Is the Aircraft list outdated ?! Cuz there's a couple of Airbus plane's missing, plus it doesn't make sense that the B787-8 is in-game when the A380 isn't.. B787 hasn't been delivered yet! :-\
Some planes need to be added. I sent the A340-500 in ages ago, but it seemed to never have been put in :-\ :laugh:
...clearly says this at the top of the page: "Please note that the aircraft database is still incomplete and we are adding more aircraft models all the time."
The fact if some future plane is there and some historical plane is not does not make a difference as the planes are available by their real launch dates vs. the game date. Meaning that one naturally cannot fly the 787 in 1990's and so on.
I understand, just got me worried the A380 isn't even listed, considering I'm an Airbus supporter. ;)
Yeah, its coming but Airbus is a bit picky in giving exact details of their models, have had hard time with that. Boeing on the other hand gives out all the exact weight details, payload vs. range graphs directly from their site. For Airbuses I've had to dig them a bit other way and still missing the data for few of their models. blah.
Check with Airbus specified airline's, they must have the info. on their fleet somewhere. I can help with that if you want ?
Quote from: AzZellon on February 03, 2008, 07:05:29 PM
I understand, just got me worried the A380 isn't even listed, considering I'm an Airbus supporter. ;)
i am too!!, and i can help too... ;)
[attachment deleted by admin]
ahem! We all know that Boeing's the best ;)
Quote from: Seattle on February 06, 2008, 10:43:40 PM
ahem! We all know that Boeing's the best ;)
Nope, Embrear is. I especially like the Q400s :laugh:
nuuhn...yahhun...nuuhn...yahhun ;D sorry. also, you said "Nope, Embrear is. I especially like the Q400s". Q400s by the way are made by Bombardier, but i agree anyways ;)
I would have to agree with Seattle. Boeing is the best out there. Although i do support Bombardier seeing that they're Canadian, as am I. :)
If its aint made by Boeing, I aint gonna fly! ;D
boeing hasn't even delivered a single 787 to the orderers....you call that flying!?!?!
Your comment makes no sense. Have you even thought about the other planes made by Boeing? Duh! ;)
Quote from: Seattle on February 08, 2008, 01:15:37 AM
Your comment makes no sense. Have you even thought about the other planes made by Boeing? Duh! ;)
but how many have they delivered...0!!!!!!and besides, who has the biggest airplane in the world now???AIRBUS!!!
to be honest: i don't think a pro/con Airbus/Boeing makes any sense. :-\
Both companies produce more or less economic and ecological planes. ::)
so discussing about Airbus vs. Boeing is like discussing about "who was fist, the hen ot the egg?" ;)
Whilst i do not want this to turn into an A vs. B arguement (which is all too common for Aviation forums).
You do forget to mention that the 787 has been realistically planned, sure, their have been delays. But if thats an issue, look into the A380's delays. The project has been delayed for over a year, and due to that, many order's where lost.
I like Boeing and Airbus. But before you get into all this, the A380 actually is only a few meters longer than the 747, and height. It's basically an A340 with a Tumour growing on it's back.
Don't get me wrong, i had a great time spotting it at Singapore last month.. But really, it will never be as classic as the 747. I don't see any inovation whatsoever, the wings even failed test's and had to be re-designed so it actually can hold the amount of PAX published by Airbus in the first place. As for now, airlines won't be fitting it in Airbus's claimed "800+ PAX", sure, but it would be in all economy. It would be a flying cattle-truck really. Sure, 50+ more seats on average than the 747.. but, the A380 still has to prove itself. And don't forget that every airport that this 50+ more seats than 747 goes to, they have to spend millions on runways, taxiways, airbridges and new gates and lounges to accomodate 1 single new airliner. Just for a 50+ more passengers on average (as no self respecting airline such as BA or EK will place 800+ in all economy). But im sure the A380 will have a bit more legspace (again, airline decision).. But we will see how things go.
And again, I like boeing and Airbus, hey, even Embraer.
Don't get me wrong. The A380 still is amazing to gaze at.. but aint the 747 classics sexy anyway? ... hehehhe
Quote from: alexernst on February 08, 2008, 07:03:09 AM
"who was fist, the hen ot the egg?" ;)
actually, neither. It was the Cell that formed first. ;) hehehe
Quote from: love_bus on February 08, 2008, 07:09:29 AM
Whilst i do not want this to turn into an A vs. B arguement (which is all too common for Aviation forums).
You do forget to mention that the 787 has been realistically planned, sure, their have been delays. But if thats an issue, look into the A380's delays. The project has been delayed for over a year, and due to that, many order's where lost.
I like Boeing and Airbus. But before you get into all this, the A380 actually is only a few meters longer than the 747, and height. It's basically an A340 with a Tumour growing on it's back.
Don't get me wrong, i had a great time spotting it at Singapore last month.. But really, it will never be as classic as the 747. I don't see any inovation whatsoever, the wings even failed test's and had to be re-designed so it actually can hold the amount of PAX published by Airbus in the first place. As for now, airlines won't be fitting it in Airbus's claimed "800+ PAX", sure, but it would be in all economy. It would be a flying cattle-truck really. Sure, 50+ more seats on average than the 747.. but, the A380 still has to prove itself. And don't forget that every airport that this 50+ more seats than 747 goes to, they have to spend millions on runways, taxiways, airbridges and new gates and lounges to accomodate 1 single new airliner. Just for a 50+ more passengers on average (as no self respecting airline such as BA or EK will place 800+ in all economy). But im sure the A380 will have a bit more legspace (again, airline decision).. But we will see how things go.
And again, I like boeing and Airbus, hey, even Embraer.
Don't get me wrong. The A380 still is amazing to gaze at.. but aint the 747 classics sexy anyway? ... hehehhe
all true, but still, the Airbus A380 is a beast in it's own class. you do have to admit that...
747 will always be the king/queen of the sky. No matter if the A380 sells better or is bigger ;)
When the 747 came out, it was like a giant cheese burger comapared to a molecule. :D
that is true but have you forgot about the "spruce goose"?? that is the actual biggest airplane in the world...don't you remember that????
Quote from: love_bus on February 08, 2008, 07:09:29 AM
Whilst i do not want this to turn into an A vs. B argument (which is all too common for Aviation forums).
You do forget to mention that the 787 has been realistically planned, sure, their have been delays. But if thats an issue, look into the A380's delays. The project has been delayed for over a year, and due to that, many order's where lost.
I like Boeing and Airbus. But before you get into all this, the A380 actually is only a few meters longer than the 747, and height. It's basically an A340 with a Tumor growing on it's back.
Don't get me wrong, i had a great time spotting it at Singapore last month.. But really, it will never be as classic as the 747. I don't see any innovation whatsoever, the wings even failed test's and had to be re-designed so it actually can hold the amount of PAX published by Airbus in the first place. As for now, airlines won't be fitting it in Airbus's claimed "800+ PAX", sure, but it would be in all economy. It would be a flying cattle-truck really. Sure, 50+ more seats on average than the 747.. but, the A380 still has to prove itself. And don't forget that every airport that this 50+ more seats than 747 goes to, they have to spend millions on runways, taxiways, air bridges and new gates and lounges to accommodate 1 single new airliner. Just for a 50+ more passengers on average (as no self respecting airline such as BA or EK will place 800+ in all economy). But i'm sure the A380 will have a bit more leg space (again, airline decision).. But we will see how things go.
And again, I like Boeing and Airbus, hey, even Embraer.
Don't get me wrong. The A380 still is amazing to gaze at.. but ain't the 747 classics sexy anyway? ... hehehhe
and yes about the canceled orders, but most of them were to pay depts or something like that. not to cancel orders, but to pay off some depts they forgot to pay.
" Airbus " dont you mean Scarebus ;) we at united have a saying if it isn`t boeing i`m not going ::) and yes the 787 is developed on the ground flying and is getting its certified will be delivered soon
well, we at Frontier have a saying to, if it ain't airbus, it REALLY scares us ::) 'boeing', don't you mean boring! ;)
Quote from: Seattle on February 09, 2008, 08:47:06 PM
747 will always be the king/queen of the sky. No matter if the A380 sells better or is bigger ;)
When the 747 came out, it was like a giant cheese burger comapared to a molecule. :D
No, the king/queen of the sky was, is and always will be concorde. The 747 is comparable to a minivan while I'd liken concorde to, say, a maserati or something. Would you rather drive a $100k sports car or a $30k minivan?
Airbus planes' safety records kick Boeing planes' asses. Plus when I fly in a Boeing I can feel that the plane isn't all that well put together. On the other hand when I fly in an Airbus the wings don't rattle as much, parts don't feel like they're going to fall off, the plane doesn't shake as much, they just feel better put together. What else do you expect from a company that used to make the concorde?
Frankly I lost faith* in Boeing (or Boring) when the Air Force decided to give the tanker contract to Airbus.
*Not that I ever HAD any faith in Boeing
Quote from: yourefired on April 17, 2008, 03:09:36 AM
No, the king/queen of the sky was, is and always will be concorde. The 747 is comparable to a minivan while I'd liken concorde to, say, a maserati or something. Would you rather drive a $100k sports car or a $30k minivan?
Airbus planes' safety records kick Boeing planes' asses. Plus when I fly in a Boeing I can feel that the plane isn't all that well put together. On the other hand when I fly in an Airbus the wings don't rattle as much, parts don't feel like they're going to fall off, the plane doesn't shake as much, they just feel better put together. What else do you expect from a company that used to make the concorde?
Frankly I lost faith* in Boeing (or Boring) when the Air Force decided to give the tanker contract to Airbus.
*Not that I ever HAD any faith in Boeing
What Crap are you talking about!? Airbus and Boeing both have incredibly safe records. Almost all crashes of planes since... about 1990 have been due to improper maintainance/airlines faults. What your saying is bs. Boeing planes are buildt 100% as well as Airbus (probably better :D). The Rattling of the wings and plane has nothing todo with the plane's integerity. That's caused by pilots, weather, tublence, etc. Concorde was a nice plane.... however, it safety record was not steller... and it was not an economically viable plane (gas guzzler and too small). A plane, not economically viable, what would you expect from Airbus?
Before you make silly, incorrect, and frankly quite stupid comments about Boeing or any other aircraft manufacturer, research your facts.
Like I said, if A330 is good enough for the air force, it's good enough for me.
And concorde did make BA and Air France millions of dollars. Just not enough millions of dollars. As far as I can tell, plane parts aren't supposed to rattle during takeoff. And as far as I can tell, I like french planes better. Concorde will always have its place in my heart as the queen of the sky. I somehow doubt anyone's going to scream bloody murder when the last 747 rolls off the assembly line.
In a pilots point of view, boeing is better because the wings are more flexible than aibuses, meaning it's easier to manage in turbulence. Like wat seattle said, the 747 will always be the king of the skies.
For the second class long range, 777 (prince of the skies ;D) is more preferable than A340. (note that 777 has no fatal accidents before!)
For medium class, A330 is way better than 767 (767 is pretty hopeless)
For short haul, even though A320 can seat more than 737, 737 will always be in the skies, carrying spirit from the '70s.
For regional, ATR 72!!!!
I love boeing, boeing is the best, because airbus gave me a bad first impression. but if i owned an airline, i cannot just buy an aircraft just bcoz l like it ;D!!! As with concorde... ermm... yeah!!!
I pretty much like Airbus more than Boeing, because i think Boeing's aircrafts looks a bit boring except for the 747 and 787 Dreamliner. But i think that the A380 can't beat the Boeing 747.
And i pretty much think that the CRJ200 is way better as a Regional than a silly ATR-72
Quote from: yourefired on April 18, 2008, 03:02:51 AM
Like I said, if A330 is good enough for the air force, it's good enough for me.
And concorde did make BA and Air France millions of dollars. Just not enough millions of dollars. As far as I can tell, plane parts aren't supposed to rattle during takeoff. And as far as I can tell, I like french planes better. Concorde will always have its place in my heart as the queen of the sky. I somehow doubt anyone's going to scream bloody murder when the last 747 rolls off the assembly line.
the only thing that "shakes" is the wings flexing after takeoff. nothing else "shakes". (well, the overhead cabins jiggle, but thats how it is in all planes). The concorde made NO money what so ever, when the cost of operating it is factred in. The 747 will not go off the line for a while.
Hi, there is a bit war about Boeing vs Airbus but really what is the difference they complement each other quite well. I am not to comment as I am not an aircraft engineer so I can only comment on what I have flown.
There is quite some information on wikipedia about the A380 if you need information. Wikipedia is not the most accurate source but it has been debated to be as accurate as Britannica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_a380
Measurement A380-800 A380-800F
Cockpit crew Two
Seating capacity 525 (3-class)[5]
644 (2-class)
853 (1-class) 12 couriers
Length 73 m (239 ft 6 in)
Span 79.8 m (261 ft 10 in)
Height 24.1 m (79 ft 1 in)
Wheelbase 30.4 m (99 ft 8 in)
Outside fuselage width 7.14 m (23 ft 6 in)
Cabin width, main deck 6.60 m (21 ft 8 in)
Cabin width, upper deck 5.94 m (19 ft 6 in)
Wing area 845 m² (9,100 sq ft)
Operating empty weight 276,800 kg (610,200 lb) 252,200 kg (556,000 lb)
Maximum take-off weight 560,000 kg
(1,235,000 lb) 590,000 kg (1,300,000 lb)
Maximum payload 90,800 kg
(200,000 lb) 152,400 kg (336,000 lb)
Cruising speed Mach 0.85
Maximum cruising speed Mach 0.89
Maximum speed Mach 0.96 [98]
Take off run at MTOW 2,750 m (9,020 ft)[80] 2,900 m (9,510 ft)[80]
Range at design load 15,200 km (8,200 nmi) 10,400 km (5,600 nmi)
Service ceiling 13,115 m (43,000 ft)
Maximum fuel capacity 310,000 L (81,890 US gal) 310,000 L (81,890 US gal),
356,000 L (94,000 US gal) option
Engines (4 x) GP7270 (A380-861)
Trent 970/B (A380-841)
Trent 972/B (A380-842) GP7277 (A380-863F)
Trent 977/B (A380-843F)
Yes, but then. The A380 is a conventional, whilst the 787 is fairly inovative. The 787 is introducing a whole new era, im not dissing the A380, it still interests me as well.
Today though, Airbus has contacted 2 (or more) airlines and mentioned their may be even more delays on the A380 delivery(s).
The 787 does have delays, but, a plane with as much innovation on board as the Dreamliner was BOUND to run into far worse trouble than the - apart from sheer size - quite conventional A380.
Neither are offering compensation, and customers of the 787 really have no choice, the only other competitor (A350) is only scheduled for first deliveries in 2013 earliest (and we can now place bets on how punctual THAT program will be).
all that aside, it was quite interesting to see the A380 at SIN early this year. I saw both sisters, 9V-SKA and 9V-SKB. :laugh:
Quote from: love_bus on May 07, 2008, 09:52:24 AM
Yes, but then. The A380 is a conventional, whilst the 787 is fairly inovative. The 787 is introducing a whole new era, im not dissing the A380, it still interests me as well.
Dear love_bus, it seems to me that you know quite nothing about the complexity of the A380 program when you say the plane would be big but conventional.
BTW Airbus introduced a whole new area back in the late 1980s when the first fly-by-wire passenger jet A320 took off.
Quote from: simfan on May 08, 2008, 12:25:52 PM
Dear love_bus, it seems to me that you know quite nothing about the complexity of the A380 program when you say the plane would be big but conventional.
BTW Airbus introduced a whole new area back in the late 1980s when the first fly-by-wire passenger jet A320 took off.
Don't jump to conclusions. The A380 is by no means a simple - new model to the Airbus lineup, I never said that. but i maintain my comments that the A380 is still relatively a conventional airliner compared to the 787. The A380 was a complex design, but it hasn't introduced too much other than another deck and the maths to get it off the ground. Don't get me wrong, it would've taken a lot of steps to introduce such a large airliner and make her fly. Personally,
imho, that the 787 has been more innovative in its final design.
I know that Airbus and the A320 introduced the first fly-by-wire aircraft. i have all respect for Airbus's pioneering achievments, i never said that Airbus hasn't contributed any innovations. Just that the A380 is still more of conventional airliner compared to the 787. again, imo.
cheers
Quote from: love_bus on May 08, 2008, 12:44:47 PMPersonally, imho, that the 787 has been more innovative in its final design.
What in your opinion are the crucial points that lift the innovations of the 787 above those of the A380?
Quote from: simfan on May 09, 2008, 12:09:27 PM
What in your opinion are the crucial points that lift the innovations of the 787 above those of the A380?
written by me few posts back:QuoteWhilst i do not want this to turn into an A vs. B argument (which is all too common for Aviation forums).
A vs B has been discussed to death, the fact is it's a matter of opinion. And why do you post as if i have chosen sides? here i've talked of the difference of the A380 and the 787, in particular innovation in the industry whilst all you do is question me, at least put your own opinion, i'd like some input.
Quote from: simfan on May 09, 2008, 12:09:27 PM
What in your opinion are the crucial points that lift the innovations of the 787 above those of the A380?
Now, shall we move into this? Why is the 787 more innovative compared to the A380? why? A Hell of a lot of reasons are why.
Apart from the well known fact that it will be the first major airliner to use composite materials for most of its construction (
85% in
total). They even held a joint study with Oklahoma university which found that by making the internal cabin pres. equivalent to 6000ft instead of the 8000ft on conventional aircraft it will be more comfortable for passengers. The airliner is also innovative in it's construction, eliminating the need for thousands of fastners and bolts, might not seem like much, but do the math, it's a big saving in money, materials and most importantly TIME. Of course, the major winning point in the whole new composite airliner concept that the 787 is pioneering is the Composites, it's probably the winning factor in innovation in my personal opinion.
Now, if your going to compare the 787 to the A380 you would be wrong. Technically the closest counterpart to the 787 is the planned Airbus A350- "XWB" . Now, when it comes to Innovation in Design, we have to give it to boeing. The Airbus Series do share a common family, from the A300 through to the A340, theirs no denying that. This isn't neccesarily a bad thing, as it's economically well off, and mostly asthetics (as each model is very different despite the same family tree). The A350 has come under significant critisism, so much that Airbus actually redesigned it's final design, again. In this design was the addition of a significant percentage of Composites.
Now, In my Opinion those are the most significant Innovations of the 787. The 787 has introduced an entirely new design and concept, again, despite the sheer size of the A380, it's just a Competitor of the 747 on steroids. Now, don't get me wrong, im not denying the technology thats gone into the A380.
The 380 hasn't had the best publicity thats for sure, with delays, delays, internal issues etc.. This isn't a debate on whats better, 787 or A380, but how innovative they are put up against eachother. IMHO, look at the A380, Airports around the world have spent millions on widening runways and taxiways, multi-million dollar gates to accomodate 1 sole new airliner which will most likely stay in a class of her own. Boeing has shown that it's not about sheer size but how you do it. now compare orders.
IMHO :)
Regards,
tom
I agree.
How can you talk about innovative vs conventional and then end off with now let's compare orders? They are not in the same range of seats at all. And talking about orders, how about deliveries then? Boeing may have won more orders than Airbus but Airbus has been delivering more than Boeing in recent years. Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing
And A380 is designed to carry X amount of passengers. If the airlines decide they want to carry say 50+ more than B747 it's their choice. That of course in lieu of other extras like SIA's Suite Class. I read that Emirates may even offer shower facilites onboard their A380s! Now that is revolutionalising air travel. Although I don't think cattle class designate travellers like me will get to enjoy that ;D
true, i did mention it though
QuoteNow, if your going to compare the 787 to the A380 you would be wrong
Agreed though, their 2 totally different aircrafts, comparing orders won't do much. (on the other hand, the A350), but thats expected to be launching in 2013 at the earliest.
QuoteI don't think cattle class designate travellers like me will get to enjoy that
heheh, same here. back to tiger airways for me... :(
And just you wait for Virgin Atlantic! SRB has a lot in store for us with their A380 order!
Airbus is always better!!!1111!! ;D ;D
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: sami on May 10, 2008, 02:20:18 PM
Airbus is always better!!!1111!! ;D ;D
Sami, just be you fly one doesn't mean its better ;)
well thats the best seat in the house! what do ya reckon! :laugh: :laugh:
Yeah TR is fine, I just hate the idea of boarding in the Budget Terminal here in SIN lol I've flown them once before when they were still in Terminal 1. FD (Thai Air Asia) is alright for BKK, flew on them once before too. Have yet to try 3K (Jetstar).
3K is good, i thought the winning factor was the Leather Seating but the service was nice as well.
TR has it's moments, i've had some great hassle free flights with them and on the other hand have had hours of hell stuck in their prison tube 35,000ft in the air. It's hit and miss really.. also, just remember never to get the last row (no recline) + you have the lavatories blasting behind you the entire trip.
Im flying Air Asia (Malaysia) late this year, first time! Gold Coast - KL - Manila :laugh:
Ahhh that would be on their A333 (at least for the OOL - KUL sector). My fav aircraft of all-time. When I play this game, I'm gonna purchase lots and lots of A333s! One of the most profitable aircrafts to fly for short to medium haul flights.
Quote from: Seattle on February 09, 2008, 08:47:06 PM
747 will always be the king/queen of the sky. No matter if the A380 sells better or is bigger ;)
When the 747 came out, it was like a giant cheese burger comapared to a molecule. :D
I JUST HOPE WE GET TO USE AN AIRBUS WHEN THE GAME IS FINISHED
Quote from: Idioteque on May 11, 2008, 03:41:38 PM
Ahhh that would be on their A333 (at least for the OOL - KUL sector). My fav aircraft of all-time. When I play this game, I'm gonna purchase lots and lots of A333s! One of the most profitable aircrafts to fly for short to medium haul flights.
Skip the A330. Go with a 777 or A340, in the game you'll find that those will be more profitable. Even the 767 in more profitable when it is production.... strange.
Depends on the routes. I was flying my fleet of A330-300's all in the High green.. earning me a good number per flight. Depends where you are as well, i was located in Manila, Philippines.. Many regional centres around, all perfect for the A333.
In real life though, the 777 by far is a lot more comfortable to travel in. But this of course also depends on the airline, but from all of my experiences, i would choose the T7. I love the A330 though, one of my favourites.
The A340-300 is comfortable as well, not bad considering it's powered by 4x Hair Dryers :laugh: -this explans the long takeoff
I can't wait to try it when this game comes into fruition hee hee. Thanks for the valuable tips :) I have travelled on all 3 aircrafts you mentioned and yes B777 was very spacious when compared A333 to A343. Especially so in the overhead compartment ;D Still I prefer the layout of the wide bodied Airbuses (2-4-2 although AAX will have 3-3-3 config for their A333 being a budget airline). I hate to be stuck in between 2 passengers and I hate being on the aisle seat. It's window seat or I'm not a happy camper.
Having said that the lower deck of SQ's Y class A380s and the A350XWBs have a 3-3-3 layout so I might just have to bear with it if I have to fly in one of those. I wonder how it's like to fly in one of those fancy and sexy Embraers. Those Brazilians are awesome! ;)
Well, when I was based in Bangkok, the 747 and 767 did wonders. However, my single A330 was not a happy perfomer :laugh:
I must say, I have not had the pleasure to fly in an A330, but the 777 and A340-600's are quite nice.
A346s are awesome too and so are the A345s :)
Quote from: Idioteque on May 14, 2008, 05:39:55 AM
A346s are awesome too and so are the A345s :)
I tried the A340's and they eat to much fuel :D
lol yeah they're fuel guzzlers but as VS's SRB teasingly announced to BA it's 4 engines 4 longhaul. I'm not extremely familiar with ETOPS regulations but I guess with the introduction of B772LR, A345s & A346s are increasingly unpopular due to their fuel consumption.
the new 747-8 is the A380 killer imo and the new A380 delays don't help airbus
Im a huge 747 fan but i hope the A380-800 has enough succes to convince airbus to create the A380-900
That remains to be seen... whether the hump back will cause turbulence for the full double decker as none of the existing airlines has cancelled their orders and jumped ship (or airplanes) so far. Only LH has placed orders for the passenger version while there are more orders from the major airlines for the freighters.
Whatever it is, the A380s is still far spacious than any B747 variant and airlines may want to keep the former for that reason. At least Boeing will have the bragging rights as having the longest airliner, surpassing the current A346 :D
Quote from: Idioteque on May 25, 2008, 01:43:10 AM
Whatever it is, the A380s is still far spacious than any B747 variant and airlines may want to keep the former for that reason.
yep a very good point, on the other hand the B747-8 doesn't need new equipment (pushback or nosegear lifters, towbar, cargo lifts) and almost every airport in the world can handle it without runway and apron mods.
Quote from: Idioteque on May 15, 2008, 07:58:23 AM
lol yeah they're fuel guzzlers but as VS's SRB teasingly announced to BA it's 4 engines 4 longhaul. I'm not extremely familiar with ETOPS regulations but I guess with the introduction of B772LR, A345s & A346s are increasingly unpopular due to their fuel consumption.
!!!!Wha! B772LR is one of the most fuel efficient longhaul aircrafts! it doesnt have 4 engines, it has 2!!!
Yes B772LR came into service only in the past 2 years compared to the A340s and like I mentioned there's this ETOPS (2 engines vs 4 engines) thingy which I think we might need to get a pilot or someone who play FlightSims to explain fully :)
Quote from: Doa on May 25, 2008, 07:00:10 PM
yep a very good point, on the other hand the B747-8 doesn't need new equipment (pushback or nosegear lifters, towbar, cargo lifts) and almost every airport in the world can handle it without runway and apron mods.
For sure. I don't have the details but from what I have read most of the major airports would have finished their preparation work to accomodate the A380. You certainly don't expect that mammoth of a plane to land say at Wellington or Bankstown airport lol (The latter can't even barely support an A319)
Quote from: Idioteque on June 03, 2008, 02:29:41 PM
For sure. I don't have the details but from what I have read most of the major airports would have finished their preparation work to accomodate the A380. You certainly don't expect that mammoth of a plane to land say at Wellington or Bankstown airport lol (The latter can't even barely support an A319)
Seattle could use an A380 sized plane on its LHR and several Asian city flights, but SEA has firmly said the only accomadations will be for the B747-800 pax and freighter versions. 8)
Arik Air has ordered three 747-8's too! that makes two airline costumers. :)
Please remember.
The current game economics doesnt take into effect alot of aircraft economics like
cargo, ETOPS, pilot scope contracts, different fare classes etc. All of which are serious ancillary revenue or cost generators for an aircraft family. Example I know a pilot with Air Canada and the current scope is as follows: 773 772LR 340 333/787 321 320 319 E170. All the pilots in each class get paid differently, example a 773 pilot can be making as much as 4X an A320 pilot.
Right now, comparable Airbus v Boeing is as follows. And from what I can tell, with different aircraft families there isnt a huge difference in economics of scale once purchase price is taken into account.
A32X v B73X
A33X v B76X and B78X
A34X v B78X and B77X
A380 v B77X and B74X
The one thing Airbus has going for it through its entire family is cross functional training. A A32X pilot needs less training to upguage in aircraft than a pilot with no A32X training. But that can normally be muted by Boeings lower purchase price.
The A30X and A310X and B75X series are all out of production, dont really have current competitors as they were desiged for different markets (EU vs US).
Both Boeing and Airbus make excellent airplanes. Otherwise, neither would be in business. But my preference is for Airbuses.
Quote from: yourefired on August 27, 2008, 01:34:32 AM
Both Boeing and Airbus make excellent airplanes. Otherwise, neither would be in business. But my preference is for Airbuses.
No argument, they make excellent planes. I love using the 33X series.
A few people had mused as to why certain aircraft are more profitable than others. I tried to answer that.
Quote from: Seattle on February 06, 2008, 10:43:40 PM
ahem! We all know that Boeing's the best ;)
So very true