A very very good post Jet setter,

One remark however:
As for the cruising speed, I wonder if it makes a huge difference if on a flight London-Sydney of about let's say 22 hours or so, you can save 30 minutes!
This is about the time you can loose at the baggage claim if you are so unlucky that your piece of lugage is the last one off the plane....
It might just be that the guy arriving in the "smaller" and "slower" A340 20 minutes behind you leaves the airport earlier, simply because his luggage was disembarked more rapidly then yours from the "larger" and "faster" B777....

 

An other remark to Jet Setters post: as an economy passenger I prefere by fare the A 330/340 over the 777. 8 abreast is always much better than 9 or 10.

Jet Setter wrote:
The A3XX is going ahead as we speak. It will have taken around 10 years from initial design to service entry. If Boeing decides to go ahead with the "787," Do you think airlines will sit around for 10 years and wait for it when they have a comparable aircraft that they could have much sooner?
----------------------------

We will know within the next year whether or not the A3XX is a success. And I think that will be the crucial time in which Boeing decides whether to build the 747X or to go ahead and start from scratch and design a product faster, wider, etc., than the A3XX. Who knows, the 747X may never see the light of day. It all depends on how many orders Airbus gets within the next 10-12 months. Because if it doesn't sell now, it will never sell. Obviously, this theory of mine is no good if Boeing waits until the A3XX actually sees daylight to begin develoment on its own all new superjumbo. But Boeing isn't that dumb. I think Boeing's 787, should it ever be conceived, would trail the A3XX by no more than 3 years, more likely by one or two. Remember that Airbus isn't really all that far along in development. All we've seen in artistic renderings.

Jet Setter wrote:
Financially for Boeing it would also not make sense, they would have to answer this very difficult question for their (probably angry) shareholders;
Why did you spend X million dollars developing the 747X, and then 5 years later spend X billion dollars developing the 787 to make the 747 and all the initial investment obsolete?
------------------------
Boeing managed to convince its shareholders that an all new twinjet was better than a 767 stretch, and then, after the all new twinjet was designed, Boeing managed to convince its shareholders that a 767 stretch was still needed even though they already had an all new twinjet. So I don't think expenditure on design or overlapping designs is a valid argument.

Pat

Hi AirCanada SFO,

So, "Airbus is doing it on government money!"

As Boeing did with the 707 which got it started in the civil jet transport business.

I quote R E G Davies, of the Smithsonian Museum in his excellent book "Airlines of the United States since 1914".

"The Boeing Type 367-80...made its first flight on 15 July 1954. It was developed from the B47 bomber and incorporated the same design principles, such as engine installation in pods suspended from the wings...
......Boeing gambled on the Air Force having to specify a fast tanker to refuel the B47 and B52 bombers in flight. The gamble (i.e the build cost of the dash 80)
paid off; the Air Force ordered a production batch of tankers in March 1955; Boeing immediately offered the 707 to the airlines"

So Boeing built the Dash 80 at their risk, but incorporated what they had learned, at Government expense, from the B47.

Michael J Taylor, Editor of Janes' "All the World's Aircraft" states in his publication "Commercial Airliners":

"The prototype of the Model 707 was the company designated 367-80 but this prototype had a dual purpose. Initially it was with military orders in mind that Boeing produced the 367-80, as a private venture, designed as a modern, high speed replacement of the ...C97...

The Model 367-80 first flew in July 1954. A year later Boeing was given permission by the military to produce commercial airliners based on the Model 367-80 and to construct them simultaneously with USAF production KC135 Stratotankers."

i.e the US Government, aware that Boeing could transfer technology and costs from one project to the other, sought to allow Boeing the chance to build an airliner and protect jobs in the Pacific NW.

Back now to Davies, (items in brackets are my comments):

"Boeing was forced to change its (707) fuselage...
Boeing outsold Douglas because of a two year lead (though the first orders, from Pan American, were placed on the same day) and lower price.

Both companies lost money on the programmes. Douglas wrote off $300 million in development up to the end of 1960. Boeing was slightly better off, because of partial commonalitywith the military tanker, with which much of the development costs could be shared ." (my italics).

Both airliners lost money per airframe sale because they had to be "hard sold" to airlines, still wary after the Comet problems, flush with new DC and Lockheed propliners and not a little concerned of how to convince the public that jet flight was safe, whilst covering training and operational costs. How much discount was given away we'll never know.

Douglas got left behind Boeing because many of the problems on the KC135, which Boeing was given money for to fix in a hurry, were the same problems that arose on the 707 line. Douglas didn't have that luxury.

The ongoing KC135 orders continued to subsidise Boeing's 707 losses. It was only the success of the 727/737 projects which made the commercial aircraft arm of Boeing a financially sound concern and the fuselage of both of these was a 707/KC135 chopped for length.

Douglas, without the support of a similar military airframe from which it could cross subsidise, had far less of a success with the DC8 (including major costs in stretching it to get more sales) and was eventually driven to merge with McDonnell.

So let's not have any cries of "foul" regarding Airbus and government money. The European governments are doing what they have been elected to do - support commercial initiative and ensure job prospects.

Before any airline buys into the the Airbus thinking of a jumbo jet with the thinking of it being a "Cruise ship" in the sky they need to think about the fact that airlines will put seats in that space, not a lounge. I really dont think SIA will spend 200 million on a plane to waste space on a bar. SIA might have an advantage in buying the Airbus jumbo that other airlines dont, that is they have the space at the Singapore airport to make the changes needed to handle this aircraft. London doesnt. LAX? Dont think so. ORD? Funny!!! JFK, SFO, ATL,....all the same, no room and no need for a plane like that. The US airlines on the other hand have ro real need for this aircraft. Unlike SIA whose has LHR-SIN, and has the traffic to maybe defend buying this Airbus plane, no US airline has a route that will make buying this plane reasonable. I agree that the 777 family and the new 764 will make Boeing's future. Unlike most I dont think people will enjoy being on a plane for up to 16 hours with 500 others. Even being one who thinks airlines should use more wide-bodies to cut down on the delays, 500 people on a plane is a little too much.

Ok, very nice....so what military project is Airbus developing to defend and protect the people whose raped paychecks are being used to fund the development of the A3XX? Is the A3XX something Airbus is developing that European militaries need to do their jobs defending their countries, which would then allow them to offer it to the airlines as an added bonus? What technology is being derived from this program by Airbus to benefit the taxpayers of Europe? NONE. NO COMPARISON. PERIOD.

And, at this point, who cares? The aircraft is now significantly closer to getting the go-ahead. So far, we have a whopping 32 orders for it. No matter what icing you put on it, it is a severe blow to Boeing. However, people seem to get into this mode of thinking that this A3XX is the end-all be-all. Boeing is not going to fold because of this project. Airlines will still need other aircraft, even those of the current 747's size. SQ has even said it will order more 747-400s...they still have options. If they do order it, why wouldn't they want a 747-400X, which is a much more advanced bird? So, settle down, and stop arguing about the viability of a project that is going to go forward, come hell or high water.

I'd be very interested to know how Changi has more space than the other airports you mention to handle the A3XX.

As for LHR, Terminal 5 will be built to handle just such aircraft and the other airports will adapt. They've been talking about it for longer than Airbus and Boeing have had design concepts.

If they start their detailed planning now, there is plenty of time to pour any concrete needed in good time for the bigger aircraft becoming regular visitors, rather than one or two per day per airport.

In any case, given the increase in numbers, there is no major problem loading and unloading and IATA and ICAO are already pushing for Airbus to ensure gate time is not much more than 10% longer than the average 747 turnround. Airports Council International have done studies which point to most problems being to do with wingtip clearances on taxiways and the need for "fillets" on runway turn-offs.

The aircraft "footprint" on the gate has already been frozen within the current 747 gate parameters.

As to people flying on the aircraft, please come into the real world. If you want to go somewhere, you buy a ticket, turn up for the flight and get on board.

That is the essence of transport - a carrier offers a means of getting there, you trust to their integrity and safety and take the ride be it with 5 or 500 people.

Not a business major I see.....Airbus would have to make a $200,000,000 PROFIT on 60 planes to break even, not just sell 60 planes at $200,000,000! Materials and labor are figured in with that price, unless all of Europe is going to pull together and provide the materials and labor for free for the first 60 units.

Pat, i agree with you. Boeign really has the advantage over Airbus now.

And note that the A340-500/-600 was also launched before Boeing pushed for the 77X. Now the 777X can excel the A345/-6, like 777X has a higher cruise speed and more range.

If this pattern continues, the 747X will problably some what advanced than the A3XX. The 747 is a legend and one of mankind's greatest achievements. there is no quesiton to that. and i say that Boeing will go for the 747X project to continue the legend for another 30/40 years. I personally like Boeings over Airbuses (i don't like all airbus products except for the A340/A330).

Lastly, airlines like BA, and CX are looking at the 747X seriously. Also QF have rejected plans to buy the A3xx (i know someone inside QF who told me this, and he even showed me a A3xx 1/200 model in QF colours!). QF wants commonality and they know that spare parts for Airbus jets are expensive (previous experience with the A300). Also, hint hint hint; QF might even buy the 767-400ERX to replace 767-300ERs, and not purchase any 777s.

to all the pro-airbus people out there, i don't want to offend any of you. but Boeing improves their product continuously to give a sharper edge over Airbus products. The new composite new wing for the 737NG is only one example.

Boeing rulz 4ever!!!!

Cwapilot,

Please explain the total twaddle you wrote in the first para in reply to my post.

As some have pointed out, Boeing's response to A3xx is to build a 747 stretch. First building a 747 stretch and then an all-new model is a stupid waste of money and a world-class company like Boeing is very unlikely to do it.

Doing the stretch is a feasible and sensible thing to so, since it _is_ cheaper than building an all-new plane. If you have lemons, make lemonade.

The obvious downside is that the product as such won't be as snappy as a brand new one. However, there are many airlines in the world and some are bound to buy 747X eventually.

Boeing does lose prestige in the affair, since sticking with 747 derivatives means they're letting Airbus build the "flagship" to the world's most eminent fleets. However, up to now Boeing has had that distinction and it hasn't hurt Airbus overmuch, so Boeing will likely do just fine without.

In a way A3xx is Airbus's masterstroke, since they turned Boeing's pride and centerpiece into a sort of liability, since it would be uneconomical for Boeing to not use it for new derivatives, thus limiting the products Boeing can offer. All in all, it will be business as usual with A3xx and 747X around for both companies.

Jet Setter:
International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) is based in Los Angeles, CA.  

Anyways, to comment on the issue at hand, Boeing should certainly be monitoring the A3XX seriously, with 32 orders currently and most likely more to come (whatever happened to those orders that are sealed and we don't know who the buyers are?), this hits Boeing at a market they've had to themselves for quite some time.

Granted I think the A3XX will never be a flying cruise ship as it is sometimes portrayed, I think it will be popular. Right now it's seen as somewhat of a prestige issue or grade school "ooh, they have one! I want one!" type mindset, but it's full value probably has yet to be realized. It could become one heck of a freighter, talk about cargo space!

SFO's new International Terminal has been built with 12 gates that can accomodate ULA's, such as the A3XX, JFK probably is building T4 with the same type of things, and LHR, NRT, SIN, and other big airports will almost definately follow suit.

Moi,
Kai

Neil, I don't understand your math. How can 60 A3XX's pay back a $12 Billion development tag?!!! Are you saying each A3XX sold is pure profit?!!! Do they not pay their employees, or pay for engines, avionics, materials etc..?!!! We were just talking a couple of days ago that if Airbus sells 200 A3XX's, each one would have to have a PROFIT of $60,000,000!!! That's pretty healthy!!! If they sell 400 of them, $30,000,000 each may be possible if they have no competition for the seating capacity.

I agree. But don't forget United, Atlas, and Cargolux have expressed strong interest as well. I hope Boeing continues the 747 for 30 more years too! It is just the best plane out there.

To all the Airbus guys out here, there's nothing wrong with improving one of the best designs ever. I wouldn't care if the 747 frame was designed in the 1800's, it still is a great design and will be improved on for many years to come. There may come to be a completly different plane than today's 747, but when that different plane rolls out of the Boeing plant, it will still carry the numbers "747" on it's tail.

The 747 is a proven desighn. 30 years and going strong. It obviously is the better design. There just isnt any comparison. Does the 747 have that noise problem the A3XX has? They already downgraded the A3XX range. The 747 range just keeps growing. The A3XX model is barely in the computer, how can they have all these numbers and figures. I smell McD and the MD11. The 747 was a winner 30 years ago and has become a legend. Legends never die. 13000 boeings in the sky and 3000 other. Sorry Airbus fans, Boeing will be with us for a long time.

Airbus is a great company but they just arent better then Boeing. I will say Boeing isnt better than Airbus either. We are just a bunch of aviation fans and in the scheme of things it really doesent matter what we think. Lets try not to hurt eachother on purpose just to make ourselves feel better.

Boeing747-400 wrote:
-------------------------------
I agree. But don't forget United, Atlas, and Cargolux have expressed strong interest as well. I hope Boeing continues the 747 for 30 more years too! It is just the best plane out there.

To all the Airbus guys out here, there's nothing wrong with improving one of the best designs ever. I wouldn't care if the 747 frame was designed in the 1800's, it still is a great design and will be improved on for many years to come. There may come to be a completly different plane than today's 747, but when that different plane rolls out of the Boeing plant, it will still carry the numbers "747" on it's tail.

-------------------------------

All well and good..but the $64,000.00 question is:

Will anyone buy it?


When someone materializes then this question will be of course -moot-.

But, I also question the real costs involved with the 747X, and with PhilB's comments in mind, this airplane is probably going to be over the estimated $4 billion when it comes time to iron out the whole thing.

Will the final costs by Boeing be justified in a program that might very well be quite surpassed by the A3XX overall in it's lifetime? Couldnt Boeing have spent it's money far better on a true competitor?

Some musings a shareholder might ask no?

So far, the competition is up 32 to 0.

MAC

Delta orderd MD-11s. Now they're ditching them for 777s.
American ordered MD-11s. Now they're ditching them for 777s.
Singapore Airlines ordered A340s. They may ditch them for more 777s (have they already?)

If you have a superior product it will sell.

Boeing had to compete for the B-47 contract and it was a revolutionary design. Yes, most of the basic principles of large, high speed jets came from it, but Boeing competed for and won the right to build them. They weren't subsidized. Ditto for the KC-135.

And the A3XX is going to come right on 12bill. A3XX has already had a stumble. Like I said before "I smell McD and the MD-11".

Oh really?

Smell MD-11 and MCDD?

Really now, Airbus is the same company McDonnell Douglas was back in the early 90s?

Does Airbus practice "TQMS", alienating it's employees (some of which appeared on Phil Donohue's old talk-show detailing the incredible bullsh*t these people went through), management in chaos, designing airplanes on paper napkins, product line in chaos, fingerpointing at engine makers, employees, and for that matter; the man on the moon!

I think not!

Airbus is NOT McDonnell Douglas.

How can you dismiss a company that has been designing an airplane for over 10 years, versus one that virtually "slapped one together" in the early 90s, followed by CIP programs to correct it?

What I smell is yet another halfbaked, groundless, factless smear of the A3XX.
That's what I smell.

You need to get yourself a copy of the Airways Magazine expose from 1997 timeframe detailing the "Death of Douglas DC-10 and MD-11" They are two seperate issues that you may be able to acquire from Airways. If you get them, or find them at an Airliner swap meet, then read them, you'll come away with a far more educated understanding than the utterances I am replying to.

Jeez, this is fun!

MAC

Absolutely Incredible MD-90!

So you are willing to dismiss quotes by PhilB from the well respected R.E.G. Davies work, (works that I've read also).

For your information:

Mr Davies is a curator of the Smithsonian Institution Air and Space Museum. He just made it up and felt like putting it there..correct? What R.E.G. Davies wrote is false?

R.E.G Davies is probably one of the most thorough authors in airline/aerospace history one could ever want. He's a national treasure.

But according to MD-90, it appears he (or is it "R.E. Babe" in year 2000 speak) wrote pure BS. Sure seems that way.

(Now, to embellish/repeat a blatantly mean spirited, vindictive SOB comment from another post: The wonders our education system produces! Simply Amazing!)

MAC



MD-90 wrote:
-------------------------------
Delta orderd MD-11s. Now they're ditching them for 777s.
American ordered MD-11s. Now they're ditching them for 777s.
Singapore Airlines ordered A340s. They may ditch them for more 777s (have they already?)

If you have a superior product it will sell.

Boeing had to compete for the B-47 contract and it was a revolutionary design. Yes, most of the basic principles of large, high speed jets came from it, but Boeing competed for and won the right to build them. They weren't subsidized. Ditto for the KC-135.

The 747X hasn't even been launched yet, it may never. Boeing may introduce a new plane that they've been designing for the past years in preparation for A3XX. How could you say the scor is 32 to 0???? It should just be a plain 32. THe 747X hasn't been launched yet.

With the posts you are making it appear the 747X has been launched.

The only Boeing widebody airplane that has been launched this year is the 777X. If I were a Boeing shareholder, with regards to this 747X business, I'd be damn nervous considering the plans they have (or dont) short term and even more importantly, long term.

If Boeing could commit to a longer term goal of launching a REAL A3XX competitor rather than wasting all this money on a 747X, the money would be FAR better spent on a true competitor. A competitor that is offered in at least two varying sizes to give them market flexibility, attracting the lower end at 550 pax and a higher end at 690+, with growth to 1000 pax if need be.

Boeing is a company that CAN design something like this. Unfortunately it has a board in there that I can only deduce as confused and angered at having to compete using new designs again. Visionary thinking seems no-where at BCAG, correct that view may be or not, but that's how I feel. They could have a *REAL* contest with Airbus and one that could be quite rewarding.

It's so damned frustrating seeing a company with such capability p*ss away an opportunity like this (along with $4 billion minimum to boot) and then see people agree with it.

Boeing and it's shareholders would be best served by building a true competitor product, get a new sheet of paper out and design something airlines would want in 2020, 2030..etc!, not one that I can only deduce as an expensive, $4 billion dollar -piddly- attempt to poach off A3XX sales short term, and in many ways satisfying their own egoes against Airbus. They know Airbus has something great in the A3XX, they just never will admit it.

Unfortunately, given the way many companies operate these days, it's all very short term fixated, long term planning and foresight postponed to a later date.

MAC

Hi MD90,

So whilst I've been asleep here in Europe your vibrant inquisitive teenage mind has been investigating what went on when your Pop was just a twinkle in your Granfather's eye  , or perhaps it hasn't.

When you go into High School on Monday morning, pay a visit to the history department and ask the head of department three questions:

1. How do I find good reading and research material on 20th century US political and commercial history?

2. Do people who have lived through events have valid memories of those events or are only TV newsclips and history seen in the movies valid.

3. How can I learn to keep fact and myth apart and how do historians keep a balanced, unbiased approach?

When you get the answers, you'll probably be told that quoting your sources is also a good idea.

So please, your sources which refute mine?

The fact is, you can't face that 747X will beat the A3XX very soon. As i have mentioend b4, several key airlines are lookiung seriously into the 747X instead of the A3XX.

I think the fundamental rejection of the A3XX by some readers on this forum is simply because this biggest plane ever is not an American plane.
Claims like: if it isn't American, it can't be flying right, are very similiar to German Nazi propaganda from the 1940s....

Pandora,

The converse of your "argument" (?) is also true.

Those of us with a little more experience of life have been through the C5 competition, L1011 v DC10, 1-11 v DC9 and a host of others.

History, commercial needs (which change faster than the seasons) and human nature dictate that if there is a product which is viable, cost effective and produces results, it will be bought if marketed properly.

The crux of all this A3XX v B747X row is that, for the first time in the jet age, Boeing has not been the first to launch a major, long haul, commercial jet.

No one yet KNOWS which will be better (whatever parameters you apply to that word) but from published data we can deduce the following:

Airbus has a relatively fixed airframe and engines with some work still to do, Boeing does not.

Airbus are offering a totally new product, Boeing, at present, is not though their own thinking indicates that the greater percentage of the 747X will end up as new build technology.

Because Airbus are ahead in their programme, they have orders, Boeing does not.

What will happen in 2006, 2010 and beyond will not be as we see it now (I won't bore the readers with the thousands of economic and aviation predictions - often spouted by "experts" - which have proved wrong in the last ten years alone).

Either way, Boeing and Airbus will sell whatever they build unless they build an absolute turkey and neither company is badly managed enough to do that - even the 757-300 will eventually sell in volume.

So, unfortunately, most of the posts on this topic which declaim one mfg and defame the other are nothing short of meaningless garbage put about by ill informed supporters who have attached themselves to a type or a manufacturer, in the way they support a football or baseball team and many of them are written by teens who, by the content of the postings, haven't taken the time to research "the rest of the story"

Folks,

For those who think that the Boeing 707 project was paid for by government money: you must be kidding.  

Anyone who's read any good book on this plane knows that Boeing essentially bet the worth of the company to develop this plane pretty much as a private venture. While it did borrow a lot of ideas from the B-47 bomber (perhaps one of the most revolutionary planes ever built), remember the USAF at the time of the go-ahead for the 707 was not yet looking for a jet-powered air-refuelling plane.

I think that Airbus will have to sell at least 275-300 A3XX's in order for them to recoup their costs. It'll be interesting to see if the airlines of China, Korea and Japan will buy them on a large scale. Given that the 777-200 carries around 320 pax in a three-class setup, no wonder it's selling like hotcakes.

Raymond,

I reckon over the last 45 years (since I was 8 years old) I've read just about anything I could get my hands on concerning the B707 - as well as any other airliner.

I've also talked to many people in the USA and elsewhere, from Boeing and from government and have had the opportunity to read the journals of the time, both when they were published and since.

The B367-80 was built as a gamble by Boeing. It incorporated much of the engineering developed for the B47 which was paid for by the US Govt.

The KC135 was built (and I defy anyone to come up with the price per airframe of the standard production machines, let alone the "special editions") to order of the Department of Defense for the USAF and Boeing had to get permission to offer the 707, which originally shared the same fuselage width, as well as just about everything else.

All the problems found on the 135 were rectified at the expense of a Government that was urgently requiring a 24hr, permanently in the air jet bomber force - spurred by the fictional bomber and missile gaps.

The 707 development costs, therefore, were heavily discounted as Boeing had the answers to any problems available from the 135 programme. The only major exception to this was the lateral stability problem, first highlighted by the UK CAA, which led to the taller fin and underside stabilator on the civil aircraft.

Cross fertilisation of ideas is no crime. Using it to commercial advantage isn't either so long as no secrecy laws are broken.

But crying foul when another project is directly government funded, or covering up exactly how much of a massive advantage Boeing gained from the 135 project and the limitless sums invested in it by the Dept of Defense, is denying the realities of life.

Leaders make new airplanes, followers just stretch, pull and give the result a new name.... The big difference here is that the Airbus 3XX is a brand new airplane, and the 747X will just be another stretch. To the guy that smells MD11, I can only say that the smell must come from somewhere in Seattle since the 747X would be pretty much what MD did to the DC10, made it longer, more range and a couple of other things and called it the MD11... (same with the MD90) Then the they said "Who would want to buy an aircraft from a company with shorter life expectancy than the aircraft".... Well, well....Where are you now? Airbus leads in innovation and technology and designs new aircraft which gives them an an advantage for the future!!! The 747X will not be a new aircraft, it will be another "upgrade". Wonder what their slogan is going to be.......

Pandora,

'The fact is, you can't face that 747X will beat the A3XX very soon. As i have mentioend b4, several key airlines are lookiung seriously into the 747X instead of the A3XX......'......you really seem like a person who's having a hard time bitting the bullet and accepting that the first war between the A3XX and the 747X was one by Airbus.........yes, many other airlines are considering the 747X, and many more are considering the A3XX......

The advantage the 747X has over the A3XX is that is has a proven design, commonality obviously with other 747 models, and airlines are used to it...the advantage the A3XX has is that it's bigger, sets new standards and if an airline's competitor has them, then that competitor WILL have to buy them, literally whether they like it or not.......

Boeing's problem at the moment is that while they're stalling, they are losing key orders........the SIA loss was a severe one for Boeing.....I have no doubt that if Boeing had something concrete on the table, they would have one that battle.....

As for the argument that Boeing can build a new one whenever they want, they can't...Condit openly stated the capital wasn't available to run two projects concurrently.....

As for the noise, as I've said multiple times, it wasn't the engines, it was the aerodynamic whistle, and Boeing will face the EXACT same problem when they develop the 747X.......

....B747-400, this argument that Boeing may have thousands of engineers living in underground bunkers with an aircraft already designed to compete with the A3XX is sad at best, and really shows a lack of knowledge regarding aircraft design and manufacturing, maybe you should just stick to flying them....

.....if airlines even bother to consider the A3XX, it shows there is a need for them.......period.....

.....and those of you who think American airlines are not considering the A3XX, I could bring you to your knees with a list of US airlines who have submitted A3XX routes to Airbus to have them analysed......

Well you are all getting carried away. BoeingB747-400 I still think you are so so immature. If you know so much about Boeing from girlfriends, family members, brothers, sisters etc. why did you never hear of Boeings NLA plans. Most of yopur posts have been anti Airbus. You have allways repeated what others have said (often repeating exactly was was said in Boeing press releases) They were published in a very respected aviation magasine a few months ago. It even includes pictures!

This is the B747x (nothing new there):



These are the new planes. One C-17 look-alike , designated the Model 763-241, with a high wing, four underslung turbofans and an enormous T-tail, 20.1m to 21.3m high depending on configuration. The aircraft's span was 80m and length overall was 76.25m. Windtunnel tests on a model showed the design was capable of Mach 0.9-plus cruise speeds.




and one 777 look-alike with 4 engines. After many alterations, the resulting design (one of which was the Model 763-246) showed a 14,300km range aircraft with seats for 454. An extended-range version of the design, which included innovative features such as a composite wing, revealed the range potential for 16,600km missions. A stretch was also outlined which could seat up to 547, with optional overhead sleeping accommodation for 82. The aircraft's 35° swept wing had a span of 80m, and a length of 73.5m for the standard version, and 80.2m for the stretch. MTOW ranged from 471,200kg to 532,500kg for the larger version, and maximum zero fuel weight ranged from 331,900kg to 340,500kg respectively. Extensive use of composites in the main wing box, flight control surfaces and empennage was also planned, as was the use of drag-reducing features such as riblets, laminar flow nacelles and "programmable" flaps. The aircraft was also envisioned with fly-by-wire flight control and a wing load alleviation system. The design also incorporated a five-post main gear with a total of 20 wheels, with the two aft gear trucks steerable to 26°.

I am sure that we may be able to look forward to one of these in the next 10-15 years. Maybe even less. Its an exciting time ahead for us aviation enthusiasts!

Jeremiah Teahan

Here we go again...While the A3XX may or may not be a better plane, if I were the CFO of AI I would be drinking a lot! As others have stated, the development costs ar ESTIMATED at 12 billion dollars. Plus the Manufacturing costs of X? Estimated list selling price of 200 million apiece..Well, we all know that projects such as this will have significant cost overruns. How much? Who knows. While AI may sell 40,50 or even 100 of them I think they may have bitten off a bit more than even the taxpayers of Europe can chew.
What is the breakeven load factor of this plane? What will happen when a severe economic downturn hits, and it will, the global economy?(Some of us remember the early 70's...Will the last person leaving Seattle turn off the lights!)
Time will tell, but IMHO, this project may cost AI its life, or at a minimum the more socialist leaning Gov't of western Europe a lot of Euros that may not have.

About your comment about Boeing Shareholders being really nervous, If you had been paying any attention to Boeings stock you would see that the stock has gone from $35 to 64 in a few months, man those shareholders are really nervous about buying Boeing stock arent they?  

What do you mean? I have known about the NLA plans. The aircraft looks almost like an AXX, but better. The NLA plans were dropped in favor of newer 747 plans.

Just because I didn't mention them doesn't mean I don't know 'em.  

Only one family member works at Boeing, so stop listing all of sisters, girfrieds, etc.

BTW, to everyone, how can you say Airbus is ahead in they're project. Ahead of what????? The 747X hasn't even been launched yet, so they can't be compared in sales yet. Who knows, there may never be a 747X, Boeing could announce any second what they've been doing in preparation for the A3XX, it may be something completly different then what the 747X looks like, but it will probably hold the numbers "747" on it's tail when it rolls out of the Boeing factory. Boeing could just be using the 747X to hind the real plane they've been designing. Who knows? It will give the A3XX a big challenge, we'll have to wait and see.

I laugh at that Widebody. Just keep your wishes going for airlines like United, etc. to order A3XX. Sure, the airlines that you could list are interested in A3XX, but they are more interested in the 747X. Don't be expecting to see the A3XX in US colors, but keep on dreaming.  

Boeing747-400, as for your other argument, UA does not care about fleet commonality. Then again, why did they go for the A320 when they could have gone for the 737-400, which shares cockpit commonality with the 733 and 735 that they already operated at that time? UA certainly knows about operating economics and they would choose the aircraft that they find best fit for their routes.

Besides, isn't it time for the 747 to give up the crown that it has had for over 30 years?

The breakeven load factor of an A3xx-100 is (according to AI) 58 % (323 pax), compared to 70% (290 pax) for 744. The difference is only about 30 passengers, so a downturn that would affect A3xx would also affect already-existing 744s. The 30 passenger difference also means (assuming it's realized) that the A3xx can fly profitably (in 2006) on almost any route that currently supports a 744.