BoeingBoeing.net

January 18, 2005 2:06 PM

The world's largest passenger plane. The new Airbus "superjumbo" has a 262-foot wingspan, a tail as tall as a seven-story building and it cost $13 billion to develop. In a three-class cabin layout, the A380 will carry 555 passengers -- 33% more than the plane it is designed to displace, Boeing's veteran 747, Sir Norman Foster's favorite piece of modern architecture. The A380 has 49% more floor space. How the plane's extra space is used will be left up to airlines. Low-cost carriers could operate the A380 with a single economy-class configuration accommodating as many as 800 passengers. Virgin company chief Richard Branson said his airline, which has ordered six A380s, will offer private double beds for first-class passengers and casinos. Airbus trailed Boeing Co. until 2003, when it delivered more planes than its U.S. rival for the first time -- a feat it matched last year. Boeing will unveil next year the much smaller, new 7E7 -- with 200 to 250 seats.
posted by matteo (49 comments total)

Previous thread here
posted by matteo at 2:08 PM on January 18, 2005

Airbus had better be careful with the amount of press they are getting for the A380. If one crashes it will all rebound on them.

It's sad how Boeing have ceased to want to compete and innovate in a commercial world where they can lose and instead only want to work for the Pentagon.
posted by sien at 2:11 PM on January 18, 2005

The A380 will carry 555 American passengers, or 666 European and other nationals.
posted by jmccorm at 2:14 PM on January 18, 2005

Is it sad, or smart. Do we really want that many in an accident at one time? Also, the myopia of this reminds me of THIS
posted by ParisParamus at 2:17 PM on January 18, 2005

i wouldn't let my uncles, my aunts or my little children's pants on that thing.
posted by milkman at 2:18 PM on January 18, 2005

Basically, the question is, can you trust AirBus' PR more than Boeing's. Given the current low unemployment and robust economy in Europe, I think Boeing's decision not to go Superjumbo is more trustworthy than Airbus' decision to do so.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:25 PM on January 18, 2005

Flashback to 2000:

A report to the European Parliament last October said Echelon played a part in helping the American Boeing company block attempts by the European Airbus consortium to break into the Saudi Arabian market.

Washington has denied the allegations, adding that most of the major powers engage in industrial espionage, including France.

posted by waldo at 2:28 PM on January 18, 2005

Is there a reason why this plane would be more likely to crash than any other? If not, isn't it better to have fewer planes, carrying more people each?
posted by OldMansHands at 2:29 PM on January 18, 2005

It's sad how Boeing have ceased to want to compete and innovate in a commercial world where they can lose and instead only want to work for the Pentagon.

Boeing (America's largest exporter) is "competing" against a massively subsidized competitor. They're acting quite rationally.
posted by Kwantsar at 2:33 PM on January 18, 2005

jmccorm,
Was that a statement as to the size of Americans, or were you calling Europeans evil?
posted by CCK at 2:36 PM on January 18, 2005

Boeing isn't giving up, actually. They're just taking a different strategy. Airbus believes that the future is in really big jetliners. Boeing thinks that the future is in smaller, more fuel efficient airplanes that can connect to many of the mid-sized destination cities. Many of these cities don't generate enough traffic to warrant a gigantic plane, but would still do a lot of business. It remains to be seen who's right, but no one's giving up here.
posted by unreason at 2:42 PM on January 18, 2005

Boeing is doing a pretty decent job innovating.

If the 7E7 achieves anything like its promised improvements in fuel and other cost efficiency standards, it will become a template for future larger (successor to the 777) and smaller (successor to the 737) aircraft, particularly if oil prices stay sky-high.

The A380 is a magnificent aircraft, but it is a bet with two ways to lose. First, economic activity must continue to be heavily concentrated around the 20-30 mega-metro areas which can supply enough city pair traffic to sustain it -- if the present pace of economic geographic diversification increases, no hope. Second, the aircraft itself must prove capable of delivering operating efficiencies significantly in excess of those delivered by the Boeing 747-400 and 777-300; if it turns out that the A380 can't do that, than airlines operating big Boeings on the same routes will eat the A380 operators for lunch.
posted by MattD at 2:43 PM on January 18, 2005

"Is there a reason why this plane would be more likely to crash than any other? If not, isn't it better to have fewer planes, carrying more people each?"

Seems to me, the bigger the plane, the bigger the incentive to blow it up, and the more likely it is to miss something when it comes to security. But, I could be wrong.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:47 PM on January 18, 2005

Boeing (America's largest exporter) is "competing" against a massively subsidized competitor. They're acting quite rationally.

Actually, they're relying on defense contracts and shady deals to keep their heads above water. The 7E7 is interesting, but it remains to be seen whether it will be very compelling for air carriers.
posted by bshort at 2:49 PM on January 18, 2005

Seems to me, the bigger the plane, the bigger the incentive to blow it up, and the more likely it is to miss something when it comes to security. But, I could be wrong.

Yes, more likely than not, you're wrong.

If the major cause of air disasters was terrorists, then you might have something to worry about, but it's not, so you don't.
posted by bshort at 2:50 PM on January 18, 2005

Second, the aircraft itself must prove capable of delivering operating efficiencies significantly in excess of those delivered by the Boeing 747-400 and 777-300;

And that may be tough - apparently even some large airports will need significant infrastructure improvements to handle the plane. I'd also assume many of the "features" (casino, shopping, etc.) will be removed to add even more seats, but then how do you get that many people on and off (it can be configured to carry over 800) in a reasonable time frame?

Seems to me, the bigger the plane, the bigger the incentive to blow it up, and the more likely it is to miss something when it comes to security. But, I could be wrong.

Even if a crash is due to mechanical failure or pilot error, I think 5 or 6 hundred people dying in a plane crash will be more of a PR problem then, say 200 perishing in a crash under similar circumstances. Lots of "Worst single air disaster in history"-type news stories to follow.
posted by jalexei at 2:57 PM on January 18, 2005

Ex-aero engineer here, putting my $0.02 in: Boeing is in trouble. The 7E7 is a smokescreen; essentially Boeing is saying "we'll use new technologies to make a more efficient plane". Well, doh, that's what you're supposed to do. Fact is, building a super-jumbo is expensive: it takes a lot of capital and a lot of risk, and Boeing didn't wanna take either back in '95 or so when Airbus first proposed the A380. Boeing (my opinion here) decided to call Airbus' bluff and counter-pitch something called the 747-600X (? IIRC), a super-duper-stretched version of the good ole Jumbo.

Trouble was no-one wanted a 50 yr old design with different engines and Airbus wasn't bluffing. So, scrambling to find a new flagship product (the 777 is great, but not exactly a brand-maker) Boeing came up with a stupid, stupid concept called the Sonic Cruiser: essentially it'd let you fly 15% faster than anything else in the air, but >>15% more expensive. After the collective airline industry stopped laughing, Boeing scrapped the Cruiser and came up with the 7E7. Airbus has already said that they'll take the A380 innovations and experience and field the A350 in a few years to compete directly with the 7E7, so there goes that advantage, if there was ever going to be any --never mind the economies of scale of pitching A380s + A350s to the same carrier.

The real trouble, again IMHO is that Boeing is a boring, boring firm that seldom took risks (the 747 was only built because the Army had already paid for its R&D as the failed competitor to what became the C-5 Galaxy) and has now been left as the only American civil aircraft maker. Before Boeing bought them, McDonnell Douglas was trying to get off the ground a proposal for a flying wing mega-jumbo; that would have been a truly revolutionary design and would have probably kicked the A380's butt if carriers had the guts to buy them.

As for the risk of an accident in a bigger plane: believe me, the safety margins don't change if the plane is small or large and if anything a super-jumbo may be able to resist turbulence better. But, statistically, deaths in aircraft accidents occur in terms of passenger-miles, so a larger concentration of passengers statistically decreases your chances for a given flight.
posted by costas at 3:19 PM on January 18, 2005

Kwantsar,
don't think that I didn't appreciate your link to the (self-described, in the site's very front page) "Internet's most popular destination for news, discussion, and debate on government conspiracies, cover-ups, UFO's, and other alternative topics".
but frankly, are you trying to argue that Airbus is subsidized and Boeing is not?

I mean, let's ignore the steel elephant in the room and let's pretend that the Pentagon's pork that fattens Boeing doesn't even exist -- are you aware of tax cuts, federal grants to foreign customers of Boeing, the kind of protectionist support Boeing gets in Congress (not only from Washington State officials but by a nice bi-partisan, defense-friendly coalition)?

are you aware that many 7E7 parts will be made in Japan (a coincidence: JAL is buying 7E7s, not Airbus planes)? do you know how _that_ deal went down?

tax incentives tailor-made for Boeing by the State Legislature and the US Congress? hello?

I like the 7E7 and I think it can be a very good idea, but come on, the 7E7 is a US govt project. the amount of corporate welfate that Boeing enjoys is the mirror image of Airbus, only worse if you consider how the Pentagon ends up using Boeing products (hint: they're not flying tourists around the world -- well, maybe with the exception of Gitmo prisoners)
posted by matteo at 3:20 PM on January 18, 2005

Boeing (America's largest exporter) is "competing" against a massively subsidized competitor.
And getting massive subsidies of its own, from the Pentagon, but also from Washington state and from...Japan.
As that last link shows, it is also very silly to see this as yet another Europe vs. America issue. Half of the value of an Airbus airliner may well be American (engines, avionics, cabin equipment), whereas Boeing also subcontracts much of each plane to Japan, Italy, etc.
Personally, I think that the A380 will be a big success. Environmental noise regulations limiting the number of take-offs and landings in each airport will tilt the balance towards larger aircraft, a trend that will only be reinforced by the increasing concentration of people and wealth in megapoles worldwide. Also, the prestige value of flying the *largest* aircraft on the market will be very much irresistible for Asian airlines, and there's where growth will be...
As for Boeing, its leadership has been very lacking in the last decade of so. The paradoxical result of its acquisition of McDonnell Douglas has been that it is now run by MDD executives, the very same people who ran MDD into the ground before. Since then Boeing has:
a) tried to co-opt Airbus' European partners into a common Superjumbo project.
b) when that didn't work, launched the ludicrous "Sonic Cruiser" concept,
c) when that didn't work either, substituted it with the 7E7/Dreamliner concept, some of whose elements are largely fanciful (using twice as much composites as any civilian airliner before), whereas others (efficient engines) can easily be adapted by Airbus for its own planes.
The result of these more than ten years of dithering is that Airbus has the A380, whereas Boeing only has a paper plane, and already has had to discontinue the 717 and 757 production lines, with the 767 saved only by the controversial KC-767 tanker project, the 747 in mortal danger and the 737 steadily losing market share to the A320 (and, in the future, to Brazil's Embraer and Canada's Bombardier too). It doesn't look good.
posted by Skeptic at 3:25 PM on January 18, 2005

Lemme also say that watching a Boeing-Airbus fight is as exciting to this aero geek as watching paint dry. There's only one gutsy aircraft maker in the world and its name is Lockheed.
posted by costas at 3:26 PM on January 18, 2005

But does gutsy translate into operating efficiencies, cost savings, and passenger revenue per seat?

To me, it almost looks like apples and oranges; the 7E7, it seems, would replace a large number of aging 757s and 767s and burn less gas doing it.
posted by TeamBilly at 3:38 PM on January 18, 2005

It's not like Airbus doesn't get defense contracts too.

Not as Airbus, mind you (unless the prop transport takes off), but Airbus isn't really a complete company. Airbus is mostly just what you call it when BAe, Aerospatiale, CASA, Daimler Aerospace, and assorted others build an airliner together.

These more "real" firms that make up Airbus get lots of defense contracts. Sometimes on their own, and sometimes when they build combat aircraft together and call themselves Eurofighter for that purpose.

I imagine that both the US and different EU governments have worked very hard to obfuscate exactly how much Boeing and Airbus receive in direct and indirect subsidies. But it has to be a shitload each.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:47 PM on January 18, 2005

I'm ready to fly it (just keep the price down) : >
posted by amberglow at 3:51 PM on January 18, 2005

Well, the A350 or the new Embraers or whatever China or Japan build in the near future (Boeing is offshoring construction there, including the up until now sacrosanct wing structure) will also burn less fuel than 757s or 767s. Actually, future 757s will burn less fuel than current 757s: airliners get rebuilt (literally disassembled down to components, inspected and put back together again) every few years. Manufacturers routinely sell upgrades as part of such "depot" maintenaince, such as lighter structures (to save fuel) and more fuel-efficient engines. This is just evolution; gutsy translates to doing something different, taking a large risk for a large reward. Lockheed doesn't build airliners any longer, so my money's on the smaller players like Embraer or Bombardier.

Also, comparing the Boeing military contracts to the combined BAe and EADS contracts is more than unfair: there are US Navy aircraft carrier groups that have more planes than the entire Air Force of some European nations. And beside the direct subsidies thru such pork-barrel projects as the Space Shuttle (Boeing again, mostly) there is also the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) subsidy: essentially, the US goes to a 'friendly' country and strongly insists that that country needs to purchase US aircraft to maintain "compatibility" with US forces. It's not a coincidence that the Saudis have a fleet of completely useless to them Boeing F-15 Eagles, probably one of the most expensive aircraft ever built.
posted by costas at 4:03 PM on January 18, 2005

don't think that I didn't appreciate your link to the (self-described, in the site's very front page) "Internet's most popular destination for news, discussion, and debate on government conspiracies, cover-ups, UFO's, and other alternative topics".

It's a well-sourced (if one-sided) article. The subtle ad hominem is unnecessary.

but frankly, are you trying to argue that Airbus is subsidized and Boeing is not?

Not at all. I'm saying that there's a fuckload of difference between launch aid and tax breaks.

Furthermore, I doubt Boeing, Zoellick & Co. would have filed with the WTO if they thought they had more to lose than Airbus.
posted by Kwantsar at 4:18 PM on January 18, 2005

the same fuckload of difference that exists between Pentagon's business and launch aid or a different magnitude of fuckload?
;)
posted by matteo at 4:38 PM on January 18, 2005

So I had to fly from Nashville, TN to Oakland, CA last two weeks ago. The flight was from Nashville to Chicago, and then to Oakland. Both legs had pretty small planes (don't really know which ones, but they had 2 seats on each side of the aisle). Going there and going back, all planes had a few empty seats, but there were several (4, I think) flights available for the days I booked tickets on. Now then, I don't' think my flight was that unusual for US domestic flights. Given that, why would an airline want a plane that carries 800 people? If they do, they would have to limit the flights to like one a week to get enough people to fill the plane. Is that something they might want to do, having to become less flexible? Just wondering.
posted by c13 at 6:15 PM on January 18, 2005

If you are afraid to fly on this, or any other plane, because of terrorists, please seek immediate medical help.
posted by mosch at 6:33 PM on January 18, 2005

These planes will be great not only for the really common international long-haul routes, but for the major cargo routes as well.

People aren't the only things that fly, these days.
posted by mosch at 6:34 PM on January 18, 2005

Well, mosch, it makes perfect sense for cargo planes, just not for passenger ones. Or am I overlooking something?
posted by c13 at 6:41 PM on January 18, 2005

Is there a reason why this plane would be more likely to crash than any other? If not, isn't it better to have fewer planes, carrying more people each?

Personally my gut reaction was fear, after seeing the plane on television. It was just that the size and decadence of it (on board boutiques) invoked images of the Titanic and the Hindenburg in my mind. Though I am aware that this is quite irrational and I certainly wouldn't turn down an opportunity to fly on it.
posted by bobo123 at 6:51 PM on January 18, 2005

The A380 will carry 555 American passengers, or 666 European and other nationals.

Jmccorm, as an American who is six feet tall and weighs 150 pounds, it's still funny what you said.
posted by davejay at 7:07 PM on January 18, 2005

Seems to me, the bigger the plane, the bigger the incentive to blow it up, and the more likely it is to miss something when it comes to security. But, I could be wrong.

That logic not only applies, there's the fact that they're *prominent* targets, being recent and buzz-y. Not to mention that if they're really a big boon for the airline industry, they're even *more* of an economic target than their cost to build.

If I were a terrorist, I'd target one.
posted by namespan at 7:40 PM on January 18, 2005

c13, these planes (the A380 and the Boeing 777) are not made for flights within the US but for longer intercontinental travel, like Europe to Asia and Asia to USA. And for hauling cargo over similar distances.
posted by billsaysthis at 7:56 PM on January 18, 2005

Is there a reason why this plane would be more likely to crash than any other?

Well, just intuitively, objects bigger than the White House should probably not be airborne. But this merely illustrates why intuition is sometimes unreliable.
posted by kindall at 8:02 PM on January 18, 2005

There are some cool things about the 7E7 design, at least on the inside - it is going to have big, big windows (including one in the bathroom) that use LCD technology to darken rather than shades, as well as a neat extra high ceiling that changes color as the day passes.
posted by blahblahblah at 8:15 PM on January 18, 2005

An Economist article explaining Boeing vs. Airbus strategy.

Does anyone have any idea of the scale of historical Government support to Boeing?
posted by biffa at 1:48 AM on January 19, 2005

Personally my gut reaction was fear, after seeing the plane on television. It was just that the size and decadence of it (on board boutiques) invoked images of the Titanic and the Hindenburg in my mind.

Well exactly. It's a disaster movie waiting to happen. I can actually picture the smarmy finance man showing eager journalists round the chandelier-laden casino and Gucci-filled boutique. Or course, there's one sceptical smart-alec journalist along who keeps asking about tests and safety record etc. He'll crawl out of the wreckage when everyone else is dead.
posted by Summer at 2:51 AM on January 19, 2005

All (perfectly reasonable) concerns about disasters and terrorism aside, I think the A380 is just boring. It has a market, though one wonders how big that market is - I can see it used for high traffic, long haul city-to-city routes but that's about it. However, how many times have you been on a long haul journey in say a 777 where only 60% of the seats are occupied? The airline industry is overcapacity anyway. Point-to-point, flexible services seem the wave of the future. It is also worth remembering that because of the lack of a coherent industrial policy towards strategic industries in the States (Pentagon pork does not count) - Boeing was forced to choose between superjumbos and smaller craft, which is a bit sad. I want more legroom, less noise, cheaper tickets and wifi. However, part of me thinks that air travel would be less tedious if we had stopped being sensible and started travelling on these long ago. (Sigh)
posted by The Salaryman at 3:35 AM on January 19, 2005

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/sst.php
posted by The Salaryman at 3:35 AM on January 19, 2005

I want more legroom, less noise, cheaper tickets and wifi.

Make your mind up.
posted by biffa at 3:56 AM on January 19, 2005

Channel-flicking before bed, I noticed the A380s on the nightly news. It turns out Qantas has already bought a dozen of them for use in long-haul flights, and Tullamarine (aka Melbourne Airport) is planning to widen it's runways to cope with this behemoth. People dwelling near the airport are getting ready to complain about the noise, if and when these things start landing there.

When I rule the world, I'm bringing back airships.
posted by Ritchie at 5:01 AM on January 19, 2005

It strikes me that a lot of the skepticism about the A380 is coming from Americans, who are -- I hope you'll excuse me for saying this -- not used to long-haul intercontinental flight. As a short-haul plane the A380 doesn't make sense. But if you think long-haul, with flights across distances over 5000 nautical miles, then I'd much rather fly to a hub then switch to a 747 or an A380 than fly direct from my local airport on a 757. Big planes are simply more comfortable (as well as offering cost savings) on long haul flights; on my last trip to the US, via Lufthansa (on a 747-400) there was a queue of folks making use of the twin aisles to stretch their legs halfway through the trip. Try doing that on a 757 ...

Another issue is landing slots. Airports have a limited number of daily slots -- they can only land/take off one plane per two to three minutes per runway -- and many of the big European hubs (Schiphol, London Heathrow, Frankfurt) are screaming because all their slots are taken and they can't build more runways (being too close to major cities). By shifting from 300 seaters to 600 seaters they can double their capacity (on long-haul routes) without building more runways.
posted by cstross at 7:33 AM on January 19, 2005

I don't disagree, but my innate pedantry wants me to add a nuance, and my academic OCD won't let me get back to work until I do. So take the following in that spirit...

Anyhow, I don't doubt that Americans take fewer transoceanic flights, and many cross-country flights here will be taken as two legs. But it occurs to me that a wide section of business or tourism trips that would be train-distance in Europe and taken by train are plane-distance in North America and taken by plane. So not only are we less familiar with long-haul travel, we're more familiar with short-haul.

A transatlantic trip on a 757? Sure, that's tough going... for sissies. Try taking it on a 707 with 6-abreast seats. That'll put iron in your arse. Or go Ramstein to Lakenheath or Mildenhall on the jump seats in a C-130 *shudder*.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:32 AM on January 19, 2005

If it is of the same quality as the A-330, I'll be happy to fly on one. Those are sweet planes, much more comfortable that the DC-10s that they replaced in Northwest's fleet.
posted by moonbiter at 11:33 AM on January 19, 2005

I had to fly from Nashville, TN to Oakland, CA last two weeks ago. The flight was from Nashville to Chicago, and then to Oakland. ...why would an airline want a plane that carries 800 people?

This plane is not meant for the kind of route you flew (minor hub to major hub to minor hub). It is meant for long-haul oceanic/intercontinental flights between prominent international hubs, such as Los Angeles to Narita, London to Hong Kong, Frankfurt to New York, etc. etc. From these hubs, smaller planes may connect to final destinations.

While I will stay out of judging whether Boeing or Airbus has the biggest government paycheck, I'll note that the 7E7 does have some major technological advances planned for it, such as a composite superstructure (reducing weight and problems associated with metal), no hydraulics, APU or engine bleed air (eliminating a ton of hydraulics-related problems), and a single wing design accepting several engines. I believe the A380 is a much more incremental design.

I personally think the A380, while very impressive, is a bit of a kludge visually. The 747 with its famous hump looks prettier to me.

...Watching a 747 load up at the SFO international terminal, then taxi out and take off into the setting sun over the Pacific is nothing short of breathtaking.
posted by azazello at 1:32 PM on January 19, 2005

Also historically the FAA (and the IATA?) was reluctant to permit transoceanic flights on optimal routes with 2 engines, obviously because engine failure with no nearby emergency airfield is much more likely to bring down a 2-engine than a 3- or 4-engine plane. This restriction has been lifted for at least 15 years I think, and engine failure is now exceedingly rare, but four engines are still better on a long-haul flight than two from a redundancy standpoint.
posted by azazello at 1:36 PM on January 19, 2005

An article listing who's already bought A380's, googling for articles it's apparent that a number of airlines are keen to use them for non-stop flights from the US or Europe to Australia/Singapore, etc.
posted by biffa at 3:07 AM on January 20, 2005

TSUNAMI-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry.

While millions of Europeans are sending aid to Thailand to help its recovery, trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines, its national carrier, pays £1.3 billion to buy its double-decker aircraft.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:51 AM on January 20, 2005