NEW EU Aibus A380!!!

[IkemenTommy]

[Blah Pete]

My friend sent me this photo, taken over Sydney this morning, with the caption "Guess what just flew over our place?... "

I heard it was going straight to Australia after Singapore but one news article said it was also supposed to stop in Malaysia.

Even the regular Econ wasn't too shabby, but then again, for many years I was a regular customer with NorthWorst and piece of shit AA and United so my standards were pretty low until I flew Emirates for the first time.

Emirates is one of the best airlines nowadays. I think the main problem with airlines is they are setting the economy seat spacing down to minimum to cram more people on.
Anyone taken a JAL international flight lately? Has to be the worst leg room of any flight.

[Buraku]

... After that it's off to Australia and the UAE.

I left Singapore on Saturday morning and got see part of the A380. I was planning to get to the airport early to get some pictures ...

My friend sent me this photo, taken over Sydney this morning, with the caption "Guess what just flew over our place?... "



. . .

USA's FedEx, the Aussies, Malaysia, the Chinese, Korean Air and America's UPS are buying up a heap of these new superjumbos,
however the stagnant J-economy with their JAL ANA clowns can't even afford the old Boeings anymore, Japan Airlines (JAL Group) posted a group net loss of 77 billion yen loss for the quater, All Nippon Airways lost $66 million

[Buraku]

super picture

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0984364&WxsIERv=Nveohf%20N380-841&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Fvatncber%20Nveyvarf%20%28Nveohf%20Vaqhfgevr%29&QtODMg=Fvatncber%20-%20Punatv%20%28FVA%20%2F%20JFFF%29&ERDLTkt=Fvatncber&ktODMp=Abirzore%2011%2C%202005&BP=0&WNEb25u=Naqerj%20Uhag%20-%20NveGrnzVzntrf&xsIERvdWdsY=S-JJBJ&MgTUQtODMgKE=Gur%20nznmvat%20N380%20znqr%20ure%20svefg%20rire%20syvtug%20bhgfvqr%20Rhebcr%20gb%20Fvatncber%20nf%20cneg%20bs%20na%20Nfvna%20gbhe%20bs%20gur%20nvepensg.%20Fur%20ynaqrq%20ng%20Punatv%20ba%2002P%20naq%20jnf%20znqr%20gb%20gnkv%20gb%20%22Fbhgu%20Pebff%202%22%20sbe%20n%20cubgb%20fubbg.%20Fur%20vavgvnyyl%20pebffrq%20gur%20oevqtr%20sebz%20evtug%20gb%20yrsg%20naq%20gura%20ghearq%20nebhaq%20gb%20cbfvgvba%20sbe%20gur%20cubgbf.%20Fur%20vf%20cvpgherq%20urer%20%22va%20cbfvgvba%22.%20Vg%20jnf%20n%20qnl%20V%20jvyy%20arire%20rire%20sbetrg.%20Qrqvpngrq%20gb%20zl%20orfg%20sevraq%20Xbx%20Pujrr%2C%20jubz%20jvgubhg%20uvf%20xvaqarff%20V%20jbhyq%20arire%20unir%20tbg%20guvf%21%20%28Pnaba%20300Q%29&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=39486&NEb25uZWxs=2005-12-30%2018%3A48%3A27&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=001&static=yes&width=1000&height=679&sok=%20&photo_nr=10&prev_id=0984018&next_id=0972842

[IkemenTommy]

super picture

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0984364&WxsIERv=Nveohf%20N380-841&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Fvatncber%20Nveyvarf%20%28Nveohf%20Vaqhfgevr%29&QtODMg=Fvatncber%20-%20Punatv%20%28FVA%20%2F%20JFFF%29&ERDLTkt=Fvatncber&ktODMp=Abirzore%2011%2C%202005&BP=0&WNEb25u=Naqerj%20Uhag%20-%20NveGrnzVzntrf&xsIERvdWdsY=S-JJBJ&MgTUQtODMgKE=Gur%20nznmvat%20N380%20znqr%20ure%20svefg%20rire%20syvtug%20bhgfvqr%20Rhebcr%20gb%20Fvatncber%20nf%20cneg%20bs%20na%20Nfvna%20gbhe%20bs%20gur%20nvepensg.%20Fur%20ynaqrq%20ng%20Punatv%20ba%2002P%20naq%20jnf%20znqr%20gb%20gnkv%20gb%20%22Fbhgu%20Pebff%202%22%20sbe%20n%20cubgb%20fubbg.%20Fur%20vavgvnyyl%20pebffrq%20gur%20oevqtr%20sebz%20evtug%20gb%20yrsg%20naq%20gura%20ghearq%20nebhaq%20gb%20cbfvgvba%20sbe%20gur%20cubgbf.%20Fur%20vf%20cvpgherq%20urer%20%22va%20cbfvgvba%22.%20Vg%20jnf%20n%20qnl%20V%20jvyy%20arire%20rire%20sbetrg.%20Qrqvpngrq%20gb%20zl%20orfg%20sevraq%20Xbx%20Pujrr%2C%20jubz%20jvgubhg%20uvf%20xvaqarff%20V%20jbhyq%20arire%20unir%20tbg%20guvf%21%20%28Pnaba%20300Q%29&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=39486&NEb25uZWxs=2005-12-30%2018%3A48%3A27&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=001&static=yes&width=1000&height=679&sok=%20&photo_nr=10&prev_id=0984018&next_id=0972842

That looks like Changi.
I should go over and snap some pictures myself to post them on here.

[maninjapan]

Man this looks so good - would Narita be able to handle it though?

[Buraku]

Man this looks so good - would Narita be able to handle it though?

its larger than the Boeing747, so a lot of airports may have to expand or update their design. Few airports can handle the Airbus superjumbo maybe a handful like Brisbane, Singapore, Blagnac International Airport in Toulouse, Hong Kong's airpot, Heathrow London, Los Angeles and Sydney. San Francisco International Airport has the red carpet all ready to welcome the new, super-jumbo, A380 jet when it touches down for the first time on the West Coast. San Francisco has built a sparkling new $1 billion international terminal designed with the A380 in mind, including 6 gates for the giant beast-of-a-plane and plenty of gate seating for the hordes of passengers waiting to board, while LAX is still scrambling to put together something to roll out in the hopes of not losing on the economic benefit the plane is predicted to bring to the region.

Could Japan handle the superjumbo ? Japan's Haneda does almost no international traffic, Narita was admitted to be a mistake by the J-gov after 40 years, while Kansai-KIX/RJBB has one of the highest landing fees in the world, is deeply in debt and slowy sinking back into the ocean from which the artifical island was created. Rather than using their so-called 'good' airports the Japanese might have to update one of their second class airports such as Asahikawa-Hokkaido, Kitakyushu port in Fukuoka, or Takamatsu-Kagawa but most of Japan's second class airports lie very far away from the cities and central populations. Japan's third class airports are just shit, and no sum of money and construction could help them, I've seen better airports in the African congo Jungle or Iraq/Middle-East rubble.

[maninjapan]

Can't they just knock down Mt. Fuji?

[Buraku]

Can't they just knock down Mt. Fuji?

but really ?

LOL

no, but the point of these ports is for the gov to build an airport that can carry out its function and be profitable. Many public works projects are very bad, concrete is a killer - New Zealand loved builing roads, ports and liked these public works projects but then hit a 'debt wall' during the 80s, there were a number of expensive highways in Austria that cost big money, RDU port runs constantly late and US public debts rose as governments resorted to public works to provide jobs for the unemployed, but San Jose and Los Angeles are still near the top of the worst of roads list, there have been many other like the SS Great Eastern and another big Boondoggle/WhiteElephant has to be the Blair government's Millennium Dome it remains a continuing embarrassment to Tony Blair

However none of these public works failures match the loss, stupidity and problems of the Japanese. Japan is supposed to already have Five fucking so-called first class airports...such as Kansia, Narita.... but can't seem to stop them from sinking back into the Ocean, massive declines in traffic or costing the Japanese public hundreds of billions of yen each year.


Blasting Fuji aprat might be amusing but the whole operation would likely cost the Japanese people billions in debts,
while Japan pours billions into such a plan the muddy the tropical Congo and rubble of Baghdad would still have a better set of airports and be more profitable.

[maninjapan]

Someone mentioned that the air port taxes are high in Narita and Kansai - but why are they so high?

[Buraku]

[Tsuru]

The stuff in the links is fascinating... keep it coming!

[Buraku]

. . .

I've seen a few ghost towns in Japan and we can look forward to the sinking of Kansai airport,
and near bankruptcy figures of JAL and ANA are indicative of the Japanese times

today China can afford new airlines, open up new industrial companies, buy up the Boeing and Airbus Superjumbo,
Korean Air, the USAs UPS and China Southern Airlines and other major groups are getting the superjumbo A380 and the Chinese can afford this because the nation has a strong economy and is growing rapidly.

but some say China is growing too fast, they may be buying superjumbos for their airlines today...but a few years down the road the economic bubble may burst and they could soon face the same problems Japan has

[dimwit]

Could Japan handle the superjumbo ? Japan's Haneda does almost no international traffic, Narita was admitted to be a mistake by the J-gov after 40 years, while Kansai-KIX/RJBB has one of the highest landing fees in the world, is deeply in debt and slowy sinking back into the ocean from which the artifical island was created. Rather than using their so-called 'good' airports the Japanese might have to update one of their second class airports such as Asahikawa-Hokkaido, Kitakyushu port in Fukuoka, or Takamatsu-Kagawa but most of Japan's second class airports lie very far away from the cities and central populations. Japan's third class airports are just shit, and no sum of money and construction could help them, I've seen better airports in the African congo Jungle or Iraq/Middle-East rubble.

You asked a fairly interesting question and answered it with your usual I hate Japan shit and a bunch of non sequitors. The question of whether an airport can handle the A380 seems to be a question of customer demand and runway size (particularly runway width). From what I read Narita may not have the width to accomodiate A380s. I do not know if that is an easy fix or not. Kansai may not have the same problems althought the runway is shorter.

[Greji]

You asked a fairly interesting question and answered it with your usual I hate Japan shit and a bunch of non sequitors. The question of whether an airport can handle the A380 seems to be a question of customer demand and runway size (particularly runway width). From what I read Narita may not have the width to accomodiate A380s. I do not know if that is an easy fix or not. Kansei may not have the same problems althought the runway is shorter.

That is an interesting question. The normal problem encountered by airports for these "jumbo" sized air frames is the weight and to some degre, runway length although that is usually not in question for major airports that have already been lengthened or are capable of handling the previous generations.

I have also heard that a problem for demand is surfacing, in that money and customer strapped airlines have been wanting to go to smaller sized air frames and not wanting to invest in the big movers. This has been passed around and I am not sure it isn't just the competitors trying to make noise or actual fact.

This is Tsuru's specialty and would love to hear his comments!

[dimwit]

That is an interesting question. The normal problem encountered by airports for these "jumbo" sized air frames is the weight and to some degre, runway length although that is usually not in question for major airports that have already been lengthened or are capable of handling the previous generations.

I have also heard that a problem for demand is surfacing, in that money and customer strapped airlines have been wanting to go to smaller sized air frames and not wanting to invest in the big movers. This has been passed around and I am not sure it isn't just the competitors trying to make noise or actual fact.

This is Tsuru's specialty and would love to hear his comments!

According to Wikipedia width is a factor in maintaining safe distance between taxiing and landing/taking aircraft.

Ground operations
Early critics claimed that the A380 would damage taxiways and other airport surfaces. However, the pressure exerted by its wheels was lower than that of a 747 because the A380 has more wheels than the 747 (22 wheels in the A380 compared to 18 wheels in the 747). Airbus tested this using a special ballasted rig which included as many wheels as the A380 would use, in the same position as those from the landing gear. The rig, weighing 490 tonne was towed up and down of Airbus' facilities at Toulouse and after each pass the ground was carefully inspected.

Another criticism is that the A380, with a longer wingspan than a 747, will require the repositioning of taxiways so as to allow two of these aircraft to maintain safety distances when passing each other on, for example, a runway and an adjacent taxiway.

Current FAA regulations for Group 6 aircraft (including the A380 and probably the 747-8) require 60 meter (200 foot) wide runways while the large majority of the airports they are expected to operate from have 45 meter (150 foot) wide runways. Airbus expects that this requirement will be waived prior to the entry of the A380 into service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380

[Tsuru]

That is an interesting question. The normal problem encountered by airports for these "jumbo" sized air frames is the weight and to some degre, runway length although that is usually not in question for major airports that have already been lengthened or are capable of handling the previous generations.

I have also heard that a problem for demand is surfacing, in that money and customer strapped airlines have been wanting to go to smaller sized air frames and not wanting to invest in the big movers. This has been passed around and I am not sure it isn't just the competitors trying to make noise or actual fact.

This is Tsuru's specialty and would love to hear his comments!

Thank you

Let's not forget Narita's runway #1 (and those at all other major Japanese airports, for that matter) was built to accommodate the B-52, courtesy of the USAF lobby of the 1970s. This is an aircraft with an extremely wide footprint, far larger than that of the A380 due to the use of those cute little wheels on the wingtips. In fact, runway size in Japan will be the least of our worries as a fully-laden A380 actually has a takeoff roll less of that of some of the more heavily laden 747-classic freighters that operate out of NRT. The main problem as far as size goes is not runway or taxiway size or pavement loading (the new B777-300ER has a higher pavement loading... look at some of the problems AF is having at Paris Orly as a result of this), but gate size and terminal capacity. One plane that needs twice the passengers and their baggage be put thought customs, immigration, passport control, checkin and all that bollocks will have a far more profound effect on airport operations than the fact that this plane has a wingspan of 80m and a MTOW of 560 tons. Technology will cope, but will the people operating the airport?

NRT claims they are ready for the A380. So I guess we'll see A380's flying out of there in the near future without any significant problems. Just not by JAL and ANA

As far as demand goes, I wouldn't worry about that too much. When the 747-400 is currently already proving to be too small for some airlines on some routes (London-Singapore-Sydney, London-Hong Kong and London-New York come to mind) and they find themselves continuously increasing frequency to cope with the demand, there is a clear need for a larger aircraft.

Boeing likes to think the 787 will enable operators to create new routes like Detroit-Shenyang and we will abandon the proven hub-spoke system. The truth is demand on such niche routes will be so small they will hardly justify a new route to be opened, and especially when considering the need for more efficient air travel the idea of having a plane that flies from hub to hub and burns 25% less fuel per passenger is far from dead. 20 years from now someone going from Rotterdam to Samara will still drive up to Amsterdam, fly to Moscow and catch a connecting domestic flight to Samara there. It's an interesting concept to have a direct flight and very appealing to air travellers, but it's nowhere near economic reality. Simply because the elimination of the hub-spoke system will result in so many permutations of city-pairs divided among the current demand that demand per flight will be minimal.

[Buraku]

You asked a fairly interesting question and answered it with your usual I hate Japan shit and a bunch of non sequitors. The question of whether an airport can handle the A380 seems to be a question of customer demand and runway size (particularly runway width). From what I read Narita may not have the width to accomodiate A380s. I do not know if that is an easy fix or not. Kansai may not have the same problems althought the runway is shorter.

Let me first say there is no 'I-hate-Japan' from me
I really like the Japanese food, studied the Japanese languange, think the J-castles and old historical places are cool and have enjoyed many Japanese books and Japan film

but what I do HATE is Japanese poltics - the type where you only got one party ( LDP ) controlling Nippon for decades, they can't make friends with China, and its filled with rightwingers like Mori and got friends like Shintaro who say stupid Yasukuni stuff like Japan 'liberated Asia' and WW2 'moderized primitive Koreans', the type of politics that hasn't brought laws to prevent discrimination against Japan's workersfrom Brazil/Korea or the politics that allows a store to tell some black dude to F*ck off because they don't like his skin

What I also HATE is the massive corruption and waste that goes into public-works projects, the corruption where Japan decides to get some Yakuza firm to concrete most of the landscape and build shitty bridges and ports that never work and cost the Japanese people billions for years to come.

On the Japanese airports many of the 'first class' ones are badly designed, they are operating at a loss or sinking back into the Ocean. Now keep in mind that most Japanese airports are originally badly designed with little room for expansion, while some of them are sinking back into the sea. On the A380 superjumbo, Wikipedia is right about the runways and landing such as its description of between taxiing and landing but Airports will also require double-deck passenger terminals, and you have almost a thousand other people trying to "check-in". most likley need new types of Gate and lots more boarding umbilicals for such a beast, the amount of passengers coming in and out of these "bridges" will be a lot more intense.

[Buraku]

Here Comes the A380
http://www.groundsupportmagazine.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=1477
What leading airports are doing to prepare for arrival of a next-generation aircraft

China to host A380 this year
Beijing: The world's largest aircraft, the 555-seater Airbus A380, will arrive in China during Zhuhai Airshow in November this year, state media reported today.
http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=13595
The aircraft will also fly to Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou where local people will have a chance to see the double-decker aircraft.
China Southern Airlines, a major Chinese airliner, has ordered five A380 aircraft, two of which will be delivered before 2008, and will be put into service prior to the Beijing Olympics that year.

[IkemenTommy]

I will choose the 777-200 over this gigantic any day. I rode the Trip-7 the other day and loved the seating arrangement 3-4-3 in the economy. Just imagine what the seating will be to accomodate for 555 passengers.. 2-6-2? 3-5-3? etc. And also imagine the long line to get OFF the plane once it landed, especially for those unlucky bastards who have to sit in the very back. To me, the A380 is one sour grape.

[Tsuru]

You actually enjoy 3-4-3??? Are you 4'10" or something?

3-4-3 is what most airlines use in their 747s, and considering that the 777 is narrower... I thought 3-3-3 in a 777 was cramped.

As far as the A380 goes, consider this: Your 777 will seat about 300 people, and the A380 has about 2.5 times the floor area available as it's longer, wider, has two decks, and only 555 pax to occupy it in the basic config... so even if you cram 700 people in there each passenger will still have more room than on the 777.

[IkemenTommy]

Yes, I am a 4'10" midget
Most of my flights are never packed.
It's not bad when you reserve in front of the jump seat (emergency exit where there are LOTS of leg room) a week before the flight. That's where the stewardesses sit too so you can chat with them.

[Papa-Lazarou]

Yes yes, but will it have a stand up bar?*







*I was told, about 10 years ago, that the next gen of planes would indeed have stand up bars. I slept soundly that night in anticipation of regaling other passengers with my highly questionable annecdotes during long flights.

[Buraku]

[Tsuru]

Yes, I am a 4'10" midget
Most of my flights are never packed.
It's not bad when you reserve in front of the jump seat (emergency exit where there are LOTS of leg room) a week before the flight. That's where the stewardesses sit too so you can chat with them.

:p Sorry, I didn't know... 6'1" Dutchman speaking here ]Yes yes, but will it have a stand up bar?*







*I was told, about 10 years ago, that the next gen of planes would indeed have stand up bars. I slept soundly that night in anticipation of regaling other passengers with my highly questionable annecdotes during long flights.[/QUOTE]There already are airliners in service that have them, for example if you fly first class with Virgin:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1012661/L/

[emperor]

... OMG! that guy isnt the co-pilot!?!

SOMEONE GET JACK BAUER UP HERE!!!

[kurohinge1]

... more pics here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4183707.stm
http://www.maj.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=156061
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,...Zucj0x,00.html

... Luxury airlines like Singapore and Emirates will likely offer their customers aboard the A380 all sorts of new comforts. On average, the plane will be built to include 555 seats. However, a far less comfortable arrangement is also possible for 850 people ...

Those photos look glorious - but so was the barrel roll that Tex Johnston did for the 707 demonstration. However, the reality is almost always different to the hype.



I'd like to see some A380 photos with a realistic representation of the 600 to 800 land-whales that will be fighting each other to use the meagre assortment of new features that will be tossed into the pen.

Add in the potential for even more crowded boarding gates, baggage carousels, customs and airport facilities and the old adage "good things come in small packages" springs to mind.

[Kuang_Grade]

3-4-3 is what most airlines use in their 747s, and considering that the 777 is narrower... I thought 3-3-3 in a 777 was cramped.

Although I think the 3-3-3 is the more typical setup in the 777, I was on an American flight the other day and they had a 2-5-2 setup on their 777.

On a sidenote, I've found a site called http://www.seatguru.com that has been very helpful in my trip planning.....It shows the seat layouts of most major airlines various plane configs along with notes about which locations are good or poor (ie which seats have less foot room due to entertainment hardware connections) as well as seat pitch and width measurements...For example on my recent American flight, near the back of the plane, the middle row drops down from five to four seats, but the first row of four seats sits off sync with 5 seats and there are no seat mounted trays or video...instead they double up the armrests (each seat has two) and stick the trays and TV in the armrests...but the armrests do not move up, so you can't spread out if the seat next to you is empty but you don't need to share an armrest with another passenger and you are about 4 inches further apart from your seatmate than in other economy class seats.

[IkemenTommy]

Although I think the 3-3-3 is the more typical setup in the 777, I was on an American flight the other day and they had a 2-5-2 setup on their 777.

On a sidenote, I've found a site called http://www.seatguru.com that has been very helpful in my trip planning.....It shows the seat layouts of most major airlines various plane configs along with notes about which locations are good or poor (ie which seats have less foot room due to entertainment hardware connections) as well as seat pitch and width measurements...For example on my recent American flight, near the back of the plane, the middle row drops down from five to four seats, but the first row of four seats sits off sync with 5 seats and there are no seat mounted trays or video...instead they double up the armrests (each seat has two) and stick the trays and TV in the armrests...but the armrests do not move up, so you can't spread out if the seat next to you is empty but you don't need to share an armrest with another passenger and you are about 4 inches further apart from your seatmate than in other economy class seats.

My recent memories from an Econ-class American flight..
-under-par service from fat old stuck-up bitch stewardesses..
-shitty vinyl seats..
-crummy video selections..
-the food was so-so..
and if I remember right, they didnt even serve free alcohol on an international flight! F*ckin cry me.. they are worse than NWA.

[American Oyaji]

This was American Airlines?