Well, predictions of Boeing's death were always rather premature. I mean, its not like Boeing is run like Ford and GM are. :)

BTW, its a beautiful plane.

Gary, IMHO - Concorde is a beautiful plane. A380 is a practical workhorse. Which looks like a gargoyle.

I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but....

'So, will all this airplane competition make global warming worse,'

Only Boeing will make global warming worse because it's a US company.

Nothing Humanity does will affect Global Warming. For the last 2 million years or so the global temperature has moved up and down in an approximately 17,000 year cycle. Within that cycle are various peaks and valleys that occur at less regular intervals.
The environmental movement hates to talk about these facts, since the facts themself don't help the Swampies in their quest for public monies.

I see some Socialist dinosaur at the Guardian is calling for the EU, Russia and China to declare war on the USA. That made me realize what juicy targets the A380's will make. It brought joy to my warmongering heart to visualise a burning airbus breaking up at 30,000 FEET and spilling its contents into the ever waiting Atlantic. I have a thought. Why not schedule the war for halftime of next years Super Bowl? That will certainly get it the attention it merits.

I'm not convinced of the business case for the A380, and I don't particularly care for Airbus' management, but I have to concede it the A380 is a fine piece of engineering. That said, Boeing is doing well at the moment because they have (belatedly) launched a new aircraft (the 787 - thank the lord I don't have to call it the "dreamliner" any more) for which the engineering is if anything better and for which the business case is overwhelmingly strong. This is Boeing responding to competition by building a better product, which is good news for all of us.

The A380 has firm orders for ~160 planes. Each plane costs ~$150 million as I recall. It will be a fine replacement for the Boeing 747.

Yes, it's a nice plane. I'd like to see several thousand safe landings before I get on one, but it's nice :-)

Re Global warming, ppl seem to be missing the point. Yes, the earth can heat up and cool down in cycles without human input - but is that a good thing? The environment is very complex, and changes very slowly. This means that all those who study it have a very limited ability to perform experiments, so both sides of the argument are basically trying to make their theories sounds the most plausible - neither side can actually test their theories.

Do I think that the increase in temperature, and increase in atmospheric C02 is a mere co-incidence? Or are the two linked? Well, I am in absolutely no position to judge the science, so instead I must judge the scientists - do the supporters of global warming theory seem like more reasonable, thoughtful, unbiased people that the opponents of it? I would say yes, though not by a huge margin.

Now, the question of weather aircraft make much difference to this - I'm skeptical.

J

Personnally I like the An-225 more - take off weight of 600 tons and payload 275 tons - Phooowwwwaaaaaaaar! ONly wish the aviator was around to see it.

Anyway I hope they build another

The Seattle Times yesterday was trumpeting the "orders" that Boeing have for the 787, although they were rather vague on what were orders and what were letters of intent. I worked on a plane project once where there were loads of letters of intent and in the end virtually no orders and Fairchild Dornier isn't the company it used to be.

A lot of the announcements that the ST were showing seemed to be from the "usual" suspects when it comes to buying Boeing who have been pretty annoyed that there haven't been new planes coming along. The 787 is just in time to save Boeing from losing badly on a lot of orders.

The interesting thing will be what impact the whole Airbus family comtinues to have over the course of the next few years. Boeing have lost 25-30% of market share in the last decade (possibly more depending on the figures you believe) and they will struggle to get back to where they were.

Yes, the rise in temperature and the CO2 level are linked, but the CO2 rise & fall lags the temperature rise & fall.

The way this works is as follows (physical chemistry alert):

The ocean is a big chunk of water. CO2 is soluble in water. There is an equilibrium between the concentration of CO2 in the air, and the CO2 in the water.

The solubility of a gas in a liquid is inversely proportional to temperature: the lower the temperature, the more gas can dissolve in the liquid, and the higher the temperature, the less gas can dissolve.

A good way to see this is to leave a saucepan of water out overnight, to allow it to achieve equilibrium. Put it on the cooker & heat it. As it heats up, you'll see bubbles forming: this is the dissolved gases coming out of solution. The bubbles will then stop, and boiling will start. If you do the same thing with recently-boiled water, you won't get the bubbles, since there's no gas dissolved in the water.

The ocean does this writ large and rather slowly - the higher the temperature, the lower the solubility of CO2 & other gases in the water, therefore more of it comes out of solution and into the air.

"global warming" theory ignores several factors: this equilibrium, the mediaeval warm period, the ice ages and so on. Kyoto is also based on the "hockey stick" model which is now thoroughly discredited (this also ignores the mediaeval warm period, and if you feed the model random data, it produces - you guessed it - a hockey stick).

You will also notice that the loudest people in the global warming debate are environmental campaigners, not scientists. And those scientists that do do research on it are largely in it for the grants.

A worthwhile read on this topic is www.junkscience.com

err, further to last, the experiment also works with water straight from the tap, of course, but that might not be at equilibrium (it probably is though)

Yes, the earth can heat up and cool down in cycles without human input - but is that a good thing?

So are you saying that we should interfere with the natural climate cycles?

If so, you must be very pleased with the speculation that all that CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere headed off another ice age.

do the supporters of global warming theory seem like more reasonable, thoughtful, unbiased people that the opponents of it

Considering that the supporters of global warming theory include every greeny nutball and tranzi crypto-Marxist on the planet, and that their signature solution consists of a wealth transfer from the US that will no effect on global warming (by their own admission!), you have a pretty funny idea about "reasonable, thoughtful, unbiased people" look like.

I'm with suffering on this one. Simply on looks, the A380 is not quite Jo Brand with wings, but it's nothing more than functional. As well as incredible engineering, Concorde is also a work of art. It's right up there with my fav, the Avro Vulcan. Not only is it a rugged beauty, it makes a noise that'll rattle George Monbiot's teeth. I can see both as I drive past Duxford on my way to work each day and the pleasure never diminishes.

Jo Brand with wings! Airbus will probably pay you a not inconsiderable sum of money never to use this phrase in public again.

On the Vulcan: hell, yes. I had the privilege of watching an RAF crew throw one around in an aerobatic routine at Barksdale AFB (Louisiana), c. 1971. Even as a committed B-52 fan, I have to say I was knocked out. That was sensational.

As for A-380: the forums at Airliners.net at my go-to joint for this stuff, lately.

If you love the Vulcan, support the Vulcan to the skies project. It has been moving along apace... We may yet again see one of them thunder off a UK runway.

As to the temperature effect of aircraft... well, it does appear to be true, but my attitude is so what?

The experimental data were acquired in the days following the 20010911 during the grounding of all US air traffic.

My all time favourite is the B-70 Valkyrie experimental bomber... ok so it had a few in flight issues but it was fantastic large scale, money doesn't matter, engineering.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-70.htm

XB-70 -- Anyone here work with 3D geometry? My original XB-70 model in a .3ds file, download at your pleasure. Nothin' to it.

I remarked on this airplane in a Usenet post, some time back. It could have been a really big deal. No tellin'.

J, I hope you're not basing part of your CO2 comments on the vaunted hockey stick methodology. It's flawed.

So are you saying that we should interfere with the natural climate cycles?

Yes, if that's the best way to save civilisation. I don't really fancy another ice age, although I agree there's something to be said for covering Scotland in a kilometer deep sheet of ice.

If so, you must be very pleased with the speculation that all that CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere headed off another ice age.

Indeed, there's some evidence to suggest that the world was heading towards another cold period - not that it would have reached it in anything close to my lifetime. However, the swing in the other other direction currently seems more serious.

Considering that the supporters of global warming theory include every greeny nutball and tranzi crypto-Marxist on the planet,

So what? The opponents of it include every foaming mouthed Rand loving libertarian fanboy that the US community college system is able to produce, not to mention every double chinned preppy Republican with a vice presidency in daddy's firm.

My point was more about the credibility of serious scientists on each side of the debate, rather than the mindless drones of differing political / social ideologies. From what I read (which is limited to mainstream press), the scientists working most closely with the data support global warming theory.

Of course, there are crypto-marxist 'scientists' willing to spout all sorts of crap on behalf of Greenpeace, much as there are others willing to do the same for any other industry or lobby group. Alas, some people will always be for sale.

and that their signature solution consists of a wealth transfer from the US that will no effect on global warming (by their own admission!),

The solution is of course entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the problem exists. It's a great and common fallacy to think that because someone's ideas in one area are daft, their ideas in general must be daft. The very high co-incidence of genius and eccentricity alone should give people the hint, but no - instead we criticise the work of a nuclear physicist, because they belong to some odd religious cult, as if the two any any bearing on each other. But I digress...

you have a pretty funny idea about "reasonable, thoughtful, unbiased people" look like.

Oddly enough, I've never found much correlation between how reasonable someone's ideas are, and what they look like :-)

I like to think we Americans are on top of everything, but this A380 is just brilliant. Thank you.

J,

I question the credibility of scientists who can come up with a methodology and a model so flawed that you feed it random data (red noise) and it /almost always/ produces the "hockey stick" on which anthropogenic global warming theory is based.

http://www.climate2003.com/

Pete_London - yes, that is a beautiful aeroplane. Not being a plane buff, I hadn't seen a picture of one. In fact, I hadn't heard of the model in question. Thanks for providing the eye candy!

Dale

Thanks for the link. It seems we'll have the pleasure of seeing the Vulcan in the skies again in 2006.

Hmmm, a capacity of 800+ bodies, now just where are we going to load the thing up? And who's going to be interested in either spending megabucks to upgrade terminals to increase passenger flow in and outbound or to arrive 6-8 hrs prior to the flight or more to get aboard? (good deal for the terminal concessions, all those captive consumers hanging about, and you know they have money...)

I'm all for engineering tours de force but how about a fractional orbital transportation vehicle next time, y'all?

All things being equal, I'd rather have the choice of three separate flights with a total capacity of 800 people than one flight of 800 people. More scheduling choices, quicker loading, etc.

It will be interesting to see if the economies of scale for this thing allow them to cut ticket prices to the point where people will be willing to put up with the inconveniences it seems to entail.

It has already been subsidized by tax money. I wonder of the costs of upgrading terminals, etc. to accomodate it will be charged back to Aerobus, or imposed on all carriers via across the board increases in terminal fees.

That's an interesting scenario, and one that will no doubt be a reality soon. If two mostly full/full A380s land at the same time, all the airport arrival/customs counters I've been through would be swamped for hours.

What if three landed at once? Could there be more?

Boeing have lost out in the last few years because of a variety of reasons, one of which is the datedness of their designs. The 737 and 747 are 1960s designs, and the 757 and 767 are 1970s designs from the same cloth. Until now only the 777 (late 1980s/early 1990s) has been an all modern design. On the other hand, Airbus' product line is based around 1980s designs (the A320, A330, and A340). To me the A380 looks to be essentially a growth of that family, which is hardly surprising given that it has been on the drawing board for about 15 years. It's very big, but it looks a quite conservative design.

The new Boeing 787 to me looks like a much more forwards looking design. I have ranted about the materials revolution before, but in the 787 we are starting to see its impact on commercial airliners, which we really haven't until now. The A380 is basically a conventional metal design, whereas the 787 uses all sorts of fancy composites. It will be interesting to see what this means. It should mean that the aircraft will be rather lighter, more fuel efficient and will ultimately have a longer range than the current generation of aircraft. But we shall see.

(And despite being positive about this, I don't really disagree with Daveon. Boeing are unlikely to ever get back the dominant position they had a decade or two back. A market divided about 50-50 for the next while is quite possible though).

All things being equal, I'd rather have the choice of three separate flights with a total capacity of 800 people than one flight of 800 people. More scheduling choices, quicker loading, etc.

For certain routes that will be the model, but for the major international long haul hubs you don't have the option to cram more flights into them. The value of slots at Heathrow, among others, validates the A380 model for trans-atlantic and Asian-Pacific operations.

There's several profitable routes I've flown recently which are crying out for aircraft larger than a 747-400. LHR-Seattle, LHR-JNB etc... these are hard and expensive routes to get onto and you're limited on the hub capacity.

The A380 will not do the Alaskan/SouthWestern type of bus routes like SEA-San Diego/SFO/OAK etc...

The question will be whether or not the A350 makes any real impact on the 787. The 787 is getting traction but as Michael Jennings points out a lot of this is natural churn of traditional Boeing customers who need to replace ageing fleets. I see 50/50 as a likely market split.

The composites are interesting, especially after the problems Airbus had with their Composite Empenage. Of course, when talking about subsidised aircraft, it is worth asking where Boeing got the equipment and technology for the radical new materials... ;)

Airbus is claiming that the A350 will provide similar fuel efficiency and range to the 787, but I am not sure I believe them. Airbus' main focus has been on the A380, and the A350 is based on an older design and has had a lot fewer resources poured into it. I suspect it will appeal to operators who have a lot of Airbuses already and who like the common cockpit, but I doubt it will cause anyone to switch from Boeing to Airbus. (Of course, a fair proportion of the efficiency gains from the 787 come from more efficient engines, and Airbus is piggybacking on the program by using the same engines, but there is still a lot elsewhere).

And the commercial airliner business is anything but a free market paradise. There are all sorts of direct and indirect subsidies, military involements, governments acting as sales teams and lord only knows what mixed into the business. What we can be thankful is that despite all this we have two companies who compete ferociously with each other none the less. The quality of the product is certainly improving as a consequence.