Airbus vs Boeing?

[Oz]

Airbus is throwing away a pile of money on the white whale...it doesn't fit into airports! Add to that the fact that airports can't handle that many pax at one time.

Aviation authorites are also working on using new technologies to alleviate much of the crowding problems on the jetways.

One more thing to consider...the race to see who can hijack an A380 first! Biggest plane, biggest headline!

Boeing will also make a splash with the BC-17 if they get some orders.  

Yes, if Airbus wastes too much money on that 'white whale' they're goin nowhere. But there is a way to fit these mammoth crafts into airports; folding wings. These were to be supposed to be incorporated in the upgraded 777 series but i dont know if Boeing indeed did this. And with regards to your hijack remark i think that is not a proper and fair statement. Any crazy hijacker can hijack a 747 and wreak havoc. It can happen in any aircraft and yes it would be horrible if it happened to an A380 but thats not Airbus's fault. Its up to the airlines and airport guards to make sure that doesnt happen.

[Ronnie]

Well, when the 747 was introduced back in the sixties, none of he airports could accomodate it. But they somehow made room. I'm sure the same will apply for the A-380

[SilverFox441]

In todays marketplace in is only prudent to consider if the new plane may draw the attention of the less scrupulous crowd...and niave to assume it won't.

Folding wings...on a commercial airliner? Possible, and had been considered...but imagine the regulatory nightmare in getting the type certificate.

As for the issue of aiports not being able to handle the 747...not true that there were no aiports to handle it. CYYZ (Toronto International) made only minor changes to allow better service to the new type. A lengthened section of hardened runway for instance. It didn't need to be done, but it was better if done. Only one runway was done initially, the other waited until volume made it worthwhile. Several airports in major centres could handle the 747...but some adjustments were required.

The A380 isn't the same. There is no airport that is capable of dual level or front/rear pax operations as required to load/unload the A380. Some airports stated (when faced with the same question about the super-747) that they were not interested. Terminal infrastructure wasn't capable of handling the extra load so why make room for the plane?

Some transport pundits opined that the super-747 would be used in a "Super-Hub/Feeder" arrangement wherby only a very few, select centres would be serviced. All other centres would be fed from transfer flights. Studies showed that this would actually increase the number of flights through these centres. Concern was also raised that passengers would find faster service if they flew a smaller widebody type direct to destination, bypassing the Super-Hub.

The A380 faces all the same challenges as the Super-747...but in a market tainted by such things as 9/11 and SARS.

You have to admit that Airbus has a big set of brass ones. It wasn't that long ago that industry analysts stated that the biggest way Airbus could damage Boeing was by going out of business! The increased demand for Boeing products could have resulted in massive outlays of capital while Boeing expanded. Boeing would have been, or very near, over-extended.

[Craig.]

the 7E7 is a new design if you read all the info they are releasing on it, it is meant to be a completely new plane. the A380 has at least one place it'll do well, Fed-ex as a cargo plane, the super hub in memphis would only need a few minor adjustments to accomadate it. i dont see 4 engines as the way to go these days and airbus seem to base their whole marketing strategy on it. with twins becoming more and more powerful and reliable all 4 engines does is push up the cost of maintenance, with the latest 777 recently takeing off with the heaviest ever load for a twin which was only a few thousand pounds short of a 4 engine plane airbus have to ask themselves where to go next.

[Mr. Bones]

i'll go for Boeing. Airbus is waisting too much money on their A380. the market is too small to get the investment back.

when you look to the mid range AC's, i think Boeing will remain the leader. their 777 series is pleased by a lot of airlines and passengers as well as the old but still good 747 series.
the nm cost is much cheaper than lets say an A340...and for airlines that's the most important thing.

i don't want to say Airbus planes aren't good. i'm glad that Airbus Industries exist! imagine yourself aviation with only one big passenger jet constructor! we would still be flying around with the 707...of course with upgrades (707-900  ::) )

[C]

Airbus does have a slight advantage in that the A380 is being built...

With regards to terminal facilities - building new two tier gates is probably one of the lesser problems, especially as many airports are looking at expanding.

Secondly, I don't think there's really a problem with wingspan clearance issues - most airports will not initially be able to take the A380 due to taxiway issues (turning etc). this is why at first only one runway at Heathrow will be used (09R/27L I believe).

Anyway, i think Airbus would do even better if they dropped the A400M - please, please let the RAF the buy their leased C-17s (and a few more). It would make life so much easier...

Cheers

Charlie

[Oz]

[quote]The A380 isn't the same. There is no airport that is capable of dual level or front/rear pax operations as required to load/unload the A380. Some airports stated (when faced with the same question about the super-747) that they were not interested. Terminal infrastructure wasn't capable of handling the extra load so why make room for the plane?

[ATI_7500]

I don't really know,there are advantages and disadvantages for everyone.
I want McDonnell-Douglas  back!

[Rivers]

I go Airbus, everybody says that the A380 is to big for the airports it

[Craig.]

i have heard the least it will cost an airport in upgrades is $1million but prob much more in most cases. which for places like heathrow cant be a bad thing

[Deputy]

Suppose y'all didn't happen to know something about airbus. They are making something else right now - other than the 380 - I will give more info after the press briefing.

[Craig.]

the only other thing i have heard about is the A-400M, with the wings being built in filton

[ozzy72]

Hmm, I think Airbus will probably have the lions share of the market, its an international conglomerate, and therefore has immense resources and depth, but I think anyone who thinks Boeing are going out of business is kidding themselves. They are just too well established and powerful to be counted out. I think their main strength will lie in the domestic market from now on though... Americans being proud of things with Made In America stamped on them, e.g. Harley Davidson, Levi, Corvette etc etc, and that is no bad thing either.
Personally I wish I had a Boeing Stearman at home, but I doubt I'll be able to afford one on my current wages

Ozzy