must try it to dubai or doha before it goes https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-a380-but-it-never-fully-took-off-with-buyers
I flew in a DC10 in the 2000's probably 15 years after they stopped production and they only made a few hundred of those
So i find this really interesting.... I worked at Boeing during the GFC and the 787 delays... At the time the media were reporting how Boeing will have missed the boat as the a380 would get the jump. There was a lot of comparing. So it will be interesting which of these two very different aircrafts will be remember as king (or are they no longer compared due to the 787 delays?) Also as an aside. Due to above mentioned role i also was able to visit the a380 wingtip production line... the cross over (considering the doom and gloom over the 787) was quite interesting. Also interesting that the media haven't pick up on the aussie impact (if it will be i don't know...) But agree a380 flying days are far from over!
A hell of a lot of money was spent expanding airports to cater for A380. Sad that it never quite worked out
787 isn’t going to be Boeing’s ‘king’. The new 777 will take that mantle. It will be a 767 to 747 style relationship between the two. IMHO
Its not about Boeing's king. There was a LOT of comparison between A380 and 787 as both were announced around the same time and were supposed to come out the same time. I am curious to see on reflection which one comes up trumps. Like - how many actual planes got produced in the end. and the time of service. both from first flight to last flight of every plane.
The size of the thing was always a strategic gamble. This was a constantly noted concern during the entire history of the project. The need to modify airports to accommodate them was always going to lose out to an alternative that achieved the same or less consumption of fuel per passenger -- and did not require the additional overhead of airport mods. Plus the actuaries must have been silently birthing kittens at the thought of losing 500+ passengers should one ever down. Suspect Emirates massive early commitment was as muched influenced by geopolitics and the need to bolster petro-euros as it being the right plane for the job. Plus their blind ambition for Dubai to become one of the worlds most important air hubs played into Airbus's hands. thanks @essjaywhy for posting as I just renewed my annual Gardian contribution - have to walk the talk
Emirates were the only airline to use the aeroplane as it was envisaged . With added bling. For other airlines. It was just a big expensive cattle truck.
Very different aeroplanes and not just 4 engines versus 2 or passenger capacity. One was developed on the hub and spoke network model and the other for point to point. **** the 787. Bring on the 777x.
A few years ago we flew in an Aerolineas Argentinas 747 which I reckon was the first jumbo off the production line and had been through no less than 10 previous owners, none of which had done any maintenance. We were glad when it rolled to a stop at the destination..... wheel side down
Ive only ever been in one A380. Though it was business ckass to London which was a tough ride. We were supposed to be going premium economy to Auckland recently and Air New Zealand took it out of service for unscheduled maintenance.
No one seems to get my point. (admittedly it was a long time ago!) But the a380 and the 787 were thrown head to head at the beginning. just curious which will come out on top in aircraft history. (regardless of the fact they are very different planes - the media compared them all the time.
Well it would seem they didnt have a spare one. We got stuck on some leased older thing but they bumped us up to business as compensation
I think you're thinking of the 787 They had some issues with the engines on the 787's They wet leased some aircraft.
I find this most interesting; From wikipedia "In mid-1988, Airbus engineers led by Jean Roeder began work in secret on the development of an ultra-high-capacity airliner (UHCA), both to complete its own range of products and to break the dominance that Boeing had enjoyed in this market segment since the early 1970s with its 747." In retrospect it's easy to pull apart the flawed logic - when you focus on chasing the leader, you can't see the future clearly. Airbus are sitting there thinking "we need bigger planes to compete" -- but chances are Boeing were sitting there at the same time and being out in front were unencumbered to look to the future and were saying; "we need a product that alleviates the bottleneck of these inefficient hub airports that we just created by selling too many big planes" Strategy really matters when the timeframe is 30+ years.
Well the big development wasn't in the aircraft as such. More the engines and ETOPS certifications. Boeing would still happily be making 747's if the engines for twins hadn't developed to the point they are now.
Sure, but any cursory projection of the future has to assume that any machine will get more powerful, compact and efficient with time - and even though we are just speculating on what was the thinking of the day, I suspect Boeing took account of engines getting better when making new plans.
I got your point and I followed it with much interest at the time. I think the 380 will come out on top because it reinvigorated the industry after September 11, it opened up new markets, it required changes to manufacturing, cooperation between countries, changes to airport infrastructure, reignited some of the excitement of the "Golden Era of Aviation" for passengers, and Joe Public loved it. The 787 - you might say that it's impressive from a manufacturing technology perspective although many would argue that the A350 is more innovative.
Yes but wont the real test but flying time? In 50 years the plane that stayed in service the longest or produced the most planes?
787 hasn't broken any new ground in terms of getting people as cheaply as possible from A to B- which is exactly why it's so successful
If that's your metric then yep the 787 will probably win. IMO if we are comparing the two then I don't believe that's the correct way to do it.
I guess my analogy to that is arguing how history will judge a Toyota Corolla vs the Tesla S There's arguments for both just like there is for the DC3 vs the DH Comet
Yes i agree its comparing apples to ornages.' Btu you can still ask the question - which sells the most. Therefore apples are more popular...
Except not with passengers. Ask yourself this question: "Do airlines fly people or planes?" This is supposedly the core of my current employer's fleet strategy.
Yup, even though its been a unprofitable product, it's enabled Airbus to remain viable and kicked a shiteload of real mula into the European economy.
If you are going to go full existential then trains, buses and cruise ships are all part of the competitive sphere. Cruise ships coming out of nowhere this last decade as a real 'travel experience' alternative.
From a getting to a ski field point of view, in the last 5 years I've flown on various 2 engined passenger planes but no A380s. The point to point model has worked way, way better for me.
Ah but the airline controls the schedules and the purchasing of the planes. The core of travellers don't decide a travel destination based on aircraft. And so the airline will decide the cost ratio for operating the aircraft.
Of course. But you talked about what is popular. You spoke of legacy. The A380 was/is enormously popular with passengers. I believe it will leave a legacy. The 787 not so much. Economics aside.
I think you have to have some considerable feelings to have a legacy for a aeroplane. Especially a commercial one 707 , 747 sure..... 737...well thats just a toyota corolla Constellation...sure Beyond that... ? The A380 was a marvel... thats become a bit ubiquitous because of the way the airlines operated them (gulf airlines excepted)
I agree People will talk about flying the 380 and it's amazingness and will know what legs they flew it on 787 not so much
