Airbus A380

[Zabuti]

Hello

As for business standpoint here, when we look at the 787, we see, for the first time, a "small" plane for long distances, designed to be efficient on those long distance with few pax. From business standpoint, this is definitely opening great opportunities.

If we look at a company like Emirates for instance. The company intends (officiallu) to operate 120 A380 (although Dubai airport can't handle them for now...). But they also serve secondary airports, where there is not enough demand for these big planes like B777, A380, A330,... A 787 (or the A350-800) are perfectly designed for smaller airports like this, because you don't want to fly daily a big plane doing vladivostock-dubai or Reykjavik-JFK.

From my personal perspective, I firmly believe that the planes of tomorrow for long-haul will be A380, B777-300, B787 and A350 (A330 will slowly disappear to either B777 or A350).

As for this, the A380 is associated in marketing coms to prestige (for all of the 6 (soon 7) airlines operating it. Let's see what it becomes when Air Austral operates it or Air Asia X orders some xD

Have a nice day all

[thedr2]

its already blown WAY past the A380 a funny fact is that there are nearly as many 787's sitting in Seattle now as the entire world's current A380 fleet after six years of production.

So you're telling me there's about 70 787's in Seattle right now?... Really? 

[alexgv1]

Hmm weren't the skies meant to be full of 787s by the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games according to Boeing

Those 787s on the ground in Seattle aren't much use right now

[flightsimer]

So you're telling me there's about 70 787's in Seattle right now?... Really? 

might want to look up some actual numbers before posting, just two weeks ago i believe it was, Airbus delivered the 53rd A380. They wont hit 70 until mid next year.

As of today, there are currently 39 787's completed and sitting on the ground at paine field, flying or in Austin with another 4 in final assembly with L/n 44 scheduled to enter final assembly in two weeks. In less than a month, the south carolina plane will begin its first 787 destined for United. Once that plant comes alive, production will be at 2.5 a month. Boeing is predicting that 20-25 787's will be delivered this year, so at the end of 2011, the 787 fleet in service will be nearly half of the A380's total fleet in its 6 years of production or 4 years of deliveries. By the end of next year, the 787 will probably be close to twice the A380 fleet.

[thedr2]

Don't know where your numbers are coming from mate. 69 A380s have been completed so far, as opposed to 8 787s. (half built doesn't count!)

But it's a stupid point really, because of course 787 production will exceed A380 production, and then some. It's like telling me there are more fords on the road than lambourghinis. Doesn't mean the ford is a better car.  

[Zabuti]

Don't know where your numbers are coming from mate. 69 A380s have been completed so far, as opposed to 8 787s. (half built doesn't count!)

But it's a stupid point really, because of course 787 production will exceed A380 production, and then some. It's like telling me there are more fords on the road than lambourghinis. 

Officially, I believe we are at 50 A380 delivered, and 19 more on testing and rolling.

Last delivery was Singapore Airline's 12th A380 on June 16th, which was as well the 50th A380 delivered.

Haven't seen any more delivery on the log since then.

[flightsimer]

Don't know where your numbers are coming from mate. 69 A380s have been completed so far, as opposed to 8 787s. (half built doesn't count!)

But it's a stupid point really, because of course 787 production will exceed A380 production, and then some. It's like telling me there are more fords on the road than lambourghinis. Doesn't mean the ford is a better car.  

your right it is a stupid point, but i didnt say anything about completed 380's, i said there are nearly as many 787's sitting on the ground in Washington as there are flying in the worldwide fleet. There have been only 51 A380's delivered to date and only 50 currently in service(from airbus' site, I swore i read 53 in one of the press releases during Paris).

The majority of the 787's sitting in washington now don't have engines because of the costs Boeing would have to pay for them to sit with the engines attached. However, for the most part they are done. Its just some rework that came from the testing program that has to be finished. There is only 1 787 left that is currently in side-body rework and then after that, no 787's requires that process.

The same is true for the 747-8's most are sitting with no engines, but as soon as its certified, they will be installed, it will be painted and then they can be delivered right away.

[Zabuti]

The same is true for the 747-8's most are sitting with no engines, but as soon as its certified, they will be installed, it will be painted and then they can be delivered right away.

I like your optimism... might take a bit of time for delivery though ;-)

Any source confirming your figures ? I'm interested to know why they have already produced so many 787 while they don't know :

1/ if a major change is needed to cerify the plane (it happened with the A380 in the flutter test)
2/ What might be production mistakes which need to be updated (also happened w/ A380 for the first 10 aircrafts)

Thx for keeping us informed on this

[flightsimer]

http://nyc787.blogspot.com/

All things 787. They have two charts that are updated every day on the production status and flight testing of the 787 and a flight testing chart for the 747-8.

The next 787 out of the FAL will be L/n 40 for JAL.

Now i know as of yesterday, Boeing has shifted some aircraft around because it was announced that the first set of wings arrived in Charleston for the first 787 there. But they said it was for a Ethiopian Aircraft, but previously the first aircraft built there was supposed to be for United. They also said the first five built there would be for Ethiopian. So i don't know if they shifted United's aircraft to a later date, or its now being built in Seattle. But for the most part, that is the most accurate list available for production lists.

I know from what has all been said through news releases and from reading posts on a.net from people who are involved with the program, for the 787 there were four main issues that had/have to be dealt with for the 787 that were still issues during testing.

*Side-Body Join- only the first 15 aircraft required it. L/n 15 is currently having it done (according to A.T.787)
*Horizontal stabilizer- I believe all inspections have been completed, but i cant find any info on it. All Horizontal stabilizers that arrived since mid-late last year have been to production standard.
*Electrical panel- fixed with a hardware and software change
*Landing gear- there was some early issues with the landing gear doors or actuators. The second 787 to fly landed with the doors fully open on its first flight. This also was not the only occurrence i saw, but i haven't seen it happen since early in the test program.

Otherwise, i haven't heard of any flaws or issues with the design like the 747-8 has.



For the 747, there were just three main design issues that have already been solved and the corrections have already been certified for use. So they have already started installing all the fixes on all the currently completed aircraft. Boeing is predicting 20-25 747-8's to be delivered this year as well, so it sounds like they are all pretty close to being in final production standard. They haven't announced how far along they are with certification, but they have to be close. I'm predicting they deliver the first to cargolux within a month of the first 787.

* Buffet when gear extended and flaps at 30- changed gear door geometry and position when the gear is extended
* flutter during certain conditions- fixed by using the outer ailerons to dampen the flutter
* Oscillation in the inner ailerons- fixed by installing a larger pump to those ailerons
* The 747-8 is also having issues with its flight management computer, however it won't delay delivery as even without part that is acting up, the computer still has all the capabilities that the 747-400's has. I believe i read that it is the RNAV acting up.

[JumboShrimp]

Perhaps the 787 will end up 'inventing' new hubs around the world???  Fly into all of the secondary airports around the world and get there without the heavy fees seen at the largest?!?!?  It is very attractive.  

It may not necessarily be hubs, just more direct international flights from medium sized airports.

As far as 787 concept vs. 380 concept, they will be in an indirect competition.  More flights from secondary airports mean less traffic (and congestion) at the largest airports.  But all of that depends on how airlines deploy this aircraft.

I will actually be flying on A380 Lufthansa to Frankfurt next month - transferring to Vienna there.  I picked that particular flight because of curiosity factor.  That's probably what's behind the current preference other people alluded to.  But everything else being equal (A380 no longer being a curiosity), a direct Austrian Airlines flight to Vienna would win hands down.  Austrian is flying 777 on JFK - VIE route (772 I believe).

[Dave4468]

I will actually be flying on A380 Lufthansa to Frankfurt next month - transferring to Vienna there.  I picked that particular flight because of curiosity factor.  That's probably what's behind the current preference other people alluded to.  But everything else being equal (A380 no longer being a curiosity), a direct Austrian Airlines flight to Vienna would win hands down.  Austrian is flying 777 on JFK - VIE route (772 I believe).

After the flight to NZ I had on an EK A380 and EK B777 I can honestly say the A380 has more than a curiosity factor to it. It is noticeably more comfortable than the B777. What I noticed was that the seats in economy are ever so slightly bigger and the windows are much larger. It also seemed a lot airier than the B777. In the future I plan to use A380 where possible after that. 

[JumboShrimp]

After the flight to NZ I had on an EK A380 and EK B777 I can honestly say the A380 has more than a curiosity factor to it. It is noticeably more comfortable than the B777. What I noticed was that the seats in economy are ever so slightly bigger and the windows are much larger. It also seemed a lot airier than the B777. In the future I plan to use A380 where possible after that. 

Well, the seating configuration is what an airline orders.  Last summer, I was on a 757 in something United called Economy Plus (or something like that).  The seats were super roomy and comfortable.  and that's on an aging aircraft.

I appreciate the less claustrophobic feel.  IIRC, the old Lockheed 1011 had that...  I will see about A380...

But, as I said, if the difference is a 1 stop flight on A380 vs. nonstop flight on anything else at the same or nearly the same price, it is hardly a contest...

[swiftus27]

I can appreciate what is being eluded to above me.

The A380 had that WOW!!!!! factor going for it as it was the first double decker (all the way back) in existence.
The 787 is just another widebody that doesn't look too different from its peers already flying. 

Alot of the 'spirit' one has for the A380 comes from this.

[Maarten Otto]

Here we go...

"easyJet Atlantic".... 

[GEnx]

Wow, that looks very realistic. I think with their business model it would fit as well (fit as many sheep in the cattle car as you can).

[thedr2]

Wow, that looks very realistic. I think with their business model it would fit as well (fit as many sheep in the cattle car as you can).

No I'm afraid I disagree. The low cost model (in europe at least) favours frequency over mass capacity. Flying a smaller, more economical, aircraft like the 787 would also allow them to serve thinner routes that the A380 could not, whilst keeping fleet costs down.

Essentially the same reasons they haven't been flying 747s on those eruopean trunk routes!

[Dave4468]

I agree with Quinoky, I've heard more than a few commentators say that the A380 could start long haul low cost flying just by the fact you can get 800 odd people in there. Don't think the frequency argument, while very true for short haul plays anywhere near as much a part long haul.

[Zabuti]

I agree with Quinoky, I've heard more than a few commentators say that the A380 could start long haul low cost flying just by the fact you can get 800 odd people in there. Don't think the frequency argument, while very true for short haul plays anywhere near as much a part long haul.

We need a true low-cost order to confirm that it's viable, which hasn't been confirmed for now.

I agree on the fact that it costs a lot in maintenance, and I'm not sure that low costs like Air Asia X or similar can really fill a plane up to 800 pax per flight...

But it's true that it can actually accomodate 800 pax in one shot, so technically, we might see a low cost offering that on the long term.

[thedr2]

The only all economy classs order for the A380 has been from Air Austral. It suits them because they only really have one long haul route, and its a high demand trunk route. For other low cost operators (If we assume Air Austral can be called one) it makes very little sense to operate the A380.
Don't forget the A380 is designed for the needs of hub-and-spoke airlines, such as Emirates and Singapore, where as low cost operators follow the point-to-point model. Very few routes in the world could support an A380 on point-to-point demand alone, and most are already over saturated by incumbent airlines.

[flightsimer]

We need a true low-cost order to confirm that it's viable, which hasn't been confirmed for now.

I agree on the fact that it costs a lot in maintenance, and I'm not sure that low costs like Air Asia X or similar can really fill a plane up to 800 pax per flight...

But it's true that it can actually accomodate 800 pax in one shot, so technically, we might see a low cost offering that on the long term.

Air Austral...  they will be using their two in 840 pax configs flying Reunion-Paris which is 5050nm. Though i dont know if they are truely a LCC

edit: dont know how i didnt see dan's post above...