Gearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4492 times:
There has been a lot of debate concerning the merits of Airbus' view of the market versus the declared different position that Boeing is taking with the 7E7. Anyone who has had to endure the hassle of hanging around a large hub airport waiting for a connecting flight can see the appeal in Boeing's contention that people prefer more non-stops between City pairs. On the other hand, when you consider the issues of congestion at terminal Gates, runways and taxiways, and the air lanes themselves you can see the appeal of Airbus' position of the need for a VLA, a la A380 or 747ADV especially as air travel is not likely to decline. It is obvious that both manufacturers actually see both as a real possibility at least when you look beyond the marketing hype. Airbus must agree with Boeing at least to a point, or they would not commit themselves to building a new type on the eve of the A380's first flight. Boeing must also see a market for a large aircraft to compete with the A380 or else they would not be talking about a new advanced 747. It is interesting to note that both manufacturers concede a little to the other's views but both are offering derivatives of existing airframes to answer the 'possible' market.
I recently booked flights between Toronto and Dublin for travel in early march. There is, however, no direct flight between Canada and Ireland at this time of the year. So I booked Air Transat to LGW and Ryanair to DUB with a change in London with all the attendant messing around with baggage claim etc. I would love to have been able to book YYZ to DUB directly but no cigar! Where is there a 7E7 when you need one? In view of this I was thinking: If the 7E7 made travel between YYZ and DUB a profitable venture taking into account the ludicrous Shannon stop-over rules and during the winter months, and was able to open other similar city pairs, Boeing will not be able to build enough of them! I really see that efficiency is the key to any such achievement. If the 7E7 meets it's efficiency goals, maybe we will see unheard of city pairs with direct flights. Perhaps the future will look like this: Airports like Heathrow, O'Hare, DFW and many others large airports full of 380's and many many smaller airports full of 7E7's and A350's. I do personally think that there is much merit in the plans of both Airbus and Boeing and both can do well and make money either way.
Milan320 From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 869 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4401 times:
There is, however, no direct flight between Canada and Ireland at this time of the year.
And if the 7E7 existed now, do you think there would be a direct flight? I doubt it.
But YYZ-LHR loads are always high - so better for the A380, worse for the 7E7 on that route. Remember, LHR is slot-restricted too.
7E7, perhaps for charter flight in this case to Ireland during tourist season.
Just my .0000002 cents
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4389 times:
It depends upon your market. You could say that the 380 is restricted to major hubs, while the 7E7 allows you to avoid them and hit two destinations rather than one and waiting on connecting traffic, assuming your origin airport has the capacity. It all depends on the market needs for a particular airline. Some have limited slot capacity which favors the 380, others are more open or have less demand, which favors the 7E7/350.
For the US carriers, the greatest international expanse will be to the South of it's borders and China (Point to Point open markets) so the 7E7 will serve that quite well. For slot constrained Europe and single flight a day South Asia, the 380 will serve quite well.
Doug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3403 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4358 times:
I don't think you'll see much change in the routes or freqs being flown over the Atlantic, because the market has already been fairly fragmented. Remember since the dawn of transatlantic travel there have been narrowbodies flying the pond- they were first! If a route can't support a 752 or 762, theres no reason it would be able to support a 787. Likewise, right now most routes the 747 is flown on have multiple freqs per day often sharing the route with other a/c types. While the A380 will do a good job replaceing the 747 by adding capacity at peak times and lowering seat costs, it won't exactly be a revolution.
The Pacific is where the real change seems likely (altough some west coast-europe routes might spring up as a result of the 787). With super congested airports like NRT and HKG there's obviously a market for the 380. Likewise, the larger distances (especaily to NA) will allow the 787 to open up markets not previously possible due to the range restrictions of smaller a/c.
It will certainly be intersteing to see to what extent the 787 ends up poaching hub traffic. If it is succesful in this, it will obviously harm the 380 market. However, if it is used to open up new spokes from large hubs, it could potentialy increase feed at the hubs and therefore increase demand to A380 levels for more routes.
Usairways16bwi From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1004 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4322 times:
well i guess a mixture of both point to point and hub and spoke would be good. but it would cost an airline more( lets take CO for example) to fly from EWR-MCI and then on from MCI-COS, even though it may be profitable...but doesnt it cost more to operate some flights from an airport that is not that airlines hub??
ERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6763 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4315 times:
Big Difference between the 380 and the 787 is that the 380 can basically ONLY be used for large markets.. where the 787 can be used for large and medium markets, ie..more P2P .. the 380 is definitely a HUB aircraft.
Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4277 times:
But I do think that Airbus is betting that the airports that are slot constrained will always be slot constrained. I think it's a kind of static vs dynamic analysis in some respects. If there is advantage in increasing slots some way will be found to do so, weather it be with new runways or the implementation of advanced technology in the future. However, I do not think it will go the other way. The world is not going to pull back into the hub and spoke universe so greater fragmentation is an inevitability. The only question is to the speed and degree with which it will happen.
The application of 7E7 technologies to smaller aircraft will allow them greater range and efficiencies making them more attractive to operators to use on longer segments. Also there is no investment in new airport infrastructure needed to accept 7E7 so the potential routes are waiting for the aircraft and not the other way 'round. Smaller, lighter, longer ranged aircraft will be the legacy of 7E7, but I don't see the basic A380 concepts of bigger and more capacious carrying on much beyond the A380 itself.
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4244 times:
Big Difference between the 380 and the 787 is that the 380 can basically ONLY be used for large markets.. where the 787 can be used for large and medium markets, ie..more P2P .. the 380 is definitely a HUB aircraft
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4237 times:
Introducing a 7e7 might make routes which are unprofitable now profitable, but in turn it will make routes which were profitable using say a 767, even more profitable, so the route structure may not actually change that much.
If we made every aircraft around today 20% more efficient, the structure would pretty much stay exactly the same.
Because the 7e7 and A380 are the more advanced planes around, more advanced than what's inbetween, it may encourage both small P2P and large megahub systems. This may polarise the market and medium sized hubs which are normally served by less advanced planes ie 777 A340. These may become less fashionable when it becomes more profitable to either introduce a mega hub or a P2P network over a midi-hub.
So instead of saying the market is going to swing one way or the other, i think its going to be subtly stretched in the middle.
PVG From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 724 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4208 times:
I don't know about anyone else, but as someone who flies long-haul regularly, I can tell you that direct service beats going through a hub anytime. Why would anyone prefer to waste a few hours sitting in airport when they can get to where they are going and feel more refreshed after a long flight. While there may be a need in certain slot constrained airports, I just don't see how airlines are going to fill a 550 seat plane on a daily basis.
Do most 747 operators fill their seats daily? I don't know, but would be interested in some stats. if anyone knows.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4206 times:
Because the 7e7 and A380 are the more advanced planes around, more advanced than what's inbetween
Hold on a second. Let's fast forward to 2010, and make a somewhat bold assumption that the 747-Adv will be launched.
If this does indeed happen, the 747-Adv will no doubt benefit from a next-generation engine relative to the Trent 900/GP7000 and improved seat/mile cost via a 3-meter stretch. The 747-Adv will obviously be no match for the A380's payload, but is it unreasonable to assume the -12% efficency improvement the A388 enjoys over the 744 will be seriously (if not completly) marganalized? I'm inclined to think so, thus your picture is skewed. In 2010, not that far away people, the A380 is the fourth most advanced airframe behind the: 7E7, A350, and 747-Adv, likely in that order.
Historically, airline capital gravitates toward the newest product on the market, regardless of size. Of course the 7E7 and A380 compete! An airline only has X dollars to buy Y number of airframes. Boeing and Airbus are competing over an airline's money be it in the form of 100, 200, 300, or 800 seat airplanes. Again, airline capital gravitates toward the most modern/cost effective airplane on the market...
Now if the A380 is the fourth most modern airframe on the market, the 7E7/A350 offer better seat/mile cost (and they will), the 747-Adv offers equal seat/mile cost (and it could), where will the airline capital flow? Sure H2H will live on, but will the A388 necessarily be doing it? The A388 undoubtably won several orders on the basis that, regardless of capacity, it was more modern than the 744. Obviously this wasn't SQ and other LHR bound carriers, but LH who almost held out on a 747-X proposal??
Point is (1) the A388 will continue to slaughter the 747 on the mega-capacity routes, but (2) don't be suprised when CX and others start lining up in Seattle for a 747-sized aircraft with A388 economics. and (3) airlines could make 767/A330 replacement a higher priority than aquring A388/747-Adv given the superior economics of the smaller 7E7/A350...
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4122 times:
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
7E7-9 versus identically configured A388? Might want to check your numbers, because that was the message Boeing was giving not just a few months ago...
We only need mental math to show how the 7E7-9 is better off against A388 than the 767 was against the 744. For example, the A388 offers about 12% educed seat costs relative to the 744. If the 7E7-8 is 10% better than a 763ER and the 7E7-9 is 10% better than the -8, the B7E9 will be 20% better than a 763ER. We know without any in-depth measurments that the 7E7-9 is a stronger competitor to the A388 than the 763ER was to the B744. Email coming your way.
Are these a definite indicator of the 7E7's economics, of course not, but it is well within the real of possibility that the 7E7 meet or exceed the A388's economics.
DFWrev there are so many crazy assumptions in your post, it's a waste of time considering what will happen as a result of them
What... my assumption that airlines have finite resources and cannot buy every airplane under the sun like some A.netters want? Or the historical trend toward the most modern aircraft which can be proven so many times its mind-numbing? Or the fact that the 7E7's goal is in fact, to match or exceed A388 seat cost?
About the most absurd thing I suggested was 747-Adv launch which is hardly assured at this point...
Gearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3976 times:
And if the 7E7 existed now, do you think there would be a direct flight? I doubt it.
You may be right but I think the 7E7 would be an attractive aircraft to the likes of Air Transat and for that matter other charter/inclusive tour airlines because of it's efficiency and profit potential. If they had them in the fleet, it just might be viable to maintain YYZ/DUB year round! Just a thought.
ATLhomeCMH From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 770 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3916 times:
I remember a news article several months ago in which a DL executive correctly stated that there are passengers in Savannah, GA that need to get to Spokane, WA. The only way to do this is through the hub-and-spoke method.
This method is still the most effective way of getting people where they need to go.
Point to point routes also make sense, however. LCCs like WN who thrive on point-to-point routes, also (whether they admit it or not) have hubs...the three off the top of my head being MDW, DAL, and BWI...I'm sure someone could also make an argument to include PHX and LAX as well. FL has ATL.
Hub-and-spoke is still the best way to transport people who may not live in the big cities. But diversifying your customer base and service options through profitable point-to-point routes can't hurt you.
"The most terrifying words in the Engligh language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"-Ronald Reagan
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3865 times:
Remember that European carriers generally have only 1 international gateway, although they may offer some international service from their no. 2 and no. 3 airports. So, they can fly very large aircraft, such as a 747 or A380 on some routes.
On the other hand, most U.S. carriers offer similar amounts of international service from serveral gateways. AA flies to Europe from BOS, JFK, ORD, MIA, ORD, DFW, and LAX. It flies to Latin America from MIA, DFW, and LAX. And the U.S. carriers have built their schedules on the premise that business travelers want several departures. AA flies 4 times a day on ORD-LHR, with a 5th flight during the summer. UA is adding a 2nd flight between ORD and HKG.
For U.S. carriers, an A380 is way too big. Even a 747 is too big, except for Asian routes and possibly service to London. So for the U.S., the 7E7 makes sense.
From what I've read, the A380 will be flying mostly routes from European capitals to Asian cities. Slot constraints are a consideration. But I don't see European carriers flying the A380 to the U.S. Back when most service to Europe was departing JFK or ORD, it made sense. But even the European carriers are flying to places like MSP, ATL, and IAH, so that passengers can connect with an alliance carrier.