Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Which Theory Do You Favor? Boeing Or Airbus?  
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

I don't intend for this to be the classic same-old same-old A vs. B topic. I'm merely interested to know what the popular opinion is on which theory of the market is more accurate. Personally, I believe both are correct. I am growing more convinced everyday that Airbus is absolutely right that there is a need for something bigger than the 747 in the market, but Boeing's approach to medium-sized giants like the 787 makes sense for economical purposes and for greater flexibility in the market, as the 787 likely can be adjusted to almost any transcontinental and international routes except those demanding something bigger than a 747. Basically, I think the two theories compromise each other. what do you think? Is Airbus correct? Or is Boeing?


Fly one thing; Fly it well
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGeoffm From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2111 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4562 times:

Quoting Thrust (Thread starter):
Basically, I think the two theories compromise each other. what do you think?

You mean both theories complement each other? If so, I agree.

Geoff M.


User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2679 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4556 times:

The Boeing idea of flying smaller airplanes point to point is the way of the future. Hubs are congested and people don't want to have to stop somewhere. Why go through NRT every time you need to actually get to SIN, HKG, or TPE? The 787 will be the airplane to have in the next decade and the new 737 that is based on it will be the other. I picture a lot of airlines as having just those two airplanes and not needing any others, NWA being one of them. The DC-10s, B-747s, and A-330s will all be replaced with 787s.

Nick


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4555 times:

Basically, Geoffm, yes that is exactly what I mean. You cannot have one theory without the other. Boeing's theory of smaller, medium-sized giants is a more flexible plan than Airbus' idea of a great demand for superjumbos, but it is quite evident that planes like the 787 will simply be too small to do a route like FRA-LAX, SYD-LAX, SYD-HKG, LAX-NRT, LHR-SYD, LHR-HKG, LAX-CDG, etc., and routes like those clearly demand something bigger than the 747-400. Incorporating both theories into the market is the safest bet because all the holes are filled best, in my opinion. It leaves the least possible margain for error.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4554 times:

Also, the disadvantages to each theory in my opinion are cancelled out by the advantages of the other theory. A 747 replacement a 787 is not...we need fuel-efficient transportation, but mass transportation is always nice too. Boeing's theory would increase the waiting lines in an airport....Airbus risks drastically overestimating the amount of passengers that will board the A380. The 747 clearly is not the most flexible plane in the world...to go and claim the A380 is any more flexible is simply stupidity in its greatest definition.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineJustplanesmart From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4530 times:

The first thing that I wish to add on this topic is that the two manufacturers are saying that both "theories" have merit. The disagreement comes in which will be the more dominant trend. Boeing acknowledges that there is a market for a larger aircraft, but that market is limited, so therefore does not justify the expense of developing a new aircraft for it. On the other hand, why would Airbus be proposing the A350 unless they foresee the need for such an aircraft?

As to which idea will prove most correct, I tend to favor the point-to-point idea. I base this on two actual occurrences. The first is the Southwest effect on domestic travel, which has definitely shown a growing desire for direct services as opposed to connecting via a hub. I see no reason that this would not extend to international services unless stymied by political forces, such as the past requirement that planes serving Dublin had to also serve Shannon.

The second thing that supports this is that overseas routes are already showing an increase in ptp services. I look at Seattle - Asia services as an example: Twenty years ago, Seattle saw 20 weekly flights to Narita (NW with 7, UA with 6, TG with 4, JL with 3), all operated by 747's. In addition, Northwest had 747 service to Seoul, from 3 to 5 flights a week depending on season. United also had daily flights to HKG, with DC-10's. So that is approximately 30 weekly flights, mostly with 747's. Now, the flights to NRT are only 14 a week, but UA uses the 777, and NW the A330. Service to Hong Kong is gone, but there are 12 flights per week to Taipei - EVA Air has daily 747 service, China Airlines 5 each week with A340, up from only 3 last year. Northwest no longer service Seoul nonstop, but Asiana has 3 weekly flights with the 777, which will be matched by Korean Air next month. So once the KE service starts, SEA will have 32 weekly flights to Asia, but only 7 of those use the 747. So the total service has not changed much, but the concentration on the main Asian hub is much less, and the relative size of aircraft has also lessened. Sounds much like the Boeing outlook of future international air travel.



"So many planes; so little time..."
User currently offlineJumppilot From United States of America, joined May 2005, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4501 times:

They are both good, you have to have good competition. Look at all of these awesome airplanes they've built to get orders.


pull back to go up, pull way back to go down!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Weekly Do You Prefer:AW&ST Or Flight? posted Fri Nov 12 2004 10:05:45 by B741
Poll: Do You Like Loud Or Quiet Jets? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 07:46:54 by NWDC10
Which Airports Do You Try To Avoid? posted Sun Aug 20 2006 17:37:55 by Usair320
Which Livery Do You Prefer? posted Sun Aug 13 2006 02:16:37 by Ordryan28
Farnborough! Which Aircraft Do You Want To See? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 11:59:28 by Wingscrubber
Which Mergers Do You Forsee? posted Tue Jul 4 2006 13:50:33 by 767-332ER
Spotters Do You Use Digital Or Film Cameras? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 00:13:28 by Americanairfan
Do You Prefer Bulkhead Or Non-bulkhead? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 09:37:25 by Zrs70
Boeing Or Airbus Mutually Exclusive! posted Sat Apr 1 2006 07:48:31 by NASOCEANA
Boeing Or Airbus posted Fri Mar 31 2006 07:06:25 by Widebodysrule