[Fabb]

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a380/images/A380_airfrance1.jpg

http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/2004-07-20T121909Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OUKBS-AIRSHOW-BAA.jpg

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a380/images/a300_virgin3.jpg

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a380/images/A380_singapore5.jpg

[orangeman]

Hmmm, can the present post 911 airline industry support this ??

[Rachmaninov]

I prefer Boeing's new plane. Anyway are those real pics? Coz they look unreal to me...

[Mercutio]

/\ They are renderings.

[urbanflyer]

The A380 hasn't flown yet.

[chiphile]

Hmmm, can the present post 911 airline industry support this ??

That's why there aren't any U.S. airlines in those renderings. Airbus has already sold near 130 of them to European and Asian carriers.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I think the A380 has a very limited market as airports will have to be made compatible with the aircraft.

I'm hoping for the success of 7E7 which will open more routes, which to me is a much better prospect than piling into a giant airplane to go through a hub. I'd rather get to my destination faster.

[Aldebaran]

I heard that airlines prefer faster airplanes instead of bigger airplanes.... but I really don't know..

What do u guys know about it??

the A380 seems good to me.. How many people can fly in that thing :P ?

[JBB]

In Asia especially, where there are large numbers of people centralized in megalopolis' with limited space for numerous airports, it makes sense to have larger aircraft. Between Osaka and Tokyo there are over 2 dozen flights a day, most of which are 747's. So though regional jets may be the future for N. America, the big A380 will be very popular to ease congestion on those crowded Asian mainroutes.

[Coldrsx]

^exactly....NA is not a profit market for AIRBUS and BOING...ASIA, MIDDLE EAST are with AFRICA and SOUTH AMERICA the next logical....

My sister worked in korea for a year and said that even on some domestic shorthall flights they used 767 and 747s.....shear #'s.

What NA needs to do...specifically Canada and the northern states is require each woman between the ages of 18-35 to have a minimum of 5 children each......then in 20-30 years NA will have the required demand for this sort of plane:>

[tonyo]

With the price of oil only rising, the A380 may have been a bad gamble. Boeing bet the opposite with its more fuel efficient, smaller aircraft. It will be interesting to see either way.

[Fabb]

The numerous B747 won't last forever.
Which model will replace it, if not the A380 ?

[vincent]

7E7 fly faster than A380? faster than Mach 0.94??

[Fabb]

The 7E7 is not the sonic cruiser that was abandonned for lack of orders.

[urbanflyer]

The numerous B747 won't last forever.

The 747 can very well last forever - some market analysts see it around another 50 years. It's a proven design with unmatched durability. Boeing is already discussing options for a 747 Advanced (a 747-400 with slightly lengthened fuselage, new wings and 7E7 engine technology) with several marquee 747 operators.

[Fabb]

Will airline company prefer an entirely new model or a modernized version of the old B747 ?

[JiminyCricket II]

^the 747 has been modernized several times already, hence the -100 -200 -300 -400 models. If fact, Boeing is thinking of using it's new ultra-durable composite(graphite based) on a new generation of 747's. The composite will be used in the 7E7, and is already used in the tail of the 777-300ER, the newest model in the 777 family(2001, I think, or 2002 maybe).

[Stratosphere]

And now... feast your eyes on these sleek 7E7 renders

http://www.newairplane.com/assets/en-us/desktop5_Large.jpg

http://www.newairplane.com/assets/en-us/desktop3_Large.jpg

http://www.newairplane.com/assets/en-us/Desktop1_Large.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63066.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63067.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k62536.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63008.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63009.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k62599.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k62855.jpg

[Fabb]

It looks really great.
But these are mere artist's renderings, right ?

[superchan7]

The A380's proportions make it look like a giant baby. The 7E7 looks pretty sleek, but it'll probably only be popular for medium-range flights.

[tonyo]

Are the wing-tips on the Boeing 7e7 functional or just for looks?

[mercator]

can someone explain the presumed sense of using the A380 and other large bodies on short haul routes even for large Asian cities....loading and unloading 400+ passengers will take longer than the flight from Osaka to Tokyo, no? Why wouldn't the airlines prefer to put up 10 100 seaters every hour for those short flights. Are Asian flyers more willing to put up with longer airport times?

[urbanflyer]

Too many frequencies = airport capacity crunch. The conventional wisdom is that larger aircraft do the job better because they make the best use of limited runway and gate capacity - this is why the 777 and 747 reign supreme in the Japanese domestic market. With two jetways, unloading times aren't that bad anyway.

The wingtips on the 7E7 are most definitely functional. NOT A SINGLE PART of airplane design is 'just for looks'. Every little design feature has aerodynamic impact - those considerations come before *all* others.

[Stratosphere]

The A380's proportions make it look like a giant baby. The 7E7 looks pretty sleek, but it'll probably only be popular for medium-range flights.
The 7E7's range is one of the longest in the world, 8500 nautical miles (15,700 km). It's primarily designed to connect virtually any city pair in the world while using up to 20% less fuel than any other airplane of its size. So wouldn't it a waste to use it to serve medium-range routes?

[JiminyCricket II]

It looks really great.
But these are mere artist's renderings, right ?

It's not just a mere artist rendering. It's what the final design will look like.

The 7E7, like the 777, was 100% digitally designed. Throughout the design process, the airplane was "pre-assembled" on a computer, and these renderings are the result.

So this is what the 7E7 will actually look like.

[Stratosphere]

And now...interior shots...

7E7
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63023-4.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63023-3.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63023-1.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k62869.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k62871.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63023-2.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k62870.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k62872.jpg

[Stratosphere]

A380
http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/2338.jpg

http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/2337.jpg

http://www.airbus.com/MultimediaElements/55.jpg

[philip]

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SADtAlsVwPccRDf5oSE5kIHaJmrtNxTulLS9ib9NTNmUJZa!gGhAjYGBew3kDbTibbG8p9FGIzRNg43rq!kPMSbVOD7Uf7tz5150abAqfpRBAAAAynJhAg/A380-4.jpg?dc=4675469788366112996

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SADZAloVf*cqVjKWGgFULWkuCCAczGu5pcxfnfNINX*q4uev0ZfUbzmM3t!d5Uft497CdK9v5fNwjMcqKXBPcxWUXmVKdQe3Mr3IifZCtFZIAAAAynJVAg/A380-3.jpg?dc=4675469788399943022

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SADZAlkVPveCbBVGmCaeWDWTgunsAij079xQp8ykyyXj1yKQhI8fJGPpC1VdAZ4zaoLNEbbxnub5pbUVPW*l4YDm9OwBPSsfqHr*bz!3DrM8AAAAynJVAg/A380-2.jpg?dc=4675469788453703286

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SAB2AF8VxPjRhuLmEqRWpbcv5i4dF2Ui3djPn9h3c!yzces!Ki1pr**LxKG4sX96xPuzLB!onNLMHxPc0ARVICHFUBoTB5la3!tH!uGlbs5hAHAAcABWAA/A380-8.jpg?dc=4675469788502443211

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SADtAl0VQvjZhtaAEZWeiX91edY8RRdSMHqQkq*6fz8FkHFt8TMfw2h*biW7sfJ8MeVedCHS970AGC!VA3v1durT1hKEvUwfLRvp52ybhwczAAAAynJhAg/A380-6.jpg?dc=4675469788556952709

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SADhAl4Vg*i4eRamqT9DlBWdm1nYpy8pqyO4Zk6kjU4GgpvAxvSkHGOgBcHZDD2WZf43*R7WiNXxnuJWwiq8FCd5dL8BLt1LSIanfvEM1TlDAAAAynJZAg/A380-7.jpg?dc=4675469788607410621

[Rachmaninov]

The wingtips on the 7E7 are most definitely functional. NOT A SINGLE PART of airplane design is 'just for looks'. Every little design feature has aerodynamic impact - those considerations come before *all* others.

Nope. Boeing claimed that they could have made an even more eficient airplane, but they also wanted the plane to look impressive so that people REMEMBER it. They have already made some modifications just to make it look cool.

[Rachmaninov]

And the range of A380 is 8000 nanometres???

Just kidding hehe
Anyway, I think the 747-400 could have a maximum of 568 passengers. I've also heard that if they convert all the seats of A380 into economy class, they could have seated over 800 passengers.

[JiminyCricket II]

The wingtips on the 7E7 are most definitely functional. NOT A SINGLE PART of airplane design is 'just for looks'. Every little design feature has aerodynamic impact - those considerations come before *all* others.

Nope. Boeing claimed that they could have made an even more eficient airplane, but they also wanted the plane to look impressive so that people REMEMBER it. They have already made some modifications just to make it look cool.

In the cabin maybe. The airframe and skin are models of efficiency, I can assure you that, and as a result, the above renderings are what you get.

[urbanflyer]

Nope. Boeing claimed that they could have made an even more eficient airplane, but they also wanted the plane to look impressive so that people REMEMBER it. They have already made some modifications just to make it look cool.

Adding to what Jiminy said, it's possible to design an aircraft to be impressive enough that people will remember it - the whole point is to innovate, after all. But let's make no mistake - aesthetic considerations ALWAYS come after performance and functionality - Boeing just happens to have been lucky over the years with functional designs that happen to turn out to be beautiful airplanes.

[Rachmaninov]

Dunno why... but I read that in a UK newspaper. They said it was the exterior design...

[Coldrsx]

those are the worst interiors ever.....can someone tell the designers that the "60's" prediction of the future was never developed for a reason

[superchan7]

Those are just mockups; airlines design and choose most of the interior furnishings and equipment on their own.
Those 7E7 concept interiors don't look very functional. The chairs look like they would have trouble supporting the average American heavyweight, and they don't even look comfortable or ergonomic at all.

[donclark]

My brother a Boeing engineer still thinks the A380 will never be certified by the FAA....Airbus will never be able to get the people out in the allowed time.....

[tonyo]

My brother a Boeing engineer still thinks the A380 will never be certified by the FAA....Airbus will never be able to get the people out in the allowed time.....

I think your brother has a distorted opinion because he works at Boeing. Airbus wouldn't be spending billions on a concept that would not be certified by a key agency like the FAA. It just makes no sense.

[mattropolis]

I thought Boeing was going to designate the 7E7 as the 808 instead of the next logical number which would be the 787. Is this true?

The interiors will never look like that. With fuel prices rising the airlines will get rid of those large bars and replace them with more seats.

[Stratosphere]

The chairs look like they would have trouble supporting the average American heavyweight, and they don't even look comfortable or ergonomic at all.
Chairs at many airports were designed with similar styles and structures and they proved to be very strong. But I agree with you about them not being comfortable and ergonomic.

[tocoto]

The 7E7 is designed for long haul routes now dominated by the 747. It is smaller and cheaper to operate and so cost effective on long, but not real heavy routes. It will allow nonstop service fom places like NY to Perth and Boston to Sydney without stopping at a hub in Hong Kong for example. The idea is more passengers from more cities can get nonstop flights to far away destinations. I like the idea much better than a cattle car 8 miles up in the sky.

[urbanflyer]

Oh, I assure you, most airlines will find ways to configure the 7E7 as a cattle car ;)

[Rachmaninov]

I thought Boeing was going to designate the 7E7 as the 808 instead of the next logical number which would be the 787. Is this true?

The interiors will never look like that. With fuel prices rising the airlines will get rid of those large bars and replace them with more seats.

Yup. The plane will not be called 7something7.

[Stratosphere]

Many of you probably didn't know but Airbus isn't the one that originally came up the double-deck mega-airplane idea. In the mid-1960s when Boeing was developing the 747, the company seriously considered up to 3 double-deck designs to be among the finalists but ultimately rejected them in favor of a lighter design that became the 747-100.

The one the girl is holding and the two models right on her right side are double-deck designs
http://ebozz.net/photos/6266.jpg

Then in late 1980s / early 1990s, Boeing initiated the Very Large Airplane study program that was supposed to develope a larger airplane than even the 747. The program also involved partnerships with the Airbus consortium's individual members: Aerospatiale (France), British Aerospace, DASA (Germany), and CASA (Spain). Then Boeing realized that the future market seemed insufficient to warrant the enormous cost of developing such a large airplane. So it shelved the program. Airbus' members went on with their own study and it ultimately became what is now the A380.

In 1994, Boeing was looking at a larger replacement for the 747-400, the NLA (New Large Airplane). It was supposed to carry more than 600 passengers and have a range of 8,970 nautical miles. The NLA was later dropped in favor of the stretched and re-winged 747 solution because it would be significantly cheaper to develope and also because Boeing believed that the future of air travel lied in direct point-to-point routes, not hub-to-hub. Later, the stretched 747-500/600 program was also shelved due to the lack of interest from airlines companies. Boeing is now concerntrating its development effort on the 7E7.

Boeing NLA
http://ebozz.net/photos/6264.jpg

Not to be left behind, McDonnell Douglas was also having its own double-deck study. The MD-12 was supposed to be McDonnell Douglas's next airplane after the MD-11. It was supposed to hold more than 550 passengers.

McDonnell Douglas MD-12
http://ebozz.net/photos/6265.jpg

[Stratosphere]

Boeing/McDonnell Douglas BWB
http://ebozz.net/photos/6267.jpg

At the time of the merger with Boeing, McDonnell Douglas was studying a very promising design called the Blended Wing Body. Powered by three engines, the BWB was designed to carry up to 800 passengers across 7,000+ nautical miles. Wingspan with winglets was estimated at around 289 feet. For comparision, the A380's wingspan is 259 feet. What's promising about the BWB is its structrure is 13% lighter than the cylinder tube design and it has superior aerodynamic that will help it consume 31% less fuel than a conventional shaped design cruising at the same speed. The engines being mounted in the back will help reduce noise and swallow a great portion of the turbulent boundary layer air (TBLA) on the upper surface. TBLA is a major cause of drag. Placing the air inlet duct on top also helps eliminate the risk of runway debris being sucked into the engines.

Seeing the great potential of the BWB design, Boeing decided to continue the program after the merger. A large scale model has been built and test-flied at the Edwards Airforce Base. Boeing said the BWB would fly probably in 2020 if the market demand is big enough.

[vincent]

how is 7E7 different from 777 in terms of performance?

both are long haul, low fuel cost airplane...

[Stratosphere]

how is 7E7 different from 777 in terms of performance?

both are long haul, low fuel cost airplane...
Here's some specs for comparision...

Range / Typical city pair

777-200: 5,210 nautical miles (9649 km) / Tokyo - San Francisco

777-200 ER: 7,730 nautical miles (14,316 km) / Denver - Honolulu

777-200 LR: 9,420 nautical miles (17,446 km) / New York - Singapore

777-300: 5,955 nautical miles (11,029) / Tokyo - San Francisco

777-300 ER: 7,880 nautical miles (14,594 km) / Los Angeles - Sydney

7E7-8: 8,500 nautical miles (15,700 km)

7E7-9: 8,300 nautical miles (15,400 km)

The 777-200 LR will be the longest-ranged airliner in the world.

Length / Typical 3-class capacity

777-200: 209 ft 1 in (63.7 m) / 305 passengers

777-300: 242 ft 4 in (73.9 m) / 368 passengers

7E7-8: 182 ft (56 m) / 217 passengers

7E7-9: 202 ft (62 m) / 257 passengers

[JMGarcia]

The 7E7 is more of a 767 replacement. I believe it will be smaller than at 777.

[Stratosphere]

Before the 7E7, Boeing was developing the Sonic Cruiser. Does anyone here still remember it? The Sonic Cruiser created quite a stir in the aviation community. However, both the airlines and Boeing became less and less enthusiastic with the prospective launch as the post-September 11 recession hit the airline industry. The sudden drop in air travel coupled with high development costs forced Boeing to officially shelve the project on 20 December 2002. Instead, the company intended to shift its efforts on a conventional cousin of the Sonic Cruiser. This design makes use of many of the advanced technologies proposed for the Sonic Cruiser to create a "super-efficient" airliner with significantly lower operating costs than today's aircraft. It later became the 7E7. The "E" stands for "efficient".

Sonic Cruiser specs:

Capacity in 3 classes: 200-250
Range: 6,000 - 9,000 nautical miles
Cruising Altitude: 40,000 ft (13,000 m)
Speed: Mach 0.98

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/images/k62068.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/images/010426a.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/images/concept.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/images/k61686.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/images/k61661.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/images/k61741.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/images/k61950.jpg

[Stratosphere]

More BWB imagery...

Quad-Engine Model
http://aero.stanford.edu/BWB.gif

Drawing
http://www.aerosite.net/aircraft/bwb.gif

Popular Science magazine scan
http://ebozz.net/photos/6268.jpg

[JMGarcia]

I loved the sonic cruiser. Especially the idea of getting places that much faster.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it come up again if the 7E7 is a success. A lot of the development done for the 7E7 could be used on the Sonic Cruiser.

[urbanflyer]

We'll see. The biggest challenges for the Sonic Cruiser involve engine technology moreso than aerodynamics.

[JMGarcia]

I was thinking more along the lines of new materials and construction techniques. The faster engines, while keeping them economical, will definitely be the challenge.

Then there's always the new 747 cargo carrier which could be modified for passenger I'm sure.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/747in-flt.jpg

[Stratosphere]

That 747 is being specifically designed to transport 7E7 fuselage and wings from other locations to the final assembly site (it reminds me of Boeing's own Super Guppy or Airbus A300-600ST Beluga). Only a few of it will be made and I'm sure for its specific purpose, efficient aerodynamics wasn't as important as volume and payload. I mean, Boeing isn't selling it to anyone so who would care if it uses 10% more or less fuel or doesn't meet its promised range. It just needs to get the job done, transporting oversized 7E7 parts to the assembly site. So if converted into a double decker, I don't think it would make a good airliner in term of efficiency. Is there any plan of offer this design as a commercial freighter to airlines?

A300-600ST Beluga
http://www.airbus.com/multimediaelements/35.jpg

[vincent]

is there some authority that test airplane use of fuel per miles like cars (how many miles per gallon)?
if yes, is it available to public? and where?

[mercator]

I read there were concerns about the viability of that 800 seater delta wing plane, in terms of ride comfort if you sat near the extreme ends (near the tip of the wings) when turning....

also no windows just sucks....

[urbanflyer]

I highly doubt no windows would be part of any final design - windows are a necessary and required safety feature.

[Stratosphere]

Yeah, there were concerns about the blended wing body design. Compatibity with existing airport infrastructure and the difficulty of evacuating so many people out of the deep interior cabin in an emergency. Some airlines also worried that passengers may "shy" away from an airplane that looks so different from what they used to know.

I don't think windows are a nescessity. In a wide-body airplane like the 747 or the 777, only the people who sit next to the windows can really enjoy the view they offer. The rest of the passengers (90% of them, I'd say) don't get any benefit from having windows. And during most of the trip, what can you see through the windows? Clouds or darkness (night time). I think the lack of windows can be offset by providing exciting on-board entertainment programs.

[igzaklee]

i disagree-- windows are a big deal psychologically, and the safety issues add to that anxiety element--

that said, having some form of transparent roof shouldn't be too much of a problem engineering-wise now, should it?? seems like a stylised moonroof for passengers would be a marketing coup :D

and from an emergency exit perspective, perhaps there was a way to have drop-down slides/stairs??

just some thoughts on the mighty bat

[urbanflyer]

stratosphere, windows are required by safety regulations to ensure that passengers can see outside conditions and the orientation of the aircraft in the event of an emergency.

this is why the cabin lights are dimmed during takeoff and landing when flying at night - so that passengers' eyes can better adjust to light conditions outside the aircraft.

[Stratosphere]

I'm slightly aware of that. I was arguing about the necessity of windows from the sight-seeing standpoint.

Anyway, you can see that a series of windows can be installed on the front side of the airplane as this drawing shows.

http://www.aerosite.net/aircraft/bwb.gif

[donclark]

Before a plane is certified by the FAA, the manufacturer has to demonstate that all of the passengers can evacuate the plane in just a few set minutes, no matter how large the aircraft is..... The Boeing 777 passed with just a few seconds left, and Boeing had to have two tests to certify the Boeing 747.....

In the test normal passengers of all ages are required, not military types..... Yes, Grandmas have to be used.... And all it takes to fail the test is one Grandma taking more than 5 seconds to jump on the inflatable ramp..... The bigger the aircraft, the taller the aircraft, the more problems there are in evacuating the aircraft in an emergency test.....

Yes, Airbus blew $10 billion on an aircraft that won't pass.....With Boeing's first test of the Boeing 747, one grandma refused to jump.....and held up others who wished to.... Yes, evacuating from the top level of the A-380 will be an interesting test..... Frankly, I am of the opinion thereare too many people on the A-380 to pass the test even with a brave grandma....

[Fabb]

Precisely because Grandmas have been prepared to jump out of the B747, they'll have less trouble doing it out of the A380.
That's how evolution of the species works.

[Warren]

Good Link:
http://www.dubaiairport.com/NR/rdonlyres/9BCFEED6-017E-4466-99D9-01B4650F71BF/0/pk_11.pdf

[Fabb]

From the constructor's site :

http://www.eads.com/xml/content/OF00000000400004/5/42/513425.jpg

The A380, which will seat 555 passengers in a typical three-class interior layout, will enter airline service in 2006.

[otto]

The sample about the Tokyo - Osaka route is not valid. Kansai Int. Airport is being completed as planned to grow from 1 to 3 runways. Kobe will get a new airport. Tokyo will either build an airport, or take Chofu airport in civil use, or extend Haneda. Narita is only recently complted, by adding a second runway.

Futher read the article below:

Japan Refuses to Fly Airbus Superjumbo
Japan's two international airlines, which are the world's biggest carriers outside America, have snubbed the new A380 superjumbo in a crushing blow to the European manufacturer Airbus. All Nippon Airways (ANA) and Japan Airlines (JAL) are the leading users of the Boeing 747 jumbo jet,...
By Guardian Newspapers, 12/7/2003


Japan's two international airlines, which are the world's biggest carriers outside America, have snubbed the new A380 superjumbo in a crushing blow to the European manufacturer Airbus.

All Nippon Airways (ANA) and Japan Airlines (JAL) are the leading users of the Boeing 747 jumbo jet, which the A380 is intended to replace, and are regarded as a make-or-break market for the new aircraft.

As recently as last week, senior Airbus executives were saying they expected to sell the A380 to Japan, claiming that the plane could be packed with 900 seats on busy domestic routes between Tokyo and Kyoto or Sapporo.

But the two airlines have resisted intense pressure from Airbus to sign up for the A380. ANA's chief executive, Yoji Ohashi, this weekend ruled out a purchase before 2010, saying he intended to stick to the company's existing long-haul fleet of Boeing 747s and 777s.

Keisuke Okada, ANA's corporate planning director, criticised the design of the superjumbo, saying larger aircraft created too many problems at airports: "Already, when I take a ride on a 747, I have to wait a long time to board - it's a crazy stress." He said baggage handling was frequently "chaos" when jumbo jets, which carry more than 560 people on domestic routes in Japan, arrived en masse.

Experts said failure in Japan leaves the Toulouse-based manufacturer with an uphill struggle to break even on the A380 - to the dismay of the British government, which provided £500m of "soft loans" for the project which are only repayable if the plane makes a profit.

Andrew Doyle, an aviation expert at Flight International, said: "The A380 programme can't be judged a success without sales to Japanese airlines. It's still possible Airbus could make a return on the A380 without them, but it makes it extremely difficult."

The first A380s are due to roll off the production line within three years. The wings are being manufactured in Broughton, Wales.

Airbus has 129 orders for the double-decker aircraft, including deals with Virgin Atlantic and Air France, but says it needs 250 to break even. No American carriers have signed up.

The bosses of 15 carriers in the world's biggest airline partnership, the Star Alliance, met in Tokyo last week to discuss the outlook for the industry.

With mergers still prohibited outside Europe by national ownership laws, the airlines are planning closer integration within the alliance to cut costs. They plan to set up a company based in the US next year to buy aviation fuel collectively, securing discounts.

Star Alliance carriers, which include BMI British Midland, also want to work together in negotiating with aircraft manufacturers such as Airbus, Embraer and Boeing. In a pilot project, four members - Air Canada, Lufthansa, Austrian Airlines and SAS - are jointly negotiating the specifications for a new range of 70 to 110-seat regional jets with aircraft makers, in the hope that by agreeing standard fittings they can secure a cheaper price.

Star Alliance's chief executive, Jaan Albrecht, said he ultimately envisaged joint ownership of aircraft between alliance members.
© Guardian Newspapers Limited



source
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text12-7-2003-48344.asp

[JMGarcia]

I doubt if you'll see any US carriers buying the A380. I believe that only UA and NW even have 747s.

US carriers seem to prefer the more flights, smaller planes approach which seems to favor the 7E7.

[Stratosphere]

The last time I checked (1999), Continental had 5 747s in its fleet. 3 747-200s and 2 747-100s.

Japan Airlines is the world's largest 747 operator, with over 80 747s currently in service.

[JMGarcia]

Continental's website has only 777.

http://www.continental.com/Travel/inflight/aircraft/default.asp

[urbanflyer]

Correct - CO no longer operates the 747.

JAL currently operates 75 747s, 42 of which are -400s.

Among other significant operators, British Airways currently operates 57 (all -400s), Singapore 45 (all -400s w/7 -400 Freighter), Northwest w/41 (16 of which are -400s), Qantas 36 (30 -400s), United 31 (all -400s, w/another 16 in desert storage), ANA w/31 (24 -400s), and Cathay Pacific with 30 (-20 -400s)

[JMGarcia]

Air France has 24 and Lufthansa has 30 plus 8 frieghters.

[Fabb]

The question is : what will be the needs of airline carriers in 10, 20 years ?
How about China and India that have large cities and a rapid economic growth ?

[otto]

China will not become a aviation nation before it solves the energy demand problem. At present there is a situation of chronic energy shortage. So the government shuts down all kind of customers every now and then.
India is just not able to pay imports of $ 250m per plain, they will concentrate on buying old planes from other carriers.

I learnt ANA has 43 747s.
9 747-200
12 747-400
11 747-400D
11 747-200F in it`s cargo daughter

[Fabb]

From the Standard :

Though new jet models are increasingly making even the most distant cities reachable by direct flights, foreign airlines like Qantas and Virgin Atlantic still see Hong Kong as a profitable place to route through extended services, such as London-Sydney and Singapore-San Francisco. For this reason, Hong Kong stands to be one of the first airports to be served by the new Airbus A380 superjumbo.

[Stratosphere]

How many airports are A380-ready today?

[EricIsHim]

as of today, i think there is none or just a few.
most of the airports are still imporving the facility to adjust A380.
first group of airports should be ready by the end of 2005 since A380 is scheduled to be in service in 2006

[Fabb]

Mon 16 August, 2004 12:35

BRUSSELS, Aug 16 (Reuters) - The European Union is willing to change a 1992 pact with the United States that spells out how much state aid can be given to aircraft makers Airbus EAD.PA EAD.DE and Boeing BA.N , the EU's executive said on Monday.

The European Commission said, however, that talks between the parties must focus on two issues: direct support, which it said European governments give to Airbus through loans, and indirect support, which it said the United States gives to Boeing through government contracts and tax subsidies.

U.S. President George W. Bush complained about European subsidies for Airbus on Friday and threatened to take a case to the World Trade Organization if they were not ended.

Boeing says Airbus is receiving unjustified subsidies from European governments. Airbus says it receives loans that are within the limits of the 1992 U.S.-European agreement to gradually reduce state aid.

"We will be prepared to check again whether the 1992 agreement is still sufficient to cover all the direct and indirect types of state aid and subsidies to both of these big aircraft manufacturers and to make changes where appropriate," European Commission spokeswoman Amelia Torres told a daily briefing.

Trade officials from both sides met in July to discuss the aircraft issue.

Torres said another meeting was scheduled for mid-September.

[Fabb]

The simmering debate between Airbus and Boeing over subsidies is likely to intensify as negotiators from the United States and European Union, under pressure from the U.S. president, prepare to meet on Thursday in Brussels to discuss accusations that Europe lavishes unfair subsidies on Airbus.
.
The strategy of the two sides seems clear: The U.S. trade representative, Robert Zoellick, has said either there would be a quick resolution or the United States would consider taking the case to the World Trade Organization.
.
The European Union appears likely to take a go-slow approach, hoping to delay the debate until after the U.S. presidential election in November.
.
The debate over subsidies has been simmering for months, with Boeing's chief executive, Harry Stonecipher, keeping up the pressure. In mid-August, it took on a more urgent tone when President George W. Bush chose a visit to the Boeing plant in Seattle to announce a get-tough policy toward Airbus.
.
"I've instructed the U.S. trade representative, Bob Zoellick, to inform European officials in his September meeting that we think these subsidies are unfair and he should pursue all options to end these subsidies, including a WTO case if need be," Bush told an enthusiastic audience.
.
"We believe in free trade, but we want that free trade to be fair as well, and getting rid of the subsidies of Airbus will make the trade fair, will make the playing field level."
.
The European Commission immediately shot back that Airbus was following "specific and clear rules" that both sides had agreed to in a 1992 deal. Under that agreement, Airbus can borrow as much as 33 percent of its estimated cost of developing a new aircraft.
.
But the issue is not nearly as simple as the rivals contend. For one thing, government payments and loans to the two companies come in different forms, and the two sides disagree on what actually constitutes a "loan," with the U.S. side saying that repayment terms alone constitute a big subsidy to Airbus.
.
The Europeans counter that the U.S. Defense Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration finance a lot more of Boeing's costs than Boeing admits.
.
"It kind of aggravates the hell out of me," Stonecipher said in an interview.
.
He said repayment terms of European government loans to Airbus amount to a large subsidy. Repayment, over a 17-year period, does not even begin until Airbus delivers the jets, and the loan does not have to be repaid at all if a plane fails to sell. Before 1992, the amount and terms of the loans were even more generous, Stonecipher said, and the result of these terms is obvious.
.
"They've developed five planes in 32 years," he said, while Boeing has developed three.
.
Now Airbus has grown to the point that it is slightly larger than Boeing in sales, with 52 percent of the market for large commercial jetliners.
.
Boeing has estimated that Airbus has received $15 billion in aid over time but that the terms of the loans increased their value to about $40 billion.
.
For the new Airbus A380, Boeing said European governments had found ways to deliver $1.7 billion in hidden subsidies.
.
Boeing says, for example, that Hamburg spent the equivalent of $850 million to fill in part of the River Elbe for docking barges carrying the plane's larger fuselage. France, Boeing said, has spent $92 million on the Airbus production site in Toulouse, and port and road construction for delivery of the A380 fuselage.
.
T.Allan McArtor, the chairman of Airbus North America Holdings, said in an interview that Stonecipher was like a "huckster" who comes through town "with his pots banging."
.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts," McArtor said.
.
He argued that Stonecipher conveniently forgets that Boeing and Airbus agreed in 1992 that the deal they struck was fair.
.
Even though the two companies would receive benefits from different sources, he said, Airbus from loans, Boeing from government research and development, the bottom line would be roughly the same with each receiving $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year.
.
McArtor said that loans to Airbus were not gifts and that in some cases Airbus had chosen to enter the commercial loan market instead because the terms were better there. He said Boeing, unlike Airbus, had chosen to spend its money on things other than modernizing its plants and developing new aircraft. Now Boeing is trying to catch up by gaining advantages over Airbus, he said.
.
The European Commission, which is the executive arm of the European Union, said that it would welcome any move to lower government support for both companies but that it would not be a one-way negotiation.
.
"The EU has as strong an interest in disciplining government support to Boeing as the U.S. has in disciplining support to Airbus," said Ewa Hedlund, an EU spokeswoman in Brussels.
.
International Herald Tribune

[Fabb]

The real thing is coming !

http://mapage.noos.fr/euro2004/a380.jpg

[JiminyCricket II]

That thing is a beast, but we will see how practical it is in the coming years.

I believe Airbus needs to double their current orders just to break even right now.

[KingKrunch]

I'm sooooo looking forward to see one in person or even fly. And I had no idea they were that far already.

[Fabb]

It should start flying next year.
The first commercial flight is planned in 2006 I think.

[Stratosphere]

The fuselage of the standard A380 seems a little short relatively to its wing span.

[Smiley Person]

Leaves room for a stretch version, I suppose.

[wrightchr]

it's freakin huge

[Fabb]

Will new Airbus jet slow Boeing?
European plane maker's proposed jet seems to have slowed sales of Boeing's planned 7E7: Report.
September 30, 2004: 7:14 AM EDT

PARIS (Reuters) - Talks between European jet maker Airbus and airline clients about developing a rival to Boeing's planned 7E7 jet appear to have slowed 7E7 sales, a newspaper report said Thursday, citing industry officials and analysts.

Boeing said it had not seen any indication of slowing sales, the Wall Street Journal said.

Airbus Chief Executive Noel Forgeard recently confirmed for the first time that the Toulouse, France, manufacturer was discussing a new plane, dubbed the A350, that would have more seats and be based on technologies developed for its A380 superjumbo jet.

Since Boeing (BA: Research, Estimates) gave the final go-ahead for the 7E7 in April, analysts have expected Airbus to respond with a derivative of its A330-200, a plane it launched back in 1998.

Forgeard's announcement came amid an ongoing dispute between Airbus, which is 80 percent owned by European aerospace giant EADS, and Seattle-based Boeing over government aid. Top of page
Copyright 2004 Reuters

[Stratosphere]

Talking about the 7E7's sales, Vietnam Airlines is negotiating with Boeing to buy 10 7E7s. The deal will be worth around $1.2 - 1.4 billion.

[GioFX]

Vietnam in talks with american companies? man, the world is over! :D

[Stratosphere]

^
Have you been living under a rock? Recently they've bought 4 777s and leased 2 more from Boeing. Vietnam Airlines is going through the process of fleet modernizing. They've retired every Soviet-era plane and bought a bunch of 767, 777, and A320/A321.

http://www.vnn.vn/dataimages/original/images95168_vietnam_airlines_fly_231203.jpg

[Fabb]

Chirac to focus on air deals


David Dieudonne
October 4, 2004


French President Jacques Chirac's four-day trip this week to Beijing will bring into focus the battle between Europe's Airbus and Boeing of the United States for the prized mainland market.

Airbus Industrie is hoping for an order of a dozen jets to emerge from the trip, French presidential sources said.

China could become the 14th customer for Airbus's future A380, buying from five to 10 of the double-decker superjumbos, which could be delivered before 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.

Such a purchase would not only boost Airbus' already impressive A380 orders book, now at 129 firm orders, but would also give it a symbolic and commercial lead over its US rival in the much sought-after market.

"In terms of orders over the past three years, the two companies are equal,'' said Philippe Gassmann, the head of the technology section at the French economic mission in Beijing.

Boeing, which for the first time was last year knocked out of pole position by Airbus for sales of jets with more than 100 seats, has not yet received any Chinese orders for its next-generation 7E7 Dreamliner. The jet is a medium-haul, fuel-efficient model that the US firm says is the future of civil aviation.

Chirac, who arrives in China on Friday, will be accompanied by business leaders hoping to clinch deals in areas ranging from high-speed rail links to nuclear reactors.

But the race for for the aviation market will be particularly intense.

The mainland will require over the next two decades 1,295 planes, according to China Aviation Industry Corporation. Boeing estimates it at 2,127 and Airbus at 1,600 aircraft, according to the French economic mission.

These estimates are based on growth at the three top airlines - Air China, China Eastern and China Southern - as well as smaller ones like Hainan Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, Xiamen Airlines and China Yunnan.

They are also based on liberalisation of the sector as well as on the expectation that mainland companies will sign up to commercial alliances with the major international airlines.

"Eastern and Southern are both already listed'' on the stock market, Gassmann said. "As for Air China, it wants to be listed soon.''

Since 2002, legislation has allowed foreign investors to acquire up to 49 per cent of a company's capital, with no one outsider taking more than 25 per cent of the company.

"Each of the three companies is aiming to join an international [airline] alliance,'' Gassmann added. "And each international alliance is also trying to get a foothold in China.''

China Southern was the first to sign such a deal, allowing it to join in 2005 the Skyteam alliance that includes Air France and Delta Airlines of the US.

To achieve their aims, Airbus and Boeing are using the same methods - both are lobbying intensely and both are signing industrial partnership deals.

Both Boeing and Airbus have said they will source certain aeroplane parts in China.




Copyright 2004, Agence France-Presse.

[John F]

Vietnam in talks with american companies? man, the world is over! :D

The WORLD is over? No, no... The War is over. I thought John and Yoko taught us that? :P :)

[Swede]

^the US-Vietnam detante is old news. Already in 1985 it was known that by 2015 vietnam would be a major holiday destination.
/and Deloreans will fly

[FRED]

Well I guess, will see in fews years the battle of the A380 and 7E7 !!! Which one will be the best choice ?

[urbanflyer]

No, make that the 747 Advanced. The 7E7, like the 767 long before it, will carve out a new niche all of its own.

[JMGarcia]

Speaking of the 747Adv, I ran across this the other day.

http://www.pyros.com/html/body_aerospace.html

[Stratosphere]

Will they name it 747-500? It sounds like a major improvement program similar to the 747-400 development. New composite materials, engines, cockpit, avionics, landing gears, longer range, and more than 3 meters of body stretch.

[JMGarcia]

I'm thinking that they may end up naming it something with an "e" cause so much of the 7e7 technology is being used in it. Maybe 747e or something.

[Fabb]

Here they come, being assembled in Toulouse :

http://www.airbus.com/A380/Images/MME/1536.jpg

http://www.airbus.com/A380/Images/MME/1538.jpg

http://www.airbus.com/A380/Images/MME/1540.jpg

http://www.airbus.com/A380/Images/MME/1542.jpg

[R@ptor]

Great news. Looks like the A380 is almost ready for its first test flight. Probably another 3-5 months.

[Daquan13]

A potential bonfire on wheels!!!

[Daquan13]

Speaking of the 747Adv, I ran across this the other day.

http://www.pyros.com/html/body_aerospace.html



Yeah, I've seen computer images similar to those before. Boeing had even toyed with the idea of stretching the 747, which still has yet to be done. Sadly, it didn't gain interest and so the airlines didn't cozy up to the idea too well. some of the carriers have even retired the much older 747's in favor of the 777 beacause it can go as far as the 747 or farther. As a matter of fact, the 777 has about 700 more nautical miles over the 747-400!

The 747 the only jetliner in the history of the company that NEVER had it's fuselage stretched at all in it's entire career as Quenn of the Skies. It shared for almost 18 years, that same commonality as the 757-200 until the 757-300 was made & broke the hold.

Take-off & operating weights were gained, newer aerodynamitics,
completely digitally computerized ILS glass cockpit & wing tips & more powerful engines were added over the years, but the one thing that it never received was a stretched body!

Nevertheless, the 747 has absolutely NOTHING to be ashamed of or embarrassed about! It has been in service since January 20, 1970, the very first machine put into revenue service with Pan Am on it's New York to London flight.

It was the very first machine that start a whole new wave of wide-bodied service, followed by the MD DC-10 & LM L1011! It also enjoyed the first two years of healthy sales & service with no rivals. this plane has done it all!

The A-380, if it ever does get in the air, has some serious catching up to do with the 747, even though it's bigger & more powerful. I just hope that they included manual override in this one!