Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Airbus Must Respond The B787 Challenge  
User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4713 times:

I think the 787 could be the first plane since Concorde in which the high yield business passenger might truly go out of his/her way to travel especially on long haul flights.

At the moment no business traveller chooses an airline based on a preference to a particular plane model but the B787 might just change that.

In particular I think is the higher cabin pressure and the ability to humidify the air (impossible on a metal plane because of the corrosion). This makes the trip far more comfortable as well as making business travellers feeling much better physically after a long trip. This could really be important if they have to do a days work immediately on arrival.

(many people justified traveling on Concorde because of its high cabin pressure made it more comfortable)

Given that airfares are not an issue for business travelors and they can pick and choose which airline to use why would the not flock to the B787 operators.

It really matters to the airlines how the high yield business travelor feels. They do not care about prices like the rest of us and they pay 2-3 more for each seat.

It also have very large windows so everyone can see out and a taller ceiling. But I am not sure if this has significant commercial advantage but again it all adds up to make the B787 even more preferential to the A350

I think Airbus must either develop a brand new competitor to the B787 or it faces serious problems in selling the A350

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4697 times:

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
I think Airbus must either develop a brand new competitor to the B787 or it faces serious problems in selling the A350

If any of the recent rumours are true, that's exactly what they're doing.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4670 times:

Although I like 787, but I really doubt that a lot of business travelers would wanna buy a ticket 2-3 times of the regular business just to fly 787. 10-20% might be possible, not 2-3 times.

Remember, concorde offers not only higher cabin pressure, but high class service and much faster travel time. It is infact a status symbol just being able to fly concorde. There were only a few concorde available and serving only 2 routes, while B787 has sold more than 350.

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
(many people justified traveling on Concorde because of its high cabin pressure made it more comfortable

I have never travelled on a concorde myself, but from the pictures, I am sure that concorde is much less comfortable compared to regular first class on other plane, because of the very small cross section.

I agree though, in order to capture the market, Airbus should develop a plane that is competitive in operating costs and potential revenue to B787

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineShamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6338 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4670 times:

I think we will have to wait until the Farnborough airshow to see what Airbus come up with. I'm sure they will have a great aircraft ready for airlines to order.

User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4618 times:

I thought the A-380 is supposed to re-define luxury and business travel with all the onboard amenities, space and exclusive nooks and crannies. Isn't the thinking that, given a choice, the high end traveler will flock to the A-380? Of course, the A-380 was Airbus's answer to the future and the 787 is Boeing's response. It will be interesting to see how each does.

As for the lower cabin pressure of the 787, I thought I read a thread here a few months back in which cabin pressure on a number of boeing aircraft was discussed. And if I recall correctly, the thread indicated that several current models have lower cabin pressure at different stages of a flight. The 747 in particular had varying cabin pressure. I couldn't find the thread, but I do recall reading about this.


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4602 times:

Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 3):
I think we will have to wait until the Farnborough airshow to see what Airbus come up with. I'm sure they will have a great aircraft ready for airlines to order.

If Airbus goes with a complete redesign as the rumors suggest, they will need more time to refine the design to a point where they can respond the RFPs and accept new orders. They might announce a new A350 at Farnborough, but if your looking for large orders, think Paris '07.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4547 times:

Polymerplane

I did not say business travelors will pay 2-3 times more to on a B787 rather then A350. Business travelors pay 2-3 more then economy passengers regardless of the plane.

I would expect the air fares on the B787 and A350 to be same! If I was traveling on business and air fares was not an issue I would surely travel on the B787.

I would expect other business travelors to do the same and that should worry Airbus


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8276 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4519 times:

While the 787 will offer some basic benefits (like the lower pressure) it's still going to be the individual airlines and their alliances that will determine how good the final product is - in all classes.

Things like seat comfort, space, quality of the food, the FAs, etc. It all goes into determining how the pax in all sections feel about the flight. Fr the business traveler the additional benefits of elite status will play a factor as well.

The benefits of the 787 (and 350, 380, etc.) are for the airlines - we'll have to wait and see what we as pax end up with.


User currently offlineKaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4488 times:

Quoting Eugdog (Reply 6):
I would expect the air fares on the B787 and A350 to be same! If I was traveling on business and air fares was not an issue I would surely travel on the B787.

So what you say is that the higher cabin pressure and humidity you, or no one here has experienced yet, is going to make such a big difference to premium passengers that they will only want to fly the 787...
So, if you had a choice to fly business class in a brand new NW 787 or an old BA 767, for the same money and current cabin configurations, you'd go for NW???



I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4471 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 2):
I am sure that concorde is much less comfortable compared to regular first class on other plane, because of the very small cross section.

What makes you so sure of this? A smaller cross-section in and of itself does not result in a less comfortable experience for the passengers. It all comes down to interior appointments....nicer seats, more room, etc.

I find the left, single-row seating in Embraer 135/145s to be far more comfortable than the standard CRJ seating, and yet, the CRJ has a larger cabin cross-section.




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6919 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
the higher cabin pressure and the ability to humidify the air ... makes the trip far more comfortable.

This has been widely asserted but I do wonder just how much difference passengers will feel. I'm not arguing that there won't be a difference. But until the plane is in regular service we won't know how significant the advantage is.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 2):
I have never travelled on a concorde myself, but from the pictures, I am sure that concorde is much less comfortable compared to regular first class

I only flew on Concorde once (LHR-JFK) but, yes, it felt more like a decent Economy seat with somewhat better legroom and First Class food and service.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4300 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 9):
What makes you so sure of this? A smaller cross-section in and of itself does not result in a less comfortable experience for the passengers. It all comes down to interior appointments....nicer seats, more room, etc.

I find the left, single-row seating in Embraer 135/145s to be far more comfortable than the standard CRJ seating, and yet, the CRJ has a larger cabin cross-section.

Well if you read carefully I said it is much less comfortable than first class seats on other planes. If it is economy to concorde comparison, I am not sure which one is better, but you pay concorde probably 10-20 times regular economy  Smile. You cannot really fit first class seats on concorde can you. Even if you can the fare would be unimaginable I would think  crazy 

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 8):
So what you say is that the higher cabin pressure and humidity you, or no one here has experienced yet, is going to make such a big difference to premium passengers that they will only want to fly the 787...
So, if you had a choice to fly business class in a brand new NW 787 or an old BA 767, for the same money and current cabin configurations, you'd go for NW???

Agree, there are more things to consider when flying other than what plane it is. I would rather go with better service, better on time performance, direct flight, etc.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4253 times:

I would assume that Business Class on International routes is of a uniformerly high standard on most major airlines in terms of comfort and service (I have only been on American Airlines Business Class so I am no expert). So all things being equal the prospect of arriving of a long flight without feeling dehydrated and feeling awful could be a vital advantage to the B787. The B787 could cream of much of the high yield Business travelor form other plane operators.

Remember I am talking Business Class passengers not tourist class. The latter are more focussed on air fares and more leg rooms and will not really care what plane there on. But they are only paying a fraction of business class passenger


User currently offlineRsbj From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

If Airbus opts to completely redesign the A350 by making the fuselage wider but still with aluminum alloys, what will power it? The structure will obviously be heavier than the currently proposed A350; I'd guess 3-4% if they widen it 8 inches.
I think it is a little optimistic to assume the RR's and GENx's will reliably grow to the thrust such an airplane would require to match the payload and range of the lighter 787.



I fly really fast and take a lot of chances.
User currently offlinePicard From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4133 times:

Quoting Rsbj (Reply 13):
If Airbus opts to completely redesign the A350 by making the fuselage wider but still with aluminum alloys, what will power it? The structure will obviously be heavier than the currently proposed A350; I'd guess 3-4% if they widen it 8 inches.
I think it is a little optimistic to assume the RR's and GENx's will reliably grow to the thrust such an airplane would require to match the payload and range of the lighter 787.

But your assuming Airbus will not come up with newer construction methods and processes that will allow even more efficent use of the new aluminum alloys?


User currently offlineSaturn5 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4053 times:

Quoting Rsbj (Reply 13):
The structure will obviously be heavier than the currently proposed A350; I'd guess 3-4% if they widen it 8 inches.

I don't think that weight is the greatest asset of a composite fuselage. I always heard that the weight savings is minimal. It is the rust-free, strength and maintenance aspect that will give airlines greatest savings.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3742 times:

Quoting Saturn5 (Reply 15):

I don't think that weight is the greatest asset of a composite fuselage. I always heard that the weight savings is minimal. It is the rust-free, strength and maintenance aspect that will give airlines greatest savings.

Several weeks ago, there was one interesting graph showing material strength vs. weight. The difference between polymer and metal for the same material strength is almost one order of magnitude. I find it almost unbelievable that composite the weight savings is negligible.

Quoting Picard (Reply 14):
But your assuming Airbus will not come up with newer construction methods and processes that will allow even more efficient use of the new aluminum alloys?

It is not that easy. The construction of their current proposal is probably already efficient. It is not easy to shave off weight from aircraft construction, and they have to change their design fundamentals. Also, It is not that easy to use "new aluminum allow". It needs to be approved for use in aircraft materials, and some of this new aluminum alloy is very expensive, which could make the materials uneconomical to compete with more widely produced carbon fiber.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3561 times:

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 8):
So, if you had a choice to fly business class in a brand new NW 787 or an old BA 767, for the same money and current cabin configurations, you'd go for NW???

Hmm, I've never flown Northwest, but on the trip I took with BA -- 40 hours of flying on 4 747s -- I had busted IFE on two of the flights, and encountered an ornery, capricious gate agent at LGW. If BA is so clearly superior as you suggest, it's a wonder NW is still in business.


User currently offlineAeroMaxx From United States of America, joined May 2006, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 18):
f BA is so clearly superior as you suggest, it's a wonder NW is still in business.

Yes Areopagus, NW is still is in business.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2606 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 17):
Several weeks ago, there was one interesting graph showing material strength vs. weight. The difference between polymer and metal for the same material strength is almost one order of magnitude. I find it almost unbelievable that composite the weight savings is negligible.

I'm a bit amazed as to how people don't factor this in.....even Airbus uses composites because of its weight savings....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineAeroMaxx From United States of America, joined May 2006, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2379 times:

sorry Areopagus, i read your post wrong and i thought you said "i wonder IF NW is still in business."

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...
Why Airbus Can't Offer The Same Range On A321? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 03:25:40 by AirCanada014
Airbus, Why Not Take On The 777? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 06:26:10 by Tangowhisky
Why Is It Called The Song Music Trivia Challenge? posted Mon Jan 24 2005 01:11:44 by ISLIPwn
Why No Airbus Equivalents Of The 757 Or 7E7-3? posted Sun Nov 14 2004 03:15:24 by TransPac
Why Does Airbus Not Advertise The A340-600HGW? posted Sat Dec 6 2003 22:09:45 by ConcordeBoy
The A380, Why Didn't Airbus Designate It The A350? posted Tue Oct 1 2002 04:28:46 by John
Why It Must Be Great To Fly On The A340 posted Fri Aug 2 2002 05:05:25 by TWAL1011
Why 3 Person Cockpit On The DC-10? posted Mon Nov 20 2006 01:51:59 by Warreng24
A380s: Why Airbus Livery? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 09:50:04 by Gunsontheroof
SIA Says Airbus To Build The 787-9 For Them posted Wed Nov 8 2006 03:10:54 by Jimyvr