A380 unveiling, 1/18/05, Live.

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote:

Why won't we all fly microjets? First, fuel is going to get a lot more
expensive, and microjets are not by any measure fuel-efficient. We're not
finding many new reserves and one billion Chinese are just beginning to
discover the wonders of automobile ownership. Most of us will have a hard
time flying a 172, let alone an Eclipse, when fuel costs $6-$7/gallon in
today's dollar.


This argument is semi-legit. I say semi, because noone really knows what will
happen with energy prices in the future. As new energy sources are put online,
the value of the older ones (like oil) will tend to stablize.

Second, the air traffic system simply will not be able to handle it. There
is very little scalability left in the current system and microjet
proponents are talking about doubling, tripling, even quadrupling the number
of planes in the system. The current ATC environment was grown organically
over the course of nearly half a century and I just don't believe that Free
Flight or anything else can squeeze that many more airplanes into the same
amount of sky. Frankly we'll be lucky if we can just keep the current mess
from collapsing in the next decade.

This is a common misunderstanding and reflects a lack of knowledge about how
commercial aircraft fly, how big a domestic airspace the US has and where the
chokepoints are.

Our current ATC system is built around virtual highways in the sky. It can't
deal very well with traffic that wants to directly from point A to point B.
Instead, traffic going into / out of /between major cities is funnelled into a
small number of very specific tracks.

While that's not the most efficient use of airspace or fuel, under normal
weather conditions the only bottlenecks are those handful of large city
ariports. Microjets aren't intended to fly you from ORD to LAX. They're designed
to pick up that out city passenger and drop them off at another out city.

Bad weather is more of a problem, as that can close some of those virtual
highways in the sky, but it tends to be localized around a certain area. Getting
around it funnels more traffic into lesser routes, slowing things down a bit.
Micros will be able to fly a bit higher than standard commercial aircraft which
will help a bit (think 3D), but still will add some congestion.

The way around that is the relatively slow conversion from the current airways
based system to a more direct point to point system. The current planes have no
problems doing that, but upgrading ground ATC computers is taking a long time in
the US.

Other parts of the world (like Australia) have completed the upgrade and have
much more flexibility to direct route aircraft. Eventually the US will get there
as well.

In article ,
"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote:

[snip]
This is a common misunderstanding and reflects a lack of knowledge about how
commercial aircraft fly, how big a domestic airspace the US has and where the
chokepoints are.

The chokepoints are the airports in the US. Freeflight isn't going to be much
help in the US.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

Bob Noel wrote:

The chokepoints are the airports in the US. Freeflight isn't going to be much
help in the US.

The chokepoints are a handful (less than 12) high volume airports. Those
airports are high volume primarily due to the hub connections through those
airports. Eliminate or reduce the hub traffic and those airports are much less
likely to be choke points.

Freeflight doesn't help directly with approach or departure contraints, but it
increases the options for getting planes away from an airport and combined with
point to point service (either RJ or microjet), helps indirectly spread the
traffic out.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message

The chokepoints are the airports in the US. Freeflight isn't going to be
much
help in the US.

--
Bob Noel

That is one opinion. Others have just as much value.

Point to point will let the "hoard" of VLJ's fit in to the small airports,
which should relieve some of the pressure off the big airports. They will
also not have to arrive at the "big push" times at the major airports.
--
Jim in NC

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote in message
...
Bob Noel wrote:

The chokepoints are the airports in the US. Freeflight isn't going to be
much
help in the US.

The chokepoints are a handful (less than 12) high volume airports. Those
airports are high volume primarily due to the hub connections through
those
airports. Eliminate or reduce the hub traffic and those airports are much
less
likely to be choke points.

Clark, I'm an instrument-rated pilot so I know how "the system" operates.
There's a lot more to it than archaic technology, though that certainly
plays a role.

There's a number of things you need to consider. First, we're not talking
about reducing the overall volume of traffic-far from it. In extremis,
you're replacing one 757 with three or four RJs and a dozen microjets. For
the most part, it places just as much of a load on the system to move one
6-seat Citation Mustang as it does to move that 757. So "reliever" airports
(the secondary fields within 50nm of the big airports) are only providing
relief until they start having a critical volume of traffic, at which point
they become just as big a chokepoint.

Second, you need to consider the seriousness of what we're fooling with
here. The need for safety should be obvious, and we know our current system,
clumsy as it appears, in fact provides outstanding safety. Australia? Big
deal. They've got the landmass of a third of the US and maybe 5% of the
traffic volume. Ask any air traffic controller and they'll tell you "Free
Flight" works great so long as you don't have that much traffic to handle.

The single biggest problem with free flight is that without extensive
reliance on computers, it simply can't work. Even a dozen of the best
hotshot center controllers can't handle fifty or a hundred aircraft on
random routes. In the current system those dozen people can handle a lot
more planes, even if the radar goes down. Then there's weather to think
about: the minute the thunderboomers show up everyone's going to start
diverting around it. Again, you can't manage this without computers. There's
simply no way for humans to resolve all the potential conflicts, and even
with computers this is going to be messy. This is placing an absolutely
enormous amount of faith into something with so many points of failure. Just
look at those computer failures at Comair over Christmas and imagine if
those were running the live ATC system. Scary stuff.

Free Flight is not an incremental step--it's a complete change of doctrine
and I don't trust making that kind of leap. I've seen companies with far
smaller and simpler problems screw up technological transitions of far
smaller complexity. How many errors can we tolerate before we get it right?
There's plenty wrong with the FAA but when you get down to it they are
probably one of the most competent of the federal bureaucracies simply
because the public will not tolerate failures when the mistakes are counted
in dead bodies. The Department of Education can swallow billions with
nothing to show for it but if two 737s collide it's going to be front-page
news for a month. None of this airspace-managemt stuff is theory- it's 100%
practical knowledge gained in the school of hard knocks and not to be
dismissed as simply "highways in the sky."

Best,
-cwk.

PS- If the subject interests you, a Center Controller in Atlanta writes a
column on a site called AvWeb that often touches on this subject. His
opinions are often controversial and many think he's just an old warhorse,
but he has spent enough time in front of the scope to earn the right to his
opinions: a good sample is this one:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/186059-1.html

It would be normal corporate behaviour to calculate the "liters per
passenger per 100 Km" using the most optimistic factors. Such as maximum
number of seats, every seat filled, best city pair, no delays of any type,
etc. etc.
The reality will be interesting to see.
Harvey
"alexy" wrote in message
...
nobody wrote:

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

Interesting stat, but the followup discussion here points out a
question on exactly what this stat is. Is it fuel burn per passenger
mile at max passenger load (i.e., the 380 carries 110 times as many
passengers as the 5-passenger car, but burns less than 110 times as
much fuel per mile) or fuel burn per passenger mile at typical
passenger loads (i.e., the 380 at a typical passenger load of, e.g.,
450 carries 300 times as many passengers as the car at a typical load
of 1.5 people, but burns less than 300 times as much fuel per mile.

Obviously, such a statistic based on capacity is far more significant
than one based on average use. 3 liters/passenger per 100KM? I suspect
there are MANY 5-passenger cars that will go further than 100KM on 15
liters of fuel, but not may that will go 100KM on 4.5 liters of fuel,
if 1.5 is the average load of the car.


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
infrequently.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:21:47 -0700, "Clark W. Griswold, Jr."
wrote:

AJC wrote:

Airbus have publicly admitted the thing is under weight.


Come on now - you know better than that. The thing is 5 tonnes over spec weight.
Here's just one current link:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...1/s1284400.htm



The thing is 0.4-0.5% under weight. Here's just one current link:


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...c&refer=europe



Other stories have quoted Airbus saying they can fix that. Maybe, maybe not. But
weight affects fuel burn, capacity and range. You can bet there are hard numbers
in every contract.


and budget limits.

And they've already admitted a rather large overrun.

What is the percentage overrun then?

Airbus is admitting to $2B on a what was supposed to be a $10B program. Call it
20%.

15% apparently!


In large part, that overrun is attributed to the overweight problem.

How does this compare with similar projects?

Historical comparisons are not all that meaningful. The financial world for
airlines has changed significantly in the past few years. The airlines that have
orders in now won't be affected by overruns anyway.

--==++AJC++==--

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:42:51 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:


"nobody" wrote in message
...

By september, I suspect that the A380 will have done enough test flights
to provide a good idea on what it will truly be capable of. That is when
we may see more airlines buying into the 380 now that they know whether
it meets its promises or not.

OK, but none of this addresses the real core question of what the market
actually wants. I believe the A380 probably has a very good future in air
cargo, but it remains an open question how widely it will prove profitable
in passenger service. Boeing guessed right with the 747, France/UK got it
beautifully wrong with Concorde. Clearly this is the right plane for flying
from Tokyo to Singapore. I read in one story that about half of A380s are
expected to operate between just 10 airports, which is believable.

There's a question in here about how fast and in what way the market for air
travel will grow. There are to the best of my knowledge no 747s operating in
domestic service in the US (except the occasional repositioning flight) even
on trans-continental flights that are as long as trans-Atlantic routes.
Hub-and-spoke carriers are being bled to death by the point-to-point LCCs,
who mostly operate 737-size planes. But compared to Asia and Europe, the US
is larger and more sparsely populated,

What definition do you use that makes the US larger than Asia?

--==++AJC++==--

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:15:05 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Nik" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Larry,


Don't fall for the Boeing propaganda...

Great piece that Airbus (See below)


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


Inclusive of options the A380 is beyond the 250 mark. Of cause all options
might not be exercised. But chances are that at least a good deal of them
will if the thing offer what has been promised.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=901

"Tsunami-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it
must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against
its fishing industry.

While millions of Europeans are sending aid to Thailand to help its
recovery, trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines,
its national carrier, pays £1.3 billion to buy its double-decker aircraft."


You'd be wise to do better than 'inform' yourself from an American
'Neolibertarian community portal' (their description, not mine!). The
melodramatic start to your quote indicates the level they work on, and
my how they twist reality. There is a long running trade issue between
the EU and Thailand, (there is also between the US and Thailand)
concerning shrimp trade. With no relation to this Thai airways placed
an order for some new Airbus aircraft, as have their competitors in
Malaysia and Singapore. The Thai government is now trying to use Thai
Airways legitimate order for the aircraft they need, to influence
(blackmail I suppose in the language of your favourite American
Neolibertarian community portal), the EU in this dispute. For the
facts read:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4054251.stm
--==++AJC++==--

Simon,

I was under the impression that in newer FBY aircraft the software
wouldn't allow the pilot to break the rudder or the vertical stabiliser
off.


Could well be.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)