Is the Airbus A380 the next Concorde?

[tjinaz]

Things not looking good for Airbus.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,360443,00.html

Looks like a loser at this point.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

The failure of the Concorde didn't have to do with the production of the Concorde in any way, but there were two main reasons if memory serves me correct, the first being that of the infamous crash in 1998 I believe. And the second the amount of fuel required was huge, and thus it wasn't economically feasable.

[Ironhorse]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Jun 15 2005, 12:57 PM
The failure of the Concorde didn't have to do with the production of the Concorde in any way, but there were two main reasons if memory serves me correct, the first being that of the infamous crash in 1998 I believe. And the second the amount of fuel required was huge, and thus it wasn't economically feasable.

I don't think the fuel was a big of an issue as the crash was. It was all rich guys flying on it, they could affort the fuel.

IIRC, the crash investigation uncovered something that had to be inspected / retrofitted, which made it unviable to continue using the aging air frames.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I didn't think the fuel was the main reason, but I heard it was up there. But I thought that the crash was caused by something being on the tarmac from another plane.... don't know what could really be done to prevent that.

[dustygoon]

my recollection from news at the time:

some debree from a plane was laying on the runway......the concorde tires are inflated to extremely high pressures....the tire blew up with tremendous force, causing damage to the engine/wing which resulted in the fire.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

the biggest problem with the Concorde was none of the reasons cited above (while the two are both major problems) but the fact that it was forbidden to fly over land at Supersonic speeds. It would make cows milk sour, break windows, and was a disturbance to residents living under its flight path. That limited it to flying supersonic over water. Thus demand dropped like a rock in the neighbours swimming pool. Ergo only British Airways, and Air France used the jetliner because it was their governments that funded the project.

The crash in 1998 was more of the last straw, it was on its way out by that time anyway, the planes were getting close to the replacement date, and they weren't going to be replaced with the same thing. They had problems with their tires before; which if I'm not mistaken, I'm going on vague memory here was the problem, the tire exploded and the debris got caught in the engine? Feel free to correct me on that.

I do wish I had the chance to fly in one, but alas it goes into the "to do before I die, but no longer have the chance" pile (like watching Garth in concert).

[Claeren]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Jun 15 2005, 01:04 PM
the biggest problem with the Concorde was none of the reasons cited above (while the two are both major problems) but the fact that it was forbidden to fly over land at Supersonic speeds. It would make cows milk sour, break windows, and was a disturbance to residents living under its flight path. That limited it to flying supersonic over water. Thus demand dropped like a rock in the neighbours swimming pool. Ergo only British Airways, and Air France used the jetliner because it was their governments that funded the project.

The crash in 1998 was more of the last straw, it was on its way out by that time anyway, the planes were getting close to the replacement date, and they weren't going to be replaced with the same thing. They had problems with their tires before; which if I'm not mistaken, I'm going on vague memory here was the problem, the tire exploded and the debris got caught in the engine? Feel free to correct me on that.

I do wish I had the chance to fly in one, but alas it goes into the "to do before I die, but no longer have the chance" pile (like watching Garth in concert).

Exactly!


I think the A380 will work out long term. The capacity pressure at airports is building and that is what the A380 wants to cash in on, as those landing and gate spots get harder to come by the A380 becomes more and more appealing.

A 787 (an awesome plane) is more economical right now if you have 3 gate times at the destination and departure, but if you are only able to get one more spot at each end (or even one end, really) for a new route and can reasonably move 800+ passengers a day the A380 is in a league of its own...

Airbus really needs someone to go with an almost all coach set-up (westjet style, but international) and do it successfully, with only a few planes moving LOT of people, to get the market moving...


Claeren.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Saw a thing today about Airbus landing a contract with India's national airline for $6 Billion. It was a really short blip and they didn't specify if the order was for A380s, but its still a good thing for Airbus.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Vote Harper! Save Airbus... the last Conservative government did

[tjinaz]

I think the bigger issues with the A-380 will have to do with the retrofitting of the airports with longer runways and special terminals that have 2 gates to unload the behemoth. I don't think it will pass the 90 unload test either, at least not on the first attempt. More modifications lead to more delays which degrade confidence and profitability. I am still thinking white elephant.

[Eagle Eye]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Jun 15 2005, 01:04 PM
the biggest problem with the Concorde was none of the reasons cited above (while the two are both major problems) but the fact that it was forbidden to fly over land at Supersonic speeds.

Thats one of the main reasons I saw when they were talking about them on the Discovery channel

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jun 16 2005, 09:41 AM
I think the bigger issues with the A-380 will have to do with the retrofitting of the airports with longer runways and special terminals that have 2 gates to unload the behemoth. I don't think it will pass the 90 unload test either, at least not on the first attempt. More modifications lead to more delays which degrade confidence and profitability. I am still thinking white elephant.

They don't need longer runways. That was one of the design criteria, that it would be able to operate in the same locations as a 747. They can use the same size runways and terminals. As for the having two gates (I assume you mean jetways), most airports that accomodate 747s already have terminals with dual jetways.

That was one of the major specifications on this airplane, that it wouldn't require modification of existing airport infrastructure to operate. If it did, it would be worthless.

[tjinaz]

Not so much..

http://www.airports.org/cda/aci/display/ma...p=1-3-692_9_2__

There are modifications needed to fit it.

excerpt

In 2002, ACI surveyed A380 target airports and obtained a total cost of modifications of some 2.3 billion US Dollars - for the nearly 40 airports which replied. This figure is still thought to be a reasonable estimate. Modifications include both the Airside (principally runways, taxiways, aprons and aircraft stands) and Landside (principally passenger terminals)

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I thought modifications were needed as well, you're bascially doubling the max amount of passangers you can put through the gate at one time. However airports would do it to please thier clients, and improve overall efficiency.

It's the major airports that would need the improvement, you're not going to be seeing many of those at Halifax Int'l, or even Calgary Int'l.

[Claeren]

Most major hub airports are already ready for it or are starting modifications - so it is kind of mute point since they ware the only airports that will really deal with it, at least at first. In Canada, Vancouver is starting work for it and Montreal is ready for it. Not sure about Toronto...

I was under the impression the biggest problems were not jetways or runway length but luggage processing and passenger processing capacity, gate area passenger holding space, and in some circumstances the weight of the plane and the width of the plane.

I remember hearing the A380 can actually take off in a considerably shorter distance then most large planes...


Claeren.

[tjinaz]

The other worry is for inflight emergencies. If only the major airports are modified to handle the A380 what happens if there is trouble and they aren't close to a major airport. I realize the 747 had some problems with this for size but I believe the A380 is much heavier and even the prototype was significantly overweight.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Claeren@Jun 16 2005, 09:29 PM
so it is kind of mute point

moot?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Jun 16 2005, 04:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Jun 16 2005, 04:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Jun 16 2005, 09:29 PM
so it is kind of mute point

moot? [/b][/quote]
A moo point.. a Cows opinion.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+Jun 16 2005, 07:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ Jun 16 2005, 07:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

moot?

A moo point.. a Cows opinion. [/b][/quote]
might make their milk sour

[Claeren]

Thanks guys - appreciated! Where would i be without the spelling/grammer police?!




Claeren.