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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Clausius2
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The Airbus A380 is seen as a significant advancement in aviation, prompting concerns for Boeing as it faces competition in the commercial aircraft market. While Airbus has yet to test the A380 and must meet strict performance targets, some believe Boeing's long-range strategy may still hold an edge due to existing airport infrastructure compatibility. The A380's success hinges on selling a substantial number of units to break even, raising questions about market demand for such a large aircraft. Critics argue that Airbus is not pioneering new technology but rather expanding on existing concepts, while Boeing's innovations have historically shaped the industry. The discussion reflects a broader debate about the future of commercial aviation and the competitive dynamics between Airbus and Boeing.
Clausius2
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,433
Reaction score
7
http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_backgrounder.asp

Boeing must come to a conclusion rapidly about that. Airbus is taking advantage seriously, and European aeronautics have reached a significant advance.

Boeing...Who knows them? :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Clausius2 said:
Airbus is taking advantage seriously
Airbus has not yet tested the A380, and Boeing's LR (long-range non-stop capability) strategy may yet prove to be more competitive regardless of any engineering success of the A380.
 
Boeing...Who knows them?
They used to be the worlds leading aircraft manufacturer
 
What does Boeing actually have in the works for the future (which will rival the A380 and so forth) ?
 
hitssquad said:
Airbus has not yet tested the A380, and Boeing's LR (long-range non-stop capability) strategy may yet prove to be more competitive regardless of any engineering success of the A380.

What do you mean with "tested"?.

I don't think it is going to be a disaster like the Zeppelins. As far as I know it is the bigger commercial aircraft ever built, and I haven't heard of nothing so updated being made by Boeing. Give me some link to that.

Don't be jealous, hitssquad... :smile:

Airbus (Europe) 1- Boeing (USA) 0. :biggrin: The things are returning to be as they once were...(Zeppelin, Von Braun's V series, Stuka,Spitfire,...Airbus A380,...)
 
It is obvious that Airbus and European Aeronautical industry is taking off.Airbus is just one example on how to aggressively and boldly go where others(Boeing) is afraid to go.I think Boeing is slowly abandoning passenger jet market and going deeper into defense production.(i hate to see what happens to boeing when pentagon finally start to cut defense spending)
I just love what Airbus is doing, for example;they produce all of their aircrafts with the same cockpit layout to minimize cross training for pilots while Boeing's jets have whole new and different cockpits,really amazing. Commion sense and logic is found more and more in Europe instead of US
 
"Boeing must come to a conclusion rapidly about that. Airbus is taking advantage seriously, and European aeronautics have reached a significant advance."

They have. Boeing's business strategy is relying on the success of the 7E7. They are banking on staying smaller than the huge A380. Only time will tell who is going to be right about it. I'd say, right now despite the hype, I think Boeing has the edge because they won't need any current airport reconfigurations like the A380 will eventually force. Also, the A380 has yet to fly and is not type certified yet if I am not mistaken. Let's also not forget that the A380 has to sell at least 250 (the last number I have read) units to simply break even. That is a lot of airplanes in a very competitive market.
 
it's up to the airliners. can they fill up this large thing? or do they want to fly more frequent with smaller planes, means more flexibility, but possibly more expensive.

by the way...a few weeks ago airbus said they also wanted to make something like the 7e7.
 
"Airbus (Europe) 1- Boeing (USA) 0"

That's an extremely arrogant statement considering what Boeing has produced over the years. Airbus is not repsonsible for many of the true breakthroughs in aviation. The A380 is big, no doubt about it. Is it revolutionary like the B-29, the 707 or the 747 were? No. Airbus is taking existing ideas and expanding on them. That is hardly revolutionary. I'm not saying it's easy, but give credit where credit is due. Some of the finest aircraft in the world are the result of Boeing's work. The only thing I am willing to give Airbus full marks for revolutionizing right now is the hydraulic systems used on that aircraft. Getting a 5000 psi system to work took a bunch of hard work. All aircraft will be going to that type of system in the future.
 
  • #10
The A380 and its slim margins for error

Clausius2 said:
hitssquad said:
Airbus has not yet tested the A380
What do you mean with "tested"?
It has never been flown, and thus no real-world data has been collected on its performance specifications. The A380 is being sold partly on the basis of certain fuel-economy specifications. Does it achieve those fuel-economy specifications in real-world operation? No one knows because the only data Airbus has compiled so far is the result of running computer codes.



I don't think it is going to be a disaster like the Zeppelins.
If the performance specs are off by just a few percentage points, the A380 will be a financial disaster. Business magazines around the world have been pointing this out during the past few weeks:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/999134.cms


  • Is Airbus taking a gamble with A380's performance targets?...

    ...the aircraft has yet to fly, is overweight, and has to hit some strict performance targets for its customer airlines.

    The first two obstacles are likely to be the least troublesome...

    Sir Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin Atlantic, the only British airline to have bought the aircraft, said in Toulouse that Airbus had guaranteed to Virgin that the A380 would be more economical to operate than 747-400, the largest passenger aircraft in service today.

    If it failed to hit performance targets, Airbus would reimburse the difference, Branson said. Airbus is likely to have struck similar deals with other airlines.
    [/color]
 
  • #11
FredGarvin said:
"Airbus (Europe) 1- Boeing (USA) 0"

That's an extremely arrogant statement considering what Boeing has produced over the years. Airbus is not repsonsible for many of the true breakthroughs in aviation.


I believe all Airbuses have fly-by wire technology incorporated in them, Boeing started doing this only recently with 777.
Maybe Airbus did not have revolutionary products like Boeing, but before Airbus existed European aerospace companies mostly French did build truly revolutionary and most beautifull plane ever,Concorde.
 
  • #12
The Concorde Fallacy

spender said:
European aerospace companies mostly French did build truly revolutionary and most beautifull plane ever,Concorde.
The Concorde is perhaps an excellent example of Europe's capacity for aerospace leadership: it was an unequivocal financial disaster.
http://www.google.com/search?q=concorde+"financial+disaster"


  • A financial disaster from the beginning, it has given rise to what those in business refer to as “The Concorde Fallacy”.[/color]
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Bad timing = oil crisis.
 
  • #14
the concorde... funny i just saw a special on pbs. It seems the concorde may have lost money because of political pressure only. Unbelieveable eh? :)
 
  • #15
hitssquad said:
The Concorde is perhaps an excellent example of Europe's capacity for aerospace leadership: it was an unequivocal financial disaster.
http://www.google.com/search?q=concorde+"financial+disaster"


  • A financial disaster from the beginning, it has given rise to what those in business refer to as “The Concorde Fallacy”.[/color]

Despites it was a financial disaster or not, everybody who knows something about engineering knows that Concorde was a prodigious of the european technology. Scramjet and the Space Shuttle are also projects which are financial disasters, but they are a great step for the humanity, as the A380 is too. Don't watch it only from the economic point of view.

Anyway, this was an humorous thread. I'm not laughing at Boeing at all. Everybody knows that USA is at the vanguard of aeronautical technology, but I am happy if only one of you have realized that here we know how to do the things too. :smile:
 
  • #16
I don't recall anyone ever saying that the europeans didn't know what they were doing in that arena.
 
  • #17
Greetings !

From what I read recently - Boeing is working on a middle sized
composite materials made jet with supposedly excellent parameters.
It's a serious bet since it seems they've nothing else to offer
in the near future. Hopefully, they'll make it.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #18
Hi,

By learning from history, everytime man (along with his arrogance) tries to build mechanical or transport systems of gargantuan proportions, it results in major disasters. The A380 may represent an achievement in aviation, howevever, integrating with extraneous components, such as in-flight casinos, gyms, etc. just complicate matters from the highest priority of all - SAFETY! With 550+ people on board, there would be huge casualties if something seriously goes wrong.

With the global state of affairs as it is today, the aviation industry should have focused much more on anti-terrorist measures and lifesaving or fail-safe mechanisms.

Hopefully, all goes well.

FluidSpace
 
  • #19
Yup, but this Airbus project was well underway before 9/11.

Gym?
 
  • #20
FredGarvin said:
I don't recall anyone ever saying that the europeans didn't know what they were doing in that arena.

I don't remember anyone too. But it doesn't happen nothing if I want to underline it, does it? It is like an ant want to say to an elephant: hey I'm here too!.
 
  • #21
Boeing still has the whole defense side of there business that booming. All airbus has is it's commerical airliners.. .. plus let's not even get into Boeing Space stuff.
 
  • #22
re the quote by Hitssquad:

the aircraft has yet to fly, is overweight, and has to hit some strict performance targets for its customer airlines
, I read that Aircraft no 1 came in well below projected weight.

For those who say, "but it hasn't even flown yet, I think that is just a formality.
Apart from some of the structural designs required to attach such large wings, it really is "just another Airbus".

It's design is so generic that I think most of the bugs have already been shaken out in the simulator.
Wardw
 
  • #23
Also, i heard something about airbus and there use of composite parts. Apparently, now i don't know if this is in relation to there newer series(a318-330) or the older series (a300-310s), but is was stated that if the pilot used to much rudder while perfroming a hard turn, that the tail section would "rip" off. Airbus, using whole side stick and computers system, would just program the computer to not exceed this "ratio". When in manual mode the limit also doesn't come close to the failure point as well. Now i mean, i guess you could say that any airplane would do that under a particular circumstance. But I believe the catch to this was that it occurred at semi-major combinations of the two factors, and where another airplane would remain structurally sound, the airbus would start to fail.
 
  • #24
I personally would never fly in that thing. Not even if you paid me to. Let's see.. 555 people in one big fat ass airplane with big exposed fanblades on engines and enormous fuel consumption.. oh and those pesky annoying terrorists too
 
  • #25
cronxeh said:
I personally would never fly in that thing. Not even if you paid me to. Let's see.. 555 people in one big fat ass airplane with big exposed fanblades on engines and enormous fuel consumption.. oh and those pesky annoying terrorists too


Actually he makes a very good point. All of airbus's systems and layouts are virtually the same, it's one of there key selling points. Like in 9/11 the terrorists chose B757 and, 767 b/c they are very similar to fly and the instrumentation is identical to each other. With the amount of fuel that thing carries and it's "ease" of learning how to fly, it would make a landmark for a terrorist to take one over and do whatever they want with it. Not to mention you can now fly just about to anywhere in the world with one.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Spectre32 said:
Boeing still has the whole defense side of there business that booming. All airbus has is it's commerical airliners.. .. plus let's not even get into Boeing Space stuff.

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Boeing = pentagon queen.

Subsidies galore.
 
  • #28
ohwilleke said:
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.


While all of this is true... you comapred it to LM... not airbus... which is what were all talking about. In additon the the LM statements, LM was either JSF or bust. They, just have been slightly better than boeing, mainly because there operatioans are not as broad as boeings, or at lest they are not producing commcerial airplanes(Boeing already dominated them in that field a long while back). So, they have more time to and perhaps more resources to donate to these contracts. Also boeing makes <2/3 of the rockets that put sat's into orbit. Also keep LM was also the company that screwed up the conversion of those units on that Mars orbitaor cause it to slam into the desert, not so long ago. I'm not really bashing LM caus ei mean christ, look at there skunk works program and what came out of that, but I'm just tossing some more fuel into the fire... anyways BACK TO AIRBUS!
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Within five years, Boeing as we have known it will not exist.

Now where is my Kung Pow Chicken?
 
  • #31
hitssquad said:
Boeing's forthcoming 777 will also rely on composite parts.
http://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+777+composite


I know, I never said anything about them, I was just stating that the composite parts that airbus used for there tail section were crap.
 
  • #32
I never did hear if there was a final decision on the crash of the Airbus on takeoff from Kennedy a few years ago. The vertical stabilizer (composite) was torn off. The last I heard they were trying to blame it on pilot error.

Boeing also has a very large and lucrative rotary wing segment!
 
  • #33
It is very hard admitting that USA is slowly losing civilian aircraft market.
Europeans simply make better products,that is it ! Is just the way USA makes cars, no one outside USA buys American cars.

PS.even the new presidential helicopter going to be European made Westland-Augusta.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
spender said:
PS.even the new presidential helicopter going to be European made Westland-Augusta.


Wrong. Thanks for playing.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=16834
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Re :Wrong. Thanks for playing.

Hey Fred, lighten up a little huh. So the guy got his info wrong, hardly a punishable offence. This is the first forum I have ever joined because it looked like a group of serious people having adult conversations about real things.

But "Wrong, thanks for playing"

And if I can say so you seem very Pro Boeing, perhaps more than an engineer should be. This is not about Europe vs USA.

Calmest and best wishes

Ward
 
  • #36
...lighten up a little huh.
I was hardly getting worked up about what was said. I think you're a bit touchy today. I was actually thinking I was being light hearted when I wrote that.

This is not about Europe vs USA.
Actually I do think this was started as a Europe vs. USA thread. However that is a mute point.

So the guy got his info wrong, hardly a punishable offence.
I have no issues with Europe vs. USA as long as both sides present factual data, which, in this thread, has been very lacking in certain poster's cases. This last one happens to be yet another example. If you don't have an issue with people spouting bogus claims then so be it. However, I prefer to call BS when I see it. Especially when the desired result is to try to take a pot shot at a person, business or country for that matter.

...you seem very Pro Boeing, perhaps more than an engineer should be.
Of course I am pro Boeing. I am an American and I flew one of their helicopters for quite a few years in the Army. I also can appreciate that company's history and what it has done. I believe a lot of comments made here on the part of the Airbus folks show a lack of respect to the engineers who came before me and have done some incredible work. It just happens to be for an American company. I would feel the same way if it were the other way around.

This is the first forum I have ever joined because it looked like a group of serious people having adult conversations about real things.
For the most part this forum is. However, I think making completely false statements for the sole basis of supporting comments like "Europeans simply make better products,that is it !" is hardly what I would call mature.

Man...I put way more into this reply than I intended.
 
  • #37
Well Fred, it's obvious I touched a nerve or you would not have wasted so much space defending your position. Although I fail to see why being an American makes you pro Boeing. As an electrical engineer and also a pilot, I don't care who makes the product, nor where it comes from. Quality is paramount and both Boeing and Airbus make fine products, neither of which I would hesitate to fly in. Be happy.

Ward.
 
  • #38
FredGarvin said:
Wrong. Thanks for playing.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=16834

I'm right, this is just renamed westland augusta three engines helicopter,same one Canadian search and rescue and coast guard uses.
It will be assembled in USA from some american made parts but whole helicopter was designed at the height of cold war by Europeans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Wardw said:
Well Fred, it's obvious I touched a nerve or you would not have wasted so much space defending your position. Although I fail to see why being an American makes you pro Boeing. As an electrical engineer and also a pilot, I don't care who makes the product, nor where it comes from. Quality is paramount and both Boeing and Airbus make fine products, neither of which I would hesitate to fly in. Be happy.

Ward.


I see were fred is comming from, I mean i rather see beoign airplanes int he sky rather than Airbus, but i do like airbus more. With boeing making the new 787 series, it will allow them to better compete int he market. Also, were protective of boeing b/c it's a massive staple in holding jobs in a wide spread area. Chicgo, Seattle, St. Louis are all areas that boeing impacts. Also, I mean were not comparing apples to apples here. Boeing makes a lot of other things other than commerical airplanes, so really It's not approate to say that Airbus is making a better product. Because Airbus is so specilazied, there products should be better, than boeing. I mean that's just basic micro-economics right there. If airbus was making the rest of the AE stuff that boeing was, then we could have a better argument.
 
  • #40
spender said:
I'm right, this is just renamed westland augusta three engines helicopter,same one Canadian search and rescue and coast guard uses.
It will be assembled in USA from some american made parts but whole helicopter was designed at the height of cold war by Europeans.


Excellent work, but guess who is building it.. LM... soo it's being made from a US company.. which was the whole reason everyone got all fired up. It's plain knowledge. Who cares if the euopeans designed it during the cold war. LM put there own engineering touches on it.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Spectre32 said:
LM put there own engineering touches on it.


What engineerenig touches ? installing sofa on board for GW Bush ?
 
  • #42
Excellent work, but guess who is building it.. LM... soo it's being made from a US company.. which was the whole reason everyone got all fired up. It's plain knowledge. Who cares if the euopeans designed it during the cold war. LM put there own engineering touches on it.

I believe that LM are "assembling" the machine rather than building it. The fact that the donks are from GM and other systems from OEMs doesn't mean LM are "building it". LM are listed as prime contractor, not manufacturer.

I see your point though Spectre32 but in Australia for instance, I still know old soldiers from ww2 who will not buy a Japanese car, understandable, but stupid, I would buy a Japanese car over GM or Ford anyday. Why, they are just better made, (in my humble opinion, please no hate mail from the GM Ford motorheads).

Nationalism thinly desguised as patriotism is a recipe for disaster.
At the end of the day they are both making the same thing, a passenger airliner, with two wings, seats, and maybe even a pilot or 2 (at least for now).
It makes perfect sense that if one manufacturer comes up with a better way to roll the wheel, others would follow implementing it, ie FBW, composites etc, this makes the sky safer for all, could you imagine what it would be like if Airbus had tried to patent its FBW systems. And the cross polination of info from engineers sharing this type of information makes the sky even safer.

And moreso, I think that airline choose one supplier over another for a myriad of reasons, depending on the style and structure of the Airline, its routes and probably many more factors that I know nothing about. The pie is big enough for all.

:smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Give credit where credit is due. That is all I am saying. New kids on the engineering or pseudo-engineering block need to learn that lesson.
 
  • #44
I have asked the moderators to consider putting an entry for skype usernames into the profile section.
What do people think. The possibilities are endless. It would be possible to host a chat on specific subjects at set times with one person moderating so as to avoid people speaking over each other. If we act grown up, limit the numbers in any conversation and don't get too personal, this could be an interesting way to take really interesting debates one step beyond into madness.
Does anybody remember madness.
 
  • #45
Europeans are highly sucsessful in launching sattelites by Ariane rockets,leaving USA far, far behind.
As to the helicopters; US coast guard uses French Dauphins.
 
  • #46
spender said:
...
I just love what Airbus is doing, for example;they produce all of their aircrafts with the same cockpit layout to minimize cross training for pilots while Boeing's jets have whole new and different cockpits,really amazing. ...

whole new and different cockpits Do you mean differnet cockpit layouts between differnent models?
 
  • #47
Airbuses from small to the biggest A380 have the same cockpit layout,with some small additions for the big one,but otherwise everything looks the same and is much more easy for pilot to cross train and all that stuff.It is also kinda cool and futuristic to see Joystick operated planes(all airbuses have joystics like F-16 instead of yokes).
 
  • #48
Ivan Seeking said:
Within five years, Boeing as we have known it will not exist.

Now where is my Kung Pow Chicken?
Do you mind explaining this, Ivan?
 
  • #49
Boeing is never going to stay behind in this race..and A380 might be the biggest of em all but Boeing is the king of the airplane brood.. can't question their supremacy.
The 7E7 is here! Any match?? Its unique not only aesthetically but keeping in mind its fuel efficiency.. As they say, don't make the fuel tank bigger, rather work over the efficiency!
Wait and watch.. what boeing has in its kitty next!
 
  • #50
Airbus also has started work on similar plane to the 7e7.
 
Back
Top