Lee Witten wrote:
Proven or not, both have the chance to be 'disruptive technologies'.

Suppose the A380 is wildly popular. Its low cost per pax makes most
747s obsolete, and everywhere you now run a 747 an A380 is needed to
remain competitive.

A large part of a plane's success is how the airline sets up the
interior. For long hauls, entertainment, food, and with the 380, if
there is anything to do while standing up. (Rememberring that airlines
strongly discourage passengers to stand up for long and to have seat
belts on at all times when seated in case of turbulence).

Where Virgin will kill BA is with the premium class. BA won't be able to
match what Virgin will provide in first and business class because BA's
planes just don't have the space. So airlines that traditionally rely on
premium passengers and who have not purchased the 380 are at risk.

So that will definitely be a disruptive change.

The 747 seems quite popular as a freighter. But it may go the way of the
MD11, except that there may not be a FedEx to adopt every stray 747 it
can find.

I think that the real danger for the 747 comes not from the 380, but
from the Antonov 124. They have recently decided to restart the
production line of the 124s. (Antonov is in Ukraine, but got lost of
funds from Russia, that puts the recent elections in perspective, same
applies to the company in Ukrtaine that builds the Kurs automated
docking system for Russian spacecraft).

If the 380 takes the pax business and the small package business from
the 747, what is left is large bulk cargo, and that is where the 124
beats the 747.

would imagine Boeing would have to do what Harry said, and make a big
plane too. That would be quite disruptive to Boeing.

Unless the current rift/raft between EU and USA results in allowing
Boeing to get lots of help, it will not be able to justify developping a
380 competitor. The market just isn't big enough to get Wall Street to
give Boeing 15 billion bucks to sell 250-300 planes.

Once the beast is flying commercially with known performance metrics,
then we will be able to compare how the 747 fares against the 380 in
terms of orders for passenger versions. Until now, the airlines have
just simply postponed large plane decisions, awaiting to see what both
Boeing and Airbus would do.

This period is about to end, and we've already seen the thai, UPS and
now the chinese orders coming in, since the confidence level of the 380
actually delivering on prmises is rising.

United and Northwest will be the real test for Boeing. Will they get rid
of the 747 alltogether and replace it with 777s, will they order new
747s once they are back in business, or will they order the 380 because
it is (allegedly) better than the 747 ? Right now, they are in no shape
to order anything and United has reduced its 747 fleet.

Suppose the 7E7 is wildly popular. It's light weight, efficient
engines, 3 day assembly time and very low maintainence cost makes all
competing metal aircraft (A300/A310/A330/B757/B767) obsolete.

I heard Boeing state that the all-composite fuselage wasn't lighter than
what they could have done with modern aluminium stuff. Will it be
lighter per pax than the 767, you bet. Will it be lighter per pax than
the 77, most likely. Will it be lighter than the A350 ? Probably not
much lighter, if any.

Remember that Airbus also gained much experience with both aluminium and
composites on the 380, and in some ways are a step ahead of Boeing. The
top part of the A380 fuselage is made from a aluminium/composite
laminate for instance. Airbus uses cold welding technique to fuse
aluminium parts instead of using rivets. And has experience with all
composite structures such as the A380s tail fin and elevators (which are
as big as 737's wings).

So *IF* they add that experience to the 350, they may be able to produce
something that is quite comeptitive with the 7E7. Where the difference
may lie is in the bleed air issue.

new business model (just design and do final assembly, leave the rest to
partners) gives it the large profits needed to make composite
replacements to 737, 747 and 777.

Nop. Because the same "partnering" practice also spreads the profits
around. You can bet that the japanese cgovernment which is footing the
bill for a large portion of the 7E7 will want its subsidies back.


I imagine Airbus would have to redo
their entire product line too, and that will be very disruptive,
especially if their access to launch aid is curtailed.


The biggest disruptive technilogy I see is the bleed air issue. If this
proves to be a big winner (not sure of that), then both Boeing and
Airbus will be under pressure to redo their product lines to incorporate
this. And if such a change requires a totally new type certificate, this
will be extremely disruptive to both Boeing and Airbus.

However, consider Airbus' situation:

Its 340 is essentially dead.
The 330 is getting its makeover into the 350.
The A380 is brand spanking new.

So what is left now is the 320 line which, while younger than the 737 in
many ways, is also starting to mature. If Boeing decides to redo the 737
from scratch, and Airbus decides to do a 320-NG, Airbus would be doing
the same mistake as Boeing did in the 1990s by keeping the 737.

In fairness though, the difference in expertise/knowledge of
aerodynamics and engines between the late 1980 and now is less than
between the late 1980s and the 1960s when the 737 was conceived. So the
320 would see less of an improvement in a total rebuild than the 737 would.

we'll all know in time. I do believe one thing that Boeing is saying:
from now on, all future transports will be made of composites (the
advantages in weight, maintenance and fabrication expense are impossible
to ignore) and that will change a lot of things.

Are composites really cheaper to make ?

In terms of maintenance, I am not so sure that composites have proven
themselves. After the Queens crash, the NTSB realised that there was no
real expertise in diagnosing composites and they had to go to NASA to
get various tail assemblies studied to see if there was some widespread
composite problems in tails or not etc etc. Airlines didn't really have
the tools to do that.

The 7E7 will force the development of totally new maintenance procedure
for aircraft structures.

Also, the lack of bleed air and introduction of new systems to replace
it will also require new training and maintenance procedures. Only time
will tell if those prove to be more relaibale than current systems.