Boeing's new dream liner plane

[rh71]

sweet looking bird. if you watch the video called introduction they show a bit more of the interior too. Looks spacious and new-age to say the least. But how much will that increase our ticket prices ?

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
The 7E7 looks very cool, and will probably put Boeing back ahead of Airbus. Unofortunately, Airbus made the silly mistake of building the A380 so big that it can't be handled by by most major airports. In fact, only 16 are scheduled to handle it by the time it comes out. The question of an emergency landing comes to mind when you can't land anywhere.

I think you do not have your facts handy. As much as I would like Boeing to win, Airbus overtook Boeing to be the biggest aircraft maker when Boeing was too involved in relaxing and making minor changed to the 60's designed 747 series. The A380 is designed to dock at the same airport terminals as the 747 but there will be some changes to be done to accomodate the engines hanging off the runway on some airports but that wouldnt be too much of a deal. It was a gamble for Airbus to make this jet but there was demand for a long time for a plane that carried more people 30-50% than the typical 747 and more efficiently, I.E less fuel costs. The Airbus is 20% more fuel efficient than the 747.
Boeing originally had a crappy design for a plane to counter the Airbus 380 but that was an extended version of the 747..much longer than the current version. Very unrealistic and costly for airports to adapt to such a plan and the design was scrapped.

There are 10 carriers interested in the A380 with 66 new orders on hand.

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: rh71
sweet looking bird. if you watch the video called introduction they show a bit more of the interior too. Looks spacious and new-age to say the least. But how much will that increase our ticket prices ?

ticket prices will (hopefully) decrease

after all the plane is much more efficient

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The BEST feature of this plane is the higher humidity level -- I hate those damn arid interiors on plane trips! I might even be able to wear my contacts of one of these.

The super big planes are a waste. They only fly certain routes and only with certain airlines. Airlines like having versatile planes that can fly short and long haul routes with different configurations so they can keep maintenance expertise concentrated for the least amount of airframes. Super large planes will never "take off". Sorry for the pun.

the BWB is not a super large airplane

the airbus one is.

the new airbus plane is only feasible on long haul trip.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: halik
gorgeous interior... the industial design team deserves a :beer:

Sadly, I believe it's going to be a cold day in Hell before we see anything like that. I have never been on a plane that breaks the "cramped passengers, small isles, overhead bins, bucket-like seats" model, and I can't believe in any way that airlines are going to change this. They're going to order these planes without the shapely walls, plop in the older(cheaper) seats, and squeeze more stuff in; it's more cost effective that way.

 

[FFactory0x]

The seats look horrible. I love the first class seats they have now. There like Recliners. Those things look horrible

 

[GTaudiophile]

Sad: from the looks of Boeing's test model, the real deal won't have the really cool tail section.

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: halik
gorgeous interior... the industial design team deserves a :beer:

Sadly, I believe it's going to be a cold day in Hell before we see anything like that. I have never been on a plane that breaks the "cramped passengers, small isles, overhead bins, bucket-like seats" model, and I can't believe in any way that airlines are going to change this. They're going to order these planes without the shapely walls, plop in the older(cheaper) seats, and squeeze more stuff in; it's more cost effective that way.

have u flown in the boeing 777 yet? their economy seats are bigger than the old 747s

more seats = more revenue, but airlines also think of the customer satisfaction factor. If there is a competing airline that offers bigger seats, people will use that airline (especially on long haul flights)

 

[TheVrolok]

Looks pretty cool.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The BEST feature of this plane is the higher humidity level -- I hate those damn arid interiors on plane trips! I might even be able to wear my contacts of one of these.

The super big planes are a waste. They only fly certain routes and only with certain airlines. Airlines like having versatile planes that can fly short and long haul routes with different configurations so they can keep maintenance expertise concentrated for the least amount of airframes. Super large planes will never "take off". Sorry for the pun.

One could only imagine how much international shipping prices would plummet once they start using the BWB for shipping. Over 5x more cargo in one trip, and lower fuel costs.

Ships move much more stuff than planes ever will for a whole lot cheaper!

How long does it take a ship to get loaded and cross the pacific? Airlines make a sh!tload of cash filling their cargo holds on these international trips. Granted cars and the like will always go by ship, but stuff like seafood, flowers, etc may become a little cheaper.

 

[brigden]

Man, the interior looks like something from Star Trek.

I'd be sitting there, saying, "Make it so, number 1."

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
The 7E7 looks very cool, and will probably put Boeing back ahead of Airbus. Unofortunately, Airbus made the silly mistake of building the A380 so big that it can't be handled by by most major airports. In fact, only 16 are scheduled to handle it by the time it comes out. The question of an emergency landing comes to mind when you can't land anywhere.

I think you do not have your facts handy. As much as I would like Boeing to win, Airbus overtook Boeing to be the biggest aircraft maker when Boeing was too involved in relaxing and making minor changed to the 60's designed 747 series. The A380 is designed to dock at the same airport terminals as the 747 but there will be some changes to be done to accomodate the engines hanging off the runway on some airports but that wouldnt be too much of a deal. It was a gamble for Airbus to make this jet but there was demand for a long time for a plane that carried more people 30-50% than the typical 747 and more efficiently, I.E less fuel costs. The Airbus is 20% more fuel efficient than the 747.
Boeing originally had a crappy design for a plane to counter the Airbus 380 but that was an extended version of the 747..much longer than the current version. Very unrealistic and costly for airports to adapt to such a plan and the design was scrapped.

There are 10 carriers interested in the A380 with 66 new orders on hand.

You really need to look at the bigger picture. Where will the massive amount of people who would be on this plane sit in the airport? Certainly not in the same terminals as the 747 or A340, there isn't enough room. Lets not forget the extra doors on the A380 on the second floor, which will need tro be addressed with a terminal skyway as well.

I forgot the mention the extention of runways, or the expansion of taxiways, as you mentioned. The engines on this plane sit over 150 feet, the current standard, meaning everywhere a plane moves on the ground will need to be expanded or moved. That is not a little task.

BTW, how did you come up with the idea of companies want bigger planes? Look at the 2004 order status for Boeing: http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The BEST feature of this plane is the higher humidity level -- I hate those damn arid interiors on plane trips! I might even be able to wear my contacts of one of these.

The super big planes are a waste. They only fly certain routes and only with certain airlines. Airlines like having versatile planes that can fly short and long haul routes with different configurations so they can keep maintenance expertise concentrated for the least amount of airframes. Super large planes will never "take off". Sorry for the pun.

The 737-900 has humidity controls. The problem arises in that all airline procedures call for them to be in "AUTO" mode at all times, because that's what Boeing provides on the stock checklist.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
The 7E7 looks very cool, and will probably put Boeing back ahead of Airbus. Unofortunately, Airbus made the silly mistake of building the A380 so big that it can't be handled by by most major airports. In fact, only 16 are scheduled to handle it by the time it comes out. The question of an emergency landing comes to mind when you can't land anywhere.

They can LAND, but takeoff is an issue, and even more paramount is having a place to park it where the passengers won't bitch about having to use the air stairs and ride a bus to the terminal.

Edit: For reference, I've operated a 747-400 simulator (Not Microsoft Flight Sim, I mean an actual motion sim) out of a teeny regional airport. It's tight, but doable. The entire 737 series can prettymuch land and takeoff from anywhere with a paved runway.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
The 7E7 looks very cool, and will probably put Boeing back ahead of Airbus. Unofortunately, Airbus made the silly mistake of building the A380 so big that it can't be handled by by most major airports. In fact, only 16 are scheduled to handle it by the time it comes out. The question of an emergency landing comes to mind when you can't land anywhere.

I think you do not have your facts handy. As much as I would like Boeing to win, Airbus overtook Boeing to be the biggest aircraft maker when Boeing was too involved in relaxing and making minor changed to the 60's designed 747 series. The A380 is designed to dock at the same airport terminals as the 747 but there will be some changes to be done to accomodate the engines hanging off the runway on some airports but that wouldnt be too much of a deal. It was a gamble for Airbus to make this jet but there was demand for a long time for a plane that carried more people 30-50% than the typical 747 and more efficiently, I.E less fuel costs. The Airbus is 20% more fuel efficient than the 747.
Boeing originally had a crappy design for a plane to counter the Airbus 380 but that was an extended version of the 747..much longer than the current version. Very unrealistic and costly for airports to adapt to such a plan and the design was scrapped.

There are 10 carriers interested in the A380 with 66 new orders on hand.

Back in my senior design class I remember reading a study about the feasibility of very lary aircraft. The limiting factor according to this was actually the time spent at the gatesloading & unloading the aircraft. Takes to damn long to get 1000 people on and off an airplane without dramatic redesigns of the terminals.

On a somewhat related note ... WTH do airlines load from the front to the back? Every time some putz decides to stand in the aisle digging their gameboy out of their carry-on before stowing it, it holds up the entire line. I'm sure somebody must have done the time & motion studies on it, btu it sure doesn't make sense to me.


You really need to look at the bigger picture. Where will the massive amount of people who would be on this plane sit in the airport? Certainly not in the same terminals as the 747 or A340, there isn't enough room. Lets not forget the extra doors on the A380 on the second floor, which will need tro be addressed with a terminal skyway as well.

I forgot the mention the extention of runways, or the expansion of taxiways, as you mentioned. The engines on this plane sit over 150 feet, the current standard, meaning everywhere a plane moves on the ground will need to be expanded or moved. That is not a little task.

BTW, how did you come up with the idea of companies want bigger planes? Look at the 2004 order status for Boeing: http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
The 7E7 looks very cool, and will probably put Boeing back ahead of Airbus. Unofortunately, Airbus made the silly mistake of building the A380 so big that it can't be handled by by most major airports. In fact, only 16 are scheduled to handle it by the time it comes out. The question of an emergency landing comes to mind when you can't land anywhere.

I think you do not have your facts handy. As much as I would like Boeing to win, Airbus overtook Boeing to be the biggest aircraft maker when Boeing was too involved in relaxing and making minor changed to the 60's designed 747 series. The A380 is designed to dock at the same airport terminals as the 747 but there will be some changes to be done to accomodate the engines hanging off the runway on some airports but that wouldnt be too much of a deal. It was a gamble for Airbus to make this jet but there was demand for a long time for a plane that carried more people 30-50% than the typical 747 and more efficiently, I.E less fuel costs. The Airbus is 20% more fuel efficient than the 747.
Boeing originally had a crappy design for a plane to counter the Airbus 380 but that was an extended version of the 747..much longer than the current version. Very unrealistic and costly for airports to adapt to such a plan and the design was scrapped.

There are 10 carriers interested in the A380 with 66 new orders on hand.

Back in my senior design class I remember reading a study about the feasibility of very lary aircraft. The limiting factor according to this was actually the time spent at the gatesloading & unloading the aircraft. Takes to damn long to get 1000 people on and off an airplane without dramatic redesigns of the terminals.

On a somewhat related note ... WTH do airlines load from the front to the back? Every time some putz decides to stand in the aisle digging their gameboy out of their carry-on before stowing it, it holds up the entire line. I'm sure somebody must have done the time & motion studies on it, btu it sure doesn't make sense to me.


You really need to look at the bigger picture. Where will the massive amount of people who would be on this plane sit in the airport? Certainly not in the same terminals as the 747 or A340, there isn't enough room. Lets not forget the extra doors on the A380 on the second floor, which will need tro be addressed with a terminal skyway as well.

I forgot the mention the extention of runways, or the expansion of taxiways, as you mentioned. The engines on this plane sit over 150 feet, the current standard, meaning everywhere a plane moves on the ground will need to be expanded or moved. That is not a little task.

BTW, how did you come up with the idea of companies want bigger planes? Look at the 2004 order status for Boeing: http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm

Airlines load from the front because there's no other feasible place to put the jetway. You can't have them extend over the wings beause of the insane number of potential configurations. And as for the seating order, they load from front to back to insure that more people are located at or in front of the plane's center of gravity. This is for manuevering reasons. It also ensures that there's enough weight between the gear sets to avoid a significant problem - the airplane popping a wheelie during loading. The USAF has done it at least once.

 

[tikwanleap]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
The 7E7 looks very cool, and will probably put Boeing back ahead of Airbus. Unofortunately, Airbus made the silly mistake of building the A380 so big that it can't be handled by by most major airports. In fact, only 16 are scheduled to handle it by the time it comes out. The question of an emergency landing comes to mind when you can't land anywhere.

I think you do not have your facts handy. As much as I would like Boeing to win, Airbus overtook Boeing to be the biggest aircraft maker when Boeing was too involved in relaxing and making minor changed to the 60's designed 747 series. The A380 is designed to dock at the same airport terminals as the 747 but there will be some changes to be done to accomodate the engines hanging off the runway on some airports but that wouldnt be too much of a deal. It was a gamble for Airbus to make this jet but there was demand for a long time for a plane that carried more people 30-50% than the typical 747 and more efficiently, I.E less fuel costs. The Airbus is 20% more fuel efficient than the 747.
Boeing originally had a crappy design for a plane to counter the Airbus 380 but that was an extended version of the 747..much longer than the current version. Very unrealistic and costly for airports to adapt to such a plan and the design was scrapped.

There are 10 carriers interested in the A380 with 66 new orders on hand.

Back in my senior design class I remember reading a study about the feasibility of very lary aircraft. The limiting factor according to this was actually the time spent at the gatesloading & unloading the aircraft. Takes to damn long to get 1000 people on and off an airplane without dramatic redesigns of the terminals.

On a somewhat related note ... WTH do airlines load from the front to the back? Every time some putz decides to stand in the aisle digging their gameboy out of their carry-on before stowing it, it holds up the entire line. I'm sure somebody must have done the time & motion studies on it, btu it sure doesn't make sense to me.


You really need to look at the bigger picture. Where will the massive amount of people who would be on this plane sit in the airport? Certainly not in the same terminals as the 747 or A340, there isn't enough room. Lets not forget the extra doors on the A380 on the second floor, which will need tro be addressed with a terminal skyway as well.

I forgot the mention the extention of runways, or the expansion of taxiways, as you mentioned. The engines on this plane sit over 150 feet, the current standard, meaning everywhere a plane moves on the ground will need to be expanded or moved. That is not a little task.

BTW, how did you come up with the idea of companies want bigger planes? Look at the 2004 order status for Boeing: http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm

Continental loads the first class and one pass elite people first, but then they load from back to front. Which airline loads from front to back? 😕

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
The 7E7 looks very cool, and will probably put Boeing back ahead of Airbus. Unofortunately, Airbus made the silly mistake of building the A380 so big that it can't be handled by by most major airports. In fact, only 16 are scheduled to handle it by the time it comes out. The question of an emergency landing comes to mind when you can't land anywhere.

I think you do not have your facts handy. As much as I would like Boeing to win, Airbus overtook Boeing to be the biggest aircraft maker when Boeing was too involved in relaxing and making minor changed to the 60's designed 747 series. The A380 is designed to dock at the same airport terminals as the 747 but there will be some changes to be done to accomodate the engines hanging off the runway on some airports but that wouldnt be too much of a deal. It was a gamble for Airbus to make this jet but there was demand for a long time for a plane that carried more people 30-50% than the typical 747 and more efficiently, I.E less fuel costs. The Airbus is 20% more fuel efficient than the 747.
Boeing originally had a crappy design for a plane to counter the Airbus 380 but that was an extended version of the 747..much longer than the current version. Very unrealistic and costly for airports to adapt to such a plan and the design was scrapped.

There are 10 carriers interested in the A380 with 66 new orders on hand.

Back in my senior design class I remember reading a study about the feasibility of very lary aircraft. The limiting factor according to this was actually the time spent at the gatesloading & unloading the aircraft. Takes to damn long to get 1000 people on and off an airplane without dramatic redesigns of the terminals.

On a somewhat related note ... WTH do airlines load from the front to the back? Every time some putz decides to stand in the aisle digging their gameboy out of their carry-on before stowing it, it holds up the entire line. I'm sure somebody must have done the time & motion studies on it, btu it sure doesn't make sense to me.


You really need to look at the bigger picture. Where will the massive amount of people who would be on this plane sit in the airport? Certainly not in the same terminals as the 747 or A340, there isn't enough room. Lets not forget the extra doors on the A380 on the second floor, which will need tro be addressed with a terminal skyway as well.

I forgot the mention the extention of runways, or the expansion of taxiways, as you mentioned. The engines on this plane sit over 150 feet, the current standard, meaning everywhere a plane moves on the ground will need to be expanded or moved. That is not a little task.

BTW, how did you come up with the idea of companies want bigger planes? Look at the 2004 order status for Boeing: http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm

I´m sure Airbus thought this over before they spent 10 billion dollars on the plane...
Like Zoiks said, it looks like it will be a sucess.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
The 7E7 looks very cool, and will probably put Boeing back ahead of Airbus. Unofortunately, Airbus made the silly mistake of building the A380 so big that it can't be handled by by most major airports. In fact, only 16 are scheduled to handle it by the time it comes out. The question of an emergency landing comes to mind when you can't land anywhere.

I think you do not have your facts handy. As much as I would like Boeing to win, Airbus overtook Boeing to be the biggest aircraft maker when Boeing was too involved in relaxing and making minor changed to the 60's designed 747 series. The A380 is designed to dock at the same airport terminals as the 747 but there will be some changes to be done to accomodate the engines hanging off the runway on some airports but that wouldnt be too much of a deal. It was a gamble for Airbus to make this jet but there was demand for a long time for a plane that carried more people 30-50% than the typical 747 and more efficiently, I.E less fuel costs. The Airbus is 20% more fuel efficient than the 747.
Boeing originally had a crappy design for a plane to counter the Airbus 380 but that was an extended version of the 747..much longer than the current version. Very unrealistic and costly for airports to adapt to such a plan and the design was scrapped.

There are 10 carriers interested in the A380 with 66 new orders on hand.

You really need to look at the bigger picture. Where will the massive amount of people who would be on this plane sit in the airport? Certainly not in the same terminals as the 747 or A340, there isn't enough room. Lets not forget the extra doors on the A380 on the second floor, which will need tro be addressed with a terminal skyway as well.

I forgot the mention the extention of runways, or the expansion of taxiways, as you mentioned. The engines on this plane sit over 150 feet, the current standard, meaning everywhere a plane moves on the ground will need to be expanded or moved. That is not a little task.

BTW, how did you come up with the idea of companies want bigger planes? Look at the 2004 order status for Boeing: http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm

I wouldnt give Boeings order status as a reference of whats yet to come when the A380 is not yet in comission. The fact is that all of what I said is true. You can check online about the popularity of the A380 with International Carriers. Loading people will not be too much of a problem. There may be different ways devised of loading people on A380's and the sitting area will probably be 30-50% more. I believe the interior space of a terminal may prove not to be much of a problem since this can be corrected rather easily. As it goes with any plane Boeing would also make, sitting area would still be the issue at hand then as well.
I have to hand it to Airbus for coming up with a good design for a plane. The stats I had quoted were rather old. I was looking at the order status as of Sept 2003 and Airbus actually has 129 firm orders on hand for the A380.
But who knows, Boeing may already have something up their sleeve to counter the A380.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
The 7E7 looks very cool, and will probably put Boeing back ahead of Airbus. Unofortunately, Airbus made the silly mistake of building the A380 so big that it can't be handled by by most major airports. In fact, only 16 are scheduled to handle it by the time it comes out. The question of an emergency landing comes to mind when you can't land anywhere.

I think you do not have your facts handy. As much as I would like Boeing to win, Airbus overtook Boeing to be the biggest aircraft maker when Boeing was too involved in relaxing and making minor changed to the 60's designed 747 series. The A380 is designed to dock at the same airport terminals as the 747 but there will be some changes to be done to accomodate the engines hanging off the runway on some airports but that wouldnt be too much of a deal. It was a gamble for Airbus to make this jet but there was demand for a long time for a plane that carried more people 30-50% than the typical 747 and more efficiently, I.E less fuel costs. The Airbus is 20% more fuel efficient than the 747.
Boeing originally had a crappy design for a plane to counter the Airbus 380 but that was an extended version of the 747..much longer than the current version. Very unrealistic and costly for airports to adapt to such a plan and the design was scrapped.

There are 10 carriers interested in the A380 with 66 new orders on hand.

You really need to look at the bigger picture. Where will the massive amount of people who would be on this plane sit in the airport? Certainly not in the same terminals as the 747 or A340, there isn't enough room. Lets not forget the extra doors on the A380 on the second floor, which will need tro be addressed with a terminal skyway as well.

I forgot the mention the extention of runways, or the expansion of taxiways, as you mentioned. The engines on this plane sit over 150 feet, the current standard, meaning everywhere a plane moves on the ground will need to be expanded or moved. That is not a little task.

BTW, how did you come up with the idea of companies want bigger planes? Look at the 2004 order status for Boeing: http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm

I wouldnt give Boeings order status as a reference of whats yet to come when the A380 is not yet in comission. The fact is that all of what I said is true. You can check online about the popularity of the A380 with International Carriers. Loading people will not be too much of a problem. There may be different ways devised of loading people on A380's and the sitting area will probably be 30-50% more. I believe the interior space of a terminal may prove not to be much of a problem since this can be corrected rather easily. As it goes with any plane Boeing would also make, sitting area would still be the issue at hand then as well.
I have to hand it to Airbus for coming up with a good design for a plane. The stats I had quoted were rather old. I was looking at the order status as of Sept 2003 and Airbus actually has 129 firm orders on hand for the A380.
But who knows, Boeing may already have something up their sleeve to counter the A380.

They did have something up their seeve, it was the BWB...but then they scrapped it.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The BEST feature of this plane is the higher humidity level -- I hate those damn arid interiors on plane trips! I might even be able to wear my contacts of one of these.

The super big planes are a waste. They only fly certain routes and only with certain airlines. Airlines like having versatile planes that can fly short and long haul routes with different configurations so they can keep maintenance expertise concentrated for the least amount of airframes. Super large planes will never "take off". Sorry for the pun.

People made that same argument in the early 60's, saying that things like the 747 would never 'take off' clearly they did. Cargo/Freight routes benefit most from these huge airliners, but even passenger travel will benefit from large planes, Airbus didn't make the A380 for jollies, nor did Boeing lose money on the 747.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The BEST feature of this plane is the higher humidity level -- I hate those damn arid interiors on plane trips! I might even be able to wear my contacts of one of these.

The super big planes are a waste. They only fly certain routes and only with certain airlines. Airlines like having versatile planes that can fly short and long haul routes with different configurations so they can keep maintenance expertise concentrated for the least amount of airframes. Super large planes will never "take off". Sorry for the pun.

The 737-900 has humidity controls. The problem arises in that all airline procedures call for them to be in "AUTO" mode at all times, because that's what Boeing provides on the stock checklist.

I read a long article on the 7E7 (Popular Science), and the main reason the current stock of airplanes keeps the humidity very low (10%, I think) is due to the presence of metal subject to corrosion. Since they are using a great amount of composites in the 7E7, they can safely turn up the humidity without compromising the lifespan of the aircraft.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The BEST feature of this plane is the higher humidity level -- I hate those damn arid interiors on plane trips! I might even be able to wear my contacts of one of these.

The super big planes are a waste. They only fly certain routes and only with certain airlines. Airlines like having versatile planes that can fly short and long haul routes with different configurations so they can keep maintenance expertise concentrated for the least amount of airframes. Super large planes will never "take off". Sorry for the pun.

The 737-900 has humidity controls. The problem arises in that all airline procedures call for them to be in "AUTO" mode at all times, because that's what Boeing provides on the stock checklist.

I read a long article on the 7E7 (Popular Science), and the main reason the current stock of airplanes keeps the humidity very low (10%, I think) is due to the presence of metal subject to corrosion. Since they are using a great amount of composites in the 7E7, they can safely turn up the humidity without compromising the lifespan of the aircraft.

And that's quite possibly why the checklist says to leave it in AUTO.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I think both aircrat (7E7 and A380) and both companies (Boeing and Airbus) will be successful. It's not like these two aircraft are going after the same customers.