joshwex90

On many websites, yes. Not all. And just because you or I may care doesn't mean most care. If they don't care, they're not looking.

Kremmen

Without saying what airport, this is meaningless. Pick an airport in the USA with no A380 service (i.e. most of them) and, sure, I'd expect nobody to know. Pick an airport in with plenty of A380 service and which has had lots of media coverage and advertising and I'd expect a very different result.

Also, random people in an airport is a poor sample. Lots of people only ever fly short distances and will never have a reason to care. I have friends who make one overseas trip a year or less. Because it's special and it's a long way, instead of ignoring details as they would on a 1 hour domestic flight, they take way more notice of what kind of plane, seats, etc. They might even discuss it with a travel agent, whereas they would just book a domestic flight online.

HMO

Some people has no idea what it means. Remember, a B737 or an A320 are very similar inside. Or not, because the airlines changes the decoration pattern, some has two class, others only one, etc.

Maybe distracted. Some people don't pay attention, and inside a jetway with no windows, there is no way to see the plane windows. And if you miss the plane stairs, the lower deck for both B747 and A380 can be very similar to a B777 for a no regular traveler...

ft101

I said there was a "good chance" that "any flyer" so your selective quote is misleading.

Any good educational establishment will have time to discuss such topics, be they local interest, current affairs, breaking news of national/international significance etc without them being a curriculum item. The A380 would come under such.

joshwex90

It was most certainly not a selective quote, but I apologize if you felt it was.

And I strongly disagree with your assertion regarding good education establishments. I doubt that there are many (if any) schools (save aviation schools) in the USA (as an example) that would spend any amount of time teaching about the A380. And if 1 such place does exist, I'm not sure it could be considered "good" through any appreciable measure.

But again, as I mentioned earlier, we are now beating a dead horse. Until you've PROVEN me otherwise with facts from Airbus, you're not going to convince me that any of this has relevance on the A380 bottom line, just as I'm not going to convince you. Only time will tell, and if Airbus does cancel the A380, they've invested so much time and money that I doubt they will ignore seemingly good reasons to NOT cancel the project.

ft101

I don't have any real knowledge of the "bottom line" so not in a position to argue one way or another.

My recent involvement in this thread was in response to claims of the general public not having an awareness of the A380 which I disagree with.

Teaching of the A380 is not the same as teaching about the A380, and it's unfortunate the education system you mention can't provide this knowledge to kids.

wco81

Um, in school I specifically recall current events materials on the 747, the Concorde, SSTs, etc.

DC777Fan

What are you basing that on? The number of orders? Do you have any idea how much Boeing spent on development vs program profit--whether it's in the black or red? Lots of cargo 747's will require replacement in the coming decades. What is going to replace them?

Sheikh Yerbooty

I appreciate this is a forum for people who's main affiliation with aviation is paying for the show, and that one should therefore not suspect a deep knowledge of how the show is actually being run. But, still, this is getting more than just a bit silly!

EK has taken delivery of 55 out of 140 aircraft currently on order. They have publicly been advising Airbus to go-ahead with the launch of the A380neo, to the extent of promising to replace their entire fleet of 140 A380 with the A380neo. As commitments goes, that's a pretty big one and fully explains why Sir Tim was a bit miffed.

No, they do not. EK are utilizing the space forward of the first doors on the upper-deck of the A380. This space cannot be used for passenger occupancy due to legislations (pax must have exits available both forward and aft of their seated positions), and the A380 operators have used it for other purposes in various ways. EK had showers installed.

Having showers installed in the 777 would take away revenue generating seats.


Airbus and Boeing both estimated a market of around 1500 airframes over a 20-year period, and both were calculating on capturing at least 50% of that market.

Boeing spent around 5BN on the -8, wringing the very last out of a 40-year old airframe (which, as it turned out, wasn't a whole lot over the -400), for a total of around 120 orders and is now facing the very real threat of imminent death. Airbus spent around 25BN on the A380 for 320 orders, and have an airframe that has plenty of room for development and growth. Not sure that would be considered a 'pittance' by any accountant.

On your second topic, Boeing has managed to take less than 30 orders for the -8I, vs the aforementioned 320 for the A380. That is indeed a year's worth of production, but as a strategy of offering a viable alternative to the A380 it's a pretty miserable failure.


Right. First off, GE are contractually bound from offering an engine for the A380 through their GP partnership with P&W. G ... P...., get the drift? That means the only supplier for an A380neo engine is RR, who are very much in the process of figuring out what such an engine should look like. RR, on the other hand, cannot supply an engine to the 747-8 as GE has a sole-supplier contract for that frame. Just like they have on the 777-200LR, -200F and -300ER. Besides, the donks hanging off the wings of a -8 are modified versions of the same engines powering the 787. As modern engines goes, it doesn't get much better than that. The problem with the -8 is not its engines, it's the A380.

See above. Boeing will never recoup the R&D costs sunk into the 747-8 program, simply because it was based on an inaccurate businessplan and the costs went wildly overboard. Airbus currently has the same problem, but has a future with the A380neo and A380-900.

As for the freighter, the future lies with the 77/F. The only problem with that aircraft, is that it's priced artificially high to protect the 747-8F. Once Boeing discontinues production, and switches to the 777X, the price and leasing terms for the 777F will become much more attractive.

I do appreciate there's a market for outsized freight, but keep in mind that the 777F actually has a larger main-deck door than the 747F and is able to load very long and bulky pieces. Outside of that, the market starts to become rather specialized, and is steadily shrinking in favor of other modes of transport. The remaining market is quite well covered by the existing fleet of 747Fs and An-124s. Boeing currently has 2 white-tailed 747-8F sitting in the desert, with another 2 coming off the line shortly. Sad to say, but the days of 747 production is nearing its end, and will probably see it's final days churning out a set of VC-25 replacements.

joshwex90

If legislation requires seats to have exit doors in front and behind, how does that work with the 744 in the nose?

Sheikh Yerbooty

Grandfather rights. The same thing that keeps the 737NG flying.

joshwex90

Do you know where I can find this legislation (is American, European, international agreement, etc.)? I'm curious - never heard of that before.
Thanks

Sheikh Yerbooty

There are two main certifying bodies, EASA (Europe) and FAA (USA). They have an agreement, whereby they recognize each others certification standards. Thus, an aircraft certified by the FAA will almost automatically also be certified by the EASA and vice versa.

In this case the 747 is certified by the FAA, and deep in the FARs I'm sure you can find the exact language pertaining to grandfather rights. I've no idea where exactly, it's enough for my job to know that they do exist and where they apply.

Not everything can be grandfathered; as an example the FAA would not certify a combi version of the 747-8 today.

relangford

So you think the USAF (read: White House) will go with a B747-8 over, say, a B787-9, to replace the VC-25s? Is a 4-engine double-decker better for the President than a more modern (read: fuel efficient) B787? I not asking to cause trouble, I just don't know why the 747 would be used (is there a practical/strategic reason?).

14940674

As I recall, the electrical equipment required for a "flying White House" uses more electricity than a twinjet can generate.