FedEx cancels A380 order

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

Exactly XabbaRus. I think we will all be able to better judge if this aircraft was a success or failure with time.

That is true. I think it will be a failure personally, especially for US sales since there is no airport in the US that can accomidate it, so orders from here will be 0. The 747 didn't have that problem. To accomidate the A380, you need to widen the taxiways and change the terminals - I don't think anyone in this country wants to do that. In Seattle, they complain about the billion $'s that it will take to add a third runway and that still hasn't passed after many years. The thought of actually moving the existing runways let alone building a third to make way for a wider taxiway is unfathomable and will never happen. I don't know where they expect to sell that thing then.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

To accomidate the A380, you need to widen the taxiways and change the terminals - I don't think anyone in this country wants to do that.

18 US airports are already doing that:
San Francisco
Denver
Chicago
Indianapolis
Louisville
New York
Philadelphia
Washington
Orlando
Miami
Tampa
Atlanta
Memphis
Dallas
Anchorage
Fort Worth
Los Angeles
Ontario

More information here:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06571.pdf

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

18 US airports are already doing that:
San Francisco
Denver
Chicago
Indianapolis
Louisville
New York
Philadelphia
Washington
Orlando
Miami
Tampa
Atlanta
Memphis
Dallas
Anchorage
Fort Worth
Los Angeles
Ontario

More information here:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06571.pdf

Amazing. I guess 18 airports is better than nothing.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Amazing. I guess 18 airports is better than nothing.

You don´t sound too impressed! 18 doesn´t sound much, but these few airports handle more than 300 million passengers per year.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

You don´t sound too impressed! 18 doesn´t sound much, but these few airports handle more than 300 million passengers per year.

And that is what percentage of all US passengers?

-S

[Linton]

This is what the professionals are saying about it:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=251397
Subman have you heard of NIH syndrome?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Linton

This is what the professionals are saying about it:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=251397
Subman have you heard of NIH syndrome?

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

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

And that is what percentage of all US passengers?

About 40-50%, can´t find exact numbers. I found a quote that said "In 1999, just five major hubs — Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — enplaned 25% of all airline passengers in the United States".

[bookworm_020]

Remember that the 747 didn't have an easy time when production started as well. I remeber the when the test piolt took the 747 on it's first flight (this was an untested aircraft!), after he did the normal checks of the aircraft, he then barrel rolled the aircraft infront of the entire workforce who had gathered to watch this aircraft that had taken the company to near bankrupcy!!

I think Airbus pushed the A380 out too soon. It was hoping to remove the treat of the new 747 series that was comeing out. They have droped the ball on a couple of projects now (the A350 as noted) and haven't listened to customers as well as they should have.
I believe they will survive, but there will be a lot of pain and blood spilled (both in the company and politicaly) before they rival Boeing

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

About 40-50%, can´t find exact numbers. I found a quote that said "In 1999, just five major hubs — Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — enplaned 25% of all airline passengers in the United States".

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

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

18 US airports are already doing that:
San Francisco
Denver
Chicago
Indianapolis
Louisville
New York
Philadelphia
Washington
Orlando
Miami
Tampa
Atlanta
Memphis
Dallas
Anchorage
Fort Worth
Los Angeles
Ontario

More information here:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06571.pdf

KPHL (Philadelphia International Airport) is having some very sticky problems with this new runway project. It may not come through.

[Linton]

The airbus website for the 380

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...fications.html
Look at wheel base and wheel track.A standard taxiway is 30m and a standard runway 45m.A former colleague of mine is one of their test pilots.

[ASWnut101]

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.

[Lurchi]

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?

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Lurchi

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.