840 people

[Chidoro]

On one passenger plane

http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/01/18/ ... index.html

Freakin huge. I can just imagine how much runway must be needed to get this thing on and off the ground.

[Akaran_D]

Was reading into this and some of the ideas they have. Including bedrooms (ok, I can work with that, wink wink nudge nudge) but including things like gyms? Maybe I'm a bit off here, but wouldn't the last thing you want flying around the cabin when there's unexpected turbulence or other types of severe mishaps be, say, a 50lb dumbell?

Only bad things could come of that.

[Voronwë]

good luck getting on and off that piece of shit in under 2 hours.

i'd rather walk!

[Xzion]

Was reading into this and some of the ideas they have. Including bedrooms (ok, I can work with that, wink wink nudge nudge) but including things like gyms? Maybe I'm a bit off here, but wouldn't the last thing you want flying around the cabin when there's unexpected turbulence or other types of severe mishaps be, say, a 50lb dumbell?

Only bad things could come of that.

It would be safe to say that on the plane the weights would be selectorized, so there wouldnt be TOO many problems, being that there would be a limited amount of machines...
i think its a great idea heh

[Kylere]

In this evenings news the single highest death count for an airplane disaster in aviation history occured when a plane carrying 840 passengers and 47 crew crashed shortly after takeoff.

[Mr Bacon]

Planes are supposed to deliver a disturbing and frantic experience, not luxury.

[Aslanna]

Talk about a terrorist target... I'll go Greyhound!

[Bubba Grizz]

Remember the Hindenberg? This smacks of trouble.

[nobody]

i really don't think people will go for this. if they want to target high class customers willing to pay more they should have stuck with the concord. i never understood why they took it away but maybe it was a good reason? getting from point a to boint b faster is far more valuable then being comfortable on your way there. i realize the concord only flew from paris to new york but still, aim technology at speeing up your planes and getting me there faster, not beefing it up trying to take my mind off where i'm going. i have a laptop for that.

[Winnow]

Boeing had the opportunity to build a larger jet but wisely decided to focus on smaller more efficient models instead.

[Kelshara]

Airbus is the number one company now and there has been a lot of research into this plane for a limited amount of routes. These will mostly be the extreme long-distance flights. Doubt you will see this between Europe and the US anytime soon.

Been following this for years.. quite fascinating, some of the pictures of it is insane.

[Zaelath]

Boeing had the opportunity to build a larger jet but wisely decided to focus on smaller more efficient models instead.

Winnow had the opportunity to build a larger penis, but wisely decided to urinate through his smaller, more efficient, model instead.

No, but seriously, what's that based on? Boeing trying to sue Airbus out of making these (any?) planes? Or just a general sense of GO USA!?

[Winnow]

Boeing had the opportunity to build a larger jet but wisely decided to focus on smaller more efficient models instead.

Winnow had the opportunity to build a larger penis, but wisely decided to urinate through his smaller, more efficient, model instead.

No, but seriously, what's that based on? Boeing trying to sue Airbus out of making these (any?) planes? Or just a general sense of GO USA!?

No dickhead,

I've been following this for years. This isn't something that just came out of thin air yesterday. Airbus and Boeing had conceptual designs and articles discussing the advantages and disadvantages of a large passenger jets for the next generation years ago. IMO, Boeing made the right move in concentrating on the smaller planes. There's very little benefit to having a huge plane like that.

But don't take it from me:

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/ar ... over1.html

Go 7E7!

[Kelshara]

Very differing opinions on that.. there WILL be a need for very large planes, no doubt about it. Not a huge market, but one that will have to be filled. The 747 is so outdated now it has to be replaced in the not-too distant future, and there really are no clear-cut other choice for the routes that demand large planes. This will be, as mentioned previously, mostly extreme long-distance flights.

Airplane companies are currently chasing Airbus, I hope for their sake they come up with something smart.. even though Airbus is my plane of choice hands down.

[Winnow]

Very differing opinions on that.. there WILL be a need for very large planes, no doubt about it. Not a huge market, but one that will have to be filled. The 747 is so outdated now it has to be replaced in the not-too distant future, and there really are no clear-cut other choice for the routes that demand large planes. This will be, as mentioned previously, mostly extreme long-distance flights.

Airplane companies are currently chasing Airbus, I hope for their sake they come up with something smart.. even though Airbus is my plane of choice hands down.

The only other company is Boeing and as I've stated, they aren't chasing Airbus. They decided not to.

747 has pwnd the skies for long time.

Another size example:

B52's were originally made in the 1950's (1954) and they still drop bombs today. We didn't make a bigger bomber, we made a stealth bomber, faster bomber and continued to use the reliable older model...size isn't always the issue.

"What we know today, and recognized years ago, is that as the airline industry deregulates and as air travel markets become more competitive, the world is moving toward smaller airplanes that take people point to point, or where they want to go when they want to go," Piasecki said. "That's what differentiates us from Airbus, which is focused on a really big airplane (the 550-seat A380) designed for the more traditional hub-and-spoke network."

Consequently, Boeing believes the declining emphasis on hub-and-spoke travel will provide the greatest growth in smaller midmarket airplanes and lesser growth in large jumbo jets. It's already happening, Piasecki said, citing statistics that show the average size of airplanes around the world remaining fixed to slightly declining over time.

In addition, low-fare carriers such as Southwest in the United States and Ryanair in Europe are proving successful partly because they bypass major airports for secondary airports that are less congested, result in less cost and, in many cases, are more convenient for the passenger.

Such a business model for airlines means keeping airplanes flying, with frequent trips and quick turnarounds at smaller airports. To accomplish this, airplanes in the future must be more reliable, economical and efficient; they also will need to be easier to service and repair, with connectivity and commonality throughout.

"Airlines are striving in these difficult times to simplify their fleets and improve their operating efficiencies with new business models for the future," Piasecki said.

"At the most fundamental level, we believe that over time the market will demand a simplified product offering built on efficiency, commonality and range. We don't commonality and range. We don't know exactly what that will look like, but we see a potential scenario with demand for airplanes in three size classes," she said.

According to Boeing's market forecast, about 80 percent of the future commercial airplane market will be satisfied with airplanes in the 100-to-200 seat, 200-to-300 seat and 300-to-400 seat categories.

"Looking ahead to the longer term, it's plausible to see the 737, 7E7 and 777 families as the backbones of these segments, with the single-aisle regional 717 jet and the large 747 airplane filling in niches at both ends of the spectrum as required by customers," Piasecki said.

The 777 family continues to set the standard for efficient, long-haul operations. The 777 makes four times as many flights across the Pacific as its primary competitor, the A340, which struggles with a low order base and backlog. The 777-300ER, now in flight testing, and the 777-200LR, which recently started development, are expected to further bolster the 777 family's market position.

The strength of the 747 program is currently in freighters, where Boeing sold 17 airframes last year. Airlines continue to engage Boeing in conversations about the passenger version of the airplane, but the market remains sluggish with the overall commercial airplane downturn. Long-term forecasts show a market for approximately 450 747- sized airplanes, both passenger and freighter.

"It's important to remember that we brought two new 747 models into service last year in the 747-400ER and the 747-400ER Freighter," said Randy Baseler, vice president of Commercial Airplanes Marketing. "These models bring significant improvement capabilities over the 747-400 models and should see additional demand with a market recovery."

Got it covered. Maybe if you make that huge plane a freigher it will be worthwhile. Even in the 747 category the market is sluggish.

[Ogbar]

" ... now boarding zone 78 ... anyone in zone 78 may now enter the plane ... "

[Wulfran]

Honestly I think Voro hit on the biggest issue that will affect the success or failure of this aircraft: how long will it take to get people on and off it?

People are not bombs: who can quickly and efficiently move the most people wins the airline game. If they added some extra exits to allow for quicker loading and unloading, then they will win, through fewer air traffic and terminal fees, etc. If they lose efficiency by requiring an extra half hour to load and unload (and subsequently make the passengers cranky by extending their stay on the aircraft) they will lose.

Little early to say who will "win" or "lose" but it is interesting to see the contrast in philosophy between Boeing and Airbus.

[Xzion]

Honestly I think Voro hit on the biggest issue that will affect the success or failure of this aircraft: how long will it take to get people on and off it?

People are not bombs: who can quickly and efficiently move the most people wins the airline game. If they added some extra exits to allow for quicker loading and unloading, then they will win, through fewer air traffic and terminal fees, etc. If they lose efficiency by requiring an extra half hour to load and unload (and subsequently make the passengers cranky by extending their stay on the aircraft) they will lose.

Little early to say who will "win" or "lose" but it is interesting to see the contrast in philosophy between Boeing and Airbus.

im sure this plane will have more then one ent, maybe 3, 4.
if not then yeah, it will suck

[vn_Tanc]

It's got double exits of a 747 so getting on and of shouldnt be a problem.

Casinos, pools, bedrooms etc all sound very well but you know theyll get ditched in favour of more cattle-class seats. And whether people "go for it" or not is also inconsequential. You buy the ticket and get on whatever damn plane turns up.
They have orders for 140. They allow airports to turnover more passengers without having to schedule more flights. They are more efficient and quieter than 747s. You bet airlines are going to love these things.

[Aabidano]

I read that the break even point for the product line was 250 planes, I'd assume they'll make that. It took 35 years to develop this thing? Wow.

Nothing wrong with the plane, but as folks have said it's going to serve long haul routes. Those don't comprise the majority of air travel. The other planes they market will continue to bring in more revenue.

You guys are comparing companies that have chosen 2 different market segments to focus on. Boeing has chosen the higher volume, lower cost market because the risks are lower.

[vn_Tanc]

Boeing, up til yesterday, made the only large scale bulk public transport aeroplane. Why would they focus on a market they all ready lead? Of course they're working on smaller stuff.
Whether that's smart strategy or spin to disguise their fear at losing their uncontested jumbo market position remains to be seen.

[Chidoro]

And whether people "go for it" or not is also inconsequential. You buy the ticket and get on whatever damn plane turns up.

That's the way I always took it. I choose whether I want to transfer or go direct and what time I want to leave. Newark to West Palm Beach, I usually end up on a 727, going to Honolulu, it's a 747. I just bought my ticket, and that's what showed up at the gate.

[Tenuvil]

And whether people "go for it" or not is also inconsequential. You buy the ticket and get on whatever damn plane turns up.

That's the way I always took it. I choose whether I want to transfer or go direct and what time I want to leave. Newark to West Palm Beach, I usually end up on a 727, going to Honolulu, it's a 747. I just bought my ticket, and that's what showed up at the gate.

Agree. I rarely paid any attention to what plane I was flying unless it was a prop driven "puddle jumper" (shudder)

[Siji]

It's got double exits of a 747 so getting on and of shouldnt be a problem.

I'm guessing that with the size, airports are going to have to go through some various forms of construction to accomodate it. The same goes for all those nifty extra exits on the plane.. people don't like getting off a plane down some steep stairs, especially if it's raining or freezing outside.. that means extra motorized walkways.. which means more terminal modifications.

Yeah.. the airports are going to get right on that..

[Fash]

I'm guessing that with the size, airports are going to have to go through some various forms of construction to accomodate it. The same goes for all those nifty extra exits on the plane.. people don't like getting off a plane down some steep stairs, especially if it's raining or freezing outside.. that means extra motorized walkways.. which means more terminal modifications.

Yeah.. the airports are going to get right on that..

the a380 was designed to fit into current bays and use current terminals... that may exclude the extra exits, but it doesn't require any terminal modifications to load/unload.

[Winnow]

Boeing, up til yesterday, made the only large scale bulk public transport aeroplane. Why would they focus on a market they all ready lead? Of course they're working on smaller stuff.
Whether that's smart strategy or spin to disguise their fear at losing their uncontested jumbo market position remains to be seen.

Boeing didn't ignore building a larger plane and didn't fail to study concepts for larger planes. They have them and had them back when this new airbus was being designed. They made a conscious decision not to build larger airplanes.

I'd be concerned if this new huge plane was faster than your average plane but it's not. It just carries more people and probably has an equal or better chance of breaking and when it does, that many more people will be delayed.

[Rivera Bladestrike]

Planes are supposed to deliver a disturbing and frantic experience, not luxury.

lol

[Niffoni]

Boy, imagine how many virgins a guy could get himself with one of THOSE!

[Winnow]

Boy, imagine how many virgins a guy could get himself with one of THOSE!

Especially if it's a Virgin Airlines plane.

[Kelshara]

The only other company is Boeing and as I've stated, they aren't chasing Airbus. They decided not to.

Was thinking financially. I know Airbus is at the top when it comes to financial situation and some American companies are struggling.. but can't for the life of me remember if Boeing is one of them.

B52's were originally made in the 1950's (1954) and they still drop bombs today. We didn't make a bigger bomber, we made a stealth bomber, faster bomber and continued to use the reliable older model...size isn't always the issue.

That is a HORRIBLE comparison. In that case we all should fly highly expensive private jets.

Btw I hate the 777 The 340 is a hell of a lot nicer plane to fly in.

It just carries more people and probably has an equal or better chance of breaking and when it does, that many more people will be delayed.

Equal or better chance of breaking? Talking jibberish here. Newer technology by the ancient 747 by far. And moving more people is a must for the extreme long distance flights.

[Winnow]

Equal or better chance of breaking? Talking jibberish here. Newer technology by the ancient 747 by far. And moving more people is a must for the extreme long distance flights.

Ever tried to work on the engine of a car made in the 80's versus one made in 2000+? If that 80's car breaks down, you can fix it a lot easier than if your computer driven techno car breaks down. Cheaper to fix, faster to fix, and usually more parts available to fix it with. Changing spark plugs on an old car might take 10 minutes. On a new car, you may not be able to even do it yourself due to the engine design.

When that mega plane breaks down, you have 840 passengers racing around looking for another flight instead of a few hundred that can be scattered about and put on the next few flights instead of waiting 10 hours for that huge plane's next scheduled flight which most likely can't handle the additional load by itself. With smaller planes, you can bring in a spare a lot easier than having a spare mega plane on hand. Recently I had a delayed flight due to technical difficulties. My delay was 2 hours until they could bring in another jet to take the passengers. Who knows how many extra Boeings they'd have to fly in to help carry the Airbus's upset passengers but I'd guess they wouldn't have another monster plane on hand.

[Kelshara]

They wont bring in other planes. Just like they usually don't bring in other planes for the very long distance flights now. I was offered $600 I believe it was for my gf and me (each) to spend the night at a hotel because they were overbooked. I've had planes cancelled (once for a bomb threat heh) and they were plan old cancelled. They wont just add a new plane for a 20 hours flight.

[vn_Tanc]

vn_Tanc wrote:
It's got double exits of a 747 so getting on and of shouldnt be a problem.


I'm guessing that with the size, airports are going to have to go through some various forms of construction to accomodate it. The same goes for all those nifty extra exits on the plane.. people don't like getting off a plane down some steep stairs, especially if it's raining or freezing outside.. that means extra motorized walkways.. which means more terminal modifications.

Yeah.. the airports are going to get right on that..

Most can all ready accomodate it. Those that can't (like London Heathrow) are all ready making the modifications because more passengers without more flights is EXACTLY what they want.

[Zaelath]

vn_Tanc wrote:
It's got double exits of a 747 so getting on and of shouldnt be a problem.


I'm guessing that with the size, airports are going to have to go through some various forms of construction to accomodate it. The same goes for all those nifty extra exits on the plane.. people don't like getting off a plane down some steep stairs, especially if it's raining or freezing outside.. that means extra motorized walkways.. which means more terminal modifications.

Yeah.. the airports are going to get right on that..

Most can all ready accomodate it. Those that can't (like London Heathrow) are all ready making the modifications because more passengers without more flights is EXACTLY what they want.

Exactly, airports charge per punter. There's a couple of discount airlines here in a price war, and they're advertising $1 fares... then you pay another $60 in airport fees..

[Kargyle]

Equal or better chance of breaking? Talking jibberish here. Newer technology by the ancient 747 by far. And moving more people is a must for the extreme long distance flights.

Ever tried to work on the engine of a car made in the 80's versus one made in 2000+? If that 80's car breaks down, you can fix it a lot easier than if your computer driven techno car breaks down. Cheaper to fix, faster to fix, and usually more parts available to fix it with. Changing spark plugs on an old car might take 10 minutes. On a new car, you may not be able to even do it yourself due to the engine design.

When that mega plane breaks down, you have 840 passengers racing around looking for another flight instead of a few hundred that can be scattered about and put on the next few flights instead of waiting 10 hours for that huge plane's next scheduled flight which most likely can't handle the additional load by itself. With smaller planes, you can bring in a spare a lot easier than having a spare mega plane on hand. Recently I had a delayed flight due to technical difficulties. My delay was 2 hours until they could bring in another jet to take the passengers. Who knows how many extra Boeings they'd have to fly in to help carry the Airbus's upset passengers but I'd guess they wouldn't have another monster plane on hand.

Well, modern cars are specifically designed so that average Joe can't get under the hood and fix his own problem. It increases money for the dealerships, and increases money for the manufactures since you often need a special tool for specific jobs. I seriously doubt this plane was designed with that concept in mind. If it was, then I hope it is a horrible failure.

This plane will more than likely never carry 840 people. The article simply says that it could be configured to do so. More than likely it will carrying less than 200 more than the 747, which while significant, isn't enough to cause any real problems when there are delays or breakdowns. I'm sorry Winnow, but you often come off as nothing more than an "America is better than Europe at everything" fanboy. Who cares what Boeings market strategy is, it doesn't change the fact that this is a significant accomplishment for Airbus. Your whole attitude in this thread has been nothing except "Boeing could have done it better, they just didn't want to." Well, anyone can say that about anything, until it gets backed up however, no one will take the claim seriously.

[Marbus]

I agree with Winnow 100%. As a Wings junkie (now the MIL channel) and flying nut I've follewed this for a long time as well. I think the concept is cool but not sure how viable it is, many of those reasons have already been noted.

Give me a 7E7 Dreamline anyday, I'll get there in style, comfort with all the same features except for a gym and be at the hotel soakin' in the hot tub by time passenger 693 gets to exit ramp

Marb

[Winnow]

I'm sorry Winnow, but you often come off as nothing more than an "America is better than Europe at everything" fanboy. Who cares what Boeings market strategy is, it doesn't change the fact that this is a significant accomplishment for Airbus. Your whole attitude in this thread has been nothing except "Boeing could have done it better, they just didn't want to." Well, anyone can say that about anything, until it gets backed up however, no one will take the claim seriously.

I never questioned the quality of planes made by Airbus compared to Boeing. I dont' know if a plane built by Boeing of the same size would necessarily be better just because it's Boeing. This thread's discussion was trending toward the size of the plane and not the quality so I offered up another airline's strategy for comparison.

But while were on the subject, did you notice with both the Titan probe landing and Airbus, the headlines read along the lines of "a great European achievement" When NASA does something, it's a great day for mankind. When I see something happen over yonder, it's a great day for Eurokind. (I'll find the transcripts if need be) Lets hope euro's continue to acknowledge the work scientists of non euro nations do as NASA is always quick to point out other nation's contributions with lots of it being credited with the latest Mars Rovers.

I prefer to keep national politics out of scientific and non military technological achievements. My comments regarding Airbus and Boeing's strategies weren't meant to be nationally biased. Boeing is an international company (except for the really cool skunkworks stuff).

[Fash]

Boeing is an international company (except for the really cool skunkworks stuff).

Skunkworks is a division of Lockheed Martin.

[Winnow]

Boeing is an international company (except for the really cool skunkworks stuff).

Skunkworks is a division of Lockheed Martin.

Yeah, that was pretty bad.

Boeing Co.'s Integrated Defense Systems doesn't sound as cool though! : )

Here's Boeing's defense site:

http://www.boeing.com/ids/flash.html

[Kelshara]

Hey Winnow might want to read this: Basically saying that the 747 has to be re-newed or production will end in 2006. They haven't had a single order since 2002 when 4 were ordered.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2 ... ing27.html

[Winnow]

Hey Winnow might want to read this: Basically saying that the 747 has to be re-newed or production will end in 2006. They haven't had a single order since 2002 when 4 were ordered.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2 ... ing27.html

Looks like some Euros know what's best for them. Better hope they don't make one or Airbus will be second fiddle again! : )

"If Boeing commits to develop the 747 Advanced we'll be very, very, very interested," said Marc Schonckert, a spokesman for Luxembourg-based cargo airline Cargolux, a prospective customer. "It'll be the aircraft that comes closest to our wishes."

[Kelshara]

Airbus doesn't make the plane for cargo purposes. And they haven't been second fiddle to anyone for quite a while. They are the leader of the pack, to the point where certain other aircraft companies might be going under.

[Winnow]

Airbus doesn't make the plane for cargo purposes. And they haven't been second fiddle to anyone for quite a while. They are the leader of the pack, to the point where certain other aircraft companies might be going under.

Airbus fanboi!

[Kelshara]

Personal preference that I like to fly them over others.. but they have been doing very well financially lately.

[Cartalas]

I wonder how long it will take you to zone from First class to Coach?