123 replies to this topic

[SkiBachelor]

I was listening to the radio this afternoon and heard that the new A380-555 can't fly anywhere here in North America because the runways arn't long enough. The longest one in North America is at the airport in Atlanta and it's still not long enough. Maybe European governments will have to start giving our airports money to expand the runways to make their investment pay off. :---:

[floridaskier]

Some bigwig at the Atlanta airport said that they wouldn't spend the money to A380-ify ATL. They would have to strengthen runways, widen taxiways, and build new gates to accomodate this beast. I think SFO and LAX are going to be ready for it, and maybe JFK too.

[Boeinglover]

Boeing has already finished the preliminary designs of the 747-A as they call it. Most airlines don't want to replace their 757s and 767s with this new 787. Airbus, however, is getting many orders for the A380 as their "most used" trans-continental airliner. Boeing's design for the 747-A is not going to fulfill the need for an airliner as huge as this. The 747-A is going to be roughly the size of a -400 and is going to be simply more techonologically advanced.
Regards,
Boeinglover
:)

[floridaskier]

I hear that they'll use the same famous basic design with the hump in front as on the 747-400, but the hump and the rest of the plane will be a little longer. It'll use the same engines as the 787 (I can't get used to that name yet) and be made of more composites too

[highspeedquad]

I must say that some of you know quite a bit about airplanes, definitely more than the average joe. For those interested, let me reccomend a website on airplanes. It's www.airliners.net. It has a forum, pictures, and a bunch of other stuff.

This post has been edited by highspeedquad: 06 February 2005 - 01:20 PM

[floridaskier]

Yep, I go there a lot too, but you have to pay to join the forums, and my parents won't let me :(

[highspeedquad]

I didn't know that. I have looked there too to just look at the various topics, much like I did here. Before I joined I used to just look at topics that interested me. There were some topics that I wanted to reply to because I knew what they were looking for, but now I can.

[iceberg210]

Quote

Most airlines don't want to replace their 757s and 767s with this new 787. Airbus, however, is getting many orders for the A380 as their "most used" trans-continental airline

The 7E7 has almost 200 orders and it is definatly being ordered by airlines to replace 767's and some 757's. ANA is using it for that as well as JAL, Ethiopian, Continental, Air New Zealand and others. Also the A-380 hasn't sold like hotcakes. It'll have about 150 orders by first flight the 7E7 has that and more before design freeze. Boeing is making the right choise here I think the 7E7 market is far bigger and more profitable then the A380 market ever will be.

This post has been edited by iceberg210: 06 February 2005 - 02:14 PM

[highspeedquad]

I agree, there is definitely a larger market for the 787 than the A380. The 787 can also replace Airbus A300, A310, and the oldest and smallest A330 and A340. The smallest of the two last ones hold about 250 each.

[floridaskier]

It was designed to replace the A300/A310, the first generation A340 (200 and 300 series) and the 767. It seems a little big for a 757 replacement, but it's supposed to be for that too

Airbus says the break-even point for the A380 project will be 200 planes, which they're not all that far from yet



I like Boeing's new house colors a whole lot better than the new Airbus ones, seen here on the A380

[highspeedquad]

It might indeed be a while until either of those planes flies here. The 787 isn't even in production, and isn't scheduled to enter service until 2008. I believe they have production slated to begin until 2006, but they have few things to do so I think they will start this year. The A380, on the other hand, is still in the certification phase, and it seems to take a while to build the planes. After that, the airports will have to spend $$$ to get a compatible runway. It said in the newspaper that Denver has a suitable runway, but it won't be used if nobody flies here with it. The only direct transcontinental route I'm aware of is Denver-London via British Airways, but other than that there appears to be no others. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[SkiBachelor]

What do you mean by transcontinental. When I was at SEATAC 2 years ago, there was a British Airways 747 leaving for London.

[floridaskier]

Transcontinental usually means all the way across the continent, such as New York - San Francisco or Fort Lauderdale - Seattle/Tacoma. I guess the right word might have been international or European

[highspeedquad]

I apologize, I did mean international, and out of Denver. There are indeed many international flights from coastal cities.

[poloxskier]

SkiBachelor, on Feb 5 2005, 05:50 PM, said:

I was listening to the radio this afternoon and heard that the new A380-555 can't fly anywhere here in North America because the runways arn't long enough. The longest one in North America is at the airport in Atlanta and it's still not long enough. Maybe European governments will have to start giving our airports money to expand the runways to make their investment pay off. :---:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whomever said that is misinformed. The US has the second and third longest runways in the world. JFK has the second longest and Colorado springs has the third longest and on average there are more long runways here than in Europe.

This post has been edited by poloxskier: 07 February 2005 - 01:25 PM

[floridaskier]

It's not runway length that's the problem. Any runway that can take a 777-300 or 747 or A340-600 can take an A380. It's the insane wingspan of this beast that's the problem. Terminal gate space has to be modified to handle it. If you park it at a regular widebody gate, you have to close off the two on either side of it. The same goes for taxiways. If an A380 is on a taxiway at an airport like JFK, for instance, the two taxiways to the side have to be temporarily closed down. The outside engines hang over the grass on some taxiways, so that area has to be paved so rocks and dirt don't get sucked into the engines. If a taxiway goes over a road, the bridge might have to be strengthened. All that adds up to a pretty big investment for an airport that might see one or two A380s a day.

[highspeedquad]

The runway also has to be strong enough to bear the weight.

[poloxskier]

Well gate spacing is a problem and DIA is modifiying at least one gate to accomidate the A380 and many of the newer runways especially at DIA and Colorado Springs are already able to accomidate the weight and wingspan. Many of the newer runways out west are already ready for it especially since many of them are designed out of military instalations. Both COS and DIA are touting their ability to accept A380s but I dont see a market for them to fly to colorado in the near future as there are only 2 or 3 flights to DIA per day served with 747s.

[poloxskier]

But these are the same problems that people were saying would make the 747 not be profitable and look where it is now.

[floridaskier]

They could be used as a diversion airport for A380s flying from Europe to SFO/LAX