In my opinion, that thing is an ugly, flying whale. Too big, Too expensive, too complex. I can understand a place like India and the Indochina countries buying them, but otherwise there is no need for it. I think Airbus put themselves in a 'hole' so-to-speak. Also, these delays for delivery will hurt Airbus's reputation, possibly...... Stick to what they have for now.:yep:

I am sure the A380 will be a success. Connecting the largest Airports (so-called Hubs) with a very large plane seems quite economic in terms of fuel consumption and is also a good step to protect the environment. To me this plane is a logical step: All things got bigger with time, just look at container ships, tankers and even cars.

This plane is very complicated - a former engineer who worked on the Concorde said that the A380 features more innovations than the Mach 2 jetliner at it's time. It is a very ambitious project and i think that it's success can only be judged in 30 years or so. Everything else is just cheap Boeing propaganda. They enjoyed being a monopolist for quite a long time.Too big & too complicated? The same was said about the 747.

Competition is a good thing to me or do you all believe that a nice plane like the Dreamliner or so would exist without a potent comeptitor like Airbus?

What kind of market can the A380 have in the usa or in europe. ?
None, zero.
Its only chance of success is in the far east, china maybe india and that's it, and even then it will have to compete with the new generation 747 from boeing.
Honestly, this airplane was developped more from a political perspective than an economic one.
Its the concorde all over again and we know just how successful that bird was. :roll:

Yeah, those are hubs, so I expect 25% out of them. I wouldn't put it as high as 40 to 50% since you have major airports in each state, with some states having several, so 18 is an awfley small number.

-S

Yes, but that is not the case here. I am just skepticle since 747 sales were declining drastically and then Airbus says we will build something even bigger! I don't quite get the logic is what is going on here.

-S

If it´s right that those five hubs handle 25% of all airline passengers then 40-50% as a total for those 18 airports is correct.

Also look at the importance of those airports in international air travel. The A380 will be able to fly from the most important international hubs (London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Sydney, Hongkong, Tokyo, Singapore, Bangkok, ...) to most of the largest US hubs. The A380 will be a very profitable aircraft for the airlines.

No it isn't. You are talking about 'major' hubs. These other airports are not even a 'fraction' as big. You even have like Continental airlines major hub. American Airlines hub too. So yes, I'd say you have less than 1/3rd of all traffice in the US with what you list there. You only list 10% of the commercial airports in the US in that list.

-S

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...al/A380www.jpg
Note X through each airline that has cancelled!!

I´d checked the 2001 passenger numbers of these airports. Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Los Angeles, and San Francisco handle 25% of all passengers (that´s what an article said). The rest of the airports in that list combined handle 5% less passengers than the five mentioned hubs combined. So 40-50% should be correct.

But it doesn´t even matter if I´m right, fact is that most of the largest hubs are/will be able to facilitate the A380. And this is only the beginning, more airports will most likely follow.

The market for the A380 is in the Pacific Rim. Where the distances are vast and the passenger demand is high. If you look at Linton's photo the majority of customers come from and serve the Pacific Rim.

I just looked it up - the FAA says there are 546 commercial airports in the US, so I'd have to guess your data is incorrect. I would beleive it is these airports you list handle 40 to 50 % of the international traffic.

-S

The point is will the pacific rim market be sufficient to sustain the A380 ?
I don't think so, and we will end having financed one of the mostly costly failures in the history of aviation.
Boeing has understood that the market doesn't need super heavy jumbo jets, the future is small to medium long range intercontinental aircrafts.
The A380 can't even be used as a short or medium carrier in europe or america.

Only about half of all current orders are for the pacific rim market.

It isn´t meant to be a short-range carrier. Some of the A380 Emirates has ordered will be medium-range configurations.

This is what airbus says about the 380:

Taking a clean-sheet design for airlines’ operational needs of tomorrow, Airbus developed the A380 as the most spacious and efficient airliner ever conceived. This 555-seat aircraft will deliver an unparalleled level of comfort while retaining all the benefits of commonality with Airbus’ other fly-by-wire aircraft Families.

Thirty years after launching the world’s first twin-aisle, twin-engine jetliner, Airbus is preparing to introduce its A380 as the first true double-deck passenger airliner for the long-range market. The A380 offers unprecedented levels of productivity, efficiency and economics in passenger service, while the A380-800F cargo version is to be the first commercial freighter with three full cargo decks.

No, I don't think the Rim will be enough to sustain the A380. As you stated most air travel is in the medium range, for which the A380 is not designed.

Europe, ME, US, domestic Asian, Australian, South American air traffic is all more suited to the Boeing 777 (intercontinnetal), and the future 787 (intercontinnetal).

But Europeans can take pride in the fact that their hard earned money helped create the largest commercial airliner that has ever flown.