Technically, I'm sure it will be great. It appears to have a real edge in its little niche. But I'm questioning now whether many airlines will pursue that niche.

Originally, I was thinking about 747ADV vs A388. The 747ADV had an edge in that it was a more moderate step up in size, had far more airport compatibility and appeared to offer superior economics. I could see BA going for it because it would allow them high capacity operations while not having to go for a major leap in size that would be the A388.

But now I'm thinking slightly differently. The key disadvantage to the 747ADV is that it is effectively the end of the line. In the simple 747ADV vs A388 it may have an edge, but the A380 is more than the just the A388. That family has room for growth and advancement. The 747ADV may make sense for a short term incremental up sizing, but afterwards, it is a dead end. The A380 offers more prospects for the longer term. It's not so limiting.

Quoting Glom (Thread starter): The key disadvantage to the 747ADV is that it is effectively the end of the line. In the simple 747ADV vs A388 it may have an edge, but the A380 is more than the just the A388. That family has room for growth and advancement.

That's a good point and I don't think anyone ever expected the 747Adv to be a full-line product like the 380. It is nothing more than a niche player and an incremental step into a larger market.

Beyond the 747Adv will be Boeing's entry into the VLA market. But not anytime too soon. Despite what many on this forum believe, Boeing has never said there is no market for VLA; just that the market is not very big. In that regard, the 380 itself is a niche player - for now. But as the market grows then Airbus already has an entrant. Boeing, on the other hand, will grow into that market.

So, I think the 747Adv will be the last iteration of that great line and what will follow, when and if, will be Boeing's eventual answer to the 380. And it will come at a time when the market really needs it and, because of its later EIS, will incorporate advantages over the 380 based on what Boeing and the market will have learned from the 380.

Quoting Glom (Thread starter): The key disadvantage to the 747ADV is that it is effectively the end of the line. In the simple 747ADV vs A388 it may have an edge, but the A380 is more than the just the A388. That family has room for growth and advancement.

Airlines don't buy future prospective families of airplanes. They buy real concrete airliners. I see no advantage for the WhaleJet on this basis.

Boeing will still have an advantage in the VLA market, after the B-747-ADV. By then it will have enough experience from working with composites, from the B-787, to design a composite VLA. But, I doubt it will be bigger than the A-380-900, as that airplane, and its smaller -800 sister will have made the needed airport infastructure changes a reality. With the lower fuel comsumption that composites offer, Boeing will be positioning themselves very well.

Yes, the 747ADV is about as big as that product line is going to get. Airbus made a better case for the A380 then Boeing could make for a "super-stretch" 747 (with the -500/-600/-X) which is why most airlines put their dollars on the A380.

Boeing's marketing says that some 20% of traffic at "slot-constrained" airports like LHR and NRT are planes larger then the 773/A346 with the majority more in the 772/A343 range or smaller. Yet Airbus marketing claims that these airports are so up against the wall in capacity, that only an A380 will allow future expansion.

Obviously, both sides interpret the numbers to favor their current product lines. Boeing offers a "complete package" up to 450 folks. Airbus jumps from 350 (A346) straight to 550 (A388) with nothing really in-between (where Boeing has the 773/773ER). So Airbus pushes "capacity" where Boeing pushes "frequency".

747ADV needs to be built, at least for the next 20 years, not just filling the gap between 773/A346 and A380, but it can get to airports not ready for A380 (ie: Carribean Island destinations), stretching 747 further wouldn't be a good idea, 450 passengers will be as many as you want to go, and yes, Boeing will have to start from scratch and design a brand new VLA, even though I'd love to see 747 live forever, my fav airplane, especially flying from LAX to Asia, seeing all 747s lining up, it'll be hard to let them go.

As for VLA, can Boeing use the original concept of MD12? (Since Boeing bought MD), a double decker that is slightly smaller than A380, which might just work out better for Boeing.

Boeing doesn't seem to think the market for a VLA is big enough to warrant the investment. But if they did, they could go with a BWB which, aside from being more efficient, would have greater cargo capacity after loading passenger luggage. That's an MD heritage as well.

Here is something to thing about....doesn't bode too well for the B747/A380 in China...  


"I recently returned from almost two weeks in China. And as always when I travel, I got to talk with a lot of people about the aviation industry. While we were there, my colleague Randy Tinseth and I presented the 20 year airplane forecast for the China market."

"As a matter of fact, we're forecasting that the commercial airplane fleet in China will nearly quadruple! China will need more than 2,600 new airplanes between now and 2024. As part of that growth, we think China's fleet mix will shift a bit over the next 20 years: regional jets and twin-aisle aircraft will increase their proportions, while 747-size and larger airplanes will decrease theirs."

"Only 3% of deliveries (73 airplanes) will be of the 747-size and larger category. "


source:

http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2005/10/china_and_the_n.html

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 7): Here is something to thing about....doesn't bode too well for the B747/A380 in China... no

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 7): source: http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives....html

Well, considering that Randy is marketing Boeing planes and the official Boeing line is that VLA aircraft repesents only a tiny part of future markets it is hardly surprising that he spouts the party line. Although I visit his blog almost every day I have to admit I take his comments (and Leahy's) with a grain of salt. Personally, I happen to think that they (Boeing) are correct but have only my gut feeling to back it up. I am just looking forward to seeing how everything turns out.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2): Airlines don't buy future prospective families of airplanes. They buy real concrete airliners. I see no advantage for the WhaleJet on this basis.

Might I qualify this statement by adding that "Airlines that are run as businesses buy concrete airliners."? Airline managers should make their foremost buying criterion to be which airliner sales/leasing deal is most likely to make them money during the duration that they expect to operate their aircraft. I think it's also one reason that many of us pay special attention to the next orders from SQ, Qantas, AF et al and not so much on those by state-run/pet-project airlines. Orders from these well-run airlines for one's favorite manufacturer's planes have a self-affirming effect.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 7): while 747-size and larger airplanes will decrease their [proportion].

Since there are only 19 747-size and larger airplanes in China (all 747s with Air China) the "proportion" couldn't fall by much!

But here's Randy Basler predicting that airlines will want more widebody twins and fewer big quads? Scoop! Hold the front page!

Quoting PM (Reply 9): Since there are only 19 747-size and larger airplanes in China (all 747s with Air China) the "proportion" couldn't fall by much!

Doesn't Dragon Air have 747's as well?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2): Airlines don't buy future prospective families of airplanes. They buy real concrete airliners. I see no advantage for the WhaleJet on this basis.

If you look back at the reasons why McDD got into trouble, it was the point that their planes were "real concrete airliners" but no "future prospective families": the lack of further development, the knowledge that they were buying a plane that would, in all likelihood, have no bigger or smaller version, is always named amongst the primary reasons why Boeing's and Airbus' products were more attractive to airlines.

So, technically, this very well could be an advantage for the A380.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): So Airbus pushes "capacity" where Boeing pushes "frequency".

If you look at things on a very, very, very superficial basis then, yes, you're right.

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 10): Doesn't Dragon Air have 747's as well?

So does Cathay Pacific, but both aren't - in this case - technically China: they're both from Hong Kong.

Regards,
Frank

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2): Airlines don't buy future prospective families of airplanes.

That is absolutely, positively, undoubtedly not the case.

N

Quoting Vincewy (Reply 5):

747 has a sentimental value to me. My first trans-Pacific flight was on a 742 and now on 744, 772, 343 and 346. Will catch a ride when A380 becomes available.

747ADV may be the end of 747, but it's premature to cast doubt considering that A380 has yet to prove that it will be a commercial success or not. I hope it will, otherwise 747ADV may well be the only interim alternative for operators who require the VLA capacity.

Cheers.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): Boeing's marketing says that some 20% of traffic at "slot-constrained" airports like LHR and NRT are planes larger then the 773/A346

Isn't it strange in this perspective that the Japanese airlines fully ignore the A380 (Airbus) and even confirmed their loyalty to Boeing?   

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 14): Isn't it strange in this perspective that the Japanese airlines fully ignore the A380 (Airbus) and even confirmed their loyalty to Boeing?

The Japanese carriers own the majority of losts at NRT which makes the A380 less attractive to them in terms of increasing capacity. The same can be said for BA at LHR.


Regards,
JM

Quoting Leskova (Reply 11): Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 10): Doesn't Dragon Air have 747's as well? So does Cathay Pacific, but both aren't - in this case - technically China: they're both from Hong Kong.

Exactly. And note that our Randy doesn't comment on the "proportion" of "747 or bigger" planes anticipated there!

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2): Airlines don't buy future prospective families of airplanes. They buy real concrete airliners. I see no advantage for the WhaleJet on this basis.

Quoting Calags (Reply 8): Might I qualify this statement by adding that "Airlines that are run as businesses buy concrete airliners."?

That's fair. I stand corrected.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 12): That is absolutely, positively, undoubtedly not the case.

Sorry, I don't buy the argument that airlines would choose the WhaleJet over the JumboJet because of the hypothetical possibility that Airbus may perhaps someday offer an A380-900 of currently unknowable specifications. While State Owned Enterprises do things even more bizarre than that, private companies generally do not. Airlines will choose between the WhaleJet and the JumboJet primarily based on each aircraft's performance on expected missions and total cost of ownership.

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 15): The Japanese carriers own the majority of losts at NRT which makes the A380 less attractive to them in terms of increasing capacity. The same can be said for BA at LHR.

Jetmaster, you have hit it on the nose! The case for the A380 mostly works for carriers that can't get more flights into big hubs.

Welcome to the A380 - the ultimate slot machine!

SparkingWave

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 10): Doesn't Dragon Air have 747's as well?

Nope. At least not any passenger versions. A330s and A320s.

Quoting PM (Reply 9): Since there are only 19 747-size and larger airplanes in China (all 747s with Air China) the "proportion" couldn't fall by much!

Interesting number.

To me it makes perfect sense that you won't see a need from the China side for A380s (excluding Hong Kong perhaps). It is a huge country, about the size of the U.S. with lots of new and competing airports, and a number of roughly equally sized airlines. When authorities want to build a new airport or expand an existing one, they don't get mired down in disputes with farmers or NIMBY protestations. My opinion is that the aviation market will look a lot more like the North American model.

Quoting Jet-lagged (Reply 19): Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 10): Doesn't Dragon Air have 747's as well? Nope. At least not any passenger versions.

As I'm sure you know, they do have cargo 747s and I don't think that Big Randy was limiting himself to pax planes.

Quoting Jet-lagged (Reply 19): To me it makes perfect sense that you won't see a need from the China side for A380s.

Dunno. Air China have those 19 747s and China Southern have ordered 5 A380s. China Eastern seem to have a market for A346s (which aren't "small") so there is at least some demand. Yes, the country is huge and decentralised in terms of air travel but with just three major groups emerging (cf. AA, UA, DL, NW, CO, US, etc. in the USA) I could see a lot of traffic being channeled through just a few hubs - certainly long-haul international traffic. Wee Randy has a vested interest in peddling the party line. I wouldn't write off China's need (or at least appetite) for big quads (from Seattle or Toulouse) just yet...

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17): Sorry, I don't buy the argument that airlines would choose the WhaleJet over the JumboJet because of the hypothetical possibility that Airbus may perhaps someday offer an A380-900 of currently unknowable specifications. While State Owned Enterprises do things even more bizarre than that, private companies generally do not. Airlines will choose between the WhaleJet and the JumboJet primarily based on each aircraft's performance on expected missions and total cost of ownership.

I guess that's why several airlines have already asked for the A380-900...

ciao
Daniel

Quoting Calags (Reply 8): Well, considering that Randy is marketing Boeing planes and the official Boeing line is that VLA aircraft repesents only a tiny part of future markets it is hardly surprising that he spouts the party line. Although I visit his blog almost every day I have to admit I take his comments (and Leahy's) with a grain of salt. Personally, I happen to think that they (Boeing) are correct but have only my gut feeling to back it up. I am just looking forward to seeing how everything turns out.

Quoting PM (Reply 16): Exactly. And note that our Randy doesn't comment on the "proportion" of "747 or bigger" planes anticipated there!

I think the point of his (Baseler's) comment was that demand trends in China are patterning those in Europe and the United States.....more "point-to-point" with smaller aircraft than the VLA........


"We covered a lot of facts and figures during the trip. But I know this won't be the last time we talk about (or visit) China. And by the way, the Chinese are doing their own airplanes forecasting now, and theirs closely aligns with what we've been saying."

Actually, I'm quite curious of Airbus' view (forcasts about the VLA in China)...unfortunately I haven't seen it anywhere...if anyone has a link, it would be well appreciated.

Quoting Vincewy (Reply 5): 747ADV needs to be built, at least for the next 20 years, not just filling the gap between 773/A346 and A380, but it can get to airports not ready for A380...

Not so much that it needs to be built, to me - more that the development cost would be extremely low so Boeing would not need to build many to break even. This would leave Boeing in the position of being able to offer an alternative to the A380 should demand for VLA aircraft prove much higher than Boeing's current prediction.

Quoting Jet-lagged (Reply 19): To me it makes perfect sense that you won't see a need from the China side for A380s

No? I understand that the projected growth figures for Chinese tourism to longhaul destinations are phenomenal. Forget comfort, most of these tourists are going to need cheap tickets ie to be packed into the cheapest mode of transport from China to somewhere far away. Is anything going to be cheaper than an A380 carrying 800 pax?

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 22): Actually, I'm quite curious of Airbus' view (forcasts about the VLA in China)...unfortunately I haven't seen it anywhere...if anyone has a link, it would be well appreciated.

Airbus Global market forecast (Boeing does the same) :

http://www.airbus.com/store/mm_repos...object_file_GMF2004_full_issue.pdf

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 10): Doesn't Dragon Air have 747's as well?

Yes Dragonair have 5x747 freighters, have about 80 pilots based in MAN for them as well.

Quoting PM (Reply 20): As I'm sure you know, they do have cargo 747s

I wasn't sure about that . . . so I hedged my answer. Thanks for the clarification with your better knowledge.

Cheers.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 22): I think the point of his (Baseler's) comment was that demand trends in China are patterning those in Europe and the United States.....more "point-to-point" with smaller aircraft than the VLA........

I daresay that's what he intended but I'm not sure it's an argument I buy. Point-to-point may be carrying the day in the US (though I'm not entirely convinced) but most big European airlines still cleave to one or perhaps two hubs. BA have dipped their toe in the waters of intercontinental flights from MAN, BHX and GLA but they seem deeply reluctant to embrace the concept fully. AF are even more reluctant to divert business away from their main hub. LH? They have FRA and MUC but otherwise (an odd flight or two from DUS) they aren't embracing the point-to-point concept. What about VS? They've also ordered the A380 but does anyone see them building up anything other than LHR/LGW? For an airline like KLM (still a major player) the argument is all but moot. How many "points" other than AMS do they have???!

Mr. Randy may spend too much time talking to Northwest, United, American, Delta, Continental, USAir and the like who do indeed fly 767s, A330s, 777s and so on across the Atlantic to multiple destinations. But flights in the other direction perhaps tell a different story.

And outside of Europe there are comparable examples. Tell SQ (Singapore) and EK (Dubai) that big hubs have had their day. Tell SA to develop more long-haul flights out of Cape Town and Durban.

China? Who knows? But, as I've argued above, with most or all long-haul flights operated by just Air China / China Eastern / China Southern, I could see each developing one major hub each and filling it with big monsters (with four engines) rather than twins doing point-to-point. More to the point, they will of course do both. In that regard the European model (think of BA with large fleets of both 747s and 777s) may be a better indicator than, say, Delta. It'll be interesting to watch...

Quoting Dazeflight (Reply 21): several airlines have already asked for the A380-900..

EK is the only airline that has asked for a larger A380. What are the others?

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 28): EK is the only airline that has asked for a larger A380. What are the others?

FedEx and SQ immediately come to mind.

Quoting PM (Reply 29): FedEx and SQ immediately come to mind.

Evidence?

I know some people at SQ and I have no reason to believe that SQ have any interest in an A380-900.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 30): Evidence?

The evidence for FedEx is in the article that was published in FLIGHT just a couple of weeks ago. They said something like "We can't wait for the A380-900; that's the plane we really want." Of course, I could be reading too much into that...

SQ? OK, you've got me there in that I can't point you to chapter and verse but I was certainly under the impression that they've talked about acquiring the A389 and have done so recently. Anyone help me out?

Quoting Jet-lagged (Reply 19): My opinion is that the aviation market will look a lot more like the North American model.

I must concur with Jet-Lagged .
As the standard of living increases in China , so will there life style resemble that of the US . The only difference I see is ? In the US , domestic flights you see cah-billions of 737/A320 sized a/c , in China you may see more larger a/c in the range of 777s and/or smaller . I see no need in China for large quads on domestic flights . International , not sure ?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): Boeing will still have an advantage in the VLA market, after the B-747-ADV. By then it will have enough experience from working with composites, from the B-787, to design a composite VLA. But, I doubt it will be bigger than the A-380-900, as that airplane, and its smaller -800 sister will have made the needed airport infastructure changes a reality. With the lower fuel comsumption that composites offer, Boeing will be positioning themselves very well.

Agreed ,
While AB was designing the a380 , Boeing was planning on going composite ! In the meantime I am sure Boeing is currently planning to introduce a VLA composite a/c to going up against the a380 when the market & infrastructure is there ! Boeing is in a very good position & can determine the A380's fate !

Halibut

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 18): Jetmaster, you have hit it on the nose! The case for the A380 mostly works for carriers that can't get more flights into big hubs. Welcome to the A380 - the ultimate slot machine!

Right. For example, BA flies to 19 USA cities from LHR or LGW, and when you add in Canada and the Caribbean it goes up to 25. A380 won't help them much there. But other carriers who can't control their fate at LHR would want A380s going in there.

Same holds for NRT and the Japanese carriers. And if what others are saying is right and Japan reduces 5th freedom rights out of NRT when/if NW tanks, it's even less of a problem there.

Quoting Dazeflight (Reply 21): I guess that's why several airlines have already asked for the A380-900...

1st we must see a little more interest in the current a380 & see how when it sells without the launch customer discounts ! More 747s have been sold this year than a380s .

Quoting Glom (Thread starter): The A380 offers more prospects for the longer term. It's not so limiting.

That all depends on what Boeing throws into the loop next decade . If Boeing does in fact deside to produce a composite VLA as KC135TopBoom suggests . The a380 most likely will become obsolete & there are already signs of that being the case regarding the a380 since the future of GLARE is in doubt since it will not be used on AB's next a/c , the A350 !!!


Halibut

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 14): Isn't it strange in this perspective that the Japanese airlines fully ignore the A380 (Airbus) and even confirmed their loyalty to Boeing?

Not really, the A380 is not suited for the Japanese airlines, the landing fees in Japan are some of the highest in the world, the A380, due to its weight, would be very expensive to operate in/out of Japan.

Considering the seat gap between the proposed 747ADV and the A388, I'm curious if it would be better to have the 'ADV compared to the shrunk A387? Or am I a bit off base in that line of thought, with them being two birds for two different missions?

Quoting Jet-lagged (Reply 19): Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 10): Doesn't Dragon Air have 747's as well? Nope. At least not any passenger versions. A330s and A320s.

Jetlagged

Dragon Air has 747's, I never said anything about passenger/cargo versions:

Quote: About Us Dragonair Cargo has seen substantial growth in both capacity and tonnage uplifted in recent years. The cargo space in our Airbus has been boosted significantly by the establishment of a dedicated cargo fleet, comprising three Boeing 747-300SF freighters, one Boeing 747-200F freighter and one Airbus A300B4. This saw Dragonair carry a total of 270,000 tonnes in 2003, a 39.1% increase over 2002. Dragonair Cargo is now one of the major revenue sources for the airline, accounting for a significant portion of total turnover.

they also have a leased 744F from CI

Quoting Eha (Reply 24): Airbus Global market forecast (Boeing does the same) : http://www.airbus.com/store/mm_repos...e.pdf

thank you very much..I shall read it in detail....will be interesting..

Quoting PM (Reply 27): I daresay that's what he intended but I'm not sure it's an argument I buy. Point-to-point may be carrying the day in the US (though I'm not entirely convinced) but most big European airlines still cleave to one or perhaps two hubs. BA have dipped their toe in the waters of intercontinental flights from MAN, BHX and GLA but they seem deeply reluctant to embrace the concept fully. AF are even more reluctant to divert business away from their main hub. LH? They have FRA and MUC but otherwise (an odd flight or two from DUS) they aren't embracing the point-to-point concept. What about VS? They've also ordered the A380 but does anyone see them building up anything other than LHR/LGW? For an airline like KLM (still a major player) the argument is all but moot. How many "points" other than AMS do they have???!

Quoting PM (Reply 27): And outside of Europe there are comparable examples. Tell SQ (Singapore) and EK (Dubai) that big hubs have had their day. Tell SA to develop more long-haul flights out of Cape Town and Durban.

Quoting Halibut (Reply 34): 1st we must see a little more interest in the current a380 & see how when it sells without the launch customer discounts ! More 747s have been sold this year than a380s .

on a counter-point, look at all the European and upcoming Asian LCC's...they are starting to take a big bite out of revenues and profits from the larger European/Asian "legacies".......and some of these carriers are fortunate where they are govt. subsidised/controlled/helped...

but it still doesn't stop the trend of what's been happening....smaller planes offing more frequency to "secondary" airports.

I never said that there isn't a need for a plane like The WhaleJet, I just don't think it will be as successful as some people here claim, and certainly not a need big enough for two manufacturers...at least not for the foreseeable future..

Quoting Halibut (Reply 32): While AB was designing the a380 , Boeing was planning on going composite ! In the meantime I am sure Boeing is currently planning to introduce a VLA composite a/c to going up against the a380 when the market & infrastructure is there ! Boeing is in a very good position & can determine the A380's fate !

Boeing certainly is planning a large composite twin (Y3), however, it's not clear how large it will be. It needs to cover the market space above the B787. I think the largest B787 will be the B787-10. Boeing could build a 75 meter long B787-11, but I don't think they will. Since the B787-10 will cover the B777-200 size market, the shortest version of Y3 will need to cover the B777-300 sized market. That makes the max cross section a single deck 11 abreast configuration, say, 290 inches diameter. Assuming the longest version is 80 meters, passenger capacity would be about the same size as the WhaleJet, assuming crew rest, passenger sleeping bunks, most Y lavs, Y galleys, etc. are all upstairs.

Quoting AC320 (Reply 36): Considering the seat gap between the proposed 747ADV and the A388, I'm curious if it would be better to have the 'ADV compared to the shrunk A387? Or am I a bit off base in that line of thought, with them being two birds for two different missions?

If the B747Adv is launched, then there will never be an A380-700. The latter would be too heavy to compete. The WhaleJet wing is sized for an A380-900.

Quoting Glom (Thread starter): But now I'm thinking slightly differently. The key disadvantage to the 747ADV is that it is effectively the end of the line. In the simple 747ADV vs A388 it may have an edge, but the A380 is more than the just the A388. That family has room for growth and advancement. The 747ADV may make sense for a short term incremental up sizing, but afterwards, it is a dead end. The A380 offers more prospects for the longer term. It's not so limiting.

Again, a common A.net mistake. As much as we look at the Airline world in terms of planes, families and producers, Airlines look in terms of fleet commonality, frequency count, seat numbers (usually in that order).

The 747ADV is a plane that if built has advantages on all three of the above. It's common with planes that almost every carrier is flying today, it is "right sized" for large markets that are being flown today, and it has enough seats to grow capacity but still break even on flights if they stay at the seat numbers that are flying today.

Simply put, The 747ADV is a gamble, but it's a much smaller gamble for the carriers then the A380.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 1): Beyond the 747Adv will be Boeing's entry into the VLA market. But not anytime too soon. Despite what many on this forum believe, Boeing has never said there is no market for VLA; just that the market is not very big. In that regard, the 380 itself is a niche player - for now. But as the market grows then Airbus already has an entrant. Boeing, on the other hand, will grow into that market.

Your assumption might need to be made more explicit. So far there is zero evidence that there is a market large enough to sustain the A380 and the 747 at the same time. The recent orders for 747s-400 each take away a prospective order for a A380. Each order for a 747ADV also would take away a prospective order for a A380 or a 773/772/340.

Boeing has come up with a less risky way to keep the A380 from dominating a niche space.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2): Airlines don't buy future prospective families of airplanes. They buy real concrete airliners. I see no advantage for the WhaleJet on this basis.

I agree.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): Boeing will still have an advantage in the VLA market, after the B-747-ADV. By then it will have enough experience from working with composites, from the B-787, to design a composite VLA. But, I doubt it will be bigger than the A-380-900, as that airplane, and its smaller -800 sister will have made the needed airport infastructure changes a reality. With the lower fuel comsumption that composites offer, Boeing will be positioning themselves very well.

If the VLA space proves to be viable (which I doubt it ever will) Boeing's research into composites, Blended Wing Body and 30 year history with the 747 would be a asset.

But again, the Market is trending no where near a increase in the VLA market. In fact, it has been on a solid decrease in lock step with the greater range offered by smaller widebodies.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): Boeing's marketing says that some 20% of traffic at "slot-constrained" airports like LHR and NRT are planes larger then the 773/A346 with the majority more in the 772/A343 range or smaller.

I would be interested in where this number comes from. My understanding of both LHR and NRT (which frankly are the only airports outside of cargo that would justify a VLA) is that the number is well below 20% now and falling.

There is one more point that _must_ be made here. LHR and NRT are artificially constrained resources. Governments have mandated that slots are given out and that only their carriers can use the slots. Everyone else must fight for the scraps.

As the proccess of globalization and world wide deregulation continues, pressures will occur that will remove the constraints on these airports. More runways will be added, laws will be rewritten etc. As these constraints fall away the airports will not longer be as strictly controlled, more slots will be available, and the only arguement for passengers on a A380 goes away as competitors eat away your margins by putting three 787s on the same route as your one A380.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 14): Isn't it strange in this perspective that the Japanese airlines fully ignore the A380 (Airbus) and even confirmed their loyalty to Boeing? confused

Think about NRT for a second. Two carriers dominate at this airport. Both carriers have enough slots to run their own domestic and international business without too much interference. The primary driver on growth (not profitability) is the domestic network. Therefore you might want to look at upsizing from a 737 to 757/767 or A320 to A330 to get more domestic traffic. Your international routes are your money makers. Putting too much capacity (ala a A380) actually destroys your pricing ability (esp if your competitors do too). Therefore more frequency (to meet customer demands) is preferable to more seats.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 40): Assuming the longest version is 80 meters, passenger capacity would be about the same size as the WhaleJet,

500 pax Twin ?   

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 40): assuming crew rest, passenger sleeping bunks, most Y lavs, Y galleys, etc. are all upstairs.

Designate the main deck for pax , Interesting !

Will this a/c be oval or round like the 777 ?

Halibut

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 7): Only 3% of deliveries (73 airplanes) will be of the 747-size and larger category

I have hard time believing this, if you look at how NE Asian cities evolved in the last 3 decades, between major cities, you have no choice but to use widebodies. In the next few decades, besides PEK, PVG, and CAN, I expect CTU, WUH, XIY, possibly even CKG, HRB, TNA, NKG, CGO developing into major hubs. Going to any of the major hubs will require large aircrafts rather than frequencies should one want to raise capacities.

I'm curious about the % of 200-300 range, it has to be higher than what Boeing projected, especially widebody twins, I do agree A380 is not suited for short-mid range domestic flights, turnaround time is longer, making it inefficient for multiple daily flights.

BTW, how big can Boeing stretch to make twin jets, 773 seems to be as big as you can stretch (the tail looks disproportionate), would mid-range 400 passenger twin jets be possible?

Quoting Vincewy (Reply 43): I have hard time believing this, if you look at how NE Asian cities evolved in the last 3 decades, between major cities, you have no choice but to use widebodies. In the next few decades, besides PEK, PVG, and CAN, I expect CTU, WUH, XIY, possibly even CKG, HRB, TNA, NKG, CGO developing into major hubs. Going to any of the major hubs will require large aircrafts rather than frequencies should one want to raise capacities.

I think your comment proved the point....look at how many points you just listed....777/787/340/350 with multiple frequencies will do a lot!

Quoting Jet-lagged (Reply 19): To me it makes perfect sense that you won't see a need from the China side for A380s (excluding Hong Kong perhaps). It is a huge country, about the size of the U.S. with lots of new and competing airports, and a number of roughly equally sized airlines. When authorities want to build a new airport or expand an existing one, they don't get mired down in disputes with farmers or NIMBY protestations. My opinion is that the aviation market will look a lot more like the North American model

Partially correct, considering the number of midsized cities (500K to one mil) and cities of over one million in each province, with current rate of growth, what we see in US, you can equate RJ services to 737/A320, 737/A320 to A330/777, 757/767 to 747 or equivalent, as mentioned earlier, when you have so many cities to connect from a major hub (safe to say many more than current US airline hubs), you may only be able to offer 2-5 flights aday, compared to 8 to 12.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 41): Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): Boeing's marketing says that some 20% of traffic at "slot-constrained" airports like LHR and NRT are planes larger then the 773/A346 with the majority more in the 772/A343 range or smaller. I would be interested in where this number comes from. My understanding of both LHR and NRT (which frankly are the only airports outside of cargo that would justify a VLA) is that the number is well below 20% now and falling.

It comes from Boeing's China presentation.

Based on OAG August 2005 numbers, LHR shows 13% of departure traffic is planes with more then 300 seats. At PEK, it is 8% (75% below 200 seats). PVG is 11% (58% below 200). CAN is 7% (86% below 200).

HKG is 37%, but 744-sized departures have dropped by half the past decade with 777/A340-sized planes increasing.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 44): I think your comment proved the point....look at how many points you just listed....777/787/340/350 with multiple frequencies will do a lot!

What would make my wife & I very happy would be a direct flight from newark to wuhan china . Now that I think about it , it would take about the same amount of time to fly to PEK as it would wuhan from EWR . We could eliminate that stop in Beijing , taking hours off travel time & possiblly save some $$$ too . All that would be needed is a minor course change . Oh , and a Boeing 787 !   


Halibut

[Edited 2005-10-15 21:47:14]

Quoting Halibut (Reply 47): What would make my wife & I very happy would be a direct flight from newark to wuhan china . Now that I think about it , it would take about the same amount of time to fly to PEK as it would wuhan from EWR . We could eliminate that stop in Beijing , taking hours off travel time & possiblly save some $$$ too . All that would be needed is a minor course change . Oh , and a Boeing 787 !

It needs one more thing: an Open Skies treaty between the US and China.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 41): Your assumption might need to be made more explicit.

Ok, then let me rephrase: Boeing never felt the market was commercially big enough to justify development of a VLA

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 41): So far there is zero evidence that there is a market large enough to sustain the A380 and the 747 at the same time.

I have to respectfully disagree with this. The 380 and 747 occupy different segments of the market. In other words, the 747 is NOT competing with the 380 per se. Yes, I realize there are some carriers running their 747's at capacity and will swap them out for 380's but for the most part the 380 is aimed at the 500+ pax routes. Obviously, the 747 cannot and never will compete in that market segment.

However, there MIGHT be enough of a market for the 380 in the 500+ pax segment. I emphasize "might" because the jury is still out on that assessment.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 41): The recent orders for 747s-400 each take away a prospective order for a A380.

Again, as I said above, they don't necessarily compete with one another so that statement may or may not be true on a case-by-case basis. However, I do think what each order does reflect is the fact that the 747 is far from "dead" as many in this forum have prophesized in the past and, in fact, demand remains strong for that model. Perhaps a better way to look at it is each sale of the 747 represents a lost opportunity for Airbus because they have a gap between the 346 and the 380. So if an airline is looking specifically to accommodate 380 - 450 passengers on a particular route then the 747 is the ONLY option available. Of course, there hasn't been a passenger version of the 747 sold in a couple of years so that could be a moot point.