Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:38 am

YUL332LX:


Again, outside USA your point is a non-sense economically. How many viable international non-stop flights do you think AF and LH can serve out of NCE, MRS, LYS, TXL, HAM, STR, etc.?


I said those hub airlines need to maintain and grow their business volume, so they will need bigger planes. But bigger planes don't solve congestion problems. That's all I am saying. I just hate people who blindly believe Airbus's assertion that the 380 will be the savior for congested hubs like LHR. The 380 will be a very useful tool for the hub airlines, but they are not the savior for the congested hubs.

The hub-to-hub model with feeders on both sides is not a very economical model for both the airlines and the passengers.
 
Guest

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:56 am

bigger planes don't solve congestion problems.

They do solve aircraft movement congestion problems which is a major issue at many major airports.

I just hate people who blindly believe Airbus's assertion that the 380 will be the savior for congested hubs like LHR

It will be a savior at LHR. T5 will be bigger than all the other Terminals combined but do you see them building any new runways. The 2 runways at LHR launch and land 1 plane after another throughout the day, Airlines cannot get enough slots at LHR to meet demand.

Feeder traffic at LHR is also highly comprised of O&D traffic. very few routes will be dropped to LHR in favour of another new hub like MAN because people need to get to London from regional destinations.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:00 am

Roberta:


They do solve aircraft movement congestion problems which is a major issue at many major airports


By repeating an opinion does not make if a fact. I have alredy given you examples both in words and numbers why they don't reduce aircraft movements.


Feeder traffic at LHR is also highly comprised of O&D traffic


Huh? Feeder traffic is feeder traffic. O&D traffic is O&D traffic. A flight can carry both O&D and feeder traffic. When you increase capacity, you'll need to increase feed. That's on top of the O&D traffic.

'Nuf said.



[Edited 2004-04-24 02:04:55]
 
Guest

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:12 am

By repeating an opinion does not make if a fact. I have alredy given you examples both in words and numbers why they don't reduce aircraft movements.

yes but what you are saying about reducing aircraft numbers is vague, idealistic and incorrect.

You can fly to pretty much every major city in Europe from LHR and almost every airport in Britain. Adding the A380 and increasing conections at LHR will only turn RJ's into A319's.

anyway its 1 o'clock here i am going to sleep

[Edited 2004-04-24 02:22:13]
 
brons2
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:15 am

They only solve aircraft congestion problems when it comes to O&D traffic. If you are talking about connecting traffic, it won't do anything about that and in fact may increase connecting traffic on such things as regional jets.

It can allow for O&D traffic GROWTH at slot constrained airports. However, it's not going to reduce movements on connecting traffic.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:22 am


yes but what you are saying about reducing aircraft numbers is vague, idealistic and incorrect


How is it so? What have you explained to reach your conclusion? Did I say hubs will be forever replaced? Did I say there is no need for the 380?

Tell me, if airlines do bypass major hubs, will there be less traffic at those hubs? What's wrong with this statement? Did I say that's what's going to happen? No. I said those hub airlines will need to grow their business. So, they will need planes like the 380. But does the 380 make these hubs less congested? No. Because the more traffic go through hubs, the more feed there will be. Of course, unless these hubs are black holes.  Big grin
 
Guest

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:48 am

How to get from 4 places to each other using 2 systems

MAN
LHR
SIN
MNL


P2P

MAN-SIN (7E7)
MAN-MNL (7E7)
LHR-MNL (777)
LHR-SIN (777)
LHR-MAN (RJ)
SIN-MNL (320)

=3 planes at LHR
=3 Planes at SIN

Hub

MAN-LHR (757)
LHR-SIN (A380)
SIN-MNL (772)

= 2 planes at LHR
= 2 planes at SIN

Thank you and good night
 
yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:58 am

I just hate people who blindly believe Airbus's assertion that the 380 will be the savior for congested hubs like LHR.

I just hate people who blindly believe Boeing's assertion that the 7E7 will be the savior for congested hubs.  Big grin

And now, we're getting into a whole other problem: ATC (Air Traffic Congestion) Laugh out loud

E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:36 am

Roberta:

In my example, the total traffic on either side of the equation is the same. Yours isn't. Your point-to-point example can transport 250 pax each to SIN and MNL from MAN, but your hub-to-hub example can only transport 180 pax to SIN and MNL through LHR. So, how do the other 320 pax from MAN get to their destination? Also, your point-to-point example can transport 300 pax each to SIN and MNL from LHR. Your hub example can only transport 550 pax to SIN and onward to MNL. And we haven't even taken into account the pax from MAN. So, what happen to the other 50 pax in LHR? Similarly, in SIN, you will have 250 MNL-bound passengers stranded in SIN. How do you get those "stranded" passengers to their destination? You will need 2 extra 757 flights from MAN to LHR, need 1 extra A380 flight from LHR to SIN. So, it's 5 flights at LHR with your hub example vs. 3 flights at LHR with your point-to-point example. Get it?


YUL332LX:


I just hate people who blindly believe Boeing's assertion that the 7E7 will be the savior for congested hubs


Believing blindly is when one doesn't logically think through the arguments. I have come up with an example to support the argument. Have you been able to refute it? No. At least Roberta tried, but Roberta wasn't too successful at it as I explained above.


And now, we're getting into a whole other problem: ATC (Air Traffic Congestion)


Are you sure? O&D traffic doesn't change. What is different is feeder traffic. So, let's see:

1. secondary city A <-> hub A <-> hub B <-> secondary city B involves three flights, three take-offs, and three landings

2. secondary city A <-> hub <-> secondary city B involves two flights, two take-offs, and two landings

3. secondary city A <-> secondary city B involves one flight, one take-off, one-landing, providing city A and B has enough O&D traffic

Tell me which one would cause more air traffic congestion?


[Edited 2004-04-24 04:47:07]
 
yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:06 pm

Dynkrisolo,

You are bounded to believe and understand only want you want to believe. Your example is only good for USA. Get it in your head! No other countries can support efficiently point-to-point services and since you seem to be fascinated by example, I showed you many examples that disproved your point (you never answered to the end of reply 49). Your example is merely the exception proving the rule. Accept it.

Regarding the Air traffic congestion, don't get started on examples again cause you will only bury yourself with them. All, and I really mean ALL literature is against you on this one. Let's just say that ATC officials in the US have declared in the past weeks that they were very concerned about the Air traffic resurgence the 7E7 (among others!) and point-to-point services was likely to create in coming years.
E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:19 pm

YUL332LX:

I will repeat one more time, I have never said point-to-point is the only way to go. I gave plenty of reasons why hubs will stay and airlines at major hub will need airplanes like the 380 to grow their business. All I am arguing is airplanes like the 380 aren't going to help alleviate congestion at hubs like LHR and NRT. I don't need to refute what you said in Reply 49 because I never said everything has to be point-to-point.


Let's just say that ATC officials in the US have declared in the past weeks that they were very concerned about the Air traffic resurgence the 7E7


You made it sound like the 7e7 is something completely different from what we have. It's meant to replace the 300/310/757/767. So, why should the 7e7 make ATC more congested?

Stating an opinion doesn't make it a fact. Think for yourself!

[Edited 2004-04-24 05:34:30]
 
caetravlr
Posts: 865
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 8:19 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:37 pm

Although having nothing at all to do with the original topic, the discussion in this thread is rather interesting. I understand the point that both sides are trying to make, but I think that I am going to have to go with Dynkrisolo on this one.(Welcome to my RU list) The 380 will not alleviate slot constraints or congestion at the major hubs, it would have to hold about 1000 people to begin to do that. What it will do is allow more capacity on certain routes, which is what I believe the major hub carriers have ordered it for.

The 7E7 does help with the congestion problem, as well as making it easier for airlines to offer what they believe pax want, more direct flights. The longer range versions merely build on what the 767s, and some 757s are doing now, opening up more point to point flights with slightly lower capacity, and allowing those pax to make a trip to their destination with one less connection. Not only that, but it will fill the roles of the existing aircraft that it is intended to replace, and do so much more economically for the airlines.

The numbers and the different scenarios have been beat to death, so I am not going to throw any more in, but I believe that both the 7E7 and the A380 definitely have their place. I actually think the 380 is a much more niche market though.

And to post something that actually has to do with the original topic, I can't wait to see some 7E7 orders! That will be awesome.

Thanks to you all for your intelligent discussions above, I like seeing the analysis and the hypotheses you guys posted.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her. - W.C. Fields
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:29 pm

Even the many new "point-to-point" US-Europe flights nearly always have a big hub at one end. You see NYC to Duseldorf or Frankfurt to Boston, but you don't see Duseldorf to Boston. The main benefit of this is that the customer has to transfer at a hub once or not at all. Now he/she has to transfer once or twice. This saves a few narrowbody frequencies as feeder flights are reduced, but I fail to see how it saves THAT many.

Boeing thinks they can do the same thing in Asia with the 7E7. I doubt this would help congestion at all. Probably any gain would be offset as airlines use the 7E7 rather than the 777 or A330/340 to increase frequencies - which will cause the average number of seats per flight to go down.

As for the A380 - any congestion savings from a widebody that is merely 20% or so larger than the 747 will be largely meaningless. The vast majority of movements even at the largest hubs are narrowboddies, and most of the remaining movements are 767-A330 size planes. The A380 would affect only a tiny portion of the traffic, since only a small portion of the traffic is 747 size or greater. Also, the A380 is long range and so will not affect the high-frequency shorthauls that generate the most congestion. The bird will only do at most 3-4 cycles a day, except perhaps in Japan

Or think about it this way - suppose 400 passenger A380's were built over 10 years (a high figure). Suppose that if the A380 were not built, 350 A340-600's or 747's were built instead. That in effect brings 50 planes out of the system(another high estimate, it would probably be less). Suppose these planes generated 5 cycles a day(considering their range, that is also a high estimate). The bottom line - in 10 YEARS the A380 saves us AT MOST 250 cycles a day. Probably, it would be a lot less then that. Spread out among all the airports the A380 serves, even 250 cycles is next to nothing.

IN SHORT....Niether the A380 nor the 7E7 will do anything significant to aid the congestion problem. Airbus and Boeing's claims to the contrary are marketing hype. If you don't like congestion, curse the regional jet and also business travelers who demand high frequencies on narrow-body short haul routes. These are the main culprits - on the demand side at least.
 
behramjee
Posts: 5144
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:26 pm

QFs A 332s can easily fly nonstop from their SIN hub to MXP/FCO/ATH nonstop!!!
 
PHXinterrupted
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 6:41 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:03 am

Oh brother, another post that has turned into a Boeing versus Airbus debate.
Keepin' it real.
 
yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 5:42 am


You made it sound like the 7e7 is something completely different from what we have.

Absolutely not what I wrote. The 7E7 will certainly not be the only a/c to cause resurgence in AT congestion but it will be a major factor since it will be the only a/c with a range of over 8000nm and a capacity of less than 250 pax.

About the discussion on the impact of the A380, you are right to say that we're purely expressing opinions but in the case of air traffic congestion, I was pointing out a tendency and what I wrote was "...ATC officials in the US are very concerned about the Air traffic resurgence the 7E7 (among others!) and point-to-point services was likely to create" (according to AW&ST).

...and this is not an opinion, it's factual! Unless you want to contradict FAA officials...

Back to the original topic, I'm convinced that Japanese carriers will not be in the first round of orders. They've said many times in the past months that they were very interested but that they also had to clean their house financially before they could even think about making a substantial order for a new type of a/c.

BTW Phxinterrupted, this is not an A vs. B war. At least, not from my side!!! Wink/being sarcastic


E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
boysteve
Posts: 890
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 7:02 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 7:23 am

I fly MAN - SIN every few months, SQ fly a 777 daily. It is difficult to get a booking on this flight as it is full of people from London who cannot get flights out of LHR and so I end up flying on EK instead (no real hardship!!). An A380 flying LHR - SIN will reduce congestion generally from the UK meaning that those of us in northern England can fly non-stop from MAN to SIN once again (amongst others).
 
Guest

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 7:32 am

In my example, the total traffic on either side of the equation is the same. Yours isn't

it was 1 o'clock in the morning and I really didn't care. Just change the feeder flight sizes and maybe MAN-AB) (MNL / RPLL), Philippines">MNL (which could probably not fill an RJ in reality)until it works out even

I think where are arguments differ is that you say feeding more people to a hub will increase flight frequency whereas I am arguing that feeding more people to a hub will increase aircraft size. The reason I say this is that Hub system generally have to be synchronized, eg all L/haul planes and feeder flight have to arrive and leave similtaneously so connections can be made. Also the Feeder traffic compromises highly of O&D, say to LHR it will be about 70%. Regional O&D flights demand high frequency to maintain competitiveness. If people flying long haul began to fly to Manchester they would probably reduce the size of the A/C to LHR but IMO not the frequency. There are very few RJ's at LHR unlike in the US but if hub bypasses began to exist in Europe I think we would see more over here.

Also I question the amount of passengers who want to fly L/haul from secondary airports, perhaps in the US there is less centralization (ie lots of intermediate sized cities) but in Europe and far east Asia there is, mostly due to small country size. This means that 1 city in the country takes the majority of O&D traffic from the whole nation. Like London in the UK, Paris in France, Athens in Greece, Dubai in UAE, Sydney in Aus.

take MAN (again). Here is a list of services which could support a MAN service considering MAN O&D traffic and connections to/from MAN

(these are generous)

JFK/EWK
BOS
YYZ
IAD
ORD
MCO(mostly charter)
NRT
HNK
SIN
KUL
Karachi
Islamabad
Delhi
DBX
JNB

so if you implement these services you will bypass LHR and you could cut feeder frequencies (although I would argue aircraft size) and there would be say 250 less people needing to fly LHR-MAN and LHR-JFK. But look at the other end of the flight. The airports are all major destinations too, so you have to add another service to another hub. And people are still going to need to travel Via LHR to get to other important destinations like GIG, LOS, LAX. The airports listed in the MAN example are only a fraction of BA's long haul network. You could not divide one of these flights to GIG ect between two hubs as there would simply not be the demand at MAN for it. So you are still going to have to provide frequent services to LHR just with smaller planes for those wishing to fly from the UK to GIG ect

I have come up with an example to support the argument.

Bypassing hubs will drastically reduce the number of feeder flights. Unfortunately, airlines like BA, SQ, AF, LH, etc. need to maintain their business volume and hub status. Therefore, they will need bigger planes to continue their hub dominance. Without a hub-and-spoke network, airlines like SQ will shrink significantly. These airlines may say that they order the 380 to help alleviate congestion at their airports. But the truth is that they want to strengthen their hub dominance. Do you really believe SQ will replace three 744 flights to LHR with two 380 flights? No they won't. For one thing, it will mean a reduction in capacity. They will eventually replace the three 744 flights with probably three 380 flights. Can the SIN-LHR O&D traffic support the increased capacity? Most likely not. Then, where will the traffic be coming from? From regional feeds. How do you get the additional regional feeds? By placing more regional flights? What's the end effect? There are far more flights coming in and out of SIN and LHR.

You example is really degraded by the fact that you have chose SQ. An airline which could not not use Hub and Spoke even if they wanted to.

They will eventually replace the three 744 flights with probably three 380 flights. Can the SIN-LHR O&D traffic support the increased capacity? Most likely not. Then, where will the traffic be coming from? From regional feeds. How do you get the additional regional feeds? By placing more regional flights?


First of all if SQ were as unbusiness-minded to put too many seats on a LHR-SIN sector, surely they would do the same with but with 4 747's insead of 3 A380's, if the A380 did not exist.

You cannot force more people out of the overall traffic flow system than there already is, simply buy adding more feeder routes. At this moment if SQ expanded there feeder system they would have to 'steal' pax flying Far East-LHR from other airlines like CX, EK, TG ect and not create new passengers. why the heck would passengers necessarily want to fly via SIN (ignore passenger service) they may be fairly content flying via BKK HNK or DBX, as flights may be quicker and even if they do want to fly SQ for their in-flight service, they will be reducing pax flow to another hub like BKK and DBX. The A380 will simply allows traffic to grow into the bigger seat offering. Much like when you are young and you buy a slightly oversized pair of shoes so you can grow into them.

Without a hub-and-spoke network, airlines like SQ will shrink significantly. These airlines may say that they order the 380 to help alleviate congestion at their airports. But the truth is that they want to strengthen their hub dominance

but strengthening their hub dominance is the only way SQ can expand.

SQ buy more planes and increase routewide trafficflow=SQ strenghten their hub dominance.

SQ arent just going to decide to stop expanding.

Surely the A380 has to alleviate aircraft traffic at SIN for SQ because 1 A380 can carry more Pax than a 744, therefore less planes are required to shift X-amount of people long-haul.

I think your examples have been pretty lame.

I just hate people who blindly believe Airbus's assertion that the 380 will be the savior for congested hubs like LHR

So tell me the truth, do you actually profoundly believe the A380 will increase aircraft congestion at Airports or are you just trying to slash Airbus' predictions because you dislike the company and/or the concept and want to rebel against their 'assertiveness'. Maybe its because Airbus are giving Boeing a run for their money. Why have Boeing not disputed Airbus' reduced airport congestion claim, or have they? Maybe you should go work for Boeing

No. At least Roberta tried, but Roberta wasn't too successful at it as I explained above.

Says who? you, obviously. Well duh

Saying things like that turn a good discussion into an argument, well done.

Oh brother, another post that has turned into a Boeing versus Airbus debate.

this aint A vrs B. I'd just like to clarify i hav nothing aganst the 7E7 (apart from it spells the end of the 757/767  Sad )and am quite looking foward to more direct flights and i think it is a goo idea but i just dont see how the A380 will increase traffic at congested airports
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 7:45 am


...and this is not an opinion, it's factual! Unless you want to contradict FAA officials...


Is a government official's opinion always a fact? What about Iraq? Who was right, who was wrong? Why can't all the government officials from UN member nations agree? Sorry I digress, but I think it's a good analogy.  Wink/being sarcastic


BTW Phxinterrupted, this is not an A vs. B war. At least, not from my side!!!


Well, it's definitely not from my side either. I have stated that hubs are here to stay (Airbus's view with caveat) and point-to-point has hub-reliefing effect (Boeing's view, but some cities can't support point-to-point). In short, I try to digest what Airbus's and Boeing's marketing people say and come up with my own conclusion.  Wink/being sarcastic
 
airways6max
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 6:22 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 7:50 am

I'm sure that orders are not far off. However I think it's a waste of time to speculate on what they may be or who they'll be from. In any case, I can't wait to fly the 7E7.
 
yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:58 am

Is a government official's opinion always a fact?

It is a fact that they made such statement! Period. Are FAA officials right? Can't say for sure (Mr. "Old Europe" once said that even monkeys knew Iraq had WMD and he turned out the monkey...), but you got to admit that they have Intel info that we will never have unless we work for FAA, NAVCAN or any other air traffic authorities. So, if they say that the proliferation of 7E7, 332 and others worsen the situation then I'll be more convinced by their "opinion" than yours and unlike your analogy, they have no incentive for lying here...-D

Well, it's definitely not from my side either.

Good. We finally agreed on something Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Roberta, without commenting all your thread, I agree with you on pretty much everything...  Smile

E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:42 am


it was 1 o'clock in the morning and I really didn't care. Just change the feeder flight sizes and maybe MAN-AB) (MNL / RPLL), Philippines">MNL (which could probably not fill an RJ in reality)until it works out even


Roberta:

You're just being argumentative. Taking out MAN-Manila, you will still have more flights at LHR. I have explained in great details in my last reply to your post. You still have not proven your point.


I think where are arguments differ is that you say feeding more people to a hub will increase flight frequency whereas I am arguing that feeding more people to a hub will increase aircraft size.


Then tell me what British Airways has been doing in the past few years. They have replaced some 747 with 772ER. They retired many 767s and 757s and increased their narrowbody fleet with the 32X family aircraft. LHR is one of the worst slot-constrained airport. Yet, BA is moving to smaller planes.


This means that 1 city in the country takes the majority of O&D traffic


Then it means the traffic doesn't go through a major hub like LHR, CDG, or AB) (FRA / FRF / EDDF), Germany">FRA. All the other European cities like ZRH, BRU, AMS, CPH, ARL, ATH, FCO, MXP, MUC, MAD, MAN, etc. are either secondary hubs or secondary cities. Many of them have extensive inter-continental services to North America and Asia. Most of them can't support daily 747 service let alone daily 380 service. The the smaller planes like the 330/340/777/7e7 can offer airlines a lot of flexibility. One day, when the European market is truly liberalized, then it will mean all EU airlines can offer inter-continental services from any EU cities, just like the US. Then, we might see even more inter-continental services from secondary hubs/cities.



You could not divide one of these flights to GIG ect


You're arguing with yourself. There are city pairs that can't support point-to-point service at this time. Then, it will have to go through some kind of hubs, but not necessarily a major hub. It could be via a less congested secondary hub.


surely they would do the same with but with 4 747's insead of 3 A380's, if the A380 did not exist.


Unfortunately, they (SQ) can't get (LHR) slots at will.


but strengthening their hub dominance is the only way SQ can expand


Once again, you're arguing with yourself. I said major hub airlines like SQ will need to grow their business, that's why they need airplanes like the 380. They certainly wouldn't want to lose business to others.


Surely the A380 has to alleviate aircraft traffic


Roberta, I'm an engineer. There is one nature law that we engineers know by heart. It's the conservation of mass. To extend this law to people traveling through airports, I call it the conservation of number of people. The more people you fly in and out of one airport, the more flights will be needed. Yes, you can have larger planes instead of more flights to fly the feeder traffic. But the fact is in the past decade, the average size of aircraft has barely changed. With more airlines looking into smaller planes like the Embraer 170/190, CRJ700/900, average aircraft isn't going to change much in the near future, even with the introduction of the 380.


At this moment if SQ expanded there feeder system they would have to 'steal' pax flying Far East-LHR from other airlines like CX, EK, TG


In a way, they have been doing this for years, but not from the carriers you mentioned. SQ "stole" a lot of Europe-Australia traffic from QF, BA, and other major European carriers. Notice that very few European majors are still flying to Australia. Even QF's European network has shrunk significantly. Now EK is emulating SQ's strategy. So maintaining SIN dominance could be a very challenging task for SQ in the coming years when EK embarks on the most aggressive expansion in aviation history.


do you actually profoundly believe the A380 will increase aircraft congestion at Airports


Profoundly increase congestion? Definitely no. But does it alleviate congestion? No, I don't the 380 will.


you just trying to slash Airbus' predictions because you dislike the company and/or the concept and want to rebel against their 'assertiveness'.


Marketing people are clever in coming up with their own interpretation of the market. I don't fully agree with Airbus's forecast, but I also don't fully agree with Boeing's forecast. So, what does this make me? You tell me. Is it not a fact that I said there will be airlines who will need the 380?


Why have Boeing not disputed Airbus' reduced airport congestion claim


Actually, I believe they have. So, they don't need me.  Wink/being sarcastic



No. At least Roberta tried, but Roberta wasn't too successful at it as I explained above.


Says who?


Even you admitted your MAN/LHR/SIN/Manila example wasn't good because it was rather late when you came up with the example. Right?  Wink/being sarcastic

[Edited 2004-04-25 02:46:58]
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:56 am

So, if they say that the proliferation of 7E7, 332 and others worsen the situation then I'll be more convinced by their "opinion" than yours and unlike your analogy, they have no incentive for lying here...-D

-----

Government officials have all sorts of reasons to lie or exagerate. In this case, it may be to get desperatly needed money to reform the ATC system and build new runways. They are more likely to believe and parrot something if it helps their cause. We've all done it. It's human nature.

-------
Absolutely not what I wrote. The 7E7 will certainly not be the only a/c to cause resurgence in AT congestion but it will be a major factor since it will be the only a/c with a range of over 8000nm and a capacity of less than 250 pax.
----

Again, I fail to see how long haul OR high capacity aircraft are a major factor. An 8000 mile range airplane generates only 2 cycles a day at most when used to its full economic range. And how many flights would a whole fleet of 400 A380's save? As outlined above, my calculation is at the very most 250 cycles a day in the whole worldwide system. That is nothing compared to the thousands of cycles a day flown in the bussiest hubs (the main place where congestion is a problem).

If you want to fight congestion by changing the planes you use, it is shorthaul, single-aisle and regional traffic that matters. But it is not the planes one uses that are the real problem anyway. The real problem is air traffic control and a hesitancy to build new runways quickly where they are really needed. The lack of congestion pricing in the right places may also play a role.

Some of you are speculating about how the 7E7 or A380 may create new demand and influence traffic patterns, either increasing or decreasing hub congestion(depending on how you want to see it). Such speculation is interesting, but I see no reason to really argue about it since nobody really knows about that anyway. We are all just guessing.

But if you look at the cold numbers...niether the A380 nor the 7E7 are relevant to the congestion problem as it now stands. Its that simple, folks.


[Edited 2004-04-25 02:59:04]
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:06 am


It is a fact that they made such statement! Period. Are FAA officials right? Can't say for sure (Mr. "Old Europe" once said that even monkeys knew Iraq had WMD and he turned out the monkey...), but you got to admit that they have Intel info that we will never have unless we work for FAA, NAVCAN or any other air traffic authorities.


YUL332LX:

You're quoting them without any context. So, you are stating your interpretation of what they said. It's also human nature to read what they want to hear. So without context and explanations, your statement that planes like the 7e7 can cause ATC congestion simply doesn't make sense. There are far more narrowbody planes like the 32x and 737 than widebody planes like the 767, 300, 310, 330, 340, 747. Narrowbody planes like the 32x and 737 also takeoff and land more frequently than widebody planes. The statement that the proliferation of planes like the 7e7 and 332 can cause new ATC problems simply doesn't make sense. Airplanes like the 300/310/767 make up no more than 15% of the worldwide airliner fleet, and an even smaller percentage in terms of takeoffs and landing because they are used on longer routes. I don't need to work for FAA to know this is a questionable statement, because it's common sense. If you can't explain what they said in a convincing manner, I have no choice but to doubt whether you really understood what they said. Perhaps, you just put your own spin on what they said.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:29 am


But if you look at the cold numbers...niether the A380 nor the 7E7 are relevant to the congestion problem as it now stands. Its that simple, folks.


Cloudy:

I'm not in disagreement with you on this one. That's why I have asked people to check the number of long-haul departures vs. short-haul departures at airports like LHR. It is no question that short-haul flights dominate the schedules at all major international airports.

But... we know some of the short-haul flights carry feeder traffic. The percentage can vary from airlines to airlines and airports to airports, but they usually are not insignificant.

So, in theory, if we can bypass (major) hubs, it will reduce both feeder traffic and long-haul traffic. Thus, it would reduce congestion. This is not a speculation.

But, in practice, can it happen? I think the reality is there will be hub expansions as well as fragmentation. This, of course, is a speculation.

[Edited 2004-04-25 03:31:19]
 
yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:18 am


The statement that the proliferation of planes like the 7e7 and 332 can cause new ATC problems simply doesn't make sense.

I see now! You are one of those you can't face facts unless it goes along with what you think. It doesn't make sense to you only because you don't want it to make sense so you keep mimicking what I write.

There are far more narrowbody planes like the 32x and 737 than widebody planes like the 767, 300, 310, 330, 340, 747. Narrowbody planes like the 32x and 737 also takeoff and land more frequently than widebody planes.

Your Point? It has always been that way and will still be for a foresable future but what is new here is the tendency in the US to serve new international destinations by point-to-point services and generally 737/32S don't fly across oceans! (Remember, this is what we are talking here: an increase of air traffic congestion caused by new international point-to-point services)

The growth of AT in this regard makes FAA very concerned whether you like it or not. And if you want a specific case, FAA stated many times that new procedures will have to be implemented over the North-Atlantic to make sure they can cope with the increase of traffic in coming years, and that increase over oceans will not come from the A380! Quite the opposite! Get the idea?

If you can't explain what they said in a convincing manner, I have no choice but to doubt whether you really understood what they said. Perhaps, you just put your own spin on what they said.

If you bothered to visit their website, you wouldn’t have made a fool of yourself denying FAA statement and you would have found facts and numbers proving how point-to-point services increased air traffic congestion.

Sleep well!
E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
musapapaya
Posts: 1035
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:02 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:43 pm

hi,

a lot pf people have stated that the 7E7 can be used on long thin routes, as it has less than 250 seats. then i want to ask, what is it so different from A340-300? they give a range of 11500 km and caries less than 250 pax. so would airline really like to buy new 7E7, or just keep their 343 and buy even more due to commanlity?

cheers!
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:51 pm

YUL332LX:

Chill out. But I'm not the only person who's questioning your statement.

Musapapaya:

The 343 has 298 seats and 7,400nm range.

The 7e7-8 will have 217 seats and 8,500nm range.

The 7e7-9 will have 257 seats and 8,300nm range.

As you can see, the 343 is a bigger plane.

 
musapapaya
Posts: 1035
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:02 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:07 pm

Hi Dynkrisolo,

http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html/ueber_uns/flotte/index.html

this is not right on the range and number of pax on a 343? quite misleading...

please further comment

cheers


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

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:10 pm

Musapapaya,
Dynkrisolo quoted the manufacturer's suggested range & capacity

You linked to Lufthansa's specifric range & capacity
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
musapapaya
Posts: 1035
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:02 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:12 pm

concordeboy,

thanks - now i realize. let me go to airbus website to find out then....

any more comments on this? will be glad to hear more about this 7E7 thing.

regards
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:17 pm

Musapapaya, it's unlikely airlines buy 7E7s to downsize their passenger loads. I would think they would go for the 772ER to replace the a343 instead of the other way around. After all, i dont think the 7E7 is supposed to target the a343.
Now you're really flying
 
CO737800
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:53 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:55 pm

I cant wait to see the 7E7 is CO colours
 
Guest

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:42 pm

I'm getting bored of this, so just look at it this way

Airbus claimed the A380 will relieve congestion at congested airports

If an airport is congested airlines can add very few new routes because new slots are scarce.

BA fly 7 times LHR-JFK a day. 6 744's and 1 722. At one point within 2 and a half hours 2 744's and 1 772 flies to JFK.

Depart Arrive
17:30 20:10 LHR JFK BA 0113 BA 744
18:30 21:10 LHR JFK BA 0179 BA 772
20:00 22:35 LHR JFK BA 0183 BA 744

but by adding an A380 to replace these large planes you can either

Increase capacity of a route sector without increasing the number of planes

or

Decrease the amont of flights on a route sector but maintaining the same amount of seats

If an airline wants to expand a hub at a congested airport they're going to have trouble as they will not be able to get slots for feeder flights. But what they can do is free up some slots at a congested airport with the A380, and open up other routes. Or they can increase the amount of seats on a sector without increasing the number of planes. The result, more passengers can travel through a congested airport, but the number of planes stays the same. The airport is more efficient.

If an airline doesnt think they can fill an A380 on a route they aint going to buy/lease the A380. They're not going to get an A380 and then think "crap we need to start loads of feeder flights now". They're just going to get A340's or 777's.

If an airport like DBX has no congestion then they can go on adding flights to their hearts content. Airbus only said they could help congested airports.

If the A380 is used correctly it will help out overcrowded airports such as LHR. You cannot get away from that.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:53 pm

Roberta:

I will give you a quick answer. If it's strictly O&D traffic, yes, using bigger planes can help decongest. But we know hub airlines rely on feeder traffic. Then, by the "conservation of number of passengers" principle, using bigger planes does not help reduce congestion. If you don't understand this, then I am wasting my energy explaining this to you.
 
TexAussie
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 5:26 pm

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:29 pm

7E7 could be a winner, connecting a lot of long-haul point-to-points and opening new markets. I do think Qantas could do a lot of what it says it wants from the 7E7 with aircraft currently on the market today, though.

Interesting how the article brags about the new radar, for which Qantas was the first customer on the 744ER. One of the ERs with the new radar (the big red 747... Wanalua Dreaming - I'm sure I misspelled that) flew into a hail storm and had to make a diversion due to getting its skin pocked by thousands of hail strikes.

Of course, I find that the flying kangaroos don't make much of an effort to avoid storms so maybe the radar worked fine... they just plowed into the storm anyway.
 
Guest

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:38 pm

well id say if you reduced 7 LHR-JFK flights into 4 or 5 then you have reduced congestion. BA are going to fly the same amount of seats on that sector regardless of wether they get the A380 or not. The A380 does not necessarily have to increase the Amount of seats on a sector. it can reduce the amount of flights instead.

Then, by the "conservation of number of passengers" principle, using bigger planes does not help reduce congestion. If you don't understand this, then I am wasting my energy explaining this to you.

i understand that if you fly more people to an airport you are going to need more feeder traffic, i have understood this from the start. but how are you going to get more feeder flights if the airport is congested and has no more slots? You cant, so why would you put too many seats on a sector if they cant be filled? you wont, so you will not use A380's on that route.

If it's strictly O&D traffic, yes, using bigger planes can help decongest

No connection traffic can be reduced too. we have both agreed that airlines need big hubs, you can create mini hubs too but you still need to have dominant hub too. the A380 can reduce the amount of aircaft needed to fly between important destinations and hubs. Do BA really need to fly 3 flights LHR-JFK within 2 and a half hours? No, they could make 3 flights 2 and use the new slots for another flight.
 
donder10
Posts: 6945
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:58 pm

No, they could make 3 flights 2 and use the new slots for another flight.

Yes,but business passengers want high frequencies and the 7E7 can provide that.If BA don't provide the frequencies then somebody else will.The 380 out of LHR will be mainly onto Asian routes and others which are long/thin which can't support a plethora of frequencies.
 
Guest

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:06 pm

What 3 in 2 and a half hours is that really necessary. In-flight service, price and loyalty could easily justify an hour wait.

[Edited 2004-04-25 16:08:40]
 
User avatar
Cadmus
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:47 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:07 am

Who says that the feeder flights into an airport have to actually be 'flights'? I travel through Stansted regularly, and you wouldn't believe the number of buses and trains that run through there. I'm not just talking about the 'every 15 min' rail sevice to London either, they come in from as far away as Liverpool. The buses run all over the place too. It might not work in the US, but I'm sure that in europe surface transportation remains an important player (rail passenger numbers are certainly up in the UK, while I'm sure I read somewhere that domestic air travel is actually falling - that may have been in relation to a specific route though, I don't remember for certain).
Understanding is a three-edged sword
 
donder10
Posts: 6945
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:16 am

Who says that the feeder flights into an airport have to actually be 'flights'? I travel through Stansted regularly, and you wouldn't believe the number of buses and trains that run through there. I'm

Paris-CDG is a great example of this.A TGV station in the middle of T2!If the UK had a railway network that was as good as the French one then would there be much need for all the LHR-MAN/GLA/EDI shuttle flights?



What 3 in 2 and a half hours is that really necessary. In-flight service, price and loyalty could easily justify an hour wait.

And just happen to leave at the end of the working City day.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:34 am

Roberta:

Don't be so naive. If 380 is the only way to go, then airlines would not have used more and more smaller airplanes like the 767, 777, 330, 340 across the Atlantic. Everyone would have used the 747. LHR has been congested for decades, but even BA has replaced 747 flights with the 777 across the Atlantic in recent years. There will be airlines who will find the 380 fit their business model. Equally there will be airlines who will find planes like the 7e7 fit their business model. The 767 has greatly altered the trans-Atlantic operations. That's a historical fact that can't be ignored. OTOH, it's also a fact that 767 didn't make the 747 vanish in the trans-Atlantic market. Similarly, the 340 and 777 have become more widely used across the Pacific and between Asia and Europe very much like the 767 did across the Atlantic. Will the 7e7 make a similar impact? Historical data suggest that they likely will. But will they make larger planes like the 747 and 380 obsolete? Historical data once again suggest they unlikely will.

Long-haul flights out of hubs like LHR are only a small proportion of their total daily operations. And the majority of them are not candidates for 380 replacements. Even if it is strictly O&D traffic, hypothetically a 5% reduction of 15% of the total flights will only have a 0.75% impact. The 380 isn't going to alleviate congestion at airports like LHR. As Donder10 pointed out, any newly open slots due to use of larger aircraft will quickly be taken up by something else.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:45 am


Who says that the feeder flights into an airport have to actually be 'flights'? I travel through Stansted regularly, and you wouldn't believe the number of buses and trains that run through there.


True, airlines can get "surface" feeds. But for book-keeping purposes, these passengers are classified as O&D traffic, because on their airline tickets, their origination and destination are not their train stations but the airport they board their first flight and disembark from the last leg of flights, respectively.
 
Guest

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:07 am

Don't be so naive. If 380 is the only way to go, then airlines would not have used more and more smaller airplanes like the 767, 777, 330, 340 across the Atlantic.

when did i say the A380 is the only way to go, why am i being naive?
I said the A380 can reduce flights and increase Pax flow at slot restricted airports on busy sectors.

The 380 isn't going to alleviate congestion at airports like LHR. As Donder10 pointed out, any newly open slots due to use of larger aircraft will quickly be taken up by something else.

Why is congestion a problem? because new services cannot be implemented. Of course they are going to be tacken up by something else, that is the benefit. Infact a good use could be a flight with a 7E7 on a thin, long range route.
 
User avatar
Cadmus
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:47 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:15 am

Dynkrisolo,

Understood, I was just trying to point out that just as the future won't be either 'all 7E7' or 'all A380', the feeder traffic won't always arrive on a plane. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if, in europe, the airlines and TOC's started to link up.
Understanding is a three-edged sword
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:40 am

2 factors that haven't been mentioned in the discussion and that should be taken into consideration are the projected annual growth in air traffic (pax 5.1% & cargo 6.4% - source:Boeing) and airline consolidation.

The first point is straight forward - increasing global population and increasing global trade.

The second point is more complex and is driving the airframers nuts. For example, when airlines like Air Canada, Alitalia, and US Airways go under (or contract ops significantly), competitors will increase capacity to fill the gap on international flights. As well, with the weak financial situation of major airlines there will be continued expansion of code share flights. And there will also be more mergers along the lines of AF/KLM. So in 5 years a simplified equation could look something like this:

Pax & Cargo Growth + Fewer Airlines + Congested Airports = Larger Aircraft

Flights that used 767s will probably use 772s; 772s -> 773s; 773s -> 774s; and so on...
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
moose1226
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:54 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:45 am

A friend of mine that is working on the 7E7 project interior design tells me that SQ will most likely be the launch customer for the 7E7. This is most likely due to the fact that almost all of their aircraft now use a derivative of the RR Trent Engine family.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:29 am

Planemaker:


Flights that used 767s will probably use 772s; 772s -> 773s; 773s -> 774s; and so on...


Only if the infrastructure stops growing. Think about it, if that's true, then routes used to be served by the 727, the most popular airplane 25 years ago, would be served by much larger planes after 25 years. Yet, the similarly sized 320 and 738 are still the most popular model in their respective family. The beauty of air transportation vs land transportation is air transportation needs much less infrastruture.

Boeing thought airlines would need planes much larger than the 727 25 years ago. So, they designed the 757 to replace the 727. The 757 wasn't a failure, but it wasn't a huge success like the 727 was.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:13 pm

Dynkrisolo:

"The 757 wasn't a failure, but it wasn't a huge success like the 727 was."

Come on, I know that you know better. The 727 had almost a monopoly in the domestic single aisle market, the only other single aisle Boeing alternative was the 737-200 for most of its existence. The 757 had the 734 (which to a large extent took over the 727 role) and then the 73G, 738 & 739 as single aisle alternatives. And it also had the MD80/90 as competition and the A320 and A321. Furthermore, the 767 was developed at the same time and wasn't that much larger but had the "attractiveness" of being a widebody.

"Only if the infrastructure stops growing."

The infrastructure has almost stopped growing. How many new runways have/are being built? When was the last new airport built? Herb Kelleher wrote an article in AW&ST that the US needs over 50 miles of runway now. But this is besides the point.

The dynamics of the domestic industry in the US (and later in Europe) has changed tremendously. 25 years ago there were virtually no LCCs - and it is the LCCs over the past several years that have the garnered the bulk of the 737 and A320 family orders. They have split the domestic pie and forced the major airlines to reduce domestic capacity and go to smaller aircraft in order to maintain city pair service and frequency. But, domestically, there is a limit to how many 73Gs even SWA can schedule between two city pairs. Furthermore, high frequency service obviously does not work on overseas flights. You can't have shuttles to Paris or to Tokyo from the US.

So, since there will be pax and cargo growth and there will be airline consolidation/rationalization, it is only logical that with fewer airlines/flights and more pax & cargo that the size of the aircraft will increase, especially overseas flights. If they are flying a 767 now JFK-CDG, they sure won't be flying 2 "737ERs" in 5 years instead. Nor two 767s instead of a single 747 SFO-NRT.

[Edited 2004-04-26 05:32:03]
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: 7E7 Orders Expected Very Soon

Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:57 pm

If an airline wants to expand a hub at a congested airport they're going to have trouble as they will not be able to get slots for feeder flights. But what they can do is free up some slots at a congested airport with the A380, and open up other routes. Or they can increase the amount of seats on a sector without increasing the number of planes. The result, more passengers can travel through a congested airport, but the number of planes stays the same. The airport is more efficient.
------

Nobody is denying that. The question is HOW MUCH more efficient. As I point out at length in previous points, the difference is insignificant due to the small number of cycles superjumbo operations generate. For the third time, the most that a whole fleet of 400 A380's could save would be 250 cycles a day, worldwide.
------

There are far more narrowbody planes like the 32x and 737 than widebody planes like the 767, 300, 310, 330, 340, 747. Narrowbody planes like the 32x and 737 also takeoff and land more frequently than widebody planes.

Your Point? It has always been that way and will still be for a foresable future but what is new here is the tendency in the US to serve new international destinations by point-to-point services and generally 737/32S don't fly across oceans! (Remember, this is what we are talking here: an increase of air traffic congestion caused by new international point-to-point services)
--------

My point was that long range international operations by widebodies are not a real part of the congestion problem. Even if some savings were possible with point-to-point operations or larger planes, those savings would be insignificant. If you want support, check my above posts.

THE BOTTOM LINE....most of you guys just don't understand how to put things into proportion. Talking about saving a few cycles on long range widebody operations is like talking about saving USair by managing the petty cash more carefully. There are other factors that are WAY, WAY, WAY more important.





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