Airbus A380’s maiden flight today

[Supersonic]

Today’s (27/04/05) the day that this beast finally takes to the air, this should () be a great day for European aviation/co-operation.

Take-off scheduled for 9:30am (British time), so if you’re interested tune into Sky news in the morning.

[Mr E]

I've said this before, but still.

Ye gads, that's a large aircraft.

[Hardcore2000]

well they hope its the first flight anyhow. Hope it has good brakes and good insurance

[Mr E]

Seriously.

I don't care how many times you've done the math, and how good your models in windtunnels and simulators are.

You're A380 chief designer.

You rolled that thing out yesterday, took one look at the size of it and went

I bet he sleeps not a wink tonight.....

[Joecooool]

There is a reason Boeing passed on the idea of a jet this big.

Can you imagine being the poor bastard in the back of the plane that has to wait for some 500+ people to load up their crap and get off?

Can you then imagine how long its going to take to get all the baggage off?

I hope I never have to fly on one...

[Joecooool]

And on a side note, did you know that the EU pony'ed up 3.8 billion in subsidies to Airbus to make this plane? Thats your tax money at work. Maybe you should ask your airlines for a discount since your paying for their aircraft.

Looks like the US Government is about to drop the hammer too...

FRIST STATEMENT ON EUROPEAN SUBSIDIES TO AIRBUS


WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN) today had the following statement regarding S. Con. Res. 25, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Europe should reject the application of Airbus for launch aid:


“I am pleased that the Senate will vote this afternoon on a resolution I introduced along with the Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee expressing the Senate’s concern about various subsidies provided by European governments to Airbus. This resolution sends a strong signal that the United States Senate supports the President’s leadership and commitment to leveling the playing field in the large civil aircraft market.


“As many of my colleagues know, the administration has been working hard to resolve this issue through the World Trade Organization (WTO). Last October, the United States filed a complaint at the WTO alleging that the subsidies provided to Airbus were in violation of WTO rules. This January, the European Union (EU) agreed to freeze launch aid payments and other support to Airbus while attempting to negotiate a comprehensive agreement on government support to the civil aircraft sector.


“Unfortunately, despite the heroic efforts by former US Trade Representative and current Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, the negotiations begun in January have broken down. Nevertheless, I want to commend him in particular for his involvement in these talks and his commitment to achieving a fair resolution of this issue. Since January, there has been little discernable progress in addressing the launch aid issue, which directly affects Boeing, Airbus’s main competitor in the civil aircraft market.


“The United States Senate, in passing this resolution today, is stating very clearly that EU subsidies to Airbus must end and that launch aid must be rejected in order to avoid WTO action by the U.S. I’m encouraged by the comments of EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson in favor of extending the negotiation period that expires today to give both sides more time to reach a fair deal. However, additional discussions will only be productive if Commissioner Mandelson recommits to the framework agreed to 90 days ago. If the EU continues to flout the January agreement, WTO action may be unavoidable.


“In addition, in my view, if the EU were to provide any new launch aid support for the A350, the U.S. would have no choice but to immediately request a WTO panel. This would be the largest trade dispute in the history of the WTO. I hope we do not have to go that route. It would be much better if both sides would come back to the table and restart substantive negotiations with the goal of reaching a bilateral agreement. American companies can compete with anyone in the world, but not on an uneven playing field. Airbus is a mature, profitable company that should compete on commercial terms without government subsidies. This resolution today says that we believe the playing field must be leveled for all competitors in the commercial aircraft market.”

[Hardcore2000]

www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13335820,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4481733.stm

www.airbus.com/a380/seeing/prehome.asp

[Supersonic]

Now now, let's not turn this into a negative Boeing vs Airbus thread.....I've had enough of that drivel on airliners.net.

Ok so it may not be as revolutionary as say Concorde or the original 747 but this is major day in aviation history and thus should be celebrated.

[dxg999]

Joecooool said:

There is a reason Boeing passed on the idea of a jet this big. Can you imagine being the poor bastard in the back of the plane that has to wait for some 500+ people to load up their crap and get off? Can you then imagine how long its going to take to get all the baggage off? I hope I never have to fly on one...

Actually, one of the biggest problems BAA is facing at the moment is building new stands for this thing. I'm told it needs two floors of concurrent loading/unloading of people just to get the throughput. Plus, there are now lots of hightened value expectations on the part of passengers ("we're going on holiday on a nice shiny new aircraft, i want to enter that aircraft through a nice shiny new gate")

Haven't got a clue how they handle the volume of baggage, though. Or the meals, or the fuel, or the...

[Hardcore2000]

Supersonic said:

Now now, let's not turn this into a negative Boeing vs Airbus thread.....I've had enough of that drivel on airliners.net. Ok so it may not be as revolutionary as say Concorde or the original 747 but this is major day in aviation history and thus should be celebrated.

Your not one of the geeks from A.Nutters are you? Dont you have to pay to be able to even post on that forum? Whoever set that up must be loaded, imagine Ted started charging 20 pounds a year to post on PH he would be loaded. The funny thing about A.Nutters is that because you have to pay to join you would expect the members to be educated about aircraft but there really are some total dumbos who no nothing about Aero principles who mindlessly post all the time

>> Edited by Hardcore2000 on Wednesday 27th April 02:44

[8Pack]

Joecooool said:

And on a side note, did you know that the EU pony'ed up 3.8 billion in subsidies to Airbus to make this plane? Thats your tax money at work. Maybe you should ask your airlines for a discount since your paying for their aircraft. Looks like the US Government is about to drop the hammer too... FRIST STATEMENT ON EUROPEAN SUBSIDIES TO AIRBUS WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN) today had the following statement regarding S. Con. Res. 25, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Europe should reject the application of Airbus for launch aid: “I am pleased that the Senate will vote this afternoon on a resolution I introduced along with the Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee expressing the Senate’s concern about various subsidies provided by European governments to Airbus. This resolution sends a strong signal that the United States Senate supports the President’s leadership and commitment to leveling the playing field in the large civil aircraft market. “As many of my colleagues know, the administration has been working hard to resolve this issue through the World Trade Organization (WTO). Last October, the United States filed a complaint at the WTO alleging that the subsidies provided to Airbus were in violation of WTO rules. This January, the European Union (EU) agreed to freeze launch aid payments and other support to Airbus while attempting to negotiate a comprehensive agreement on government support to the civil aircraft sector. “Unfortunately, despite the heroic efforts by former US Trade Representative and current Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, the negotiations begun in January have broken down. Nevertheless, I want to commend him in particular for his involvement in these talks and his commitment to achieving a fair resolution of this issue. Since January, there has been little discernable progress in addressing the launch aid issue, which directly affects Boeing, Airbus’s main competitor in the civil aircraft market. “The United States Senate, in passing this resolution today, is stating very clearly that EU subsidies to Airbus must end and that launch aid must be rejected in order to avoid WTO action by the U.S. I’m encouraged by the comments of EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson in favor of extending the negotiation period that expires today to give both sides more time to reach a fair deal. However, additional discussions will only be productive if Commissioner Mandelson recommits to the framework agreed to 90 days ago. If the EU continues to flout the January agreement, WTO action may be unavoidable. “In addition, in my view, if the EU were to provide any new launch aid support for the A350, the U.S. would have no choice but to immediately request a WTO panel. This would be the largest trade dispute in the history of the WTO. I hope we do not have to go that route. It would be much better if both sides would come back to the table and restart substantive negotiations with the goal of reaching a bilateral agreement. American companies can compete with anyone in the world, but not on an uneven playing field. Airbus is a mature, profitable company that should compete on commercial terms without government subsidies. This resolution today says that we believe the playing field must be leveled for all competitors in the commercial aircraft market.”

And of course, the US does not condone the US government funding of Boeing "military" prototypes which become "civil" later and the huge state input in military terms to Boeing. Of course not!

[Trooper2]

8pack said:

And of course, the US does not condone the US government funding of Boeing "military" prototypes which become "civil" later and the huge state input in military terms to Boeing. Of course not!

I'm confused, the 707(civil) was turned into the A.W.A.C.s and the KC-135 tanker(military). I can't think of a single Boeing military aircraft that has been turned into a civil use.

Feel free to educate me.

>> Edited by Trooper2 on Wednesday 27th April 05:13

[8Pack]

Reverse the "thinking" Your Nation is "military" driven.

>> Edited by 8Pack on Wednesday 27th April 05:41

[Trooper2]

I agree that the U.S. is for sure military driven but not sure your answer really addresses my specific confusion/question, which was name a Boeing military project that became a civilian project. As I see it because we are militarily driven it would be a money losing proposition and there for would be very unlikely to happen.

I'm new to internet banter so please bare with me and I do appreciate your response.

[Joecooool]

8Pack said:

And of course, the US does not condone the US government funding of Boeing "military" prototypes which become "civil" later and the huge state input in military terms to Boeing. Of course not!

The last Boeing commercial plane that had any military use was designed in the 1960's. It was built commercially then later adapted to military use.

Regarding the rest of your statement, Boeing competes for every contract it gets. It goes up against Lockheed, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, etc. Even Rolls Royce is a major engine supplier to the U.S. Air Force.

Competing against other companies is a far cry from being given tax money that hasn't been competed for.

Thats a socialist policy thats not compatible with a free market economy.

[bruciebabie]

Trooper2 said:

I agree that the U.S. is for sure military driven but not sure your answer really addresses my specific confusion/question, which was name a Boeing military project that became a civilian project. As I see it because we are militarily driven it would be a money losing proposition and there for would be very unlikely to happen. I'm new to internet banter so please bare with me and I do appreciate your response.

IIRC The 747 was developed as a military freighter by the US taxpayer. The C5A won the flyoff so Boing coverted the military freighter into a passenger craft.

[Joecooool]

bruciebabie said:

IIRC The 747 was developed as a military freighter by the US taxpayer. The C5A won the flyoff so Boing coverted the military freighter into a passenger craft.

That is incorrect. The 747 was produced at the request of Pan Am. The C5 contract was lost before any 747 was ever produced and the government did not compensate Boeing for that.

www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9707/FR9707d.htm

[Trooper2]

I stand corrected:

The 747 was in competion as a military freighter but it wasn't with the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy it was with the Lockheed C-141 Starlifter.


Found answer here:[url]www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c5.asp[/url]


So any other examples as one doesn't really make 8packs case does it?

[Joecooool]

Trooper2 said:

I stand corrected: The 747 was in competion as a military freighter but it wasn't with the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy it was with the Lockheed C-141 Starlifter. Found answer here:[url]www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c5.asp[/url] So any other examples as one doesn't really make 8packs case does it?

Regardless, the military did not pay Boeing to put in a bid, that was done on their nickle.

[Trooper2]

Agreed.