That's a pointlastrow wrote:well, depending on the route you will need also two crews on a 787 ... so what is the different point with the a380?
Regards, Bernhard
A380 vs 787 economics question
Moderator: Latest news team
Howdy,
One thing to remember, when the DC8-10 series was developed it had problems with its wings and the fuel burn was below what Douglas promised the airlines. Eventually Douglas fixed the problem with the wing and the DC8 did reasonably well; not as well as the 707, but it held it's own. Technical problems with the A380 should be expected. Airbus is not a stupid company! The A380 is a work in progress, and I am certain they will get it right.
The problem is filling the A380. When the 747 came out, the timing could not have been worse. The aircraft was too big and unecessary for most carriers back in the early and mid 1970's. Plus they had the two oil shocks which hurt the 747 program, especially with American domestic carriers who did not need this aircraft. Eventually, when economic times improved in the 1980's, the 747 became needed.
Ultimately is comes down to costs per seat mile and there are a lot of seats to fill in the A380.
Bkonner
One thing to remember, when the DC8-10 series was developed it had problems with its wings and the fuel burn was below what Douglas promised the airlines. Eventually Douglas fixed the problem with the wing and the DC8 did reasonably well; not as well as the 707, but it held it's own. Technical problems with the A380 should be expected. Airbus is not a stupid company! The A380 is a work in progress, and I am certain they will get it right.
The problem is filling the A380. When the 747 came out, the timing could not have been worse. The aircraft was too big and unecessary for most carriers back in the early and mid 1970's. Plus they had the two oil shocks which hurt the 747 program, especially with American domestic carriers who did not need this aircraft. Eventually, when economic times improved in the 1980's, the 747 became needed.
Ultimately is comes down to costs per seat mile and there are a lot of seats to fill in the A380.
Bkonner
Caravelle looks
Yeah, in fact I have the same opinion but only on the previous look of the so-called "Dreamliner". It comes from the shape of the nose, with convergent and seemless lines to the nose. Same as the DH Comet, since the Caravelle borrowed the latter's nose.Ovostar wrote:not really an economic question, but don't you thnik the 787 looks a littlebit like the caravelle ?
However, the latest drawings of the 787 look much more conventional and much less sleek, so I guess the resemblance to the SE-210 Caravelle no longer is.
BTW, what a stupid name "Dreamliner", for a thrifty aircraft that looks just as dull as any other twin on the market, save the upward diedral wings... I bet the customers are less impressed in its final looks than they were when they ordered the shark-finned airplane...
I think the 380 can be and should be compared to the 350/787.
If seat mile costs of the 350/787 get into the order of magnitude of the 380, then the 380 has a problem.
If all costs are considered and the costs per seat mile come out similar then the only airlines who will want the 380 are those flying into slot restricted fields.
In the past smaller aircraft could not get anywhere near the seat mile costs of a larger craft, but the 350/787 will change that.
It raises another serious question. What is Airbus thinking with the 350?
If it is as good as Leahy says it will undermine 333, 340, and 380 sales.
The obvious thing to do imo is to put the weight saving technology into the 330. That would be some aircraft.
Ruscoe
If seat mile costs of the 350/787 get into the order of magnitude of the 380, then the 380 has a problem.
If all costs are considered and the costs per seat mile come out similar then the only airlines who will want the 380 are those flying into slot restricted fields.
In the past smaller aircraft could not get anywhere near the seat mile costs of a larger craft, but the 350/787 will change that.
It raises another serious question. What is Airbus thinking with the 350?
If it is as good as Leahy says it will undermine 333, 340, and 380 sales.
The obvious thing to do imo is to put the weight saving technology into the 330. That would be some aircraft.
Ruscoe
Are you sure that the cost per seat of the a380 will be the same than the 787 ? it seems really false to me...
And i agree that the 350 will undermine the 333, 346, and 380's.... they shouldn't build the 350
Dont you think it;s strange that airbus and boeing are building so much new long distance flight...
and in this low cost boom ,they keep their old 737 , don;t they want to build new regional planes.?
And i agree that the 350 will undermine the 333, 346, and 380's.... they shouldn't build the 350
Dont you think it;s strange that airbus and boeing are building so much new long distance flight...
and in this low cost boom ,they keep their old 737 , don;t they want to build new regional planes.?
Airbus tried that and failed. Airlines said thanks, but no thanks.Ruscoe wrote: The obvious thing to do imo is to put the weight saving technology into the 330. That would be some aircraft.
Ruscoe
The initial A350 project (merely an upgrade version of the 330) was nowhere near the 787 in terms of performance/comfort.
Airbus had to revise its plan and came up with the A350 V.2. which is now a perfect competitor to the 787 thingy.
Differences? try this:
A new cabin design, new wing featuring nearly 100% of composite, brand new engines (thrust ratings from 63,000 to 75,000 lb.), a new tailplane, new landing gear and several new avionics.
It also builds partially on the technologies developed for the A380, such as composite materials. 39% of the A350 will use composite materials while aluminum-lithium parts will comprise 23% of the aircraft; steel, 14%; aluminum, 11%; titanium, 9%; etc. The fuselage is planned to be built primarily with advanced aluminum-lithium alloys which will lead to a weight reduction of 17,600 lb compared to the 330.
So, while all the differences may not be noticeable at first sight, they’re real.
A new cabin design, new wing featuring nearly 100% of composite, brand new engines (thrust ratings from 63,000 to 75,000 lb.), a new tailplane, new landing gear and several new avionics.
It also builds partially on the technologies developed for the A380, such as composite materials. 39% of the A350 will use composite materials while aluminum-lithium parts will comprise 23% of the aircraft; steel, 14%; aluminum, 11%; titanium, 9%; etc. The fuselage is planned to be built primarily with advanced aluminum-lithium alloys which will lead to a weight reduction of 17,600 lb compared to the 330.
So, while all the differences may not be noticeable at first sight, they’re real.
-
Alistairbastian
- Posts: 149
- Joined: 01 Dec 2004, 00:00
with the airbus A 380
laser beam welding technology will be used which will help in the much needed weight reduction of the bird and the laser welding techlonolgy reduces production time 
until now, the overwhelming majority of all metal structural parts for aircraft were either riveted or glued.
http://www.manufacturingtalk.com/news/sce/sce113.html
The GLARE .... the new composite material 
dunno if i'm right Airbus is the first aviation company to use the GLARE
laser beam welding technology will be used which will help in the much needed weight reduction of the bird and the laser welding techlonolgy reduces production time until now, the overwhelming majority of all metal structural parts for aircraft were either riveted or glued. http://www.manufacturingtalk.com/news/sce/sce113.html The GLARE .... the new composite material dunno if i'm right Airbus is the first aviation company to use the GLARE
Hi SR89, sorry, I do not want to "rump your balls" as italians say but I have read (AERO 8/2005) that the wing box ribs and the "integral stringers" will be made of metal. However, i must admit that I do not know, how much percentage this counts.
also I just want to add that the fuselage will be made of Al-li aloy because one can perform repairs better. - just my 2 cents.
but I have read (AERO 8/2005) that the wing box ribs and the "integral stringers" will be made of metal. However, i must admit that I do not know, how much percentage this counts.also I just want to add that the fuselage will be made of Al-li aloy because one can perform repairs better. - just my 2 cents.