Developing a new commercial jet airplane is an extremely time and money intensive process. It takes years to design and manufacture a new plane, and it must continue to be sold for years afterwards in order to make a profit. So any time a company introduces a new model, its safe to say that they predict a market for their product, since they are betting so heavily on it.
Airbus and Boeing are both building new jets, but they have both chosen very different market segments to address. Airbus is building the A380, which will be the largest-capacity commercial airliner ever built. Boeing, on the other hand, (having rejected plans to build either a super-jumbo or a new supersonic) is building the 7E7, which is no larger or longer ranged than any current model, simply much more fuel efficient.
So who sees the future of commercial aviation? Is there a need for high-capacity planes? Will airlines invest in a newer plane to save fuel cost over the coming years? Or are they both correct and there is a market for both types of planes? Clearly Boeing ddin’t think so since they scrapped their plans to build the jumbo.
It looks like Airbus is betting on the “hub and spokes” model of air travel while Boeing is betting on a more distributed model that will offer more flights between more cities.
As a passenger, I know I would prefer to fly direct instead of connecting in a hub.
According to their home page, the Boeing aircraft is much more fuel efficient (which by itself is a big deal) and actually offers a much longer range than other aircraft of its size.
Some links to the aircraft http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/flash.html
Well, my understanding is that name of the game is lowest cost per seat-mile, and this can be played by increasing size of the aircraft, by increasing efficiency, or both.
Whatever happens, unless there is some major design flaw or program delay that puts customers off the A380, it is highly unlikely that it would be a sales failure on the scale of, say, the Concorde. OTOH, I would expect the larger overall market is for aircraft in the 7E7’s size range, and passenger facilities should not have to be modifed extensively to make the best use of it, so advantage Boeing.
Right now, it looks as though the A380 market may not exceed a couple hundred aircraft, though that could change if airlines decide they really like the economies of scale, and there is an obvious cargo application that may also prove attractive in the longer run. Boeing’s 747 was originally percieved as having a relatively small market (IIRC, it was designed at the specific request of Pan Am) and I think it’s safe to say that total sales have exceeded the most optimistic early projections.
I find the Airbus giant plane to be interesting…but it does have a serious flaw: loading and deplaning time! Such an aircraft has obvious advantages for highly travelled routes…take the NYC-Miami run, which is heavily patronized and competitive. Flight time is about 3 hours…but if you consider that loading this giant aircaft takes about an hour, you see the larger plane is possibly less efficient!
I also wonder what the Us government’s concerns would be about the crash of such a massive plane in an urban area.
Finally, just the baggage handling would take a lot of time…is there any way to automate this?
Well, I don’t know the current air travel situations in other regions in the world, so I can’t say for sure. But just going by the domestic US trends (and I believe the domestic European trends), Boeing has the right idea. More and more of the new airline companies are low-cost, low frills, using small jetliners - companies like Southwest, JetBlue and especially Independence Air. I think the smaller, more efficient jetliner is the way things are headed here in the US.
It strikes me as being obvious that there will be a market for both jets. The 7E7 is going to be a HUGE seller, but the 380’s going to sell very well to carriers running busy international routes, too.
Carriers seem to think it’s worth it to fly 747s; they haven’t dumped them for smaller planes. The 380 will offer an alternative to the 747.
I am by no means an expert on airplane companies, but I’ve traveled a lot and read a little on the companies in question.
I think several points are being missed here. The A380 isn’t an alternative to the 747–for two reasons. One, Boeing’s flagship big jet right now is the 777 (are 747s even being made any more?). Two, the A380 is aiming at creating a whole new segment; it carries a heck of a lot more people than the 777 can. The 777 only holds about 368 max in a 3-class layout, whereas, according to the cite given above, the A380 will hold 555!
I am a big non-fan of the 777 and prefer to fly aboard the equivalent Airbus jet (don’t know what that would be, but I know when I’m on one). The 777 has too few toilets and there is a big metal clunky thing that takes away a quarter or more of your foot room, depending on the seat. All in all, it just doesn’t have it. On the other hand, I have enjoyed the 747 just fine but don’t get to fly on them much more any more.
The second point being missed here is that Airbus makes several different models and, I assume, will be making a plane to compete in the 7E7’s market.
According to what I’ve read, Boeing has misstepped a lot in the past decade, and Airbus has the advantage. Owing to the poor design of the 777, I am much more positive toward Airbus than Boeing.
As to the loading issue, this Airbus cite suggests that loading times will be better not worse:
And because Airbus has taken care of the boarding and deplaning issue, cutting out choke points by using ergonomic research to design two sets of doors, turn-round time is significantly lower. This allows schedules to be kept tight and extra flights flown.
Yup. Lots of airports are heavily oversubscribed and can only handle a finite number of planes in the pattern at any given time, but passenger numbers are increasing. Clearly, moving more passengers per plane helps alleviate that problem.
The costs involved in expanding terminals to handle something like the A380 - extra jetways etc. - are negligible compared to the cost (and red tape and hassle) of buying right-of-ways, building new runways, taxiways, air control infrastructure etc. etc. Makes sense.
As does the 7E7 - a mid-size, mid/long range plane with improved economy is a sweet deal. It does seem a little more evolutionary than revolutionary, though.
Yes. Boeing Commercial’s page shows 10 orders for 747-400, 11 orders for 777, so far in 2004.
The 747 now is being sold as a “niche” plane for extreme range and capacity situations; the 777 as the more efficient one for almost any other LR large-jet application. The 777 range according to the specs page is 6000 NM; the 74-4’s is 7200NM regular, 7670NM Extended, to be improved to 8000NM. 74-4ER, according to the same page, has capacities from 416 in 3-class to 524 in 2-class, that’s about 70 over 777. So a 747-400ER performs a little under the characteristics of a base-model A380.
A330 (twin) or A340 (4-piper)? The stretched 340 has the range of a ER '47 and almost the capacity of a base '77. Sweet rides indeed.
Not sure what you mean when you say passenger numbers are increasing. The airline industry is not doing particularly well at the moment.
From what I can see, cost is everthing in the airline business. Fuel efficiency, maintenance, and passenger density are all factors in aircraft purchases. Both planes fill a niche based on need.