Boeing 787 V Airbus 380

Modern jets are amazing! So lets see which is better than the other.

787 - 23
380 - 14

Property of ConcordeCentral

Category:

Travel & Events

Tags:

• 747-8
• boeing787
• airbusa380
• aviación
• espacio
• boeing
• 747

[purabparam]

i consider it a tie both are pretty cool

[ConcordeCentral]

@purabparam Ok thanks for the comment.

[oskar199555]

787!!!

[ConcordeCentral]

@oskar199555 Thanks for the comment.

[pacificbound67]

No comparison needed here. I'd put a 707 against the 380. What a pile of..........

[ConcordeCentral]

@pacificbound67 I do love the 707 but not against the A380 for things such as fuel economy but I'd prefer to fly in a 707 to an A380

[Airbusftw]

Why comparing two total different aircrafts? One is a mid sized aircraft that can carry approx 300 passengers and is not considered as HEAVY and travels 8500 Nautical Miles. Where as the A380 can travel up to 8300 Nautical Miles and can carry more than 800 passengers, that is more than twice the 787. In this case, A380 is by far superior to the 787 since it can give more income than the 787. Fuel costs can be covered by the huge difference in the passengers ratio.

[ikolkyo967]

BOEING 787

[IBANEZfil]

This should be: Boeing 787 and Airbus a380

[prohelipilot1]

@Airbusftw I got news for you the max pasengers an A380 can carry on a 8,000 N M flight is 487 passengers, and that is only if the cargo hold is empty. to go 8,000 N M the plane needs 507,423 lbs of fuel leaving it with just over 100,000 lbs of payload. Where as 2 787's could carry 56 more passengers and some cargo at a cost of 11.3% less.. Would you want to be at an airport gate with 799 other people, didn't think so. A380 sales are way down from predictions

[tom211t]

Hurrah for flying laptops!!!.

A380 is a fat monster, the 787 is nice but i often wonder what would happen if one should crash???.

[prohelipilot1]

@Airbusftw Fuel costs cannot be covered by the difference in passenger ratio. The plane needs to create less drag to be more efficient, which would require new wings at the very least. Fuel not Airplanes is the biggest cost airlines incure. Right now here it would cost $431,745.60 to fuel an A380. The A380 is too old style areodynamicaly to compete. The A350 has already gone through 2 design stages and new wings to stay current with the new Boeings

[prohelipilot1]

Lets all hope Airbus does better with the A350 than they are doing with the A380. Well they are, they have already sold close to 500 A350's and it won't be delivered for years yet. They have only sold 236 A380's and that number falls far short of the nearly 1,000 aircraft they have to sell to break even. The A380 is failing miserably while the A350 is doing O K . But both planes fall short of the efficiency of the 787

[prohelipilot1]

@Airbusftw There is not an A380 anywhere with 800 seats, and if you configure it with 800 seats than you can only carry enough fuel to go just over 6,000 N M. An A380 right now full of fuel can only carry 110,000 lbs. Thats crew, pass, luggage, cargo, drinks and food, Which realistically will give you about 450 passengers if you take no cargo. That would put the plane at it's maximum gross takeoff weight. Fuel is heavy the A380 holds 507,956 lbs ( 230,365 Kg ) of fuel

[MaxxGladiator]

Completely different aircraft, but I'd take the 787 over the Airbus, or ANY Airbus, anyday.

Just look at overall safety records based on statistics that include the number of planes made, flights, etc.

I would not fly the 380 - No way. Stick with the 747.

BTW - my mother came up with the phrase "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going".

She won a prize for it - some kitchen ware (how cheap!).

Boeing chainged it to:"If it's not Boeing, I 'aint going".

Being British(Welsh), this never sat well with mum.