Official: Britain out of Airbus

[Dave Wooley]

As stated in my previous post Boeing is in for a rough ride if customers start demanding compensation. It's been reported in the Times that Boeing are seriously considering scraping the first 787 and going back to the cad programs to sort out the mounting problems with the fuselage . As many of you will know I'm certainly no fan of the A380 but I fear Boeing have done themselves no favours in forcing the pace of the 787 Dreamliner without resolving all of the constuction problems first .
Dave Wooley

[Werner]

The 380 has two problems: first, the West is moving away from "hub and spoke" routes the 380 requires to smaller aircraft flying direct routes. This is even more true when the hub cities start charging gas and pollution taxes for using their airports.

Second, the Airbus 380 is much more expensive to operate per passenger mile than the 787 based on it's standard seating configuration. It is likely to become much more expensive to operate on a revenue mile basis than the 787 as fuel prices rise and the full impact of CO2 taxes come into play. The only place and way it can make money is by packing passengers in a maximum capacity situation. This may be acceptable in China, but unlikely to be useful on US Transcontinental, Transatlantic or Transpacific flights.

The 787 is so much less expensive to operate, I doubt the buyers will squawk too loudly unless there is another slip.

[ARH]

AND THE FIRST GOES IN TO SERVICE.

[Guest]

Bums on seats, more seats then more bums.

And what good are bums? Wouldn't you want to actually get paid?

[ar]

Bums on seats, more seats then more bums.

And what good are bums? Wouldn't you want to actually get paid?

Dear Mr Guest,
Am not quite sure what you mean. However, more bums means more revenue, at least I think so.
Once again let me ask, how many seats can be fitted into the A380 and how many into the 787?
I remember when the 747 entered service many moous ago, the top deck was used as a lounge/stand-up bar, etc, etc. I don't think that this lasted very long. It was filled with seats after a while, and there was a reason for that, more passengers, more revenue.

[Timmy C]

He meant "bums" as in impoverished homeless people.

[Werner]

BA seems to be at about the median for companies which have purchased the A380. Their orders are about 1 Airbus for every 2 Boeing 787s they buy.

The initial customers are obviously not concerned about passenger-miles or economy on their "flagship" 380s. Singapore Airlines plans on a 471 passenger configuration for their first several planes, which is obviously a large trend toward executive and premium configurations. Quantas is another early adopter, and have a 450 seat configuration, far from the maximum approved load of 853 passengers. In these configurations the airplane is substantially more expensive to operate than a 747-8.

At this moment, EADS has firm orders for 165 A380s, and the "break even" point is 420 aircraft; probably an unlikely number, especially with oil over $US 90 a barrel. The 787 is 20% more efficient per passenger mile than the A380.

[ar]

Time will tell.
Doubling of long haul international flights over the next eight years. No more slots at several international airports must mean bigger planes to take the increased traffic. And there is no reason to think that this trend will stop.
I can at least see some planes being purchased for cargo alone.
Been to Heathrow/JFK lately?
Cannot prove that I am correct, but wait a few years.

[Werner]

Been to Heathrow/JFK lately?

Recent agreements between the US and The UK which allow direct flights to regional airports from overseas will alleviate this problem. Soon you will be able to fly from Albany to Manchester, or from Sheffield to Milwaukee.

Cargo flights to FedEx's new center at Indianapolis and so on will tend to reinforce the new "anti-hub paradigm" which operates to the disadvantage of the Airbus.

I can fly to Heathrow from O'Hare (hub-to-hub) and endure a 30% on-time record, or I can take Northwest from Milwaukee to Gatwick with about a 98% on-time record.

[ar]

Been to Heathrow/JFK lately?

Recent agreements between the US and The UK which allow direct flights to regional airports from overseas will alleviate this problem. Soon you will be able to fly from Albany to Manchester, or from Sheffield to Milwaukee.

Cargo flights to FedEx's new center at Indianapolis and so on will tend to reinforce the new "anti-hub paradigm" which operates to the disadvantage of the Airbus.

I can fly to Heathrow from O'Hare (hub-to-hub) and endure a 30% on-time record, or I can take Northwest from Milwaukee to Gatwick with about a 98% on-time record.

Dear Werner,
Forget hubs, spooks and wheels and things.
THINK GLOBAL my boy.
Question if I may. How many 747 and variants were built, approximately?

[Timmy C]

How many 737s have been built?

[winstonshu]

Time will tell.
Doubling of long haul international flights over the next eight years. No more slots at several international airports must mean bigger planes to take the increased traffic. And there is no reason to think that this trend will stop.
I can at least see some planes being purchased for cargo alone.
Been to Heathrow/JFK lately?
Cannot prove that I am correct, but wait a few years.

it's not looking good for a cargo version of the 380. for all intents and purposes, it was stillborn once UPS canceled their orders due to the delays.

[winstonshu]

Recent agreements between the US and The UK which allow direct flights to regional airports from overseas will alleviate this problem. Soon you will be able to fly from Albany to Manchester, or from Sheffield to Milwaukee.

Cargo flights to FedEx's new center at Indianapolis and so on will tend to reinforce the new "anti-hub paradigm" which operates to the disadvantage of the Airbus.

I can fly to Heathrow from O'Hare (hub-to-hub) and endure a 30% on-time record, or I can take Northwest from Milwaukee to Gatwick with about a 98% on-time record.

Dear Werner,
Forget hubs, spooks and wheels and things.
THINK GLOBAL my boy.
Question if I may. How many 747 and variants were built, approximately?

as poster after you asked - how many 737s were built?

either way, the point of the 787 is that it's still long haul, but better fuel economy, less passengers, and able to serve smaller airports. the 787-3 is a short haul bird, but its sisters the -8 and -9 have range comparable to a 747.

time will tell which airport model wins out, but at this point i'd say the smaller hubs model looks to be the surer bet, both for consumers and for airlines.

[Werner]

As of June 2007 1,387 B747s had been built, with 120 more in various configurations on order.

Over 7,000 B737s ordered and over 5,000 delivered, it is the most ordered and produced commercial passenger jet of all time.

[ar]

As of June 2007 1,387 B747s had been built, with 120 more in various configurations on order.

Over 7,000 B737s ordered and over 5,000 delivered, it is the most ordered and produced commercial passenger jet of all time.

Time will tell.
Where did the 737 question come from?

[Timmy C]

As a rhetorical question to your question of "How many 747s were built", basing on the comparison of A380:747 and 787:737.

[ar]

As a rhetorical question to your question of "How many 747s were built", basing on the comparison of A380:747 and 787:737.

You made a mistake. It's a case of The Queen is dead, long live The Queen!
Some one will explain.

[Guest]

As a rhetorical question to your question of "How many 747s were built", basing on the comparison of A380:747 and 787:737.

You made a mistake. It's a case of The Queen is dead, long live The Queen!
Some one will explain.

While the comparison between A380 and 747 has some merit, there is no real merit in making parallel between 787 and 737. The closest parallel to 787 would have been 767.

[Werner]

The queen is not dead yet. The 36 747-400 + 81 747-8 ordered this year (both cargo and passenger versions) mean that the B-747 will be in production for some years yet. The number of open orders for 747s is about the same as the entire order book for the A380. It is not impossible that the last aircraft will be built more than 40 years after the first. Quite an achievement.

Incidentally, the record of 1088 passengers is currently held by an El-Al B747.

[JPH]

Time will tell.
Doubling of long haul international flights over the next eight years. No more slots at several international airports must mean bigger planes to take the increased traffic. And there is no reason to think that this trend will stop.
I can at least see some planes being purchased for cargo alone.
Been to Heathrow/JFK lately?
Cannot prove that I am correct, but wait a few years.

it's not looking good for a cargo version of the 380. for all intents and purposes, it was stillborn once UPS canceled their orders due to the delays.

Check this one out. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ement.html

No doubt in my mind the USAF are simply giving the A380 a look so as to appease the higher powers & outside interests. No way the U.S congress would allow an A380 to be the next AF1. The next USAF Air Mobility Command jets to replace the current VC-25's (the two air force one 747-200's) will be the soon to be released Boeing 748i's. However the A380F does stand a better chance of being the replacement for the ageing C-5 Galaxy Heavy lifts. Although in my humble opinion this to will remain American with the C-5 remaining after extensive refit or Boeing 748F's getting the go ahead.

Interesting times.