are really no problems to begin with.

WILLIAM MULCAHEY
--