yeah atleast a year
thats why i said a year or more

but for every plane, they still can find problems
nothing is perfect

when testing, they mainly find out major bugs and problems and solve them, whatever they find, they solve

when something breaks, its the technicians that work in the airlines that fixes the planes
so its the responsibilities of the airlines to maintain and fix problems
i have a friend who does maintenance for China Airline (in Taiwan, nothing to do with mainland China)

when something breaks and an accident occurs or keep on occuring on the same model, usually airlines buys other models with less incidents so Boeing or Airbus makes less money
since MD was out of the scheme, its been a battle of safety for Boeing and Airbus

Re: Airbus A380
 

Back to your original post.
Air force one has flown very few cycles (takeoff's and landings, which is what actually wears airplanes out) and is better equiped, and maintained then any other aircraft in the world. replacing a young (cycle and flight time wise) well understood model with a newer one, would be foolish.

i thought we are over the original post
it was just to get the convo started and shows how luxury equipped this plane can be because of its large volume

but its not just the take off and landing that wears out the life time of the plane
usually its when airplane decends and accends in the atomosphere, the temperature range from 60C to -20C
that is what mainly uses up the life time of the componenets

Normally the only reason to ascend and descend is to take off and land (at least in the civilian world). Take offs and landings are hard on a airplane but the hardest thing on an airframe is setting, believe it or not. They are made to fly and no airplane can set long and survive. I know I use to fly for living. ( I use to do a lot of things for a living). And Air Force One has all the nice stuff on it you could dream of, I use to know some former crewmembers of Air Force 1. I just can't see them using a foreign airframe for such a high profile airplane. I've heard some people say "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going." And considering the quality of some of their older aircraft I can understand why. More redundans systems than you can imagine and overbuilt. They make some great aircraft.

lol

i went to the Everett site of the Boeing's factory...
thats when i first heard "If it aint Boeing..."

im not tryin to say Airbus is better than Boeing because accidents says no
im only saying the A380 will be better than 747
whether you like it or not, 747 is old...

Oh hell yhea it's old. But sometimes older is better. I love computers and technology. But they all have their place. A computer does not belong in a car (except for entertainment). Nor does a computer belong in control of an airplane (at least without an override). The 707 I flew on in the military had hydralic-assist controls. You could loose the main and the redudant system and still bring it in. It still had manual controls ran to all the control surfaces. You would think your arms were going to fall off by the time you landed but if beats the hell outta leaving a "smoking hole". Automation is not the answer to everything. Even the newest technology has a place, lest us not become to dependant. Fear the BSOD, it would give new meaning to "Fatal Execeptions has occured" when you see it at 400 knots and 50 feet above the ground (with a nose down pitch). BTW I hate computer controlled cars too.

And in this case old is not a bad thing, while the orginal 747 design is 60's, many parts and systems have been upgraded over the years the 400's have a new wing design, better engines and electronics.
747 hull 02 still fly's almost everyday as a testbed for many projects (you can watch it at Boeing field in seattle, it's white with red stripes) (01 was destroyed during static testing)
While I like boeing (they bring alot of money to this area)
I also see the value of the Airbus design, my biggest problem with Airbus is the economics of the company (huge tax subsidies) allowing them to sell planes based on cost rather than superior design

You might know this, but Boeing has something up their sleeves. They have had a dual decker 747 on the drawing board for some time.I think they have it ready for production. First, testing though If the A380 is a success, then Boeing will have their own double decker. Although it will be a double decker it will not be fully two levels. They can have a new plane ready in about 3 years that is based on the double decker 747.

lol

sorry but 747 double decker is not what they have planned for
they are against it
and had never ever had a drawing

i talked to 2 engineers at the Everett

they all think there is no market for double deckers
and their vision of future flying is their Sonic Cruiser

I saw this in a documentary about the A380 and Boeing at an aircraft convention or something like that on TLC. It was about 2 or 3 mnths
ago.

but still a nope on Boeing building a double decker

Boeing did spend about 5 years, and millions on several concepual designs for a super jumbo. but finally decided the market would not be enough to repay the multi-billon $ cost of an all new design, particularly once Airbus announced they would also be building one. the have considered and done some early model testing for streching the the upper deck on the 747 even further back (it has been enlarged several times since the original model) but seem to have put that idea on hold (the Bump area was originally for first class seating, (but due to the hull curve it was uncomfortable), so it was converted to first class lounge (still not too popular) many airlines now jam the super cheap seats up there)

yes, from 747-100 to 747-475

the top deck has expanded
the 400 has a standard of 18 windows per side
and the 475 has a standard of 21 windows per side

boeing however, has never agreed and has not had a official concept sketch of the full size top deck

boeing think there is no need for a larger capacity
and is willing to move towards faster and more comfortable ways of traveling

airbus is still on the idea of building a mass air transportation

and actualy most airlines put business class on the upper deck of the 747

Yeah that is true. The Vice-Pres of Boeing R&D said that, for them, there is no need for a Double Decker plane like the A380. Although they would be able to get one or another plane if the A380 is successful. Boeing wants to compete directly w/ Airbus as they have also done.

The upcoming A3XX Double-Decker
 

wow
thanx for the news

this is interesting

Boeing 747X
 

I heard Boeing is working on a model called the 747X... It is essentially a 747 passenger jet, but 30 meters longer. Part of the area they are extending is the two-deck area.

Can you say "Spruce Goose"?

A little more info at

http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/112725