BA orders new planes

[Chris Trott]

Peter

Surely the airports will adapt like they did when the 747 came on stream needing extensive infrastructure modifications? :think:

Garry

Actually, that's a bit of a misnomer. There were minor adjustments made (mainly in replacing existing jet bridges with taller ones and some ground handling equipment that wasn't tall enough), but the 747's footprint is LIGHTER than that of the 707, so it's actual impact on the pavement of the airport was less than the existing airplanes it was supplanting & replacing and was capable of operating from any airstrip suitable for a 707. The adjustments needed for the 747 are much less than what has been required for the A380, which has a heavier footprint than the 747, requires a larger gate area than the 777 (which is currently the largest area footprint for gate space in use), and requires a larger boarding/waiting area than any other airplane in existence, so there are major changes required to the airport to support such a large aircraft.

I still wait to see if the A380 will be successful, but it's sheer size and weight (not to mention wake turbulence issues) has made it unappealing to many of the operators that Airbus was trying to target, most especially the Japanese operators who have shunned the aircraft completely because they cannot afford to create more spacing in already congested airspace.

[Garry Russell]

They had to adjust to huge numbers of travellers at one which put pressure on the system.

I wasn't neccesarily talking about strength of any thing like that......just the pressures on all that goes into it support. Catering, hire cars etc that have a much larger demand at any one time than before..but as I said they will adapt........I was saying like the 747 they will adapt with whatever problems show up..and they will.

The type had quite an impact as I remember from the time.

Garry

[Chris Trott]

Yes, the 747 required some changes, but none as extensive (or disruptive) as the A380 is already requiring. The 747 represented about a 30% increase in capacity over the existing aircraft while the A380 represents over a 50% increase in capacity per airplane. Also, when AAL started operating the 747-100, they were able to operate it with minimal restrictions into Dallas Love Field (at that time one of the most modern airports in the US), a short runway, cramped terminal airport with very little hinderance to other operations. They simply used 2 gates when the 747 was at the terminal and that covered the seating problem as well. With the A380, at DFW International (again one of the most modern airports in the US) before Terminal D was redesigned specifically to accommodate the A380, the A380 would have required the occupation of 3 gates and would have been restricted in its movement areas because of the high footprint. Had the redesign of the terminal not occurred, any operator wanting to fly the A380 into DFW would have faced some substantial operating restrictions.

[jonesey2k]

Doesn't the 777 put down more weight per tire then the A380?

[TSR2]

In any event, I do not think that Concorde was quite the white elephant in real terms that Peter considers it to have been.

Hang on Chris I did not say the Concorde was a White Elephant...I said the A380 was a White Elephant. If airbus think they have problems with it now, just wait till it start to operate into airports and utterly wrecks their infrastructure, causing massive delays to EVERYBODY. Personally I think it would be a jolly good idea to cancel it right now, but I guess I'll just have to wait and say "I told you so!"

Concorde?...Wonderful aeroplane and operated extremely well. It also started to make money towards the end

Hi Chris, it was me who mentioned concorde, and only out of the "comon public beleif" that it was a white elephant.... much more of a white fire breathing dragon in my eyes

[DispatchDragon]

Again , I have to agree with Chris -
I sat here at work after the redeyes had departed and idly thumbed through the SW US AFD which amongst a host of other information gives not only the PCN/ACN (Runway Bearing strengths) but also taxiways and aprons - Every major airport in the SW US (including the
much vaunted Denver International) has very specific restrictions for 747-400s/777s and even 767-300 and A340-600s as to what taxiways and aprons and
gates can be used - so it goes without saying that the A380 would be included in that group - I dont really believe the handling capabilities as far as the actual
terminals/ground transportation etc etc would be that different, but obviously there would have to be some real consideration to slots for airports for VLaircraft such as the 380 and 747X due to the damage caused to the actual physical surface of the airports - Strangely enough the two airports that would have to be the most restrictive are the 2 that are the prime candidates for both aircrafts operations - LAX and SFO - another consideration is the actual
frequency of landings (where the most damage is done to runway surfaces) having just lived through the miseries caused by resurfacing of two runways at
LAX (And yes most of you know that the company I work for is based in las Vegas and doesnt even operate to LAX, however whatever happens to LAX happens to ALL of the traffic in ZLA airspace - so whilst LAX had two runways closed ground holds became derigeur for all first tier airports(Thats any major airport in
airspace ajoining ZLA. At present this sort of construction happens prehaps once every 5 - 7 years - with the advent of creratures like the 380 and 747X -
you can see how arrivals would have to be limited so as to reduce wear on the runway surface itself - otherwise airports such as LAX/SFO/DEN/SEA etc etc
would be closing runways to resurface every 3 years - Now apply the freighter version to people like Fedex and UPS and you will have the same problem
at places like SDF and MEM but multiplied to the power of 10 (If Fedex and UPS were to buy the 380 freighter) .

Sorry didnt mean to preach but like Peter Mc I feel the 380 is a white elephant , and as such will have very little market of use once in service (If it makes it that far.

And as slight aside - Im aware that Boeing will never build the 747X and that the 7478 will very likely be the last of its line - the X was touted purely as
slight of hand to make Airbus invest 17Bn (1999) Euros - a cost they can never hope to recoup with the 380 - Boeing will have managed very soon to
be the only builder of large passenger carrying aircraft in the western world.

Leif

[Garry Russell]

Hardly a white elephant as the aircraft has sold more than many airliners had before "in service" and in fact more than the total productions run of many types.

I'm not saying if problems are better or worse than the 747's introduction....all I am saying is there was scaremongering , as now, before the 747 was introduced and the airports adapted.

That is my point the airport will adapt no matter what the problems are and they do exist as they did with the 747....The A380 will not be built and then sit idle because airports can't handle them..they will

The airports will adapt......that is my only point.

Whether or not it becomes a commercial sucess will be proved when it is in service......a situation faced by every type that has ever existed.


Garry

[cstorey]

[quote="Dispatch Dragon" Boeing will have managed very soon to
be the only builder of large passenger carrying aircraft in the western world.[/quote]

I am sure Boeing would like to think this. Unfortunately, the facts don't support it. The only aeropanes it is building are old - in most cases except for the 777 very old - technology, and in the sectors which actually matter ( and indeed the areas of the world which matter i.e Middle East , Asia , Australasia and Europe) it can hardly sell an aeroplane at all ( except by dumping them to Ryanair). It will retain some of its home market because of US protectionism I suppose . However, standing at almost any airport outside the US must be a very depressing experience for a Boeing executive, because in all the market sectors which provide profit, Airbus has cleaned up.

[DispatchDragon]

Ben - you may wish to take a look at the quote function seems it is quoting everything to you presently

CS - the quote about Boeing came from an Airbus tech rep through me - personally I love the 318/319/320 series
and always have done having worked with the 320 with two carriers on both sides of the Atlantic.
and Im afraid that ATW does not bear out your claim - Boeing as of Sept 17 had outstripped Airbus for the year in both
actual sales and production positions, As to the statement "Part of the World that matter" I think if you check you will
find in Europe Boeing's sales still continue unchecked - and I would think that Emirates (A company that has been
woo'ed heavily by Airbus) placing substantial orders for the 777,787 and 7478F would not be a small matter - as would the
purchases by Chinese carriers. My use of the quote about Boeing was neither partisan nor blind product loyalty to Boeing
the thought of a "one world airliner manufacturer" frankly scares the bejesus out of me - however through other companies
short comings and their own market strategy they are well on the way to becoming just that.

Leif

[Kevin Farnell]

After rollout it was taken back into the shop to remove all of the mushroom head rivets and exchange them for the proper counter sunk versions!!
Andy

Rivets???, when were rivets last used in airliner manufacture?
Surely bonded joints for at least the last twenty years.

Regards

Kevin