Espion007
Topic Author
Posts: 1653
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:29 am

A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:20 am

What do you think,35 years from 2006,will replace the a380?

triple decker maybe?
Snakes on a Plane!
 
Thrust
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:23 am

If the MTOW issue gets solved, then yes.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:24 am

Probably a more thorough integration of mass transit, trains, high speed rail, ect. As the cost of maglev drops, I think it will begin to replace many of the functions of the 737/A320, 757, 7E7SR. At 350mph you arrive at your destination without a noticable delay relative to jet travel, and a train can carry a far greater numer of passengers.

To answer your question, no passenger aircraft will be larger than the A380 IMO.
 
User avatar
4everRC
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 7:53 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:24 am

In 2041, everyone with A380 will replace them with DC9s bought from the NW operating fleet.
Nobody served our republic like Republic!
 
nantoine
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:36 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:25 am

My guess is that a family of Blended-Wing-Body aircraft will be operating some time before 2025.
 
GLAGAZ
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:42 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:25 am

How about small supersonic jets that can hover at their gate. So instead of taking up more ground space for gates you just build say 4 storey gates with a/c hovering above each other. Would also eliminate the need for runways, so I don't like my idea as i like these big beasts landing and taking off with amazing power but It's the first thing that came to mind so take it or leave it....  Smile
Neutrality means that u don't really care cos the struggle goes on even when ur not there, blind and unaware
 
ultrapig
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:38 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:25 am

Based on my perspective of the curent world situation the 390 will be replace by push carts and dugout cannoes after world war III
 
Al319
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 1999 9:05 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:30 am

How about the SONIC CRUISER lol
“atom celled…jet propelled”
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:39 am

It's hard to imagine a practical tube with wings larger than the 389 since we are nearing the limits of CURRENT infrastructure. Of course, this was probably said of the 747 in 1970.

35 years on, all bets are off. DfwRevolution has a good point about trains. Even without maglev, Europe has seen a huge renaissance for trains in the last 20 years. If the trains do 500-600 km/h+ planes will be outcompeted on price and time on segments up to 5-6 hours, not to mention the fact that a train station can be built in the center of a city. This gets us into the crucial US transcontinental range, a hugely important market that would make the investment in these technologies worth it.

For the long haul over 6 hours, someone might come up with practical suborbital transport. 60 minutes from London to Australia. Let's hope.

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
airways6max
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 6:22 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:40 am

I don't think anything much bigger than the A380, but maybe a double-deck version of Boeing's shelved Trans-Sonic Cruiser.
 
22right
Posts: 393
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 2:41 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:49 am

Good one Ultrapig!  Wink/being sarcastic

I highly doubt the A380 will be replaced by anything exciting. It will probably be yet another generic looking multi-engine giant with operational efficiencies up the wazoo! (I mean the 757/767/777 series hardly invokes the same "gasp" that perhaps a 727 or a 747 do, for most people)

Unfortunately, the glory days of aircraft design are far behind us (I am guessing they were the 50s thru' the early 70's). I mean looks-wise, how different is an A340 produced compared to the B707... if anything the 707 looks cooler! I maintain that there have been no significant innovations in commercial aircraft design (meaning aircraft shape, style, etc) in the last 30 years (whatever has been has been behind the scenes in the electronics, engine technology, etc).

And that may be because we have reached the point where we already know the basic shape, size, etc parameters needed to create an efficient/effective commercial aircraft. There is no further point in deviating from that anymore. A sad but true artifact of getting good at something very quickly.
"I never apologize! I am sorry, but that's the way it is!" - Homer Simpson
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 6:51 am

I'm going to give one more plug regarding maglev

Popular Science did a really crappy, IMO, rendition of a trans-atlantic maglev system, but that's another story. However, if a single maglev artery were to link JFK with LHR, trans-Atlantic jet travel would be reduced into JFK/LHR feeders, while a few P2P would be served with smaller aircraft. A sample itenerary might be-

DFW-JFK onboard 7E7SR
JFK-LHR onboard trans-Atlantic maglev
LHR-AMS oboard 7E7SR

Later the same maglev track could be stretched to LHR-CDG and JFK-OHR untill an arterial system of maglev links North America to Europe. At the same time, an artery through the Bering Straits could link North America to Asia. Air travel would become secondary to maglev, with the purpose of feeding these rail heads. The obvious site for rail-air integration would be beneath or within current airports.

All my humble opinion ofcourse.
 
ORDagent
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:24 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 7:01 am

The concept of high speed trains is a wonderful thing for densely populated areas like Europe. I have taken the German ICE several times and with the exception of the scenery it is indeed like flying. ie:quiet,smooth as a baby's bottom and FAST! My only concern is the new crop of LCCs like EasyJet that could bleed traffic off of the trains. I'm not a big one on taxes but the German idea of taxing by the amount of pollution created per pax makes some sense since trains are significantly cleaner at least on shorter intra European services. Of course I'm still a fanatic for things with wings but those modern trains really are spectacular. Just look at AB) (FRA / FRF / EDDF), Germany">FRA. That incredible ICE station just a jump from the gates to the snazziest non winged travel on the planet. That will be the waive of the future.
 
netdhaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:13 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 8:54 am

triple decker maybe?

A380 IS a triple decker, if you count the first deck that contains cargo, fuel tank, wheels and other goodies.
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 10:41 am

BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY! ... replaced the 7e7, too.  Big grin
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
MY7E7
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:37 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 10:58 am

The Matrix, all we need is a reliable cell phone provider to find the exit again.
I'm not always right but that's no reason to insult me
 
joleb
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:01 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 4:36 pm

A380 will never leave ground thats why immeadiatly people will buy more 747
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 4:43 pm

A380 will never leave ground thats why immeadiatly people will buy more 747

What are your sources?  Big grin
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
N754PR
Posts: 2909
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 1999 10:03 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 7:21 pm

idiots, you got to love them  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Bush, your a sad, sad man.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5006
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 9:18 pm

I think Boeing´s BWB w/ 1000 pax, is the plane to fly.......in 15-20 years!
IMO 35 years its spaaaace all the way  Big thumbs up

Michael//SE
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
ACAfan
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:25 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 9:39 pm

In order to see the next 35 years, look at the past 35 years.

What has changed? Fuselages have been the same, engines have been improved/reduced, economics of air travel have become paramount. pax comfort has been refined.

My prediction: An twinjet version of the A380

Regardless, planes are too big, and I follow the fragmentation argument. MCI-MUC-HYD on the 7E7
Freddie Laker ... May be at peace with his maker ... But he is a persona non grata ... with IATA
 
tristarenvy
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:07 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 9:43 pm

Wait! If we're talking some for of rail mass transit, now... will we be forced by all the changes to go from "A.net" to "MT.net"? (Mass Transit)...

I can see it now.....
The HR v. M fights... (Heavy rail vs. Maglev)
Posts about NWA DC-9's being used as dining cars in 2020
What's your favorite locomotive?
Noisy couplers on trains.
Worst paint schemes for trains...

 Smile


If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
 
ACAfan
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:25 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 9:53 pm

Monorail is the best rail system bar none. Heavy rail is expensive, dangerous, and unattractive. Light rail is not an alternative to driving. Subways are decent but expensive.

Monorails look better
Monorails are inexpensive to construct
Monorails are easy to construct
Monorails are the the only train system that is profitable
Monorails are the most efficient
Monorails are the most reliable
Monorails are the safest. No colllisions. No derailments. Not a single accident in its history of use.

http://www.monorails.org/

Intra city: monorail
Inter city: maglev monorail
Freddie Laker ... May be at peace with his maker ... But he is a persona non grata ... with IATA
 
Guest

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 9:58 pm

Planes will be fueled by Hydrogen in the future.

ACAfan great signature, i cant imagine what influenced you  Yeah sure
 
ACAfan
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:25 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Wed May 05, 2004 11:50 pm

Roberta:

My signature was intended to be a mockery of yours...
I suppose mockery is indeed a form of flattery!

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Freddie Laker ... May be at peace with his maker ... But he is a persona non grata ... with IATA
 
Greg
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 12:18 am

A couple people have been killed by the monorail at Disneyland...so you can't say 'not a single accident'..

Of course, climbing ONTO the track was not very bright...but apparently the brakes didn't work too well.

I wonder if the occupants thought it was part of the ride.....
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 12:31 am

DfwRevolution:

"I'm going to give one more plug regarding maglev."

On land, yes - the TGV virtually killed Paris-Lyon air traffic for example. And the new Madrid-Zarragosa-Barcelona AVE will take the lion's share of P2P traffic between those cities. With exisiting high speed right of ways the introduction of a maglev some time in the future makes sense (but it won't happen within the next 10 years because of cost.)

"However, if a single maglev artery were to link JFK with LHR, trans-Atlantic jet travel would be reduced into JFK/LHR feeders"

A trans-oceanic maglev is a non-starter. It really is science fiction as the costs, as you must know, would be truly massive. Hypothetically, what does an Atlantic maglev offer over a JFK/LHR or JFK/CDG shuttle service using A380-900s on the half hour or hourly basis as demand warrants? Nothing! The air infrastructure is much cheaper and the journey is much shorter.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 12:32 am

Airlines dont look 35 years into the future. Hell, they dont even look into 5 years from now either.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 2:47 am

Only at airliners net does someone ask what is going to replace a plane before its first flight.

I know the answer... the DC-9.
Chicks dig winglets.
 
rockyracoon
Posts: 1008
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:58 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 3:15 am

I, too, think we'll be seeing a BWB aircraft sometime in the future. Seems like that natural progression to me.





peace
 
9V-SPF
Posts: 1340
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:42 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 3:25 am

Definitely quadruple decker DC-9s. LH will be the launch customer and install 30" PTVs on those planes. Afterwards, they will be taken over by Air France imperialists immediately, who will have finally made the rest of Europe a french colony by then.
 
User avatar
Heavierthanair
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 11:20 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 4:11 am

G'day

how about an advanced version of the cable train as a people mover. The trains could run in tunnels when overland transport is not practical, maglev could reduce friction on the high speed runs across the Pacific, the Atlantic, the South China Sea - you name it.

It's about time someone continues development of the system, I guess it has been almost a century this was looked into the last time. The economics look terrific and frequency could be adapted to actual demand. This would also stop the endless discussions on who is taking off quicker or cruising faster.

But then again, a single system/standard would likely be required, thus this will not be available before the replacement for the A 380 will have to be replaced.

Cheer

Peter
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879 - 1955)
 
N6376M
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:54 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 5:33 am

This is a ridiculous thread. In the 1960's nobody could even imagine what airtravel would be like in 30 years. There's a common theme amongst futurist that says that people tend to overestimate advances within the next 25 years and underestimate the advances that will occur within the next 50 years.

Most of the people who will design the A380 replacement are either watching Sesame Street or still are sperm in their daddy's testicles. The promise of tomorrow is that we don't know what it will bring but we hope it will better than what we have today.

-76M
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 10:34 am

I heartily agree with N6736m. Popular Science magazine so often publishes 'future of air and other travel' articles and too often it seems they don't even get close to the truth. Remember the 1972 wasp-waisted Mach 1 airliner, or the obligue-wing SST aka the "Flying Scissors". Plausible concepts perhaps, but hardly accurate forecasting. Reminds me of my 1960's "Boys' Life" issue on future transportation predicting hovercars on all roads by the 1990s. Well, where are they? I guess with the wasp-waister airliner and the Flying Scissors SST. Who can even reasonably guess what might replace the A380 in 35 or more years? Even Airbus doesn't have a solid clue at this point.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 12:28 pm

I heartily agree with N6736m. Popular Science magazine so often publishes 'future of air and other travel' articles and too often it seems they don't even get close to the truth.

Well gotta defend my honor now...

Tunnels are a joke I will admit, did anyone else find the idea of a sleak, aerodyamic train opperating in a frickin vacume as comical as I? In reality, the floating superstructures like those used in deep sea oil exploration would be a much more feasable solution. Basically, a series of submerged pontoons that support a track above. The track itself would obviously have to flex and dapen the roll of the ocean, but a maglev train can still manage a very respectable ground speed.

Come down to the Gulf of Mexico and watch these floating cities be hauled out to a miles of water and then remain in a fixed position as they drill.
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 12:35 pm

Probably a more thorough integration of mass transit, trains, high speed rail, ect. As the cost of maglev drops, I think it will begin to replace many of the functions of the 737/A320, 757, 7E7SR. At 350mph you arrive at your destination without a noticable delay relative to jet travel, and a train can carry a far greater numer of passengers.

I disagree for a relatively simple reason.

Trains need tracks. You simply can't connect every city (not even all major city pairs) with tracks. Even if you could, you'd inevitably run into track congestion problems. Plus, if you want to add another route, how long would it take to complete a new maglev guideway?

It's a nice idea, but it simply is nowhere near versatile enough.
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 12:42 pm

"In reality, the floating superstructures like those used in deep sea oil exploration would be a much more feasable solution. Basically, a series of submerged pontoons that support a track above. The track itself would obviously have to flex and dapen the roll of the ocean, but a maglev train can still manage a very respectable ground speed."

It wouldn't even be remotely economically feasible.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 12:52 pm

It wouldn't even be remotely economically feasible.

And I suppose a triple-decker is? With a project of such a grand scale, your goal is to break-even over a century, rather than the 10-15 year product cycle of an aircraft.
 
Thrust
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 1:22 pm

As I have said before in this post, not only would a triple-decker be remotely economically feasible, how you could get the MTOW to fit in to the standard weight limits is beyond me. That's three floors of passengers, plus a shitload of cargo in the freight area. That would stress hell on the pavement, you'd need four 777 engines to power the thing, adding a great amount of additional weight to the aircraft. A triple-decker is impossible at this point. i even have a hard time believing you could get something that heavy to fly.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 3:16 pm

I can't believe I'm still the only one to mention suborbitals. After all, that's a technology we almost have today.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 5:28 pm

And I suppose a triple-decker is? With a project of such a grand scale, your goal is to break-even over a century, rather than the 10-15 year product cycle of an aircraft.

First of all, I never said anything about a triple-decker!! An updated 380-900 will be sufficient (which Airbus already has done artwork as a triple-decker, by the way.)

Second, aircraft product cycles are not 10-15 years!

Third, a trans Atlantic maglev is economically ridiculous! It would be a financial fiasco. Not just engineering and construction wise but operationally as well. As has already been pointed out on this thread, the LCCs in Germany have cheaper fares than the German Railways (on land with "conventional" technology). After over two decades of maglev R&D, the Shanghai maglev cost $1.2-billion to build for only 19-miles of track and the train only goes 267 mph. Even with future maglev improvements, compare that with the 7E7 that will cost $130-million and will fly over 7,500 miles at +500 mph between any two city pairs.

Fourth, no investor is going to wait 100 years to break-even!!! Look at the finacial fiasco of the Chunnel. Keep dreaming!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 5:44 pm

I have to agree with Starlionblue, what happens with air travel in the future will be driven by engine technology. If an efficient and reliable scramjet (or some other technology) can be developed, we could see a very different and faster form of long distance air travel.

High speed trains may take over shorter routes, but I doubt they will compete on long distance routes.
The beatings will continue until morale improves
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 6:32 pm

Unless we find an economically competitive fossil-fuel alternative that performs for aircraft, we could find ourselves in an inter-continental transport dark age before too long.

Long distance travel over oceans could once again become the province of the élite and countries like New Zealand could find themselves in a participation-deprived purgatory from the rest of the world.

Scramjets and sub-orbitals may be banned from commercial release for ecological reasons. And what would they be powered by anyway and for how long?

What if we find that time and distance once again become a great hurdle? Communication would still be instant, but the ability to front up may no longer be an economic reality. An increasingly virtual world perhaps. How will we run empires - political, economic, religious etc?

Just my two bobs worth
Regards
MH
come visit the south pacific
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 7:22 pm

i see the a380 and 7e7 as last of their breed. planes last 20 or so years and i am sure the doctrine will have changed then. my guess is that most continental areas will have rail based mass transportation. imagine a new york lax maglev line, the travel would take maybe 10 hours with a bit of a speed boost over current technology which would take like 14 hours.
even the u.s. mass consume economy will have consolidated by then and emphasize on energy efficency, so maglev is where i'd put my money, and due to the declining amounts of fossil fuels only have them in high priority or so applications like emergency choppers and (of course) the military and the random extra expensive vip shuttle. besides that i think it will be, from an energy efficiency standpoint, all revert to big zeppelins, from france or uk to new england in 2 days, with 1500 pax or so on board using fuel cells as propulsion.
if not in 20 years then in 30-40 such a scenario will develop, simply because fossil fuels will decline and alternatives will force us to be alot more careful about resources.
10=2
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 7:24 pm

I highly doubt that travel will take a step backward, regardless of diminishing fossil fuel reserves. We've heard they were going to dry up 10, 20, 30 years from now for years.

What we do know is that as the decades pass, engines can become more efficient, and less pollutant. I don't expect that trend to stop. We can't forecast the future accurately without doing one thing, looking at the past. How efficient were engines 30 years ago, compared with today's highly efficient engines? I think it will be a logarithmic curve. Given just over a 100 years ago we learned to fly, it's not likely that fossil fuel consumption will restrict future mass commercial flight. Who would have thought in '70 that the 7E7 or the A380 would be a commercial reality? So, what's to say that in 2035 a flight from JFK-SYD would take only 4 hours is impossible?

I'm not saying that the Popular Science model is the correct one, but IMO it would be foolish to say that it is impossible.
The beatings will continue until morale improves
 
N6376M
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:54 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Thu May 06, 2004 10:53 pm

Trains are a great answer for Europe given the relatively small geographic proximity of the major cities. However, in the US, the train will be widely accepted as a means of transportation if for no other reason that most American cities (NY being the major exception) require a car to get around in. So you take a train from point a to point b and then still have to rent a car. In Europe, the cities are more compact so that a taxi or the public transportation infrastructure allow you to get around much easier.

Take the proposed high speed train between Miami and Tampa, FL. It's going to be a collossal waste of money because nobody is going to take a train between those two cities and then have to rent a car once they get their. While the initial transit time might be shorter than driving, the total time and expense of taking the train rather than driving will be much more in favor of driving.

While I was in Europe last summer it dawned on me why there were such different feelings about invading Iraq for its oil. Fuel in Europe is almost 4x as expensive in the US. Most of that difference is in taxes. Therefore a 50 cent a gallon increase in the price of fuel at the pumps in the US might represent a 25% to 33% increase, it's less than 12% for European consumers. Simultaneously the Euro was appreciating relative to the dollar so the price Europeans (in Euros) actually fell while crude was rising everywhere else. (Almost all bulk oil transactions are denominated in US$).

-76M
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Fri May 07, 2004 12:27 am

"Airlines dont look 35 years into the future. Hell, they dont even look into 5 years from now either."...... Well if airlines in America do it like that, than I'm not wondered why they are unable to survive
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: A380 Replacement

Fri May 07, 2004 1:30 am

Along with the increase in price of fossil fuels, another trend is ever better virtual and comminications technology. This is already leading to a decrease in face to face meetings.

If virtual meetings are almost as good as real meetings (touch, sight, hearing) but much cheaper they will definitely compete with corporate flying.


All of you saying that things are "impossible". Well, maybe improbable is a better word. Historically, those who have called things impossible have often been proved wrong. If you had told Sir Frank Whittle about the A380 in 1935, he would probably have laughed you out of the room. If you had told any of us about the World Wide Web in 1970, we would probably not have believed this.

This doesn't mean I think a transatlantic tunnel is probable, just that it's pretty hard to imagine what may be invented in the next few decades.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
22right
Posts: 393
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 2:41 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Fri May 07, 2004 1:59 am

In reply #32, N6773m wrote:

> Most of the people who will design the A380 replacement > are either watching Sesame Street or still are sperm in >their daddy's testicles.

I don't think most of the Sesame Street watching crowd is biologically able to produce sperm yet.

On the other hand, if your sperm argument holds why can't they be eggs in their mommies' ovaries. You know it takes BOTH, don't you??  Wink/being sarcastic
"I never apologize! I am sorry, but that's the way it is!" - Homer Simpson
 
boysteve
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 7:02 am

RE: A380 Replacement

Fri May 07, 2004 8:12 am

What a stupid question this is! The A380 isn't airborne yet and people are talking about what replaces it in 2040! Imagine people predicting Concorde in the 1940's, or imagine on concorde's launch day predicting that there would be no supersonic travel (commercial) in 2004!!! Unless people no what economics will come into play between now and 2040 your wasting you're time on this issue!