2007-04-04 05:43:25 · 7 answers · asked by Jay 2 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Aircraft
If you mean which aircraft is potentially more useful then the answer would be the 787.
It is able to fly into any airport equipped to handle the typical jet airliner, where the A380 is limited to only those airports retrofitted to handle it's weight, wingspan and heigth. This means passengers and freight can be flow to the final destination instead of going to a hub, such as LAX or NRT, and then redistributed.
2007-04-04 06:07:31 · answer #1 · answered by psayre33 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The 787 will go a lot of places the A380 can only dream of? What a steaming pile! The Piper Cub can go a lot of places a 787 can only dream of. But then there's no money to be made taking a 787 to a sand bar on a river in Alaska is there? 27 years in aviation but not two months in Economics!
What has more utility a Kenworth 18 wheeler or a Ford Focus? I can't get an 18 wheeler in my garage but I'd look pretty stupid transporting drywall or lumber across the state in a Ford Focus wouldn't I?
The A380 is for long haul popular routes, the 787 is for long haul unpopular routes. There sure as heck aren't going to be the takeoff slots to run four 787s for each A380 on the JFK to LHR route.
The only thing the A380 and 787 have in common right now is that they are new aircraft, or at least the 787 will be if and when they actually make one.
So which has more utility, the 747-400 or the 737-800? Stupid question? Yes it is, isn't it?
2007-04-04 08:35:46 · answer #2 · answered by Chris H 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
It depends. The A380 can hold a lot of stuff, but that's about it. The 787 can land at many airports that can't handle the A380. Also, the 787 gets really good gas mileage. And, most importantly, it's a Boeing.
2007-04-04 07:36:09 · answer #3 · answered by Joshua Z 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The A380 is a gigantic not particularly efficient plane. (It weighs a lot more than Airbus planned, limiting the payload it can carry.) As a result, it only makes sense on routes where the number of flights is limited, i.e., to and from slot controlled airports like London Heathrow, or where curfews limit the times of day they can fly, like Sydney. There are enough of those routes to make the A380 viable, but it's not a huge number of them. The 787 is half the size and much more flexible, suitable for long routes where there's either not enough traffic for a 747, or that airlines judge that they'll sell more seats by having more flights at different times.
2016-05-17 05:37:09 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer above this one is very good, and a welcome refreshment from the fingers-in-ears attitude about the A380.
It's proving itself to be a bloody good plane in tests, and handles better than smaller aeroplanes from the same makers. That means it also handles better than Boeings, not least because most of them are based on ancient airframes.
"OOh, and best of all, it's a boeing"
It's almost aerospace racism... pathetic misguided patriotism, it's American.... so no-one can possibly beat it. Exactly like the threads about the F22....
ITS INVISIBLE they say.... YOU CAN'T KILL WHAT YOU CAN'T SEE... YEEE HAAW
No guys... it's low observable.. its also huge and expensive.
Meanwhile, back to the ranch... here you are doing exactly the same to the A380 as the Eurofighter. With fighters you're scared that we've got 90% of the quality for 25% of the price. In THIS case, you're afraid we've bested you while you were greedily trying to squeeze the last cent out of aging designs.
Get a life.
2007-04-04 09:08:51 · answer #5 · answered by rickpoleway 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
in my opinion, the boeing is better in that it will go alot of places that a 380 can only dream of
2007-04-04 07:36:47 · answer #6 · answered by John M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Define utility
Good answer below
2007-04-04 05:55:20 · answer #7 · answered by walt554 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋