Please explain the concept.

I'm trying to understand the place for the a380. I mean, I cant wait to see it but I just dont see how it fits in.

back in the 70s, the 747 was toted to be this monster place that would seat so many and have such a great interior, pianos, bars, etc.

throw in a gas crisis and they packed it with seats and that was that.

Now the A 380 comes out in a similar fashion, similar climate and, well, how will it be "better"?

I mean. For example, lets say BA has 7 flights LHR-JFK a day. And assuming the planes used are mostly 747s with a 777 thrown in. Most of those flights, on a given day, are not full. You'll find rows of empty seats.

So why do we think a bigger a/c will do the difference? Arent we just looking at more empty seats? or is the thought more volume with less frequency?

I have to tap into a friend who is an aviation stock analyst for the ML.
But just wondering what you'll can tell me.

same reason everyone buys SUV's, we all like big modes of transportation. Makes us feel important ;) ;)

This really isn't an aircraft for the US market.

The theory is that it is for high density routes (in Asia for example) and/or to slot restricted airports like Heathrow. We'll see soon enough whether this works out or not.

Airline industry is like watching lemmings I think...or the amatuers play the stock market.

What Emirates is going to do with all those monsters I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirrodie

Now the A 380 comes out in a similar fashion, similar climate and, well, how will it be "better"?

---

The technology is 35 years ahead of the original 747 giving better aircraft efficiency, the engines are also more efficient per pound of thrust produced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UrbanExplorer222

same reason everyone buys SUV's, we all like big modes of transportation. Makes us feel important ;) ;)

---

You'll be surprise to find how important the mileage per gallon factor is in an airline aircraft selection process, along with range, maintenance cost, etc… However, most US airline base their selection on how much money the manufacture is willing to loan them TODAY!!

The technology is 35 years ahead of the original 747 giving better aircraft efficiency, the engines are also more efficient per pound of thrust produced.

But each newer model 747 addresses these issues, so you can't compare the original 747. I htink Midnihgt MIke can better comment on the 747s and their newer model's efficiency.

And still, if you go by that statement, are you saying efficiency is the underlying factor? If so, there are so many options for efficiency.. the premise behind a380 has to be volume, then efficiency I would think.

a 747 can be made just as efficient, but that doesn't address my question of filling up the plane.

If you have a tough timefilling a 747, what makes one think an an a380 will fill?

I don't think the A380 could ever be effectively used on JFK-LHR. Any carrier to do so would be forced to reduce frequencies due to empty seats. The carrier reducing frequencies would immediately get clobbered by the non-A380 carriers who maintain their frequencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirrodie

But each newer model 747 addresses these issues, so you can't compare the original 747. I htink Midnihgt MIke can better comment on the 747s and their newer model's efficiency.

a 747 can be made just as efficient, but that doesn't address my question of filling up the plane.

If you have a tough timefilling a 747, what makes one think an an a380 will fill?

---

I worked on 747-100 to 400 until about 7 years ago, both PW and GE powered. The engine core is 30 years old and there have been some material and design changes over the years, but not much you can improve at this point. The -400 uses the same fuselage material and construction method as -100, no improvement there from the technology advances of last 30 years. A 747 can not be made as efficient as an A380, unless some radical changes are made in the next rendition Boeing is kicking around in the airlines right now, but from what I have seen, it should not be called a 747. The North American market has shifted to more of what Boeing calls "fragmentation", not too many people want to do connection anymore since the low cost airlines can provide more direct service. The business travelers likes the multiple frequency available for coast to coast routes, they are not paying for the ticket anyway.

I don't think any of the Asian carriers have any problem filling a 747 across the Pacific, UA's Tokyo flight are almost always full out of the west coast. Japanese domestic market and TPE-HKG are two routes an A380 will be great with, even at 5-6 flights a day per airline. I have been on some LH and AF 747 flights to the west coast, they were about 80% full, using the A380 may increase the leisure traffic market by reducing the ticket pricing point. India and the Middle East are other areas where A380 will perform well.

The additional capacity on the A380 does help with the cost per seat mile, but the ultimate saving is from the efficiencies of the engine and the use of lighter composite and aluminium lithium alloys.

Not a sales pitch for Airbus, but you can learn more about this here http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamili ... omics.html

The 787’s radical change is even better, provided Boeing can delivery the aircraft at the same price point as the competing product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GothamSpotter

I don't think the A380 could ever be effectively used on JFK-LHR. Any carrier to do so would be forced to reduce frequencies due to empty seats. The carrier reducing frequencies would immediately get clobbered by the non-A380 carriers who maintain their frequencies.

---

You are right, the JFK-LHR is saturated at this point; bring more capacity in that market at the same price point is not good. However, imagine BA selling JFK-LHR at $400 instead of $500 during the summer, I bet they have more people booking those special fares.

I just you're right. From this perspective, I just dont see it, since Ive no idea what flights are like over the Pacific rim and Asia.

The more I learn about airlines like Emirates, Gulf Air, Singapore, the more I realize how different it is out of the USA.

Its really a series of things, first I believe its somewhat of a pride thing with the Europeans. This takes a page from the days of the great ocean liners. Each European country fought for the title of the biggest ocean liner on the Atlantic, now its planes. For 30 years Boeing had the biggest now its Airbus. Each company/country trying to out do the other.

Second, there is a market for a large airliner like this as some pointed out in Asia and perhaps India as that market explodes in the next ten years. Its not a pretty plane but the size is certainly impressive.

Here is the long awaited response from Boeing:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/051115/transpor ... .html?.v=3

Outside of the economic factors and purely aestheticaly speaking the a380 is the ugliest commercial aircraft in service.

you know, thanks for that. I was under the assumption the 747 Advance was Boeings answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STT757

Outside of the economic factors and purely aestheticaly speaking the a380 is the ugliest commercial aircraft in service.

---

I disagree. Check out some latest shots from Asia/Australia tour.
She looks great IMO. :)