Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Takes On Airbus Lying Down  
User currently offlineTinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9422 times:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au.../0,5744,18308533%255E23349,00.html

No kidding. Give Branson this idea and he'll start talking about putting up a Walmart up there... and I doubt there's empty space the size of a 737 up there.

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCV747 From Iceland, joined Jan 2000, 170 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9390 times:

OHHH God!!

How many times have we seen Boeing or Airbus showing great ideas about flying duty free, big relaxation areas on board, bars, restaurants, etc.

Then when the first plane goes in operation it has a "Sardine" configuration to haul as many as possible.

I am really tired of these high flying ideas. Wonder what they smoke before they launch these statements...


User currently offlineMlsrar From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9377 times:

These overhead berths were part of the original 747X program. There were additional provisions for overhead cart storage, and an expanded crew rest facility as well.

I don't remember any significant interest six years ago.



I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9357 times:

Iva a feeling none of this is gonna happen. What would be the weight implications?

User currently offlineTinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9319 times:

Quoting Mlsrar (Reply 2):
I don't remember any significant interest six years ago.

I doubt there will be any now.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 3):
Iva a feeling none of this is gonna happen.

No way this will happen. Airlines are too greedy.

Quoting CV747 (Reply 1):
Wonder what they smoke before they launch these statements...

Whatever it is must be made out of composite material..... although Airbus doesn't think it's quality enough  biggrin 


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9249 times:

Actually, it's a 'real' option for the airlines - they've got the spare space and they can afford to offer economy passengers a small 'thwart-ship' bunk. Looks a bit like you'd be getting into your coffin, though!

Scroll down to 'Going Inter-Continental' and the bit about the 'Skyloft' and you can watch a video.

http://www.boeing.com/randy/

Thing is, though, I know which configuration I'd like personally, but it'll never happen again. It was a trans-USA 707, six-across with plenty of legroom, that was still fitted out for bringing guys back from tours of duty in Vietnam. The last two rows of seats had been removed and galleys with infra-red grills had been put in; apparently the guys were hungry for nothing but beef once they were on their way home.

First and last time I've ever been asked, "How would you like your steak done, sir?" on an aeroplane....

[Edited 2006-03-03 15:51:14]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineDavidT From Switzerland, joined Oct 2005, 477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9195 times:

You can't put seats up in the loft space, meaning that the proposals are very realistic IMO. I'd love to see BA put some sort of airbourne terraces lounge up there, accessible only to gold card members Big grin

User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9195 times:

Quoting CV747 (Reply 1):
Then when the first plane goes in operation it has a "Sardine" configuration to haul as many as possible.

I'm confident that airlines will not put another cattle class in the attic of 748, or anything that comes close to regular seats, no matter which class. (i.e. Airlines will not be able to fit 40 "extra" passengers in addition to the regular pax seating)

As for sleeping berths, I'd imagine it would be available for Y or Y+ passengers, since F and C class seats these days are more than comfortable enough. If they can fit 40 sleeping "pods" up there, 40 Y class passengers who are willing to pay can go up there when they want to take a nap, watch a movie, or read their novel. Their seats in the main cabin could actually be quite small with little pitch since they have the bed available for them, thus airlines can fit a couple more regular seats.

However, I do see a problem with this... Will this "sleeping pod in the attic" be certified? What if 40 passengers are sleeping up there and something happens, the aircraft makes an emergency landing where they do not have a chance to come down (very unlikely.. but..) Would they have enough time to get down to exit? Or would Boeing have to design an emergency exit door for those 40 or so pax?

Putting galleries up there would probably require an elevator, which adds a lot of weight, as well as the attic needs to be reinforced so it can sustain the weight of the galley.

Overall, I think it's a great idea and a possible revenue generating concept for airlines... But will it come to reality? We'll have to wait and see...


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8222 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9057 times:

Airlines are always going to be looking for new ways to generate revenues and bunk beds for Y pax is a pretty good idea. The other factor is "what is the competition doing?" for First and Business. If they are providing a nicer bed for premium pax then you will match it or loose high paying pax.

Luxury 748i "lofts" for premium pax would also put pressure on the airlines to make the premium areas on their 380s a bit better.


User currently offlineMacc From Austria, joined Nov 2004, 1037 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8881 times:

excuse me, how big must the unused space on a 747 be thhat there is place enough for 40 suites, or a gym, or an office?? and if there is, why dont they pack more seats into it???

and what has the manufacturer to do with fare calculation when it comes to the beds? guess thats the airlines business.

nonsense

[Edited 2006-03-03 17:09:23]


I exchanged political frustration with sexual boredom. better spoil a girl than the world
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8794 times:

Quoting Mlsrar (Reply 2):
These overhead berths were part of the original 747X program. There were additional provisions for overhead cart storage, and an expanded crew rest facility as well.

I don't remember any significant interest six years ago.

Hey, maybe they can form a "Mile High Club," complete with little smilie faces  cheerful  to show you are member. I think that would sell, particularly on long hauls. Big grin


User currently offlineTinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8772 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 10):
Hey, maybe they can form a "Mile High Club," complete with little smilie faces to show you are member. I think that would sell, particularly on long hauls.

Not unless F/A's are involved.  biggrin 


User currently offlineAndessmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8655 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 10):
Hey, maybe they can form a "Mile High Club

Hilarious, I told my wife yesterday that IMHO, these cabins could happen, and she said 'Then I will join the...' You get the idea.

Please God, let this become reality.  pray 


User currently offlineSparkingWave From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8541 times:

Skylofts are an idea whose time has come.

The unused space is already being used for crew rests in 777 upper spaces, so the idea is completely possible and good practical use of otherwise unused space. An "attic" will offer more privacy than first or business class beds in the main cabins of either the main or upper deck hump in the 747, and either level in the A380.

I can't believe what a potential coup this would be, if it succeeds. The marketing potential would be tremendous:

honeymoon suites
valentine's day flights
hospital care for sick passengers
peaceful and quiet, zen sleep environment
new frequent flyer mile awards for skysuites
breakfast in bed

Now, only if they could put portholes in the ceilings. Then it would be as romantic as well as very wested.

Sparking Wave ~~~



Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8511 times:

I thought this was the most interesting quote:

The Boeing executive had other good news for travellers, predicting that the introduction of the A380 would cause fares to crash on the kangaroo route.

Boeing expects the number of seats on the route to rise sharply, with up to six airlines servicing Australia planning to introduce the double-decker planes.

"Traditionally, when you flood a market with a lot of competitors and a lot of seats, fares drop significantly," Mr Baseler said.


Is this a not-so-subtle reminder to airlines regarding the potential profit implications of "flooding" a market with seats? (i.e. a veiled "warning" about what buying the A380 means?)

I'm just curious why a Boeing executive would tout the falling fares that an A380 would theoretically bring.


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8335 times:

I reckon what we'll see is that space being filled by galleys, so the airlines can put more seats in.
But I suppose it's a trade-off of between what the 'skysuites' cost and what the profit from extra seats would be.

We saw similar concepts with the A380 and does anyone know if that's happening? But the airlines are keeping their A380 cabins very secret...


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7626 times:

It remains to be seen whether the vision of the Skyloft will be realised, but I'd put more money on that than on the lush extras touted by Airbus for the A380. Why? Because extras on the A380 the space for those hypothetical extras will likely be filled with seats. The Skyloft on the other hand can't be used for seats so essentially it is space that might as well be used for something good.

User currently offlineAa777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1245 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6712 times:

I think it is odd that everyone is so pessemistic about the possibility of this occuring. I realize there would be a weight imposition, but the profit potential would outweigh, I would think, those implifications. The thing people keep forgetting, is they are not taking away previous passenger seating space to do this, and the space is too small for seating anyway. That is what makes this different than previous plans to put "berths on Board", apart from the 747-X, of course. This is just the sort of thing airlines look for when they want to increase revenue.
Think about it though, like, every single inch of that plane, will be packed with passenger space. It does kinda make me nervous. Everytime I see crash pictures, and the plane is ripped apart, it makes me think about if not only the passenger cabin, but the crown were packed with people... Well, that could just be really bad. If they do make these a reality, let's just hope that never happens.



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6629 times:

Quoting Macc (Reply 9):
excuse me, how big must the unused space on a 747 be thhat there is place enough for 40 suites, or a gym, or an office?? and if there is, why dont they pack more seats into it???

Airlines can't put seats in the aft part of the JumboJet's upper deck because of evacuation requirements. Therefore the space currently goes unused. The only substantial cost for an airline would be the additional fuel needed to carry the weight of whatever is installed up there.


User currently offlineTinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6242 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 18):
Airlines can't put seats in the aft part of the JumboJet's upper deck because of evacuation requirements. Therefore the space currently goes unused. The only substantial cost for an airline would be the additional fuel needed to carry the weight of whatever is installed up there.

Your statement is a little contradictory. If by 'whatever they put up there' you mean passengers (whether sleeping or doing whatever), it comes back to the same evacation problems.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6104 times:

Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 19):

Your statement is a little contradictory. If by 'whatever they put up there' you mean passengers (whether sleeping or doing whatever), it comes back to the same evacation problems.

I meant the bunks, floors, doors, curtains, reinforcing, IFE, etc., not the passengers. The passengers would be required to be downstairs (or in the forward upper deck, which has emergency evacuation doors) below perhaps 20,000 foot elevation.


User currently offlineAviationAddict From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 619 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5804 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 14):
Is this a not-so-subtle reminder to airlines regarding the potential profit implications of "flooding" a market with seats? (i.e. a veiled "warning" about what buying the A380 means?)

I'm just curious why a Boeing executive would tout the falling fares that an A380 would theoretically bring.

It's all PR baby! Everything these companies do is all about putting a good spin on things, just like the government. Boeing probably hopes that speaking kindly towards Airbus will make people say, "hey, Boeing is a pretty classy organization." But I garuntee you'll only see one company say nice things about the other when the other company has screwed up (Airbus has had a few minor issues as of late [the A380 wing failure, questionable China order]). Those issues are nothing to be worried about, as everyone on this site knows, but the uninformed public just reads about a wing failure and starts to wonder about Airbus, then they see this Boeing guy saying nice things and the wheels start to turn. Just wait, eventually Boeing will mess up and if Airbus has it's A game (which I'm sure it will) it'll put a PR sping on the incident too.


User currently offlineAAden From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 835 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5007 times:

i love to see it fly

Quoting DavidT (Reply 6):
You can't put seats up in the loft space, meaning that the proposals are very realistic IMO. I'd love to see BA put some sort of airbourne terraces lounge up there, accessible only to gold card members

don't doubt boeing maybe they can find away...


User currently offlineJcded From Switzerland, joined Jan 2004, 213 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4577 times:

I do think this will work because it does not cut into revenue generating seats.

hypothetically speaking (though on a.net thats the standard)
what do you guys think if they also started to offer this on the 777. The cabin crew rests are in the front (for flight deck) and in the rear (for cabin crew), in between there is space that is unused. Could we see this on 777 in the future.



You breathe to do good and have fun.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4425 times:

Quoting Jcded (Reply 23):
what do you guys think if they also started to offer this on the 777. The cabin crew rests are in the front (for flight deck) and in the rear (for cabin crew), in between there is space that is unused. Could we see this on 777 in the future.

No, there is not enough space to put passenger bunks overhead in the B777. However, I do expect to see them in Y3, the replacement for the B777-300 and B747.


25 Post contains images PipoA380 : I remember that A380 offered this on the bottom floor along with a restaurant.... We read it all and nothing will ever happen, except in VIP planes if
26 Zvezda : The difference here is that the Airbus version uses cargo volume. The Boeing version uses space that would otherwise go unused. Boeing still has a we
27 Post contains links and images CCA : View Large View MediumPhoto © Bailey - AirTeamImages Looks like there is space for bunks if you ask me
28 Zvezda : There is certainly space for bunks. The problem is that there is not enough space for passengers. The aisle is too narrow, the stairs are too steep,
29 Rolfen : Dont be so quick to scrap this idea... beds, as opposed to lounges, bars, etc... take up little space. I believe you can actually cram more passengers
30 A319XFW : The problem with that is, that you'd also need seats for the passengers for take-off and landing, as they have to be strapped in for that and it'd be
31 Post contains links QFA380 : Have you has a look at www.lynxjet.com yet. I got a Mile High Club card in the mail this morning and I had to explain to mum what it was and why it h
32 Post contains links and images CCA : How wide does the aisle have to be? How steep is too steep. I'm sure Boeing have covered this, I doubt it will be certified for take off and landing
33 Post contains images Rolfen : Actually crew rest bunks in the 777 have straps on them, it's necessary for the resting crewmembers not to go airborne during turbulence (what a bad
34 DEVILFISH : Weren't there skybeds already certified for take-off and landing offered on the 744s when it first came around? So that people here on A.net would ha
35 A319XFW : I don't know - perhaps someone else more familiar with them could say? But I would find it odd lying in a bed for take-off or landing! Unless you can
36 CCA : Yes but that's why "please place your seats in the upright position, footrest is stowed, table is folded away, TV has been put away............." The
37 Zvezda : These beds will not be available for takeoff and landing. Each passenger must have a regular seat.
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...
Boeing's Stonecipher On Airbus Launch Aid... posted Thu Sep 9 2004 22:11:37 by Ulfinator
Airbus Reacts To Boeing's Comments On A380 posted Fri Aug 18 2006 02:34:43 by A5XX
Boeing Takes Lead As Airbus Order Book Nosedives posted Wed Jul 5 2006 02:16:58 by BoomBoom
Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350 posted Thu Oct 6 2005 23:51:24 by NYC777
EU & US Agree To Talks On Airbus-Boeing Spat posted Tue Jan 11 2005 15:52:02 by JMV
Disparity Between FCY Alloc. On Airbus/Boeing A/c posted Mon Dec 13 2004 06:02:06 by N328KF
HP Airbus Shut Down On SAN Taxiway. posted Sun Jul 14 2002 05:07:40 by Leftypilot79
C-130 Takes On Boeing 727 In Air To Air Engagement posted Sat Apr 13 2002 07:13:26 by AApilot2b
Boeing Steals A March On Airbus? posted Fri Mar 30 2001 16:58:28 by Seasonedflyer
Boeing Sets Sales Record, Pressure On Airbus. posted Tue Dec 5 2000 04:39:50 by CX747