Boeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1411 times:
From what I hear, the Airbus A3XX will probably not have much sales with the new 747 coming out. I don't think that Boeing will let Airbus take over the 747. Boeing fans, count on Boeing for having the best airliners out there!! Take care everyone!
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7811 posts, RR: 54 Reply 3, posted (14 years 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 846 times:
The only airlines to buy the 747X (should it be built) will be Qantas, United and Japan Airlines. Everyone else (definitely including BA, All Nippon, Lufthansa and Cathay Pacific) will go for the much more efficient and utterly more up to date A350.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Philly phlyer From United States of America, joined May 1999, 317 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (14 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 835 times:
Just a little need to sit back and take a reality check. Consider the following points.
The A3XX WILL be built. There is no need to guess or debate. It WILL be built, however, it will not be because of current market or economic reasons. The A3XX will be built because Airbus needs it to fill the last hole in their model line and it will be built NOW because they want to get the government support in line BEFORE they attempt to become a stand-alone company and not a marketing consortium. After they are a stand-alone company, financing a $12 billion (it will end up more like $15 billion when all is said and done) simply would not be possible. It is now or never for Airbus to build a jet bigger than the A330/340 family.
Boeing will be forced to build the 747X to keep its current customers happy. It will come out several years after the A3XX.
Who will buy what depends on who gets what price and what their current fleet consists of. With as many 747s as they have in their fleet, BA, Quantas, United and JAL will probably stay with the 747. Fleet commonality has a major savings in crew costs, maintenance costs and schedule flexibility. It costs a lot of money beyond acquisition costs to convert a fleet. Talk to the folks at USAirways if you don't believe it.
As to "up to date" comment. An airplane is made "up to date" primarily by changes in wing, engines and avionics. The 747s leaving Boeing field in Seattle today are not the same planes that left Boeing field in the 70s or 80s. A recent article in Flying magazine on Business jets stated that airplanes are not like cars, but are more like houses. You don't trade-in or ditch a solid airplane design for a new one, but like a house, you put in new plumbing and wiring and modernize it. You might even stetch it (add a room), but you keep the same basic house.
Whether you name the improved airplane with a new name like A330/340 instead of an A300NG or call the improved 737 a 737NG instead of something new like a 7X7, both are examples of taking existing airplanes and updating them with improved wings, engines and flight decks.
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 22 Reply 7, posted (14 years 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 770 times:
I just wrote something about this in the topic "Boeing 787..." First of all: ¡¡¡BRAVO Flyf15!!! A3xx will fly, and will fly before 787 or 7X7 or whatever they do call it. And will be larger than 744, and many companies that started with A300s/310s, and later 320s (and 321s and 319s), and now 340s (and 330s) will go on with 3XXs, for the easiest and most logic to understand reason: Airbusses are REAL families, and so reduce costs, crew trainings, planes maintenance, combinability and flexibility and so on. Except for problematic people (read Iberia pilots and their problems about 321s MTOW), flying Airbusses is more economic and flexible. Boeing absorbed McDonnell Douglas so it sould become THE GREATEST. So what? If you are a BOEING fan, just try to explain B717/MD95 fiasco. Te best company is not the biggest. The best company is the most logical, economical and ecological. And we europeans are learning fast. A3XX will fly, and then, the nightmare will not be for European Consortium; neither for the future 787, should it be produced. The nightmere will be for the whole BOEING.
Big turbulences and best wishes.
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 22 Reply 9, posted (14 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 744 times:
Yes, I do. The 744 is fully operational, and A3XX should come to concurre with it, being bigger, cheaper and more economic/ecologic. Thus, for me, an hypothetic 74X would be just an answer. Only because 3XX is in schedule for longtime, and 744 is rather new.
Big turbulences for everybody, best wishes and happy Y2K (the last of the millenium and of the century...)
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10807 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (14 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 741 times:
Man, that's the most intelligent thing I have heard all week! I too am getting tired of these arguments that "the 7x7 is based on a design of the 60s." Puleez. Name me a jet plane that isn't based on the De Havilland Comet or 707. Fact is, the basic shape of a plane was well designed way back in the 60s. Things that change are avionics, wings, and engines. The 340 for example is nothing more than a 707 with a scaled up fuselage, new avionics, more efficient engines, and a more efficient wing, and it gets the label "all new." The 737NG is a 707 with a scaled down fuselage, more efficient wings, entirely new avionics, and more efficient engines, yet we for some reason label it "a design of the 60s." Seems hypocritical to me.
I disagree with you however that the 747X will come years after the 3XX. I actually think that once Airbus commits to building it, the 747X will be built maybe even 2 whole years before the 3XX. It will be as efficient, but will cost less per unit since the development will be less costly. I think it will be a no brainer for any current 747 operator to pick it over the 3xx.
But then again, I really would not be surprised, in fact I almost expect the MD12 to suddenly show up in 787 clothes around the time of the 3xx. Remember the 367-80? Everyone thought it was going to be a prop, then suddenly they renamed it 707. Could the 747X actually be a disguise name for the MD12? Hmm....
AC_A340 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 2251 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (14 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 722 times:
Every commercial plane in service, other than concorde, is based on a previous design, you know why? because they work, and they work well. The A340 is way different from the 707. The only thing the same is they both have wings, a fuselage and a tail. Guys give it up, theis has been argued to death before, if you want the arguments, read the old posts in the database.
Chautauquasaab From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (14 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 720 times:
What would really up the ante would be for Boeing to seriously pursue the BWB-1-1 Blended wing-body flying wing. I understand scaled-down models have flown from Edwards AFB. From a capacity and efficiency point of view, it would potentially leap-frog the A3XX, becoming the first truly new aircraft in a very long time. So much for all of this about European efficiency and ecology! BWB is really the wave of the future and I hope Boeing catches it!
Pandora From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (14 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 703 times:
Everybody, lets stop arguing.
Airbus will have trouble launching the A3XX and so do Boeing, they don't have enough support from airlines, especailly in Asia. Until the economoy fully recovers, no airline will buy the 747X or A3xx. So until then, don't even think about A3xx or 747x.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10807 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (14 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 704 times:
You've hit my point exactly!
An A340 is just as different from a 707 as 737NG is different from a 737-100. New wings, new engines, new avionics, new interiors. That equals a new plane. The only thing that is the same about the two 737s are the dimensions of the fuselage. But then again, the A340 fuselage is the same as the old A300, right? So, is it fair to call the A340 technology of the early 70's? No. Of course not.
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1002 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (14 years 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 672 times:
I've never understood some of the comments regarding airliners being comfortable or not. I've heard the MD80 be put down for being cramped. That doesn't make much sense to me as an MD80 has only 5 seats across to take into account the smaller diameter fuselage. It, like a 737, A320, 757 etc all have plenty of room for me to stand up, move around, use the bathroom etc. Same goes for a 767 v 777/A330/A340/747 where there are fewer seats across due to the smaller diameter of the fuselage but once again, plenty of headroom, aisles, bathrooms. I think a planes comfort is really only dictated by the individual airline's seat choice, seat pitch, cleanliness, and maintenance. Some of my very best flights have been on Continental 727's which were quiet, fast, and clean. I'll miss them.
DL 604 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (14 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 665 times:
Who's to say that Cathay or JAL won't go A3XX and BA won't go Boeing. People change their minds alot, and people run the airlines. What REALLY makes the decision for who busy what is ECONOMICS.
Boeing plans the 747X to be smaller than the A3XX, at the same operating costs and initial purchase price. The A3XX is larger and offers fairly good cost and efficiency, so which is better? Well, to a smart airline that's going to cram as many pax as possible into a plane that has low costs, the choice is clear- the A3XX. You can tell me how wrong I am and everything, but look-you get more passenger area for the same cost as the 74X. The airlines will see this and buy Airbus.
On the other hand, maybe a 74X would be useful for cities that don't have enough air travelers to fill an A3XX twice a day, THEN a 74X would prove useful. But overall the A3XX seems to be just a little more practical, economical, and efficient. Boeing is not far behind, but a little goes a long way, and airlines will buy the cheapest plane with th most passenger seats. It's comparable to going to the grocery store.
If you see a gallon of milk for $3.00, and you see a half gallon for the same price, which do you get? Obviously the gallon. Now I'm NOT saying the 747X is half the size as the A3XX, just an example.
Airbus seems to be moving at a faster pace than Boeing, but they have their government-trying to boost commerce-backing them up. Boeing is it's own company, so they just can't fork out 50 billion and say "Build a giant."
Airbus can, although they might break France, they can. And they WILL build the A3XX, I assure you. It's just a question of-Can Boeing keep up?
If I had my own airline (which I do ), I would buy the A3XX. It's just more practical, plain and simple.
I don't know who is pro-Boeing and pro-Airbus on this forum, but I am neither. When I look at a plane I might consider getting for my airline far in the future, I don't say, "Oh, I'm going Boeing 'cause it's American!" No, I look at economics, engines, fuel burn, EFFICIENY!
I hear alot of compliments about Airbus' comfort. I can't say anything to that area simply because the only airliner I've every been on is a 763. But that doesn't make me single out Boeing as the best. No, when I fly to Europe this summer, there's almost no doubt that we'll get an Airbus at one time. And then I will decide which plane I think is MORE COMFORTABLE, not better.
I favor both companies. Personally I'd like to see them WORK TOGETHER for once. But you know that's impossible in a world of competition. They're each out the get each other's money. But, if they made a product that had thigs here and there from each company, if they built a giant together, they'd have one hell of a product.
When Boeing made the 777, they had VERY many nations pitch in for th project, and do you think they asked FRANCE for anything?! No! But what if they did for the 74/A3XX? Well, it's not gonna happen, but if it did, one reliable, efficient, COST EFFECTIVE product. Don't you think?
But no, it'll never happen. They won't work together until one buys the other or drives them to bankruptcy. And the way it looks right now to me, Airbus has it's rope around Boeing's neck, and Boeing can fight back all they want, but unless they cut the rope and REALLY come up with something original, Airbus will kill them in the end.
Sorry, but that's the sad truth. Take it how you please, but that's just MY two cents on the issue.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10807 posts, RR: 52 Reply 22, posted (14 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 654 times:
Thanks, man. I'll try to write more often, but finals are coming up.
I really believe this though. Boeing will produce a 747x that seats near the same as a 3xx. It may be a little smaller. It seems to me like the 3xx is really going to be that big not because its necessary, but because the EU wants a trophy. (Sorry to get a little political here, but it would be the EU paying for it, and giving it to Airbus.)
Fortunately for Boeing, the 747 platform is expandable to a superjumbo size while the 330/340 was not. They will have to put new wings and i expect FBW to save weight, but they won't have to start from scratch. That means that they will be able to produce the product at a lower cost and undercut Airbus for a change. Even if the 3xx is a technical marvel, they'll never be able to sell it for the price of a 747x and recoup their development costs. We'll see what happens.
Danny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3488 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (14 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 654 times:
I totally agree with you. To hell with both Airbus and Boeing fans. This has reached a level where it seems like they are kids fighting over a toy.
I think that as long as you get where you're going in one peace, everything's OK. I don't give a rats ass if it's an Airbus, Boeing, MDD or a freaking sh*tplane. As long as I get there safely, I just don't care! Sure, some are more comfy than others, but you'll be flying for, what, 3-6-10 hours?
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 22 Reply 24, posted (14 years 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 627 times:
To anyone who has any doubts about A3xx, visit www.airbus.com and see. There's a whole 25-page briefing about it. Just learn first and talk after.
The A3x5R (A3xx-50R) and the A3x1R (A3xx-100R) have the longest range of the history. The A3x1 (A3xx-100) and the A3x2 (A3xx-200) are the biggest and most economic (cost/fuel/passenger/mile). It fits in most aiport parkings. An A3x2, with 656 passengers and full of cargo, has shorter ground service time than a B744 by 40%.
Politics do not play economy in private companies. BAW, DLH, AFR, AZA, IBE, UAL and many other major companies are collaborating in its development. If airlines are smart, A3xx’s different versions are the future...