Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The 7E7 Designed For A Wrong Market?  
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8186 times:

Hello, and first of all, this is not about bashing.

I’ve read this afternoon both Boeing and Airbus views about the market (documents taken from their website). I am not expert and had no pre-opinion. I’m just curious about all these market debates we can read everywhere at the moment.

The Airbus documentation is I believe more detailed and in the end looks more realistic to me but this of course opened to discussion.

Basically Airbus is saying the long range point to point network does not work. At best you have hub to point and many of these markets are discontinued. So they are less likely to deeply impact the hub-hub traffic.

When I’m thinking about the long range network, from Europe (I don’t know very well other continents), it is true I can’t find a point-point route except for charters or maybe some seasonal routes. They seem all linked to the large cities at one side at least. In France for instance, there was Lyon-NYC for a while if I remember but again this was a point-Hub type of route.

So from here I would give more credits to Airbus.

This leads to the question : if the 7E7-8/9 are designed for point-point, maybe it is designed with not enough seats or too much range? In fact aircraft like 777, A330, A340 and perhaps the A350 look more appropriate as they offer more seats.

If you have any thoughts to share.


Never trust the obvious
64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8044 times:

Basically Airbus is saying the long range point to point network does not work. At best you have hub to point and many of these markets are discontinued. So they are less likely to deeply impact the hub-hub traffic.

If this were the case, the 7E7 wouldn't scare Airbus and the A350 is a waste of $3 billion. Both markets will be there, both aircraft will be needed. Each company has a different opinion on which market will be bigger, however. Based on the past few years, the 747 sized aircraft really hasn't been as popular. Airlines have been shifting to smaller 777/A330 or 767/A300 sized aircraft. Only a few routes warrant an aircraft the size of the A380, as it's uneconomical on shorter routes. The 7E7 is designed for both long and short range flights. This is why I see the 7E7 as the better choice. It gives airlines more options and the ability to offer more frequencies. This doesn't mean the A380 won't have it's place, just that the 7E7 will have a larger chunk of the market.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8023 times:

I disagree with the idea.
As I have said in other posts (before I get slammed!) I think that there IS a market for the A380. But not a big one. Airbus will be successful at it, but if Boeing jumped in and did the same, both manufacturers would go down the tubes for a while.

I think that the 7E7 has a much larger market. The 767 (which it replaces, mind you) has been a VERY successful aircraft, with production approaching 1000 units (not quite there yet).
Additionally, the Southwest business model works. And one of the main ideas behind it is POINT TO POINT SERVICE. Connect the dots. Passengers prefer to fly nonstop (except us aeroplane nerds). The 7E7 will make it more feasible for airlines to fly nonstop routes to connect the dots.
Now, it will be viable for an airline to fly secondary longhaul routes. For example, Instead of having to do LHR to JFK, we might see a growth of MAN-BWI or something. NOT AS MANY PAX demand that service, but that's okay- the 7E7 is smaller than the 777 or 747.

On top of all that, the bloomin' thing burns 20% less fuel (if it merely MEETS Boeing's specs... I can't think of a recent airplane that has met them, they have all EXCEEDED projections... the 717, 737NG, and 7773ER all burn less fuel that Boeing promised...). SO- airlines could even use the 7E7 to replace existing 767 and A300 fleets.
Northwest announced today that it is replacing its remaining DC-10-30s with 333s... all for just 20% less fuel. Granted, there will be a reduction early on in maintenance costs, but that will disappear over the 20 year life span of the plane.
If the 7E7 can burn 20% less fuel that even the A333 (which it just might accomplish), you have instantly turned the A333, A300, A310, and 767 into obsolete replicas of DC-10s.
When times get good again (surely they will???) these things just might sell like hotcakes, ESPECIALLY (here's factor number something) given how CHEAP Boeing is selling them!
The target price was $120 million.
The A350 will sell for $160-$180 million, Airbus says.
Burns less fuel, costs less money...

That's about all I have in my pointy little head at this point.
Hope this is a valuable perspective.
R


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8016 times:

Airther would have us fly 777-400s and A380-800s in to places like Westchester, New York.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineNyc777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5731 posts, RR: 48
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7982 times:

126 orders with at least 100 more in negotiations, Airbus coming up with the A350 in response...in a word..NO!!!!!!!


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7953 times:

to FriendlySkies :

The A350 have more seats so it can link big/average markets, not small point-point markets the 7E7 is aming at according to Boeing.

And i would like more in depth analysis about the market rather than just saying the usual "both markets will be there".

As for the evolution of the 747 sales, it does not tell much about the market except we know many were misused (for their range only) and airlines are not keen to order 747 when a 500+ seater will be soon out. Also some 777/A340 aircraft offer almost similar seat capacity but are perhaps more flexible/modern aircraft. So i believe looking at the 747 evolution may not be fully appropriate the explain the way the market is evolving.

[Edited 2005-01-26 22:17:10]


Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7929 times:

Exactly how much more in depth do you want? It's no secret that the A350 was developed to compete with the 7E7...it just happens to be bigger. What Airbus fails to realize is that there will ALWAYS be a market for a smaller widebody. Look at all the 767s & A300s out there...Airbus has NOTHING, I'll repeat that, NOTHING, to replace the short range versions of these planes. The A330 and the A350 are too heavy to economically fly these routes...enter the 7E7-3, designed specifically for shorter routes & 767A/A300 replacement. If it gets to the point where airlines need to fly A380s between ORD & MKE, then the world has too many people.  Big grin

No matter how much you try to deny it, the 7E7 will be one of Boeing's biggest successes...Airbus knows it, hence the A350. There is no definate way of knowing which market will be bigger in 20 years, all anyone can say is there will be a market for both. If you invent a time machine and want to go find out for us, be my guest. But you won't and can't get a definate answer, because it's all theory.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8179 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7890 times:

Both companies have potentially profitable planes IF they exceed expectations. Both also have related competition (the 350 and 747 ADV) that could impact their sales.

The critical issue for both is to "get it right the first time". A cannot afford to have SQ reject long term use of the 380 (they've done that with another A plane) and B cannot afford to have their new technologies fail to perform as promised.

In terms of profitability, A is more at risk from outside issues, like a serious downturn in the economy or terrorists activities that dramatically reduce passenger traffic.

Overall, it is going to be an interesting time to follow both companies as they venture into new territories.


User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7873 times:

toAA737-823

You were mentioning the 767, but if you look at the transatlantic market, 767s are doing Hub to point but no point to point. CO for instance has announced new routes using 757 but all I believe are from NYC. Again this is not point to point.

About Soutwest, first I’m not sure the Southwest network model would work for the long range. In addition, people seem to think low costs are doing point to point while in Europe at least, they are mostly doing hub to point (many start from secondary airports around London). So again, even for the low costs, point to point does not really exists.

Airlines like ANA have ordered 7E7s but did they mention where they would fly them on the long range market ?
Because again, if they fly from Tokyo, this would not be point to point. So are they actually planing routes like Kawasaki-Phoenix (this would really be point-point) ?

OK, I’m not saying the 7E7 won’t be successful, it’s just about Boeing saying this is the “point to point” aircraft. But I can’t imagine where is this point to point potential ? because if point-point route don't work very well at the regional level, i can't imagine how they could work at the international level ?

[Edited 2005-01-26 22:35:50]

[Edited 2005-01-26 22:38:42]


Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7838 times:

OK so perhaps the title was not good.

Maybe the question should be :

WHERE IS THE POINT TO POINT POTENTIAL BOEING IS TALKING ABOUT ?



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7827 times:

A large part of the drop in pax sales of the B747-400 can probably be attributed to the long line of problems that airlines have faced in the past years: Asian traffic dropped significantly with the economic crisis there in the 1990s, only to be hammered again with the events beginning with 11 September 2001.

So, yes, I agree with you, Aither, that the evolution of the markets into more point-to-point flying is not the only reason why the B747-400 has developed into a plane less and less interesting for dozens of airlines.

As for the future, eventually, we'll have to wait and see how it will turn out, because it certainly could go both ways - but I do see a limit to point-to-point flying, a limit that will always have to be overcome by hubs.

Here in Germany, for example, there are several larger cities that simply do not warrant even nonstop intercontinental flights to hubs - most notably Hamburg and Berlin (and it remains to be seen whether DL and CO will succeed with their new flights from these two towns), not to mention further cities like Hannover, Leipzig, Dresden and Nürnberg. These towns will, in all likelihood, have to continue to rely on hubs for longhauls.

Sure, a lot of people want nonstops - or at least the smallest number of intermediate stops available... but as soon as you offer them a flight that's €25 to €50 cheaper with an additional connection, most people will take the cheaper flight... and if the flight with the additional connection is with an airline that they, for whatever reason (because they have flown with them before, because they think it's a good airline, ...), prefer, then they'll also select the connection over the nonstop, even if the connection is, in fact, a bit more expensive.

The next problem that I see, especially for Continental but to a lesser degree for Delta as well (and this might be a surprise to some), is that both brands aren't really all that well known here - so unless they unleash a huge (or at least "large") amount of marketing money in Hamburg and Berlin, as they probably will, there's no way that they'll be able to get a lot of passengers into their nonstops, if (especially) Lufthansa, Air France, British Airways or KLM offer flights going through their hubs at roughly the same price.


With the lowering of cost that will, most likely, be brought about by the B7e7, I do see some additional city pairs becoming profitable, but as I see it, this will not put more than a small dent into hub flying.

Then again, we'll see in a few years...

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineRj111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7818 times:

56 orders Nyc777

In my book the 7E7 will give airlines options to extend P2P services to longer haul destinations, like MAD-NRT. I don't however think that this network will be as extensive as the typical TransAtlantic one, nor do i think the current TransAtlantic one will begin to see many new routes.


User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7798 times:

MAD-NRT is point to hub... or hub to hub some could argue..


Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineDoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7755 times:

Theres no reason te 7E7 can't go between hubs as p2p flying. If you fly on UAL between SFO and ORD (as your o & d), then you're using the flight as a p2p. Its more convient for you and cheaper for the airline than making you connect in Denver.

Likewise, if NW flies a 7E7 from DTW to HEL, they are creating a new market. Yes, they could fly poeple to AMS and have them connect to HEL, and yes some people from IND may use it, connecting in DTW. But a new route is still opened, increasing NW's ability to compete by decreaseing costs and and increasing the value of their service. The fact that they are able to get the $ from the poeple connecting from IND (and MKE, and JAX, Etc) is just gravy.



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7661 times:

Doug,

You assimilate Point to Point as O & D. Interesting.

So LON-NYC would be point to point if for instance your origin is LON and final destination NYC.

However, i don't think this is the Boeing interpretation of Point to Point as they talk about city pairs and not O&D.



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineAerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4681 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7563 times:

Not just point to point as a selling issue, but an increase in FREQUENCY of flights to a destination throughout the day. A selling point for the business traveler.


"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlineMNeo From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2004, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7545 times:

The problem with long rand point to point is maintinance. After a 36hour flight from LHR-SYD BA planes need to be tuned up a little. This system also raises the question of 5th freedom rights. U cant just start flying CDG-DXB-SIN-HKG-CDG (just as an example). WN does not have as many regluations as long haul travel does. Remember that Airlines are looking to attract the customes that buy the buisness class seats. Theres not that great of a demand to fly daily, but also frequency counts.

I think that the 7E7 was desinged for 762/3 A300/310 replacement.



Powered by Maina
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6093 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7545 times:

Aither, I think that you have illustrated a valid issue.

IMVHO, the 7E7 really is just an innovative 767 replacement that offers better economics (likewise, the A350 is just an A330/A340 replacement).

The extra range from both aircraft is obviously nice to have but... how many totally NEW point-to-point or point-to-hub services will they really initiate?

My guess is very few.

If you look at the OAG data base, there are very few 767 or 330 flights that even approach their range limits.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7524 times:

However, i don't think this is the Boeing interpretation of Point to Point as they talk about city pairs and not O&D.

P2P means one thing: flying a flight between two cities that would normally require a connection. O & D is city pairs, think about it...origin & destination, hmm....point 1 to point 2. Boeing is giving airlines the opportunity to fly longer routes without having to stop. This doesn't mean that Boeing sees the hub & spoke system going away, but rather, the hub & spoke system utilizing fewer connections and more P2P, thus releaving the heavy loads on super hubs like ORD & ATL and making it easier for passengers to get where they're going. Airbus thinks that airlines want to make super super hubs, with a bunch of double decker airplanes sitting around a 75 gate concourse. Which sounds more reasonable to you?


User currently offlineSingaporegirl From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 302 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7488 times:

ken777: "A cannot afford to have SQ reject long term use of the 380 (they've done that with another A plane)"

sq dumped b757s in favour of a310s as well. i don't remember the reason though, this was way before my time!  Big grin



Ladies & Gentlemen, we will now demonstrate the use of the safety equipment on this aircraft...
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24995 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7480 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

FriendlySkies:

We've been through this on other threads, and this isn't what Airbus thinks at all.

Airbus does think that there will be some "superhubs". Let's start with one - Singapore - for which there can be no possible alternative within that same country.

So point to point flying isn't going to help much there. Do you really think people who want to go to Singapore are going to fly to Malacca in another country?

Singapore is/will be a superhub, no matter what Boeing says.

There is certainly a market for point to point flights from the US to Britain, say, and other European countries, but can you seriously imagine the day when most passengers flying to Britain don't want to go to London?

Do you want to talk about Russia? The passenger demand is for Moscow and St. Petersburg. I can't see many point to point flights from Indianapolis to Ekaterinaburg doing all that well.

Australia? The Oz government has tried to persuade airlines to fly to other cities, but without much luck - most people want to go to Sydney.

And then there's Africa - but you probably get the point. If you don't, I could go on. And on. And on.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7444 times:

No, Airbus believe in both (they even say 60+ new routes on the very long range market and that A330 and A340 are designed for these routes).

But they see not that much new city pairs.

Like i said i don't deny the possibility the 7E7 can open new routes. It's just about the type. You say whatever the route, if it is new, it increases the direct traffic so this is point to point, whatever both cities are hub or not.

THE ISSUE OF DEFINITION
So point to point should not be read as basically "non hub" to "non hub" but "direct flight" only (it can be Hub-Hub!). I can accept that definition although in Boeing documentation, it looks like this is not the one they are using but anyway...



But if we admit the "non hub" to "non hub" does not work, new routes will be opened between :
A : hub-hub
B : hub-non hub

For A, i think all the direct routes already exist.

For B, this is indeed the 777, A340/A330 and A350/7E7 market.
The question is how many Hub-non hub routes you can profitably open ?
Maybe a lot maybe not because as mentioned in my first post Airbus is saying many Hub-non hub routes have proved not profitable. I'm not sure the marginal increased efficiency of 7E7 and A350 can change that (ok 20% less fuel burn but fuel burn % of DOC is what 20-30% ?).



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineRogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7440 times:

Aither,

You're right to read the detailed market analysis provided by both Boeing and Airbus. Until people read that, they're just giving their opinion based mostly on what manufacturer they like or think is smarter.

You were mentioning the 767, but if you look at the transatlantic market, 767s are doing Hub to point but no point to point. CO for instance has announced new routes using 757 but all I believe are from NYC. Again this is not point to point.

Actually, EWR is not much of a hub for CO, something like 80% of their traffic is from the NYC area, so this is in fact a point to point route, as are, I'm guessing, most long range routes form JFK. Big hubs for international travel in the US are ORD, ATL, DFW - not coastal cities which are good O&D markets, but not good hubs.

SO, NYC (JFK/EWR/LGA) to anywhere is mostly point to point, since not much connecting traffic takes place in NY. If you read the Airbus forecast closely, this is exactly their point, namely, that big cities like LA and NY and London and Tokyo and Paris (and several cities in China), have so much population that they alone require an A380 size airplane, regardless of the connections made in those cities connecting from smaller airports. Airbus specifically cites the point that most people in Asia want to go to either Los Angeles or New York in America, or London or Paris in Europe...and that's it. Asians have little need for connections or service to small and medium sized cities, according to Airbus.

Airbus in their forecast actually agrees with Boeing in that passengers prefer point to point. Airbus is simply arguing that, except for in America, point to point means the traditional big city airports we all know and love. Really, if you look at Airbus predicted markets for the A380 it boils down to either:

1. airlines with not enough capacity at slot controlled airports, namely LHR and NRT
2. Asian passengers to both Europe and America who are thought to only want to go from and to big cities, they DO want point to point, but point to point between two big cities only - they don't need the 7E7 because they aren't interested in service from or between medium to smaller cities.

Anyway, it should be noted that Airbus and Boeing both agree that by far the most jetliners ordered in the next 20 years will be SINGLE AISLE short and medium ranged 737NG/A319 type planes, so a lot of this 7E7 v. A380 debate is missing the boat: the real question is who will when the market for small to medium sized mainline jets?

kind regards,

RogueTrader


[Edited 2005-01-27 00:49:45]

User currently offlineRj111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7435 times:

This doesn't mean that Boeing sees the hub & spoke system going away, but rather, the hub & spoke system utilizing fewer connections and more P2P, thus releaving the heavy loads on super hubs like ORD & ATL and making it easier for passengers to get where they're going.

ATL's a pretty crap example don't you think. The 7E7 is essentially a direct 767 replacement, bar the trivial amount of 777's the 767 is DL's big plane. Range isn't a problem for DL's routes, so if they wanted to relive the ATL hub, they'd be doing it already.

sq dumped b757s in favour of a310s as well. i don't remember the reason though, this was way before my time!

Pax preferred widebody comfort.


User currently offlineSjoerd From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7433 times:

Real point to point and frequency (as in a market shift away from hub and spoke) can only be done with an airplane the size of an A319/320 and a range of 8000 nm (and even better economics than the B7E7).

The B7E7 and A350 will just replace B757, B767 and A300, A310 and eventually older A330, A343. In that case the B7E7 isn't too small and is aimed at the right market. The B7E8 is the size of an B763 and A300, the B7E9 is the size of the B764, A332 and A358. The B7E7 pax numbers always talked about seem low, but are for 3 classes, something most airlines won't have.

In the end it comes down to this : Boeing (so far) doesn't have an A380 competitor and Airbus doesn't have a B7E3 competitor (which might help sell the B7E8-9, but won't sell in large numbers itself). Apart from that both manufacturers have a very similar market forecast and product line.

The B7E7 and the related talk of Boeing about how people want point to point is aimed at making the A380 less atractive. Also the media like to emphasize how totally different A and B see the future and this is simply not true.

Sjoerd

[Edited 2005-01-27 01:10:47]

[Edited 2005-01-27 01:12:55]


Flanders + Wallonnia + Brussels = the UNITED STATES of BELGIUM
25 Atmx2000 : The question is why is Singapore a super-hub. It's because the city-state government's made aviation a priority, but also because their economy was in
26 Mariner : Atmx2000: "It's because the city-state government's made aviation a priority..." Sorry, but that isn't why Singapore is a super-hub - it goes back muc
27 Lehpron : Boeing is producing a product that will fit their view of what the market will require. Airbus is produced a product that will fit their view of what
28 RogueTrader : The question is why is Singapore a super-hub. This is actually a VERY good question, as it speaks to the heart of the hub versus point to point debate
29 FriendlySkies : As I said before, what everyone is missing is that the real market, as both A & B admit, is in small and midsize single aisle jets to fill US, EU and
30 Boeing7E7 : This leads to the question : if the 7E7-8/9 are designed for point-point, maybe it is designed with not enough seats or too much range? In fact aircra
31 Post contains images Lehpron : >>"This market is still about 5-7 years out. The ARJ will likely fill the need until they require a larger 737/A320 size bird. By then the 737-E and 3
32 PVG : I doubt that people would prefer to connect at hub to save 25 or 50 Euro. The difference has to be substantial to convince people to stop at a hub. Th
33 Post contains links Mariner : Boeing7E7: "The A380, as with the 747, serves one purpose. Hub to hub." Um - so where does Auckland fit into that theory? Both Qantas and Emirates (ap
34 Gigneil : I think the 7E7-8 and -9 are a great idea. I think the -3 will appeal to the Japanese and nobody else. Come on, tell me that there's nothing to replac
35 Lightsaber : I think the 7E7 is marketed into the correct markets. Let's just take the 7E8. The initial point to point will be from large cities for their O&D to t
36 Ckfred : The thing that you have to remember is that most European and Asian carriers fly internationally from one hub, or maybe one large hub and one smaller
37 Boeing7E7 : Um - so where does Auckland fit into that theory? Both Qantas and Emirates (apparently) intend flying the A380 there, but it is not a hub for either o
38 PVG : The question is would AA be making more money if they flew 2 747's or 380's ORD/LHR I/O 4 777's daily regardless of what people want? They may want, b
39 Boeing7E7 : Considering they have an 89.7% LF in that market, the answer is no... They wouldn't be making more money.
40 Aapilot2b : History is a good prediction of the future. In the seventies and early eighties, the 747 dominated North Atlantic routes. For example: if you were fly
41 Moman : Aapilot2b, quite insightful (and correct!) As I said before, what everyone is missing is that the real market, as both A & B admit, is in small and mi
42 Milan320 : I'm sure well see a 380 flying from Kanas City to Berlin real soon... Not. And do you think we'll see a 7E7 flying from Kansas City to Berlin? I doubt
43 Mariner : Boeing7E7: "They'll never fill that thing out of Auckland." And you know this how? If they can fill, as they do, several 747's a day out of Auckland,
44 RayChuang : I think the 7E7 in the longer run will be quite popular. One reason for this: there are too many 767's, A300B's and A310's that are approaching retire
45 Gigneil : Refer to my previous comment on this. The 7E7-3 is too big to be a good replacement for A300s, A310s, and 2 class 767s. 300 seats is a ridiculous amou
46 Rj111 : It'll be a perfect replacement for the A300 Gig (it's an almost identical size) and ok for the 763. A310, 762 757 -200 and -300 are pushing it though.
47 Post contains images Gigneil : 300 seats is 20 to 30 more than you put on an A300, and 40 to 50 more than you get on a 2 class 767-300. Sure, I think its a possible replacement for
48 Ckfred : The fact that the 7E7 has three series, -3, -8, and -9, tells me that Boeing has left some room for future versions, including a version that has the
49 Aither : OK, It seems nobody really believes in point to point as “non hub”-“non hub”. Even the examples given above seems all linked to at least a hub
50 FriendlySkies : But I didn’t want to talk too much about frequencies but rather about the new long range route opportunities that remain and Boeing say the 7E7 is d
51 Moman : Aither: There seems to be a lot of people on this board that think a city pair such as MCI-LHR makes sense. It doesn't in today's world. It only makes
52 Boeing7E7 : There seems to be a lot of people on this board that think a city pair such as MCI-LHR makes sense. And a lot of airlines that look at that same marke
53 Planemaker : There seems to be a lot of people on this board that think a city pair such as MCI-LHR makes sense. If they can't fill a daily 762 MCI-LHR today, I do
54 PVG : The Chinese certainly seem to think that it's designed for their market. In fact, the potential for point to point to/from China to Asian destinations
55 N1120a : >If the 7E7 can burn 20% less fuel that even the A333 (which it just might accomplish),
56 Boeing7E7 : I stand by my thumbs up to the 7E7-8 and 7E7-9 and thumbs down to the 7E7-3. The 7E7-3 will be a domestic cash cow. If they can't fill a daily 762 MCI
57 Gigneil : The 7E7-3 will be a domestic cash cow. Uh huh. Care to back that up with any analysis? I gave a well reasoned argument as to why it won't be. However,
58 Jsnww81 : I doubt we'll see many 7E7s on domestic routes... with the exception of Delta, most of our carriers don't seem too keen on domestic widebodies these d
59 Boeing7E7 : Uh huh. Care to back that up with any analysis? I gave a well reasoned argument as to why it won't be. Umm... Yeah. 20% operation cost savings over a
60 Gigneil : 20% operation cost savings over a 762 with the same capacity. I see absolutely no reason to believe that at this point, firstly. Its a great goal. Se
61 Boeing7E7 : The 7E7 will seat 223, the 762 seats 181. Most 7E7's will be configured with 180-190 seats. Numbers are from Boeing and historical 762 data.
62 Beaucaire : So far a very good thread- nice to read the good comments! Since I live in France but know Europe quite well,I will only argue the issue from a europe
63 Gigneil : The 7E7 will seat 223 Boss, we're talking about the 7E7-3, and have been the whole time. Boeing's new seating numbers for it are about 290 seats. N
64 Post contains images Planemaker : The 7E7-8 is 2 feet longer than the 763 (and 54" wider). 763 in 3-class config = 218-sests 763 in 2-class config = 224-seats (Boeing web site) How did
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...
This Is The New Fleet For Avianca! posted Mon Aug 28 2006 01:45:08 by Bongo
Ok Today Is The Official Day For PTVs On AC posted Mon Jan 23 2006 16:12:15 by AirCanada014
When Is The Launch Date For Primaris Airlines? posted Tue Aug 9 2005 03:37:53 by ACAfan
What Is The RED Window For? posted Tue Jul 12 2005 14:20:56 by CRJ900
What Is The Standard Configuration For A 777? posted Fri Jan 21 2005 21:32:31 by Ktachiya
What Is The Best Substitute For The 747-SP? posted Sat Sep 6 2003 17:33:17 by Pouyazad
Is The 7E7 Supposed To Become The 787....? posted Thu Aug 21 2003 21:24:22 by Chicago757
What Is The Longest Route For A 747 100 posted Wed Aug 13 2003 02:01:04 by 747400sp
Is The 7E7 Just A "Boeing 330"? posted Fri Feb 7 2003 20:27:13 by Rick767
Is The A380 Useless For US Airlines? posted Sun Jun 9 2002 16:14:34 by Bobcat