Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Building the A380 390

Posted by chrisd from the i'll-take-two dept.
Gavinsblog writes "The Independent has a report on the construction of the Airbus A380. Amazingly, a ship is being custom-built to ferry parts for assembly, a custom fleet of trucks are also to be used - with roads widened to suit. Oh and the assembly building is the size of two soccer pitches, and the height of an olympic swimming pool."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Building the A380 More

Building the A380

Comments Filter:

  • Useless size comparisons part 1 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:09AM (#5359903)
    and the height of an olympic swimming pool.

    Last time I checked, olympic swimming pools weren't very high. In fact, they actually went down into the floor.

  • Popular Front for the Liberation of Europe (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:14AM (#5359917)
    We gave you the mobile phone, and now the world's biggest/best passenger plane. So what have the Americans ever done for us?

  • What about Customs? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SerpentMage ( 13390 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:15AM (#5359921)
    Ok the plane is big and the people have to herded in. BUT, imagine like how planes are routed along certain times the amount of traffic at customs?

    HOLY MOLY! In the mornings (Europe) or afternoons (America) there is going to be a whole slew of people moving through customs. Make the security checks look like a walk in the park....

    • Re:What about Customs? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Quarters ( 18322 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:46AM (#5360010)
      Read the last paragraph of the article, it is pretty telling. Airbus expects the majority of the orders for the A380 to go to Pacific rim carriers. The same carriers that use 747s for all flights all day long now. In that market it is well suited. (hundreds of people flying 8-12 hours on average, most all flights direct). For trans-Atlantic flights it is overkill.

      A (non Concorde) flight from NY to Heathrow takes just about as long as a flight from NY to LA. The only really long flight out of the US is LA to Hawaii, but there's not enough demand on that route to make replacing 747s with A380s feasible.

      There's also the problem of airport infrastructure. an 80m wide double decker airplane will have a very hard time fitting into any gate spot in an airport anywhere in the world, currently. The only exception I can think of is Hong Kong's Kai Tak airport. It is so new that they might have engineered it with larger gate spots to accomodate future aircraft. Airport infrastructre is actually a pretty large design factor in new airframe development. Airbus is pushing the envelope with something as big as the A380. Airbus even offers documentation on airport planning for A380 accomodation. [airbus.com]

      Part of airport planning is passenger flow. That's a big issue with the A380. How do you get 555 people off of an airplane quickly? The standard one or two Jetway gate isn't going to work. If I remember correctly, the A380 has fourteen extis, eight on the main deck (four per side) and six on the upper deck (three per side). The rear most doors are father back along the aircraft than any current jetway system can reach. To really use an A380, airlines are going to have to pay to get their airport concourses upgraded. Not something they will do lightly. Not something I expect to see them do in the US.

      The infrastructure changes are what is giving most carriers cold feet with regards to the A380. It'll be very hard to run numbers that show upgrading to the A380 will be cost effective in a reasonable time-line, imho. Pacific rim carriers have the best chances of making it work. Now the question is whether or not they're interested.

      • This is where the 2000 opening of San Francisco International Airport's (SFO) new International Terminal has proved to be much more visionary than people think.

        Because the terminal was built in the late 1990's when what was then the Airbus A3XX project was well-advanced, the architects of the new terminal were able to design gates at the end of Concourses A and G (the two concourses that are the International gates) to conform to the 80 x 80 meter (262 x 262 feet) standard for parking gate space used by the A380. Even the Federal Inspection Service (Customs and Immigration) areas were expanded so they could easily accommodate the influx of 500+ passengers per plane. A recent US General Accounting Office (GAO) report on accommodating larger airliners at US airports notes that SFO only needs to spend about US$70 million to make the airport fully A380-compatible, with the primary cost being runway exit ramp widening to accommodate the wider stance of the A380.

        In short, once the A380 starts its flight testing phase don't be surprised that the plane is a fairly frequent visitor to SFO because SFO could be used as a reference standard for A380 airport compatibility.

      • There's also the problem of airport infrastructure. an 80m wide double decker airplane will have a very hard time fitting into any gate spot in an airport anywhere in the world, currently. The only exception I can think of is Hong Kong's Kai Tak airport. It is so new that they might have engineered it with larger gate spots to accomodate future aircraft

        Actually, the poster meant to say Hong Kong's International Airport at Chek Lap Kok which replaced Kai Tak in 1998. Although, Kai Tak may have been able to handle the new planes, since most aircraft never pulled up to the terminal. Even in 1998 the planes would park on the tarmac, mobile stairs would pull up to the doors, and a bus would take people to/from the terminal.

        Obligatory Links:

        Governmental web page on the history of Kai Tak. [info.gov.hk]

        Chek Lap Kok's airport guide in English. [hkairport.com]

  • Re Measurement Units (Score:5, Funny)

    by jot445 ( 637326 ) <jot@445COFFEEpm.com minus caffeine> on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:20AM (#5359932) Journal
    Who measures things in soccer pitches olympic swimming pools? What sort of standards are these? I was just getting used to meters, had a basic understanding of fathoms, and had heard of rods, but what the heck are these new units?
    30M ~= 1 olympic size swimming pool?, so is it 60 meters tall? ~190 feet tall?

    And just how long exactly is a soccor (soccer!) pitch (field!). My reports show between 100 and 130 yards (Arph! yet another measurement!).

    Let's all get together and use either metric or english systems please. Your preference, I don't care because I can translate easily enough between those two.

    ADVENTUR>You are in a maze of twisty little passages.
    • This is slashdot, so we use american standards like "Library of Congress" and "Swimming Pool".
      • And of course, the standard unit of American measurement, "As long as XX football fields".

        I've been to one live football game in my life. But then again I don't live in the US.

        Maybe if they measured in hockey rinks? ;P

        N.

    • Re:Re Measurement Units (Score:5, Funny)

      by BabyDave ( 575083 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:29AM (#5359959)
      • <pedantry>Olympic pools are 50m</pedantry>
      • Two Association Football pitches is an area of roughly 1 hectare (100m x 100m)
      • My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
    • I just want to know how many aardvarks and Tasmanian Devils that works out to be.

      KFG
    • Silly poncy Europeans. Everybody knows that here in civilization, we measure things in Neutral Buoyancy Labs [nasa.gov]. The interesting thing is, the derivative unit for pressure (asston per square Neutral Buoyancy Lab) is, at unity, pretty close to atmospheric pressure.

      Furlongs per fortnight...gimme a break.

    • Metric IS English (Score:3, Informative)

      by evilandi ( 2800 )
      jot455: metric or english

      Metric IS English.

      You can't argue with me on this one; I am English. Top trumps.

      England, part of the United Kingdom, has been metric since the 1970's and before, with the exception of road signs and beer.

    • NASA (Score:3, Funny)

      by giminy ( 94188 )
      You're right, and I can see the headline now:

      NASA Probe Lost:
      Scientists forget to convert football fields to ice hockey rinks

      You're right, we should standardize on our field measurements. I suggest we use the current world record for the discus toss, since the Greeks are sort of the father of sports and that's probably the most famous of them all. Now if only I knew how far that was...

  • Emergency ejector pods? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FeatureBug ( 158235 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:22AM (#5359940)

    It's bad enough when an ordinary jumbo jet goes down with 400 or so poor souls on board but I wonder about the terrible day when an Airbug A380 carrying 1000+ people crashes. Ok, the accident statistics are reassuring for individual travellers. But 1000-1300people... That's too many people to lose. Since this is a new plane design, I wondered whether it would really cost much more to design in some sort of emergency airframe ejector style equipment to be triggered by the pilot if the plane is known to be going down. May be 20 groups of 50 or so passengers along sections of the plane would be ejected in separate pods with either huge pod parachutes or powered pod engines.

    • Nobody cares about a few hundred people dying every day in various road accidents ... but when 20 people die at the same time in the same place, it's a big thing. Quite absurd. What's the freakin' difference between 1000 people dying in four plane crashes each year rather than 1000 people dying in two crashes of bigger planes?
    • Please either read the article or read some pages on Airbus' site. The A380 carries 555 passengers. That's max capacity. That number can go down, depending on the cabin layout a carrier picks.
    • The report is that it's only supposed to carry about 500 passengers.

      In any case, the problem with escape pods on an aircraft is the same as with any new craft: weight. You have to deal with weight, and as it is they're still having quite a time keeping it under the requirements. 560 metric tons appears to be a max takeoff weight, so probably knock the plane's tare weight down to 500t to accomodate fuel and passenger weight. No, I don't know where they're going to get 60t of fuel, passengers, or luggage. (Perhaps somebody could give insight as to how much jetfuel would weigh and adjust accordingly?)

      • OK, let's make up some numbers and pretend they mean something ...

        Your 'average' passenger weighs ... say 60kg. (That's 130lb or 9st 4lb - assume quite a few kids are lowering the average) Allow 40kg for luggage (which is a lot, but it's a huge plane, so whatever), so that's 100kg per passenger. 550 passengers = 5.5t for passengers & luggage.

        That leaves 54.5t for fuel. Kerosene has a density of 0.8g/cm^3, or 0.8kg/litre. 54 500kg therefore is 68 125 litres, or around 15 000 gallons of fuel.

        A 747 holds about 52 000 gal, or 154t of fuel (and yes, I'm aware that they don't convert properly - I'm referring to two different Google hits ...)

    • Actually, this was an issue in the 50's as we brought the age of jets to the commercial world. the 707 was huge and soooo many ppl would die. Next was the 747. Everybody spole about the fact that 300 souls would die in a crash. At the time, nobody even imagined a canary island (2 747's). Now, ppl are conerned about a double decker carrying upwards of 1000. They will get over it soon as the airlines will have extra seats to spread out on.
      2 questions for those who worry about this:
      1. What is the safest form of transportation? Biggest aircraft, possible (747, 777, and 767).
      2. If any jet crashes, what are your chances of living? (next to zero).
      IOW, don't sweat it.

  • Am I the only that thought this sounde wierd? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rhinobird ( 151521 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:23AM (#5359942) Homepage
    When I first read th title it sounded strange that IBM had to build a new ship to manufacture a new computer.

    But now that I've read the article, I see it's about building airplanes. However I thinks it's kind of amusing that the airplane parts get thier own rest stops on the highway.
    • I also find it bizarre that they would construct special rest stops along the French highway so that the convoy could rest overnight on their 3-day journey.

      Wouldn't it be cheaper and more efficient just to pay some overtime and have the drivers drive in shifts, 24/7, until the trip is complete? They'd just stop the convoy for a few minutes while changing drivers. No need for the expense, and the security issues, of building a dedicated rest stop.

      But European rest stops are cool. Maybe it would be a good idea to waste the money to build more of them!

  • That's nothing... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:28AM (#5359954) Homepage Journal
    Hopefully it'll have custom jumbo-size seats to accomodate today's wider, fatter traveller!

  • See a picture of the complex here (Score:5, Informative)

    by DirkDaring ( 91233 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:28AM (#5359955)
    http://www.airbus.com/airbus4u/photo_album.asp
    • It's a very cool place. I visited a few years back and stood on an overhead walkway above a couple of the half-built planes. They looked like toys from that height. You can see from the picture that the building's supporting framework is on the outside.

      Also, there is a Concorde in the front yard. Not having been "lucky" enough to fly on the thing, it was my first time seeing it. They're amazingly small.

      The whole project struck me as insanely inefficient, though. Parts are manufactured all the hell over the place, purely for the purposes of making different governments "feel good". Special trucks are the least of the oddities; the first thing the consortium had to build was a fleet of special guppy planes to hall aircraft parts from Germany, England and Spain into Toulouse. I can't imagine that this is at all cost-effective, and I wonder whether they'd survive without generous gov't assistance (of course, you could easily say the same thing about Boeing, given their huge defence business.)

  • Big plane bits (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FTL ( 112112 ) <slashdot@neil.frase[ ]ame ['r.n' in gap]> on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:29AM (#5359957) Homepage
    The article (if you've read it) vividly describes the pain involved in moving plane parts around on the ground. Once they are assembled, there's no problem at all, because the plane flies away.

    This raises the interesting question of what happens when a large plane is damaged at a smaller airport. Somewhere like Gatwick. As far as I can see, they've only got two options: a) repair the plane with the limited facilities available or b) chop it up and remove it as scrap metal.

    Does anyone have stories to tell about planes that landed too hard, and had to be scrapped because repairs couldn't be carried out on the spot?

    • Re:Big plane bits (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @10:13AM (#5360073)
      The Afghanistan aircraft that was held hostage a couple of years ago and flown to the UK, before the hostage takers gave themselves up and claimed asylum (and the UK government actually seriously considered the applications, well done the UK government yet again on another feat of stupidity) had to be scrapped, not because it was damaged in any way, but because it did not have UK Air Worthyness certificates. The aircraft owners did not have the money to have it certified to UK standards, so they scrapped the aircraft.

      NB. as far as i know, the asylum requests were finally turned down and the men are currently serving time in UK prisons.

    • Re:Big plane bits (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sully67 ( 550574 )
      A 707 mistakenly landed at RAF Northholt instead of London Heathrow many years ago:

      Pan Am 707 [forpilots.com]

      And yes, the gas holders really do have signs painted on them...
    • A brand new China Airlines 747-400 went off the end of the runway at Hong Kong's Kai Tak airport and into the harbor a few years ago. They ended up scrapping the plane at the airport due to damage.

      Photos here [airliners.net].
  • But the more people on a plane, the more that die when it comes spiralling down. Reminds me of the saying "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."

    Anyhow, I'd be interested in seeing what kind of engines this behemoth will be using.

  • Airships needed. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FTL ( 112112 ) <slashdot@neil.frase[ ]ame ['r.n' in gap]> on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:41AM (#5359994) Homepage
    From the article:
    > At the peak of production, when Airbus is building four A380s a month, the main roads into Toulouse from the north-west will be clogged 12 nights a month with this slow-moving procession.

    I'd bet that Airbus would kill to be able to use a CargoLifter airship [cargolifter.com]. This is exactly what they are designed for. Can quietly transport 160 metric tons of any size and shape, for drop off at any location.

    Oh dear. Looks like they are going bankrupt [cargolifter.com].

    • And if they didn't go bankrupt, how long do you think it would take for the USA to shut them down for "supporting terrorists?" After all, that's the kind of thing a terrorist would dream of...
    • Amazingly enough it looks [www.ftd.de] like Universal Express may be trying to pick up the pieces.

      There is actually quite a market for moving large pieces of equipment around, and it would be good to get them off the roads. River/Canal helps but they usually have to move the last few km over land, which is always problematic.

  • Isn't it ironic? (Score:5, Funny)

    by adam613 ( 449819 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:44AM (#5360006)
    Now the Eurpoeans are building something so ridiculously big that no Americans want it.

    Talk about role-reversal.
    • I think its more of a case of European companies scratching fellow EU backs, and the same for the US companies, they dont want to be seen going away from Boeing. As time permits, as with the 747 series, companies will see that it is better to carry more passengers, and buy the product.

  • Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @09:59AM (#5360038) Homepage Journal
    The cost of the airbus programme is $10.7 bn. Of this, $5.1 bn is funded by European governments. Benefit of the airbus programme: possible lowering in airline costs over the next 10-20 years.

    Compare this with the space elevator [highliftsystems.com]. The estimated initial cost ($10 bn) is about the same as that of the airbus. Govt. spending on the space elevator: $570,000. Benefit of the space elevator: It would possibly have an enormous impact on the destiny of mankind.

    If only governments wouldn't be so shortsighted...

    • Re:Sigh (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Moofie ( 22272 )
      I think that $10bn number, and the 15 year horizon, are absurdly optimistic. There are LOTS of non-trivial problems to solve before we get a space elevator.

      Just my opinion.

  • Airbus Toulouse (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mashx ( 106208 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @10:18AM (#5360088)
    I have done some work in Toulouse for Airbus, and been at both the Central training sites and also Airbus France itself, which is next to the airport. It is incredible walking out of an office across a hanger with two A319s into another office: it is strange to do that when so often at airports the aircraft are always outside, not inside what appears beforehand as an office building! But when I saw the giant hanger that is going to be the assembly area for the A380, it is just astonishing. It was about a month ago, so the roof hadn't been added, but even so it made me realise that the 'little' models in the reception really were not representative of just how big this aircraft is going to be. I've seen the one of the guppy transport craft take off from Toulouse as well, and I didn't really beleive that could get in the air, let alone the A380. It will be really impressive (for someone that really has never been that interested in aeroplanes) to see it fly.

  • Economy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by de la mettrie ( 27199 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @10:21AM (#5360095)
    Some background info from a world trade law student:

    One: European governments are subsidizing [nwsource.com] Airbus development costs, which according to the U.S. violates WTO rules [wto.org] on subsidies. Of course, neither the EU nor the Bush administration [philly.com] can really be considered champions of unrestricted free trade.
    [rant] Although economists and common sense agree [wsu.edu] that free trade results in a net wealth benefit (note that this doesn't imply a "fair" distribution of that wealth), special interest groups that have much to lose from free trade (unproductive industries, unions) find it easier to exert political influence in favor of protectionism than the average person-on-the-street, who stands to lose a few cents a day on account of a specific protectionist measure, of which he is generally not even aware. [/rant]

    Two: There is of course no economical or technical reason at all to distribute this kind of megaconstruction project all over Europe. It is estimated that all the silly moving around of pieces increases construction cost by a two-figures percentage. The reason, of course, is a political one: every nation wants a piece of the cake...

    • Re:Economy (Score:5, Informative)

      by andyveitch ( 622036 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @11:23AM (#5360270) Homepage Journal

      There is something about the aircraft/airline business that just makes governments and investors throw money at them. The investor, Warren Buffet famously said that if he'd been around in Wilbur Wright's time he would have shot him before his first flight as a service to capitalism.

      I agree with the general comments on world trade and subsidies but:

      • Most of the money paid by European governments isn't subsidy, they are loans
      • The total amount is $4b over a few years
      • The US Senate has approve $10b in one year for loan guarantees for airlines
      • The production has not scattered around entirely for political reasons, unless China is now part of the European Union?
      • Military spending distorts the aircraft market more than anything else.

      Enough economics. Can we go back to talking about computers & toys now?

      • Re:Economy (Score:3, Informative)

        by ces ( 119879 )
        The production has not scattered around entirely for political reasons, unless China is now part of the European Union?

        This is political as well. The Chinese government has negotiated deals for new airplanes that require part of the production to take place in China. Boeing has cut similar deals. I fully expect China to be in the business of building large airliners in 10 or 15 years.

    • Re:Economy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dargaud ( 518470 )
      One: European governments are subsidizing Airbus development costs, which according to the U.S. violates WTO rules [wto.org] on subsidies.

      Now the americans use this argument against Airbus all the time and it's begining to piss me off. How many know that the Boeing 747 development was entirely funded by the DOD for building the AWACS. Yes, Boeing made the AWACS with 100% government money, then made a copy without the big radar on top and plenty of seats inside. But it's not called subsidizing ?!?

      • How many know that the Boeing 747 development was entirely funded by the DOD for building the AWACS.

        Ummm, no. The AWACS is built on a Boeing 707 airframe, which is much older and smaller than the 747.

        What you might be referring to is that a predecessor to the 747 was the losing entry (Lockheed won, I think) for the C-5, the US military's Really Big Cargo Plane.

        Boeing was paid by the Department of Defense to create a prototype design to meet DOD requirements. They lost. Boeing then used the design as a basis for the 747, but note that Boeing absorbed the huge cost of making the 747 acceptable to the US Federal Aviation Administration, which has a far different set of requirements.

        The original development was a "work for hire" at the request of the DOD. Every other Boeing aircraft has been internally funded by Boeing. That is a far cry from "here's 4 billion Euros, go build an airplane that competes with the Yanks" tactic of the European governments. Airbus has been a subsidy child since day one.

        The US, I think, holds the upper hand here. If nothing else, the US could slap a tariff on the A380 (say, 100% of selling price), or just not certify it to operate in the States. Either action could be a fatal blow to the program. Of course, the EU would have the same options when the next Boeing aircraft is developed, igniting a major trade war.

    • Re:Economy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by yggdrazil ( 261592 )
      Look who's talking...

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/655071.stm [bbc.co.uk]

      The European Union has won a major trade case against the United States in the World Trade Organisation. The WTO has ruled that the US is unfairly subsidising the exports of its multinational companies by giving them a special tax break - the so-called foreign sales corporation tax exemption (FSC).

      It allows big exporters like Microsoft and Boeing to shield some of their export income from US taxes by setting up a foreign subsidiary.

  • Mind you, Boeing did this back in the 1960's (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @10:26AM (#5360108)
    While Airbus' new assembly buildings for the A380 superjumbo airliner are impressive, don't forget that Boeing had to do the exact same thing some 37 years ago when the 747 airliner project was launched.

    In a way, Boeing's project was more ambitious because they had to do the following:

    1. Expand what was then a small regional airfield (Paine Field) to accommodate the production line for the 747, including new longer runways.

    2. Expand the parking ramp to enormous size to accommodate 747's in the final completion stage after being rolled out of the assembly line.

    3. Build the world's roomiest assembly buildings and a huge paintshop building that could paint a completed 747.

    4. Upgrade the ship ports in the nearby city of Everett, WA to accommodate 747 parts, including fuselage sections.

    5. Build a special railroad spur line to the assembly plant, with one of the steepest gradients ever attempted for a non-cog line railroad.

    And all that construction mentioned above had to be done with the Pacific Northwest's notoriously rainy weather.

    What Airbus is doing at Toulouse and Hamburg are pretty much just extensions to their current large assembly plants--nothing akin to what Boeing had to do from scratch to create the 747 assembly line.

  • (N)ot (I)nvented (H)ere (Score:4, Funny)

    by YetAnotherName ( 168064 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @10:41AM (#5360146) Homepage
    Custom-built ships to ferry parts. Custom fleet of trucks. Roads widened for the trucks (custom set of roads).

    Hate to say it, but sounds like a bunch of dot-com flunkies are on this project.
  • This report is riddled with holes. For example everyone knows that the standard unit for length in sensationalist reporting is the football field, not the soccer pitch. And the standard unit for height is the Empire State building, not the olympic swimming pool. Also conspicuously absent is any comparison to the width of a human hair, or to how many times we could go to and from the moon of we laid something-or-other end to end. Very disappointing...
  • Studies (and intuition) show that it is more fuel efficient to fly short trip and refuel, than it is to pack a plane full of fuel for a long trip.

    While moving lots of people in a single trip is more efficient, moving lots of fuel is not. It makes me wonder if they'll be able to afford to fly this pig on anything but an ocean route.

  • A380 eh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by jwriney ( 16598 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @11:38AM (#5360317) Homepage
    And for a second there I thought they were talking about building some new sort of Amiga.

    --riney
  • The economy is in the shitter.

    Several airlines are in bankrupcy, and many are talking Chapter 9 liquidation.

    Many fleets of 747s are being grounded and being replaced by the lower-capacity 777... including in Pacific Rim routes. They just can't afford to fly that many empty seats, and that large of an aircraft is just less efficient than a two-engine.

    So why is Airbus gambling that the world needs an enormous airplane? It seems like extreme fiscial irresponsibility, especically considering they're government-funded! America certainly won't be buying, and I doubt much rest of the 100 plane order will go through if the economy continues to degrade in the rest of the world.

    It almost reminds me of the Spruce Goose. Have fun paying off your new boat anchor, Europe. Welcome to recession.

    • Re:Worst. Timing. Ever. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're being a little short-sighted, aren't you? A fleet of airplanes like the A380 will last at least 30 years, if not 50. The design and construction started many years ago and cost billions of dollars. You think that should all be abandoned because of this little blip, of couple of years of bad economy?

      You'll note from your own post -- 747's are being grounded. Why aren't they being sold? For the same reason.
    • People don't want 18 connecting flights. They wan't direct routes. That's part of the reason the market for the jumbo's is shrinking and the market for the 777's is thriving, especialy as you mention in Asia. But since the European's effort is really just a welfare project they don't care if it's sucessful.

    • Re:Worst. Timing. Ever. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Saturday February 22, 2003 @02:04PM (#5360906) Journal
      Many fleets of 747s are being grounded and being replaced by the lower-capacity 777... including in Pacific Rim routes. Actually, that is not quite accurate. The airlines are grounding 747 becuase they cost more / passenger than does the 777. The 747 engines and airodynamics are inefficient compared to the 777. It is for this reason, that the 380 will make a huge dent in the market. Southwest will not be buying these, but United, American, etc will buy fleets of these. Or better yet, if Boeing will pull their head out of their ass, they will buy the BWB's. These aircrafts will be super efficient, and fun to fly in.
  • No, how high is a Mountain in China?
    Yes...

  • Landing Permissions? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    But will the Americans let it land? Remember when the Concorde SST was introduced? Too noisy, oh my poor ears... Funny how America is always the voice of sweet reason and fair play competition - when it's winning. But when it's losing, watch out!

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close