Official: Britain out of Airbus

Naval History and the Technology associated with it.

Moderators: Timmy C, Gernot, Olaf Held, JWintjes

Post Reply
ModelMonkey
Model Monkey
Model Monkey
Posts: 4118
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:27 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by ModelMonkey »

Werner wrote:Incidentally, the record of 1088 passengers is currently held by an El-Al B747.
Yes and the lines to the loo were nearly comparable the aircraft's wingspan.
JPH wrote:The next USAF Air Mobility Command jets to replace the current VC-25's (the two air force one 747-200's) will be the soon to be released Boeing 748i's. However the A380F does stand a better chance of being the replacement for the ageing C-5 Galaxy Heavy lifts. Although in my humble opinion this to will remain American with the C-5 remaining after extensive refit or Boeing 748F's getting the go ahead.
The C-5 fleet is said to be seriously challenged due to age-related mechanical problems. It seems that we are flying those planes to death and the acquisition of the C-17 has been extremely helpful in that regard.

My last experience on a C-5 (back in 2002) included an unscheduled jet fuel hemorrhage into the cargo bay which resulted in an emergency evacuation of the aircraft prior to take-off. The overpowering smell and sight of a large quantity of fuel was sufficient to motivate people to exit quickly. The aircraft sent to replace it suffered a bird-strike on the windscreen during landing so it too sat on the tarmac waiting a replacement. No other aircraft were available so we waited in a troop terminal in Savannah for 6 days until a third C-5 could be sent. The final replacement aircraft did indeed carry us from Savannah, Georgia to Diego Garcia on the other side of the planet safely and reasonably comfortably without mechanical problems.

For those who might be interested, passengers on a C-5 don't ride in the bay; there is a large passenger compartment above the bay at the trailing edge of the wing. The seats face aft. There are few windows and it's darn loud up there.

On a C-17, passengers do ride in the bay.
Have fun, Monkey around. TM

-Steve L.

Complete catalog: - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Follow Model Monkey™ on Facebook: - https://www.facebook.com/modelmonkeybookandhobby
Guest

Post by Guest »

JPH wrote: However the A380F does stand a better chance of being the replacement for the ageing C-5 Galaxy Heavy lifts.

Interesting times. :thumbs_up_1:

Unlikely. Unless they were to be so completely redesigned that they will bear no resemblance whatsoever to their namesake, A380F and any B-747 derivative will all lack the following features considered essential to any self-respecting military transport:

1.Special load distributing undercarriage to operate off of low grade run ways and hard dirt surface

2. High lift, rather than high fuel efficiency, wings for the purposes of landing and taking off where commercial length runways are unavailable

3. Low cargo floor height for compatibility with numerous battlefield load management equipment.

They can be used only as far-behind-frontline transport. In no way can they replace the likes of a C-5.
User avatar
JPH
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:28 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by JPH »

Anonymous wrote:
JPH wrote: However the A380F does stand a better chance of being the replacement for the ageing C-5 Galaxy Heavy lifts.

Interesting times. :thumbs_up_1:

Unlikely. Unless they were to be so completely redesigned that they will bear no resemblance whatsoever to their namesake, A380F and any B-747 derivative will all lack the following features considered essential to any self-respecting military transport:

1.Special load distributing undercarriage to operate off of low grade run ways and hard dirt surface

2. High lift, rather than high fuel efficiency, wings for the purposes of landing and taking off where commercial length runways are unavailable

3. Low cargo floor height for compatibility with numerous battlefield load management equipment.

They can be used only as far-behind-frontline transport. In no way can they replace the likes of a C-5.
Agreed!

I should have included in then qualified my statement to read 'only if'. :smallsmile:
User avatar
Werner
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Location: (42.24,-87.81)

Post by Werner »

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7108146.stm

As I predicted a few pages back, Airbus is preparing to use the US economy as an excuse to "deep-six" the costly mistakes of the A380 and (more important) A350. I am not saying production will cease, don't get me wrong on that. What I am saying is that they will use the economic conditions to "write-off" the government-owned debts associated with both new aircraft. Once this is done, both planes will essentially be at the financial "break-even point", and they can ruthlessly cut prices to undercut Boeing, perhaps putting it out of the airliner business.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
User avatar
Dave Wooley
Posts: 4131
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:18 am
Location: Liverpool

Post by Dave Wooley »

Werner wrote:http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7108146.stm

As I predicted a few pages back, Airbus is preparing to use the US economy as an excuse to "deep-six" the costly mistakes of the A380 and (more important) A350. I am not saying production will cease, don't get me wrong on that. What I am saying is that they will use the economic conditions to "write-off" the government-owned debts associated with both new aircraft. Once this is done, both planes will essentially be at the financial "break-even point", and they can ruthlessly cut prices to undercut Boeing, perhaps putting it out of the airliner business.
First Airlines have to convince the flying public that this behemoth is the way to go, some how I think the public are fed up with being treated like cattle , more bums on seats more congestion at checkins not a very good selling point .
Dave Wooley
User avatar
Timmy C
Posts: 12472
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Post by Timmy C »

I know many who are willing (and do) put cheap airfare above comfort. Not that I'm saying A380 will make it cheaper for the passengers - I know nothing regarding the cost benefits/harm that show up on the airfare due to the aquisition of said aircraft.
De quoi s'agit-il?
User avatar
Werner
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Location: (42.24,-87.81)

Post by Werner »

If CO2 rules are imposed on aviation, you may not have a choice on the kind of plane you fly, how big the seat or how many stops.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
User avatar
Dave Wooley
Posts: 4131
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:18 am
Location: Liverpool

Post by Dave Wooley »

Werner wrote:If CO2 rules are imposed on aviation, you may not have a choice on the kind of plane you fly, how big the seat or how many stops.
Sadly this may well be true . High speed transatlantic sea travel is the answer. If my memory serves me correct did the SS United States make the crossing in slightly over 72hours . Well it may be possible to go a little faster and with more comfort . I'm for the SS United States bring it out of retirement. :surfer: :surfer: :thumbs_up_1:
Dave Wooley
Tracy White
Posts: 10628
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Location: EG48
Contact:

Post by Tracy White »

As an aside, I've a couple friends working the Dreamliner project and had lunch with them last weekend. They couldn't say much, but one thing they did mention was that the original plan was for the Everett assembly plant to handle no more than 1,500 "parts," and by that they mean assemblies. So an engine is a part in that definition.

They are now handling over 18,000 due to supplier problems and having to bring so much back in-house, something the rank and file raised warning flags on (I remember this discussion when the program was starting). Apparently Vought is one of the bigger problems, Boeing assigned a VP just to bird-dog Vought's work and products.

With a lot of the suppliers Boeing gave them the authority to design the parts, not realizing that these suppliers then went and subcontracted the work out, making things a royal mess.

The Vought and later parts were from a couple of recent AW&ST articles.
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman
User avatar
Werner
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Location: (42.24,-87.81)

Post by Werner »

In other words, they've been hung out to dry by the recent trend in American business management to wring out every possible profit from an arrangement, while divorcing itself from responsibility?

Perhaps the industry ought to "take names" for the top 1,000 Vought executives, and make sure they never work again, instead of being rewarded for this exercise with bonus and promotion.

Too many American businesses have been taken over by the Ferengi.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
User avatar
Dave Wooley
Posts: 4131
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:18 am
Location: Liverpool

Post by Dave Wooley »

Werner wrote:In other words, they've been hung out to dry by the recent trend in American business management to wring out every possible profit from an arrangement, while divorcing itself from responsibility?

Perhaps the industry ought to "take names" for the top 1,000 Vought executives, and make sure they never work again, instead of being rewarded for this exercise with bonus and promotion.

Too many American businesses have been taken over by the Ferengi.
What is going wrong with industry, I read almost daily of obscene severance payments bing made to top executives , not as a reward for success but failure. :mad_1:
Dave Wooley
JoeA
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:28 am
Location: Geneva

Post by JoeA »

Dave Wooley wrote:
Werner wrote:If CO2 rules are imposed on aviation, you may not have a choice on the kind of plane you fly, how big the seat or how many stops.
Sadly this may well be true . High speed transatlantic sea travel is the answer. If my memory serves me correct did the SS United States make the crossing in slightly over 72hours . Well it may be possible to go a little faster and with more comfort . I'm for the SS United States bring it out of retirement. :surfer: :surfer: :thumbs_up_1:
Dave Wooley
Sorry that's nonsense. If it's a question of CO2, how much fuel to make a high speed sea crossing in a big ship?? I'd have to lose 6 days of my vacation time (maybe more counting a train ride if we're being consistent) just to see my folks in Vancouver? I am an ex-pat in Europe btw.
User avatar
JPH
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:28 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by JPH »

Dave Wooley wrote:
Werner wrote:http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7108146.stm

As I predicted a few pages back, Airbus is preparing to use the US economy as an excuse to "deep-six" the costly mistakes of the A380 and (more important) A350. I am not saying production will cease, don't get me wrong on that. What I am saying is that they will use the economic conditions to "write-off" the government-owned debts associated with both new aircraft. Once this is done, both planes will essentially be at the financial "break-even point", and they can ruthlessly cut prices to undercut Boeing, perhaps putting it out of the airliner business.
First Airlines have to convince the flying public that this behemoth is the way to go, some how I think the public are fed up with being treated like cattle , more bums on seats more congestion at checkins not a very good selling point .
Dave Wooley
I agree, but at the moment all the airlines that have orderied the A380, including SQ (Singapore Airlines) who are now flying it, have not or will not for the foreseable future, be packing it full of seats. At present the A380-800 is rated for 800 odd passengers however, approx 500 +- is the set seat count for the airlines that have ordered it. This ofcourse may change once the low cost carriers get their hands on it. As it stands at present the reports coming from passengers on SQ's A380 have been extremely favourable in terms of comfort, cabin asthetics & noise levels. No complaints regarding space. I will be able to tell you how it is next week as I will be heading to Singapore for 5 days. One thing is for sure & that is she is quiet. I was out at Sydney international airport on Saturday morning doing a bit of spotting & this thing is damned quiet. Definately on par if not a little more quiet than than the beautifull Boeing 777-300ER's with the GE-115's.
User avatar
Werner
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Location: (42.24,-87.81)

Post by Werner »

JPH, how financially does that make sense to the airline? When oil was $50 a barrel, the 787 and a fully loaded 380 were about even in costs per passenger mile. Now with oil at $100, the 787 is substantially less expensive to operate. If the 380 is 2/3 full, the prices go through the ceiling. Even the 747-8 becomes less expensive under these conditions.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
User avatar
JPH
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:28 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by JPH »

How does it make finacial sense to an airline ????

Cost per seat per mile was the big selling point of the A380. IMO, I would think that the A380 will be utilised less often, but with the hope of having it packed solid of pax. You are correct about the 747-8 possibly becoming less expensive to operate under the current economic conditions surrounding oil. Maybe this is the reason Lufthansa are looking at taking up the rest of their options on the 747-8. Also, all the airlines that have ordered ithe A380 including SQ, have/will incorporate more F & J (first/Bus) premium seats. This is where the money is & there are plenty of people willing to pay for the privilage. SQ A380 has 68 or so Business & 12 First class sleepers. For the SIN-SYD + return route your looking at approx A$5000 for Business. Include First at approx A$10000 & you are looking at approx A$460,000 just for the premium seats. They fill these seats more often than you would think.

Whilst I am an aviation enthusiast & part time pilot (hold my PPL) I do not have my mind fully around the financials the airlines are indicating they plan to use for A380 flight ops. Suffice it to say it leaves a few people scratching their heads. However, you will fing that most airlines will be operting the A380, 787/A350 in concert so as to spread the financial load across a wider field. This is another area were they will cut costs.

If you haven't already, check out http://www.airliners.net . The absolute best source of all commercial aviation knowledge on the net.

Anyway, this is the ranting of a tired man. I'm off for a good nights sleep. :thumbs_up_1:
ar

Post by ar »

For anybody who is interested, there is an in-depth article on the problems with the 787 in todays Wall St Journal. December 7th.
Would be interested in comments.
User avatar
Werner
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Location: (42.24,-87.81)

Post by Werner »

ar wrote:For anybody who is interested, there is an in-depth article on the problems with the 787 in todays Wall St Journal. December 7th.
Would be interested in comments.
The 787 is the first real push in commercial aviation technology since 1960. The A380 is probably the very finest example of current technology. It is delayed by damning incompetence in management. The 787 contains substantial new (and largely unproven) technology, some of which our friends who make resin ships would understand. It is delayed by exposure to unknowns in a "new horizons" project.

The only other plane made along the lines of the 787 is the Beech Starship. The dimensions of the major parts varied up 10% due to mold shrinkage over the production life. I wonder if Boeing knew this when they started the 7E7 project....
The composite fuselage mold shrank 1/50th of an inch each time it went through the thermal cycle in the autoclave. Had this rate continued, the 1,000th Starship would have been 20 inches shorter than the first.
Another interesting variable is raw material cost. Aluminum costs Boeing $4 a pound; composites cost $20-25 a pound.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
ar

Post by ar »

Have a read of it, and then gat back to us. Admitted mismanagement on their part. Boeing say only a six months delay. I doubt it very much.
But please read the thing. I found it interesting.
User avatar
Werner
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Location: (42.24,-87.81)

Post by Werner »

ar wrote:Have a read of it, and then gat back to us. Admitted mismanagement on their part. Boeing say only a six months delay. I doubt it very much.
But please read the thing. I found it interesting.
Would you kindly post the URL, M'lord?
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)
ar

Post by ar »

Regret to tell you that I have no idea what it is.
Post Reply

Return to “History & Technology”