Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 04/28/2005 View Wed 04/27/2005 View Tue 04/26/2005 View Mon 04/25/2005 View Sun 04/24/2005 View Sat 04/23/2005 View Fri 04/22/2005
1
2005-04-28 Home Front: Tech
Airbus A380 makes successful maiden flight -- neighbors complain about noise
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by seafarious 2005-04-28 9:46:33 AM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Journalists watching the Airbus A380's first flight at Toulouse airport, however, noted how quiet the take-off and landing had seemed.

These journalists were no doubt watching from an area perpendicular to the jet's direction of travel, where noise isn't likely to be the loudest. Stand at the front or back of the runway and that will change.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-04-28 10:06:39 AM||   2005-04-28 10:06:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I really don't understand the rationale behind this "superkolossalluftwagen". What would induce a prospective passenger to crowd into an airplane with 554 other people? The thing is a flying cruise ship without the amenities. Might be OK for first or business class, but it has to suck in coach if for no other reason than population density. How long is it going to take to load and unload this behemoth? This airgoing leviathan from the people who brought you the EU constitution seems destined for a guest shot on the History Channel's Engineering Disasters program. But then, I've always been partial to Boeing's passenger planes.
Posted by RWV 2005-04-28 10:08:43 AM||   2005-04-28 10:08:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 than population density Speaking as someone who has done more long haul flights than I care to recall, the extra space the aircraft provides will more than compensate for the longer load and unload times.
Posted by phil_b 2005-04-28 10:14:37 AM||   2005-04-28 10:14:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Only 88 decibels? Hell, that's probably quiet for this large thing! Guess the French never had a taste for Spinal Tap! And I guess none of their citizens live near an AFB...oh, yeah, a French AF? hah!
Posted by BA  2005-04-28 10:18:15 AM||   2005-04-28 10:18:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 First of all, last I heard there were only 4 runways in the world that could handle this blubber bus. Second, let me be the first to offer up my "dead pool" for its first crash as being in the month of October, 2005, for no particular reason. I figure six months before one of these beheamoths does a header. Any takers?
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-04-28 10:24:05 AM||   2005-04-28 10:24:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 phil-b you got it.
Not just load/unload the plane, but terminal space for the holding area, the baggage handling, the security inspection accompanying all the process, the parking and passenger drop offs. That doesn't include all the costs to modify existing airport facilities to address the physical demands this will induce to hubs that even 'want' such a beast on their tarmac.
Why does the entire concept seem to smell of the European view of the individual, treating them like baggage. Yep, one trip in steerage for most Americans will get them on Southwest tomarrow. However, it ought to go over well with the Chinese government, with whom the French have so much in common.
Posted by Phavitch Phaviting2667 2005-04-28 10:30:19 AM||   2005-04-28 10:30:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Who wants to ride for long hours in something called a bus? Give me a Constellation or a TriStar. Airbus makes me think of Greyhound.
Posted by Deacon Blues  2005-04-28 10:33:08 AM||   2005-04-28 10:33:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Let's not be snippy about our French brethern. They have feelings too.

However I must admit that I find the prospect of actually getting the thing off the ground while 554 people are trying to stuff everything they own into the overhead bins somewhat amusing.
Posted by Michael 2005-04-28 10:33:20 AM||   2005-04-28 10:33:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 This aircraft is the aviation equivalent of the dodo bird.

First of all, who pays for the torn runways, etc.? The heavier the aircraft, the quicker the run ways have to be repaired. translation: very high maintence costs.

Second, who wants to be stuck in a gate area with 800 other stranded passengers when there is a flight delay or cancellation? translation: cattle stampede.

Third, the Euros are known for their half-baked notions on aircraft design. Anyone remember the Concorde? translation: short-lived wet dream.
Posted by Captain America 2005-04-28 10:38:43 AM||   2005-04-28 10:38:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 The overriding concern is cost per passenger-mile or ton-mile of freight. In that respect the A380 will have an advantage due to 50% greater payload but less than 50% greater fuel burn. It especially looks like a better freighter than the 747 since it doesn't have a tapered body.

Were not going to see the A380 shuttling between LA and SF or even LA and NY. It will be used primarily for the transpacific and Europe-Asia routes and a few for the trans-Atlantic routes. 550 passengers are not a problem. Current 747s carry 400 and the upgraded 747s will carry 500. In intra-Japan flights, 747s are configured with about 550 or 600 seats.

I think Boeing made a mistake by not quickly developing a stretched upper deck version of the 747 and locking up orders a few years before the A380 was ready for market.
Posted by ed 2005-04-28 11:08:34 AM||   2005-04-28 11:08:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 This plane and concept have serious problems. Aside from being a big terrorist target, it is going the wrong way for being big. People like more point-to-point travel, so that favors lots of routes with long range, but smaller planes. That gives you flexibility in routing and scheduling.
Posted by Alaska Paul  2005-04-28 11:16:51 AM||   2005-04-28 11:16:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I thought this thing had the capacity potential for 800 passengers.
My understanding is the actual runways are not even the main concerns. It is the taxiways, staging areas, gate configurations and all other aspects of the "ballet" that takes place every day at ORD, LAX etc. This thing is close to a football field wide so when it comes gate time, its footprint is eating away at an airports most valuable real estate- gate position. (Metal stairs you walk down to the tarmac on are considered "bad form" for the international jet set!) Throw in delays, deicing, security considerations and you will see why the most profitable components of the battered airline industry are still found in standardized, repeatitive operations rather than trying to prepare for a unique "one off" design.
Also, from an accounting view, you can still run 2 747's a half an hour apart from/to the same destination and have a better bottom line than one of these crafts.
Posted by Capsu78 2005-04-28 11:30:01 AM||   2005-04-28 11:30:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 88 decibels makes me sad.
I can barely hear the mime...
Posted by A Sad French Clown 2005-04-28 11:31:53 AM||   2005-04-28 11:31:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 The quote that noise levels at the airport are normally near 40 db is clearly idiotic. Even in unpopulated areas wind makes trees and brush rustle and typically results in 50 db or so.

As far as the 88 db reading, it seems to me it depends on where that reading took place. If it was in residential neighborhoods, that's a lot. An enclosed sports stadium might reach 90 db only a few times a year, after, say a game winning TD or HR.
Posted by mhw 2005-04-28 12:36:06 PM||   2005-04-28 12:36:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 First of all, last I heard there were only 4 runways in the world that could handle this blubber bus.

Something just occurred to me: who is going to pay for airport upgrades at locations this thing is supposed to serve? Surely not Airbus. Instead of designing something that would require little to no change to existing facilities so as to minimize problems and expenditure, Airbus creates something which will require the airports served having to scrape up money somehow to fund improvements to their terminals in order to accomodate this grossly oversized A320.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-04-28 12:56:43 PM||   2005-04-28 12:56:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Paging Captain Ahab! Paging Captain Ahab! Theres a flying Great White Whale on runway 2!

As I recall Boeing did start to plan a super-carrier like this but abandoned it for some reason - probably the reasons cited above.
Posted by CrazyFool 2005-04-28 1:04:15 PM||   2005-04-28 1:04:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I'm curious if many similar complaints were made when Boeing rolled out the 747?

I'm no fan of Airbus by any means, but it seems to me that if you can haul more people cheaper that's going to be a big selling point to most major airlines. If you have a busy route and can fit more paying passengers into this beastie without having to add another flight that's a huge savings in time and money. Yes, there would likely be extra time requirements for security, maintenance, un/loading, etc., but I hardly believe it would be as much time as required for two smaller jets capable of transporting the same cargo.

Personally I'd rather go with someone like Southwest flying 737s all over lots of routes so I can get where I want more directly and as cheaply as possible, but I can see the appeal of this monstrosity on longer, busier routes.
Posted by Dar  2005-04-28 1:12:42 PM||   2005-04-28 1:12:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 As several people commented, cost per passenger mile is going to be the deciding factor. But the actual cost per passenger mile is never the theoretical cost one gets based on dividing the operating costs by the number of passengers on a FULL plane. Part of the equation will be finding out how many routes have the paassenger demand to FILL the plane. Running an A380 "significantly" less than full will drive its costs up. Whether it can be consistently kept full will be determined in large part by how air travel develops in the future.

There's been a lot of debate as to whether the "hub model" that's been popular for the past 20 years is going to be the way air travel continues to develop. IF it is, then the A380 will be a major financial success. IF the trend is away from hubs to more of a "point to point" style of travel, then it will probably be a bust. Boeing is betting on the latter, Airbus on the former. Only time will prove which is right.
Posted by Ralph  2005-04-28 1:47:54 PM||   2005-04-28 1:47:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 The hub question's important for the longer term but it appears that in the short term the Airbus is basically designed to serve the Chinese market. Given France's dependence on state-promoted Airbus and other manufacturing exports, we can expect France to try to expand its "strategic relationship" with China even further in coming years.

Especially after the EU constitution crashes and burns on May 29. France will then be free to tell the Brits, Germans and scandinavians to piss off, and will deny any need to abide by export controls vis-a-vis China.
Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-28 1:52:33 PM||   2005-04-28 1:52:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 let the frickin euros build it, a large pieces of its avionics is american...but it won't hear that in the press...its a dodo but american firms still get paid!
Posted by Dan 2005-04-28 2:07:23 PM||   2005-04-28 2:07:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 the cost to 'improve' airports is borne by the airport involved, usually aome sort of port authority (local taxes) and there is the FAA Airport Improvement Program that dishes out low cost loans or grant (federal taxes) so who pays for this pig to land in the U.S? We do.
so far i think only about 4 airports have stated that they are going to spend the $$ necessary to support operations. and the comments about delays and on the ground operations are only the tip of the iceberg. most runways are too close together to allow this beast to be cycled in with the rest of the aircraft, requiring a completing isolated landing sequence, making more delays. that's what we need, more delays! as a freighter however, especially if there was a 'reliever' airport that may be a different story. if i want cattle car conditions, i'll take southwest, at least there will not be a whole city packed in with me.
Posted by USN, ret. 2005-04-28 2:36:18 PM||   2005-04-28 2:36:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Dar: I'm no fan of Airbus by any means, but it seems to me that if you can haul more people cheaper that's going to be a big selling point to most major airlines.

There is a need for this baby in selected time slots and a need for the Dreamliner in other time slots. Currently, 747's going across the Pacific are either over-booked or half-empty, depending on the time slot. They need the A380 for the overbooked (night) flights and the Dreamliner for the half-empty (day) flights. Look for ticket prices to plummet, as airline costs go down (assuming oil prices don't change).
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-04-28 2:38:17 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-04-28 2:38:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 I would expect every airline with routes going halfway around the world to buy a mixture of both of these planes (the A380 and the 787).
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-04-28 2:40:36 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-04-28 2:40:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 "Cost per passenger mile" is one thing....but you have to consider how much more time it's going to take to load the thing with passengers/luggage/cargo. A plane doesn't make you any money sittin' on the tarmac lookin' purty.

It's also a possible marketing bonus for the airlines that don't use it....as in, appeal to virtually everyone's desire to get off of the stupid thing as fast as possible. Do you want to arrive an hour earlier to the airport just to park your happy butt in a cramped seat with 800 other people? Personally, I don't.

Take into account how few airports can/will be able to accomodate the thing (China looks good, US & most of Europe probably not due to reluctance to spend the cash to accomodate one or two flights per day, Latin America not likely, big no on Africa, and Australia also highly unlikely), and it looks more & more like an Airbus ego trip. I'm thinking Concorde Mark II...without the beautiful design lines.
Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-04-28 2:48:12 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]  2005-04-28 2:48:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 I expect that if the A380 succeeds, Boeing will apply the lessons learned from the Dreamliner to a new plane designed to go head to head with the A380. Being first to market isn't everything - Airbus itself is evidence of this truism..
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-04-28 2:50:17 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-04-28 2:50:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Found this tidbit:
The first Airbus A380 technical manual, the ``Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning'' was released this month, providing data airport authorities and planners will need to make their airports capable of handling the double-deck jumbo jet.
One of the document's earliest readers was the U.S. General Accounting Office, which estimated that the 14 U.S. airports expected to service the A380 will have to spend $2.1 billion to upgrade terminals, runways, taxiways, etc. Airbus estimated the costs would be closer to half a billion dollars.
Posted by Steve  2005-04-28 2:51:26 PM||   2005-04-28 2:51:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 The issue is this - airlines can't get any more time slots if they're overbooked, and can't not fly if they're underbooked (it's use it or lose it). This is why the A380 is necessary - to pack those extra passengers in, and the Dreamliner is also necessary - to make profitable flights in less desirable time slots.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-04-28 3:04:00 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-04-28 3:04:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Steve, wow. I think that would just about kill it here in the states.

It's not too politically smart to spend billions to accomodate a foreign airliner in this economy. Especially one with ties to France.

Get the airport noise crowd allied with the "you're wasting our tax dollars" bunch, and this thing is DOA in the USA, folks. I don't care how much sense it may or may not make in the economic arena. The politicos ain't going to take a bullet for something like that.
Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-04-28 3:21:05 PM|| [http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]  2005-04-28 3:21:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Sorry but if they resolve the noise issue then I'm all for the added competition from the A380. Boeing's incompetent execs would run that company into the ground were it not for competition from Airbus. More choice is a good thing, too. Bring it on.
Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-28 3:22:55 PM||   2005-04-28 3:22:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Lex, the only thing we'll learn about competitiveness is that Boeing would be a lot more "competitive" if we gave them subsidized loans like Airbus did.

They may not be really competitive, but they'll be "competitive."

This is one of the ways subsidized socialism drives out capitalism, even if it isn't best for the consumers or taxpayers.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-04-28 5:02:30 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]  2005-04-28 5:02:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 PF: Lex, the only thing we'll learn about competitiveness is that Boeing would be a lot more "competitive" if we gave them subsidized loans like Airbus did.

In terms of featherbedding, Boeing's union has work rules that are as bad as or worse than Detroit's. Airbus serves to keep Boeing's union honest - Boeing's management can't just appease it and expect to stay in business. Boeing's employees need to experience the market discipline that the rest of us have been subjected to. (Note that keeping the cost of planes low helps to keep air fares low, as well).
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-04-28 5:20:21 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-04-28 5:20:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 The Detroit analogy's apt. Imagine how shitty cars today would be if Detroit had not had its balls put to the flames by japanese competitors over the last three decades.

Yeah, yeah, I know the MoF subsidized Toyota and the other japanese mftrs, I know about import barriers, etc. I hear what you're saying about subsidies; Zoellick and the gang are fighting the good fight on that.

The bigger point here is that "national champion" economic strategies are bad for the nation. Let the French pretend otherwise if they like. Do your eally want us to follow them into the ditch?
Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-28 5:29:22 PM||   2005-04-28 5:29:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 "national champion" economic strategies are bad for the nation. State sponsored enterprises of any form are almost always a dismal failure. Airbus is an exception primarily becuase Boeing got fat and lazy as a monopoly. When the Brazilians and a Canadian snowmobile manufacturer can succeed in the passenger aircraft market something is/was seriously wrong.
Posted by phil_b 2005-04-28 5:51:23 PM||   2005-04-28 5:51:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Alaska P:

So right you are, call this the AirbusT. Major carriers utilize yield management, matching aircraft lift to demand. As Bob Crandall used to say, too many seats chasing too few passengers.

Don't underestimate the damage caused to airpot runways due to exceedingly heavy aircraft landings. Profit margins are so tight in this industry that no air carrier can afford to pay the ongoing cost of premature runway damage/repair.

I give it two years before the AirbusT.
Posted by Dennis Kucinich  2005-04-28 7:53:01 PM||   2005-04-28 7:53:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Picture if you will....you are at the gate waiting, along with the hordes of passengers, for your outbound flight to be called, an A380 aircraft. Oops, the flight now has a mechanic problem and you and the masses are told to wait it out. Several hours pass and the horde is getting impatient considering that there are no alternative flights that can accomodate the vast number of stranded passengers.

This scenario will not be replayed very often before the flying public gets the message. Book a flight on a different sized aircraft.
Posted by Dennis Kucinich 2005-04-28 7:59:48 PM||   2005-04-28 7:59:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Steve and DB: Some of these costs inherent in accomodating this aircraft are recurring, not one time fixed costs. And the cost incurred in accomodating this one aircraft will likely be bore by the particular carriers who used this aircraft (i.e., Southwest, and similar will resist the pooling of transportation tax when they are not the cause of the higher cost of airport maintenance).
Posted by Sky King 2005-04-28 8:14:39 PM||   2005-04-28 8:14:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Several hours pass and the horde is getting impatient considering that there are no alternative flights that can accomodate the vast number of stranded passengers.

What I'm kinda wondering is if that behemoth can be totally evacuated safely in 90 seconds, per FAA rules, in the event of an emergency. What's more, if the injury rate during a demonstration of an emergency evac is higher than 4% (or somewhere near that number), that won't be looked upon kindly.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-04-28 9:33:09 PM||   2005-04-28 9:33:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Many of these exact same points were brought up 35 years ago when the 747 first came out. People hated to fly on one because they knew it would take forever to get on and off, and their baggage might as well go by train. Many runways could not (and still can't) handle them. I'm not sure about the evacuation time, but the plane was huge.

So, if a competent company had introduced this, I would predict 3 years of teething trouble, then being a big money-maker. Of course, if introduced by a company that needs huge subsidies just to survive...
Posted by Jackal  2005-04-28 10:30:03 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2005-04-28 10:30:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Hey I don't care. I'll never be on one. I don't fly.
Posted by Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-04-28 10:43:26 PM||   2005-04-28 10:43:26 PM|| Front Page Top

19:05 3dc
23:59 Sobiesky
23:56 BooBoo
23:52 Mark E.
23:48 Sobiesky
23:44 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:41 Frank G
23:34 CrazyFool
23:30 Frank G
23:29 Barbara Skolaut
23:29 Frank G
23:28 Sobiesky
23:27 Justrand
23:17 OldSpook
23:16 Frank G
23:16 Frank G
23:13 Frank G
23:10 Sobiesky
23:09 OldSpook
23:01 Frank G
22:58 Frank G
22:53 .com
22:51 Glavising Slack5995
22:46 Zhang Fei









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com