"Not in that big numbers" means that the number sold did not justify its development costs. That's what I mean. The aircraft itself may be great, as in the case of the A3XX, but why bankrupt a company (the A3XX costs will not level out at $12 billion, and are considerably more than the Concorde's) for novelty purposes? By the time something on the scale of the A3XX could be a good seller, Boeing and Airbus (if they haven't squandered all of their cash away on the A3XX) and maybe even newer entrants, will be developing aircraft the likes of which we have never seen before. That's where an enhanced and expanded 747 (they are not simply adding more seats to the existing 747 either...it is a much different wing and fuselage design) comes in with an advantage. Boeing received several orders for proposed 747 models, but did the cost-benefit analysis, and held off. A new 747 would fit the needs of airlines for the next 20 or more years, by which time the aircraft being developed will not much resemble those we fly on today. Again, why must everyone think in terms if today's 747? The only thing that would be the same on the 747-400 and the 747X would be the "747" designation and a superficial resemblance on the outside. The technology would not be any older than that on the A3XX. On each design, Boeing allows for growth, development and expansion well into the future. Today's 747 is no more like the 747-400 than the 747X would be like the 747-400. Maybe we could say the A3XX is nothing more than a rehash and modification of Douglas' initial plans for the DC10, which was originally envisaged as a double deck airliner with four engines to trump the 747 (again, ours is bigger than yours)...they, too, saw their folly. Hopefull Airbus does too.
Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!