Boring airliners?

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:28:08 GMT, John Ousterhout
wrote:

Although they are intended for different markets, they are competitors
in that each company has spent so much on development that they have
literally 'bet the company' on the success or failure of the A380 and
the 787.

That may be true of Boeing (though the 787 looks like a winner at this
point, so it is perhaps an easier bet than say the 747). But it's not
true of Airbus. If the 380 doesn't make a profit, Airbus just doesn't
repay the launch aid. What a business model!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Dylan Smith wrote:

Dean Wilkinson wrote:

If you followed the airline industry, you'd realize that the 787 fills a
different market segment than the 777 does. The 787 is not an
intercontinental machine, its a regional machine, and will serve as a
replacement for the 757/767 models.

The 787 is most certainly an intercontinental machine.

One version will have a range in excess of 8,000 nm. (15,000 km), which
will be enough to carry it between the US west coast and Australia.
They are also planning a shorter range version with 3,500 nm range,
which would handle service within continents, as well as shorter North
Atlantic runs.

... in which case why the planet of hell are all the pundits discussing
the A380 and 7E7 as head-on competitors? If that is the case their roles
are completely orthoganol.

The intercontinental 787 may not be a direct competitor with the A380 in
terms of routes. For example, there is now frequent 747 service between
Europe and South Africa. The A380 will likely displace many of the 747s
now in that service, since the passenger volumes can justify larger
aircraft. The 787 might fly the routes, but with limited capacity might
not be the aircraft of choice on the part of the airlines.

The 787 will, however, compete for many of the same passengers as the
A380 on US/European routes, as an example. Airbus is betting that the
larger, more efficient aircraft will be needed for heavy volume trunk
routes, like NYC-LON, NYC-AMS, NYC-FRA, or NYC-PAR particularly in light
of the need for slot controls at some of the airports in those cities.

Boeing is betting that many passengers not destined to the larger cities
would prefer to fly on non-stop flights using efficient aircraft that
serve other airports, but where the routes don't have the volumes to
support the A380. For example, if a passenger wanted to fly between
Raleigh/Durham and Munich, it might be possible to offer a non-stop
flight using a 787, rather than forcing a passenger to be routed through
larger cities on each continent. If the fares are competitive, the
passenger would likely choose the non-stop flight.

Using the South African example, it might be possible to offer non-stop
787 service to Durban for the holiday crowd from a number of European
cities, with would not be justified with a 747 or A380.

It's kind of a parallel to the use of regional jets to fly non-stop
between smaller airports, rather than forcing all passengers onto larger
aircraft routed through major hubs.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:14:55 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?

It's the 787 (inevitable from the start; they were just getting a
cheap publicity boost by announcing the denomination, or denominating
the announcement, whatever).

It doesn't replace the 777 but the 757, the last one of which was
finished yesterday, and the line is now closed.

It actually does seem a bit different from the Boeing/Airbus
predecessors. Indeed, I'm suspicious that they'll try to squeeze extra
revenue out of the difference (in the 1960s there was a significant
surcharge on jet planes, even when no prop planes were flying at the
advertised price). Likely it will be a three-class airplane to cash in
on those who want to fly something new and (a little bit) different.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

In article , Cub Driver wrote:
It doesn't replace the 777 but the 757, the last one of which was
finished yesterday, and the line is now closed.

What will we do for our excess wake turbulence now!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

I prefer my airliners boring.

If I want excitement I'll try for a ride in a Pitts.

Speaking of over-water flights, we'll all chip in for fuel if you fly to
Pinckneyville.

- John Ousterhout -


Dylan Smith wrote:
Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).

But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.

I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
way they've done with the 737 for years?