If the A350 is competing with the 787, then what's the A380 competing with? I thought that was supposed to compete with the 787
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What airline(s) do you usually fly (and do you like them?)
- Thread starter iMacZealot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The A380 began development long before the 787, and do not really compete with each other. The 787 is a much smaller plane. The A380 is sort of intended to compete with the aging 747-400s. When Airbus began developing the A380, Boeing counteracted by starting many different projects, such as a double-decker 747 and a sonic jet before deciding to focus all their interests in the 787 and the 747-8, which is an updated 747 that borrows many efficient technologies from the 787.
It's all quite complicated, but this is a good resource of the history of the A380.
I just bought a return ticket to and from Japan for $178 there and $178 back + around $320 in airport taxes of various sorts. That's not even in USD. That's around $600 USD, I think. It's a 10 hour flight each way from Sydney.
Awesome? HELL YES!
Awesome? HELL YES!
I used to fly U.S. Airways/America West out of my local city. The last few times I've been fed up with their crap and decided to switch to Delta. I'm flying to Chicago next week so we'll see how it goes!
A380 v B747-xxx/777-xxx
Boeing plans to introduce the "Y3" which will replace the 777 and 747 series. So A380 v "Y3."
Airlines I like to fly are American Airlines and British Airways.
I like British Airways, especially, for some reason, for internal flights. For destinations in Europe I can put up with Easy Jet for the cost but not Ryan Air. My best flight was a Continental long haul way back when I was a kid - they had a smoking section which was almost deserted so I snuck in and went to sleep across 3 seats. Turkish airlines seem terible - flown with them 4 times recently and have had problems on all.
I usually (perhaps always) fly SQ's 777. they are the airline that owns the most B777s.
Hey, I just realised that this is yet another airline talk!
I fly Singapore Airlines, they've got good service, but poor ground staff at Johannesburg (probably contractors). The food is great (search my posts about airline food), seats are comfortable (seat pitch is wider than many other airlines), video on demand on most flights (long haul especially).
Other than that Cathay Pacific is good, except for night food they give out instant noodles instead of Singapore Airlines giving out sandwich rolls or chocolate (Ferrero Rocher... yum) and whatever else on the menu.
Lufthansa is also good, although they have stacks of B747s (that's if your a plane nerd like me who likes to fly in the newest plane models) - but there's nothing wrong with it. I can use my milages from Singapore Airlines because they're also in Star Alliance.
For the far east Japan Aisa Airways offer very good service (mainly for Taiwan-Japan), except they don't have tv screens. Dragonair is also good if you're flying to Mainland China from Hong Kong.
I haven't flown any American airlines before and never travelled to the American continent, but I guess Delta offers better quality than others (this assumption is totally based on non-scientific facts and their ads).
The main reason I fly Singapore is that the geographic location is good for transits, and their terminals have nice shops, especially Terminal 3. I also look for good safety records - even though some "statistics" and "people" shove the fact that planes are soooo safe down your throat.
I try and avoid BA because their service is outrageous and not to mention the recent T5 problems.
These days I see ads of the Middle-East airlines and their service and company growing really fast, so I think they could be an alternative to the usuals - except I can't use my Star Alliance card!!! Emirates, Qatar and Etihad are blowing their money on ads and company image, so they're definitely worth a try - but their geographic locations doesn't suit me though, as I don't see there as my transit points.
And that basically sums up my airline preference.
PS. If you're a regular CNN International watcher, you'll see Etihad's ads are quite good. Sky news they're bombarded with Qatar's ads - not bad, but I'm kinda irritated. Emirates is over Arsenal, not so keen on that team (hehehe, but that won't mean that I don't like Emirates).
yg17 said:
A350 is slightly (but just slightly) bigger than the B787 (and it's also slightly smaller than the 777), although the French rival will release them only in 2015 (I've put in a few years for delays. you never know).
A380 goes for the B747, although the B747 can carry 2/3 of what the Airbus does, the A380 has 50% more deck, and if you compare them their overall shape is about the same size - there's only a few metres separating the length and width.
If you look very carefully at the specs of the 350, 380 and 787, possibly even the 777, they all have similar body material compositions (i.e. composite, steel, whatever). the 350 and 787 especially, claiming the 18-20% reduced fuel consumption, seems almost identical - this you'll have to ask the engine manufacturers. They all have large windows, as seen on the A380 - but don't be fooled - the interior window frame is quite big, but the actual window is smaller. all have similar technologies and blablabla... But unfortunately I can't comment on the exact details and in-depth stuff.
mmmm.... no.
The O'Hare crash was a failed pylon (structural/design issue) and since hydraulic lines were in a vulnerable place (design issue) they were damaged, the aircraft lost primary & secondary controls, and crashed.
The Turkish crash was a failed baggage door due to the piece-of-shiat latching mechanism (design/structural issue). The 'fix' for that issue was equally lame.
The Sioux City crash was a turbine blade separation (engine issue), but that should have been an annoyance EXCEPT that it severed hydraulic lines (sound familiar?) which led to loss of control....
In those, and every other major DC-10 incident, it was all design/structural issues. NOT a 'media hatchet job'.For the three cases I cited above, there are equivalent examples with Boeing and Lockheed aircraft that did NOT lead to catastrophic loss of the airframe.
I will admit to oversimplifying the causes as this isn't an aviation forum, but I stand by the gist of my point. The DC-10 was not unique, it was a product of the technology and the era. From that perspective, it stands out in most memories very unfairly, particularly as its actual safety record is comparable to most any 2nd generation (current production) commercial aircraft.
• The pylon failure (AA 191) was a maintenance issue (using a forklift to support the pylon), and specifically advised against by MD.
• The Turkish crash (Turkish Airlines 981) was not caused directly by the cargo door blowout, but by a modification to the passenger seating configuration preventing pressure equalization and causing a collapse of the deck, severing control cables (not hydraulics). Without the mod, the plane would have likely been flyable.
• Sioux City (UA 232) was a leading reason for ALL nacelles to be able to contain catastrophic turbine failure; no aircraft would've survived in those days.
Breathless, overwrought media coverage at the time doomed the -10 in US pax service; people were actively refusing to fly it. This was months before the NTSB issued the various final reports, but the reality of the situation didn't matter, only a juicy story.
Of the 450 or so built between 1971-1989, the majority are still in active service around the world, with almost 180 of them in commercial passenger service.
Only manufacturing technology and efficiency is closing out the -10's service, certainly not because it's a "bad" aircraft. Still one of the best made, historically. FedEx sure seems to think so.
The A380 is not directly in competetion with anything at Boeing since it came first. It could compete with the 777-300, but they each have very different aspects. It seems that the Boeing 747-800I would probably be a response to the 380, but it's only been ordered by Lufthansa and doesn't seem to be getting any further interest.
I like to think of the A380 as a delayed response to the 747. The 777 is significantly smaller than the A380 and, like you said, have different aspects for different hauls.
Why do you think nobody is interested in the 747-8?
Let me comment on this question...
first of all, it is the updated version of the 747-400 and the fact that the design remained much the same since its launch a few decades ago. Airline companies won't invest in them so much as oppose of the 380 is because one of the factors is that customers always seek for newer plane models, instead of "...it's another 747". For the price you pay for a 747-8 you might as well put in a few more bucks and go for the 380 - do the sums, it won't cost them much more when they consider the costs per passenger. Although the body composition has changed and new wings has been made, it still looks roughly the same to an average passenger. They should, rather, at least expand the upper deck fully to be a "direct" 380 competitor. Even so Lufthansa has ordered a few 747-8s on their list because their fleet makes up a significant amount of 747s, so they probably opted them instead of the 380 (which they also ordered some) for maintenance and more effective cost/expenses.
Well, I know it's not going to happen but Boeing should bring out something like the 848-7 to go against the 380. If they start now it would take another decade or so from drawing board to flying machine
Let me comment on this question...
first of all, it is the updated version of the 747-400 and the fact that the design remained much the same since its launch a few decades ago. Airline companies won't invest in them so much as oppose of the 380 is because one of the factors is that customers always seek for newer plane models, instead of "...it's another 747". For the price you pay for a 747-8 you might as well put in a few more bucks and go for the 380 - do the sums, it won't cost them much more when they consider the costs per passenger. Although the body composition has changed and new wings has been made, it still looks roughly the same to an average passenger. They should, rather, at least expand the upper deck fully to be a "direct" 380 competitor. Even so Lufthansa has ordered a few 747-8s on their list because their fleet makes up a significant amount of 747s, so they probably opted them instead of the 380 (which they also ordered some) for maintenance and more effective cost/expenses.
Well, I know it's not going to happen but Boeing should bring out something like the 848-7 to go against the 380. If they start now it would take another decade or so from drawing board to flying machine
Of course, I'm not an airline CEO, and probably never will be, but to me, the idea of the passenger capacity of the 747 combined with the efficiency and 21st century design of the 787 sounds like a great replacement for my aging 747-400's, and it's $35 million less than an A380. I believe Boeing also extended the upper deck a little bit on the -8, so it can handle more passengers as well. When Airbus unveiled the A380 design a few years ago, Boeing proposed the same thing, called the 747X, but for some reason, nobody was really interested in that.
I haven't gone through the thread to see where this went off topic, but AFAIR, airiine does not mean the same as aeroplane/airplane.
Stands back and waits for the flak
I think when you talk about airlines, the planes they fly have a lot to do with the experience. Then again, wandering off on a tangent is one of our specialties. At least it's related to the topic. Not like we started talking about shrimp vs. chicken (Somebody will, though, just wait). Coulda been worse, anyway. I'm surprised nobody made any "if this airline were Microsoft/Apple" posts yet.
Oh, ok, I will. If Microsoft were an airline, they'd be United. There, that's out of my system now...
Before 9/11 American was my choice out of Boston. After 9/11 it was never the same airlines sorry to say.
Used Frontier out of Denver and all they could do was lose my luggage. Late on both flights to and from.
I have been using Continental. Usually on time etc., and they have yet to lose any luggage! Food has been getting, but don't understand why they do dinner on a 1:30 AM flight!! Planes have always been clean with friendly employees.
Used Frontier out of Denver and all they could do was lose my luggage. Late on both flights to and from.
I have been using Continental. Usually on time etc., and they have yet to lose any luggage!
Food has been getting, but don't understand why they do dinner on a 1:30 AM flight!! Planes have always been clean with friendly employees.And if Apple was an airline (in the US), they'd be Continental. In the entire world, though, they'd be Singapore Airlines.Oh, ok, I will. If Microsoft were an airline, they'd be United. There, that's out of my system now...
Well, 0130 isn't really meal time, so I guess that's better than no food at all.
Usually British Airways or Lufthansa, and like both.
I try to stay away from all US airlines as much as I can -- I think they are all awful without exception, and without much difference between them.
I try to stay away from all US airlines as much as I can -- I think they are all awful without exception, and without much difference between them.
I'll agree that United is the Microsoft of the US, and quite possibly the world, too.
Singapore Airlines is also the Apple of the world, but Frontier is the Apple of the US. Since they're based in my home, I naturally fly them a lot, and I've never had problems with them. United also has a hub here, but I prefer to fly Frontier since they have nicer, newer aircraft, leather seats, and IFE screens.
See?? We're already talking about what airline(s) Apple and MS would be!
Singapore Airlines is also the Apple of the world, but Frontier is the Apple of the US. Since they're based in my home, I naturally fly them a lot, and I've never had problems with them. United also has a hub here, but I prefer to fly Frontier since they have nicer, newer aircraft, leather seats, and IFE screens.
See?? We're already talking about what airline(s) Apple and MS would be!
Nah. Frontier's not the Apple. They're another relatively low-cost, efficient airline, mostly interchangeable with the others (Linux), but with some nice little frills & some eye candy (Ubuntu!).
Nah. Frontier's not the Apple. They're another relatively low-cost, efficient airline, mostly interchangeable with the others (Linux), but with some nice little frills & some eye candy (Ubuntu!).
But they've never had a crash, and most people love them and are devout to them, therefore they're Apple.
By the way, my next question for all of you is: what are your favorite and least favorite airports?
I really like flying out of my home airport, Denver International. I think it's the best in the country. Those Asian airports, however, are nothing to sneeze at. Taipei Taoyuan, Singapore Changi, and Kuala Lumpur International are exceptional. The airports I hate are LAX and Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta. Complete circuses.
I fly in and out of TPE and SIN every now and then
Taipei's not bad, but it's so bland, although their service is good. They should put some FA shops like what they did in Changi. I guess you transit at Taipei to the US.if you're a football fan the FA shop @ T3 Changi sells stuff cheaper than what you'll pay in other countries... I did the sums, especially if you're gonna buy the merchandise in Europe. And I'm glad they have CNN at T3, over there in T2 there's only Discovery and some other boring channels. There's an apple iStore if you want to refil your bag of macs. No iPhones though... and their stuff is slightly more expensive compared to the same thing in Taiwan's computer galore shops.
Oh, let's get back to the topic a bit. I was watching "Air Crash Investigation" yesterday, and this reminded me that I will never fly budget airlines even though they're cheap (well, my life isn't). They tend (but not all) to have dodgy maintenance and cut corners (like S*uthw*st on the news recently).
And let me go way off topic by sticking in some pics I took while transiting @ Changi. T2 is deserted since they've diverted all the passengers to T3.
Attachments
I fly in and out of TPE and SIN every now and then
I remember TPE as being the cleanest airport I've seen. Everything was spotless to the point of disbelief! I'm not sure how they really stack up to other airports because I never dealt with their bag reclaim or ticketing.
I've only been to Asia once, and I had booked the LAX > SIN nonstop on SQ, the longest flight in the world, but their A340 was having problems that night so they cancelled the flight and put me on EVA to TPE and met back up with SQ there. On the way home, however, I flew SIN > LAX nonstop. While the nonstop got me there a lot faster and the seats were comfortable, it was nice having a layover because I could walk around for an hour before getting back into a confined space.
I'm surprised to see Apple products being sold in Singapore. My hotel was right in between all of the malls of downtown, and all I saw were Singaporean company Creative's stores.
Of the US "budget" airlines there are, I've only flown Frontier and JetBlue, and both seemed very nice. They have very new planes, so the likeliness of something going wrong is low. Something does seem dodgy about Southwest, though. Their planes are old and from what I've seen on their television show and heard elsewhere, they don't treat their passengers very well, either.