For my 1,000 post, a poll on the near future of air travel.
In 2000, Airbus announced the launch of the A380, a passenger jet that will dwarf Boeing’s 747-400 in carrying capacity. One variant with high-density seating will carry up to 800 passengers. At least 60 firm orders appear to have been placed for both passenger and freight versions, with first flight set for 2004.
Boeing, having already rejected further enlargement of the 747, has countered with the Sonic Cruiser, a concept for a near-Mach 1 passenger jet of the same size class as the 767 (about 250 seats) but with a sleek airframe radically different from the current standard.
Advantages of A380:
Will more or less fit terminals that can now handle 747-400
Conventional, proven design
Lower costs per seat mile than current large passenger jets
Will be first to fly
Disadvantages:
Will need expensive changes to passenger handling facilities to avoid congestion within airports
Maybe a bit too conventional
First time one goes down, it’s going to make one huge mess
Advantages of Sonic Cruiser:
Higher speed and altitude than current jets (but lower cost per seat mile than Concorde)
Cool appearance and name (Thunderbirds are go!)
Disadvantages:
Design not yet frozen; no orders reported as yet
Limited capacity, with no current means for expansion
Cost per seat mile significantly higher than current aircraft in the same size class
So, Dopers, which would you prefer to fly in? And which looks more likely for success?
I would much rather fly on the Sonic Cruiser but I think the A380 is the one that will be the winner if Airports will be able to deal with the congestion.
I think the Sonic Cruiser will be a tough sell. Sure, it’ll be “cheaper” than Concorde but I don’t think it is going to be signficantly faster over a 747 that cruises at M.88., or at least not enough to warrant the premium that it will almost certainly command. If I can fly somewhere that’ll take 1-2 hours longer but save me $400 (or whatever), I’d rather go that route. Although, I suspect there will always be a bit of a niche market for it, but not as much of a market as the 380 will have.
Airbus currently has over 90 firm orders for the A380, including quite a few for a freighter version. I hope this is a result of airlines recognising a product they really believe in, and not just deep-deep discounting by Airbus (a sales tactic used by all airframe manufacturers to launch new products). We’ll see after it’s been in service for a year or two.
I hope it’s successful, but I wouldn’t want to queue up at the baggage carrousel with 549 other passengers at once. El_Kabong is right in saying that airports will have to make changes in how they process passengers onto and off these planes.
Boeing says that a Sonic Cruiser would cut an hour off a transatlantic flight and three hours off a transpacific flight. Their research indicates that leisure passengers would be willing to pay about a $25 premium for that, and business passengers would pay a $50 premium.
Boeing’s response to those who predict that the Sonic Cruiser will be too expensive is that they will develop aerodynamic, manufacturing and engine technologies (in association with the engine makers) to make it as economical as a current 767. This begs the question: why not build a conventional aircraft with those new technologies, making it much cheaper than current designs?
The airlines are in a tough position. They don’t have much money to spend on new equipment these days. Although load factors (% of airplane seats filled) aren’t too bad, airfares are so low that most airlines are running a deficit. Attempts to increase fares have mostly failed. Many people now say that it will be harder than ever (if not impossible) for a classic hub-and-spoke mainline carrier to make money. If this is so, the airlines would appreciate an airplane that is cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate.
So the Sonic Cruiser is looking less likely. Boeing is backing off its aggressive marketing position, now saying that they’re not wedded to any particular model - they want to be responsive to airlines’ needs. The latest rumor is that Boeing will launch a conventional aircraft to replace the 767, whose sales are flagging badly. It will incorporate many of the technologies considered for the Sonic Cruiser, making it radically cheaper to buy and operate than current designs.
I just hope they launch something pretty soon, because my continued employment depends on it.
My money’s on the A380. The market has seemed to show that it’s more profitable to get more people from here-to-there than to get a smaller amount of people here-to-there faster. Especially since we’re in an economic “slump” for a while.
And, personally, I have my doubts as weather the Sonic Cruiser will ever even get to fly. I just don’t think Boeing has it in them.
Ever since they built the 777 in 1995, Boeing’s position is that the air travel market is “fragmenting”. People don’t want to fly from their city to a “hub” city with a huge airport, change planes and then fly to their destination. They want to fly directly to their destination. The 777, smaller than but with more range than the 747, allows airlines to serve smaller destinations directly, bypassing hubs. The success of the 777 program shows that they’re on the right track.
That’s Boeing’s strategy with the Sonic Cruiser. It will get passengers to their destinations faster in two ways: it will fly faster and it will fly directly. They think Airbus is chasing a vanishing market by building giant aircraft that will only be able to serve the few hub airports with the infrastructure and capacity to accept them.
And trust me, Ranchoth, Boeing will be able to build whatever it can convince the airlines to buy.