Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on January 05, 2006, 02:10:25 PM
-
According to the local news, 2005 saw a new record total of "Net" sales of 1,002 Boeing commercial airplanes including:
737 = 569
777 = 154
787 = 235
747 = 43
PS: Apparently, in 2005, fifteen 767s were sold but fourteen 717s orders were canceled allowing for only one net gain here...that brings the above orders of 1,001 to a net total of 1,002
The best follow up year was 1988 with 877 net orders
-
What did airbus do?
-
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12195p2.xml
-
As of 12/17 report linked above
Airbus 732 Total
Boeing 863 Total
Capitalism wins again.:D
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
As of 12/17 report linked above
Airbus 732 Total
Boeing 863 Total
Capitalism wins again.:D
well if you look at previous years... i would remove word "again" ;)
-
Your sense of history only goes back to... what... 2000?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Your sense of history only goes back to... what... 2000?
03
04
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Your sense of history only goes back to... what... 2000?
1989...:confused:
-
$ went down, go buy cheap :)
-
wasnt meant to be a dig at Airbus. This is good news for Boeing. Airbus has a great and full family of Airplanes and will no doubt maneover to keep Boeing at bay.
Lots of changes at Boeing in the last few years and I think they are all good changes. Phil Condit ran a sloppy poor ship and I am pleased that he is gone.
-
Boeing is winning these sales based on one thing alone - design.
Their aircraft do what their customers want better than the Airbus aircraft are able to do.
Every major Airbus sale in the past 15 years has been tainted with corruption and government influence. The purchase of Airbus by Air Canada back in the late 80's was so tainted that it almost lead to charges against the former prime minister at the time.
Despite the best efforts to tie aircraft sales to low interest loans, to forgive development costs and to just out and out subsidize the company, the European consortium that owns Airbus is seeing a rival that awaked and responded to the challenge in a way that is impossible to beat.
Make a product so good even existing loyal Airbus customers cannot ignore it. Air Canada will be retiring its Airbus planes in the next 10 years and they have just switched to Boeing again in a massive way. If any country or company is Airbus friendly it is Air Canada. When Airbus lost that order I knew they were going to be in trouble.
BTW the jury is out on the 380. The Concord was the right plane for the wrong market and was launched with great fanfare and many orders (later cancelled) when the realities of the 72 fuel crisis and mass discount travel changed the market. I believe the thinking that lead to the development of the plane was a carry over from the trans-atlantic steamship wars. The way to capture the market for steamship lines was to launch the fastest boat. Once you had the fastest boat you skimmed the cream of the transatlantic travel from your rivals. This thinking did not work when applied to aircraft travel. Protected air routes and high speeds were not able to compete with more passengers and lower seat costs. An excellent and safe design then died as a commercially viable aircraft.
Todays market is changing again. The hub and spoke system is no longer necessary with long range aircraft that carry smaller loads farther and economically. People want to get to their destinations quicker by not having to change planes. Filling 380's on all but the busiest routes will be hard. And how much of the traffic on those busy routes is transient travellers who would switch to direct flights if given the chance. Do you really think that all those hundreds of thousands of people streaming into Heathrow each week are going there to visit London?
I personally believe that the 380 best hope will be cargo. As a passenger aircraft it will have very limited success.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Todays market is changing again. The hub and spoke system is no longer necessary with long range aircraft that carry smaller loads farther and economically. People want to get to their destinations quicker by not having to change planes. Filling 380's on all but the busiest routes will be hard. And how much of the traffic on those busy routes is transient travellers who would switch to direct flights if given the chance. Do you really think that all those hundreds of thousands of people streaming into Heathrow each week are going there to visit London?
I personally believe that the 380 best hope will be cargo. As a passenger aircraft it will have very limited success.
From an American perspective, I can see why this would make a lot of sense. On the US mainland there are hundreds of cities, and folks want the flexibility to get from point to point at the time of their own choosing, so it's important to offer multiple flights with a choice of times. For this reason, the backbone of the world's largest airline, American Airlines, is the MD80 and NOT something more grandiose like the 747-400. Indeed, AA does not have any 747s and as far as I know they never did.
But the geography of the wider world is nothing like the USA, as I'm sure you know, as you're familiar with Indonesia. Been to TG lately? ;)
Some people use logic which states that the largest countries will have the largest aircraft, and it's flawed. Singapore is a tiny country of around 250 square miles, and yet SIA's smallest aircraft is the four engined A340. The reason is simple if you look at a map of that area. Of the 59 destinations to which SIA flies, only about 6 are within 1000 miles of Singapore. They operate a service to Los Angeles - a distance of 14000km - with nothing but a lot of water in between. Look at the spareness of destinations in the Asia-Australia-Pacific areas, and the distances to be covered. This tells us why the watchwords for the airlines operating there will be size, and range.
That's all I have time for - my lunch date has arrived!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
...
That's all I have time for - my lunch date has arrived!
BLT samwich ? :D
-
Deleted.
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
Deleted.
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
has anyone read the Da Vinci Code?
why do i picture Beet1e as Sir Leigh Teabing? ;)
-
Originally posted by Furball
has anyone read the Da Vinci Code?
why do i picture Beet1e as Sir Leigh Teabing? ;)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Habu
Boeing is winning these sales based on one thing alone - design.
Their aircraft do what their customers want better than the Airbus aircraft are able to do.
Every major Airbus sale in the past 15 years has been tainted with corruption and government influence. The purchase of Airbus by Air Canada back in the late 80's was so tainted that it almost lead to charges against the former prime minister at the time.
Ermmm and what do you think Boeing does hand in hand with the US Govt? The US Govt has had its handed smacked so many times by the WTO its we wonder yif ou actually know what the term "free trade" means, the USA is subsidy central for its industry. On top of this the Europeans have caught out competitive information being passed on by sources such as echelon to US companies.
I'd expect my govt to do the same, its a dog eat dog world. But uhhh calling the US winning "capitalists" and pointing the finger at airbus and screaming socialist dealers/subsidies/etc is kinda ironic given the practises of the US.
-
When Boeing was competing against Douglas and Lockheed the competion was fair. There is a good interview with the designer of the 747 where he talks about this.
When Airbus came on scene the rules changed. Boeing and the US government did not realize how drastically the rules had changes until things like the Air Canada order in the early 80's showed what was going on.
-
See Rule #16
-
(http://images.airliners.net/photos/middle/6/6/4/906466.jpg)
-
How many of those were sold to China?
-
Yeah, and how many people fly SIA to go to Singapore?
Or EK to go to the UAE?
Most of the world is pretty darn dense. One's experience with foreign (=not based in market 1000m around one's home) air carriers is usually going to be heavily biased towards the long-haul types.
I'm not gonna bash scarebus with a bunch of pro-amurrican flag-waving crap. The Skytanic is a technological marvel, and will be quite impressive. If it gets through the first few years without crashing, it might even sell. But I doubt it will ever become well-liked by passengers, crews or ground staff; and it'll probably lose lots of money.
Also, is Boeing by any chance inking contracts in USD and Airbus in Euros? If so, the cheap dolla in the bush era can make boeings a great deal.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Most of the world is pretty darn dense.
The average density is about 5500 kg/m3
-
The rich parts are closer to 19g/cc
-
Originally posted by Habu
When Boeing was competing against Douglas and Lockheed the competion was fair. There is a good interview with the designer of the 747 where he talks about this.
When Airbus came on scene the rules changed. Boeing and the US government did not realize how drastically the rules had changes until things like the Air Canada order in the early 80's showed what was going on.
US int'l trade practises (including subsidies and illegal tarrifs), and echelon predate Airbus somewhat.
No cigar...
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Yeah, and how many people fly SIA to go to Singapore?
Tens of thousands every day, possibly even more. Singapore is a major hub between Europe and Australia. SIA operates three flights a day to Singpore from London Heathrow alone, and operates flights to Singapore from no fewer than 8 other European cities. SIA also operates flights between Singapore and five Australian cities, plus two in New Zealand. In total, SIA operates flights from Singapore to 58 destinations in 32 countries around the world. Their smallest plane is the A340, but there are also B747-400s and several variants of B777. In my experience, they fill every seat - even on a short 1hr hop across the equator to Jakarta by B747-400. How's that to be going on with?
:D
-
I've flown on Airbus' (where'd the tail go?!), Boeings (goes BOOM for no apparent reason) and Tupolevs (look mom, a mountain!). Same ch!t different name.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Tens of thousands every day, possibly even more. Singapore is a major hub between Europe and Australia. SIA operates three flights a day to Singpore from London Heathrow alone, and operates flights to Singapore from no fewer than 8 other European cities. SIA also operates flights between Singapore and five Australian cities, plus two in New Zealand. In total, SIA operates flights from Singapore to 58 destinations in 32 countries around the world. Their smallest plane is the A340, but there are also B747-400s and several variants of B777. In my experience, they fill every seat - even on a short 1hr hop across the equator to Jakarta by B747-400. How's that to be going on with?
:D
Actually few of those people flying into Singapore are going to Singapore. They are stopping there and changeing planes.
Beetle Singapore is exactly the type of place that is praying that the 380 type of flying takes off. If it becomes possible to fly direct from Europe or the US to all those places in Asia (Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Australia, New Zealand, Bali, Bangkok) that currently you have pass though a hub to get to then Singapore is going to suffer big time.
I must have passed though Singapore a dozen times when I was working in Jakarta. I hated stopping there it was a total waste of time. I just wanted to get to Jakarta so I could go to my favorite bar and see my favorite waitresses. Who wants to buy crappy $12 a can beer in an overpriced police state while you lay over when you can fly direct to your destination and have more time there?
Singapore is working hard to make it a destination and it does have a big international business base mainly because it is more developed than the frontier type of living that you find in the countries around it, but the days of crappy phones, poor electricity and run down infrastructure were fast ending for Indonesia when I was there. I saw big companies relocating out of Singapore to Jakarta to be closer to their markets. Singapore is so tiny it is not a real market for anything compared to the potential of Indonesia and Malaysia and the rest of the Asian countries around there.
Singapore is a good hub and centrally located but long distance wide body planes could easily start to overfly the place just as Gandor Newfoundland and Shannon Ireland found themselves off the travel map when jets got longer range in the 60's.
Look for SIA to continue be a big supporter of Airbus. They have no choice.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Actually few of those people flying into Singapore are going to Singapore. They are stopping there and changeing planes.
Oh I know. If they were all to stop there, the place would be bursting at the seams!
But how close are we to having a plane that can, for example, fly from London to Melbourne nonstop with ~400 passengers aboard? I know it's been done with the A340, but they had to strip it down and convert it into a flying gas can. waitresses
Well, that's an interesting euphemism. ;)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
But how close are we to having a plane that can, for example, fly from London to Melbourne nonstop with ~400 passengers aboard?
Closer than you think, though not that many passengers. The 777-200LR will be able to carry 250+, and thats what Quantas wants.
But Qantas is one of several major international airlines that are considering Boeing's new 777-200LR, which Wednesday and Thursday flew further nonstop than any jetliner ever has before. The new Boeing 301-seater could easily make London-Sydney nonstop, with as many as 250 passengers, according to Boeing.
The air distance direct from London to Sydney is about 10,600 miles. The nonstop flight would likely take about 19 hours.
It's the retrun trip to London, against the winds that's the problem. That flight could last up to 21 hours or more. So Qantas has been talking with Boeing about tweaking the 777-200LR's impressive range even more. Boeing is looking at adding up to three additional fuel tanks in the plane's belly, for a total of six.
-
Man I hope the ain't a traditional coach class on that plane. Image sitting 20hrs in coach. now image doing it when you're a stereotypical drunken Aussie. If 3 tanks takes them the 1st 19 hrs of the trip, then probably only 1 additional tank is needed for the added 2hrs. The other two tanks they're adding, one is for Foster's the other ether
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Closer than you think, though not that many passengers. The 777-200LR will be able to carry 250+, and thats what Quantas wants.
Hmmmm I didn't see this in the fleet news on the Qantas website just now, but I did see that they intend to purchase up to 115 B787 aircraft. http://www.qantas.com.au/info/boeing787
There's no U in Qantas. It's an acronym for Queensland And Northern Territory Air Services.
:aok
-
Qantas was one of the first to order A-380's too.
They plan on flying them LA-Melbourne and LA-Sydney last I heard.
-
Finnair orders 12 new planes... (http://www.finnair.com/web/finnair/scripts/templateLev3ContentById.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0293862663.1136677763@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccccaddgjimijgkcfjlcgeedfondgln.0&contentOID=42041&pageid=-8737&RSKey=news_reader)
-
link tease
-
More news from Qantas. Ripsnort, how does this sit with the development of 777-200LR?
From the Qantas newsroom (http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2005/dec05/3370)
Qantas Decides Against "Hub-Busters"
Latest News
Sydney, 14 December 2005
Qantas Airways said today it had been unable to find an aircraft that could operate non-stop flights economically between Australia and London and Australia and New York.
Qantas had sought tenders from Airbus Industries and the Boeing Company for ultra-long range variants of the Airbus A340 and Boeing 777 as part of its current fleet plan.
The Chief Executive Officer of Qantas, Mr Geoff Dixon, said both manufacturers had submitted aggressive proposals.
"However, neither the B777 nor the A340 provide an economical solution to our desire to have some of our services overfly mid-point hubs," he said.
"As well, our commercial people did not feel the savings in elapsed time between the non-stop and one-stop journey was great enough to appeal to a wide enough passenger base," he said.
"We will continue to talk to Airbus and Boeing on further developing the options for longer-range aircraft."
Issued by Qantas Corporate Communication (3370)
Email: qantasmedia@qantas.com.au
-
Source, finnair homepage.
FINNAIR ORDERS 12 NEW LONG-HAUL AIRCRAFT
Finnair is to acquire 12 new Airbus wide-bodied aircraft, as it modernises its long-haul fleet. Of the aircraft, nine are A350s and three are A340s. Owing to strong growth in Asian traffic, the A340 aircraft will be acquired earlier, in 2007–08.
The Airbus A350 is a new type of aircraft and the first of them will join the Finnair fleet in 2011.
"This is the biggest fleet modernisation in Finnair’s history. By 2009, our long-haul traffic fleet will consist of at least ten aircraft. The decision reflects our confidence and commitment to our Asian growth strategy. It will enable us to open new destinations as well as to increase flight frequencies to destinations where demand is greatest. In addition to China we are opening new routes to Japan and India," Finnair President and CEO Keijo Suila.
Next year the aim is to increase by one aircraft the present seven-strong Boeing MD-11 long-haul fleet, to satisfy increasing demand in Asian traffic. The MD-11 aircraft, however, will be withdrawn from the Finnair fleet by 2012.
The Airbus A350-900 is a new-generation wide-bodied long-haul traffic aircraft, the production of which will start in 2009. The choice of this aircraft type was influenced by the affordability of its capital and operating costs compared with the other options. Thanks to its new technology, the Airbus 350’s fuel consumption per passenger is one third lower than that of the current Boeing MD-11 aircraft.
The nine 314-seat aircraft ordered by Finnair will be delivered to the company in the years 2011–13. Finnair also has options for four additional aircraft.
The Airbus A340 aircraft is a widely used long-haul traffic aircraft all over the world. The A340-300E aircraft ordered by Finnair have the most modern cabin with 303 seats. Finnair also has the option of ordering additional aircraft.
Finnair has purposefully increased the number of its Asian flights since 1999 and now has more than 40 flights a week to Asian destinations. Most recently, at the beginning of September, Finnair opened a route to Guangzhou in China, to which it flies three times a week. Finnair flies twice a day to China and to Bangkok in Thailand and daily to Japan. Earlier this year, the company announced that next summer it will start flying to two new Asian destinations, Nagoya in Japan and Delhi in India.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
More news from Qantas. Ripsnort, how does this sit with the development of 777-200LR?
From the Qantas newsroom (http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2005/dec05/3370)
As I said, its closer than you think. We're working on it. That's all I can say.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
As I said, its closer than you think. We're working on it. That's all I can say.
What, trade secret? Oh, OK. ;)
-
I really don't get the US vs Euro Boeing vs Airbus deal.
Both companies produce reliable, comfortable planes. If you're blindfolded, you can't tell the difference between riding in either of them.
Commercial airlines take you from point A to point B in as fast and safe a way possible. They're not racer cars put in place for the fun of it.
Any of the two will do the job. Your goal is probably not to ride either a Boeing or a an Airbus but rather to get to your destination.
As long as you get there safely and on time, why does who makes the plane matter?
Nationalism at this level is as ridiculous as nationalism during soccer wolrd championships. I support the latter though :D
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Nationalism at this level is as ridiculous as nationalism during soccer wolrd championships. I support the latter though :D
as anyone here really care if its a Boing or Airbus, both fly/exist because
of free-market economy. But it looks like some here can't handle this *g*
And yeah i will support Germany during the "Fussball Weltmeisterschaft 2006"! :D
-
Looks like another close battle between Airbus and Boeing in 2005; Airbus claim to have edged it.
BBC News Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4619854.stm)
-
Interesting article, Nexx.
I've just booked a trip to Tenerife for a week starting next Tuesday. I had a choice of airlines, but I chose Monarch because a) I've flown with them before, and b) The flight times are convenient (didn't want an easyJet style 6:10am departure flight, or to have to face the M25 at 5:30pm when I get back). As to what aircraft they fly, that was not even a consideration. Turns out they fly four different Airbus variants and one B757 variant. No idea which one I'll get.
-
It doesn't really bother me which plane I fly in. When I flew back to the UK at Xmas it was in an Avro AR8 (BAe146) and the return flight to Germany was a Canadair CRJ700. That's because I flew to Birmingham instead. If I fly via Heathrow it's usually an Airbus A319/A320 if with Lufthansa or the same plus a B737 with BA.
I'm avoiding using Easy Jet but apart from that I just go for the cheapest scheduled flights and whatever plane it'll be in. Usually it's BA or most likely Lufthansa. What are Monarch like then?
-
I haven't flown Monarch lately. When I first flew them in the 80s, their primary concern was punctuality, and I was not disappointed.
easyJet's OK, if you don't mind 6am starts or (if that's not available) the 9pm start which means you arrive after midnight. RyanAir is the one I'm not keen on. Only worth considering if you're prepared to sacrifice everything for price.