Discussion
brenflys777 said:
Mabbs9 said:
Branson's businesses live on publicity. He always gets in early on new aircraft orders because it gets headlines. The fact that they wouldn't really suit Virgin Atlantic to operate is the reason he doesn't have any yet. It's headlines and public image he is after.
Four engines for long haul! Missed seeing that on his new 787' coming out of Heathrow yesterday 
el stovey said:
LHRFlightman said:
The -900 does look sooo nice doesn't it?
Confusingly there's no 800 or 900 on the 787 or other newer Boeings. Boeing have called them 787-8, 787-9 and 787-10 like the new 747-8 and the upcoming 777x .
And back on the A380, the overwhelming verdict on today's deparures was the Ethiad livery looks very nice in the flesh as it passes by our window at 80 ft.
I recently flew cattle class Wellington/Sydney/Dubai/Moscow and return on Emirates. OK, the first leg was QANTAS A320. The other two were Emirates A380-800 and 777-300, my first time on both. I've been on 777-200 and A340 and 747 in the past.
Short version: I will in future use A380 flights as much as possible.
Most of my past long haul flying has been Auckland to LAX or SFO. At first it was 747-300 with a refuelling stop in Hawaii, then 747-400 nonstop, then 767 and 777.
The 747 remained my favourite. The seats are bigger and more comfortable and standard cruise is faster as well (quite noticeably in the case of the 767).
The A380 is my new favourite long haul plane. The economy seats are awesome. The cabin air quality is excellent. It rides turbulence better than anything else I've ever been in.
It's a great whale of a thing on takeoff, lumbering lazily down the runway for a full 50 seconds before becoming airborne, and climbing out at a fraction of the angle of a 777. It took 500 km to get to 30000 ft. But so SMOOTH and QUIET. My customary earplugs were much less of a benefit than usual (more for pax noise than the plane itself).
The 777-300 I was on next felt distinctly 2nd rate in comparison. And in the past I've verged on membership of the "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going" crowd.
I still think AirBus's cockpit automation is wrong-headed and dangerous. The captain can't tell that the copilot has his side-stick hard back? wtf? (Air France 447). It's not easy to distinguish a 3 deg from a 3000 FPM descent? wtf? And Boeings have a history Airbuses lack of losing major bits but coming back for a safe landing (United 811, Aloha 243).
But as a passenger on a flight where nothing goes wrong the A380 is great.
Short version: I will in future use A380 flights as much as possible.
Most of my past long haul flying has been Auckland to LAX or SFO. At first it was 747-300 with a refuelling stop in Hawaii, then 747-400 nonstop, then 767 and 777.
The 747 remained my favourite. The seats are bigger and more comfortable and standard cruise is faster as well (quite noticeably in the case of the 767).
The A380 is my new favourite long haul plane. The economy seats are awesome. The cabin air quality is excellent. It rides turbulence better than anything else I've ever been in.
It's a great whale of a thing on takeoff, lumbering lazily down the runway for a full 50 seconds before becoming airborne, and climbing out at a fraction of the angle of a 777. It took 500 km to get to 30000 ft. But so SMOOTH and QUIET. My customary earplugs were much less of a benefit than usual (more for pax noise than the plane itself).
The 777-300 I was on next felt distinctly 2nd rate in comparison. And in the past I've verged on membership of the "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going" crowd.
I still think AirBus's cockpit automation is wrong-headed and dangerous. The captain can't tell that the copilot has his side-stick hard back? wtf? (Air France 447). It's not easy to distinguish a 3 deg from a 3000 FPM descent? wtf? And Boeings have a history Airbuses lack of losing major bits but coming back for a safe landing (United 811, Aloha 243).
But as a passenger on a flight where nothing goes wrong the A380 is great.
Incidentally, the 777-300 was pretty good in turbulence as well. Has it got an active turbulence compensation system?
Ever since at least the first 767 (that I noticed), steering in cruise has been done purely with the inboard or "high speed" aileron, located behind the engine.
On the 777-300, the inboard aileron was often jiggling up and down constantly, maybe as much as five times a second.
It's hard to think of a reason for this, other than compensation for turbulence if there is some sensor near the nose of the aircraft that can be used to work out in advance the timing and extent of the movement needed.
I haven't noticed the same inboard aileron jiggling on older 777s or 767s. (and Airbusses don't have them)
Ever since at least the first 767 (that I noticed), steering in cruise has been done purely with the inboard or "high speed" aileron, located behind the engine.
On the 777-300, the inboard aileron was often jiggling up and down constantly, maybe as much as five times a second.
It's hard to think of a reason for this, other than compensation for turbulence if there is some sensor near the nose of the aircraft that can be used to work out in advance the timing and extent of the movement needed.
I haven't noticed the same inboard aileron jiggling on older 777s or 767s. (and Airbusses don't have them)
onyx39 said:
hairyben said:
Pablo16v said:
onyx39 said:
Cannot believe that it's 10 years (today) since its maiden flight.
How time flies 
hairyben said:
onyx39 said:
hairyben said:
Pablo16v said:
onyx39 said:
Cannot believe that it's 10 years (today) since its maiden flight.
How time flies http://www.ausbt.com.au/airbus-confirms-a380neo-an...
hairyben said:
See that I keep hearing but I don't get; they seem to be slapping them together at a rate not far off that what 747's were built at, bearing in mind some of the smaller 747 variants are served by twins now, and looking at current delivery rates of the boeing I'd say airbus have cleaned up in the segment. They'll probably take most of the 747 fleet as jets come due for replacement. what more were they realistically meant to be hoping for? Aren't the -900 and -F variants which are desired by clients on hold while they build -800's?
There's no doubt a380 sales are disppointing. Airbus themselves even openly talked about disbanding the project entirely last year.
Emirates are almost single handedly keeping production going as it suits their business model perfectly. Most other operators prefer the efficiency of big twins.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
Reports that Malaysia Airlines are selling all their A380's, and some of their 777-200ER's
http://leehamnews.com/2015/04/30/malaysia-air-flee...
After the last 14 months for the airline, having to sell of seats at bargin prices, it isn't a surprise. If they are cutting their long haul fleet, will they keep flying to LHR? As BA are about to restart the route to KL again, and they are both One World Alliance I wouldn't be surprised it is an pre planned pull out.
As for the aircraft, the A380's are Roller powered, so is an existing operator going to want to pickup cheap(er) used airframes which they maybe wouldn't have bought as the numbers work? And how much to do a refit? The 777-200ER's can't go for big money as they are an old plane, no longer made (300ER's are), but still a solid workhorse for any airline doing long haul.
After the recession of 2008, passenger numbers are up to pre 08 numbers, and my usual long haul flights have been rammed the last 6 months compared to 2 years ago, there has to be airlines out there that want extra cheap capacity.
http://leehamnews.com/2015/04/30/malaysia-air-flee...
After the last 14 months for the airline, having to sell of seats at bargin prices, it isn't a surprise. If they are cutting their long haul fleet, will they keep flying to LHR? As BA are about to restart the route to KL again, and they are both One World Alliance I wouldn't be surprised it is an pre planned pull out.
As for the aircraft, the A380's are Roller powered, so is an existing operator going to want to pickup cheap(er) used airframes which they maybe wouldn't have bought as the numbers work? And how much to do a refit? The 777-200ER's can't go for big money as they are an old plane, no longer made (300ER's are), but still a solid workhorse for any airline doing long haul.
After the recession of 2008, passenger numbers are up to pre 08 numbers, and my usual long haul flights have been rammed the last 6 months compared to 2 years ago, there has to be airlines out there that want extra cheap capacity.
brucehoult said:
I recently flew cattle class Wellington/Sydney/Dubai/Moscow and return on Emirates. OK, the first leg was QANTAS A320. The other two were Emirates A380-800 and 777-300, my first time on both. I've been on 777-200 and A340 and 747 in the past.
Short version: I will in future use A380 flights as much as possible.
Most of my past long haul flying has been Auckland to LAX or SFO. At first it was 747-300 with a refuelling stop in Hawaii, then 747-400 nonstop, then 767 and 777.
The 747 remained my favourite. The seats are bigger and more comfortable and standard cruise is faster as well (quite noticeably in the case of the 767).
The A380 is my new favourite long haul plane. The economy seats are awesome. The cabin air quality is excellent. It rides turbulence better than anything else I've ever been in.
It's a great whale of a thing on takeoff, lumbering lazily down the runway for a full 50 seconds before becoming airborne, and climbing out at a fraction of the angle of a 777. It took 500 km to get to 30000 ft. But so SMOOTH and QUIET. My customary earplugs were much less of a benefit than usual (more for pax noise than the plane itself).
The 777-300 I was on next felt distinctly 2nd rate in comparison. And in the past I've verged on membership of the "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going" crowd.
I still think AirBus's cockpit automation is wrong-headed and dangerous. The captain can't tell that the copilot has his side-stick hard back? wtf? (Air France 447). It's not easy to distinguish a 3 deg from a 3000 FPM descent? wtf? And Boeings have a history Airbuses lack of losing major bits but coming back for a safe landing (United 811, Aloha 243).
But as a passenger on a flight where nothing goes wrong the A380 is great.
Hmm. Hudson landing, QANTAS A380 with severe wing structural damage and last weeks Turkish A320 excitement would rather tend to counter your "bits falling off" opinion Short version: I will in future use A380 flights as much as possible.
Most of my past long haul flying has been Auckland to LAX or SFO. At first it was 747-300 with a refuelling stop in Hawaii, then 747-400 nonstop, then 767 and 777.
The 747 remained my favourite. The seats are bigger and more comfortable and standard cruise is faster as well (quite noticeably in the case of the 767).
The A380 is my new favourite long haul plane. The economy seats are awesome. The cabin air quality is excellent. It rides turbulence better than anything else I've ever been in.
It's a great whale of a thing on takeoff, lumbering lazily down the runway for a full 50 seconds before becoming airborne, and climbing out at a fraction of the angle of a 777. It took 500 km to get to 30000 ft. But so SMOOTH and QUIET. My customary earplugs were much less of a benefit than usual (more for pax noise than the plane itself).
The 777-300 I was on next felt distinctly 2nd rate in comparison. And in the past I've verged on membership of the "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going" crowd.
I still think AirBus's cockpit automation is wrong-headed and dangerous. The captain can't tell that the copilot has his side-stick hard back? wtf? (Air France 447). It's not easy to distinguish a 3 deg from a 3000 FPM descent? wtf? And Boeings have a history Airbuses lack of losing major bits but coming back for a safe landing (United 811, Aloha 243).
But as a passenger on a flight where nothing goes wrong the A380 is great.
..Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff