Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Does Speed Sell?  
User currently offlineAirBuffalo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 138 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2217 times:

Initial specs of the 7E7 advertise 747-like cruising speed of 0.85. But I ask, why?

Do any airlines market the fact that "our planes fly faster"? What advantage does a marginally-faster aircraft have in today's market? After all, do any trans-oceanic pax care if their flight takes 8.6 hours vs. 9?

Other than the prestige of being "the fastest airliner in the sky", I don't understand why the 7E7 would be designed for such a fast cruise, especially at the sacrifice of the plane's strongest selling point -- efficiency.

It seems a telling statistic that the fastest airframe is a nearly 40 year old design. After all, the MD-11 is spec'ed to cruise slower than the DC-10.

Any thoughts?

BS


16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAFC_ajax00 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

Interesting point, when you look at adverts from the days when jets first appeared, you see that they did try to promote the fact that they were operating fast jets. However, you don't see that anymore.


Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward; for there you long to return
User currently offlineBlackbird615 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

AirBuffalo, I asked the same question awhile back. The typical response was most users did not care about speed especially if the difference was small. I remember when United using DC8's stated in advertising they had the quickest time LAX-JFK and speed was a consideration to travellers. In my opinion I'd prefer to save an hour in transit and pay slightly more. The general consensus was airlines have adopted the mentally of efficient flying, reduced maintenance and lower cost per mile vs. faster flights. In short transit time is no longer used to attract fliers and hubs are a part of our travel environment adding to travel times. I fly from ATL to LAX frequently and would find value in reduced transit times and willing to pay a slight premium.

Blackbird615



Never fly the "A" model of anything!
User currently offlinePenguinflies From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 988 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2133 times:

At first people traded speed, from ships to props to jets. Now they trade economy, how much profit does a customer (an airline) get by getting there at a certain time.

User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2132 times:

Duh! Being 30mins late for an interview is different from being 5mins late.


Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6816 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

Does speed sell?

Depends if you can get the fare yield from it, plain and simple. Otherwise, all this talk about small incremental block time gains is really a red herring.

Only the Concorde has been able to exploit the time premium...



User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6451 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2060 times:

Oh yes, speed is appreciated.

Five hours ago I "landed" in a taxi at ARN. I went straight to the SAS ticket counter, presented a ticket for tomorrow evening and said: "I want to get home as soon as possible".

The nice lady said that there was a plane leaving in twenty minutes, which I couldn't reach, and then there was the next plane in one and a half hours.

I said: "I can make it in twenty minutes, I am a fast runner". She said that most likely my checked baggage would also make it in twenty minutes, but should it fail, the it would be just over one hour behind me. Ten minutes later I sat on a plane which left exactly on time.

My bag arrived as the first bag on the belt at CPH just as I arrived at the baggage pick-up.

When did you last time make an international flight between two capital cities, and the time gap between booking the flight and picking up your bag was only 88 minutes?

I think that it is close to a world record. Even if it included a roughly five minutes delay since after push-back we ended up as number four in the take-off queue.

Bravo, well done, Scandinavian Airlines.

The plane was a slooow Mach 0.82 A321.

Happy landing, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2034 times:

Yes. For premium passenger on very long haul flights speed does sell. One of the main reasons that SQ dumped most it 340s in favour of 777s was speed. On flights from SIA to Europe the 747s and the 777s generally arrived 30-60 minutes ahead of the 340s. Thats probably why the newer 340-500/600 are much faster than the 340-200/300.

User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

In the early days of the jet age it did.

But now most a/c travel at about the same speed and heights and now the skies are much more congested so flying faster in a normal airliner doesn't really reap the benefits it did back in the 60's when the jets were cruising way way above the props in almost empty skies. Also the congestion going into major airports doesn't help either hence the fact that it now takes longer to fly from London-Paris in the 21st century than it did 40 years ago !!!.


I certainly wouldn't mind the extra time saved from a faster a/c. It's just a shame that the manufacturers won't commit to building another generation SST, but then I suppose it's the travelling public who want everything for nothing that are the ultimate ones responsible for that.

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1933 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Considering that most airlines pad their schedules with extra time to avoid "being late".. i doubt that a 15 min enroute time saving will make people pay more $$


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSpaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1906 times:

I have heard the A380 will have the fastest cruise speed in commercial flying, even faster than 747-400.  Wow!

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

One of the main problems is that nowadays, with huge airports running beyond capacity, there is a great deal of time spent while not in the airplane.

Getting to the airport, finding a place to park, walking to the terminal, standing in lines to check in, standing in lines to get through security, standing in lines at any eatery you may stop at, standing in lines to get on the airplane, the airplane being in a long line for takeoff....then a reasonably short flight....then possibly the aircraft having to wait for the gate, standing in lines to get off the airplane, walking to baggage claim, standing for a while waiting for your bags, standing in lines for shuttles or however you plan on getting to your destination, and then the trip there.

I'm sure everyone can relate to what I said above...no matter how fast the aircraft you're in is, it doesn't do much to help the overall length of the trip. Time and money needs to be spent streamlining all those operations instead of trying to make the actual flight a few minutes shorter.


User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

Although if you are on a faster a/c then your flight would arrive before the rest so you'd miss out on the huge queues on arrival.

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineHorus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1815 times:

Isn't the fact the B777 is faster than the A340/A330, a decisive factor why airlines chose the Boeing over the Airbus? Or at least that's what Boeing keeps on promoting to airlines.

I guess speed is important but it depends on the price you have to pay for it. The now-dead Boeing Sonic Cruiser was proof of this. Many airlines including United and Virgin Atlantic were interested but the fact the jet guzzled up so much fuel, it was abandoned.



EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
User currently offlineJfernandez From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

I find that the speed in transit isn't what matters, it's the 30 minutes or so you sometimes spend on the ground each way which is the killer.

User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8376 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1750 times:

Comparing a 777/A340 with a 7E7 is like comparing apples and oranges.
In the 7E7 I don't think speed counts for much. It's range is not long enough that a sligh increase in spead would make much of a difference in total trip time.
Mach .80 vs .85 in a 6 hour flight is not nearly as significant as on a 14 hour flight. And even that is not that significant at all for most people.


User currently offlineMITaero From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 497 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

Yes, it sells to airlines. This isn't an issue of passengers getting someplace more quickly.

If half an hour is saved on a long flight, this alleviates on-time pressure on the airlines. It's like quickening the turnaround time of the aircraft, possibly leading to an extra flight per day here and there.


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...
Airlines Does Any Sell Ads On Outside Of Aircraft? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 04:26:36 by RJdxer
What International Markets Does KE Sell The F-cabin posted Sun Jul 17 2005 20:47:22 by ASTROJET707
How Does Purchase-Sell & Then Lease Back Work posted Mon Feb 16 2004 09:12:29 by HAWK21M
Does Speed Matter? posted Thu Jul 26 2001 01:56:56 by Airlinelover
Roughly How Many 748s Does Boeing Expect To Sell? posted Fri Mar 10 2006 00:49:31 by AviationAddict
Does The Speed Of BK Restructuring Really Matter? posted Sun Nov 27 2005 02:19:00 by Tl8490
BA&IB: Does BA Need To Merge? posted Mon Mar 26 2007 07:14:04 by Scotron11
How Much Does It Cost An Airline... posted Mon Mar 26 2007 06:09:37 by Lincoln
Who Does Callsign "Sierra" Belong To? posted Sat Mar 24 2007 22:47:34 by Tomascubero
What Does JetBlue Plan To Use To HPN posted Sat Mar 24 2007 18:24:45 by Yankees