20 Jan 05

Airbus A380 vs Boeing 747

Airbus A380 and Boeing 747 graphic

On January 18 the Airbus A380 was officially revealed in a ceremony in Toulouse, France. The A380 represents one of the largest European industrial projects ever, and replaces the Boeing 747 as the world's largest airliner. Table 1 compares the Airbus A380-800 to the Boeing 747-400ER.


Table 1: Jumbos compared. Sources: Airliners.net, Wikipedia.
Airbus A380-800 Boeing 747-400ER
Dimensions
Length 72.8 m 70.7 m
Height 24.1 m 19.4 m
Wingspan 79.8 m 64.4 m
Wing area 845 m2 541 m2
Cabin width 6.58 m 6.10 m
Weights
Operating empty 277,000 kg 181,755 kg
MTOW 540,000 kg 362,875 kg
Powerplants
No. engines 4 turbofans 4 turbofans
Max engine thrust 374 kN (84,000 lb) 276 kN (62,000 lb)
Performance
Cruising speed 902 km/h 907 km/h
Max speed 945 km/h 939 km/h
Range 14,800 km 14,205 km
Capacity
Flightcrew 2 2
Seating (typical) 555 416 (23/78/315)
Seating (max) 840 568
Cargo N/A 137-158.6 m3

A few related links, focused mainly on the A380:

News

Discussion

Facts

Photos

Filed under: on January 20, 2005, 11:04 pm  

56 Comments (skip to form)

  1. Rob Mientjes

    Comment on January 20, 2005 at 11:44 pm

    Impressive list. I knew it was big, but the Boeing still isn't that bad. The budget made me laugh though. Let's hope they'll make a profit on these things one day :)

  2. Lars

    Comment on January 20, 2005 at 11:55 pm

    Actually, the 747 is more beautiful than the A380. As are most, if not all, Boeing models when compared to their Airbus counterparts. The 747 has also a certain magic to it, and I still remember the first time I flew one. A very special experience. On the other hand, I haven't even seen the A380 in real life, so who knows. It is big, that's for sure. The wings are particularly oversized to accomodate for future stretched versions. And getting all that weight airborne is impressive, not to mention the fact that they managed to get Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians and Spaniards to work together…

  3. Anne

    Comment on January 21, 2005 at 12:27 pm

    You just created this to play with markup, don't you? :-)

  4. Lars

    Comment on January 21, 2005 at 12:41 pm

    Well… actually, tables are quite the markup challenge, and I don't get to do them that often.

    In the process I found out that Internet Explorer doesn't like colspan="0" for rows that stretch across all columns, so you have to explicitly set the number of cols. And Opera seemed to react a bit strangely to the table attribute rules="groups", but I will have to recheck that.

    The one thing I couldn't quite figure out was the best way to mark up subheadings such as Dimensions, Weights, etc. Are they best marked up as table headers? Should they have a scope of rowgrup (as they have in this case) or something else? Are empty abbr attributes allowed? Fascinating, isn't it?

  5. Anne

    Comment on January 23, 2005 at 2:06 am

    Well, you’d better omit the ABBR attribute in such cases. Otherwise the user will get no information when his/her user agent uses that as data. The usage of SCOPE seems correct.

  6. Lars

    Comment on January 23, 2005 at 3:36 pm

    I would like the user agent to read the first line as "Airbus: Length 72.8 meters, Boeing: Length 70.7 meters", hence the empty abbreviation. In other words, I want to avoid having the subheading read out for every data value, i.e. "Airbus: Dimensions: Length 72.8 meters, Boeing: Dimensions: Length 70.7 meters". Isn’t this what will happen if I leave out the abbr attribute?

  7. bomber

    Comment on February 1, 2005 at 8:45 pm

    at last we are back in the running

  8. Mario Trejos

    Comment on April 2, 2005 at 4:31 am

    Well actually i think the Airbus A-380 - 800 is not more than a copy from the Boeing 747 - 400ER soo like always the Airbus company is just trying to make some competence and by the time they finish with this new plane the Boeing company have two new planes in the same time proving that they are a better company, but back in my commentary about it’s just a copy from the 747 we can see for like a little example the first class of the 380 which is basically the same than the one of the 747 just with a little changes on it … anyway i think the Boeing company it’s better than the Airbus taking in count that the Boeing is always the company with the new technology with the new ideas Airbus just going behind them …. one more example wold be the 777 the second largest commercial passenger airplane after the 747-400 and now the A-380 …. soo i think I spoke for soo much people who thinks like me and we all know that the Boeing company not soo far way from now would make a bigger plane than the A - 380 or we want to think that …..

  9. Zbig

    Comment on April 23, 2005 at 6:37 am

    I think that the “Hyper Jumbo” is an impressive technological achievement. My only concern is about the A 380’s real future in this era of terrorist attacks and air transport protracted weakeness. Some forty years back, Europe launched the Concorde. Many including myself, still view that “White Bird” as a dream. But the SST’s career was hit beyond repair by the fuel price sudden and irreversible inflation in the 70’s. History proved Boeing to have been right to vote for the 747, thus abandoning its own project of a supersonic jet. I don’t want to be a prophet of doom, but I smell that the future looks very likely to validate Boeing’s option of launching a smaller jet (the 787) able to fly on extra long distances rather than a Maxi Jumbo which range is almost identical to that of our beloved 747.

    Let’s wait and see.

  10. DeV

    Comment on May 7, 2005 at 6:50 am

    In response to “Mario Trejos” comment, the A380 is far more technologically advanced than the 747. Recall, the 747 has been continually modified over 4 decades since its launch in the 1960’s, and the basis of its structure is virtually unchanged whereas the A380 is a completely NEW 21st century design. Go figure :)

    Further, the power plants and avionics are LEADING EDGE. In fact, the engines deliver more power to weight ratio and can deliver 12% cost savings on fuel alone. And this is out of the box figures so to speak - no tweaking.
    Given that the A380 is MUCH larger and HEAVIER than a 747, seats more passengers, offer more comfort and brings us into the next level of air travel, one’s neurons would not be taxed when contemplating how the A380’s 12% fuel saving came about or? - yes, by embracing superior technology to produce a better design!

    And the statement;

    “. . . the Boeing company have two new planes in the same time proving that they are a better company”

    Well, how does having two new planes make Boeing a better company? Indeed, I’m puzzled since your statement is without reason, substance or force.

    So, with this in mind, as for Boeing being the superior aircraft manufacturer, well its easier to become a big fish in a small pond when a parent country support its own native aircraft company with lucrative government and military contracts is it not?

    So, now the European community is doing what the Americans have been doing since WW2, aligning European contracts to European aircraft manufacturers.

    And since the shoe is now definately on the other foot, Boeing know this and realise they can no longer rely on a monopoly of nice FAT contracts from its mother land to keep in afloat. Hence, as expected, America suddenly starts Knee Jerking.

    Oh, please Boeing, don’t take the rest of the world for idiots . . .

    Hmmm, was it not obvious Europe would not stand for it after 60 years?

    And as for you Boeing, well, if the Airbus was going to be a flop why are you so worried?

    Ask yourself this, as Boeing ARE designing NEW aircraft in an attempt to eclipse Airbus’s offerings, why do they NEED do this if the A380 is not a threat?

    Here’s a reflection . . .

    Frankly, as LARS eloquently put it,

    “. . .the fact that they (airbus) managed to get Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians and Spaniards to work together…”

    is already a testament for success. You see, the difference between America and Europe is that Europeans understand the world we live in. The same cannot be said for America - just ask the average American where Spain or Germany is or how to spell the words “colour” or “through” or to draw the national flags of these countries? . . .

    So what does that bit above mean? Well, here’s something to postulate over;

    ” . . . in order to know where to go, one must understand where they have come from”

    With this in mind, I’m backing Airbus, after all, the European culture is over 5000 years old!

    And so the bun fight begins - anyone care to comment?

    DeV

    ps: nice site LARS, your a credit to the freedom of information!

  11. Jason

    Comment on May 12, 2005 at 9:43 pm

    The A380 is big, sure, but considering that it took someone 36 years to come up with something bigger than the 747 (first flight 1969), I’m not all that impressed.

    Bigger planes have flown, the An-225 for instance, so I just don’t see what all the fuss is about. If you look at some of the Douglas companies past designs, you’ll see a few that look remarkably similar to the A380. European enginuity?

    BTW, congrats on your USA bashing, Dev. A real nice piece of work. Your comments about ignorant American’s has no place here and was completely uncalled for. I thought this was about the A380/747, yet you start slinging mud and name calling. Grow up!!!

  12. Al the Pilots' Pal

    Comment on June 6, 2005 at 9:11 am

    Good comments, Jason.
    Great blog, Lars. Having flown the first military jumbo jet around the world, I would be interested in a comparative, table or otherwise, for the B-747, Lockheed C-5B, Antonov 225 (?), A380 to include costs/ton mile or /passenger. Big isn’t everything, but it does enable you to do things otherwise impossible. Zbig’s comments on air security are, however unfortunately, right on.

  13. MathewB

    Comment on June 28, 2005 at 9:25 pm

    Comparison A380-800 vs Antonov 225:

    The Antonov 225 is 15.6 meters longer

    Its wingspan is 8.6 m wider than the 380’s

    Payload
    - 225: 250,000kg - 275,000kg
    - A380-800F Freighter: 150.000 Kg

    but the 380 is 6 m higher that the 225, so even if the 380
    isn’t the longest, the airbus dudes can still say they got the
    tallest airplane :-)

    also the 380 is over a 100 km/h faster.

  14. Russ

    Comment on September 15, 2005 at 7:27 pm

    In reponse to Dev’s comment about Boeing profiting from its motherland through military contracts, is Boeing the only company to get military contracts? Do you know that EADS & BAE have won many US government contracts? Its funny that most Europeans end up with the same argument whenever they are comparing a boeing plane vs. an airbus.

    Honestly, your opinion about A380 vs Boeing 747 sounds very European - 5000 years old.

  15. Jeffrey

    Comment on October 25, 2005 at 2:58 am

    The 747 was a wonderful aircraft for its time but it really cant compare with the fabulously engineered A380. Its important to remember that the larger the aircraft the more problems you have to overcome. For example, how to keep wings that large from sagging under their own weight while at the same time keeping them flexible enough for flight.

    The only aircraft thats more impressive is the super-heavy-duty An-225 with its titanium load floor, great range, and load capacity, and ability to land on dirt, snow, or rough, unprepared run-ways. Then again the russians have always been the best airframe designers.

  16. Surfsky

    Comment on January 2, 2006 at 3:29 am

    Boeing is going for point to point traffic and the possibility to open more airports to more destinations giving travelers more option. As urban sprawl spreads around the world more regional airports are opening. In addition around the world businesses are moving their offices away from high cost city centers to places outside the city or medium sized cities to reduce employment and commercial real-estate costs. Boeing is making the step to open more Airports (at a lower cost, shorter runways) that can support international travel. Today I cannot get a ticket to Ontario CA to Sydney Australia. I have to got to LAX to fly to Sydney. With the 787 it is practical to open an Ontario CA to Sydney flight. Reducing congestion at the already over crowded major Airports.

    The CEO of Boeing mentioned that Boeing analyzed surface traffic patterns around the world’s airports and realized that most airports cannot support the volume of traffic to fill the seats in an A380. It is not to say that the 747 advanced with 30ft of extra fuselage is not going to compete directly with the A380 the difference is the Boeing is not spending as much time with high capacity aircraft. That is not the future for the bulk of air travel.

    It is in my opinion that Boeing understands the world very well, thank you very much, and we understand where the world is moving. The solution is more airports that have international routs to support the over burdened international airports.

  17. Henry

    Comment on February 20, 2006 at 6:11 am

    “Then again the russians have always been the best airframe designers.” What kind of crap is that? The Russians stole the BOEING B-29 during and right after WWII. (It was after all the only aircraft at the time that could carry a NUKE.) The process of reverse engineering the plane completely revolutionized the Soviet aerospace industry. Lets give Boeing a bit of credit for creating the best bomber then and for a bomber thats still flying today…the B-52.

  18. Stijn

    Comment on March 28, 2006 at 11:18 pm

    Sorry guys, but its so obvious that the base for your criticism is just not the plane itself… Its the fact that Europe is beating the US in a domain that has been dominated by the US for 60 years. We looked at the 747 and thought that we could make it much better and, why not, bigger. And so we did. And the entire continent is proud of it. The ‘old Europe’ (I believe those were Rumsfeld’s words) is alive and kicking, so try to live with it, ok? See it as healthy competition and accept the fact that Europe…is back! (Actually we just took a nap ;-)
    Stijn
    Belgium

  19. Paolo

    Comment on April 13, 2006 at 12:47 am

    In my humble opinion, the A380 project is a good one, as long as you don’t try to consider it the ‘future’ of civil aviation. About the future, i do agree with Surfsky, point to point flights between minor airports will increase their importance in the years to come, and that’s not the A380 territory, unless we talk about long distance - heavy traffic routes. The A380 is going to cover a small fraction of the civil flight industry, but that does not mean it’s a bad product. I think it’s a great airplane indeed! It’s technologically advanced (see aerodynamics and size - size matters), environmentally friendly as much as today’s solutions can provide (look after A350 of Boeing’s Dreamliner for future, better choices) and comfortable thanks to the huge space available and in-flight entertainment and connectivity features.
    That said, i praise the european efforts to produce such a impressive airplane, but i have to regretfully admit that Italy, where i live, didn’t take a significant part in it, only Alenia aerospace contributes to small portions of the fuselage. That happened for political reasons, for being so but so much easier to stick to Boeing’s products than to try to positively compete with it, especially in areas where Boeing didn’t cover all the space adequately, in this case, the extra-large capacity niche.
    Remember, the customers-clients, always have to gain from healthy competition, and in my opinion, this once again is a good example.
    Long life to A380 and good luck to Boeing when, and if, they will choose to give their answer.

  20. Surfsky

    Comment on April 23, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    Stijn,

    I agree healthy competition is great but I don’t believe Airbus is making a wise choice. They don’t have the resources to make a decent competition plane for the 787. The A380 is being forced on many buyers as part of “bundled” package deal. Boeing already has enough 787 orders to make it profitable. Airbus does not and it is three years ahead of Boeing’s product. Unfortunately Airbus does not have the resources to make an a350 comparable to the 787 (it will take a completely redesigned aircraft). The a380 is several thousand pounds heavier than what Airbus promised and is requiring the airlines to buy titanium and carbon fiber seat frames to get the weight lower (very expensive).

    One thing you have to remember is “fuel saving” also includes the gas you burn to get to the airport. Most people take a car to an international flight because they have bags. The 787 will be able to land at almost as many airports as a 737. This will give the LA area about 5 different airports to choose from for international flights. For every A380 their is a about 250-300 cars showing up at an airport, then put on top of that all the connecting flights to get people to the A380 flight. The world has to get away from the hub and spoke system.

    I just took offense to this comment by Dev-

    “You see, the difference between America and Europe is that Europeans understand the world we live in. The same cannot be said for America - just ask the average American where Spain or Germany is or how to spell the words “colour” or “through” or to draw the national flags of these countries? . . .

    So what does that bit above mean? Well, here’s something to postulate over;

    ” . . . in order to know where to go, one must understand where they have come from”

    With this in mind, I’m backing Airbus, after all, the European culture is over 5000 years old!
    And so the bun fight begins - anyone care to comment?”

    I think the above comment is very wrong and arrogant. Boeing is designed and made in China, Japan, Brazil, Australia, Russia, USA and Canada. Also one of the Boeing service centers for warrantee work (20 years on the airframe, the leading warrantee in the business) is in Thailand.

    I am sorry that many Europeans feel that the continent of Europe is the stage for “international”. I grew up in Geneva and my father worked for what I consider to be the most multi-national company in the world, Caterpillar headquartered in Peoria, IL (population 250,000). Now I live in the US and visit Asia and Europe. Americans may not be “worldly” but they are not afraid of globalization.

  21. Daniel

    Comment on April 27, 2006 at 1:00 am

    Well I’ve flown on a 747 and the thing I noticed was it was so quiet compared to 767 and 777 and 737. I guess the noise levels would differ with the alternative model of each Boeing aswell.

    Ive also flown on Airbus A330 and A320 and I found them equally as enjoyable to fly with.

    I do not really care for the politics between USA and Europe myself lol. I just like flying full stop and would be keen as mustard to be a passenger on an Airbus as I would a Boeing.

    Have a great day folks.

    Dan from New Zealand

  22. brad

    Comment on July 19, 2006 at 10:59 pm

    to “dev”,
    I love it when Europeans reveal their elitist mentality when it comes to anything concerning America. It just goes to show the snobbery so inherent in European culture. Why don’t we (Europe and America) try to work together instead of against one another? I think the Airbus A380 will be good for Boeing mainly for the increased competition it will provide. It will force Boeing to make better products and in the end the consumer will ultimately benefit. Lets not turn this into an “us versus them” debate.

  23. Kiwi Von Troupski

    Comment on September 27, 2006 at 8:29 pm

    Good on ya Dan for putting some good old KIWI sense back into the discussion.

    I am a fellow New Zealand as well and know where a lot you guys are coming from. I’ve just returned from Wroclaw Poland after piloting a 205ex Peugeot all the way there and back again . Amazing trip it must be said, and it just reinforces my love of flying. As for the America - Europe thing? Well the rest of the World (I mean outside the USA) aren’t idiots as we are sometimes treated and all things level out in the end so I’m not that worried. The hole that the USA is digging for itself may be getting bigger by the day, but all is not lost as long as they can call on the odd Antonov 225 to evacuate the troop from Iraq once bushes time is up.Jeez I’ll even loan them the 205 if the need it.Retreat and defend! Or is that deny?

    Kiwi Von Troupski flying HIGH in POLAND.

    PS. The Peugeot is a hatch , so the payload is only average size.

  24. Jerry

    Comment on October 6, 2006 at 1:24 am

    re: posting #10 from DeV……I guess the old saying “Time will tell all” has proven itself again. I know your post is from May 7, 2005, but the last 17 months has proven 80% of what you stated as false.

    The A380, of which I had the opportunity to tour aircraft #1 in Toulouse, and believe it is a very unique and formadable aircraft , has not sold the required 250 units (which most industry experts agree is a very low ball number) to break even. This is BEFORE all the penalities that will be given to the airlines for being 2 YEARS late. They have only 159 units on contract, all of which are no longer considered firm orders because of the delays. The airlines can cancel without penalty, but many probably won’t. Why would you cancel an order for an airplane you are going to get at less than half the list price. There have been no orders for the A380 in the last 24 mos to speak of.

    The flagship customer, Emirates - which has 45 of the craft on order (and that would be 28% of all orders) has started negotiations with Boeing to order 20+ 747-8 aircraft, and has said half of the A380 orders are in jeporady. Singapore, Thai, Quantas and many others have expressed their complete and utter displeasure over Airbus’ management of the A380, which has proved to lower the confidence level for Airbus as a whole across the airline industry. They have not confirmed they are going to stay with the A380, which tells the industry they are comtemplating their options.

    Now today, the new CEO of Airbus says it may well have to put the A350XWB on the back burner, so they can salvage the A380 and a direct quote “…it will take us 10 years to catch up to Boeing…”

    Those are honest words from an honest man trying to keep the boat afloat. And to understand the whole problem with the wiring was brought on by two basic project management slip ups. First, many of the sections from outside France ended up in Toulouse for final assemble without the wiring in place, like they were suppose to have. They were pushed to get the sections out the door and they did so without the wiring in place, because they didn’t have the correct engineering for. And the most glaring problem - why they didn’t have the engineering for the wiring, they were using two different versions of the same piece of software, of which the output files were incompatable. Two of the four countries were using AutoCad Ver4 and two were using Ver5 and they don’t talk together. That is such an amature mistake, one has to stop and think how it could happen. And then you begin to wonder what other simple issues have been overlooked.

    Now as for your comment Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians and Spaniards all working together to bring about such a successful product. Look what time has shown! The infighting between France and Germany are smattered all over the news. The A380 work is going to move from Hamburg to Toulouse, despite the screams from all German entities; politicians and unions alike. BAE, Englands largest defense contractor I believe and a 20% owner in Airbus, is now finalizing the process to sell back its 20% share to EADS because of significant issues with current and future production problems. In other words they want out at any cost, taking a huge hit, four to five billion less than when they first valued the stock, just to get out. By staying abreast with the international news one can really see that EADS is in a world of hurt with respect to this multi-national consortium and it just isn’t working like they envisioned. Too bad it isn’t, but it just isn’t.

    Consider the following:
    Airbus has lost 59% of its value since June of this year.
    Boeing has increased it’s value by almost 10% in the same timeframe. 10% value increase in 4 mos is huge! 30% a year….
    Airbus has sold 159 firm and announce orders for the A380 and no firm orders for the A350WXB. All A350 orders on the books are for the modified A330 version, which is not being offered.
    Boeing has 377 firm booked orderes for the 787. R&D is paid for and profit is already being booked.
    The A380 is 60T overweight and won’t meet the fuel burn promised by Airbus. Airbus’ solution to this problem is monetary compensation. This solution does not support your claim “… by embracing superior technology to produce a better design!” The design is not better, nor is the technology better. Boeing continues to sell the 747-400, 48 in 2005 and 13 so far this year which is 40% of the total order for the A380 and they are all FIRM orders, not in limbo.

    I could go on and on with facts about how EADS/Airbus has mismanaged the aircraft manufacturing business. This is so very unfortunate because there sholuld not be only one manufacturer of large aircraft, it will eliminate competition and make all airlines wary of the only one left. Besides that, Boeing can’t build all the large commercial aircraft the world needs. Production rates would be a problem. (A 70/30 split would be just fine, or even 80/20)

    Overall your posting was well written and entertaining, especially in light of what has happened the last few months. It just goes to show that self serving crowing will sometimes come back to bite you in the ass!

    Keep in mind what Admiral Yamamoto said right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor when one of his staff approached him to claim victory. Yes, we all know his response; “I’m afraid all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a great resolve.” Four years later Japan lay in ruin. It only took Airbus 17mos.

    Yes, America has problems. There is a fraction of the population that doesn’t know where Spain or Thailand is on the map. Our political system has flaws and we have poverty in the streets. We seem to have our share of internal pundits who like to point the finger on national and international television. I won’t even start with the “celebtities” that get into the act of slinging mud.

    But you know what DeV, if America is such a shoddy country, where our major airplane designs are so sub-standard and we can’t get along with anyone else, why is everyone taking pot shots at us and calling us the evil empire??? We have to be doing something right for every civilized country in the world to want to do business with us. And on the other hand, every religious zealot wanting to blow us up - both internal idiots and those abroad. We have plenty of bozos to go around ourselves.

    Well, you can go ahead and back Airbus and you will have 60% less asset than you did three months ago. And as for European culture being 5000 years old, then you have to stop and think for a minute; What haven’t you learned over the years? We are just over 200 years old and have caught up to and in many cases surpassed Europe.

    Hope this finds you in good health and maybe we will cross paths when I’m in Denmark and Germany next year.

    Oh yea, Comments anyone???

    Jerry

  25. 8thfloorjon

    Comment on October 6, 2006 at 10:30 am

    Can we just get it straight please? This isn’t a Europe vs U.S. thing, it’s a French vs U.S. thing. I’m English, & we’re so close to France we can practically smell them if the wind is in the wrong direction. Yes, we make the wings (which incidentally failed the initial load bearing tests) but this is just another folie de grandeur by our Gallic ‘partners’. To be honest, most of us are laughing ourselves stupid - as ever - at their latest pompous failure. London’s 3rd airport, Stansted, is laying a new runway and not even bothering to make it wide enough to take the 380. Bring on point-to-point, I don’t want to drive 300 miles to get to an airport that flies to JFK, I want to use my local one. Hope British Airways order 50 Dreamliners, not 10 Whales.

  26. JMT

    Comment on October 7, 2006 at 7:53 am

    I am born in Europe, I reside In USA, I love the marvelous fling machines called “airplains”, therefore I enjoyed your coments related with the Boeing/Airbus competition, but plese, I never taught that my buddies from Europe, can be so childish. They cannot stop critizing and insulting USA with no apparent reason, forghetting that modern Europe freedom it’s another “silly american achivment”. I believe is only jalousie involved. If Europe needed 5000 years of civilization to get here, I wonder how much more they need to mature. I apologize for my non-technical comments, but I had to take it off my chest

  27. plim

    Comment on October 16, 2006 at 8:44 am

    Dear Dev…

    wow. I am in Asia, and I’m surprised at your vitriol. It sounds like you have a real grudge against the US. Anyway. when I fly ANYWHERE, be it, the US, or Europe etc, I have to fly 12 hours in either direction. So no. I don’t want to connect in Frankfurt just to get to Nice… And no, I don’t want to connect in LA just to get to Phoenix. Point to point is the future. Not HUGE hubs.

    And your comments about people in the US not knowing the geography of the rest of the world has absolutely nothing to do with this forum. And for you information. the US is roughly the size of all of Europe. In a country that large, there is enough happening within that country not to ever hear mention of the news outside of that country. China is huge too, and even though the press is squashed by the government, most people in China only know Chinese news… If Europe was one entity, as it is fast becoming, it may be easier for the Americans to identify European event vs. US events like you guys from Europe do regarding the US. What if I asked a European about news from the state of Kentucky, what would he be able to tell me? Nothing. Then don’t ask an American about stuff he can’t know about Latvia or Portugal… The US has 50 states. Each with their own news and cultural identity. Europe has almost as many states with as many identities. So Living in the US is like living in Europe in the sense that they have many “states” within a larger whole. And most of Americans know something about many of the states that comprise the whole. But they don’t expect outsiders (such as Europeans or Asians) to know things about each individual state that makes up the US. So why the hell would you expect americans to know about each individual state that makes up Europe?? That’s the huge difference I see between Europeans and Americans. Europeans are often pompous, especially when speaking of americans. American on the other hand have always been open and welcoming. yes, in a somewhat stereotypically cowbow way. There is not as much formality, but they are for the most part humble and good natured. Many Europeans I know have to complain about something (esp. the germans i do business with! - although if airbus was 100% german, none of this would have happened in my opinion, because the ALWAYS do stuff on time and on budget).

    But I digress, just as others have said before. You have been proven wrong and your pride has come back and made you a fool.

    Look. Airbus’ idea of making a superjumbo may not have been a bad idea. But the lousey execution of it has made Airbus loose all credibility. Although I fly Airbus planes sometimes. I prefer boeing. Their track record of reliable and forward looking transportation has won my support.

    And contrary to what you believe in that little socialist mind of yours, in the end the BIG decisions are not made by some giant industrial government conspiracy complex. It’s made by people carefully analysing the dollars, euros, yen, won, whatever… period. That’s why, in the long run, the world chooses American, British, German, Japanese, and Korean products. Period. It’s called value.

    And last I remember, Boeing was never helped by government handouts, as airbus was. Boeing competed with LM, MD, and a slew of other companies to have US and foreign companies buy their products.

    I think Boeing along with LM (and their famous skunkworks!) and some german (Messerschmitt aircraft) and british (Supermarine Spitfire! the sovereign of the skies!) companies have always produced the most innovative aircraft. But EADs… just playing catch up all the time.

  28. Brent

    Comment on October 20, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    Jerry, your comments could not have been better if I had written them myself. I find that the European culture finds itself having difficulty with change. In the U.S., we are constantly embodied in change. It often causes spin-off problems, but none the less it is change and I believe that to be the mechanism for innovation. Someone once said that any decision made based on emotions will usually result in failure. I think that statement is correct. I also think Airbus was having an identity crisis when they pursued the A380. I am sure there were lots of mathematical equations to support it’s launch, but at the end of the day I believe it was emotionally driven. Take a page out of the Boeing playbook, at the end of the day did you make any money? Remember: It’s just business.

  29. JTG

    Comment on November 7, 2006 at 9:39 pm

    Guys-
    DeV is just a silly troll.
    He’s probably some 15 year old kid in a mid-west suburb with nothing to do . . . and hasn’t been on this site in over a year. I say let it go . . . Especially with the 747-8 coming out ;-)

  30. Tanzanian

    Comment on December 15, 2006 at 4:10 pm

    Jerry - About about the 60% decline of EADS shares..Heres a hot tip, buy airbus shares! The 2 year delay has made the market so negative the shares are a bargian of a lifetime. its only a 2 year delay, what will that mean in 5-10 years? Heres my personal guarantee, Airbus will be at $30 plus by end of 2007, at the very least, maybe closer to 40.

    As for the american-european debate, its all about George! I’m sure you Americans see that too. get rid of him!

  31. mike

    Comment on December 18, 2006 at 10:17 am

    If one were to visit the website of Airbus you can see on a work share value that over 60% of the cost of the new Airbus A-380, if not all their family of aircraft, is spent with innovative American companies. In point of fact, The wings, the major part of any aircraft assembly are built in Britain but designed in the USA for the A-380. The second largest Boeing 777 costomer is Air France, an airline based in a country that is the major asembler of Airbus. Singapore airlines is the largest user of the B777 and japan has never bought an Airbus place to date. These are countries known for quality. Lufthansa just because the launch customer of the new B747-800. The truth is that most of the technology in Airbus aircraft comes from North America. Dont take my word for it, visit the airbus.us website. Boeing is technology driven and much better at listening to their customers needs. Airbus lied to their customers and withheld production delays that cost airlines hundred of millions of dollars. They cannot be forgiven for that lapse in ethics. I am a Canadian and was pleased that Air Canada just gave Boeing one of their largest ever order for aircraft. Boeing deserves the business.

  32. John Francis

    Comment on December 22, 2006 at 2:38 am

    You yanks and europenas make me laugh, with your US v Euro arguments!!!. From a neutral point of view (an aussie), I have to say that the future is larger aircraft to reduce slot congestion at hub airports. I fly into LHR quite often - the amount of aircraft NEEDS to be reduced, simple fact. The only way you can do this, is with larger, more efficient aircraft. No aircraft will be able to compete on a seat cost/mile basis with a A380. Costs wll come down for the average traveller. And the 747-800 hasnt a hope in hell of competing, LH bought 20 because they were sold reportdley at 1/2 of list price with freebies thrown in. The 787 will be useless for routes such as: LHR-SYD, HKG-LHR, HKG-LAX, HKG-NEW/JFK, LHR-JFK, BKK-LHR, DXB-any major hub listed and many more that I cant think of.

    Mike - your comment: and japan has never bought an Airbus place to date. These are countries known for quality.

    You must be an ignorant 15 yo to post that. Almost a 1/4 of the new 787 will be subcontracted to contractors in Japan. Japan is Boeing’s lifeline. Even if Airbus offered a Japanese airline an A380 for 1 million dollars they still wouldnt take it . Also, Japan Airlines did order Airbus aircraft before Japanese contractors started working for Boeing - 18 A300’s - http://www.jal.com/en/corporate/gaiyo/flight.html.

    Oh - this quote is fantastic: eeds. Airbus lied to their customers and withheld production delays that cost airlines hundred of millions of dollars. They cannot be forgiven for that lapse in ethics.

    Since your an incompetent 15 year old that thinks no Japanese airline flys Airbus, you wouldnt know that the 747 was plagued by problems with its EIS - at one stage 30 747’s sat around with no engines!!! Now I guess Airbus could have done a Boeing - released the A380 on time with hidden problems - but they are smarter then that, and have copped some flak rather then release an aircraft plagued by techincal problems. When the A380 EIS it will be smooth operating from day 1. If you call that poor ethics, well, thats not surprising considering how silly the rest of your post was.

    Having said that, the B777 is a better aircraft then the A340, both companies have excellent technology, and are hard to separate. I do believe the A380 program will put Airbus in front in about 10 years time.

    Good day to all, and I hope no more ignorant 15 y.o’s post on here.

  33. stef

    Comment on March 11, 2007 at 1:06 am

    Well actually the 747, was planned to have 2 decks, all the way from Front to Back, but that was cancelled becuase they didn’t have the technologi to do so…. i agreed that the 747 is much more greater looking than the A-380, i think that the A-380 is on the overdrive, of how big to build a commercial plane!!

    best regs.

    Steffen, Denmark

  34. » Blog Archive » Fly-by.

    Pingback on March 19, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    […] Since the full release of the Airbus 380 has suffered delays of several of months (years), we’re not such big fans anymore (still fans of course). However, since one is flying into JFK today, that gives us another reason to link it to the very cool latest Bond movie, Casino Royale. The link of course being that a random bad guy tries to crash a fuel truck into the giant Airbus 380 in that movie. We’re just overjoyed that after a couple of serious mishaps, the slick British agent is back on track. […]

  35. Compare the Airbus A380 with the Boeing 747... « Cubicle Jock

    Pingback on March 19, 2007 at 11:31 pm

    […] For a more detailed look at the specs between these two planes, read this article from Jan 2005. […]

  36. The making of Airbus A380 and its First Flight to United States » Wonderful Things » My Relax Place

    Pingback on March 20, 2007 at 10:23 am

    […] The Airbus A380 will overtake its rival Boeing 747 by carrying 555 passengers and travel range of 14,800km comparing to 426 passengers and 13,450km respectively.Source: A380 vs Boeing 747 […]

  37. Rex

    Comment on March 24, 2007 at 2:29 am

    The Boeing 747 is longer than the A-380
    747 is 76.4 m A-380 is 73.0 m
    Boeing 747 is still the longest Airliner than A-380
    The length of the A-380 in this page is wrong.

    there is a Giant Plane Comparisons on
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Giant_planes_comparison.svg
    see for yourself the 747 is longer than the A-380

  38. Mike

    Comment on April 2, 2007 at 7:29 am

    I got to see the Airbus 380 just by chance at Hong Kong International last weekend. I had just arrived from LAX to HKG via Cathay Pacific Airlines (which I wouldn’t be surprised would be a Airbus 380 flight in the next couple of years) and was quite surprise to see it sitting at one of the gates. It is definitely big. There was a big press meeting at the gate and about 200 people at most waiting to get on the flight to Frankfort. They where supposed to leave at 8:30am, but didn’t start boarding until about 9:40am. I don’t know what the delay was about, but the engines where not running, maybe technical problems or maybe the gate was incorrectly labeled. Once they did start loading the plane it took about 40 minutes for the plane to load every person onto it. The plane took off at a very low angle due to its size and I wondered if it was not a sea facing airport how would this thing be able to take off without the passengers feeling a bunch of g’s if the angle needed to be steeper. (And the wings)

    My overall feeling was this:

    -The plane sure is big and impressive (I took a lot of photos) Kudos to Airbus for this.

    -With that though the loading time for 500 people is going to be ridiculous. (If it took 40 minute for a half flight what will it take for a full flight. I Will definitely be getting on last for any AIB-380 flight I am on.)

    -Airports are going to need to change a few things. Distance between gates and number of jetways to a plane to shorten load times. Another cost of this airplane outside the cost of the plane itself.

    -This airline is definitely going to fit the Hub niche of travel. There will be airplane sales for the standard international flight currently offered, but this will not revolutionize air travel out side of being a big plane.

    I live in Portland, Oregon so the Airbus 380 isn’t going to help me out. The Boeing 787 dreamliner will definately increase the possibility of Portland getting more international flights and make it much easier and cost effective for myself and anothers to travel the world.

    After reading up on both the Boeing 787 and Airbus 380, I think both will help the industry of travel greatly, but as far as sales I see the Boeing 787 doing much better as no longer will international travel depend on the Spoke and Hub model. Also, and this should be worrisome for Airbus, if the Spoke and Hub model is out the door, do we as travelers really need the Airbus 380???

    I am just a traveler that flies on planes a lot, so please feel free to comment

  39. someone

    Comment on April 20, 2007 at 11:27 pm

    The a380 isn’t that beautifull as the 747 rom the outside, but the inside is what counts, and the a380 is superiour, it’s a wider body, seats 555 passengers while it’s capable of doing 800. uses good engines, althrough the new 747 will have beter ones.Still the new 747 has one flaw compared to the a380, it’s still the same comfort, the body of the 747 is smaller, and the cockpit isn’t that modern as from the a380.
    Also according to pilots, the 737 flies beter than the a320. Pobarbly the 747-800 will fly better than the a380.
    The a380 is beter than the current 747 and will compete perfectly to the new 747

  40. Dave

    Comment on May 24, 2007 at 7:25 am

    The queen of the skies has a good few hours on the 380 or any airbus for that matter, try compare apples with apples. The truth is that only in 40 years time will this argument be settled, and until then the 380 has a lot of work to do that the 747 has already done.

    David za

  41. Noel

    Comment on June 10, 2007 at 8:46 pm

    I believe there is a market for both planes the B-747 and the A-380 it is silly to think that the whole industry is ging to focus on buying A-380’s as well as B-747 there market share is one of the smallest in the industry besides this new boeing is a new animal is not the same it may look like the same old plane but they are redesigning the plane different dimentions and newer technology more composites………that’s been the workhorse of many airlines in the world it has a reputation build around it,as a good safe plane and i think the A-380 is on the right esteps to become another icon as well.
    On the other hand airbus was caught sleeping with the B-787 what were they thinking i don’t know but that was a team failure, they are working hard on there A-350 XWB, best of luck to them rumors are that that design still not satisfied many customers and the price has drop to almost half, yup 50% off, and is understandable you have to promote your product and the best way to do it is creating demand.
    good luck to Boeing with it’s B-747-800 and airbus with it’s A-350 XWB…remember this is for our own benefit let them buid those planes cheap and safe, thanks and have a great flying experience..

  42. andrei

    Comment on June 23, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    well, i read this huge talk. Someone said “Time will tell all” :) .
    The Paris Air Show from Le Bourget airport just ended. Airbus selled 425 aircraft (firm orders) and also won some 300 commitments. Boeing selled 129 aircraft, so now Airbus has something more than 150 orders ahead.
    maybe the A380 wasn’t a good investment, but the others aircraft families of airbus are doing well and it’s probably gonna be another year with airbus in the top of the sales list.

    conclusion: boeing has the 787 to be proud of, but airbus has the a 300/310/320/330/340/350 xwb/380. so boeing shoud keep working.

    andrei, romania

  43. Panos

    Comment on August 10, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    Reading all the comments above, letting the rivalry between USA and Europe aside, yes the A380 is huge brilliant plane, the 747 is rather old but extremely beautiful and in my opinion is time to retire. Yes Boeing might go for a point to point approach in the new planes, however airbus is doing this also. A quick look at the new A350 will tell you that target is filling the mid-large distances. However, you all see the tree and not the forest. International airports cannot handle the large number of airplanes(747 or A340-600) coming from international flights. A380 being close to the size of 747 offers more passengers for less actual space in the airport. New International airports will not easily open, due to the fact that more people have to be employed, for security, checking and all the extra that international airports need for operation (large cost). As for loading a A380 with passengers changes have to be made in terminals(2 years ago I had the chance to see the proposed changes that will occur in the Munich International Airport, they were very good, loading passengers from two or four corridors up and down depending on the seat num). Furthermore, have a look at the companies that made the most orders for the A380. They are either mid eastern, Emirates, Qatar and Singapore. These companies want to offer a more enjoyable journey to their customers, not mainly families, but businessmen.
    Concluding, I hope that my next trip from Europe to USA will be in a A380!

    P.S as for the 5000 years civilization, I do not thing that is right…more like 3500-4000 years ago and not in all Europe. Mostly in North and the Mediterranean region, Greece, colonies of Greek city states in South Italy and France at that time. And just to tease the Americans (as I do with friends that are Americans) when will you construct a decent car?????Sorry I could not resist :)

  44. Brian

    Comment on August 20, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    I was recently at Charles De Gaulle (CDG) outside Paris, and I am glad that they are doing some remodeling to accomodate the A380, as that airport is vastly outdated and extremely poorly organized. Competition is a good thing, it wasn’t so many years ago — 4 or 5 — that Airbus was on top and Boeing was on the ropes. Mullally, former Boeing CEO, who cleaned up that mess, has moved on to try to resurrect Ford, and many of the folks who built the 777 made a ton of money and retired from Boeing. So Airbus does have a chance of making a comeback. Here in Seattle, which used to be strictly a Boeing town, we only have one airport, Seattle Tacoma (SEATAC). Boeing Field, located in south Seattle, is only used for private jets, light aircraft, and by Boeing. SEATAC is only getting its third runway now, after 20 years of debate. The other good field, Everett, is 777 territory. And I don’t thing McOrd (sp?) Air Force Base is being planned to split part of its runway to civilian use. So I’m finding it somewhat ironic that while Boeing is advocating the point to point approach, there is little impetus for it here in Seattle. In other words, I can’t fly out of Boeing Field to LAX or CDG, I have to go to SEATAC. As do all the other people in the greater Puget Sound area, rather than use any of the jet capable fields present. As far as the Boeing-Airbus debate, Airbus planes are more comfortable. That is the reality. But they don’t seem to be doing too well in getting their aircraft out the door. Cheers, Brian

  45. Noel

    Comment on September 1, 2007 at 1:50 am

    Andrei have you read the news lately?
    i think you should………”ignorance is a gift, knowledge is a blessing”
    withing ten years there is going to be two or more competitors in the industry them you will see who is who, at the moment is like a race between two horses they both make incredible products,implementing every single piece of technology to provide us with safety and comfort not only for passangers but pilots as well, is very important to notice that Airbus change the industry in many ways something i respect, but on the other hand Boeing has done the same thing, when they decide to make a plane with a full composite body the competition tried to ridiculized Boeing, saying that Boeing was playing with the future and a composite plane of that size was impossible to manufacture with composites, the funny part is that sections are being manufacture next door to them in Italy,
    figure that one up europeans and americans working together, and all I read here is the average joe trying to show there nationalistic ego, to critic is good, it creates responsability and comitment to quality products,but as far as saying that a plane is better built in Europe, what is going to happen when they built there A-320 in China will you take there comments as they are one of the older civilizations in the world and so for europeans can build a plane.
    none sense they build a plane to be safe and move from point A to point B and enjoy that experience, for me i don’t care where the plane is made as long as i come back safe to my wife and kids that is a good.
    thanks God for competition.

  46. Burnelli Support Group

    Comment on October 17, 2007 at 3:52 am

    This is just a larger version of the flimsy, explosive design we’ve been forced to fly in for over 50 years. Accidents happen and the A380 has no exemptions from them. Denial that it will happen is just wishful thinking and when one of these does go down you can kiss a whole small town goodbye. Just a tragedy waiting to happen. Thank God it’s been delayed for so long and orders have dropped off significantly. If you have to fly one of these cracker box jumbos, fly the 747.

    Titanic? Most assuredly, but only half the number of people will die in it’s crashing as did in the Titanic’s sinking. They hopefully won’t suffer as long though.

    Wouldn’t it be great to fly in a plane that would take off and land at just over 100 mph, carry at least 2 times the load of a commercial airliner (like the 747) with the same fuel economy, walk away from a crash instead of explode into flames from a runway overrun? This plane would also cost 1/2 the price to manufacture and would need only 1/2 the runway length.

    The A380 ain’t it. I’ve already seen some pretty violent tail strikes and scary take-offs by this plane. They’re all on U-Tube. Take a look.

    Visit www.aircrash.org and find out about Vincent Burnelli’s airfoil, lifting fuselage and give them your support for a safer, more economical, eco-friendly aircraft. Just Google “Burnelli” images for so of his early planes and see what I’m talking about. Google the 1964 “GB-888A” jet airliner design. It is unbelievably modern and could have carried 600 safely back then.

    Its predecessor, the UB-14 crashed violently in 1935 with 7 aboard. All was caught on film. There was no fire and all 7 walked away, unhurt. Their survival was not by chance but by design. The comments about this plane are not my opinion, they are facts from past flight and wind tunnel testing and from the documented, proven history of safety and performance.

    Some of us who have found this better, safer, more intelligent and most of all “proven” design are working for it’s revival and construction for commercial use. Join in. Every person can make a difference if they believe they can. Reduce the risk of flying, reduce the stress of flying and reduce the huge carbon footprint made by all existing airliners including the A380. The Burnelli design would save lives, save money, save land and cut air travel greenhouse gases by 40 to 50 percent. What’s not to love about this design? Go to the aircrash site now and see what you can do to help in the effort to bring the dream back to life.

  47. Kenny

    Comment on October 18, 2007 at 10:03 am

    Airbus vs. Boeing.( A380 vs.747)
    Aren’t you guys comparing a Drafthorse with a Mule? The Comparisons are similar only in the fact that the A380 and the 747 Are “jumbo” Jets, and that they are designed for extended flights in comfort. However, Can you really Compare the 747 and A380? The 747 ( depsite its many variants and upgrades) is proven Airframe, The A380 is not. By “proven” I mean having a Service record and Service life. So as a result all the arguments for or Against on or the other is really ridiculous.
    With the A 380 at this point, Airbus has only managed to prove one thing.. Boeing now has Competition across the board. Yay! Competion drives innovation. Boeing and Airbus should welcome this. It COULD be a Great Catalyst for an often Lagging Industry.
    Now as for the shots fired cross the ocean about “american” Ignorance: We Americans will always be the Boistrous and a little uncouth “Cowboys”, and Eurpoe will Always be the Home to the “old Stodgy Old Guard” Thats never going to Change. yes Some Americans are really bad at geography, but there are Great deal Europeans that cant Even find North carolina or Rhode Island on a Map much less know what its Flag is.( come on guys the US is really Hard to miss!) so as Usual.. Wer’re in a dead heat, and both stuck in the mud.

  48. zaki

    Comment on October 18, 2007 at 11:31 am

    The A 380 is no doubt far ahead of 747. But hey, I grew up looking at 747-200s rule the skies and believe me there is nothing better than to look at a fully loaded 747 take off. Some in my country shifted very late to CF-6s and flew on JT-9Ds for a long time and I used to love the sweet whine of the 9Ds when the planes used to turn. As if the 747s were not enough, Boeing comes up with this dream…777. Nothing compares with a new shining 777-300LRs of which PIA was a launch customer. The only aircrafts I have ever liked coming out of Airbus are 300-600 and the 330. Very beautiful planes. Unfortunately, in my part of the world, flying for a CPL is very expensive and then only a select few with very strong connections or very heavy pockets make it to the national airlines. Had it ever been up to me, I would still give up anything in life to fly a 330 or a 777-300LR. If only wishes had wings…

  49. Cosco

    Comment on October 18, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    This is quite an interesting discussion, but misses the point completely in a world choking on human waste! Air travel, like everything else, can’t increase indefinitely nor can humanity. Everything in this world of finite resources has limits except for Americans, who think that their inane economic model of FOREVER BIGGER AND MORE is rational. If the rest of the world persists in going along with that stupidity nature will take care of it by eventually pulling the rug from under us with unimaginable consequences. Right now spaceship earth steered by lunatics is on collision course with our own stupidity. If humanity survives that catastrophe it’s thanks to luck not intelligence.

  50. elvica

    Comment on October 23, 2007 at 10:52 am

    Let’s skip all the Europe v. USA rubbish … but can we get a comparison of the newest 747 — the 747-800 series against the A380-800? The 747-400 is about a decade old, isn’t it?

    I for one do not relish the idea of traveling on any airplane that can pack in 600+ seats. Can you imagine the wait for baggage? I wait now in JFK and LHR about 45 minutes for a bag from a 777 or a 747 — do we really think that cash strapped airlines will put on EXTRA crew to unload the hyper jumbos? Imagine also the boarding/de-boarding chaos at most airports. I am sure Singapore will make it efficient, but can the same be said for the other major imports in the world. Take a note from history — when the 747 was first introduced, the airlines supposedly gave a commitment that there would always be two jet bridges to embard/disembark passengers. As a traveller who has just this month (Nov 07) made my 11th around the world trip (mainly on 747s and 777s), I can attest to the fact that over half of the time there is only one jet bridge for the 747s. So can we really believe that airlines in the future will bother to spend extra money to expediate passenger loading/unloading and convenience? And I am sure these airlines will opt to pack as many seats into these big planes as possible. What a shame — truly puts the “bus” mentality into these airplanes!

  51. Mike

    Comment on October 27, 2007 at 10:21 am

    Is it really not possible to be proud of the Airbus 380 and at the same time acknowledge the greatness of the 747 (and vice versa). Personally I can’t wait to travel on the A380 and I think the real advantage is the fuel efficiency. But to sell that to a nation of people who are happily consuming more oil and other resources than any other country in the world without thinking twice about it might be a tough sell. Hell, there are still some countries out there with oil that can be occupied…

  52. the First Flyer's citizens

    Comment on November 1, 2007 at 10:56 am

    Airbus is leading the race even with the Boeing introduction of energy-saving aircrafts B737-8, B777-8, B747-8 which is about the same size as its old counterparts… Airbus are tearing up their plans and building new aircrafts. This is where Airbus wins. Airbus also with more space, can give comfort to their passengers. Boeing 787 even if it has good details, there is not enough space for you and I to build xtra things even if I want to.

  53. Ed Spencer

    Comment on November 19, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    Airbus will need to start delivering planes to schedule to make this a success. Nationality aside and thinking of the economy class passenger the only things that will count are: Ticket Price, reliability, comfort.
    It would be interesting to see either manufacturer or a third develop a aeroplane that could get you there faster for the same price!

  54. Richard Gillespie-Jones

    Comment on January 27, 2008 at 5:56 am

    Europeans better and more fuel efficent cars than Americans. However America make better and more fuel efficient planes than the Europeans.

    The fact is Boeing made an excellent choice with 787 and not extensively changing the 747. Airbus is a complete mess with their A380 program facing extensive delays and needing a massive turnaround to break even and now lagging massively behind with A350 trying the 787.

  55. Ciaran

    Comment on March 22, 2008 at 5:32 am

    You have to look at it this way. The Boeing 747 was much more modern and much,much bigger than anything that had ever flew when it was first released (1968). Imagine this most of the aircraft of the time were still prop aircraft and here comes along this huge aircraft that is twice the size of nearly all the commercial aircraft ever concieved. Now, with the A380 it is not new the “jumbo” aircraft theme has allready been done (DC-10,747,Tristar,777 etc). The A380 can never recreate the huge change in aviation design that the 747 made. Anyway, Lets face it the A380 has the good looks of a ugly camel. It’s short and stuby-not long and elegant like the 747-you know what I mean.

  56. DarrylinBerlin

    Comment on June 7, 2008 at 10:30 am

    There is obviously a fundamental difference in approach between Boeing and Airbus. Both companies have their own strategy with regards to how to get the PAX to their final destination.

    Airbus believes that it makes more sense to fly 500+ PAX from hub to hub and thereby pass the benefit of the reduced fuel burn per PAX on to the flying public. But there is a fundamental problem here, this only ideal when one doesn’t have to fly in or out of the hub with a feeder flight.

    Conversely, Boeing’s strategy is much closer linked to point-to-point air travel. And now that Open Skies has become a reality, their Dreamliner can take full advantage of this.

    Sure, Airbus has a remarkable new aircraft. And, OK, it’s great that Europeans can work together on such a large project.

    But Airbus Industrie AND of course the European Union would never have been possible without a strong military force in Western Europe = NATO. This made it possible for decades of economic prosperity in Europe.

    It’s time America leave Europe to pay for their own defense, so the Americans can rebuild their own economy, which is in shambles. Thank you Mr. Bush for screwing things up.

Leave a Comment

Comment Information and Guidelines

  • Trackback URI for this post
  • Comments are the properties of their authors.
  • Email addresses will never be shown or shared with third parties.
  • Offensive, distasteful, and irrelevant comments will be deleted.
  • HTML is optional, but if you do use it, please make sure that:
    • markup is well-formed and valid XHTML 1.1
    • ampersands (&) are encoded as &
    • angle brackets (< and >) are encoded as < and >
    • HTML allowed (please close tags):

Organized by WordPress

Ingredients: XHTML 1.1 | CSS 2 | WP 2.0.4

Just add Firefox