I Do Believe Our Cheek Was Just Slapped

[Bruzilla]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050118/1/3pxh8.html

So, the Eurotrash types are talking smack about the United States because they rolled out this rolling monstrosity? An over-sized airplane that was built by a company that's heavilly subsidized by various governments, and that is being bought mostly by airlines that are also heavilly subsidized by their governments? I think that since all of those European leaders chose to turn this roll-out into an attack on US politics and Boeing, maybe we should offer up some payback.

This plane was built mostly with Euros ponied up by European governments, which means they are as much at risk as Airbus Industries. Also, it looks like most of the airlines that are buying it are state-sponsored operations. Lastly, while they're saying that a lot of planes are "sold", more likely is that options on those planes have been sold and options are not money in the bank.

What I noticed on the picture of that plane is that the only US buyers look to be UPS and FedEx. I think we need to start asking executives of these companies why they are buying from Airbus and not Boeing, especially when the Europeans are being so blatantly anti-American? Especially when an 800-person airliner only has one real purpose... flying people to and from America. If UPS and FedEx were to back out on their options, the only way that Airbus and those governments could make back their money would be to sell more planes to themselves, which is just as bad as the direct loss.

I think we should all write to UPS, FedEx, and any other US company looking at this turkey and ask why they can't buy American and support Boeing?

 

[FromTexas]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050118/1/3pxh8.html

So, the Eurotrash types are talking smack about the United States because they rolled out this rolling monstrosity? An over-sized airplane that was built by a company that's heavilly subsidized by various governments, and that is being bought mostly by airlines that are also heavilly subsidized by their governments? I think that since all of those European leaders chose to turn this roll-out into an attack on US politics and Boeing, maybe we should offer up some payback.

This plane was built mostly with Euros ponied up by European governments, which means they are as much at risk as Airbus Industries. Also, it looks like most of the airlines that are buying it are state-sponsored operations. Lastly, while they're saying that a lot of planes are "sold", more likely is that options on those planes have been sold and options are not money in the bank.

What I noticed on the picture of that plane is that the only US buyers look to be UPS and FedEx. I think we need to start asking executives of these companies why they are buying from Airbus and not Boeing, especially when the Europeans are being so blatantly anti-American? Especially when an 800-person airliner only has one real purpose... flying people to and from America. If UPS and FedEx were to back out on their options, the only way that Airbus and those governments could make back their money would be to sell more planes to themselves, which is just as bad as the direct loss.

I think we should all write to UPS, FedEx, and any other US company looking at this turkey and ask why they can't buy American and support Boeing?

Because Boeings entry into this new market has so far been a failure. Of course, Boeing doesn't get its commercial aircraft business subsidized by multiple governments.

Kudos to them. It is a nice plane (if it does everything they say it will).

 

[crabcake]

Politics aside, it appears to make business sense to fly more people trans-atlantic on one plane vs. 5. :shrug:

 

[poppy_excite]

I guess it depends which cheek they slapped, whether we should take offense or not. Some might enjoy that sort of thing.

 

[Bruzilla]

Politics aside, it appears to make business sense to fly more people trans-atlantic on one plane vs. 5. :shrug:

Actually it'll be mostly trans-Pacific flights, but the argument is the same. I think this plane is going to flop partly because of the point you just made. People will have one flight for every three or four now available. That means fewer flights, which means less flexibility for travellers. Basically, you'll need to fly when the airlines feel it's convenient. That's been tried before, and the airlines learned that it's better to have happy customers on half-filled planes than unhappy customers on a filled plane. The cost per passenger mile for these planes is going to be very high, especially at first, and there isn't going to be much flexibility allowed when it comes to passenger flow. And since so much international travel is business travelers, these folks want to go out at the earliest time that's convenient for them. So, do they wait for the one Airbus departure or go out on another airline flying the Boeing 777 that's leaving three hours earlier?

The other issue is that airlines, who aren't subsidized by the governments that also subsidize Airbus, are going with smaller, cheaper, more flexible planes rather than huge carriers like this one. That way they can use them on mid-range and long-range flights, which allows them to be more responsive to changing markets.

Boeing didn't seem to put a lot of effort into pushing their Dreamliner, and you have to wonder why? I think it's because they knew they couldn't compete with Airbus as they're subsidized by the governments and they can't sell to European airlines. Also, I think they see, better than Airbus, that there really wasn't a need for a plane with that much capacity.

 

[ylexot]

This jet has a fatal flaw...it's too big to go to most airports. The 747 has the biggest span you can get into the majority of airports. This thing's span is 50ft bigger! One of my coworkers said that LAX is making some changes to be able to accomodate it, but don't expect many to do that. Not many airports=not many planes.

 

[SmallTown]

This jet has a fatal flaw...it's too big to go to most airports. The 747 has the biggest span you can get into the majority of airports. This thing's span is 50ft bigger! One of my coworkers said that LAX is making some changes to be able to accomodate it, but don't expect many to do that. Not many airports=not many planes.

From an article last year:

As many as 14 US airports are preparing to accommodate the A380, including New York's John F Kennedy, which has embraced the megajet as a means to ease congested air traffic and reduce noise pollution with its quieter engines.

"We need to adjust not by adding flights but by adding bigger aircraft," said Pasquale DiFulco, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

 

[FromTexas]

When the Mirage starts making a comeback and outclassing the Hornet, then I will start to worry about French aircraft engineering.

 

[Ponytail]

This jet has a fatal flaw...it's too big to go to most airports. The 747 has the biggest span you can get into the majority of airports. This thing's span is 50ft bigger! One of my coworkers said that LAX is making some changes to be able to accomodate it, but don't expect many to do that. Not many airports=not many planes.

DING DING DING DING!!!!

Boeing scrapped their plans for an A380 competitor YEARS ago, based on trade studies and industry based research.

Boeings Dreamliner (7E7) is meant as a replacement to the 747 line. It is a MUCH more efficient model that will still be able to do transcontinental flights and will not be limited by the size of the airport.

There is still MUCH testing required on the A380. It is a gorgeous plane, and an amazing concept considering the language barriers that had to be overcome due to the vast amount of contract companies in various countries that played a part in it's assembly. There were an aweful lot of folks that said that it could not be done when the concept was first announced a few short years ago. It still needs to be proven.

FedEx and UPS are buying it, or at least interested in it, due to the ability to carry much more cargo than the currently available planes. They're interest primarily lies in transcontinental cargo to/from certain hubs, then smaller planes and the usual trucks will take it from there. They can carry more cargo with fewer flights/planes which means fewer paid pilots and other support personel, fewer airport fees...

It will be neat to see how it all pans out. If the plane proves itself, it will turn into the attention getter that the 747 once was. I remember as a kid, seeing the 747 flying into Philly International was just an amazing sight. I used to sit out at the end of the runway with my parents as they were coming in for landings. Those things were HUGE, and just awesome to see, seeming to just float.

 

[Ponytail]

Doing a little research...
According to the Wall Street Journal, Aribus has sold 149 A380's based solely on promises of high efficiency, performance, and computer generated pictures. They need to sell 250 to break even.

The price tag on these monsters is $280 million (US) but the airline companies normally get a discount on that price. China Airlines may be purchasing 5 of them soon.

The rollout consisted of 5,000 people, that were hand selected by Airbus authorities, and the event was worked by Airbus employees. It was meant to do nothing more than to drum up excitement to drive us common folks to push the airlines into believing that the A380 is a necessity, and not just a nice-ity. Airbus spent several million on the rollout event.

Seems to me that even the Airbus folks aren't sure if the A380 program will fly.

 

[Lenny]

My mind flashes on the Titanic http://www.angryalien.com/0604/titanicbunnies.html and the Hindenburg. I hope this thing flies and that it avoids it's inevitable disaster for many years.

I don't think Aeroflot did well with its monster airliner. I believe the Boeing 747 has remained profitable only by flying well beyond its projected life expectancy and by the infrequent/packed to the gills flights so miserable between Narita (Japan) and DFW (Texas) or O'Hare (Illinois).

 

[SamSpade]

I'm not concerned. Boeing makes the best planes, and is heavily involved in all kinds of air travel, especially air freight. Last time Europe patted themselves on making the biggest something, it sank in the Northern Atlantic on its first voyage.

Wasn't the Concorde supposed to wipe out the 747?

 

[Llwynog]

Politics aside, it appears to make business sense to fly more people trans-atlantic on one plane vs. 5. :shrug:

And that many more people can die in one accident. I think my pessimistic side needs to be subdued. It's getting a little cheeky.

 

[Larry Gude]

Good for Airbus...

...it'll give the assorted freaks, asshats and various wannabes something to shoot at that, for once, ain't American, the 'great Satan'.

Look dimwits: Your world view is losing SO bad that EVEN the Europeans, including the FRENCH for heavens sake, are succeeding globaly!

You should feel really bad and really dumb about that.

Then, when one falls out of the sky with 800 souls onboard because of 'faulty electric wiring' or one crashes into the Eifel Tower, then the Europeans can admit they were wrong and say they're sorry.

 

[Ponytail]

Boeing didn't stop producing 747's after Lockerbie, or after that one that exploded over long Island in 2002, or a dozen or so other catastrphies that involved 747's in between.

The A380 is here to stay. It will just never be as big a seller as the 747 due to the limited # of airports that can accept it. There are about 50 airports wolrdwide that have plans for expansion for this bird. Some have already prepared for it such as the new terminal at the Toronto airport.

Other airports just can't expand anymore, at least, not without leveling neighborhoods. And I know, that Philly International and a little town of Lester have been battling this for years.

You will never here France or any part of the European union apologize for anything. It's a huge airplane. There is a small nitch for it. The only question is whether or not it will be profitable for Airbus.

 

[Frank]

The A380 is here to stay. It will just never be as big a seller as the 747 due to the limited # of airports that can accept it. There are about 50 airports wolrdwide that have plans for expansion for this bird. Some have already prepared for it such as the new terminal at the Toronto airport.

According to Rush, the EU is strong-arming Thailand to buy *6* of these things, or else face tariffs on their commercial fishing. So much for tsunami relief! These things cost about a quarter billion apiece.

 

[Vince]

When the Mirage starts making a comeback and outclassing the Hornet, then I will start to worry about French aircraft engineering.

Mirage outclassing the Hornet?

 

[Railroad]

I hope the 380 is a total failure.

I enjoyed Boeing's marketing efforts for the 7E7. I answered their surveys about creature comforts and the like, so I was a member of their "worldwide design team" (just a hokey fan club, but what the heck). Got a way cool 7E7 screensaver out of it.