N.Y. Times: Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/business/oversize-expectations-for-the-airbus-a380.html)
QuoteTo get a sense of the Airbus A380's size and ambition, walk up the grand staircase of an Emirates version of the aircraft, past the showers and the first-class suites and then through endless rows in business class to the bar at the back of the upper deck. This sleek semicircle, alluringly underlit and fully stocked with pricey spirits like Grey Goose vodka, is undoubtedly one of the defining features of this aircraft, which can hold more than 500 passengers. The plane dwarfs every commercial jet in the skies.
QuoteSince it started flying commercially seven years ago, the A380 has caught the imagination of travelers. Its two full-length decks total 6,000 square feet, 50 percent more than the original jumbo jet, the Boeing 747. Its wingspan barely fits inside a football field. Its four engines take this 560-ton airplane to a cruising altitude of 39,000 feet in less than 15 minutes, a surprisingly smooth ascent for such a bulky plane. Passengers love it because it's quiet and more reminiscent of a cruise ship than an airplane.
Yet...
QuoteAirbus has struggled to sell the planes. Orders have been slow, and not a single buyer has been found in the United States, South America, Africa or India. Only one airline in China has ordered it, and its only customer in Japan has canceled. Even existing customers are paring down orders.
And the 747 still sells better, but even it is running into the same issues.
QuoteBut critics like Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst at the Teal Group, an aviation consulting firm in Fairfax, Va., say the main problem is more fundamental: Airbus made the wrong prediction about travel preferences. People would rather take direct flights on smaller airplanes, he said, than get on big airplanes – no matter their feats of engineering – that make connections through huge hubs.
"It's a commercial disaster," Mr. Aboulafia says. "Every conceivably bad idea that anyone's ever had about the aviation industry is embodied in this airplane."
The Euros made the wrong choice about airplanes again, the last one being the Concorde instead of a jumbo.
QuoteA little more than a decade ago, the two dominant airplane makers, Boeing and Airbus, looked at where their businesses were headed and saw similar facts: air traffic doubling every 15 years, estimates that the number of travelers would hit four billion by 2030 – and came to radically different conclusions about what those numbers meant for their future.
Boeing figured that traffic would move away from big hubs and toward secondary airports. So it started to build a smaller, more fuel-efficient long-range aircraft, which became known as the 787 Dreamliner.
I don't expect the A380 to last long in production.
And most telling...
QuoteAnd Virgin Atlantic, which has options for six A380s, remains undecided about whether to proceed. The airline was partly acquired by Delta Air Lines in 2012; Richard H. Anderson, Delta's chief executive, has said the A380 is "by definition an uneconomic airplane unless you're a state-owned enterprise with subsidies."
I'm going to guess that the 747 is more of a known quantity in both the cargo and passenger jet industry. It's been around for over 40 years. Less need for specialized equipment if you require tugs, repair, maintenance, jet bridges by sticking with the old standard.
Some foreign carriers like Emarites do a lot of long-haul travel, and for the amenities and distances involved, they charge good money for it. Many of their clientele are quite wealthy, and to hear it from others, their in-flight service is unparalleled (although I'm sure that varies quite a bit from coach to business class).
Most US-based airlines specialize in domestic travel, and while there used to be perhaps two cross-continent flights a day from say...New York to LA, there's now 5 or more. A lot of it is also due to the spoke and hub method, which is usually far more efficient. There's almost no need for a 300-seater to a medium-sized airport (a non-hub) except for peak times or for re-positioning.
In the case of longer distances with less passengers, many smaller and even medium-sized aircraft like 767s, A330s, and even A321s or 757s can handle it, if they're fitted with larger fuel cells and rated to do so. I'm guessing this is why Airbus also has the future A350 to match up against the 787 for the long-haul market.
Most US airlines fly some average two-hour flight, and they couldn't find 400 people who need to go to the same destination and the same times, with the competition that exists. From an economic sense, they're not going to use a larger, half-empty aircraft with anything more than a bit more fuel than necessary.
The days of jumbo jets or widebodies coming to smaller airports is long gone, save for cargo purposes. I could see the A380 going towards a useful cargo career, with its ostensibly larger capacity.
Quote from: formulanone on August 10, 2014, 10:50:45 AM
The days of jumbo jets or widebodies coming to smaller airports is long gone, save for cargo purposes. I could see the A380 going towards a useful cargo career, with its ostensibly larger capacity.
One thing that could hinder this is the fact that the 747 was designed from the beginning to be easily converted to a freighter (many cargo 747s are converted passenger aircraft, even the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and SOFIA telescope aircraft are), whereas the A380 was not. Developing a freighter version of the A380 would require considerable additional engineering and expense, and probably won't happen.
The main issue here is cost per unit. A380 has uses,but there are no ways to make a profit. Same thing killed most domestic wide body service. Until the 80s and 90s a dc10 or 767 would do cross country.Fuel prices went up causing them to fly with smaller aircraft like the 757 or 737.
I can see some useful niche routes for the A380 on particularly busy routes. London to New York would be one fine example; I don't know if BA are using theirs on that route yet, but I know they use an A380 on one daily flight from Heathrow to Dulles, as does Air France on the Paris CDG—to-Dulles route. I'd imagine there are probably some very busy routes somewhere in Asia that might be appropriate for that aircraft as well. Thing about a lot of the aircraft now is they're trying to spiff up the interior in various ways in order to hide the fact that they're cramming more and more people into aircraft for longer and longer flights. Ugh. Obviously I'm biased (look at my avatar), but give me a faster trip even if it costs more.
I wonder if the a380 is that much slower on the same route compared to a 747 or 777. The 767 or 757 are probably faster.
A few things to consider:
1. When the 747 first rolled out, the airline industry in the US was regulated; airlines couldn't just add routes or frequencies at will, such had to be approved by the now long-defunct Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). Note: prior to Deregulation that took place in 1978, Southwest Airlines was an Intra-state carrier that only served Texas and was subject to the Texas Aeronautics Board.
2. Several domestic airlines like Eastern, Delta (their recent 747s came as a result of the 2008-2009 merger w/Northwest), Continental and even American initially tried the 747 but realized that it was simply too-much plane for their markets and opted for slightly smaller 3-engined wide-bodied aircraft like the DC-10 and L-1011 that became available later. For a very brief period, Delta had all 3 widebodies (747, DC-10, L-1011) in their fleet simultaneoulsy. Delta & Eastern unloaded their 747s years before Deregulation; American and Continental would unload theirs later. Heck, even TWA (one of the 747's launch customers) retired their 747s a few years prior to its merger w/American (which took place in 2001 months before 9/11). I'm not sure whether the original National Airlines dumped their 747s years prior to their merger w/PanAm in 1980 or not.
3. Once Deregulation became reality, many airlines opted for smaller aircraft (like the DC-9-based MD-80) as a means of boosting frequency but not capacity. Such has been happening even moreso w/smaller aircraft (regional jets flown by regional/commuter airline affiliates vs. mainline jets) over the last two decades.
4. Smaller aircraft like the newer-generation 737s (-600s through -900s) and the Airbus 318/319/320/321 could, in most instances, fly non-stop transcontinental routes. In 2005, I flew EWR-SEA non-stop on a Continental Airlines 737-800.
5. The majority of airports' airfields in the US aren't designed to handle regularly-scheduled A380 operations.
For airport/airfield design, The FAA has six different aircraft design groups (called Groups I through VI) based on wingspan ranges. These design groups set parameters/criteria not only for runway, taxiway & taxilane widths but also for spacing between said-runways/taxiways/taxilanes. The latter is what makes A380 operations an issue at most airports in the US. Whereas the 747-100, -200, -300, -400 are classified as Group V aircraft; the A380 (as well as the new 747-800) are classified as Group VI aircraft. The majority of the largest airports in the US were designed for Group V aircraft operations. Upgrading airfields (i.e. reconfiguring/respacing taxiways) to Group VI standards, like highway expansions, can be a long grueling process not so much from a construction standpoint; but from a permitting and operations (i.e. maintenance of traffic) standpoint as well as cost. At PHL, it took nearly a decade to get a one-way commuter runway (8-26) built and at BOS, it took nearly 30 years to get a similar one-way commuter runway (14-32) built.
IIRC, only five airports in the US are allowed by the FAA to handle regular (vs. isolated landings or diversions) Group VI aircraft operations (LAX, SFO, IAD, JFK, *I'm not sure which airport is the 5th*) and not all of those 5 airports have upgraded their airfields to Group VI standards. JFK, I know, got a waiver for such; but that's doesn't mean there aren't any issues. Several years ago while taxiing at JFK, an Air France A380's wing touched and spun a parked Comair (Delta Connection) regional jet (CRJ-700).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbY5olO1M7k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbY5olO1M7k)
To be clear, this does not necessarily mean that other airports can't allow Group VI aircraft like the A380 to occasionally land and taxi; it simply means that if one comes in, the ATC (air traffic controllers) have to keep other aircraft away from any adjacent and parallel taxiways (to avoid any wing incursions) and direct the Group VI aricraft only along certain taxiways. Such has been done whenever and Antonov-124 (also a Group VI aircraft based on its wingspan) carrying aircraft parts (for Boeing's Helicopter facility in Ridley Park) lands at PHL.
6. A proposed cargo variant of the A380 never made it into production because no cargo carrier wanted it. Either FedEx and/or UPS originally ordered the type but withdrew.
Long story, short; Group VI aircraft like the A380 have a very limited appeal in the actual US airline market. If carriers were already dumping their 747s (Delta (Northwest prior to the merger a few years ago) & United have been the only US airlines flying the type since the late-1990s); why would they opt for even a bigger aircraft like the A380 or even the 747-800 (whose wider wingspan places it in the Group VI category).
Nonetheless, I could see them being used in the Trans-Pacific market in the US; but that's about it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2014, 06:46:03 PM
IIRC, only five airports in the US are allowed by the FAA to handle regular (vs. isolated landings or diversions) Group VI aircraft operations (LAX, SFO, IAD, JFK, *I'm not sure which airport is the 5th*) and not all of those 5 airports have upgraded their airfields to Group VI standards. JFK, I know, got a waiver for such; but that's doesn't mean there aren't any issues. Several years ago while taxiing at JFK, an Air France A380's wing touched and spun a parked Comair (Delta Connection) regional jet (CRJ-700).
I've seen an A380 in two airports: JFK (three times, three different airlines) and ATL (last week). With Air France and Korean Air both using them, I would be surprised if ATL wasn't approved, since they're Sky Team partners.
It looks like Miami International is the sixth one (no wait, Runway 9/27 is a stitch too narrow, but okay'ed by the FAA (http://www.miami-airport.com/pdfdoc/a380-presentation.pdf)).
When Comair was active, their flight attendants would chide 1st and 2nd-row passengers if we'd unbuckled just shy of the gate, and tell us that story. Their planes were tiny enough if you're over 5'8", so a jolt like that while standing or while getting up, could leave a mark...
Quote from: formulanone on August 18, 2014, 08:10:58 PMI've seen an A380 in two airports: JFK (three times, three different airlines) and ATL (last week). With Air France and Korean Air both using them, I would be surprised if ATL wasn't approved, since they're Sky Team partners.
ATL had a new runway (their 5th) and related taxiways built about 9 years ago; knowing that the Group VI aircraft like the A380 was coming, at least that portion of the airfield was likely designed to handle such aircraft.
To clarify, airports serving alliance partners (like Sky Team, One World and/or Star Alliance) does
not automatically mean that said-airport is automatically approved by the FAA for Group VI aircraft operations. The airport either has to have its airfield designed for such (or at least in progress) or submit a waiver to the FAA for approval.
Quote from: formulanone on August 18, 2014, 08:10:58 PM
It looks like Miami International is the sixth one (no wait, Runway 9/27 is a stitch too narrow, but okay'ed by the FAA (http://www.miami-airport.com/pdfdoc/a380-presentation.pdf)).
Actually, according to the FAA Advisory Circular for Airport Design (AC 150/5300-13A) the required runway width for Group VI aircraft (regardless of approach category) is 200 feet, whereas the required runway width for Group V aircraft is 150 feet. I believe that's a recent change; previous versions (prior to 2012) of that AC had the required
design width for Group VI aircraft
equal to that of Group V aircraft (150 feet).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2014, 09:21:11 AM
Quote from: formulanone on August 18, 2014, 08:10:58 PMI've seen an A380 in two airports: JFK (three times, three different airlines) and ATL (last week). With Air France and Korean Air both using them, I would be surprised if ATL wasn't approved, since they're Sky Team partners.
ATL had a new runway (their 5th) and related taxiways built about 9 years ago; knowing that the Group VI aircraft like the A380 was coming, at least that portion of the airfield was likely designed to handle such aircraft.
To clarify, airports serving alliance partners (like Sky Team, One World and/or Star Alliance) does not automatically mean that said-airport is automatically approved by the FAA for Group VI aircraft operations. The airport either has to have its airfield designed for such (or at least in progress) or submit a waiver to the FAA for approval.
Quote from: formulanone on August 18, 2014, 08:10:58 PM
It looks like Miami International is the sixth one (no wait, Runway 9/27 is a stitch too narrow, but okay'ed by the FAA (http://www.miami-airport.com/pdfdoc/a380-presentation.pdf)).
Actually, according to the FAA Advisory Circular for Airport Design (AC 150/5300-13A) the required runway width for Group VI aircraft (regardless of approach category) is 200 feet, whereas the required runway width for Group V aircraft is 150 feet. I believe that's a recent change; previous versions (prior to 2012) of that AC had the required design width for Group VI aircraft equal to that of Group V aircraft (150 feet).
Looks like Orlando's Runway 18/36 may be the fifth, I pulled up an Excel file from the FAA's Airport Data and Contact Information page, it's 200 feet wide and 12,000 feet long.
Unfortunately, I can't bookmark the specific page; you'll have to go to the FAA website under Airports>Airport Safety>Airport Data and Contact Information.
HTH
Quote from: DeaconG on August 19, 2014, 12:02:07 PMLooks like Orlando's Runway 18/36 may be the fifth, I pulled up an Excel file from the FAA's Airport Data and Contact Information page, it's 200 feet wide and 12,000 feet long.
Unfortunately, I can't bookmark the specific page; you'll have to go to the FAA website under Airports>Airport Safety>Airport Data and Contact Information.
HTH
Again, having a runway designed for Group VI aircraft is one thing; one also needs to have the taxiways & taxilanes sized and spaced for Group VI aircraft as well.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 15, 2014, 01:31:33 PM
The main issue here is cost per unit. A380 has uses,but there are no ways to make a profit. Same thing killed most domestic wide body service. Until the 80s and 90s a dc10 or 767 would do cross country.Fuel prices went up causing them to fly with smaller aircraft like the 757 or 737.
I can remember when United and American would fly 747's cross country (like JFK to LAX).
I don't think any airline does that today in the U.S.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2014, 05:40:02 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on August 19, 2014, 12:02:07 PMLooks like Orlando's Runway 18/36 may be the fifth, I pulled up an Excel file from the FAA's Airport Data and Contact Information page, it's 200 feet wide and 12,000 feet long.
Unfortunately, I can't bookmark the specific page; you'll have to go to the FAA website under Airports>Airport Safety>Airport Data and Contact Information.
HTH
Again, having a runway designed for Group VI aircraft is one thing; one also needs to have the taxiways & taxilanes sized and spaced for Group VI aircraft as well.
I think MWAA had to do some work with its gates to handle the A380 at IAD.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2014, 12:51:05 PMI think MWAA had to do some work with its gates to handle the A380 at IAD.
For the existing terminals, for sure but I believe (it's been a while since I've looked at the plans) that the future terminals will have a handful of gates spaced for A380 aircraft.
I'm assuming that where any A380 aircraft parks today; the adjacent gates can't be used. Similar is probably true for other airports in the US that have A380 operations at existing terminals.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2014, 12:49:53 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 15, 2014, 01:31:33 PM
The main issue here is cost per unit. A380 has uses,but there are no ways to make a profit. Same thing killed most domestic wide body service. Until the 80s and 90s a dc10 or 767 would do cross country.Fuel prices went up causing them to fly with smaller aircraft like the 757 or 737.
I can remember when United and American would fly 747's cross country (like JFK to LAX).
I don't think any airline does that today in the U.S.
None, that I've seen. Lately, I try to note what aircraft is available, and adjust accordingly.
United has a few 787s doing hub-to-hub work, 767s for some cross-country flights, a few 777s...but all four-engined passenger aircraft like A340s and 747s are for international trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flights.
Quite frankly, I barely understand how the airlines turn a profit flying $10-50 million machinery for some 500 dollar fare.
Quote from: formulanone on August 20, 2014, 03:02:28 PM
United has a few 787s doing hub-to-hub work, 767s for some cross-country flights, a few 777s...but all four-engined passenger aircraft like A340s and 747s are for international trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flights.
As recently as two-three years ago, there were a few United 747 flights from SFO-O'Hare. Not many though.
Quote from: formulanone on August 20, 2014, 03:02:28 PMUnited has a few 787s doing hub-to-hub work, 767s for some cross-country flights, a few 777s...but all four-engined passenger aircraft like A340s and 747s are for international trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flights.
If the latter part of your sentence (regarding 4-engined aircraft) was intended for other carriers besides United; I would've reworded it. At a glance, it gives the impression that you're saying that United flies the A340 which it does not. United has never flown any widebody Airbusses.
IIRC, I believe Delta still flies 767s on some trans-continental routes to/from ATL. On other routes and with most other carriers; one's lucky if they get a 757 scheduled on a trans-continental route.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 20, 2014, 03:52:44 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 20, 2014, 03:02:28 PMUnited has a few 787s doing hub-to-hub work, 767s for some cross-country flights, a few 777s...but all four-engined passenger aircraft like A340s and 747s are for international trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flights.
If the latter part of your sentence (regarding 4-engined aircraft) was intended for other carriers besides United; I would've reworded it. At a glance, it gives the impression that you're saying that United flies the A340 which it does not. United has never flown any widebody Airbusses.
IIRC, I believe Delta still flies 767s on some trans-continental routes to/from ATL.
Gimme a break, I type on a phone. I wasn't going to break down each Delta flight, USAir, et al.
Quote from: formulanone on August 20, 2014, 03:53:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 20, 2014, 03:52:44 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 20, 2014, 03:02:28 PMUnited has a few 787s doing hub-to-hub work, 767s for some cross-country flights, a few 777s...but all four-engined passenger aircraft like A340s and 747s are for international trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flights.
If the latter part of your sentence (regarding 4-engined aircraft) was intended for other carriers besides United; I would've reworded it. At a glance, it gives the impression that you're saying that United flies the A340 which it does not. United has never flown any widebody Airbusses.
IIRC, I believe Delta still flies 767s on some trans-continental routes to/from ATL.
Gimme a break, I type on a phone.
With all due respect, that's not my problem. :)
Had you posted similar on
Airliners.net; you would've gotten a stiffer rebuke (I'm not kidding on that).
Quote from: formulanone on August 20, 2014, 03:53:36 PM
I wasn't going to break down each Delta flight, USAir, et al.
You didn't need to; I already covered such just when you posted your reply to my reply, reposted below.
QuoteOn other routes and with most other carriers; one's lucky if they get a 757 scheduled on a trans-continental route.
Yes, the pedantic sort that will rip others for a slightly ungainly photo of a plane. Omg! A flap obscures the minuscule difference between subtypes, rejected.
I don't have time to medal in Olympic pissing contests. :)
(And the hell if an Apple phone doesn't try to warp posts into even less sense!)
Quote from: formulanone on August 20, 2014, 04:04:31 PM
Yes, the pedantic sort that will rip others for a slightly ungainly photo of a plane. Omg! A flap obscures the minuscule difference between subtypes, rejected.
I don't have time to medal in Olympic pissing contests. :)
....
You just have to ignore the know-it-all attitude when you encounter it, though it's not always easy to do so.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2014, 12:49:53 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 15, 2014, 01:31:33 PM
The main issue here is cost per unit. A380 has uses,but there are no ways to make a profit. Same thing killed most domestic wide body service. Until the 80s and 90s a dc10 or 767 would do cross country.Fuel prices went up causing them to fly with smaller aircraft like the 757 or 737.
I can remember when United and American would fly 747's cross country (like JFK to LAX).
I don't think any airline does that today in the U.S.
Airlines still do, but it's usually to reposition an international configured aircraft. Delta uses 777s LAX-SYD and ATL-JNB. The usual route was SYD-LAX-ATL-JNB and back. I'll often also fly international configured A330s LAX-ATL.
Delta used to throw in an ATL-MCO-ATL run with the 777 but I haven't seen that in a number of years. And they do sometimes run a DTW-ATL route with a 747.
Quote from: realjd on August 22, 2014, 11:16:18 AMDelta used to throw in an ATL-MCO-ATL run with the 777 but I haven't seen that in a number of years. And they do sometimes run a DTW-ATL route with a 747.
777s were usually used to MCO as training flights to get pilots used to the aircraft before sending them on longhaul flights. For a while Delta even operated an ATL-FLL-JFK routing with their 777s, though that didn't really last too long.
On the topic of the A380 at Atlanta, since early 2012 ATL has made adjustments to the taxiways and the 09/27 runways to handle the A380. They didn't widen the runways or taxiways themselves, but rather widened the paved blast areas on each side by about 15 feet. They didn't really add an actual A380 gate either, they rather added a single jetway and ramp markings at gate E3 where the A380 has to park at an angle, which forces the closure of E1 while the Whale is using E3. Using only 2 jetways to unload an A380 isn't standard either, but then, considering only Korean uses the A380 to ATL for one single flight, and no one else is likely to bring the A380 into ATL in the foreseeable future, this was about as much capital expenditure as ATL was willing to invest to handle the A380.
The A380 is a "Halo" Model for airbus, basically, it is there to sell the smaller aircraft. it is like the Dodge Viper, Ford GT40, Chevrolet Corvette, it sells the lower end models. "look at what they can do with a huge aircraft... i bet their smaller stuff is just as good" The money has always been in the small to mid sized aircraft, the 747 was never expected to turn a profit as a passenger jet, yet it did, and then some as a freighter. Boeing makes their money on the 737/767/777. The 747 is not that widely ordered any more, since everyone has one.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2014, 10:37:30 AM
The A380 is a "Halo" Model for airbus, basically, it is there to sell the smaller aircraft. it is like the Dodge Viper, Ford GT40, Chevrolet Corvette, it sells the lower end models. "look at what they can do with a huge aircraft... i bet their smaller stuff is just as good" The money has always been in the small to mid sized aircraft,
Quite true.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2014, 10:37:30 AM
the 747 was never expected to turn a profit as a passenger jet, yet it did, and then some as a freighter.
As I mentioned earlier, the airline industry was completely different (read "Regulated") when the 747 first rolled out. Nearly every
major airline had at least one in their fleet. However, once the slightly smaller DC-10s & L-1011s rolled out; many carriers dropped the 747 for those widebodies instead. Today, most carriers that once flew DC-10s (later MD-11s) & L-1011s now fly 767s, 777s and/or A330s. The limited-production stretched 767-400 that rolled out over a decade ago, was specifically geared for Continental & Delta to replace their DC-10s & L-1011s respectively.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2014, 10:37:30 AMBoeing makes their money on the 737/767/777.
IIRC, passenger 767 production stopped several years ago in favor of the newer 787 and
new-build cargo-freight 767 production may be winding down as well. Boeing's primary bread-winner is indeed the current 737* (aka 737NG).
*includes 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 & 737-900. Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2014, 10:37:30 AMThe 747 is not that widely ordered any more; since everyone that wants/needs one, already has one.
FTFY.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 25, 2014, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2014, 10:37:30 AM
The A380 is a "Halo" Model for airbus, basically, it is there to sell the smaller aircraft. it is like the Dodge Viper, Ford GT40, Chevrolet Corvette, it sells the lower end models. "look at what they can do with a huge aircraft... i bet their smaller stuff is just as good" The money has always been in the small to mid sized aircraft,
Quite true.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2014, 10:37:30 AM
the 747 was never expected to turn a profit as a passenger jet, yet it did, and then some as a freighter.
As I mentioned earlier, the airline industry was completely different (read "Regulated") when the 747 first rolled out. Nearly every major airline had at least one in their fleet. However, once the slightly smaller DC-10s & L-1011s rolled out; many carriers dropped the 747 for those widebodies instead. Today, most carriers that once flew DC-10s (later MD-11s) & L-1011s now fly 767s, 777s and/or A330s. The limited-production stretched 767-400 that rolled out over a decade ago, was specifically geared for Continental & Delta to replace their DC-10s & L-1011s respectively.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2014, 10:37:30 AMBoeing makes their money on the 737/767/777.
IIRC, passenger 767 production stopped several years ago in favor of the newer 787 and new-build cargo-freight 767 production may be winding down as well. Boeing's primary bread-winner is indeed the current 737* (aka 737NG).
*includes 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 & 737-900.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2014, 10:37:30 AMThe 747 is not that widely ordered any more; since everyone that wants/needs one, already has one.
FTFY.
The 767 production line was saved by the KC-46/KC-767. the 767 has only one major flaw, it's small. It is barely wider than a 737/757. The A380 will probably go down as a great "Marvel" like Concorde. A plane for the history books, that proved not all that useful in the long run.
I see the A380 staying in production til 2025, before it is replaced with a newer twin jet widebody, something along the lines of the 777 in size, maybe a little wider.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 25, 2014, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2014, 10:37:30 AMBoeing makes their money on the 737/767/777.
IIRC, passenger 767 production stopped several years ago in favor of the newer 787 and new-build cargo-freight 767 production may be winding down as well. Boeing's primary bread-winner is indeed the current 737* (aka 737NG).
*includes 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 & 737-900.
And it's exactly that market that's heating up with competition. You have the 737 family and the A320 family, as well as a host of other airplane manufacturers making their own in the class:
Bombardier C-Series
Embraer E-190 and E-195
Comac C919
Irkut MC-21
I suspect that the 737-sized plane is probably
the plane of the future, not the A380 or even the 747-sized planes. Currently, the 737 is the best selling commercial jet airliner ever, and the A320 family sells as fast as they can make them. The A380 strikes me as a mistake. It looks good, like the Concorde before it, but I strongly suspect Airbus misread the market on this one. As 737-sized aircraft gain in efficiency and range, I suspect that they will become the primary go-to aircraft for most operations.
Quote from: Brandon on August 25, 2014, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 25, 2014, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2014, 10:37:30 AMBoeing makes their money on the 737/767/777.
IIRC, passenger 767 production stopped several years ago in favor of the newer 787 and new-build cargo-freight 767 production may be winding down as well. Boeing's primary bread-winner is indeed the current 737* (aka 737NG).
*includes 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 & 737-900.
And it's exactly that market that's heating up with competition. You have the 737 family and the A320 family, as well as a host of other airplane manufacturers making their own in the class:
Bombardier C-Series
Embraer E-190 and E-195
Comac C919
Irkut MC-21
I suspect that the 737-sized plane is probably the plane of the future, not the A380 or even the 747-sized planes. Currently, the 737 is the best selling commercial jet airliner ever, and the A320 family sells as fast as they can make them. The A380 strikes me as a mistake. It looks good, like the Concorde before it, but I strongly suspect Airbus misread the market on this one. As 737-sized aircraft gain in efficiency and range, I suspect that they will become the primary go-to aircraft for most operations.
A 737 sized aircraft already IS the go-to aircraft.
Boeing did drop the ball on this one though, they discontinued the 717 (DC-9-95/MD95/1990s DC-9) in 2006, which is almost perfect for the sub 737 size. Now you got the COMAC ARJ-21 which IS DC-9 based, it uses tooling from the MD-90 that was left in china back in the 1990s. They claim it is all new, but everyone knows it is a MD-90/DC9 family member. That isn't a bad thing though, if it proves itself i could see it becoming a contender in the US market.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 25, 2014, 12:54:15 PMBoeing did drop the ball on this one though, they discontinued the 717 (DC-9-95/MD95/1990s DC-9) in 2006, which is almost perfect for the sub 737 size.
Note: the DC-9 designation was dropped after the MD-88s & MD-90s came about. The only MD-80s that officially carried the DC-9 designation was the MD-81 through 87 (aka DC-9-81 through DC-9-87). McDonnell-Douglass (aka MDD) officially called the MD-95 that (no DC-9-95).
The whole MD-95/717 saga stems from bad timing. The intended mission for that particular aircraft (which was originally planned for 3 lengths) was to replace the old 737s (-100 & -200), DC-9s & F-100s that many carriers were still flying at the time. However, many carriers (mostly legacy carriers like US Airways, Delta, American, etc.) were using smaller regional jets (aka RJs) flown by regional/commuter affiliates/partners for those routes. OTOH, Northwest, which had a boatload of 2nd-hand DC-9s at the time and viewed as a prime candidate for the MD-95/717, decided to keep flying their paid-off DC-9s instead of leasing new aircraft to the very end.
Due to many carriers' scope clauses, the MD-95/717 was considered a mainline jet rather than a regional jet and had to be operated by mainline crews (which were paid higher wages than regional airline crews); and, as a result, demand for the MD-95/717 reached nowhere nears its anticipated demand. BTW scope clauses are determined by passenger-capacity minimums; most carriers in the US had passenger capacity cut-off ranging from 85(?) to 100 passengers. Any plane carrying less than such, was flown by a regional affiliate.
Compounding the matter was the fact that both the manufacturer (MDD) of the type and its launch customer (ValuJet) underwent mergers with Boeing & AirTran respectively within a 2-year period (1996-1998). Boeing bought out MDD (mainly for its defense aircraft) and ValuJet aquired AirTran and took on its name (following the negative press after the 1996 crash of Flight 592 in the Everglades). Since the number of MD-95/717 orders (both firm & options) exceeded 200 frames (AirTran's & TWA's firm/option order alone totalled 200); Boeing initially decided to allow production since the
on-paper orders exceeded the
break-even production number (which IIRC was 200). In addition to AirTran & TWA; many other carriers that flew DC-9s (Hawaiian & Midwest (aka Midwest Express) in the US) ordered the 717 and used them to replace their older DC-9s. In contrast, Boeing promptly notified its MD-80, MD-90 & MD-11 customers that it was shutting production of those types down (the last MD-83 for TWA rolled out of Long Beach in 1999); mainly because those types were direct competitors to its 737NG, 767 & even some of the 777 lines (the shorter 777-200).
Trouble for the 717 production came in 2000-2001 when American Airlines aquired TWA and subsequently cancelled the TWA's remaining order for the type (30 planes were already delivered at the time). American decided to continue using its older, paid-for but more-orphaned (in terms of support) F-100 instead and returned the 717s to Boeing; most of which wound up going to AirTran. This plus the economic slowdown that followed 9/11/2001 basically reduced/eliminated the 717's customer base and demand for the type. Several carriers that
could have been potential 717 customers (ATA as one example) went into bankrupcy & didn't survive. Many foreign carriers that flew the 717 died off as well (Impulse being an early example).
Come 2003, once Boeing was able to convince (some say twist arms with) AirTran (by this time it was the largest 717 operator) to opt for the 737-700 rather than the not-yet-produced 717-300 (a stretched variant of the base 717-200 & roughly the size of the old DC-9-50 series) for its larger plane; they were able to close the production line down.
By the time other carriers realized the 717's potential (some say American later regretted returning their inherited 717s, they later retired their F-100s); production had already shut down and the Long Beach plant was sold off. One report commented that in hindsight, Boeing should've given production approval of the shortened 717-100 variant (which was about the size of the old DC-9-10 series) to combat the regional/commuter aircraft market.
Anyway, and I realize that the above is a large tangent with the topic matter of the A380, had the MD-95/717 been lauched earlier (pre-RJ-boom); it might be still produced today.
Total 717 production was only 156 frames; 87 of which
were flown by AirTran and are now going to Delta.
Southwest, which recently aquired AirTran, announced early on in the merger that they would not integrate the 717 into their system (they want to maintain their
all-one-fleet-type status (such means lower costs)). They unloaded them to Delta for cheap money.
Phlbos, I've seen your name on airliners.net, took me a bit to realize it. Used to be a first class member there.
I see the a380 as having one use that has yet to be touched on. Mobile office/hospital. Imagine if a disaster happens, fly the a380 to the nearest compatible airport and basically use it as a medical center. Or let's says big company is starting operations in a new country. Fly a a380 equipped like an office and rent out some tarmac while the real building is being worked on.
Also, I'd like to see one be given to the red cross for evacuation flights, configured in max passenger configuration. Operation baby lift type stuff.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 26, 2014, 08:36:11 AM
Phlbos, I've seen your name on airliners.net, took me a bit to realize it.
That site introduced me to internet forum boards. I've been on there since 2004 and created my username from a airline route that I would fly between my current and original home airports (PHL-BOS).
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 26, 2014, 08:36:11 AMI see the a380 as having one use that has yet to be touched on. Mobile office/hospital. Imagine if a disaster happens, fly the a380 to the nearest compatible airport and basically use it as a medical center.
...
Also, I'd like to see one be given to the red cross for evacuation flights, configured in max passenger configuration. Operation baby lift type stuff.
A few years back,
Airliners magazine had an article involving 2nd-hand L-1011s being used for such purposes.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 26, 2014, 10:20:02 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 26, 2014, 08:36:11 AM
Phlbos, I've seen your name on airliners.net, took me a bit to realize it.
That site introduced me to internet forum boards. I've been on there since 2004 and created my username from a airline route that I would fly between my current and original home airports (PHL-BOS).
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 26, 2014, 08:36:11 AMI see the a380 as having one use that has yet to be touched on. Mobile office/hospital. Imagine if a disaster happens, fly the a380 to the nearest compatible airport and basically use it as a medical center.
...
Also, I'd like to see one be given to the red cross for evacuation flights, configured in max passenger configuration. Operation baby lift type stuff.
A few years back, Airliners magazine had an article involving 2nd-hand L-1011s being used for such purposes.
The l1011 has that lower deck lounge area, could be useful to help board evac patients. Sadly the l1011 is practically dead, only like 5 left flying.
I see 747 and A380 aircraft continuing to be used for niche markets like LAX-SYD and JFK-DXB with high volume but an infrequent schedule due to time zones. I see the 777, 787, A330, and A350 as the go-to widebody long haul jets for most routes.
Is the 737 ETOPS certified like the 757 is? I see a need for 737/757/767 sized aircraft in the TATL market because it lets the airlines run more frequent, smaller planes with a wider variety of schedules. That's why DL uses exclusively 763/764 aircraft on all flights to LHR. It lets them have non-stops from every hub, and multiple flights with different schedules from places like JFK and ATL.
I'm sad to see the 757 being phased out in favor of the 737. 737s feel cramped to me, and I'll miss getting to turn left on boarding to take my seat up front in F. Because of the 2L door they also tended to have a better ratio of F to Y seats which meant easier upgrades than on the 737.
Quote from: realjd on August 27, 2014, 08:19:11 PM
I see 747 and A380 aircraft continuing to be used for niche markets like LAX-SYD and JFK-DXB with high volume but an infrequent schedule due to time zones. I see the 777, 787, A330, and A350 as the go-to widebody long haul jets for most routes.
Is the 737 ETOPS certified like the 757 is? I see a need for 737/757/767 sized aircraft in the TATL market because it lets the airlines run more frequent, smaller planes with a wider variety of schedules. That's why DL uses exclusively 763/764 aircraft on all flights to LHR. It lets them have non-stops from every hub, and multiple flights with different schedules from places like JFK and ATL.
I'm sad to see the 757 being phased out in favor of the 737. 737s feel cramped to me, and I'll miss getting to turn left on boarding to take my seat up front in F. Because of the 2L door they also tended to have a better ratio of F to Y seats which meant easier upgrades than on the 737.
Oddly the 707/727/737/757 all share the same upper fuselage, the 737 has a model that is almost as big as a 757, only difference is that it sits lower to the ground, and has smaller engines.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 27, 2014, 09:43:05 PMOddly the 707/727/737/757 all share the same upper fuselage, the 737 has a model that is almost as big as a 757, only difference is that it sits lower to the ground, and has smaller engines.
The 707/727/737 share the same exact
nose as well.
Tid bit & based on Boeing's own specs.: the largest 737, the 737-900, has a length of roughly 138'. The 757-200 had a length of about 155' and both the 707 & 727-200 had a length of about 153'.
Quote from: realjd on August 27, 2014, 08:19:11 PM
I see 747 and A380 aircraft continuing to be used for niche markets like LAX-SYD and JFK-DXB with high volume but an infrequent schedule due to time zones. I see the 777, 787, A330, and A350 as the go-to widebody long haul jets for most routes.
Is the 737 ETOPS certified like the 757 is? I see a need for 737/757/767 sized aircraft in the TATL market because it lets the airlines run more frequent, smaller planes with a wider variety of schedules. That's why DL uses exclusively 763/764 aircraft on all flights to LHR. It lets them have non-stops from every hub, and multiple flights with different schedules from places like JFK and ATL.
I'm sad to see the 757 being phased out in favor of the 737. 737s feel cramped to me, and I'll miss getting to turn left on boarding to take my seat up front in F. Because of the 2L door they also tended to have a better ratio of F to Y seats which meant easier upgrades than on the 737.
ETOPS?
DL?
TATL?
F to Y?
I miss the days when the abbreviations here were BGS, SPUI, RIRO, and other things I understood.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 28, 2014, 12:00:22 PM
ETOPS? (Extended range Twin (Engine) Operations) or (Engines Turn Off - Passengers Swim) :sombrero:
DL? (2-letter airline code for Delta Airlines)
TATL? (Trans-Atlantic)
F to Y? (First/Business Class to Coach/Economy Class)
I've flown on a 717-100 before. Was fun.
But yeah, it is amazing just how much boeing was able to modify the 737 to keep up with what was needed.
Airbus has yet to have a jet that was really capable of doing that, the A318-321 has kind of done it...but not to the same extent
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 28, 2014, 08:54:50 PM
I've flown on a 717-100 before. Was fun.
Assuming that you mean the recently discontinued T-tailed plane (flown by AirTran, Hawaiian & now Delta); that would be the 717-
200; the shorter -100 and longer -300 derivatives never made it into production.
Tid Bit: The
original 717-100 would up becoming the military KC-135.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 28, 2014, 08:54:50 PMBut yeah, it is amazing just how much boeing was able to modify the 737 to keep up with what was needed.
Airbus has yet to have a jet that was really capable of doing that, the A318-321 has kind of done it...but not to the same extent
That's partly because Boeing got
at least a 20-year leap on 737 production before the first A320 ever rolled out. Airbus didn't even exist when Boeing launched its first 737-100 circa 1967.
I was actually on a KC-135R when i was in the USAF, we got an "incentive flight" basically a loop to fill up some F16's over south dakota, then return to grand forks. Was fun.
I did get to fly on a 717-200 recently, Delta with an Air Tran tail #
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 13, 2014, 11:17:12 AMI did get to fly on a 717-200 recently, Delta with an Air Tran tail #
IIRC, all the AirTran 717s going to Delta will retain their original tail (registration) numbers.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 28, 2014, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: realjd on August 27, 2014, 08:19:11 PM
I see 747 and A380 aircraft continuing to be used for niche markets like LAX-SYD and JFK-DXB with high volume but an infrequent schedule due to time zones. I see the 777, 787, A330, and A350 as the go-to widebody long haul jets for most routes.
Is the 737 ETOPS certified like the 757 is? I see a need for 737/757/767 sized aircraft in the TATL market because it lets the airlines run more frequent, smaller planes with a wider variety of schedules. That's why DL uses exclusively 763/764 aircraft on all flights to LHR. It lets them have non-stops from every hub, and multiple flights with different schedules from places like JFK and ATL.
I'm sad to see the 757 being phased out in favor of the 737. 737s feel cramped to me, and I'll miss getting to turn left on boarding to take my seat up front in F. Because of the 2L door they also tended to have a better ratio of F to Y seats which meant easier upgrades than on the 737.
ETOPS?
DL?
TATL?
F to Y?
I miss the days when the abbreviations here were BGS, SPUI, RIRO, and other things I understood.
This is off topic. I'm allowed to use non-road-related obscure acronyms here! :)
Quote from: realjd on September 16, 2014, 01:18:18 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 28, 2014, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: realjd on August 27, 2014, 08:19:11 PM
I see 747 and A380 aircraft continuing to be used for niche markets like LAX-SYD and JFK-DXB with high volume but an infrequent schedule due to time zones. I see the 777, 787, A330, and A350 as the go-to widebody long haul jets for most routes.
Is the 737 ETOPS certified like the 757 is? I see a need for 737/757/767 sized aircraft in the TATL market because it lets the airlines run more frequent, smaller planes with a wider variety of schedules. That's why DL uses exclusively 763/764 aircraft on all flights to LHR. It lets them have non-stops from every hub, and multiple flights with different schedules from places like JFK and ATL.
I'm sad to see the 757 being phased out in favor of the 737. 737s feel cramped to me, and I'll miss getting to turn left on boarding to take my seat up front in F. Because of the 2L door they also tended to have a better ratio of F to Y seats which meant easier upgrades than on the 737.
ETOPS?
DL?
TATL?
F to Y?
I miss the days when the abbreviations here were BGS, SPUI, RIRO, and other things I understood.
This is off topic. I'm allowed to use non-road-related obscure acronyms here! :)
I already provided the acronym definitions in an earlier post (reposed below):
QuoteETOPS? (Extended range Twin (Engine) Operations) or (Engines Turn Off - Passengers Swim) :sombrero:
DL? (2-letter airline code for Delta Airlines)
TATL? (Trans-Atlantic)
F to Y? (First/Business Class to Coach/Economy Class)