Airbus superjumbo to make stop in Bangkok

Bangkok Post : BOONSONG KOSITCHOTETHANA

After bypassing Thailand in past global tours, the Airbus A380 superjumbo will finally make its first showcase visit here early next week as the European planemaker tries to restore its image after announcing lengthy production delays. The visit, scheduled for Dec 5 to 7, comes as Thai Airways International dedhcides whether to cancel an order for six superjumbos worth $1.7 billion. Senior THAI executives said the decision needs to be made by February, or the national carrier's ability to expand capacity and add new routes would be jeopardised.

Shipment of the six double-decker, 555-seat jets has been delayed by up to 24 months beyond the already rescheduled November 2009 start for deliveries. Airbus hopes that showing off the superjumbo at Suvarnabhumi Airport will prompt government officials and industry executives to accept the delays.

As part of its image-boosting exercise in Thailand, France-based Airbus is due to address local media on Monday regarding the airplane and its commitment to deliver the gigantic jets to clients. Anthony Phillips, an Airbus spokesman, said the visit would follow the completion of a 150-hour technical route proving phase, which forms one of the final stages in the 2,500-hour certification programme (utilising five test aircraft) scheduled for completion next month.

Over the past two weeks, the A380 has travelled throughout the region, with stops in Singapore, Seoul, Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Beijing and Sydney. ''Airbus considers it important to present the A380 to all of its major customers in the Asia-Pacific region before the end of the year,'' Mr Phillips said. Additionally, the recent opening of Suvarnabhumi Airport now means that it is technically feasible to accommodate airport compatibility tests, he added.

Five of the 120 aircraft parking bays at Suvarnabhumi can accommodate the Airbus A380, which can land or take off on runways that can take a Boeing 747. European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co (EADS), the parent of Airbus, said airlines haven't cancelled any more orders for the A380 superjumbo since FedEx Corp. scrapped a booking for 10 of the freighter version earlier this month.

Airbus has firm orders for 149 A380s after FedEx cancelled its order.

Singapore Airlines (SIA), the first carrier set to fly the A380, was originally supposed to receive its first superjumbo earlier this year but delays over problems with the cabin wiring have progressively pushed back the plane's arrival.

[Smiles]

http://upload4.postimage.org/1794010/a380.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/1794010/photo_hosting.html)

[Bob]

It seems to me that the lines at immigration will expand when they dump 500-600 passengers from one plane. I'm not sure I want to be the last guy off of one of those jumbos.

If they ultimately save fuel for the airlines (meaning, to us, that the ticket prices are lower), then I suppose it will work. If there are no fuel savings, however, this project will be the first very bad move (and maybe fatal move) by Airbus.

does the term "White Elephant" ring a bell? Here's hoping Thai cancels their order and goes with the more environmentally friendly new 747-advanced.

[HIGHRISE]

does the term "White Elephant" ring a bell? Here's hoping Thai cancels their order and goes with the more environmentally friendly new 747-advanced.

I agree with you 100 percent. Partly because I live in Seattle, the home of Boeing. And partly, in practical terms, it's just plain TOO BIG! Only a limited number of airports will be able to accomodate the monstrosity. Boeing is offering a brand new, stretched and highly fuel efficiant 747 with a lot of the same features as the hugely successful new 787 Dreamliner.

Ever heard of the Titanic? Well a week or so ago this super-jumbo did a pit stop in Hong Kong and I happened to be there for it's landing, and it wasn't very confidence inspiring. The whole wing bounced up and down as it touched down and didn't stop flapping until long after it landed, like a giant floppsy bunny, count me out, with that much movement its just a matter of time before the wings drop right off, I would hate to see it land in one of our little typhoon cross winds. Never mind the stampede at emigration when 600 people rush at them flapping their passports.

[HIGHRISE]

Add to that the fact that they've had so many problems with its production that it's two years behind schedule! Really makes you wonder.......

Like many Europeans I find it amusing to hear Americans line up to make cheap shots castigating the fabulous Airbus 380, designed to have bendy wings which is disconcerting but effective. which is even greener and more efficient per passenger then the Boeing dreamliner - of modest capacity. However it is gorgeous with flicked up wingtips and has a catchy name and American salesmen are world beaters when they have a product to sell.

I do compliment Boeing on - at long long long last - having come up with a design for a decent plane. Having been the world's only producer of mass aeroplanes they lost the plot for so many years and allowed Airbus to develop superior modern machines.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/wowpow/1094558.jpg
true photo

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/wowpow/7E7Dreamliner_6.jpg
artists impression

I was astonished to hear only yesterday that the new Boeing is going to be TWO THIRDS OUTSOURCED with content from all over the World being assembled in the US. The new Airbus - not the A380 - will do the same.

At least we can all be thankfull that the two excellent producers of planes are making them greener and more efficient so that we can all enjoy cheap flights without ruining the planet.

The Europeans have no business manufacturing aerospace products. They should stick to cheese, chocolates, cuckoo clocks, and other examples of fine old world technology. Leave the rest to America, goddammit.

[HIGHRISE]

What you consider to be gorgeous, wowpow, I believe to be awkward, bulky and boring in appearance. It's two years behind schedule why? Here's another picture of the beautiful, streamlined jet that is right on schedule.http://upload4.postimage.org/1795998/Ac229.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/1795998/photo_hosting.html)

The Europeans have no business manufacturing aerospace products. They should stick to cheese, chocolates, cuckoo clocks, and other examples of fine old world technology. Leave the rest to America, goddammit.

I agree with BG that the Yanks should be left to produce the best airliners. I always feel safer and more comfortable travelling on a Boeing than any other airliner and even more so when a glimpse at the engines show the RR emblem.

"the Boeing dreamliner - of modest capacity. However it is gorgeous with flicked up wingtips and has a catchy name and American salesmen are world beaters when they have a product to sell."

HIGHRISE - please read carefully. I am talking about the Dreamliner being gorgeous.

Yes it's late but has the Dreamliner flown yet?

[HIGHRISE]

No, wowpow, of course the 787 hasn't flown yet. It's a newer plane than the 380. Of course it's smaller, because Boeing believes that is what the customer wants. This has been proven with orders FAR surpassing those for the 380. First flight for the 787 is expected in 2007 with certification, delivery and entry into service occurring in 2008.

I accept your apology.

This News story says it all:

http://www.washingtonceo.com/index.php?id=90&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=222&tx_ttnews[backPid]=49&cHash=e14911b6d8

"The verdict seems to be in. Early on, Airbus said its A380 program would break even if it sold 250 of the super-jumbos, and it hoped to sell 700 to 750 of them. Yet so far, Airbus has sold only 159, and none in the last year. In the meantime, BoeingтАЩs smaller 787 has raked in at least 432 firm orders since April 2004, and Boeing claims it is the most successful program launch in aviation history."

Although the A380 breaks new ground in size, it has none of the technological breakthroughs of the 787. The 787 feature an all composite body instead of aluminum, allowing the plane to have The largest windows ever, humidity of about 20% instead of the bone dry normal 2-5%, and will only be pressurized to 6000 feet instead of 8000 feet - all of which should make flying much more comfortable.

[HIGHRISE]

This News story says it all:

http://www.washingtonceo.com/index.php?id=90&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=222&tx_ttnews[backPid]=49&cHash=e14911b6d8

"The verdict seems to be in. Early on, Airbus said its A380 program would break even if it sold 250 of the super-jumbos, and it hoped to sell 700 to 750 of them. Yet so far, Airbus has sold only 159, and none in the last year. In the meantime, BoeingтАЩs smaller 787 has raked in at least 432 firm orders since April 2004, and Boeing claims it is the most successful program launch in aviation history."

I read the entire article, JakeNasty. Thanks for the link. Yes, we in the Puget Sound area are awfully proud of our 787. For a few years, Airbus officials were saying some very nasty things about Boeing. They have been awfully quiet of late.http://upload4.postimage.org/1800283/Ac230.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/1800283/photo_hosting.html)

[Hmmm]

The A380 will be iconic in the same way as the Concorde was (without the prohibitively expensive fares), until the next revolutionary aircraft comes along. That in itself will attract business - which one are you looking forward to flying ? But it will have to be an economic success to survive.

[HIGHRISE]

The A380 will be iconic in the same way as the Concorde was (without the prohibitively expensive fares), until the next revolutionary aircraft comes along. That in itself will attract business - which one are you looking forward to flying ? But it will have to be an economic success to survive.

I'm certainly looking forward to flying the 787. It is boasting, and selling many planes as a result, a whole new experience. Has anyone besides me read the articles about the 787 cabin? Much larger windows and lighting that cycles with the time. Of course, seating cinfiguration is totally depenndant on the airline that buys it. It's sad that most airlines want to squeeze in as many seats as possible.

cant wait to fly on those babies! I love planes!

Much larger windows

What the F**k use are they when there is nothing to see outside except clouds or blue/night sky?
Besides for nearly all long-haul flights the window shutters are pulled down for most of the journey.

Having much larger windows is a ridiculous selling point.

We Europeans, with a high percentage of Brits, seem to have a history of magnificent technical development combined with commercial disaster. I am thinking of the world's first jet airlines The Comet and the world's first supersonic airliner The Concord. Airbus has been a remarkable success especially when one considers how complex the International manufacturing has been.

The trail is about the A380 visiting Bangkok and it's been hijacked by the Americans - as happens so very often - yawn!!

I want to see Suvarnabhumi when 5 A380s land around the same time.

[Smiles]

" ... We Europeans, with a high percentage of Brits, seem to have a history of magnificent technical development combined with commercial disaster.... "
The Comet was a "commercial disaster" because it fell out of the sky on a regular basis. So much for "magnificent technical development".
The Comet goes down (so to speak) in history as the first commercial jet, but in fact it was a disaster and never survived it's record.

" ... This is the third crash involving a Comet since the plane began service on 2 May 1952. The worst accident happened on the first anniversary of the jet's introduction; all 43 people on board were killed shortly after the plane took off from Calcutta in India.

An inquiry found the accident was caused by an unusually severe storm. The plane suffered a structural failure in the air which caused a fire and led to the crash. ... "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 709957.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/10/newsid_2709000/2709957.stm)


Cheers ...

An inquiry found the accident was caused by an unusually severe storm. The plane suffered a structural failure in the air which caused a fire and led to the crash. ... "

But still blamed, not on unusual conditions, but on the integrity of the BOAC design.


Tests found the plane's fuselage was unable to withstand the pressures of flying. Cracks appeared in the bodywork which would cause the plane to blow apart during flight.

BBC On This Day

I'll wait for more than five years of initial, safe service before I ever bet on the latest British bungle.

Yes and I would not go on the Queen Mary 1 yet. Did you hear what happened to the Titanic?

[Davey612]

Gee, if this thread is deteriorating into bashing of everything British, then I can only say two words that bring chills to me:

Lucas electronics

:drunken: :drunken: :drunken:

[Bob]

Did you hear what happened to the Titanic?

Yea, I heard that Leonardo Dicaprio went down on it while singing "My Hard Will Go On." Hell, even if I thought the boat was going to sink, I might bon voyage just to go down on him. :geek:

I'll never get in to one of those things!

well mr. snowkat.. the bigger the window.. the more "Airy" the cabin feels. Would you fly in a plane with now windows? And besides, the 787 does not have window shades.. you can 'elecronically" apply degrees of shading from clear up to dark. Your comment was really stupid. Most people DO like to look out the windows occasionally.

--- remains in this Forum beats me, given Jinks' recent alacrity at moving threads he deems irrelevant off to the Global Forum, but then I've always found his moderating style idiosyncratic to say the least. It must be Leeds

[Smiles]

" ... How this thread remains in this Forum beats me ... "
It has the word "Bangkok" in the title.

Cheers ...

I wouldn't fly to Bangkok in one of these it only has two engines, suffice to say if one drops off so does everyone. They are the most unstable planes in the sky, inspite of the lovely curved wings. I wish they would make some more Jumbo's I will miss the top-deck. i wonder when they will be eventually taken out of service. The Jumbo is the most stable plane in the sky, I dont even bother getting drunk on Champers to feel safe and the seats are miles wide.

http://upload4.postimage.org/1819863/Ac229.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/1819863/photo_hosting.html)

Ever heard of the Titanic? Well a week or so ago this super-jumbo did a pit stop in Hong Kong and I happened to be there for it's landing, and it wasn't very confidence inspiring. The whole wing bounced up and down as it touched down and didn't stop flapping until long after it landed, like a giant floppsy bunny, count me out, with that much movement its just a matter of time before the wings drop right off, I would hate to see it land in one of our little typhoon cross winds. Never mind the stampede at emigration when 600 people rush at them flapping their passports.

I hope there were no Hong Kong people on the plane when it landed. If 85% of them get violently ill taking the slow ferry to Mui Wo or Yong Shue Wan, it will be a vomit fest on one of these bouncy beasts!

I hope there were no Hong Kong people on the plane when it landed. If 85% of them get violently ill taking the slow ferry to Mui Wo or Yong Shue Wan, it will be a vomit fest on one of these bouncy beasts!

I can see that you are a pilots best friend, exactly my point. The Jumbo is still the pilots favourite. Slow ferries are hell on water, all that slow sideways lurching makes me want to barf just thinking about it. I havnt been on anything but the star-ferry for ages. Since they built a nice road to Lantau, I just park at the airport and take a blue taxi to the beach. But I think you will find that all that vomit was due to the concessions on the ferry, probably 100% mainland by-product.

Any plane that size with wings that flap is in trouble, I don't care if they want it like that or not. Its going to make me sick looking out the window, now I must throw up, really, I just took a hot bath and all this talk of moving bits of plane and Chinese halibut has turned me green.

On my very first trip to LOS I picked up Creitons "Airframe" as a reader at the airport.I read it on the flight. I would recommend this to anyone who thinks flying is dangerous or concerning. It is a good yarn and will open your eyes to airframe saftey. Still my most comfortable is a combination of Boeing and RR! Damn they just sound right.GE scream.

[HIGHRISE]

I wouldn't fly to Bangkok in one of these it only has two engines, suffice to say if one drops off so does everyone. They are the most unstable planes in the sky, inspite of the lovely curved wings. I wish they would make some more Jumbo's I will miss the top-deck. i wonder when they will be eventually taken out of service. The Jumbo is the most stable plane in the sky, I dont even bother getting drunk on Champers to feel safe and the seats are miles wide.

http://upload4.postimage.org/1819863/Ac229.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/1819863/photo_hosting.html)

Believe me, the 747 jumbo is alive and well. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ing09.html (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/295327_boeing09.html) Lufthansa just launched the new, improved, fuel efficient 747-8 Intercontinental by ordering 20 of them, with an option for 20 more. BY THE WAY, Boeing had to prove in flight tests, over and over again, that the 787 can safely fly and land with ONE engine. Been there, done that, many, many times.

[HIGHRISE]

Correction to my last comment before you all start screaming. Boeing's flight test were on the twin engine 777. Of course, the 787 will need to go through the same, rigorous flight tests.

[HIGHRISE]

I wouldn't fly to Bangkok in one of these it only has two engines, suffice to say if one drops off so does everyone. They are the most unstable planes in the sky, inspite of the lovely curved wings. I wish they would make some more Jumbo's I will miss the top-deck. i wonder when they will be eventually taken out of service. The Jumbo is the most stable plane in the sky, I dont even bother getting drunk on Champers to feel safe and the seats are miles wide.

http://upload4.postimage.org/1819863/Ac229.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/1819863/photo_hosting.html)

Not sure how you can possibly call them "the most unstable planes in the sky" when they haven't even been built yet. One of the MOST stable planes in the sky is her twin engine 777 sister.
http://upload4.postimage.org/1861682/777_topshot_375.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/1861682/photo_hosting.html)

The new 787 is not intended for long intercontinental flights . That's the 747 and 777 speciality. The 787 is a medium range aircraft.

Get used to 2-engine jets Cedric . 4 engines planes such as the airbus A340 that Thai uses for long flights use about 20% more fuel. That's alot of profit down the drain for the airlines.

[Jetsam]

I wouldn't fly to Bangkok in one of these it only has two engines, suffice to say if one drops off so does everyone.

Ever heard of ETOPS? :geek:

[Smiles]

" ... Ever heard of ETOPS? ... "
Good point. Interesting discussion here ( http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my/asetops.htm ) regarding flying long distances, over water, hours from any airport, with only 2 engines.

Cheers ...

\"When it takes to the skies,\" Chirac said, \"it will carry the colors of our Continent, and our technological ambitions, to even greater heights.\"

But as the dignitaries gathered at the Toulouse-Blagnac Airport to toast the world\'s largest commercial airplane, a multibillion-dollar industrial crisis was already unfolding inside the plane\'s windowless, 125,000 square-meter, or 1.35 million square-foot, assembly hall.

Beginning in the summer of 2004 тАФ about six months earlier тАФ large sections of the plane\'s forward and rear fuselage had been arriving unfinished from Airbus\'s other main A380 production site in Hamburg. By the late autumn, a team of around 200 German mechanics was in Toulouse along with several hundred kilometers of electrical cables to be installed in the first planes. But after weeks of painstakingly threading thousands of veins of copper and aluminum wire around the walls and floor panels of the airframes, the teams had run into a maddening snag: the cables were too short.

\"The wiring wasn\'t following the expected routing through the fuselage, so when we got to the end they weren\'t long enough to meet up with the connectors on the next section,\" said one German mechanic, who said he arrived in Toulouse in early 2005. He asked not to be identified out of fear that he might lose his job. \"The calculations were wrong,\" he said. \"Everything had to be ripped out and replaced from scratch.\"


http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/11/ ... airbus.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/11/business/airbus.php)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/wowpow/airbus-a380-boeing-747.gif

http://larsholst.info/blog/2005/01/20/a ... boeing-747 (http://larsholst.info/blog/2005/01/20/airbus-a380-vs-boeing-747)

\\\"Boeing 787 Dreamliner Will Provide New Solutions for Airlines, Passengers
Responding to the overwhelming preference of airlines around the world, Boeing Commercial Airplanes\\\' new airplane is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a super-efficient airplane. An international team of top aerospace companies is developing the airplane, led by Boeing at its Everett facility near Seattle, Wash.
Unparalleled Performance

The 787-8 Dreamliner will carry 210 - 250 passengers on routes of 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles (14,800 to 15,700 kilometers), while the 787-9 Dreamliner will carry 250 - 290 passengers on routes of 8,600 to 8,800 nautical miles (15,900 to 16,300 km). A third 787 family member, the 787-3 Dreamliner, will accommodate 290 - 330 passengers and be optimized for routes of 3,000 to 3,500 nautical miles (5,550 to 6,500 km).

In addition to bringing big-jet ranges to mid-size airplanes, the 787 will provide airlines with unmatched fuel efficiency, resulting in exceptional environmental performance. The airplane will use 20 percent less fuel for comparable missions than today\\\'s similarly sized airplane. It will also travel at speeds similar to today\\\'s fastest wide bodies, Mach 0.85. Airlines will enjoy more cargo revenue capacity.

Passengers will also see improvements with the new airplane, from an interior environment with higher humidity to increased comfort and convenience. \\\"

I was interested to see the difference between the 747 and the A380. It seems about 30% bigger capacity which is much less than I imagined. The 747 is, without, doubt one of the most successful passenger airlines ever and has been prodiced for? is it over 3 decades now?

The Dreamliner with about 225 seats, average configuration, is 45% smaller than the 747s and under half the A380. To me the logic of the 747 must apply to the A380 and not to the Dreamliner.

Stop him, someone! He's on an uncontrolled cut-and-paste binge!

Im loving it, all that technical stuff very sexy, hands on approach. Wowpow to get my juices flowing, do you have any graphs to back up your claims, or pie charts or some more lay outs? Tis but hype "responding to the overwhelming preference of airlines around the world".

I still wont be flying one of those 787's or A380's. Luckily I have just secured a top deck window seat on a 747 homewards, all that baggage space and more or less flat bedding, I look forward to the flight.
How do I know the 787 will be unstable, because its predecessor is, pack em in and cheap to run is their motto. One thing I can't stomach is two engines, but even worse is two very large engines attached by nothing more than a bit of aluminium foil to a plane that looks so long it could snap in two. Not only that but they insist on banking them to extremes everytime they must turn a corner. Usualy after take off or swooping in to land.

This is a new puzzle to me, I can name any number of German cars, not only because I drive one but because so does everyone else, if they aren't in a Toyota that is. But American cars???? Whats up with the American motor industry? I can't name a single American model, and the only brand I can name is Ford, whatever they are making these days.

I still wont be flying one of those 787's or A380's.

Right...until you need to go somewhere and you find that that's all there is servicing the route. Then you'll stop your pompous whining and get on board like everyone else. Won't you?