Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on April 25, 2005, 01:38:16 PM
-
Air Canada announced plans today to order up to 36 777s and as many as 60 787 Dreamliners.
The airline's plan calls for firm orders for 32 airplanes – 18 777s and 14 787s – plus options for 64 additional airplanes. "Our analysis of these aircraft pointed to overwhelmingly attractive economics," said Robert Milton, president and CEO of Air Canada's parent company. "We have estimated the fuel burn and maintenance [costs] alone on the 787 to be approximately 30 percent [lower than] the 767s they will replace." Air Canada is the 18th airline to select the 787, bringing announced firm orders and commitments to 217.
-
I wonder what happens if the 787 doesn't meet it's ambitious performance specifications? Another MD-11?
-
I wonder what will happen if the 787 exceeds its ambitious performance expectations?
-
Good,,
I like Boeings.
I like American planes and I like having a viable producer in north america.
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
I wonder what will happen if the 787 exceeds its ambitious performance expectations?
History has shown it to be quite unlikely.
In other news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4481733.stm
-
Originally posted by mora
I wonder what happens if the 787 doesn't meet it's ambitious performance specifications? Another MD-11?
Just still how much overwight is the A380? How much over budget?
Just askin...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Just still how much overwight is the A380? How much over budget?
Just askin...
From the link in my previous post.
"In December 2004, Airbus owner EADS revealed that the project was £1bn (1.5bn euros; $1.9bn) over budget, at more than £8.4bn.!"
Dunno about the weight issue though.
The problems with the A380 was the reason I mentioned the performance specifications.
As the A380 doesn't have a direct competitor a little overweight might not be as crucial as in the case of the 787. If the 787 doesn't meet it's specs then Airbus will wipe the table clean with the much cheaper A350.
-
mora,
Guarantees are made to the purchaser. If the stated performance is less than what is guaranteed then the manufacturer pays huge fines. I mean HUGE fines.
same for Boeing as for Airbus. standard operating procedure.
It is in the interest of the manufacturer NOT to miss these performance targets.
-
Originally posted by mora
I wonder what happens if the 787 doesn't meet it's ambitious performance specifications? Another MD-11?
I wouldn't matter, Air Canada never does either...
-
But they are second only to British Airways in single engine flying experience.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
But they are second only to British Airways in single engine flying experience.
I believe they lead the league in dead stick Airliner landings too....
-
I see Boeing and Airbus being like Cadillac and Mercedes; both are good choices and have their good and bad sides and it's up to buyer to decide what he wants.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Good for Boeing. Wtg!
Will you America Haters ever stop?
;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Will you America Haters ever stop?
;)
Shhhh...GSholz thinks Boeing is from Asia ;)
-
All of 'em flies, I want to fly 'em all :D
-
Originally posted by Fishu
All of 'em flies, I want to fly 'em all :D
Boeing 777, 787 is a different market target then our A380.
Its just bussiness, and a good deal for Boeing...
and btw. our A380 still never lift off ;)
Tomorrow is THE DAY! I hope he flies LOL
;)
-
Originally posted by mora
I wonder what happens if the 787 doesn't meet it's ambitious performance specifications? Another MD-11?
Another MD-11? What's wrong with the MD-11? I've seen the odd frighter version landing at NZAA while flying and I've always thought it was an excellent aircraft.
As for the A-380 then I wish Airbus all the best with it but I think the B777 v A380 arguments aren't really relevent as they are two completely different aircraft. Though it will be interesting to see over time which the public and airlines prefer.
...-Gixer
-
Shhhh...GSholz thinks Boeing is from Asia
====
a good chunk of the 787 will be
-
Airport redesign costs alone make the A380 a limited use aircraft to begin with, as most airports are not going to be able to handle an aircraft of that size in a timely manner.
As for no direct competitor??? Thats BS, it's marginally bigger than the 747, which means they are competitors. As for the 747, I do not see it being phased out any time soon by the A380.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Airport redesign costs alone make the A380 a limited use aircraft to begin with, as most airports are not going to be able to handle an aircraft of that size in a timely manner.
As for no direct competitor??? Thats BS, it's marginally bigger than the 747, which means they are competitors. As for the 747, I do not see it being phased out any time soon by the A380.
I am not an expert, but isnt boeing talking about a redesigned 747 that is marginaly more efficient?
-
I have not seen it, I have seen the 777 test a/c out here at COS and it's been here alot the last few weeks, aparently testing some newer engine setups. Much quieter than before, and thats quiet.
-
Norwegians should root agianst A380 anyway, it's supposed to use much less fuel than B747 and that's not good business for your gang of arctic arabs...
-
We had the 777 out there doing a bunch of tests last year. I must say it's very impressive. Never seen such a big aircraft get airborne that quickly or stop as quickly as it did. Kind of nice being at the flight test center. Since you get to see commercial tests and military tests going on.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Airport redesign costs alone make the A380 a limited use aircraft to begin with, as most airports are not going to be able to handle an aircraft of that size in a timely manner.
As for no direct competitor??? Thats BS, it's marginally bigger than the 747, which means they are competitors. As for the 747, I do not see it being phased out any time soon by the A380.
Major international airports should already be well into their A380 upgrade works...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
As for no direct competitor??? Thats BS, it's marginally bigger than the 747, which means they are competitors.
The A380 will load up to 853 passangers, i dont call this marginally.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
The A380 will load up to 853 passangers, i dont call this marginally.
better read some more....it's not gonna be hauling anything close to that number.
Let's see if it can even fly first :)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Let's see if it can even fly first :)
as i said ealier, tomorrow is the first flight planed, i really hope
for the best! My girlfriends brother was working/testing on the A380 flaps & slaps,
he is praying too ;)
-
The 747 has been operational for how many years? The 380 has never even flown.
If Airbus, with their 380 (in 2005) is hoping to compete with a 36 year old 747, then I think they are setting their goals pretty low.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Another MD-11? What's wrong with the MD-11? I've seen the odd frighter version landing at NZAA while flying and I've always thought it was an excellent aircraft.
Nothing wrong with it really but it didn't initially meets it's specifications and lost a lot of orders because of that. The line was shut down early and the company died. Who's hauling passengers with them these days? Finnair and Varig comes to mind but no one else. I've heard it's a great plane for Finnair because it can haul a **** load of cargo, but if you don't have that option it's not very economical plane.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
better read some more....it's not gonna be hauling anything close to that number.
Let's see if it can even fly first :)
Yes it will. Out of memory the A380-800 will be hauling around 800 eventually and the A380-900 around 1000. At the moment it takes 550 in a very low density 3 class configuration. A 747 with a similar configuration and seat pitch will take less than 400.
At the current configuration it's around 20% more economical in fuel consumption per passenger.
-
By July, 1970, the 747 had carried over 1 million passengers....and in 2005, the Airbus 380 has not even flown one flight.
-
Originally posted by mora
At the moment it takes 550 in a very low density 3 class configuration. A 747 with a similar configuration and seat pitch will take around 350.
at the moment, the 380 has taken ZERO passengers and in fact has never even flown.
-
Why so bitter? Someone from Airbus pee'd on your cereals?
-
loosen up nuke,
Time to worry is when Oil is bought in Euros
wipass
-
Yes it will. Out of memory the A380-800 will be hauling around 800 eventually and the A380-900 around 1000. At the moment it takes 550 in a very low density 3 class configuration. A 747 with a similar configuration and seat pitch will take less than 400.
:eek: And,... The first time... JUST ONE,... that crashes ( if ever ),.. it will be like losing an entire TOWN of people in one quick death blow.
If Airbus, with their 380 (in 2005) is hoping to compete with a 36 year old 747, then I think they are setting their goals pretty low.
Well, they are trying to indeed make the same change to aviation that a large plane like the 747 did.
The "correct" direction that we should be heading is for faster, and more efficent possible (semi orbital ) configurations that would enable quicker travel. ( in my opinion of course ) :rolleyes:
The A380 looks really good, but,... mostly completely unneeded.
By the way,,.. How many 747's do you even see "FILLED" to the max regularly? I have been in quite a few, and... well. They ALL have had plenty of seating available. I think that in oder to fill the seats of this new plane, the demand sure needs to increase in someway.
;)
-
Originally posted by Yeager2
[BBy the way,,.. How many 747's do you even see "FILLED" to the max regularly? I have been in quite a few, and... well. They ALL have had plenty of seating available. I think that in oder to fill the seats of this new plane, the demand sure needs to increase in someway.
[/B]
I've heard they make more money with the cargo than with the onboard passengers.
This does also seem to be one criteria for the airliners when they choose an aircraft; how much cargo it can carry with the passengers.
-
Kinda suprised nobody has brought up freight companies like FedEx. They have large commercial jet fleets. They are always going fill their fleet with whatever moves the largest quanitity if pure cargo, the farthest, the fastest, for the cheapest. Whether it's 777s, 787s, or A380 cargo variants.. well, time will tell. I'd imagine as they retire 747s they'll move to 777s or 787s to combat rising fuel prices.
-
Originally posted by Yeager2
... mostly completely unneeded.
I disagree here, if it makes the ticket price drop i think
its an good idea.
-
Originally posted by Yeager2
By the way,,.. How many 747's do you even see "FILLED" to the max regularly?
Take just about any BA flight to the Carribbean between November and April and they're full to the rafters in my experience.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Kinda suprised nobody has brought up freight companies like FedEx. They have large commercial jet fleets. They are always going fill their fleet with whatever moves the largest quanitity if pure cargo, the farthest, the fastest, for the cheapest. Whether it's 777s, 787s, or A380 cargo variants.. well, time will tell. I'd imagine as they retire 747s they'll move to 777s or 787s to combat rising fuel prices.
FedEx already made its move.
AIRBUS 380: FEDEX COUNTING THE DAYS TO A380F DELIVERY
/noticias.info/ For Fred W. Smith, the delivery of the first A380 Freighter in 2008 can’t come soon enough.
The Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Federal Express, who was attending the A380 Reveal ceremony today, said the A380 was the perfect solution to FedEx’s business needs.
"2008 can’t come quickly enough for us," said Mr Smith. "The aircraft is pretty close to perfect.
"In terms of state-of-the-art for our particular operation, the A380 is near perfection because it solves a number of issues for us. It gives us a lot more cubic space, a lot more payload and a lot more range, but it also sits in almost the same parking dimension as our largest aircraft today and only utilises one slot. That’s a great advantage."
FedEx will be the first operator to take delivery of the A380-800F, the all-cargo version, in 2008. The operator has 10 firm orders for the aircraft, plus options on 10 more.
Boasting 40,000 cubic feet, the A380F is capable of carrying a freight load of 150 tonnes over about 6,000 nautical miles (10,400 kilometres) offering an advantage over competitor freighters. For FedEx, the A380F will play a vital role in connecting the North American and Asian markets and meeting the company’s future growth requirements.
"It allows us to grow without having to grow the infrastructure proportionately," said Mr Smith.
And congratulating Airbus on its achievement today, he added: "The A380 is an engineering marvel. Since it went into the business in the seventies, Airbus has been a leader and has now built the first triple-decker freighter. Airbus is a very innovative company that makes good aircraft, helping its customers fly them reliably and profitably There not much more you can ask from a supplier than that.
"We’re anxious to see the A380 out in the network. We wish we had the A380 today."
-
Originally posted by indy007
Kinda suprised nobody has brought up freight companies like FedEx. They have large commercial jet fleets. They are always going fill their fleet with whatever moves the largest quanitity if pure cargo, the farthest, the fastest, for the cheapest. Whether it's 777s, 787s, or A380 cargo variants.. well, time will tell. I'd imagine as they retire 747s they'll move to 777s or 787s to combat rising fuel prices.
FedEx has ordered a nice bunch of A380's.
They got their logo on the side of the first A380: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/825110/L/
Apparently UPS is also in the list.
-
Fishu is getting slow... :D
-
I don't like travelling in really big planes. At one time all I cared about was fare but now I am sick of being treated like a cow in the back of a truck when I go overseas.
Big planes mean big waits for your bags, poor service as there are so many people to feed. The more people in a cabin the more chance you end up with really annoying people who get up every 10 minutes to ask for a drink or go to the bathroom. Seat dimensions and leg room are also very important. Seems that legroom was not a priority in the airbus specs.
Also if a big plane has to go from hub to hub and you are going to a different city your overall travel time can be much longer than taking a smaller plane direct to you destination. For instance I may not want to stop in Singapore every time I go to Indonesia or Malaysia.
I think Boeing has it right. The days of mega planes are over. Europe is just following a business plan that made sense 15 years ago but does not make sense now. (Except for some cargo haulers).
-
Originally posted by Habu
I think Boeing has it right. The days of mega planes are over. Europe is just following a business plan that made sense 15 years ago but does not make sense now. (Except for some cargo haulers).
Yes, volume is so 90's. Massproduction and huge capacity is worth nothing these days. Just look at tankers and cargoships, they seem to get smaller every year :D
-
Moving people and moving commodities is not the same thing, except in the minds of a French burocrat perhaps.
In air travel your cargo decides what airline and airplane and route it wants to travel on. And it pays for the ride.
Oil and containers do not care what they ride in.
An airline may want you to travel with 1000 other people in a small tube with recirculated air but that does not mean the concept will be successful.
-
Airlines don't care and neither do the passengers if the price is right.
-
Originally posted by mora
Yes it will. Out of memory the A380-800 will be hauling around 800 eventually and the A380-900 around 1000. At the moment it takes 550 in a very low density 3 class configuration. A 747 with a similar configuration and seat pitch will take less than 400.
At the current configuration it's around 20% more economical in fuel consumption per passenger.
WRONG
503 was a typical seating arrangement that we saw on Virgin and BA's aircraft in the late 90's.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
The A380 will load up to 853 passangers, i dont call this marginally.
There are 747's hauling close to 700, I believe it's 703, but 853 pax will be just the same, packed like sardines, and only in asian markets.
Again, they are competitors.
-
Nobody knows what will happen and discussing about it is pretty worthless. Better wait few years and see what happens.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
WRONG
503 was a typical seating arrangement that we saw on Virgin and BA's aircraft in the late 90's.
In a 3 class layout the 747-400 usually takes around 450. With the same seat pitch in economy as the A380-800 in the initial configuration it will not take over 400. I don't have the exact figures nor have the desire to find them but I know my figures are in the ballpark.
I'd say the A380-800 has around 1.3 times the floor space of the 747-400 in the passenger compartment. If someone has figures about this I'd be interested to see them.
Yep, the 747-400 is the nearest competitor but I find it quite unlikely that anyone will order any great number of them in the future. The A380 won't be any less economical even if it would be fitted with the same number of seats as the 747.
-
Who said no one is going to order 747's in the future?
-
Originally posted by Habu
Who said no one is going to order 747's in the future?
I did. I edited my post to hopefully more understandable form.
-
The 747 sales have actually fell down to almost nothing.
Even though Boeing is ready to produce larger and more advanced versions of the 747, the airlines would rather have Boeing design a whole new plane.
It's a nice plane, but so are the DC-3's, which we don't see anymore in the commercial traffic (the very few commercially operated are exceptions).
Time of each.
-
Originally posted by mora
I wonder what happens if the 787 doesn't meet it's ambitious performance specifications? Another MD-11?
Boeing says 787 is over weight target
(http://biz.yahoo.com/cbsmb/050426/dbe49b89ab05477a8abae9dcb98caf06.html?.v=1)
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Boeing Co. said Tuesday that its new 787 commercial jet is heavier than its target weight, but an executive said that the plane is ahead of where the 777 model's target weight was during its development process. Mike Bair, general manager of the 787 program, said the company is not very concerned about the 787's weight. "It's fair to say every new airplane has its weight problems," Bair said during a teleconference update on the plane's progress.
[/i]
A380.... B777... B787... all have crossed the target weight.
I remember here been fairly alot talking particularly of the A380 crossing the target weight.
Apparently seems to be arather common thing, regardless of the company.