Personally I think the A380 was a big mis-step for Airbus.  The commecial success of an airplane (over decades, like the 747) is directly tied to the commercial success of the airlines which fly them.  Big planes are built on the premis that hubbing (flying passengers in to a central hub, then beyond to another hub, then to their destination) is the way of the future, and when the 747 was born it was.

But, at least in the US, and I assume elsewhere, what is happening to the big hubbing airlines?  Bankrupcy or dire straits.  They can't compete with the "discount" airlines like Southwest which fly smaller planes direct to destinations.  The whole "dollars per passenger seat mile" metric turned on its ear.

So, in 10 years where will the passenger market be?  Will we passengers give up our cheap, direct flights in favor of more expensive two and three connecting flight trips?  I think the opposite, hubbing for all except freight will be a thing of the past and airlines will be buying small, efficient planes to allow direct flights.  The key to future airline success will be small planes which can be turned around and put back in the air VERY quickly, spending as little time on the ground as possible.

It just makes sense (to me).  Flying direct to destinations is something customers want.  When you hub you have to swap around luggage which takes a LONG time, stranding your big, expensive plane on the ground where it isn't producing any revenue for you.  Big planes take even longer to turn around and get flying again, and are more expensive to leave stranded on the ground.  Add in the complexities of airport life, canceled connecting flights, delayed flights, re-booking passengers, re-swapping luggage to accomodate, and the genius of the SouthWest is aparent.

This relates directly to the airplane market.  The 787, although not as sexy as the gigantic A380, was a much wiser investment.  I don't think we'll see a full double deck 747 any time soon.  Although I have no doubt that Boeing will continue to marginally (and cheaply) expand the 747 line just to service its old hub based customers as long as those airlines can remain in business, but they're smart to not bet the future of their company on that outdated practice.

Its also design for the asian routes, where they sometimes send 4 747's full of passengers a day on short routes. Per airline. The A380 can in most case reduce the number of flights needed in theory 40% that will have a huge benifit to the enviroment and airport congestion.

Ramos, the asian market is very underestimated.
FYI, I think it's ANA who is the only customer with B744 without winglets, just because they fly so short distances and want to cram in every passenger possible. I mean it's simple maths, really. It's faster and more efficient for ATC to handle one aircraft carrying 800pax than four planes with 200pax each.
The A380 is infact very suitable for domestic and regional routes in dense urban areas.

And yes the A380 will carry some 200 tons of fuel, but it is some 20%  more fuel efficient than the 744 and  has a 15-20% lower cost per  passenger seat, so despite all the fuel it needs, the A380 is more economical, no matter how you see it.

And what do you mean with new landing system? I think you're fumbling in the dark a little bit. The A380 isn't even the largest (heaviest) plane built, it is still the An-224 and that one flew back in the late 80's!

Airbus A380 will be such a force that hub airports cant afford NOT to upgrade their terminals etc. That's how the industry works. And btw...the workload on each of the 20 wheels on the A380 is actually less than on a 747...

Quote:

i though it was the AN-225???
http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/an22516tht

Cheers Theis

You have to appreciate that there is a very strong anti-aviation lobby that can only get stronger. Many people see airliners as a nuisance & serious threat to the environment & their views are being taken just as seriously by some politicians & even governments. It makes sense to carry as many passengers as possible on one aircraft rather than a number of smaller aircraft. It would also help ease the overcrowded airspace over countries like the UK where congestion around international airports & the load on ATC is a serious problem. This in turn leads to problems at airports handling larger aircraft & larger numbers of passengers in a short time. I heard exactly the same objections to the 747 when it was first announced so this is nothing new.

Most of these arguments seem to be on a national basis rather than looking at the facts. We have two major aircraft manufacturers in direct competition with each other taking a massive gamble on the requirements of the airlines in the next few years. Success depends on the airlines themselves as they make the decisions. I hope that there is room for both as if either fails it could cause a severe loss of jobs & even affect the economy of the respective countries the manufacturers are based in.

Quote:


I'm pretty sure that you're entirely wrong there.
About 150 planes have already been ordered for the Airbus A380 and there are numerous options and many more parties interested, so this is just the position that boeing were in in 1970. In the past, highly efficient aircraft have not don particularly well: MDD MD-90, MDD MD-11 BAE RJX etc. I expect that most airlines will order the A380 as a convertible freighter QC, so that when the market sinks, they can change it to a freighter, also carrying some passengers, like the 747. Boeing are also trying to do what airbus have done for the last 30 years; commonarity between jets, most share the same cockpit, and systems, as well as engines etc. So most airbus fleets are large.
Good luck boeing, but Airbus is where the money is.

Come to think of it I've read a lenghty article about building a stretch version of their 747. Their philosphy was that there is sense spending design money when they have a half-done design aircraft already. The new engines (4) were much bigger of course but the buble did not go back all the way. Considering savings on design, tooling, manuals and training, they may be ahead of the AB380 in terms of cost on investment. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see much interest in the sale of the 380s. The 7e7 (787) seem to the hot aircraft in the market.

Bubblehead