747 V.s. A380

FUELER045 · 01-23-2004, 03:12 PM

the 747 having had an aready 30+ year ruling in the sky as the big bird of birds (the JUMBO)...i believe that the 747 will always be the one on top...the 380 will likely never hold the titles that the 747 has. in fact it would surprise me if even 1/4 the amount of 380's are built and that they last as long as the 747's are...i would be intrested to know how others feel on the subject...and why they think this is true or not....

no duh! · 01-23-2004, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FUELER045
the 747 having had an aready 30+ year ruling in the sky as the big bird of birds (the JUMBO)...i believe that the 747 will always be the one on top...the 380 will likely never hold the titles that the 747 has. in fact it would surprise me if even 1/4 the amount of 380's are built and that they last as long as the 747's are...i would be intrested to know how others feel on the subject...and why they think this is true or not....

It would be nice if Boeing did build a double-decker, but Boeing decided it wasn't a good idea because of the economics involved. Oh, and the A380 sucks.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...hp?id=00000250

AASilverbird · 01-23-2004, 04:56 PM

You can't beat the original Queen of the skys!

INTENSS · 01-23-2004, 05:27 PM

If I were Airbus, I woudn't be getting much sleep until these things start rolling off the assembly line in large quantities. God forbid another 9/11 kind of event and these things will be flying empty like Pan Am 747's in the 1970's. Carrying the number of passengers these things will be carrying is just asking for trouble. None of us wants to see one of these things go down full of passengers. The thought is simply horrible,

The Asian market (barring any more SARS/disease outbreaks) will love this type of aircraft....shuttling hundreds and hundreds of people over the Pacific at a time. Talk about maximizing you revenues. However, this plane will NOT work at all in the domestic markets and will unlikely work well across the Atlantic because of the frequencies needed on that network to work. Smaller (A340, 330, 777, 767) A/C are better suited for the trans-Atlantic work.

Overall, I believe Boeing's move with the 7E7 is fantastic. Creating better creature comforts...can you imagine people actually "liking to fly?" I mean...besides all of us of course. More room, better seating, bigger windows to look out of. Okay, so probably 80% of what they marketed the 7E7 to have it probably won't. But the idea is right on.....and it will catch on.

Airbus is getting their noses in the air a tad prematurely because of 1 year beating Boeing. They both have a fight on their hands for the next few years....but I believe Airbus will begin to regret the A380 program in the short to medium term.

-Rich

Radioflier · 01-23-2004, 08:59 PM

read the thread FAA may limit flts into ORD and it seems as more airports find themselves in that situation, bigger airplanes with less fq will be the only answer. I believe DLH originally opted out of the 380 because of the belief that they would develope more direct flts to US cities with smaller aircraft. 9/11 changed all that, and I beleive DLH now has 380 on order. The 747 flew empty for many years when first introduced, I remember NWA 747 departing JFK every day with 35 pax OB. It may take a little while, but if airlines find themselves slot restricted into major airports, then they will put the biggest baddest puppy they can find in that slot.

DLmd11 · 01-23-2004, 09:16 PM

WOW!

I just saw another beautful photo of a Canadi>n 767-300 in the same colors on another thread. Sad to see them go.

I have always been a Boeing nut, from the 707 on, and never really cared much for any other airliner until the MD-11.

The A380 is considerably larger if you compare any scale model of the two and this is what is going to impress many people the most.

I do not know anything structurally about either of them but time will tell how sound the A380's will be. The wing itself looks hugh enough to plan for a stretch version since I believe it really is shorter than the 747. So there may be room for growth.

I can not help but stress that Boeing did it all by themselves with out the financial support of multiple countries as Airbus is receiving and of this Boeing should be proud. How long would Airbus have survived without multiple government support?

For many years Boeing was the largest exporter of the U.S., which in itself is impressive. I do not know where they rank now.

More than anything I hope Boeing improves their marketing. I knowthe 7E7 is to replace the 757 and 767 but I think it is poor planning to close the 757 line. It is the best airplane in its category. Neither the 737-900 nor the A321 come close to the performance of the 757. They could have given it a minor tune-up until the 7E7 came on board. So with some creative marketing and a few upgrades I am sure the 757 could have continued.

Yes, I like Boeing and wish them well. The future looks turbulent.

Just my opinions.

no duh! · 01-23-2004, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DLmd11
More than anything I hope Boeing improves their marketing. I knowthe 7E7 is to replace the 757 and 767 but I think it is poor planning to close the 757 line. It is the best airplane in its category. Neither the 737-900 nor the A321 come close to the performance of the 757. They could have given it a minor tune-up until the 7E7 came on board. So with some creative marketing and a few upgrades I am sure the 757 could have continued...

I love the 757! I agree with you... Why did they close the line? It's a proven aircraft with great qualities. Sometimes I wished airlines would just look at quality instead of going for cheap. I've flown on the 757 many times and it is indeed a terrific aircraft.

no duh! · 01-23-2004, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by INTENSS
If I were Airbus, I woudn't be getting much sleep until these things start rolling off the assembly line in large quantities. God forbid another 9/11 kind of event and these things will be flying...
-Rich

That get's me thinking... Isn't cockpit commonality great?!

DLmd11 · 01-23-2004, 09:36 PM

no duh

The cockpit commonality is a plus for Airbus.

I do not remember where I read it, possibly Aviation Daily, but LH requested a side stick from Boeing as an option. I would imagine it would be for the 7E7. I did not know the side stick was so well liked. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if Boeing accomodates their request for this option.

INTENSS · 01-23-2004, 09:40 PM

The flight restrictions will only be limited to a few major airports, if that. Do you know the solution to all of this? Build more airports...the U.S. government has been so slow in building new airports and runways it's unbelievable.

Case in point: the Chicago area. Now it's been a few years, but during an MBA course in airport planning we discussed the Chicago market and what can be done to alleviate congestion there (this was prior to 9/11). What we discovered were a few other airports that were likely to get substantial increases in commercial service in the area (and Im not talking Midway, Gary, or Milwaukee

). So you limit some flights to Chicago's O'Hare and Midway, LaGuardia, Washington National (oops Reagan)....there are other airports that can pick up the slack.

I don't know if larger aircraft are the answer to this, especially from the airlines' perspective. It really is debatable. The government should move their asses to get more money for better infrastructure...more runways...more airports. On a related note, did you hear that Jet Blue is requesting slots at LGA?

-Rich

no duh! · 01-23-2004, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DLmd11
no duh

The cockpit commonality is a plus for Airbus.

I do not remember where I read it, possibly Aviation Daily, but LH requested a side stick from Boeing as an option. I would imagine it would be for the 7E7. I did not know the side stick was so well liked. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if Boeing accomodates their request for this option.

I know commonality is great, because it cuts down on training time. But that's the thing that scares me... How would you like someone learning to fly an A320 w/ 100+, then flying an A380 500+ in less time ? ...Into buildings like the WTC? I know security is really tight, and security has been stepped up, but who knows?! And that thing about sidesticks... I think most pilots prefer yokes, from what I hear.

Radioflier · 01-23-2004, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by INTENSS
The flight restrictions will only be limited to a few major airports, if that. Do you know the solution to all of this? Build more airports...the U.S. government has been so slow in building new airports and runways it's unbelievable.

I don't know if larger aircraft are the answer to this, especially from the airlines' perspective. It really is debatable. The government should move their asses to get more money for better infrastructure...more runways...more airports. On a related note, did you hear that Jet Blue is requesting slots at LGA?

-Rich

There may be some room in the mid west for new airports, but on the east and west coast it will never happen. There is not even any room for expansion. For decades they have been trying to releive the metro NY area airports with other solutions, SWF,BDL all which have failed. ISP has become a major player only because SWA has filled a need that the majors ignored for years.
LGA and EWR run horrendous delays every time they go IFR. JFK was an 8 hour airport, but JBU is taking advantage of the underused capacity. The NIMBY"s stop any expansion efforts, the FAA cant get off their *** because their head is too far up it .

INTENSS · 01-23-2004, 11:00 PM

You're correct about the lack of space on the coasts, but alot of delays also come from the interior hubs in the country that continue back things up. It's not the whole solution, but a good part of it at least.

I've been saying for the past 10 years that the prison on Riker's Island should be moved to Governor's Island so that LGA can fill in all the land in between and do a little expansion.

JFK has room to expand...but yes Newark is totally locked in.

-Rich

INTENSS · 01-23-2004, 11:02 PM

Edit: JFK has the ROOM to expand...but the tree huggers would have a fit with Jamaica Bay Wildlife area there.

-Rich

Radioflier · 01-23-2004, 11:27 PM

Its sad but economics is beating technology into the ground. Even if they could find room to build a new airport, no one could afford it. The only solution is to pass the cost onto the users and that wont fly at all. The 380 could replace 2 747's. The only reason for so many flts now is to satisfy the customers demand to fly at all different times, but 9/11 has made it so inconvenient to fly a popular times, people are now willing to go at odd times , and when the mindset has sunk in to fly when the carriers want and not when the customer wants, then the A380's will be lining up at the gates. The US carriers wont use them, they really dont use the 747 that much, I could see FDX and UPS connecting their world hubs with these things. The foreign carriers will all use them eventually. I really feel that Boeing missed the boat on this one, they should have stretched the 747, but they wallowed in their corporate bull sh*t so long they let the window pass them up. They had some good ideas but couldnt make up thier minds, Airbus comitted early and there wasnt room for two of these monsters in the market.

Piarco · 01-23-2004, 11:33 PM

SFO might expand and get a new set of runways that aren't 750 feet within one another......right after all the environmental impact reports, permits, extortion, hearings, demonstrations about filling 2% of the bay....... Yep, we'll have OUR expansion completed around 2089.

01-23-2004, 03:12 PM	#1
FUELER045 Junior Collector Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Calgary, Canada Age: 29 Posts: 43	747 V.s. A380 the 747 having had an aready 30+ year ruling in the sky as the big bird of birds (the JUMBO)...i believe that the 747 will always be the one on top...the 380 will likely never hold the titles that the 747 has. in fact it would surprise me if even 1/4 the amount of 380's are built and that they last as long as the 747's are...i would be intrested to know how others feel on the subject...and why they think this is true or not.... __________________ BOEING OR NOTHING!!!!!

01-23-2004, 04:56 PM	#3
AASilverbird Collector Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 92	You can't beat the original Queen of the skys! __________________ From the Simpsons "I am evil Homer.""I am evil Homer"

01-23-2004, 08:59 PM	#5
Radioflier Senior Collector Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: LI,NY Posts: 417	read the thread FAA may limit flts into ORD and it seems as more airports find themselves in that situation, bigger airplanes with less fq will be the only answer. I believe DLH originally opted out of the 380 because of the belief that they would develope more direct flts to US cities with smaller aircraft. 9/11 changed all that, and I beleive DLH now has 380 on order. The 747 flew empty for many years when first introduced, I remember NWA 747 departing JFK every day with 35 pax OB. It may take a little while, but if airlines find themselves slot restricted into major airports, then they will put the biggest baddest puppy they can find in that slot. __________________ PAA B-377 EAL M-404 AAL DC-6 PAA DC-4

01-23-2004, 09:40 PM	#10
INTENSS Senior Collector Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 170	The flight restrictions will only be limited to a few major airports, if that. Do you know the solution to all of this? Build more airports...the U.S. government has been so slow in building new airports and runways it's unbelievable. Case in point: the Chicago area. Now it's been a few years, but during an MBA course in airport planning we discussed the Chicago market and what can be done to alleviate congestion there (this was prior to 9/11). What we discovered were a few other airports that were likely to get substantial increases in commercial service in the area (and Im not talking Midway, Gary, or Milwaukee ). So you limit some flights to Chicago's O'Hare and Midway, LaGuardia, Washington National (oops Reagan)....there are other airports that can pick up the slack. I don't know if larger aircraft are the answer to this, especially from the airlines' perspective. It really is debatable. The government should move their asses to get more money for better infrastructure...more runways...more airports. On a related note, did you hear that Jet Blue is requesting slots at LGA? -Rich Last edited by INTENSS; 01-23-2004 at 09:40 PM.

01-23-2004, 11:27 PM	#15
Radioflier Senior Collector Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: LI,NY Posts: 417	Its sad but economics is beating technology into the ground. Even if they could find room to build a new airport, no one could afford it. The only solution is to pass the cost onto the users and that wont fly at all. The 380 could replace 2 747's. The only reason for so many flts now is to satisfy the customers demand to fly at all different times, but 9/11 has made it so inconvenient to fly a popular times, people are now willing to go at odd times , and when the mindset has sunk in to fly when the carriers want and not when the customer wants, then the A380's will be lining up at the gates. The US carriers wont use them, they really dont use the 747 that much, I could see FDX and UPS connecting their world hubs with these things. The foreign carriers will all use them eventually. I really feel that Boeing missed the boat on this one, they should have stretched the 747, but they wallowed in their corporate bull sht so long they let the window pass them up. They had some good ideas but couldnt make up thier minds, Airbus comitted early and there wasnt room for two of these monsters in the market. __________________ PAA B-377 EAL M-404 AAL DC-6 PAA DC-4 Last edited by Radioflier; 01-23-2004 at 11:46 PM.*

01-23-2004, 05:27 PM	#4
INTENSS Senior Collector Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 170	If I were Airbus, I woudn't be getting much sleep until these things start rolling off the assembly line in large quantities. God forbid another 9/11 kind of event and these things will be flying empty like Pan Am 747's in the 1970's. Carrying the number of passengers these things will be carrying is just asking for trouble. None of us wants to see one of these things go down full of passengers. The thought is simply horrible, The Asian market (barring any more SARS/disease outbreaks) will love this type of aircraft....shuttling hundreds and hundreds of people over the Pacific at a time. Talk about maximizing you revenues. However, this plane will NOT work at all in the domestic markets and will unlikely work well across the Atlantic because of the frequencies needed on that network to work. Smaller (A340, 330, 777, 767) A/C are better suited for the trans-Atlantic work. Overall, I believe Boeing's move with the 7E7 is fantastic. Creating better creature comforts...can you imagine people actually "liking to fly?" I mean...besides all of us of course. More room, better seating, bigger windows to look out of. Okay, so probably 80% of what they marketed the 7E7 to have it probably won't. But the idea is right on.....and it will catch on. Airbus is getting their noses in the air a tad prematurely because of 1 year beating Boeing. They both have a fight on their hands for the next few years....but I believe Airbus will begin to regret the A380 program in the short to medium term. -Rich

01-23-2004, 09:16 PM	#6
DLmd11 Master Collector Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: suburb of chicago Posts: 717	WOW! I just saw another beautful photo of a Canadi>n 767-300 in the same colors on another thread. Sad to see them go. I have always been a Boeing nut, from the 707 on, and never really cared much for any other airliner until the MD-11. The A380 is considerably larger if you compare any scale model of the two and this is what is going to impress many people the most. I do not know anything structurally about either of them but time will tell how sound the A380's will be. The wing itself looks hugh enough to plan for a stretch version since I believe it really is shorter than the 747. So there may be room for growth. I can not help but stress that Boeing did it all by themselves with out the financial support of multiple countries as Airbus is receiving and of this Boeing should be proud. How long would Airbus have survived without multiple government support? For many years Boeing was the largest exporter of the U.S., which in itself is impressive. I do not know where they rank now. More than anything I hope Boeing improves their marketing. I knowthe 7E7 is to replace the 757 and 767 but I think it is poor planning to close the 757 line. It is the best airplane in its category. Neither the 737-900 nor the A321 come close to the performance of the 757. They could have given it a minor tune-up until the 7E7 came on board. So with some creative marketing and a few upgrades I am sure the 757 could have continued. Yes, I like Boeing and wish them well. The future looks turbulent. Just my opinions.

01-23-2004, 09:36 PM	#9
DLmd11 Master Collector Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: suburb of chicago Posts: 717	no duh The cockpit commonality is a plus for Airbus. I do not remember where I read it, possibly Aviation Daily, but LH requested a side stick from Boeing as an option. I would imagine it would be for the 7E7. I did not know the side stick was so well liked. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if Boeing accomodates their request for this option.

01-23-2004, 11:00 PM	#13
INTENSS Senior Collector Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 170	You're correct about the lack of space on the coasts, but alot of delays also come from the interior hubs in the country that continue back things up. It's not the whole solution, but a good part of it at least. I've been saying for the past 10 years that the prison on Riker's Island should be moved to Governor's Island so that LGA can fill in all the land in between and do a little expansion. JFK has room to expand...but yes Newark is totally locked in. -Rich

01-23-2004, 11:02 PM	#14
INTENSS Senior Collector Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 170	Edit: JFK has the ROOM to expand...but the tree huggers would have a fit with Jamaica Bay Wildlife area there. -Rich

01-23-2004, 11:33 PM	#16
Piarco Mondo Zouk & Soca Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Mateo, California (SFO) Posts: 553	SFO might expand and get a new set of runways that aren't 750 feet within one another......right after all the environmental impact reports, permits, extortion, hearings, demonstrations about filling 2% of the bay....... Yep, we'll have OUR expansion completed around 2089.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: