scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:23 am

I realize that this topic may have been discussed many times before (and may even have been deleted many times)...

However, all members of this great forum read about orders made and orders cancelled by airlines every day.

We all know about the delay of the A380. Two years behind schedule as we speak. Boeing, on the other hand, is promoting its 787 aggressively, and is gaining ground.

These two aircraft are very different, and the launch of each come from a very different mindset. Airbus, with its A380, firmly believes that future air travel will be through feeder traffic via major hubs. Boeing seems to believe that the furture will be more point-to-point between smaller populated cities. Who is right?

This is not about whose aircraft is supreme; it is about whose future strategy is right.

I think Boeing is on the right track with its 787. We need to advance the technology when it comes to performance, and not so much the travel experience. The A380 tilts heavily towards latter objective if you ask me.

Any additional thoughts?

Thanks!

Scalebuilder
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:00 am

I think that Airbus and Boeing have a similar understanding of how jetliners will advance. But Airbus wasn't thinking in terms of how their lineup should evolve; rather they were still in the mode of expanding out their lineup to be a complete offering - starting with the A300/310 in the middle and then expanding down with the A320 family and up, first with the A330/A340 family and on to the A380. They have promoted their lineup as modern, consistent, with a high degree of commonality. But they went too far - broadening the family too much and neglecting the fact that over time, parts of the family would come up for replacement. So now they must face closure of the A300/A310 line without a replacement, the need to replace or dramatically update the A330/A340 line, while keeping an eye on Boeing over what they do in the narrowbody market, all while staying completely focused on getting the A380 out the door.

Now they have to consider how many families of airliners they can reasonably have - if their development cycle is 6-8 years and the lifespan of a typical design is 20 years, then they should have no more than 3 families - or else something will always get neglected. That is what Boeing is trying to get to with their Y1, Y2, Y3 proposals.
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:32 am

I really agree with you in all that you say.

But why build this "perceived" family of aircraft that no airline wants just because " Airbus wants to stack up to Boeing or offer the same family of products"?

It is almost as though Airbus wants to replicate what Boeing has done very well for 40 years or so: to build great jet aircraft, and a family of these that could fit any airline well.

I think the strategy between developing and building the A380 vesus the 787 represents a dividing point in the vision of future air travel. Do we go to major hubs and fly on the A380, or do we fly point-to-point with the 787?

You have this thought implemented in its infancy here in the US today. We have plenty of 757s serving numerous niche markets particularly in Europe already. I believe that this strategy will be followed by even more airlines in the coming years.

But is that to say that there is no room for the A380 in the travel industry? No, not at all. It just does not represent the wave of the future. I think the 787 does - not because of it's design - but because how it was designed and how it was intended to serve its intended smaller point-to-point markets.
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
ZBBYLW
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:17 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:11 am

With the ever incrasing price of fuel, I think Airbus might be on the right track. With the price of fuel consistenly increasing i can see many people begining to use trains more and more again. Of course this is only in places that have a decent train system, such as europe. For example if someone was living in lets say Stuttgart and wanted to go to NYC they could take a train to FRA and then fly FRA-JFK and only limit to the one flight needed to cross the pond. In this case airlines can have one airplane carry the ammount that two or more 787's can carry. This could actually save money in the long run, as you only have crew for one aircraft, only need to service one aircraft only have maintenance for the one aircraft. Even thoguh it would be cheaper for someone to run a 787 vs a 380 it would be cheaper to fly on 380 vs two 787's and thus save money.
Keep the shinny side up!
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:01 pm

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 3):
With the ever incrasing price of fuel, I think Airbus might be on the right track. With the price of fuel consistenly increasing i can see many people begining to use trains more and more again.

This is only one strategy out of many. In densly populated Europe, I certainly see your case. However, I believe that direct point-to-point flights and niche marketing will still be the wave of the future, and I think Boeing has realized this. Airbus is going a different route. They are going more along beliving that feeder traffic should be routed through major hubs, and larger aircraft should accommodate this traffic flow from there on.

There have been a lot of threads about A versus B in this forum, and it often comes down to very granular technicalities about who builds the best aircraft. Both Boeing and Airbus build superior aircraft. However, the competitive edge is found in the shaping of future of air travel, what the public wants, and the vision is very different between the two companies.

I really do think that this is what distiguishes Boeing from Airbus. It is not the aircraft per se, but the vision behind it.
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
boeing767-300
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:34 pm

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 3):
With the ever incrasing price of fuel, I think Airbus might be on the right track

Wrong... unless you can fill the A380 this won't work and attempting to always fill A380 will ultimately reduce yield.

The thought of flying 80 people from Frankfurt to New York in 250+ tons of aircraft must quite frankly scare the hell out of the bean counters.

The big question mark remains over real operating economics but given Airbuses recent efforts with performance/fuel burn on A346 and the lack of 'crowing' about A380 tests leads me to believe that all is not as good as it could or should be.

If A380 were exceeding targets then surely we would have heard about it as some good news in a disastrous programme.

I still believe ultimately that the OEW weight is too heavy and A380 will be undermined by the likes of 787-9 and -10.

No one ever went out of business operating an aircraft TOO SMALL. Remember how many operators bailed out of 747 ops in the 70's because they were too big and this only esculated during the oil crisis of 1973 and many of those acquired the 741 for its range rather than size and A380 does not have its range market all to itself.

The 767 777 and A330 with their range and economics have gradually killed off 747 sales and whether you like it or not the 777-300ER has developed into a extemely efficient 744 replacement(AF CX NZ JL NH...)

I believe there is a market for A380 but the market for it is niche and not big enough for one manufacturer let alone two. Boeing made the right call with 787 there is no doubt.
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:49 pm

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 5):
No one ever went out of business operating an aircraft TOO SMALL.

That is one powerful statement.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 5):
I believe there is a market for A380 but the market for it is niche and not big enough for one manufacturer let alone two. Boeing made the right call with 787 there is no dou

I truly believe there is a limited market too. But I still believe that Boeing is on the right track assuming that point-to-point travel on a mass basis, using smaller capacity and economical aircraft, and avoiding congested hubs, represents the future of air travel.
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
boeing767-300
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:32 pm

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 6):
Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 5):
No one ever went out of business operating an aircraft TOO SMALL.

That is one powerful statement.

This was a quote by an american airline chief and i believe it has merit.

As an example a 744 can carry 380 odd passengers Auckland to Brisbane and burn around 30 ton of fuel.

A 733 can carry 130 for around 6 ton. The 744 carrys 3 times the passengers but burns 5 times the fuel. Do the maths again yourself when both are half full............
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8651
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:57 pm

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 5):
No one ever went out of business operating an aircraft TOO SMALL

Ignore the broke Independence Air investor behind the curtain!!  Wink
 
dazeflight
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 1999 1:32 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:08 pm

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 7):
A 733 can carry 130 for around 6 ton. The 744 carrys 3 times the passengers but burns 5 times the fuel. Do the maths again yourself when both are half full............

There are no maths do be done here. The comparison of a B733 and a B744 on such a short routing is just pure b/s, even more so when using fictive data to compare.  sarcastic 
 
Shinkai
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:39 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:11 pm

Both Airbus' and Boeing's strategies do work and makes sense.

Firstly, I'd like to bring up Boeing's model of point-to-point flying. Indeed it has many advantages such as time-saving on the passenger's part. However, one must not forget the politics involved in air travel. A case in point - even though PIA has the aircraft capable of flying non-stop from Lahore to USA, they were still not allowed to fly it directly. I am sure the SIN-LAX issue would come to mind as well.

So there is definitely room for hub and spoke flying and I do not see how Airbus' business model is a "failure".
please relax, enjoy your flight... Good Luck!!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8651
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:13 pm

Quoting Shinkai (Reply 10):
Firstly, I'd like to bring up Boeing's model of point-to-point flying

Boeing's strategy is not point-to-point. Ditch the A.net myth, Boeing calls their strategy hub-to-point...

Quoting Shinkai (Reply 10):
Both Airbus' and Boeing's strategies do work and makes sense.

Neither OEM denies their opponents' target market exist. If you need proof, consider the following:

Boeing's primary new aircraft - 787
Boeing's secondary new aircraft - 747-8

Airbus' primary new aircraft - A380
Airbus' secondary new aircraft - A350

Quoting Shinkai (Reply 10):
So there is definitely room for hub and spoke flying and I do not see how Airbus' business model is a "failure".

You need only look at RD budgets to see the obvious: Airbus screwed up

From the comparison above, Boeing launched the 747-8 as a secondary project while Airbus launched the A350 as a secondary project. One manufacture has completely scrapped their initial plans and are now pursuing an all-new aircraft at twice the RD cost. The other manufacture has essentially maintained their original strategy and isn't far from securing the necessary backlog to amortize both programs.

The implications of those two considerations is a Big Deal and arguably the most significant shift in the Airbus-Boeing battle since the debut of the A320 in 1988.
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:32 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
The implications of those two considerations is a Big Deal and arguably the most significant shift in the Airbus-Boeing battle since the debut of the A320 in 1988.

Any deeper thoughts on how Boeing and Airbus could have ended up having such different visions of how the future travel market will be shaped?

To me the A versus B battle (threads in abundance in this forum) is not about competing products and nitty gritty technical details, but much more about competing future visions and directions of air travel.
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:36 pm

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 3):
With the ever incrasing price of fuel, I think Airbus might be on the right track.

That statement only holds true if the fuel burn (and hence majority of CASM) is lower. The 380 is 'old technology' and it's CASM is matched or surpassed by the 787 and 350. They burn even LESS fuel per seat.

Big doesn't mean efficient. The biggest problem the 380 faces is not it's size, but the fact it's the last plane of the AL generation (IMHO). As such it will likely prove to be an also ran, much like the last gasp for props launch around the time of the jet age.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:09 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 12):
That statement only holds true if the fuel burn (and hence majority of CASM) is lower. The 380 is 'old technology' and it's CASM is matched or surpassed by the 787 and 350. They burn even LESS fuel per seat.

I think the argument made by ZBBYLW is based on the traditional thinking that the airline industry is generally scale-intensive. The bigger the the airplane, the wider the margin.

This is generic thinking applied to an industry that is incredibly diverse with multiple niches.
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23461
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:22 am

Essentially, the A380 is built on the model of spoke-hub-hub-spoke travel. If I want to fly from SAN to FCO, I'd fly SAN-LAX then LAX-LHR and then LHR-FCO. I'd be on a 737/A320 SAN-LAX, then an A380 LAX-LHR, and then back to a 737/A320 LHR-FCO.

However, as performance of narrowbodies improves and as the operating costs of widebodies falls with the next generation (787 and A350XWB), spoke-hub-spoke becomes possible. So I'd fly an A350XWB SAN-LHR and then an A320 LHR-BRU or a 737 SAN-LAX and then a 787 LAX-BRU. Or one could fly a theoretical A320R or 737LR direct between SAN and BRU.

I believe the majority (not the totality) of future air travel will move towards spoke-hub-spoke and, to a lesser extent, spoke-spoke. That trend does not bode well for either the A388 or the 748 in the long-term, though there is sufficient spoke-hub-hub-spoke traffic to justify a few hundred frames...
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:27 am

Quoting Dazeflight (Reply 9):
There are no maths do be done here. The comparison of a B733 and a B744 on such a short routing is just pure b/s, even more so when using fictive data to compare.

Can you pick one or two examples and prove this wrong?
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
Shinkai
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:39 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:32 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
You need only look at RD budgets to see the obvious: Airbus screwed up

Yes, in the case of the A350/A380, there is no denying that Airbus screwed up.
please relax, enjoy your flight... Good Luck!!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23461
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:40 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 12):
To me the A versus B battle (threads in abundance in this forum) is not about competing products and nitty gritty technical details, but much more about competing future visions and directions of air travel.

The A vs. B battle in this forum predominately is about "national pride".

The A vs. B battle in the marketplace predominately is about efficiency, which is driven (in part) by technology, performance and meeting an airline's varying demand curves.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8651
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:46 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 12):
Any deeper thoughts on how Boeing and Airbus could have ended up having such different visions of how the future travel market will be shaped?

As in: How did Airbus and Boeing arrive at a different market vision?

For Airbus, the answer lies all the way back in their humble beginnings. Airbus was formed to halt American dominance in commercial aviation, with not-so-subtle aspects of national pride. The 747 was arguably the strongest icon of American aerospace power, and the aircraft was a cash-cow through the 80s and 90s. I suspect that Airbus wrote their market vision in such away to justify the A380 and supplant the 747, allowing pride to cloud their business decisions.

For Boeing, I believe the answer lies in the "wake up call" that began in the 90s when Airbus began to dramatically gain market share. That led Boeing to some deep soul searching and exploratory market studies, which IMO gave Boeing a stronger grasp of where commercial aviation is moving. Finally, I believe Boeing maintains stronger customer dialog and incorporates their input into product development.

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 12):
To me the A versus B battle (threads in abundance in this forum) is not about competing products and nitty gritty technical details, but much more about competing future visions and directions of air travel.

IMO, it all boils down to the concept of return on investment

The OEM who consistently has the highest ratio of RD funds going-in and profits coming-out will eventually become the dominate manufacture. Since about 1999, Boeing has consistently obtained higher ROI on their investments.

The 777LR is a great example. Boeing developed the 773ER/772LR for 1/3 the funds Airbus needed to develop the A345/A346, and yet sold twice as many 777 as A340.

Also consider the 787. The program will likely cost $8-10 billion dollars versus more than $15 billion for the A380. Without question, Boeing will amortize the 787 development first, allowing them to move on to other projects with greater agility.
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:54 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
The A vs. B battle in this forum predominately is about "national pride".

I can't seem to fit this "National Pride" argument into the big picture. Certainly, the U.S. Government has an interest in private enterprise maintaining the capability of producing techologically advanced aircraft (military and civil) here in the US. But in this case I think we are talking about the future travel market and the aircraft that can best serve these markets.

I can't imagine that Boeing would even spend a dime building an airplane that would maintain the "pride", but that would fall short when it comes to efficiency.

If it comes from Boeing, it would have to be both.
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
scaledesigns
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:12 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:02 am

The only problem for the Airbus idea is that more than 1 airline run the
better routes.Unless they share the aircraft(buy sections ) and only run 1 aircraft the A380 will work on very few routes.If they dont you need smaller
aircraft for each airline.I think in the future countries with slot resrictions
will become less for international,not more.That also if true would be a good case for smaller long range aircraft.It may be that larger aircraft will only be used for cargo and very high long range routes with only a few slots available.There will be very few of those routes left in 10 years.
F1 Tommy
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23461
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:05 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 20):
I can't seem to fit this "National Pride" argument into the big picture.

That is why I split my answer into "this forum" and "the marketplace".

The marketplace is the "real world". And in the "real world", jingoistic themes like "national pride" and the "superiority of the American or the EU way" are irrelevant. What matters in the "real world" is, as DfwRevolution notes in Reply 19, the return on the investment. And that return is measured in the cold reality of profits and losses, incomes and expenditures.
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:44 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
That is why I split my answer into "this forum" and "the marketplace".

OK. I think I am with you.

Reading some of the "A versus B" discussions in this forum is for sure entertaining and even tiring, but they don't make a whole lot of sense. I guess this is where the "National Pride" gets a strong hold, and many good threads end up way out of context. The Forum Moderator will come, and close the thread down. Just another "A versus B war" discussed so many times before.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
What matters in the "real world" is, as DfwRevolution notes in Reply 19, the return on the investment. And that return is measured in the cold reality of profits and losses, incomes and expenditures.

I could not agree more with either you or with DfwRevolution. Return on investment is key and carefully considered before any new development is even launched. $$ billions at stake. It should be considered carefully.

I guess I am simply impressed by Boeing for this company's vision and how they can develop completely new products for tomorrow. I am somewhat puzzled by Airbus and how they have used their R & D funds on their end. The A380 surely is magnificent and beautiful; I just don't think the launch of this aircraft will change the way passengers will travel. Instead of being new thinking, it is just an enhancement of existing thinking.

I would for sure like to fly on one, but that will mostly be for the experience. Should it fit my schedule better to fly on a 787 that will get me there and get me home faster and more directly, I would chose that option, even at additional cost.

I don't think we're looking at whose "aircraft reigns supreme" but rather whose "future vision of air travel" does. To me, Boeing clearly has more of this vision today, and they are doing something about it.
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
aerosol
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 10:31 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:26 am

Most of you seem to assume that there is no increase in air travel.
Most of you talk about efficiency - efficiency and hub-to-point are not coexisting strategies.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:30 am

Quoting Aerosol (Reply 24):
Most of you seem to assume that there is no increase in air travel.
Most of you talk about efficiency - efficiency and hub-to-point are not coexisting strategies.

No.. Most of us assuming that any increase in air travel will be handled with increased frequency.

Also, most of us post more than one-liners.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 1):
I think that Airbus and Boeing have a similar understanding of how jetliners will advance. But Airbus wasn't thinking in terms of how their lineup should evolve; rather they were still in the mode of expanding out their lineup to be a complete offering

I hope this doesn't break an A-net "rule," but I would like to offer you a post I just put into another current thread: "Airbus Has Never Replaced an Airliner Family." It's reply #30. I just don't want to miss out on either of these two threads - with very similar topics, in my view... but facinating to me in terms of theme.

What I wrote was...

My contention has always been that whereas Boeing looks to the future with regard to what the market might need, coupled with pushing the envelope on how technology can meet that need; Airbus, on the other hand, has been focusing, as a newer company, on "completing their product line", as it compares to the competition. It's two very different mission statements, in my view.

Airbus has done very well looking at the product line of primarily Boeing, and producing new-and-improved versions of some of Boeing's A/C, most notably the 330 as the evolution of the 767 "class," and the wildly successful 320 as the evolution of the 737 "class." So their strategy has stood them in good stead for a while.

But the 747 has long been a thorn in their side (my opinion) and they have long wanted to unseat it with a large flagship of their own. While they were focusing on the 747 and their own desire to complete their product line, and less on the market and future trends, they came up with the 340 and the 380.

Assessing the market and estimating future trends, Boeing never made an initial attempt to protect it's 747 market, but sidestepped the issue by instead going ahead with a bold and risky move to produce the 777. Boeing saw an opportunity (seeing point-to-point and fragmentation already taking shape in airline networks) to move to the more economical (and unproven, at the time) ETOPS operation of a leaner and meaner large twin, with great range and payload capability. Airbus, on the other hand, came up with the 340, a beautiful and sophisticated A/C technologically, but behind the curve with regard to it's 4 engined mission - because it was THEIR 1st version of the 747.

Airbus continued with that mindset green-lighting the 380, in my view, even though when they did so the 747 had already seen it's heyday, and many 747 routes had already been replaced by twins (767s included, even 737s and 320s) as airlines moved to offer their passengers more point-to-point and frequency. The 380, in my view, was part two of Airbus' attempt to complete their product line and have their own mega-flagship.

Meanwhile Boeing went further with it's forward moving thinking, and risk taking, by starting the 787 project, a risky venture considering the large usage of composites for the fuselage and bleedless engines, while Airbus did not see that opportunity.

I would contend that Airbus A/C are sophisticated technologically, and that is in fact Airbus' strong point, but that in terms of their mission their newer offerings are behind the curve.

If we look further back, we can see that this has been Boeing's strategy for some time. Create new classes of A/C that replace what presently exists. Sometimes they were not the first to do so (such as the Comet pre-dating the 707 or the Caravelle pre-dating the 727) but they did it with more, what could you call it, largess and success?

They risked the whole store on the 707, and won handsomely. They took similar risk with the 747. The 767 was their 2-engined "replacement" of the 707 and DC-8s that predated it. (An interesting foresahdowing of events to come...) 727s and 737s "replaced" the Viscounts, Vanguards and DC-6s (do I have that right) that were in use.

Some of their risks have been unsuccessful (2707, Sonic Cruiser) but they pulled out before the failure of those projects became too costly for them.

I would stick my neck out and say that perhaps the initial launch aid, which admittedly allowed Airbus to exist in the first place, creating thousands of Aerospace jobs and an industry that rivals and sometimes has beaten Boeing, also has a dark side, which is: Perhaps it cultivates a complacency or misdirected focus as to which A/C get green lighted.

Because I have often felt (just my opinion assessing the general situation these days) that, whereas Boeing has looked into the future and asked "what if?," Airbus has habitually looked at Boeing and said "Let's build ourselves a new and improved version of the... 320, 767, 757, 747.... and take market share away from Boeing."

Two very different ways of operating.

One would point out that Boeing's success has not come without a certain measure of blind luck, such as the sustained spike in fuel prices that have accentuated the differences between the 340 and 777, for example, and further enhanced the desirability of the 787s CASM...

Disclaimer: I should point out this is an "opinion" I have formed based on observations I am making on timing and configurations/missions of the A/C types both companies have come up with. I don't sit in any of their boardrooms, and I'm glad it's not my responsibility to green light A/C. It's easy to be a "Monday morning quarterback."

Also - I am not up to speed on the history of the A300, or the timing of that A/C's introduction. It may be the exception to my analysis.
I come in peace
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23461
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:51 am

Quoting Aerosol (Reply 24):
Most of you talk about efficiency - efficiency and hub-to-point are not coexisting strategies.

Why not? More efficient aircraft allow new hub-to-point routings that prior could not be justified or make those routings more profitable.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 26):
Assessing the market and estimating future trends, Boeing never made an initial attempt to protect it's 747 market, but sidestepped the issue by instead going ahead with a bold and risky move to produce the 777.

Boeing created no less then four attempts to protect the 747: the 747-500, the 747-600, the 747-X, the 747-Advanced/747-8. As a ULR, the 745 suffers the same problems the A345 and 772LR suffer in that role. The 746 was done in by the "Asian Economic Flu" and this allowed Airbus time to bring the A3XX program forward which negated the 747-X. The 787 program finally offered the technology necessary to make the 748 program at least successful as a freighter, though passenger sales remain elusive.
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:32 am

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 26):
I hope this doesn't break an A-net "rule," but I would like to offer you a post I just put into another current thread: "Airbus Has Never Replaced an Airliner Family." It's reply #30.

I'm sure everybody will welcome your post. It fits well with our discussion .  Smile
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:38 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Thread starter):
These two aircraft are very different, and the launch of each come from a very different mindset. Airbus, with its A380, firmly believes that future air travel will be through feeder traffic via major hubs. Boeing seems to believe that the furture will be more point-to-point between smaller populated cities. Who is right?

What about the A350?the A330?...I know it's hard to believe but strategies are not that much different, because the 748 is not that much smaller than the A380 and I really don't believe that Paris, Frankfurt... will not be hubs in 20 years from now...

Quoting Scalebuilder (Thread starter):
I think Boeing is on the right track with its 787. We need to advance the technology when it comes to performance, and not so much the travel experience. The A380 tilts heavily towards latter objective if you ask me.

no aircraft is built for travel experience but on economics...

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 13):
That statement only holds true if the fuel burn (and hence majority of CASM) is lower. The 380 is 'old technology' and it's CASM is matched or surpassed by the 787 and 350. They burn even LESS fuel per seat.

source please?
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:02 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 29):
source please?

Just do the math on fuel capacity / range / seats (real world seats that is.. sure at 800 all economy the 380 is CASM king, but that's not how most will operate them) that'll give you fuel burn (roughly).

[Edited 2006-11-19 22:03:43]
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:06 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 29):
What about the A350?the A330?...I know it's hard to believe but strategies are not that much different, because the 748 is not that much smaller than the A380 and I really don't believe that Paris, Frankfurt... will not be hubs in 20 years from now...

These are really enhancements from the 767s offered by Boeing. I am not by any means saying that the A330/350 are or will be inferior products. Not at all. But what has Airbus really invented in the past 10 years that is truly unique and revolutionary?

Boeing has stayed on top of the game, and they have done their due-diligence at the home-office. I think they circled in on the right track developing their 787.

IMO Boeing has done the right thing, and they have put their $$ to work where the return will be maximized.

Sincerely,

Scalebuilder
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:21 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 30):
Just do the math on fuel capacity / range / seats (real world seats that is.. sure at 800 all economy the 380 is CASM king, but that's not how most will operate them) that'll give you fuel burn (roughly).

hehe...if it's that easy than why are you unable to post a source (a reliable one)

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 31):
These are really enhancements from the 767s offered by Boeing. I am not by any means saying that the A330/350 are or will be inferior products. Not at all. But what has Airbus really invented in the past 10 years that is truly unique and revolutionary?

Boeing has stayed on top of the game, and they have done their due-diligence at the home-office. I think they circled in on the right track developing their 787.

?? The A350 is still a mystery and Airbus has a complete aircraft family from the A318 to the A380.

The 737NG is still behind the A320 family and the A330/A340 family outsold the 777 family.

So what has Boeing invented in the last 10 years?
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:41 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 30):
Quoting Adria (Reply 29):
source please?
Just do the math on fuel capacity / range / seats (real world seats that is.. sure at 800 all economy the 380 is CASM king, but that's not how most will operate them) that'll give you fuel burn (roughly).

Forgive me, Adria, but I have seen statistics in this regard as well.

My understanding is that the selling point of the 380 is the ability of airlines to offer more capacity into slot restricted airports. In those cases, two 777s CANNOT do the job of one 380.

However in terms of CASM, I understand that the 787 and proposed 350 would be ahead of the 380 in that regard. Sorry, I do not have immediate access to the statistics I have seen here posted by others. Perhaps those ardent whizzes can indulge us once again with the stats, please??
I come in peace
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:47 am

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 33):
However in terms of CASM, I understand that the 787 and proposed 350 would be ahead of the 380 in that regard. Sorry, I do not have immediate access to the statistics I have seen here posted by others. Perhaps those ardent whizzes can indulge us once again with the stats, please??

What you have seen are calculations of other a.netters and if you regard this as a reliable source then go ahead...
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:04 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 34):
What you have seen are calculations of other a.netters and if you regard this as a reliable source then go ahead...

Do the math yourself if you don't believe it.. it's really pretty simple. Why doth thou protest so much.. you think Airbus has some special magic that makes it not apply?
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:30 am

Quoting Adria reply 32
"The 737NG is still behind the A320 family and the A330/A340 family outsold the 777 family"
Strange how you place the 777 family against the A330/A340, guess the B767 which the A330 supposedly "killed" is a step child without a family?

Shinkai in reply 10 mentioned the "politics" whereby PIA even though they had a ULR a/c could not utilize its abilities, why don't we take politics further.

Look at Europe, ground transportation is huge, bus and train, and that was not by accident, "politics" created that infrasturcture. In the US, "politics" created the rail for freight, and interstates for car travel.

Politics can affect both a/c, and can even determine the success or failure of either one. What exactly are slot restirctions, and how can they be overcome? If you wanted funnel traffic to a major airport and had outlaying ones, how would you close or encourage airlines to use your major airport?

Airbus accepted that its A340 is not as fuel efficient as the B777, they did not address this by killing the a/c, they simply resorted to "politics", which had nothing to do with technology, and both a/c continue to work.

The B787 will work in the US as its design caters to the US marketplace, there are an awful lot of airports spread throughout the country. The A380 will be successful in travel to Europe as it has less airports and slot restrictions.

Both OEM's have looked at the marketplace and produced two different products, both can work, the bigger question is whether the "politicians" believe that they have to get involved beyond the situation they have already created.
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:45 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 34):
What you have seen are calculations of other a.netters and if you regard this as a reliable source then go ahead...

I must admit I sift through a lot of information, mostly in these threads, posted by sometimes by what seem to be credible participants, and sometimes by those with very polarized points of view. It's challenging. I read them mostly in good faith, although there are those whose posts I do not treat with credulity. I would probably not have the technical background to properly glean and decifer complex technical information at the source.

Back to the topic, and from just a logic standpoint, I understand the wings, wing box and empennage of the 380 are all oversized so as to more easily facilitate stretch versions of the giant later on. That would lend credence to it's lower CASM in this first rendition, and perhaps better CASM when/if those larger versions get built.

Further, I have "heard" in these threads the percentage weight increase of the 380 as compared to a 747 is more than the percentage increase in passenger seats. Also I understand that the 380 engines are not bleedless, unlike the 787. I have seen in Boeing's blogs that they expect the CASM of the 747-8 to be better than the 380. Of course, they ARE trying to sell something. I understand further that the nature the 380's two decks coupled with the size and placement of the wingbox and the weight of the machine reduce the cargo capability one might otherwise expect below decks. Do I have that right?

So as I gather this information, which I take at face value, I form my understanding. I welcome any statistics or analysis to the contrary. I hope my strong point is logic, since it clearly is NOT the minutia of technical statistics.
I come in peace
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8651
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:46 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 29):
will not be hubs in 20 years from now...

Nor does anyone else. You can't decide Boeing's market strategy for them, so you would do best to properly observe their outlook.

Quoting Adria (Reply 34):
What you have seen are calculations of other a.netters and if you regard this as a reliable source then go ahead...

You can't call them unreliable as an amateur with no data to the contrary.

But as a matter of fact, several analyst and media groups with strong credibility have published that both the 787-10, A350-100, and 747-8 could all conceivably match (or trump) the CASM of the A380. It is no great secret that the A380 will not likely hold its CASM crown for long...

Quoting Adria (Reply 32):
Airbus has a complete aircraft family from the A318 to the A380.

The 737NG is still behind the A320 family and the A330/A340 family outsold the 777 family.

The Airbus product family is falling apart in case you didn't notice. You're faulty and disingenuous arguments and do nothing to hide the thinly veiled reality that Airbus has done an embarrassing job at maintaining a strong product family after the hard work that delivered the A320 and A330/A340 families.

- Saying the 737NG is "behind" the A320 is a practically a lie
- Boeing has sold more 787 in 3 years than Airbus has sold A332 in a decade
- Boeing has sold twice as many 777 as its true competitors: the A343 and A345/A346

Hardly a rosy picture, is it?
 
CJAContinental
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 9:03 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:09 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 38):
The 737NG is still behind the A320 family

Yeah, thats very innaccurate, you can even go on the boeing website, and they'll say themselves that they lead this market. Interestingly, you might then want to compare how many 737's are flying compared to the entire fleet of airbus aircraft.

P.S, from the guy who gets his facts from a false source!  Silly
Work Hard/Fly Right.
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:27 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 38):
Saying the 737NG is "behind" the A320 is a practically a lie

looking at the orders and the production rate the 737NG is behind

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 38):
Boeing has sold twice as many 777 as its true competitors: the A343 and A345/A346

Well pro Boeing a.netters compare a frame to a frame (a 747 to A 380 no matter which version) so I do the same here...that's why the A330/A340 family outsold the 777 family...

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 37):
I must admit I sift through a lot of information, mostly in these threads, posted by sometimes by what seem to be credible participants, and sometimes by those with very polarized points of view. It's challenging. I read them mostly in good faith, although there are those whose posts I do not treat with credulity. I would probably not have the technical background to properly glean and decifer complex technical information at the source.

Like I said if you believe "credible" a.netters go ahead but many of them expected the Sonic cruiser or that the 787 will have those sexy looks Boeing showed first. Also it is very funny that some of those "credible" members that say a lot about the A380/A350 and B787 CASM don't have anything to back it up. Not long ago I was bashed by almost every member that posted in the particular topic when I said that you cannot just compare the 747F sales to the A380pax. Arguments like "Boeing doesn't care if it's pax or F as long as it is the same frame" were thrown at me and now when I say that the A330/A340 family outsells the 777 the same people say that you cannot compare the A332 to the 777 (it is the same frame as the A333 and "Airbus doesn't care as long as it is the same frame"). See what I mean?
 
CJAContinental
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 9:03 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:31 am

By the way, I was reffering to whoever first said about the 737, not DfwRevolution. he knows his facts.
Work Hard/Fly Right.
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:53 am

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 39):
Yeah, thats very innaccurate, you can even go on the boeing website, and they'll say themselves that they lead this market. Interestingly, you might then want to compare how many 737's are flying compared to the entire fleet of airbus aircraft.

hey if this works in your little world that it's fine with me...
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:54 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Thread starter):
These two aircraft are very different, and the launch of each come from a very different mindset. Airbus, with its A380, firmly believes that future air travel will be through feeder traffic via major hubs. Boeing seems to believe that the furture will be more point-to-point between smaller populated cities. Who is right?

IMO The better aircraft will shape the future and vindicate one or the others prediction.

Airlines like smaller jets because it allows increased flexibility and can allow for more point to point flights and frequency - which brings in high yields ultimately increasing revenue. But airlines like low CASMs because it reduces cost. So an airline will want to find a sweet spot where profit is maximised by offering the right level of frequencies and route diversification to bring in revenue, with an appropriately low CASM to reduce costs.

Thanks to breakthrough technology the 787 has a very low CASM and is also a small and flexible aircraft so the revenue potential is high, and the costs are low. The A380 despite having a slightly lower casm, has a lower flexibility so yield potential may not be so strong as the 787 on many routes.

Due to the fact that the 787 is lets say roughly half the size but has the same CASM (for examples sake, gross simplification), this will attract airlines to the P2P structure and frequencies.

In a world where the advantages where flipped in favour of the A380, you'd essentially have the the A380 which is twice the size of the 787 but has four times lower CASM. In this scenario you can bet airlines would be more intent on flying passengers in bulk through a hub-spoke system due to the A380s incredible economics. This would vindicate Airbus's prediction.

So in my opinion is the advances of the 787 will do the part in dictating the future market evolution towards point-to-point.

There will still however be many routes where the A380 is applicable, often long range routes with massive demand. In this case the frequencies of the 787 will be superfluous and the yield benefits will be minimal. So the A380's lower CASM will be more appropriate.

Rj111.
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:02 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 40):
Well pro Boeing a.netters compare a frame to a frame (a 747 to A 380 no matter which version) so I do the same here...that's why the A330/A340 family outsold the 777 family...

I find the threads discussing A versus B deteriorating constantly, and it is mostly due to typical posts just like the one quoted above. Surely, everyone should feel free to say what they think, but I also think this forum has become totally incapable of having a factual discussion about this matter without completely gridlocking. The educated talks stop right there, and new and similar and hopeless threads will follow.

In my humble opinion, Airbus is betting their money (if not all of it) on a different horse than Boeing these days. It is not about one model outselling the other, or one model being superior over the other, but about having one vision of future air travel that is distinctly different than the other. How will the public prefer to travel tomorrow? Hub-to-point (Boeing) or hub-to-hub (Airbus)?

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 43):
IMO The better aircraft will shape the future and vindicate one or the others prediction.

I do not think Airbus and neither Boeing shape the markets on their own. By far, the airlines do. They are the ones who will know what the customer wants tomorrow. They are the ones opening or shutting down routes. New aircraft is developed as a result. Not the other way around. I realize that the influence will go both ways; however, when it comes to product development, I firmly believe that the right airline is in charge here.
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
scaledesigns
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:12 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:26 am

RJ111,
That was a well thought out post.
I think the change to smaller aircraft started well before the A380 or 787
were developed .The airlines have been increasing the amount of flights
even to large international hubs using smaller aircraft since the early 1990s.
They have also added international flights to smaller cities.I think the Boeing reaction of building the 787 was due to this.Im not sure why Airbus built the A380.Maybe to beat Boeing and have a full range of airliners?
Bottom line is that in the past 15 years more airlines are flying more flights
to major hub international cities.Super large aircraft will not be needed as much if this trend continues.
F1 Tommy
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:11 am

Quoting Scaledesigns (Reply 45):
.Super large aircraft will not be needed as much if this trend continues

My belief is just in line with yours.

But just to be clear:

By that I am not saying that Boeing products are superior to Airbus products. I am only saying that I believe more in the Boeing vision of air travel more so than the Airbus vision. These two companies, crucial to world air travel, have very opposite visions about tomorrow right as we speak today .  Wink
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
tootallsd
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:02 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:23 pm

My two cents on this topic.

I think both the A350 and A380 highlight a problem at Airbus. They are simply too introspective and not market driven. It could be the complexity of the organization and multiple levels of politics that must be managed that drive this culture.

Their products reflect the view.

The A380 will ultimately be a fantastic plane. But my opinion that it is 5-10 years too early if needed at all. I think it was slightly outside the grasp of Airbus in terms of technology and manufacturing. The A380 would have been a compelling aircraft if it included the proportion of new technology that is going to be in the 787. This will leave Airbus with a massive infrastructure to build and assemble a relatively small number of craft. This is not great for the economics of the company.

The A350 (version 1) was built to meet some market objectives but more important was to make the construction and assembly easy rather than deliver something novel to the market place. It has been revised multiple times as Airbus tries to dial into the market. As a result, R&D resources have been squandered in the design of multiple versions and the plane will be delivered late compared to market needs.

Boeing on the other hand, had lots of trouble in the 1990s and must have learned a lot! The 787 is spot on to chaning dynamics in the marketplace. It will be delivered at the time of a market need and will reap disproportionate market share.

As you roll the timeline forward, Airbus will be building A380s at a steep discount and designing/ building / testing A350. The A330/340 will continue their decline. The A320 will continue to be the company's darling -- we have to hope that the bigger projects don't starve any needed money for increment but important updates.

In the same timeframe, Boeing will move forward with its next big project (not the 748 -- that is small potatoes). Airbus is behind the gun right now and for the next couple of years. The real risk to Airbus is not total collapse (so unlikely as to be stupid to introduce into the conversation) but rather allow an opening to a 3rd competitor (Russia/China consortium, China/Brazil consortium etc.).
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:33 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
The OEM who consistently has the highest ratio of RD funds going-in and profits coming-out will eventually become the dominate manufacture. Since about 1999, Boeing has consistently obtained higher ROI on their investments.

The 777LR is a great example. Boeing developed the 773ER/772LR for 1/3 the funds Airbus needed to develop the A345/A346, and yet sold twice as many 777 as A340.

Also consider the 787. The program will likely cost $8-10 billion dollars versus more than $15 billion for the A380. Without question, Boeing will amortize the 787 development first, allowing them to move on to other projects with greater agility.

Another significant advantage with Boeing is their shorter time from launch to EIS, it is essential for Airbus to shorten their time also.

Back to the topic, I think National Pride with respect to airlines helps the hub to spoke model. PIA for instance with the 787 or 350 can now fly with sufficient load factors to more cities, bypassing the traditional hubs to more distant hubs. With codeshares, the number of cities that can be reached in two segments goes up substantially. Or say Thai, or Air Canada, or SU, or Qantas, they can now bypass a hub or serve two hubs instead of one using two flights.

What drives the economics of spoke-hub-spoke over spoke-hub-hub-spoke is often a significantly shorter total distance travelled, 1 less takeoff and segment, and often more miles in better CASM planes (less narrowbodies or RJ's). Besides for cost, the revenue earned is usually better on a more direct flight. Haven't all of us paid substantailly more for a better flight.
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy

Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:18 pm

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 48):
What drives the economics of spoke-hub-spoke over spoke-hub-hub-spoke is often a significantly shorter total distance travelled, 1 less takeoff and segment, and often more miles in better CASM planes (less narrowbodies or RJ's). Besides for cost, the revenue earned is usually better on a more direct flight. Haven't all of us paid substantailly more for a better flight.

I think "Secondary hub-secondary hub" or "spoke-secondary hub" is also part of Boeing's projection.

All of that kind of traffic takes away O + D as well as transfer traffic from the major hubs.

(I consider Osaka and Kansai, for example, as secondary hubs to Narita's "hub." They take O + D traffic in south-central Japan away from Tokyo, as well as transfer traffic.)
I come in peace

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos