United777
Topic Author
Posts: 2196
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 8:04 am

Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:20 pm

Okay I don't mean to start a Airbus Vs. Boeing topic but this is a good article about both companies long range jets.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/159226_boeairbus04.html

Farhan Ali
Seattle, USA
 
aerosol
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 10:31 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:28 pm

I think "aviation expert" Michael Boyd has no clue what he is talking about. The 500 is a niche product.

Funny that SIN-LAX is the "return flight".
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:41 pm

It seems some industry insight is really missing in the article. The A345's time advantage won't help much (as seen with the A342/3), and definitely NO US-B777 operator will ever switch to the A345.

However, interesting quotings on EK's A345/A346 decision.
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:28 am

Written by true experts... 'Anyone not operating 777's is either not a global player or Lufthansa...'

How would he call...

Qantas
Air New Zealand
Air India
South African Airways
Iberia
Scandinavian Airlines
Virgin Atlantic
Northwest
Air Canada

????

just to name a few.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:30 am

"If it works out as Airbus expects, it could be a major chink in Boeing's armor, opening new potential for Airbus to get into the U.S. 747-400 or 777 operators"

They're joking right?

The only USA carrier to even bat an eyebrow at the A340NG has thusfar been AA... and even then, that was nothing but a ruse brought on by its scorn for GE90 exclusivity.  Laugh out loud



from Los Angeles to Singapore, a distance of more than 9,000 miles

say it with me now... F*A*L*S*E!



Airbus isn't standing still, though. It is already developing an extended range A340-600 high-gross-weight version

I still find it incredibly odd that Airbus, the high priestess of propaganda, doesn't advertise/mention/promote this alleged A346HGW at all!  Yeah sure




"Their plane (the 777-200LR) will be a great machine. But they have to address pricing issues."

I can understand this. Boeing, in all actuality though, may not be able to justify large discounts on the 772LR, as it could cannibalize 772ER sales. The latter, unlike the recent state of the A343 and despite last year's poor sales, is a much better seller.

That's why a bare-bones 772LR still lists for more than a fully loaded 772ER!

Airbus doesnt have nearly as much to lose by allowing A340NG sales to somewhat cannibalize borderline A343 sales. Boeing does.

Considering that a detanked 772LR is essentially a super-MTOW 772ER; if Boeing "wanted to", they could offer those at current 772ER pricing while dropping the current premiums on its 772ERs relative to the A343.... too bad the consequence would be not only the nigh elimination of further A343 sales, but any justifiable premium on the 772ER. Bet the shareholders would just love that.

< /end Dynkrisolo moment  Laugh out loud>







[Edited 2004-02-04 19:37:01]
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
wingnutmn
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:27 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:46 am

I agree with Manni! There are tons of world players that don't fly the 777. I think this Boyd guy needs to go back and check some of his facts and data. These statements sound pretty much pro Boeing being that the article is written in a Seatle Newspaper. I know that The Boyd Group is based in Colorado, but do you really think that someone would write a pro Airbus article in Boeings hometown paper??? I think not. I like both Boeing and Airbus the same, just so this doesn't spark any heated A vs B debating.

Wingnut
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:25 am

ConcordeBoy,

Before I say it with you, what's the exact distance between LAX and SIN? Now I'd really like to know...


If you you like it or not, Airbus currently offers the airliner with the longest range ever...no matter what happens in two years. The aircraft is real and it's flying. Why not face it?
Airbus once also had the largest twinjet ever, before the B777 was available. That was a fact es well, no matter what happened later.

Try some green tea with honey, should help you to survive these terrible two years until the B772LR takes off...  Laugh out loud


Regards
Udo
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:32 am

Before I say it with you, what's the exact distance between LAX and SIN? Now I'd really like to know...

The distance is 8770mi

The still air distance is over 9000mi, which of course is used to calculate the flight parameters.... but it's not a standard of tangible measure.


Try some green tea with honey, should help you to survive these terrible two years until the B772LR takes off...

...that, and enough Thorazine to stop a charging Elephant  Sleepy  Sleepy
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
wingnutmn
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:27 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:32 am

ConcordeBoy,

The distance between SIN and LAX is over 9000 miles if you do the math in Statute Miles, or just over 8000 miles in Nautical Miles. So in the context of the article, he is correct in stating a range of over 9000 miles

Wingnut
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:33 am

The distance between SIN and LAX is over 9000 miles if you do the math in Statute Miles

*Best Johnny Carson voice*

...you are WRONG sir  Laugh out loud
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
AA787
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:46 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:36 am

AA looked at the A340NG???
ET In NYC
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:40 am

I love how you always throw out "FALSE" or "WRONG" but you never actually provide any evidence or an argument. Makes me think you have no idea.

SIN-LAX's still air distance is over 9000mi, and that's probably what he was stating.

The Great Circle route is 8770mi, but who knows what route they take.

I still find it incredibly odd that Airbus, the high priestess of propaganda, doesn't advertise/mention/promote this alleged A346HGW at all!  


They announced that Qatar and Emirates both were taking an HGW version.

They don't advertise the 75.5t version of the A319 really either. So what?

Mike Boyd is crazy, and an asshole, but he does occasionally know what he's talking about.

N

[Edited 2004-02-04 20:49:52]
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:44 am

AA looked at the A340NG???


Many here are familiar with the enormous temper tantrum AA threw over the GE exclusivity on the 777NGs, but they dont know just how far it went.

In the 2000 Asian Aerospace Show, AA publically issued a RFP to Airbus for the A340.

Some reports suggest an LOI, but I dont believe that's accurate.

Anyways, the RFP expired, just like everyone knew it would. AA has no use whatsoever for A340s; particularly after ETOPS207 became available (AA was the first airline ever to operate under said certification).
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
wingnutmn
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:27 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:14 am

ConcordeBoy,

I stand corrected! I screwed up with my mathematics. Distance in SM is 8758. Sorry for putting out the faulty info.

Wingnut
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 7:22 am


< /end Dynkrisolo moment >


When did my moment begin?  Laugh out loud

I will pass this round.  Wink/being sarcastic
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:00 am

I love how you always throw out "FALSE" or "WRONG" but you never actually provide any evidence or an argument. Makes me think you have no idea.

...precisely, which usually leads you to make some inane comment, so I'll have some entertainment for myself at a later moment  Big grin


I will pass this round.

You wimp!  Laugh out loud
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
jutes85
Posts: 1854
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:50 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:08 am

Here is another Airbus VS. Boeing Article:

http://www.airborneaircrafts.com/library_Airbus_Vs._Boeing.htm

nothing
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:21 am

That article's pretty behind the times...

A335 proposed, marketed, failed already  Laugh out loud
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:49 am

These passages pretty much sum up Boeing's biggest problem...

"Boeing really has to sort itself out and bring that cost of ownership down for us," Clark said.

The A340-500 has a list price of from $185 million to $189.8 million. The 777-200LR has a list price ranging from $188 million to $213.5 million.

But list prices mean little. Airlines are able to negotiate steep discounts of as much as 30 percent or more from the manufacturers.

Boeing is well aware that it continues to lose important campaigns to Airbus because it can't beat its rival on pricing.

All the advantages that Boeing argues for its 777-200LR over the A340-500, such as lower maintenance costs along with better range and payload capability, are "negated by the cost of ownership," Clark said.

"It was not just price but the whole range of benefits that came with the Airbus package," Clark said, referring to last year's huge order at the Paris Air Show. "We tried our best to persuade Boeing, to make them understand that when your competitor is seducing you with a range of benefits for an order this size, why wouldn't they (Boeing ) do that. But Boeing had to draw a line in the sand. ...

"Their plane (the 777-200LR) will be a great machine. But they have to address pricing issues."

In a nutshell, these statements sum up Boeing's biggest achilles heel. Emirates LOVES the 777 and probably would have continued buying it over the A340NGs were it not for these price sticking points. I don't think Boeing can afford to wait for the 7E7 to address this issue. It needs to do more about its' cost structure NOW-granted I don't know what since they've already slashed their workforce to the bone. Maybe they need to renegotiate labor contracts; getting the word out that without givebacks, BCAG will go down. It would be a royal battle with the unions to get that done but if the business eventually folds, they're all out the door anyway. I don't have any answers to how they could do this with their existing product line but they'd better do something.

 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 9:05 am

Qantas
Air New Zealand
Air India
South African Airways
Iberia
Scandinavian Airlines
Virgin Atlantic
Northwest
Air Canada

I wouldn't call any of those major global players except Air Canada and Qantas, major global player to me means British Airways, Air Frane, Lufthansa, Singapore, etc etc. And btw, Qantas is widely expected to order the 777, afterall they helped Boeing design it!

I don't agree at all that the A345 is the biggest threat to Boeing, perhaps it was a misprint and they meant A346?

Also, I agree with the first sentence "The Airbus A380 "whaleJet" does not pose as much of a threat to Boeing as the company's critics say, even though it will supplant Boeing's 747 as the queen of the skies in a couple of years"

Why is the unidentified customer for 777-300ER still there? I thought that was KE and they decided for the 772ER instead? Or is it another new customer?
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
N743AS
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 4:02 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 9:24 am

Rumor had it that South African Airways was interested in the 777-300ER, that could be the remaining interest. I'm not sure where their current interest stands but I know they wanted an aircraft that could eliminate the need to make the stop in Cape Verde on the way to ATL. I believe Boeing claimed that they could make that happen, but we shall see...
If the airplane is one piece, don't cheat on it...ride the bastard down! -Ernest K. Ghann
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 10:21 am

Whoa! There are a lot of emotions being thrown around on this thread!  Nuts

"I think "aviation expert" Michael Boyd has no clue what he is talking about."

At least you used the preface 'I think. . .' before you made that comment. Otherwise, criticising someone who actually gets paid to analyze the aviation industry would just be silly. . .  Insane


"However, interesting quotings on EK's A345/A346 decision."

Udo, thank you. At least a few people were able to see the real merit of this article.


"Written by true experts... 'Anyone not operating 777's is either not a global player or Lufthansa...'

How would he call...

Qantas
Air New Zealand
Air India
South African Airways
Iberia
Scandinavian Airlines
Virgin Atlantic
Northwest
Air Canada
"

First, that quote is actually a number of years old. I believe it first appeared in the 2001 AW&ST Source Book. I'm not sure why they are rehashing it here, but there's no need to get your. . ., well, I won't finish. As to who you can and cannot call a 'World Player' is entirely subjective. Of the airlines you list, I would only include Qantas, South African, Air Canada, and maybe Northwest. And only two of those operate the A340 [which, if you had known the original quote, is what is being talked about (A340 v. 777)].


"I know that The Boyd Group is based in Colorado, but do you really think that someone would write a pro Airbus article in Boeings hometown paper??? I think not."

Then I would suggest reading The Seattle Times more often. They are often harsher on Boeing than the standard trade magazines. Remember, their market is (ex-)Boeing workers, too, not just the management.


"They announced that Qatar and Emirates both were taking an HGW version."

If I may speak for ConcordeBoy (a dangerous thing to do, I know), I believe he was referring to the lack of info on the plane's specs. This is the first article where a specific range and/or payload increase has been talked about (OTOH, I find +750nm hard to swallow, but we'll see). Normally Airbus is more than willing to promote the specs for its aircraft.


"Rumor had it that South African Airways was interested in the 777-300ER"

SAA looked at the 777 a few years ago (earlier than that, they actually had -200ERs on order, but cancelled them with a change of management). They chose the A340-300/-600 package instead. Of course, with the recent history of SAA's fleet planning decisions, we can all expect a 777 order fairly soon. . .  Laugh out loud


AvObserver,

Interesting thoughts, and I think you (and Udo) have hit the proverbial nail on the head with regard to this article. Something else to consider, too, in regards to Boeing's cost base, is the continuing weakness of the dollar to the euro. . .

Regards,

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
wingnutmn
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:27 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 10:56 am

RJPieces

How could you not consider NW a world player. They have the most extensive Asian market of any American Carrier, and they have a presence, though small on their own, in Europe. They have the original alliance with KLM to solidify their European and African markets. The only place they have no presence is in South and Central America. BUT with their CO alliance, they have a presence in South and Central America on paper. Just my 2 cents.

Wingnut
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
 
Thrust
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:04 am

Does Airbus have plans to launch the A347? Or has Airbus done all it can with the Airbus A340? Or has the Airbus A380 eliminated Airbus' need to stretch the A340? This Airbus vs. Boeing issue completely illogical reasoning. Each company is superior to the other at some things, and each company has weaknesses that are strengths for the other. We need both.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:08 am

I was always under the impression that the price difference between A340s and B777s was much greater than printed in the article. Airbus doesn't release list figures for their aircraft so seeing those #s was interesting.

WingnutMN, without their alliance(s) they would be nothing more than say, US Airways....Their Asian network is very impressive and is the only reason I might consider them a global player.

Back to that article, does anybody see the author's point in that the A345 is the biggest threat to Boeing, because I still don't!!!
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
wingnutmn
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:27 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:29 am

I still believe that the A330 is the real threat. More cargo and efficient than the 767, and fits the nitch that the 777 is too big for. All in all, it is a great plane to fill the 250-300 pax market. Boeing really needs this 7E7 soon!

Wingnut
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:00 pm

The A330 is a great threat, it is selling like hot cakes now.......That is why Boeing is developing the 7E7.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:03 pm

Interestingly enough, Airbus almost didn't build the A330-200. The only planned A330 model originally was the longer A330-300, which had the range to fly from the US East Coast to Europe and was intended primarily as a higher-capacity medium-range airliner. Airbus wanted more sales of the A340-200/300 models instead, but it was a couple of airlines that finally convinced Airbus to build the A330-200.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:20 pm

Hamlet,

I know that the qoute is an old one and has been discussed before on these forums. Back in 2001 you could even add KLM and Alitalia to that list.

The quote is about who is operating the 777 and not about who is operating the A340.

Which airline is a worldplayer is entirely subjective, but if Lufthansa is considered a worldplayer so are all the other I've mentioned, as their routework all cover most of the world (note that LH is not serving the Australian region).

BTW, please finish your sentence before you wet your panties.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 9:00 pm

'...and only 2 of those operate the A340...'

Yes, you're right. Virgin Atlantic, Iberia, South African Airways, Scandinavian Airlines and Air Canada, only 2 indeed!  Laugh out loud
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
keesje
Posts: 8863
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 9:00 pm

Distance between Singapore and LA.

Perhaps it is further with a B772LR then with a A350 because of ETOPS restrictions across the Pacific.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:23 pm


United777

Dude, that was pretty interesting, was a good read, thanks for posting it.
NO URLS in signature
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:48 am

Why is the unidentified customer for 777-300ER still there? I thought that was KE and they decided for the 772ER instead?

The unidentified orders are for BR, always have been.



If I may speak for ConcordeBoy (a dangerous thing to do, I know), I believe he was referring to the lack of info on the plane's specs. This is the first article where a specific range and/or payload increase has been talked about (OTOH, I find +750nm hard to swallow, but we'll see). Normally Airbus is more than willing to promote the specs for its aircraft.

Way to speak Hammy, I couldn't have said it better  Smile Big grin


Perhaps it is further with a B772LR then with a A350 because of ETOPS restrictions across the Pacific.
  • No such aircraft as an A350
  • SIN-LAX is completely within ETOPS180; and even if the airline chose not to fly the great circle, the 777NGs' expectant ETOPS240/330 capability will virtually eliminate any NoFlyZones with the exception of Antarctica.
  • Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    User avatar
    scbriml
    Posts: 13469
    Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:43 am

    SIN-LAX is completely within ETOPS180; and even if the airline chose not to fly the great circle, the 777NGs' expectant ETOPS240/330 capability will virtually eliminate any NoFlyZones with the exception of Antarctica.

    Aren't twin ops over the Himalayas also restricted? I thought that was part of AI's reasoning for selecting the A340 - it would allow them to fly routes over the northern parts of India & Pakistan. Or have I got that all wrong?
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
     
    User avatar
    solnabo
    Posts: 5019
    Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:55 am

    A VERY good article IMO, fair and balanced.
    "4 engines 4 longhouls"
     Big thumbs up  Big thumbs up  Big thumbs up  Big thumbs up
    Michael//SE
    Airbus SAS - Love them both
     
    aerosol
    Posts: 497
    Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 10:31 pm

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:57 am

    @Hamlet:
    The Efficacy of dart throwing:
    is characterized "throwing darts at a financial page will produce a portfolio that can be expected to do as well as any managed by professional security analysts" (p325. "Corporate Finance", Ross, Westerfield, Jaffe).

    So much for the analysts...

    "criticizing someone who actually gets paid to analyze the aviation industry would just be silly. . . "

    and criticizing someone who is paid to lead a country would be silly as well. The must know.. (WMD dilemma)
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:22 am

    Aren't twin ops over the Himalayas also restricted?

    yes


    I thought that was part of AI's reasoning for selecting the A340

    ...wanting to get their paws on French nuclear technology might have had a lil' more to do with it  Big grin
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    MidnightMike
    Posts: 2810
    Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:31 am


    Was just reading on ATWOnline.com that Singapore Airlines has not been able to install the first class beds on the A340-500 because of weight penalty. Looks like the airplane is NOT flying as advertised, oh well, trouble in paradise.
    NO URLS in signature
     
    Airbus340
    Posts: 123
    Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2000 3:05 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:10 am

    Before you people talk against the A345 read this:

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/159431_longestflight05.html?searchpagefrom=1&searchdiff=1

    Yes, it seems the economy seats of the Boeing 777 are much thinner than those of the Airbus A340...

    And yes, the fuselage of the 777 is bigger, but that means more cluttering. Nobody likes that.

    Virgin did say something very WISE: 4 ENGINES 4 LONGHOUL

    If an Airbus A340 engine fails, They can continue there flight only spending 10% more fuel.

    Now, if an engine fails of a 777 they must land...Not a very nice thing for a passenger, or for the crew!

    If I had an airline, believe me, "No Boeings allowed!"
     
    gigneil
    Posts: 14133
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:13 am

    Looks like the airplane is NOT flying as advertised, oh well, trouble in paradise.

    What are you talking about? The airplane has been flying for 3 days, that decision was made months before they received even the first frame.

    The first class beds are heavy, and they want to fly them to EWR, which is right against the range limit of the plane to begin with.

    They also wanted to fit more seats across, and the first class seat was a touch too wide to fit 6 across on the A340-500, which is why virgin is only doing 5 across.

    N
     
    MidnightMike
    Posts: 2810
    Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:16 am


    "2" Engine aircraft have been proven to be just as safe as "4" engine aircraft. Maybe should tell the various militaries around the world that their "2" engine aircraft are not safe.

    If you hate Boeing, fine, but don't distort the facts.
    NO URLS in signature
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:26 am

    Now, if an engine fails of a 777 they must land...Not a very nice thing for a passenger, or for the crew!

    That's what you may think... but I'd rather land ASAP, be it in HNL or some godawful 3rd world country, like France.
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    Hamlet69
    Posts: 2468
    Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:21 am

    Manni,

    "Yes, you're right. Virgin Atlantic, Iberia, South African Airways, Scandinavian Airlines and Air Canada, only 2 indeed!"

    I would suggest paying more attention. I stated that, IMO, "Qantas, South African, Air Canada, and maybe Northwest" are the only airlines of the ones you listed that could be considered a 'world player.' Of those airlines, only 2 operate the A340. It's not that hard, honest.

    Also, I understand English is probably not your native tongue, but "before you wet your panties" is not the expression.


    "and criticizing someone who is paid to lead a country would be silly as well."

    . . .trust me, you don't want to get me started on George Bu-- Sh--!


    "Singapore Airlines has not been able to install the first class beds on the A340-500 because of weight penalty."

    Singapore was never planning on installing first class seating on the A340. When SQ first requested an ultra-long range aircraft, they wanted 200 seats non-stop to LAX. Neither manufacturer could do that. They then changed this to 180-185, which the A340 could do, but the 777-200X (the aircraft Boeing pitched at the time) would be pushing it. They went with the A340. It was about at this time, as I understand it, that SQ opted for business only, as they could fit more comparable seats in than a full first class arrangement. Someone with more SQ insight, please feel free to correct any mistakes.


    "And yes, the fuselage of the 777 is bigger, but that means more cluttering. Nobody likes that."

    ???? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to get across with this statement. . .


    "If an Airbus A340 engine fails, They can continue there flight only spending 10% more fuel.
    Now, if an engine fails of a 777 they must land...Not a very nice thing for a passenger, or for the crew!
    If I had an airline, believe me, "No Boeings allowed!"
    "

    Then your fleet would be spending more comparable time on the ground than your rival - not a good thing for an airline. It has been proven time and again that a twin-engined aircraft (777, A330, 767) have much fewer diversions than trijets and quads (747, A340, MD-11). And if we stick to the topic, the 777 also has better dispatch reliability than the A340, in addition to being able to carry a larger payload per flight.

    If I had an airline, I'd base it on research and analysis, not sentimentalism.

    Regards,

    Hamlet69
    Honor the warriors, not the war.
     
    User avatar
    solnabo
    Posts: 5019
    Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:31 am

    Theres a lot of hassle about the GE engines on "trouble seven"...
    AF 772 had to land in Halifax a while ago f.ex.
    Whatta pitty!!  Big thumbs up

    Michael//SE
    Airbus SAS - Love them both
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:38 am

    When SQ first requested an ultra-long range aircraft, they wanted 200 seats non-stop to LAX

    Wasnt it actually the request for growth into 200 seats to New York (and at that time, Chicago) that was the deal breaker, not LA?
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:49 am

    And the A vs B war is once more continuing...

    Btw, ConcordeBoy, your attack against France was really not funny.


    I tell you try the green tea finally...


    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    chrisdigo
    Posts: 179
    Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 3:26 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:55 am

    COncordeBoy: 3rd world country, like France.

    Revised you Geography  Insane

    Chris
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 7:04 am

    I tell you try the green tea finally

    Not enough kick...

    ...a few more A340NG orders, and I fear I'll need enough Thorazine to stop a charging elephant  Wow!

    ------------------
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
    ~ConcordeBoy
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    gigneil
    Posts: 14133
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 7:06 am

    Of those airlines, only 2 operate the A340. It's not that hard, honest.


    They were saying that operate no 777s.

    N
     
    dynkrisolo
    Posts: 1825
    Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

    RE: Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets

    Fri Feb 06, 2004 7:42 am


    Written by true experts... 'Anyone not operating 777's is either not a global player or Lufthansa...'

    How would he call...



    Actually, if we go by Air Transport World's Top 20 list

    http://www.atwonline.com/stats_top25.cfm

    and take out the two non-global players, Southwest and America West, then you have 14 out of the 18 that fly the 777. Lufthansa, Northwest, Qantas and Iberia are the four exceptions. Yes, the "experts" might have exaggerated, but 14 vs. 4, you get the picture.