PDA

View Full Version : Airbus A-380



VVS-Manuc
01-17-2005, 05:45 AM
One of the key milestones in the Airbus A380 programme will take place tomorrow, 18th January. The world€s first full-length twin-deck aircraft will be officially revealed to the world for the first time at a ceremony to be held in the Jean-Luc Lagardere Final Assembly Line hall at Toulouse, France.

The President of the French Republic, Jacques Chirac, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Tony Blair, the Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Gerhard Schroeder, and the Prime Minister of the Spanish Kingdom, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will preside over the reveal ceremony. More than 4,500 guests will attend, including the CEOs of the 14 A380 customers, as well as eminent representatives from the airline community, the Airbus shareholders, suppliers and other stakeholders, as well as the media.

Tomorrow€s reveal will underpin the successful progress of the A380 programme. It is also a reflection of Airbus€ position as the market leader of the civil aviation industry. As part of the official unveiling, a live show will feature Airbus€ vision, philosophy and global values which, over 35 years, have made its success as well as this new challenge possible. At the heart of this is Airbus' dedication to listening to its customers and turn their wishes into reality through a continuous flow of innovations and a ceaseless quest for quality, efficiency and maturity of its products.

The A380 reveal will also mark the launch of Airbus€ new livery. The change in livery, the first since the A310, further materialises the entry of Airbus into a new era. The A380 is the first aircraft to display the company€s new colours that reflect not only Airbus€ current market position but also its ambitions to pursue aviation excellence long into the future. The new design embodies beautifully the Airbus brand values of creative flair, technological prowess, relationship building and team spirit.

The 555-seat A380 passenger aircraft has a range of up to 8,000nm/15,000km, allowing it to fly non-stop between Europe and Asia, while the three-deck long-range freighter version, the A380F, will be able to carry up to 152 tonnes/ 335,000 lbs of cargo on standard pallets over distances of up to 5,600nm/10,400km. Incorporating the most advanced technologies available in this decade, it will be the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly airliner ever built, while offering unequalled levels of passenger comfort and cargo carrying capability. First passenger operations are scheduled to begin in 2006 when the A380 is due to enter service. In addition, the first A380F, the freighter version of the aircraft, is expected to begin operations in 2008.

The Reveal of the A380 is being streamed live on the Airbus website www.airbus.com (http://www.airbus.com) which will also include other up-to-the-minute coverage of the day€s events.

Airbus is an EADS joint Company with BAE Systems.

MEGILE
01-17-2005, 07:11 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Looks to be a great plane. I've had my eye on this one for a few years.

The stick setup rocks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/A380.flightdeck.750pix.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/A380.emirates.736pix.jpg

ChrisMcGee2004
01-17-2005, 10:48 AM
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,426397,00.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Lucius_Esox
01-17-2005, 11:03 AM
Lol where's my free cheese and wine?

stef51
01-17-2005, 03:05 PM
Amazing! But why the red button on the stick? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

blade_073
01-17-2005, 03:19 PM
AIRBUS SUCKS!!!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Owlsphone
01-17-2005, 03:20 PM
I believe its to fire the MK108s.

Every plane must fit into a virtual box on the runway so that they don't interfere with other airliners' gates. The wingspan is so great on the 380 that it fits inside the box with only 6 inches to spare off either wing.

I don't think wingspans will get much bigger in the near future.

Ed_the_sock
01-17-2005, 03:21 PM
What's the crescent shaped controller beside each stick, and the 'spade' grip below the window, and the grey 'lumps' below the throttles ?

And no HUD ? I thought HUDS in civil aircraft would catch on.

madsarmy
01-17-2005, 03:32 PM
that's not an aeroplane! It's got no propellers.

ElAurens
01-17-2005, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by madsarmy:
that's not an aeroplane! It's got no propellers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

meh_cd
01-17-2005, 05:56 PM
Yeah it looks great, although it might be bad if one crashed, you know... if it was full.

Korbelz
01-17-2005, 06:01 PM
the grey "lumps" are like a mouse for the flight data computer and navigation system.

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2005, 06:28 PM
cockpit...wow

Never mind flight sims getting closer to real planes. Real planes are getting closer to flight sims.

Someday the two may converge, in some bizzare fasion.

darkhorizon11
01-17-2005, 06:35 PM
Pretty sweet airplane.

Its still to be seen if it reaches the same success that the 747 did though.

I'll keep watching this as I have been for awhile.

MisterBear
01-17-2005, 08:36 PM
The red button is the "Takeover pushbutton" for taking over the opposite stick, or its more common use, disconnecting the autopilot.

The grey lumps (if it's anything like the B777 setup) should be palmrests *** touchpad housings.

And i'd love to see huds mounted in these babies too but the word from the bosses where i'm working is that they don't think they're worth the cost since the 380 would be operating in and out of major airports equipped with facilities and procedures supporting low visibility approaches. Beancounter decision if you asked me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

MisterBear
01-17-2005, 08:50 PM
Whoops forgot to mention.. the crescent shaped controllers beside the sticks are `steering handwheels' or tillers (for taxiing) and the `spade' grips under the windows are for opening the side windows. Mostly used by engineering personnel to wind the window back so they can lean out and clean dead insects off the windshield. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TheCrux
01-17-2005, 10:48 PM
The side-sticks aren't the new revelation some seem to think they are; They've been on the A320 series A/C since their inception in the mid 80's...as is the all "glass" cockpit.

Nero111
01-17-2005, 11:13 PM
What is Boeings response to this aircraft, they got anything in the pipeline, that can compete?

clint-ruin
01-17-2005, 11:14 PM
Thanks to nethead and tomas at poenews for showing off the final design:

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~sunmoonandy/rice_plane.jpg

http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~jammy/fart.jpg

POEN (http://www.poe-news.com/forums/sp.php?si=31&fi=000044079&ti=1000822592&pi=1000822661)

MO_JOJO
01-18-2005, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stef51:
Amazing! But why the red button on the stick? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This thing flies itself. The sticks are really Saitek X52's so the pilots can play FB on the flight to Rio.

Oh, and meh_cd...I think it might suck if one crashed with no passengers. At least for the crew on board and whomever it fell on, maybe.

BBB_Hyperion
01-18-2005, 01:30 AM
What i was always intrested in . How does the airbus cockpits a320 in this case handle a cup of coffee over control panel but the guy showing me said he never tried .)

Aeronautico
01-18-2005, 03:14 AM
Uh... nice cockpit.

Where's the dog's basket by the way?

KarayaEine
01-18-2005, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ed_the_sock:
What's the crescent shaped controller beside each stick, and the 'spade' grip below the window, and the grey 'lumps' below the throttles ?

And no HUD ? I thought HUDS in civil aircraft would catch on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those 'crescent' shaped controllers are for the nose wheel steering (and steering in general) while on the ground. Commercial A/C don't use the control stick to steer.

hth

Johann

PBNA-Boosher
01-18-2005, 10:29 AM
mmm... dreamy....

unseen84
01-18-2005, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nero111:
What is Boeings response to this aircraft, they got anything in the pipeline, that can compete? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boeing does have their 7E7 "Dreamliner" in development, but its really more of a replacement for the 757 & 767, AFAIK.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/k63066.jpg

Capt._Tenneal
01-18-2005, 11:29 AM
Congratulations to Airbus. I'm sure a lot of workers are glad for their finished product. Good job !

The 747 still looks "sexier" to me, but that's just my opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Obi_Kwiet
01-18-2005, 12:23 PM
Do we really need humongous jets like this? It might more economically smarter to build more small jets like the 7E7.

CKY_86
01-18-2005, 12:28 PM
to be honest i dont think it will get off the ground espesilly fully loaded & if it does it will be very unstable in flight imop

http://img131.exs.cx/img131/8905/bf110sig1yb.jpg

Capt._Tenneal
01-18-2005, 12:32 PM
I just heard news of the A380 on the radio at work. Is it really true that it hasn't had a test flight yet ? Can it really get off the ground ? I haven't been keeping up with it's development.

CKY_86
01-18-2005, 12:35 PM
its first test flight is in march

my prediction it will run out of runway

http://img131.exs.cx/img131/8905/bf110sig1yb.jpg

Capt._Tenneal
01-18-2005, 12:38 PM
LOL, then maybe Oleg can patch the A380 so it can take off fully loaded from the USS Nimitz ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

geetarman
01-18-2005, 12:38 PM
Congrats to the Euros! Your joint effort looks nice. Good luck and hope you sell a ton.

Bierhund
01-18-2005, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KarayaEine:

Those 'crescent' shaped controllers are for the nose wheel steering (and steering in general) while on the ground. Commercial A/C don't use the control stick to steer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What happened to steering with the pedals?

jeroen_R90S
01-18-2005, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Thanks to nethead and tomas at poenews for showing off the final design:

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~sunmoonandy/rice_plane.jpg

http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~jammy/fart.jpg

http://www.poe-news.com/forums/sp.php?si=31&fi=000044079&ti=1000822592&pi=1000822661 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FART? LMAO!!

olaleier
01-18-2005, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CKY_86:
to be honest i dont think it will get off the ground espesilly fully loaded & if it does it will be very unstable in flight imop

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should call the hundreds of aeronatuical engineers who have been working on it for years, you might prevent a disaster!

tenmmike
01-18-2005, 01:49 PM
I make all the outter wing structure on that pig including the fence (winglet)(but not the skin)i cant figure if im proud of that or not.though i make the part to print be sure...whats funny is that I make these parts in the USA and we send them Australia (Hawker)where they then turn it to a substructure and hawker is owned basically by Boeing!

stanner1935
01-18-2005, 02:16 PM
I would go easy on the statement, that Airbus is
"...market leader of the civil aviation industry."
School is still out on whether this plane will be a commercial success. Let us not forget the Concord, which was aslo the product of a consortium. Cherrio.

Stanner

EFG_beber
01-18-2005, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olaleier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CKY_86:
to be honest i dont think it will get off the ground espesilly fully loaded & if it does it will be very unstable in flight imop

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should call the hundreds of aeronatuical engineers who have been working on it for years, you might prevent a disaster! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
700 engineers

stanner1935
01-18-2005, 02:20 PM
To TENMIKE

That Black, White crest looks familiar. Is it of an artillery battalion? I served in Germany with the 84th FA Battalion (105mm towed) in support of the 47th Infantry Regiment, of the 9th Infantry Division.

Stanner

ddsflyer
01-18-2005, 02:26 PM
Wonderful what you can do with massive government subsidy.

CKY_86
01-18-2005, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EFG_beber:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olaleier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CKY_86:
to be honest i dont think it will get off the ground espesilly fully loaded & if it does it will be very unstable in flight imop

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should call the hundreds of aeronatuical engineers who have been working on it for years, you might prevent a disaster! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
700 engineers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

im just saying what i think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://img131.exs.cx/img131/8905/bf110sig1yb.jpg

Korbelz
01-18-2005, 02:35 PM
haha....a380 to rio, thats funny cause the plane weights so much it would sink into the runway at rio.

heard only 30 airports(out of like 84,000) in the WORLD...can handle this airplane

TheCrux
01-18-2005, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bierhund:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KarayaEine:

Those 'crescent' shaped controllers are for the nose wheel steering (and steering in general) while on the ground. Commercial A/C don't use the control stick to steer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What happened to steering with the pedals? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On most airliners, N/W steering authority on using rudder pedals is generally in the neighborhood of 7 degrees to either side of the centered position at full rudder throw, and thus is only used for small corrections at high speeds on takeoff and landing roll.

The tiller(s) allows steering angles of 75-78 degrees or so for more low speed manuverability on the ground while taxiing.

Blottogg
01-18-2005, 05:18 PM
It'll fly. It's a little overweight (what new aircraft isn't?) but Airbus is still standing by their payload, range and cost/seat mile numbers.

Boeing is betting that their bean-counters are better than Airbus', and that the market for super-jumbos is too small for successful competition, while the midrange market is stronger. A380's are hub-to-hub aircraft, so only being able to land at ~30 airports (IIRC) isn't a big deal. Other aircraft will fly passengers out from the hub, or direct point-to-point if Boeing is right with the 7E7.

Break even point for the the A380 is at aicraft #250, with ~150 orders on the books so far. I'm just glad there's been an agreement on subsidies between Boeing/US and Airbus/EU. At least the playing field is level now.

Congrats to the folks at EADS/Airbus for a difficult job well done.

Here's a link to a couple of good articles:

http://start.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20050118/41ec97d0_3ca6_1552620050118-132596273

http://start.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20050118/41ec97d0_3ca6_1552620050118-2094368383

Edit: # of A380's ordered to date

320BUSDRVR
01-18-2005, 06:37 PM
The red button on the stick is used for 2 functions.

1. A single momentary press will disconnect the auto pilot if it is engaged. 2. A press and hold of the button will deactivate the opposite sidestick. This function is necessary in case one pilot has to take over for the other, or there is a malfunction of the opposite sidestick. There have been instances where the FLYING PILOTS sidestick has given eroneous inputs, for instance banking the aircraft left instead of right. When this occurs the other pilot would press and hold the "OVER RIDE" button to lock out the opposite sidestick inputs. If the button is held for at least 40 seconds the opposite sidestick is locked out so the button can be released.

Remeber it is a fly by wire aircraft, there is no mechanical connection from the sidesticks to the flight controls. The sidestick simply send electrical signals to the flight control computers which in turn send signals for electrical and hydraulic actuation of the flight contrl surfaces.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stef51:
Amazing! But why the red button on the stick? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

320BUSDRVR
01-18-2005, 06:41 PM
The crescent shaped controlers are for the nose wheeel steering. The spade is to open the cockpit windows. Not positive but the lumps could be the mouse wheels for the CRTs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ed_the_sock:
What's the crescent shaped controller beside each stick, and the 'spade' grip below the window, and the grey 'lumps' below the throttles ?

And no HUD ? I thought HUDS in civil aircraft would catch on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

320BUSDRVR
01-18-2005, 06:48 PM
One mans subsidy is another mans military R/D.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Wonderful what you can do with massive government subsidy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

320BUSDRVR
01-18-2005, 07:03 PM
I think that we are well beyond the Wright Brothers drawing board trial and eror methods of aircraft design.

Itll definitely fly, fully loaded. If you need to see it with your own eyes than so be it.

I have flown BOEING/DOUGLAS and AIRBUS. All of them have their +/-s. But I will say this for AIRBUS, they are light years ahead in building AC that CFO's at airlines want to buy. For one reason. Training costs. The airbus ac have a commoonality in cockpit design and operation, that can shave millions of dollars off of airlines training budgets. For instance, I am type rated in the A320. This type rating also allows me to fly the A319 and the A321. If my airline ever buys the A340/350/380 the transition training will be only 1 week! By comparison even though I have 737 time, the amount of training for me to transition to the 717/757/767 or 747 or even the new 7E7 the training would be 4-6 weeks! Multiply that by 100s of flight crew and it is a significant savings to the airline flying AIRBUS aircraft.

Additionally, BOEING has a propensity to make many VARIATIONS of the same aircraft. For insatnce at one time my airline had 6 variations of the 757 alone, it was ludicrous. Look at all the time some of you put into learning 1 pc simulation, imagine doing that for 6 variations of the same game. Airbus does not allow customers to change the basic layout of its aircraft. You get what they build, again saving the airlines money.

Im not saying BOEING is better or Airbus is better. But Airbus is talking to the wallets of the buyer right now, by building planes that are fast, quiet, efficent, and cost less to train crews. Something that the cash strapped industry can not over look.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CKY_86:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EFG_beber:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olaleier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CKY_86:
to be honest i dont think it will get off the ground espesilly fully loaded & if it does it will be very unstable in flight imop

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should call the hundreds of aeronatuical engineers who have been working on it for years, you might prevent a disaster! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
700 engineers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

im just saying what i think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://img131.exs.cx/img131/8905/bf110sig1yb.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp
01-18-2005, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Wonderful what you can do with massive government subsidy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen.

WTE_Galway
01-18-2005, 09:13 PM
Surprisingly this has not deteriorated into a US vs Euro flame war .. good stuff.

One thing that is not mentioned so far is the effect the 700+ potential passenger load will have on airports with flight restrictions because of noise regulations .. Sydney for example

NetDaemon
01-19-2005, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
One thing that is not mentioned so far is the effect the 700+ potential passenger load will have on airports with flight restrictions because of noise regulations .. Sydney for example <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, the Captain could ask the passengers to remain in silence while taking off/arriving at Sidney airport http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WTE_Ibis
01-19-2005, 12:57 AM
2 things,
700+ passengers, who wants to be waiting at the baggage carousel? You can grow a beard waiting now

Is the massive farm subsidy in US used for "Military R/D" ?
No offence intended,and I am not a Euro,just wondering.
----------------------------------
Originally
posted by ddsflyer:
Wonderful what you can do with massive government subsidy.
-----------------------------------

Cheers,Ibis. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

ploughman
01-19-2005, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Wonderful what you can do with massive government subsidy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of fat, happy workers all over the world agree with you. Another sour grape anyone?

Abbuzze
01-19-2005, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korbelz:
haha....a380 to rio, thats funny cause the plane weights so much it would sink into the runway at rio.

heard only 30 airports(out of like 84,000) in the WORLD...can handle this airplane <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, cause the gateways are to small... at least noone said it´s to heave that it creates black wholes when it crashs.

Beside... it is NEITHER the biggest NOR the largest or heaviest plane in the world!!!
It is just the biggest passengerplane.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/aerospace21/antonov/an-225.html

Also Boing "forced" Airbus to build a similar plane like 747, cause if a company needed a 747, they HAD also to buy some smaller jets, or they don´t get a 747... now this is the past!

It´s also funny that Boing is now telling that planes like Airbus build all the time, are now the "future" of passenger planes.

e5kimo
01-19-2005, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Surprisingly this has not deteriorated into a US vs Euro flame war .. good stuff.

One thing that is not mentioned so far is the effect the 700+ potential passenger load will have on airports with flight restrictions because of noise regulations .. Sydney for example <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

isnt the new A380 capable of non stop europe to perth ? i m sure i read that somewhere which would mean less traffic for sydney and perth becoming another big hub.

tenmmike
01-19-2005, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stanner1935:
To TENMIKE

That Black, White crest looks familiar. Is it of an artillery battalion? I served in Germany with the 84th FA Battalion (105mm towed) in support of the 47th Infantry Regiment, of the 9th Infantry Division.

Stanner <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>60th infantry regt.and it was at ft.lewis washinton state and yes it was 9th I.D

SkyChimp
01-19-2005, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
Lots of fat, happy workers all over the world agree with you. Another sour grape anyone?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sour grapes, just plain fact. Airbus receives huge government loans for the developement of new planes - called "launch aid." If those planes succeed, Airbus repays the loans under most generous plans. If they fail, Airbus pays back nothing. There is NO risk for Airbus in the developement of new planes.

Offering launch aid is something usually reserved for new, start-up companies. Even Airbus states its position is strong enough now that it doesn't need this aid, but it takes it anyway.

Airbus complains that Boeing receives tax incentives to build its planes in Washington state. However, they fail to mention that tax-breaks given by the state of Washington have not even gone into effect, and won't until later in the decade.

But there is an agreement in place now to do away with subsidies. That's going to hurt Boeing a lot less than Airbus, who will now have to compete on a level palying field.

SkyChimp
01-19-2005, 08:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:

It´s also funny that Boing is now telling that planes like Airbus build all the time, are now the "future" of passenger planes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Smaller planes have ALWAYS been the core business for Boeing. All you need to do is look at the delivery lists to see that the 747 was NOT Boeings most important plane. 737s, 767s and 777s are, by far, Boeings most important planes.

Blottogg
01-19-2005, 11:00 PM
320BUSDRVR, the 757 and 767 share a common type rating IIRC. I didn't know about the higher degree of commonality with Airbus products. To be fair though, your example of A319/320/321 commonality refers to various stretches of the same basic airframe, like comparing the 767-200 with the 767-300, rather than 767 to 737. In any case, Boeing apparently still needs to do some work on streamlining its avionics/engine/airframe fits and training. Flying a steam-gauge 737-200 is no doubt a very different experience than a glass cockpit 737-300.

The 717 is a Douglas product inherited in the merger. It was designed by a different company, with no intention of providing commonality with Boeing's aircraft. Boeing just annouced it is ceasing production of the 717 in any event, no doubt due to its orphan status within Boeing. Too bad, since in some ways it's better than the 737.

I haven't flown either companies' products (except as a passenger), but I will say that with what I've read of the autopilots of both companies', the Boeing product seems more fail-safe. Airbus has some autothrottle and autopilot intervention issues that in the past have caught inattentive or poorly trained crews by surprise, sometimes fatally.

My earlier subsidy comment was directed mostly at Airbus. Fingers get pointed at Boeing for government subsidies too, but the difference is that Boeing is expected to cut metal for its government dollars, generous contracts or not. Of course, Boeing also flagrantly breaks conflict of interest laws by bribing a Pentagon aquisitions official with a lucrative employment offer while she's still working in the Pentagon (negotiating a deal to lease 100 KC-767's.) Business gets messy on both sides of the pond, unfortunately.

Aaron_GT
01-20-2005, 01:44 AM
"Not sour grapes, just plain fact. Airbus receives huge government loans for the developement of new planes - called "launch aid.""

Boeing receives large government subsidies too (no, I am not talking about military R&D, but in this instance large subsidies from the Japanese government). Most big companies get subsidies from one or other level of government, be it direct, by the back door, or via tax breaks of one form or another. In the end Boeing and Airbus have called a truce, it seems, as they both know they receive handouts from one source or another so it isn't worth going to court over as there is no clear win for either side.

ploughman
01-20-2005, 04:43 AM
Oh give me a break. I never said it wasn't the "plain truth," just that it was sour grapes. And from the tone and content of that statement, sour grapes it is.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Lukki
01-20-2005, 11:44 AM
Umm..I don't think it's a superb plane. A good plane today is fuel efficient. This because oil peak is scheduled at around 2008 (world crisis). I guess pulse detonation jets would be more fuel conservative, too.. A large aircraft has an advantage though. You get more peeps airborne per plane which means less traffic..

slarsson
01-20-2005, 11:53 AM
The fuel usage per passenger mile is much better than the Boeing 747 400.
In fact, it uses about as much as a small diesel car.......

Abbuzze
01-20-2005, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by slarsson:
The fuel usage per passenger mile is much better than the Boeing 747 400.
In fact, it uses about as much as a small diesel car....... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3- 3.3 litres for a passenger at 100 km, at least this is planed... 747-400 is around 5 litres for this distance.

WereSnowleopard
01-20-2005, 07:14 PM
Yeah about fuel usuage for 747-400 but that 747 is really old model. Also SouthWest don't need that big plane as small jetliners do well for SouthWest. Bigger airlines mean take forever to get in and get off plane. Most Pax don't have patient to wait to get in/out. Also What if few pax show up as airlines have to pay huge landing fee and fuel for few pax show up that will hurt big airline businesses as small startup airlines will do well with small jetliner with many small airports in world to fly in/out.

320BUSDRVR
01-23-2005, 10:05 PM
You are right Blottogg, they do (757/767) share a common type rating, never the less the variations amongst the same aircraft in the Boeing family are numerous, as I said 7 variations of the 757 at my airline alone at one time. It was one of the hardest aircraft to go to training for because of this, too many differences.

It is not so much the airframe as it is the front office. Even though the 319/320/321 are a varient of the same frame and even look alike, The 340 by comparrison has a completely different frame, but the transition training is only a week long. The transition from a 757 to a 747 can run 4 weeks at a minimum or longer.

Do a web search for images of different airbus cockpits. Compare the 320/330/340/380 cockpit pictures and you will find that unless you were experienced and knew what you were looking for, they are almost identical down to the placement of all the guages.

Regarding the auto pilot auto thrust system, you will always have problems with human factors issues and state of the art equipment. There is a great article in this months FLYING magazine which chronicles the advancement in avionics and cockpit displays over the last 50 years, and how pilots have had to adjust to the new technology. Especially today, you are seeing glass technology in the cockpits of single engine piston aircraft. Technology that is highly capable and complex but is limited by one thing, the knowledgeable use of the pilot.

If the pilot is not trained well or does not spend time learning the capabilites of this new generation equipment, it can bite him in the a##, wether it is a single engine prop or the A380.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
320BUSDRVR, the 757 and 767 share a common type rating IIRC. I didn't know about the higher degree of commonality with Airbus products. To be fair though, your example of A319/320/321 commonality refers to various stretches of the same basic airframe, like comparing the 767-200 with the 767-300, rather than 767 to 737. In any case, Boeing apparently still needs to do some work on streamlining its avionics/engine/airframe fits and training. Flying a steam-gauge 737-200 is no doubt a very different experience than a glass cockpit 737-300.

The 717 is a Douglas product inherited in the merger. It was designed by a different company, with no intention of providing commonality with Boeing's aircraft. Boeing just annouced it is ceasing production of the 717 in any event, no doubt due to its orphan status within Boeing. Too bad, since in some ways it's better than the 737.

I haven't flown either companies' products (except as a passenger), but I will say that with what I've read of the autopilots of both companies', the Boeing product seems more fail-safe. Airbus has some autothrottle and autopilot intervention issues that in the past have caught inattentive or poorly trained crews by surprise, sometimes fatally.

My earlier subsidy comment was directed mostly at Airbus. Fingers get pointed at Boeing for government subsidies too, but the difference is that Boeing is expected to cut metal for its government dollars, generous contracts or not. Of course, Boeing also flagrantly breaks conflict of interest laws by bribing a Pentagon aquisitions official with a lucrative employment offer while she's still working in the Pentagon (negotiating a deal to lease 100 KC-767's.) Business gets messy on both sides of the pond, unfortunately. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Platypus_1.JaVA
01-24-2005, 10:00 AM
Before this discussion gets out of hand, there are allready more then 100 aircraft ordered by the diffrent airliner companies around the world. And options for a few dozen more. Now I know this aircraft is not American but hey, it is a great project with superb engineering. It is bigger and better then anything that Boeing has to offer. Now and in the (near) future.

Don't pick on it because it is from Europe, we saw the same thing with the Concorde. Only that one didn't have the succes it deserved.

miss_behavin
01-24-2005, 12:12 PM
Shes a beautiful lady. Cant wait to see her fly.

Yes, the red button has got to be a trigger on a Saitek joystick. You really think all those screens are for real flying, huh? Betcha they got FB+PF already installed and going. They gotta have SOMETHING to do while the plane flies itself !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

hop2002
01-24-2005, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Not sour grapes, just plain fact. Airbus receives huge government loans for the developement of new planes - called "launch aid." If those planes succeed, Airbus repays the loans under most generous plans. If they fail, Airbus pays back nothing. There is NO risk for Airbus in the developement of new planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Airbus recieves loans to cover 33% of the development costs. The rest is born by Airbus and it's constituent companies.

Boeing doesn't exactly have clean hands when it comes to subsidies, they're due to recieve over $3 billion from Washington state to site 7E7 production there, the wings of the 7E7 are being developed by a Japanese consortium which has recieved $1.5 - $3 billion from the Japanese goverment to cover development, and the tail is being made by an Italian company that has recieved several hundred million dollars to fund the development from the Italian government.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Airbus complains that Boeing receives tax incentives to build its planes in Washington state. However, they fail to mention that tax-breaks given by the state of Washington have not even gone into effect, and won't until later in the decade.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're due to start with the production of the 7E7, and will directly subsidise all Boeing production, including of existing aircraft.

SkyChimp
01-24-2005, 07:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

Airbus recieves loans to cover 33% of the development costs. The rest is born by Airbus and it's constituent companies...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try. Boeing's position summed up nicely in a response to an article making many of the same claims as you do now.:

First, there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the notion of so-called indirect subsidies. Boeing's defense contracts do not, as some claim, amount to an indirect subsidy to its commercial airplane division. The payments Boeing receives from governments are for products delivered and services rendered, in full compliance with WTO rules. Little, if any, benefit flows from defense work to commercial activities, a point reinforced by the experiences of several major US defense contractors no longer in the commercial aircraft business. It is much more likely that technological benefits flow from commercial activities to military applications, such as the A400M transport aircraft being developed by Airbus. And let us be clear: any benefits that do exist go also to Airbus, whose parents - BAE Systems of the UK, and EADS, the European group - have greater defense revenues, and thus a greater opportunity for commercial benefit, than Boeing.

Notably misleading is the complaint that Boeing benefited from U.S. government funding to develop its highly successful 707 and 747 airliners. Here are the facts: Boeing risked its own money developing the Dash 80, the prototype for the 707 and KC-135 tanker. Dash 80 development was completely separate from KC-135 funding. Later, Boeing-funded improvements to the 707 were incorporated into the KC-135 at substantial cost savings to the U.S. government.

The notion that C-5A military transport funding aided the 747 also is flawed. With company money, Boeing began 747 development three years before the U.S. government awarded the first C-5A contracts. The company suspended 747 activity while working on the C-5A proposal, which it lost. Only then, again with company and commercially borrowed money, did Boeing resume 747 development.

De Briganti asserts that Airbus €œhas always paid back its government loans.€ Not true. The German government has forgiven about US $4 billion in launch aid and other loans.

There is also reference to Washington State€s tax incentives as an indirect subsidy. Let's be clear: The vast majority of the benefit from this legislation stems from a reduction in the business and occupation (B&O) tax rate for commercial aerospace companies, bringing it in line with that applied to other Washington businesses . This tax rate reduction is not specific to Boeing; in fact a number of A380 suppliers in Washington state will benefit from it too. And unlike the direct subsidies Airbus receives from its sponsor governments, Boeing does not receive cash infusions from governments. Even with this rate reduction, Washington aerospace companies will still pay some $4.8 billion in B&O taxes over a 20-year period.

The editorial also declined to mention the huge infrastructure projects from which Airbus benefits €" for example, 1.47 billion Euros for the A380 alone including more than 660m Euros paid in Hamburg, the one-way motorway widening from Bordeaux to Toulouse, and a major construction program at Broughton in North Wales.

In short, the European system is not fully transparent. Very little information is published about the laundry list of government assistance Airbus receives, which includes loans with terms that are not available from commercial lenders, tax breaks, government-funded infrastructure improvements undertaken expressly for Airbus, and government R&D expenditures linked directly to Airbus products. In contrast, information about U.S. economic development initiatives such as infrastructure improvements and tax relief that benefit Boeing and other businesses is readily available €" worldwide -- on the internet.

Similarly, allegations that Boeing receives aid from Japanese suppliers potentially in violation of World Trade Organization rules are a one-sided distraction. Boeing and Airbus use many of the same suppliers around the world, some of whom receive government support. If there is any benefit from such arrangements, and we do not believe there is, Airbus would receive it as well.

Some people try to characterize the issue as Airbus receives launch aid, Boeing benefits from indirect subsidies. Wrong again. Airbus, which holds 50 percent of the market, benefits from BOTH indirect subsidies and launch aid. We find this situation unacceptable. We have expressed our concerns to U.S. trade officials, who met with their European counterparts in Brussels on September 16.

U.S. and EU trade authorities can best serve the global aviation industry by creating a framework for the future that eliminates trade-distorting aid to commercial aircraft manufacturers and creates a level playing-field with complete visibility on both sides. That€s the kind of €œglass house€ both Boeing and Airbus should be willing to live in.


By Russ Young
Director of Trade Communications
The Boeing Company

---

I've read many accounts of this ongoing dispute, and most experts seem to agree that Boeing's position is far more solid than that of Airbus.

SkyChimp
01-24-2005, 07:26 PM
double post.

HellToupee
01-24-2005, 10:00 PM
Boeing Airbus they probly both receive help in indirect ways, theres alot at stake.

But in the end A380 > 7E7.

han freak solo
01-24-2005, 10:55 PM
Jon Stewart calls it the "Titanic".

It does look like a bit of a terrorist magnet.

hop2002
01-25-2005, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Nice try. Boeing's position summed up nicely in a response to an article making many of the same claims as you do now.: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he's being a bit "economical with the truth".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There is also reference to Washington State€s tax incentives as an indirect subsidy. Let's be clear: The vast majority of the benefit from this legislation stems from a reduction in the business and occupation (B&O) tax rate for commercial aerospace companies, bringing it in line with that applied to other Washington businesses . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go to http://dor.wa.gov/content/taxes/busoccupation/default.aspx

The B&O tax rate is .00484% for most companies, including the manufacturing sector.

Follow the link for "tax incentives" and you'll find:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The business and occupation (B&O) tax rate for manufacturers and processors
for hire of commercial airplanes or component parts of commercial airplanes
will decrease as outlined below.

Dec. 1, 2003 - Sept. 30, 2005 .00484

Oct.1, 2005 - June 30, 2007 .004235 (reduction of 12.5%)

July 1, 2007 * - June 30, 2024 .002904 (reduction of 40.0%)

* The reduction to the .002904 B&O
tax rate provided in this legislation takes effect on the later of July 1,
2007, or when final assembly of a superefficient airplane has begun <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The tax rate for aircraft manufacture is being cut to far below that for other manufacturing, and most other business sectors.

It's worth noting that Boeing and the US government have backed down from taking the Airbus issue to the WTO, after Airbus challenged Boeing's subsidies.

THere's a list of the subsidies Boeing is getting in this analysis http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/custac/7e7 University at Buffalo.pdf

SkyPiggies
01-25-2005, 10:17 AM
Question to folks with more aeronautical engineering knowledge than me -

Could Boeing not simply extend the upper deck of the 747 and fit more powerful engines?

MEGILE
01-25-2005, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olaleier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CKY_86:
to be honest i dont think it will get off the ground espesilly fully loaded & if it does it will be very unstable in flight imop

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should call the hundreds of aeronatuical engineers who have been working on it for years, you might prevent a disaster! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't catch this one, first time round.
Nice work Ola. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SkyChimp
01-25-2005, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
I think he's being a bit "economical with the truth".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like a fair assessment to me.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Go to http://dor.wa.gov/content/taxes/busoccupation/default.aspx

The B&O tax rate is .00484% for most companies, including the manufacturing sector.

Follow the link for "tax incentives" and you'll find:

The business and occupation (B&O) tax rate for manufacturers and processors
for hire of commercial airplanes or component parts of commercial airplanes
will decrease as outlined below.

Dec. 1, 2003 - Sept. 30, 2005 .00484

Oct.1, 2005 - June 30, 2007 .004235 (reduction of 12.5%)

July 1, 2007 * - June 30, 2024 .002904 (reduction of 40.0%)

* The reduction to the .002904 B&O
tax rate provided in this legislation takes effect on the later of July 1,
2007, or when final assembly of a superefficient airplane has begun

The tax rate for aircraft manufacture is being cut to far below that for other manufacturing, and most other business sectors.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My response to that is "so what" - because the issue of tax incentives is a two-way street.

Lowering tax rates for a state's largest employers is practiced throughout the United States. And not only the US goes out of its way to lower the costs of doing business for preferred employers and manufacturers. European countries also provide Airbus with similar tax incentives.

And one thing about those Washington state aerospace tax incentives - all aerospace companies benefit from them. That means not only does Boeing benefit, but major suppliers to Airbus benefit as well. As you must know, 40% of Airbus parts and system suppliers are US companies. The US is the single biggest supplier of Airbus parts and systems. Airbus is almost as much American as it is European. Most Airbuses fly on American engines. Many of these suppliers are located in Washington state. So if there are indirect subsidies given by the state of Washington, Airbus is getting them as well.

Interestingly, BAE has a large manufacturing facility in Washignton state and is one of Washington state's largest aerospace companies. As you know, BAE is one of the 4 companies in the Airbus consortium.

The issue here isn't as much the the tax incentives these companies receive (because both receive them). It's about DIRECT payments by European governments to Airbus for the developement of commerical aircraft with generous or non-existant repayment terms that are unavailable to other companies. Boeing certainly receives nothing comparable. Even Airbus admits they don't need these subsidies, yet they gladly apply for them.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It's worth noting that Boeing and the US government have backed down from taking the Airbus issue to the WTO, after Airbus challenged Boeing's subsidies.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a gross mischaracterization. In fact it was the EC that agreed to cut subsidies to Airbus to prevent the matter going to the WTO. It was the EU that "sought a compromise." It was the US government that agreed to a limited truce to try an negotiate a settlement - mainly for political reason (Bush trying to "mend fences.") Boeing still opposes the subsidies given Airbus, and still wishes the pursue the matter in the WTO.

From http://www.stratfor.com/news/NDIA/docs/NDIA-samplePremiumArticle.pdf :

"The United States took legal action against the European Union on Oct. 6 over government aid to Europe's aerospace giant, Airbus. The U.S. complaint, filed with the World Trade Organization (WTO), asks that aid to Airbus be eliminated. EU officials counter that U.S. support for aircraft company Boeing is equally unfair to competition. European Commissioner-designate for trade Peter Mandelson is keen to avoid a flare-up, and will look to negotiate a deal. According to a leaked European Commission memo, the commission believes the WTO would rule against both the United States and the Union in a lawsuit. However, the United States has the stronger case and will push the issue until resolved. Mandelson likely sees the down side of the EU's position on Airbus, and will instead negotiate with the U.S. to find an agreement on subsidies. Ultimately, the EU will be forced to back down on the issue."

As stated previously, most experts agree the US has the much stronger case, and that Airbus has much more to lose.

Heuristic_ALgor
01-25-2005, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyPiggies:
Question to folks with more aeronautical engineering knowledge than me -

Could Boeing not simply extend the upper deck of the 747 and fit more powerful engines? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The original 747 design WAS a full double deck Dave http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

But at the time (60's) the airlines had no need for such a plane.