ANA Airlines Says it Hasn't ruled out buying Airbus Superjumbo

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
cool

the future will tell if they want it or not

if they accept it, Boeing is going to have major problems
 

P.O.W.

Senior member
Feb 8, 2000
359
1
0
Originally posted by: freegeeks
cool

the future will tell if they want it or not

if they accept it, Boeing is going to have major problems

Its a very cool plane. I think Boenig made the wrong decision to concentrate on speed rather than size. Of course people's attitudes about this plane may change when a fully loaded one with humdreds more passengers than a 747 goes down.
 

tontod

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
3,244
0
71
What is unique about Boeing's new design? Is it supposed to go faster than current jets? I travel abroad sometimes, and I'd be willing to pay a little extra to cut a few hours off my trip.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: tontod
What is unique about Boeing's new design? Is it supposed to go faster than current jets? I travel abroad sometimes, and I'd be willing to pay a little extra to cut a few hours off my trip.

yeah, the more you travel, the more speed matters. Time is money.
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: tontod
What is unique about Boeing's new design? Is it supposed to go faster than current jets? I travel abroad sometimes, and I'd be willing to pay a little extra to cut a few hours off my trip.

Whats it called, the global cruiser, or something? I think its supposed to go a bit faster, but be cheaper to run/more fuel efficient etc. I think its still far from leaving the drawing board, though.

As for the airbus, well, the 747 had the same problems when it was introduced, and airlines and airports found they could make accomodations for its size in order to benefit from the economies of scale it introduced. The case with the airbus superjumbo should be the same, although as we have seen in other threads, Boeing can bring significant political pressure to bear when it wants to, and could throw a spanner in airbus's progress...
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: tontod What is unique about Boeing's new design? Is it supposed to go faster than current jets? I travel abroad sometimes, and I'd be willing to pay a little extra to cut a few hours off my trip.
yeah, the more you travel, the more speed matters. Time is money.

Of course, to all the economy passangers, money is money, and so a faster plane is less atractive than a huge passenger bus. Compare the fates of Concorde and the 747, for example.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
The Concorde was a bit extreme. It was horribly inefficient, based on much older technology, and targeted to the extremely high-class. Compare it to when 6-cylinder engines were for supercars and cruisers only. Now even most sedans come in at least a 6-cylinder version and full-size sedans rarely even have the option for a 4-cylinder.

That said, I think there's also a market for competition with the 747 and 777. When speed really matters, like in transatlantic and transcontinental flights at peak business times, they'll probably use the new Boeing plane... and charge you for it. The success of this plane will depend on whether business travel budgets are going to pick up so that the travellers are able to trade time for money.
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
The concorde was inefficient and targetted at the rich, but those two factors cancelled themselves out. As for being based on much older technology - it was based on technology of the same generation as the 747. (well, actually you could say a generation newer).
But concorde never fully took off because of the oil shocks and political pressure from US industry - boeing in particular.

To be honest, it looks like there will be a market for both planes, if Boeing can ever get something off the drawing board
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
The new airbus superjumbo seems like it will find a pretty good niche in the current airline market. However, with the global economy like it is, I dont think that everyone will be buying them to put in as widespread use as the current 747 fleet. If airports really have to make special accomodations for the craft, then some may pass on that until the industry outlook improves. Besides, with larger planes comes a bigger logistics hassle of loading/unloading baggage and people that will put a strain on existing terminals. This will mean longer lines and waits to fill up an aircraft, which customers would not like. It has promise despite all that, though.
The new Boeing jet seems like a good bet. Even though it is supposed to be faster, the key is efficiency. Faster and less expensive to operate. That I believe is the way the airlines need to go for the forseeable future. Besides, I think Boeing decided on that policy a while ago. One of the origional designs for the 747 was similar to the current one, but was a double-decker aircraft with much larger capacity. Both strategies have their good and bad points. Only time and the market will tell.
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Here in Britain the current problem with air travel is overcrowding - too many people wanting to get on not enough planes, with not enough airport space for them. So there are currently arguments on whether to build another south-east airport, or build another runway at heathrow, or whether to build a new airport in the midlands, or build another runway at birmingham...


Basically, the infrastructure here needs upgrading anyway - I think airbus are hoping that more people on each flight will really help here.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Yeah, more people on one plane does mean that they don't need to add another flight, making already taxed ATCs even more prone to making errors and reducing the need to add more runways.

As far as the concorde and 747 using the same tech, that's exactly my point. The concorde wasn't built when we had the tech to do that job efficiently. Now we can make something faster and more efficient than the 747, even if it doesn't have the same capacity. I think the two strategies really complement each other. Either you want to ship lots of people on a cheap flight going on vacation or to and from college or you want to ship fewer people, but get them to their meetings or conferences with the minimum of downtime.

Now, if only the US government would stop with their inane subsidies of the carriers and let them consolidate.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Also gives them a better negotiating position wrt to boeing. If they rule out airbus, boeing won't have to fight as hard for the business.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: dpm
Here in Britain the current problem with air travel is overcrowding - too many people wanting to get on not enough planes, with not enough airport space for them. So there are currently arguments on whether to build another south-east airport, or build another runway at heathrow, or whether to build a new airport in the midlands, or build another runway at birmingham...


Basically, the infrastructure here needs upgrading anyway - I think airbus are hoping that more people on each flight will really help here.

Runways are only part of the problem. Wait till you see a situation where 600 people get off a plane and flood an airport all at once. Wait till 4, or 10 or 20 of them arrive at the same time.

I can't stand boarding and getting off right now, it'll be even funner if they get the passengers up to 600. What takes half an hour now will take an hour. Not to mention the 3000 other people that just arrived and are hunting baggage and rides. Sounds like an absolute nightmare to me.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: dpm
Here in Britain the current problem with air travel is overcrowding - too many people wanting to get on not enough planes, with not enough airport space for them. So there are currently arguments on whether to build another south-east airport, or build another runway at heathrow, or whether to build a new airport in the midlands, or build another runway at birmingham...


Basically, the infrastructure here needs upgrading anyway - I think airbus are hoping that more people on each flight will really help here.

Runways are only part of the problem. Wait till you see a situation where 600 people get off a plane and flood an airport all at once. Wait till 4, or 10 or 20 of them arrive at the same time.

I can't stand boarding and getting off right now, it'll be even funner if they get the passengers up to 600. What takes half an hour now will take an hour. Not to mention the 3000 other people that just arrived and are hunting baggage and rides. Sounds like an absolute nightmare to me.


....and the same problem exists today when a couple of 747's arrive at the same time
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Well, airbus are certainly in the lead right now. According to this (http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=304193) Boeing hasn't yet decided whether it will build the 7E7 at all and Airbus has over 100 orders for their superjumbos.


Airbus is innovating and expanding while Boeing has its head up its collective assets and is concentrating on shady defense deals to maintain its stock price and production capacity.

Pathetic, same thing that happened to the US car industry.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
The 380 is not a competition to the 7E7.

Two different markets.

Boeing already decided to not challenge the 380, just to keep tweaking the existing line.

Their decision is to move forward with the 7E7 or skip a generation of planes. To skip will yeild the technology incremental market to Airbus for the next 10-15 years.
To keep on developing will probably saturate the market and hurt Boeing due to Airbus being subsidized.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
... and hurt Boeing due to Airbus being subsidized.

Yeah, those evil French subsidizing their aerospace company. They should take a cue from the americans.

Oh wait a minute, they did that. ;)
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: dpm
Here in Britain the current problem with air travel is overcrowding - too many people wanting to get on not enough planes, with not enough airport space for them. So there are currently arguments on whether to build another south-east airport, or build another runway at heathrow, or whether to build a new airport in the midlands, or build another runway at birmingham...


Basically, the infrastructure here needs upgrading anyway - I think airbus are hoping that more people on each flight will really help here.

Runways are only part of the problem. Wait till you see a situation where 600 people get off a plane and flood an airport all at once. Wait till 4, or 10 or 20 of them arrive at the same time.

I can't stand boarding and getting off right now, it'll be even funner if they get the passengers up to 600. What takes half an hour now will take an hour. Not to mention the 3000 other people that just arrived and are hunting baggage and rides. Sounds like an absolute nightmare to me.


....and the same problem exists today when a couple of 747's arrive at the same time

A similar problem but not the same, I would say disembarking 50% more people per plance is a significant increase in volume. 2 Jumbo's is equivalent to 3 747's in number of passengers. I can't even imagine the lines and number of people involved, whole airports will have to be reconstructed just to handle the HUMAN peak load. Things as simple as the number of bathrooms in the airport let alone baggage claims and taxi services.

I don't know, I'm scared of 600 people deplaning at the same time, a 747 practically floods a terminal and there aren't many of those around here.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The 380 is not a competition to the 7E7.

Two different markets.

Boeing already decided to not challenge the 380, just to keep tweaking the existing line.

Their decision is to move forward with the 7E7 or skip a generation of planes. To skip will yeild the technology incremental market to Airbus for the next 10-15 years.
To keep on developing will probably saturate the market and hurt Boeing due to Airbus being subsidized.

I beleive the decision has been made to go with the 7E7. Boeing is already trying to figure out where they are going to build it.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
... and hurt Boeing due to Airbus being subsidized.

Yeah, those evil French subsidizing their aerospace company. They should take a cue from the americans.

Oh wait a minute, they did that. ;)

I dont think defense contracts really count as subsidies.

I wonder how loud the EU would scream if we gave boeing a similar amount of money that airbus got to develope the 380?
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: dpm
Here in Britain the current problem with air travel is overcrowding - too many people wanting to get on not enough planes, with not enough airport space for them. So there are currently arguments on whether to build another south-east airport, or build another runway at heathrow, or whether to build a new airport in the midlands, or build another runway at birmingham...


Basically, the infrastructure here needs upgrading anyway - I think airbus are hoping that more people on each flight will really help here.

Runways are only part of the problem. Wait till you see a situation where 600 people get off a plane and flood an airport all at once. Wait till 4, or 10 or 20 of them arrive at the same time.

I can't stand boarding and getting off right now, it'll be even funner if they get the passengers up to 600. What takes half an hour now will take an hour. Not to mention the 3000 other people that just arrived and are hunting baggage and rides. Sounds like an absolute nightmare to me.


....and the same problem exists today when a couple of 747's arrive at the same time

A similar problem but not the same, I would say disembarking 50% more people per plance is a significant increase in volume. 2 Jumbo's is equivalent to 3 747's in number of passengers. I can't even imagine the lines and number of people involved, whole airports will have to be reconstructed just to handle the HUMAN peak load. Things as simple as the number of bathrooms in the airport let alone baggage claims and taxi services.

I don't know, I'm scared of 600 people deplaning at the same time, a 747 practically floods a terminal and there aren't many of those around here.
Agreed. I don't fly out of the country, so I'm usually on 737's, 757's, and smaller MD's, and I have a hard time comprehending what deplaning on a 747 is like; deplaning with 600 other people will be murder. At some point, there's going to have to be a quality of life / cost balence here, as people won't be able to stand being sardined for hours at a time for much longer.

PS Who wants to take bets on when they figure out how to squish more seats on to a 380, and it becomes an 800 passenger plane?
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
... and hurt Boeing due to Airbus being subsidized.

Yeah, those evil French subsidizing their aerospace company. They should take a cue from the americans.

Oh wait a minute, they did that. ;)

I dont think defense contracts really count as subsidies.

I wonder how loud the EU would scream if we gave boeing a similar amount of money that airbus got to develope the 380?

take it to the WTO

btw

In 1998, according to a monitoring study carried out on behalf of the Commission, it was estimated that the amount of US Government indirect support to its LCA industry (Large Civil Aircraft) reached almost $ 2 billion in 1997, i.e. around 7% of its commercial turnover (thus well above the 3% limit set by the 1992 Agreement).

yeah, there are no subsidies for civil contracts for Boeing
rolleye.gif


link