The A3xx is upon us. But who will buy it? I think where it would be successful is in the Asia Pacific rim, since ANA and JAL already use 747SR's and they aren't enough. Even with high load factors on other routes, I really wonder how economical it will really be. Remember fuel prices are going up. In the early 70's the US went 747 crazy, flying on routes like NY to Miami, but found it was hard to fill and expensive to run on a short route (and that demand leveled off from the heady days of the 60's). There was such a rush at the begining in 1970-72 but all the airlines like like American, Delta and Eastern dumped them. (yes they were waiting for the Tristar/DC-10 but it is a good example of the science of load planning) It appears that the operators of the really long range a/c's like the A340/330 and 777 and 747-400 seem to be happy with them and operate them economically. I really think the A3xx will have limited appeal because of how much traffic will grow in light of costs of fuel/tickets and the initial purchase price. I don't blame Boeing for being conservative on this issue.

Why start a new thread with an old argument that has been done to death on at least two other threads over the past 2 weeks?

You state nothing new, don't extend the range of discussion and your economic projection contradicts everything that every long term indicator points to.

Still, I suppose your nom de plume says it all.

I am new here, miskeyed, so lighten up.

My nom de plume has no bearing on objectivity. Remember "51", the number 4 airline in the US, is the biggest Airbus customer in the US, which says something doesn't it? BTW, I don't have any affiliation with NW except that I flew them overseas a few times and like their livery.

I also differ on economics. I remember when oil prices went up in '73 and '80 and how Marana filled up with big planes. I don't think people (except for business flyers who don't have a choice) will shell out for the increases in tickets due to fuel prices.

Really!

OK, understood.

Re fuel prices, in real terms they are now lower than the 1970s and the 2-3 year trend is of no consequence in the 30 year life of an airliner. The overall trend is escalating growth of traffic.

PHil,

Thanks.

Anyway, taking the fuel price factor you state, do you think the A3XX could be used on domestic routes like JFK-LAX? because anything would be better than a 757 red eye....hah!

I also think charters would be successful too. Especially for holiday things and specialty flights like the Hajj.

PS do you have a difinitve source of information on the A3XX?

747-451 ( yeah, I know got some learning to do! You know too much time spent as strcitly a PAX...hah!))

Highly unlikely to offer benefits in the short term on JFK-LAX but if another PeoplExpress comes along, who knows and when the slot crisis hits the US in about 2009, the A3xx and B747X might come into domestic contention, but there are too many imponderables to do anything but speculate.

As for holiday flights and the Hadj, no doubt the time will come.

As to definitive sources on the A3XX, I have some contacts at Airbus but only generally get from them what everyone else does.

I think the A3XX will be a success. Probably not as much as the 747, but I think it will be profitable especially with Asian customers. Asia has a extremely dense population as you know, so probably most of the sales will go Asian carriers. Singapore Airlines has shown the most interest so far and I think later on other airlines like Cathy Pacific will follow. United and Lufthansa are under discussions about the A3XX and might jointly place orders. There is a good chance for United and Lufthansa ordering the A3XX. Fed Ex and other cargo carriers are also quite interested.
Hope that helps!

Kind regards,
BA

PhilB

The 2009 timeframe you mention is quite interesting and compelling.

Some here on this forum seriously "think" that the US is somehow "immune" to the constraints many foriegn airports undergo, yet it's becoming _very_ obvious that as the airways become saturated in the US, the capability to handle traffic must be met somehow...with some means of functionality.

(This follows upon a vastly -flawed- idea that US airspace and airport capacity can go "on and on without worry", which is also espoused by a certain US based aerospace manufacturer (G)..and taken to the extreme again, by some here...(VBG) I wonder if any other -forward thinking- people here can agree with this. It really IS going to happen.

Watch and see how quick Boeing jumps to the SuperJumbo crowd at or around that 2009 timeframe and espouse how "essential it is for airlines to buy it's SuperJumbo"..And I'll also remind how much people will quite 'conveniently forget' the conversations we had in the Year 2000 as well.

The mindless pablum 'dissing Airbus and the A3XX..the "folly" that was..(LOL!) The endless "analyst" reposts on this fora, focused rabidly short term and woefully (stupidly) devoid of any future based thought. Oh, so predictable...so very hilariously predictable..

I should get a crow farm reserved NOW..for I cant imagine the massive amounts of it which -will- be served then..(LOL!)

All the Best
MAC

The A3XX, although bigger, is more economical than the 747-400 in the long run. Fuel is more of a problem on the current 747 than it would be on the A3XX.

Airport congestion is a major problem (Chi, LGA, Washington National). We are always building new airports. No we don't have some of the constraints that Europe has. The US is not Europe. We have different problems.

Capacity is a problem as well. But then again, the A3XX isn't the first huge plane that airlines and airports have had to adjust to. Actually, there area lot of forward thinking people at the airlines. They are concerned about the longevity of their companies. Some airlines can't afford the outlay or to subsidize an oversized aircraft until demand grows (which may or may not). Remember the 70's in the US when some of the domestics bought 747's and ended up getting rid of them even though "research" from "experts" said traffic was growing at such rates? Some where waiting for trijets, others not. But the conclusion was it was hard to fill them. Well alot of people learn from their mistakes.

The A3XX is a necessary development from a company who produces excellent products. It will sell very well. But I don't blame Boeing for saying what they say now and what they may say later. After all, they are public company (and have stockholders to answer to), not a government subsidized concern (where any shortfalls are subsidized by EC taxpayers). That's not a "dis" but a fact.

747-451 wrote:
-------------------------------
Airport congestion is a major problem (Chi, LGA, Washington National). We are always building new airports. No we don't have some of the constraints that Europe has. The US is not Europe. We have different problems.

Add to that Asia as well...Chicago cant even decide on an expansion of O'Hare let alone the third airport in that metro area, Newark is absolutely sapped for expansion capability in the New York area, JFK is having to rebuild itself airsidewise but still constrained, Dulles has to build an addtional terminal and yet it faces incredible opposition to any runway expansion, LAX is so hemmed in Narita would be jealous, as would San Francisco (although it has an awesome terminal rejuvenation/expansion going on, Miami is having to knock down almost it's entire north side concourse area and it northerly aviation services area to build a 4th runway...Boston-Logan is absolutely *crammed* into it's landlocked parcel of space to operate from and no relief in sight short of modest terminal upgrades...We can go on and on and on! Then we can get into the strains of the American ATC system using computers from the 1950s! Oh it gets great after this point...!

yet some will think

"Yeah, we can dump a billion flights through New Yawk and ...no worries"...

Yeah..Right..I'm Bob Hope too!

The fact is, US capacity IS going to run it's full course and by 2009 people HERE will bve wondering where an Airplane like the A3XX has been!

That's the point!

The detractors and denial artistes out there seeking to diss' Airbus (publically traded company as it is called EADS now) cant seem to get through the skull that an airplane like the A3XX -is- needed, and NOW is the time to get it going. But instead of forsighted thought we seemingly subject ourselves to needless time and effort discrediting an idea and design that is truly ahead of it's time because it doesnt -originate here-, which shows the complete LACK of thought some imbibe themselves and comfort themselves upon..


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity is a problem as well. But then again, the A3XX isn't the first huge plane that airlines and airports have had to adjust to. Actually, there area lot of forward thinking people at the airlines. They are concerned about the longevity of their companies. Some airlines can't afford the outlay or to subsidize an oversized aircraft until demand grows (which may or may not). Remember the 70's in the US when some of the domestics bought 747's and ended up getting rid of them even though "research" from "experts" said traffic was growing at such rates? Some where waiting for trijets, others not. But the conclusion was it was hard to fill them. Well alot of people learn from their mistakes.

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

The 70s' was a totally different ballgame!

And with that rationale, Tell that to:

Singapore Airlines
Emirates
Air France
ILFC
GECAS

They obviously think and believe differently!


The A3XX is a necessary development from a company who produces excellent products. It will sell very well. But I don't blame Boeing for saying what they say now and what they may say later. After all, they are public company (and have stockholders to answer to), not a government subsidized concern (where any shortfalls are subsidized by EC taxpayers). That's not a "dis" but a fact.

Who cares about this difference in economic models, we dont need to subjugate Europe nor their system of governance as superior or not to the US system (which is a frequent failing of some US based contributors here to assuage some sort of "guilt complex" upon Euope. The US restablished democracy in Europe and Europe's choice is -theirs-. And as for stockholders to respond to then you need to look at DASA, BAe, EADS, Messerschmitt, CASA, Aerospatiale, etc to see where -stockholders- and companies answer to. This idea that Europe is some vast "Scandinavian Socialist myth" operating off free money is incredible to contemplate!

Which inevitably goes down the path of yet another one-sided scam foisted by some on one side of the pond to point fingers at the other.

I guess we can conveniently dismiss the massive amounts of US taxpayer assisted "Corporate Welfare" to companies like Boeing (*documented* by the CATO Institute mind you (to the tune of $65-75 billion a year!!) of course.

Bambi lives on the western side of the Atlantic, the Wicked Witch of the East on the other...

This "Good (Boeing) versus Evil (Airbus)" fairy tale is incredible to see how it still lives!!

Amazing how fact goes completely unreported..and unaccepted.
Stupidity reigns!

When in a glass house, dont throw stones..

MAC

747-451

You have to understand something from me.

I for one completely dismiss the idea that the US side is somehow a "victim" of European subsidy issues when facts presnet themselves via various outlets, particularly one US based outlet called the CATO Institute which has gone to the trouble of documenting the various methods US government has gone to to support its industrial base. CATO has -proven- subsidy exists on -this- side of the Atlantic, in SPADES!

I suggest a trip over there with about two -three weeks of time devoted to reading the various papers and documents written on it. I have rferred MANY here to it and SOME have learned from it, others unfortunately have not. If you want a -fair- approach and an open mind to something like this. Take a look.
CATO is a Libertarian organization that wants to eliminate this sort of thing. If the United States would eliminate "Corporate Welfare" (and remember the dollar figures mentioned before $64-75 Billion annually) then it would -truly- have a leg to stand on in any sort of trade dispute over Airbus. until then it does NOT have any sort of leg to stand upon and looks quite hypocritical.
The US may attempt to pride itself as a "bastion of free trade" when facts completely contradict this myth.

The US happens to be one of the most **protectionist** of countries as exposed by documented facts (Tariffs to begin with) on this and many other web sources.

http://www.cato.org

Regards
MAC

MAC,

Have you heard of the Gellman Report. The title is Economic and Financial Review of Airbus Industrie by Gellman Research Associates, Inc. If so, is it available for free somewhere in the internet, I've search for it without luck. I'm a cheapo, don't feel like paying $36.50.  


regards,

Arch & Edith

Archie

No I havent but firstly, where did you get the source on that report and second have you heard of the recommendations of some on EADS (Airbus) shares to "outperform"?

I feel EADS -will- outperform and do very well.

Their A32X orders garnered over the past few years are now going into production coupled with the increased number of A330 and A340 aircraft coming into production as well.

I see a stiff 50-50 competition between Boeing and Airbus over the next 3-5 years with Airbus solidly eclipsing Boeing after 6.

Main reason is that Boeing needs a new narrowbody aircraft to replace it's 737NG within the next 6 years and as yet we dont have one, Airbus already has a family established that can -really- grow, widebodywise, the A330-200 is killing the 767-400, the 737 already has peaked in growth with the NG, then factor in the gradual build in orders for Airbus widebodies like the A330-500/A330/A340NG and A3XX to cap off the list.

Boeing NEEDS to define a new narrowbody, a new mid range widebody family and then a new ultra-widebody to really remain competitive with Airbus.

Airbus has a very smart mix for itself with a very capable, pliant and expandable product line over the next 20 years.

Boeing has a winner with the 777 overall poised well for quite a while, the 747-400 Freighter, a very modest response in demand called the 747X. The 737NG will need a true replacement within 5 years. To me, that's about it.

Compare the two product lines and see if you arrive at the same conclusion.

Has Edith 'gotten you a beer yet? (LOL)

MAC

Oh no you you woke up MAC. He is the master of BS.

MAC,

From what I can recall, it was commissioned by the Commerce Department in 1987 investigating Airbus's profitability. For diplomatic reason it was suppressed initially, but was released in 1990.

I don't want to get into a subsidies debate, it's getting tiresome. I just thought that you might have some knowledge about this report. Like I said, don't want to pay $36.50, but I might have to...  


regards,

Arch

burp! thanks for the beer dingbat. 

Such needless vitriol. Let's see, beat up on someone with a differing point of view, that's what nerd forums are for....

I am not looking to start a war over Airbus vs. Boeing. Both have their vices and virtues. Both make excellent planes, congratulations on the A3XX.

I stand by my comments on Airbus and Boeing. I am well aware of the CATO report, so what? I know the members of Airbus are public companies too, but Airbus as a consortium is subsidized, very well I surmise, since taking on a project of such scope as the A3XX will attest, because it is a ground up project, not a derivitive. (12 Billion USD?).

Here are some more "facts".The US didn't write the book on "corporoate welfare" by any means. Consortiums and government sponsored monopolies are the norm in Europe and Asia and are fiercely guarded with restrictive protectionist laws worse than anything in the US. Eurpoe "subjugated"?, really....don't be so melodramatic, since I never said that...

Asia and Europe don't get it right either. I have had my share of and seen many problems at Nartia, Kai Tak (r.i.p.) and Degualle among others.

Economics is a concept lost on "purists". Airlines think long and hard about what to buy and will it be a profit or a loss.

Actually, the 70's aren't that different. I remember them. Everyone thought the DC-8-6x and 707-320 were the biggest and then the 747 arrives. Everyone falls all over themselves to get it, few keep it; realizing that the DC-10 and (superb!) L1011 fit the bill. Then fuel prices go up. Alright, so what's so different? Not that much. Overdoing it with flying too-large planes into crappy airports (history repeats itself). Just what we need at JFK or OHare. 600+ pax on several planes arriving at once. A flood of people at the airport and traffic all over coming and going. I've thought about it sitting in traffic by the airport....sure throwing bigger planes is always better? Spare me the geography lesson in the airports.

Yes, don't point your finger or throw stones in your glass house either.

747-451 wrote:
-------------------------------
Such needless vitriol. Let's see, beat up on someone with a differing point of view, that's what nerd forums are for....
-----------------------------------------

That's not vitriol...thats pointing out the glaring flaws in your argument. I cant stand it when we seek to dismiss one side (protectively) and not open up the floor for discussion. Then when confronted with not so pretty information exposing something, we call it 'vitriol'. Come on, let's discuss this. Lets expose all sides on this.

------------------------------------------
I stand by my comments on Airbus and Boeing. I am well aware of the CATO report, so what? I know the members of Airbus are public companies too, but Airbus as a consortium is subsidized, very well I surmise, since taking on a project of such scope as the A3XX will attest, because it is a ground up project, not a derivitive. (12 Billion USD?).


------------------------------------
I deduce from your comments then that it's better to dismiss CATO and proceed onwards not discussing the US role in the "subsidy pie"? Avoiding it?
Sorry, but I wont let that one go.

US government backed subsidy exists and it continues to.

The issue that I would love to get my hands into the dollar figures that existed from the late 1950s to the present day. I just cant imagine how far off the charts it goes.

CATO only exposes a few years worth of this "shell game". What went on during the 60s, 70s and 80s? Has anyone wanted to know?

I'll bet my next paycheck that if this were exposed, the number exceeds -ANYTHING- Airbus Industrie ever received over it's lifetime. Count it all up.

The glaring difference between Airbus Industrie and US Aerospace Corporate Welfare is that at least the European side acknowledged it was in the form of loans from banks (which are repayable and have been paid).

The US side however seemingly has gotten a free ride. No repayment of government support documented whatsoever. So in essence, the US side is much more guilty of a "free ride" in my view. The US side pays taxes on the development and production, sales costs, but then one has to also admit the US government -actively- allowed "Foreign Sales Corporation" (FSC) loopholes which register sales of big ticket items like airplanes to be made on US territories such as Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc . These have allowed a massive amount of money to go unpaid in taxes to the US government. ($4 billion annually average) This is one issue currently in debate with the WTO.

Particularly when you factor in 4 major manufacturers on the US side (Boeing/McDD/Lockheed,Convair) and then factor in the two major engine manufacturers (GE and PW). I'm talking about the WHOLE picture.

---------------------------------------------------
Here are some more "facts".The US didn't write the book on "corporoate welfare" by any means. Consortiums and government sponsored monopolies are the norm in Europe and Asia and are fiercely guarded with restrictive protectionist laws worse than anything in the US. Eurpoe "subjugated"?, really....don't be so melodramatic, since I never said that...
---------------------------------------------------

That's been discussed and defined as the "Third Way".

Clinton, Blair, Schroeder..all have spoken gloriously of it also. As for trade disputes and protectionism, I'll refer you to the ongoing tiff between the US and the EU over bananas, cashmere and other products, with threats coming from the EU of retaliatory measures. Then we can start to talk about massive US tariffs imposed on SDRAM products from Asia.

Case in point: It's amazing to see $5-$10 SDRAM in Taiwan becomes $99-$199 SDRAM in the US.

How is that? US imposed Protective tariffs that are anti-competitive and protectionist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia and Europe don't get it right either. I have had my share of and seen many problems at Nartia, Kai Tak (r.i.p.) and Degualle among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

No one has said they "get it right", I too have frequented airports in Asia and Europe and no one has a lock on "perfect". DeGaulle has been termed a "nightmare" to connect through and I'll take HKG-Chek Lap Kok airport any day over Narita.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Economics is a concept lost on "purists". Airlines think long and hard about what to buy and will it be a profit or a loss.

Actually, the 70's aren't that different. I remember them. Everyone thought the DC-8-6x and 707-320 were the biggest and then the 747 arrives. Everyone falls all over themselves to get it, few keep it; realizing that the DC-10 and (superb!) L1011 fit the bill. Then fuel prices go up. Alright, so what's so different? Not that much.

-------------------------------------------
The "fuel crisis" fueling a *major recession* at the same time which scared off passenger traffic. That was the major difference.

Remember Nixon's attempts to get the economy going to no avail? "Misery Indexes" of Carter's time..all of that.

MAC

Archie

I would love to get ahold of that report. Sincerely. I would love to go over it.

I wonder why they held back on releasing it for 3 years? Could it be that a retaliatory "report" had been commissioned by Airbus exposing things that are being discussed in this thread?  

Could it have touched off a trade war?

I tend to think that strategic politik had a part in this. Back in 1987, the Cold War was still very much going on and it could not have been an opportune time to release it. The negatives of it could have soured US-Europe relations to potentially critical levels at a very sensitive time.

With the impending fall of the Soviet Union the climate change may have made the Commerce Dept more apt to release it in 1990 though.

MAC



Archie Bunker wrote:
-------------------------------
MAC,

From what I can recall, it was commissioned by the Commerce Department in 1987 investigating Airbus's profitability. For diplomatic reason it was suppressed initially, but was released in 1990.

I don't want to get into a subsidies debate, it's getting tiresome. I just thought that you might have some knowledge about this report. Like I said, don't want to pay $36.50, but I might have to...  


regards,

Arch

burp! thanks for the beer dingbat. 

Its Sunday evening 22.00 here in Ireland and that means down to the pub for me in half an hour but, before I go, I'm going to drag you all back to that time frame I mentioned of a slot crisis in 2009.

I wasn't talking about a runway or gate slot crisis, I was talking of a slot crisis where airplanes are supposed to be - in the air.

The current congestion with lack of gates and runway occupancy is being mitigated by airlines stretching timetables, sometimes even spending longer in the air (which will lead to dearer fares eventually), to try and kid the public delays are not getting worse.

When the Great Slot Crisis happens, today's chaos will look like a gentle wind on a summers day.

At present, weather is the greatest genuine cause of ATC delay (and I'm not talking of the ATC delays airlines "engineer" to cover their own deficiencies) and is bad enough.

But when IT happens, air transportation will REALLY grind to a halt.

Why? Because the USA will run out of the airspace it needs.

Think about it and let's have some comments by 20.00 CET (Central European Time) Monday.

But please think before telling me how much blue sky there is over the Land of the Free and how American Ingenuity won't let it happen. Because when I tell you the "Rest of the Story" you will see how relevant the VLAs are going to become.

I am not "dismissing" the CATO report. We all know about that. But then again susbidies are subsidies. Wheter European or US. But I guess we should dismiss Airbus as being an "I.G. Farben" right? As far as subsidies and welfare, Telefunken and Rolls Royce (which helped destroy Lockheed) come to mind. And what about Japan, Inc.? Protectionism is the result of "dumping". Such a conbtridiction. The "EU" itself is collusion several wealthy countries to protect their interests? So if the US chooses to protect it's intrests it is wrong. Please! Your USA bashing makes ma gag.
This is so tiring.

Yes we the US has "tarriffs", like any other country to prevent dumping. If we had more effective one's, Pittsburgh wouldn't be a ghost town and we would still have factories making TVs.

I don't know where you are getting your SDRAMs from , but I dont pay that much here, even for name brand.

Don't bother to reply. It is obvious that we come from different perpectives. All I wanted to do was find out who woould likely use an A3xx, not settle the problems of the world.

747-451 wrote:
-------------------------------
I am not "dismissing" the CATO report. We all know about that. But then again susbidies are subsidies. Wheter European or US. But I guess we should dismiss Airbus as being an "I.G. Farben" right? As far as subsidies and welfare, Telefunken and Rolls Royce (which helped destroy Lockheed) come to mind. And what about Japan, Inc.? Protectionism is the result of "dumping". Such a conbtridiction. The "EU" itself is collusion several wealthy countries to protect their interests? So if the US chooses to protect it's intrests it is wrong. Please! Your USA bashing makes ma gag. This is so tiring.
-------------------------------

Hahahahaha! I knew it!

Oh I will reply to this one. Again when confronted with a serious challenge that requires facts to back them up this becomes "USA Bashing". Gawd how predictable.

"Raise the flag fellow weeble scouts, lets chant patriotic songs..MAC's speaking his mind again!"

Oh..bite me..

All this is is supposed to be is a discussion to elicit facts and seperate fact from hogwash..and exposing both sides of the coin, but no, once the heat gets a little too much, one runs and hides, asking not to be replied to. This is hysterical!

----------------------------------------
Yes we the US has "tarriffs", like any other country to prevent dumping. If we had more effective one's, Pittsburgh wouldn't be a ghost town and we would still have factories making TVs.
----------------------------

Oh I see, so politicians and corporate pressure upon those politicians to issue protective tariffs (to "leve the playing field" which in many ways is nespeak for "yup, we're inefficent as hell and we dont know how to compete so daddy will you please protect us") makes everything nice.

You can also thank trade agreements like NAFTA, GATT and trade organizations like the WTO for the removal of American industries from Pittsburgh, Gary and so forth. Negotiated by supposedly "patriotic" American politicians and their corporate friends who also donate millions to further their careers.

That coupled with the soft pass you seem to give to some industries who refused to make products that were fuel efficent in the late 1970s while a gas crunch was going on and recession (hmm..I remember the term "stagflation?). The US auto industry was tought a severe lesson in how not to let it's guard down with it's products at that time (remember the Plymouth Volare, the AMC Eagle, on and on..."land battleships" consuming massive amounts of fuel let alone the adage at the time not to have your car built on a Friday or Monday due to Weekenditis or Hangoveritis at the auto factories.)

-------------------------------------------
I don't know where you are getting your SDRAMs from , but I dont pay that much here, even for name brand.
-------------------------------------

Walk into any BestBuy, Circuit City, CompUSA, or any local "mom and pop" computer store (where prices are usually a few bucks less) in the Northeastern US and tell me what the prices are on 64 meg and 128 meg SDRAM, Please?!
If you dont see these ridiculous prices then I've got to move where you are.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Don't bother to reply. It is obvious that we come from different perpectives. All I wanted to do was find out who woould likely use an A3xx, not settle the
problems of the world.
-------------------------

Hahahaha...again. I had to leave that in there to get a parting hoot out of this.

I eagerly await PhilB demolish this fantasy that there "is no market for the A3XX" tomorrow. I -cant wait-.

MAC

Bite me too.

Utopian socialist!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Open your eyes, If the US waves it's flag it's politics if the EU does it' it's Nationalism!

Give me a break.

Oh, politicians, corporate pressure? Politics? Give me a break. And the Europeans don't do it? You even say it yourself "the EU is thinking retaliatory sanctions on banana's and cashmere..."

Such cliches.....

And also, you are really losing it. Don't mis quote me.

I never said there was no market fir the A3XX; there most ccertainly is. I just wondered who would buy it and how they justify it.

BTW, for cheap memory, shop on the net.....

Hahahahaha

Utopian Socialist? Hahahahaha!

Ooooh...that's supposed to make me run and hide isnt it?!
Would Joe McCarthy be related to you would he!? Ooooh....ahhhhh....let's get a trial started...a witchhunt...

Actually I'm a member of the Green Party and -quite the Progressive-. Proud of it too. I'm a -former- Reagan Conservative Republican mind you. I suppose if you were to use the word "socialist" then you'd probably want to connotate "communist" in that too. Shall we go to that extreme? Most who like to throw a fit like the one you are having generally see the two as the same. Look it up in Websters.

I truly tire of conservative, reactionary "Falling Down" types who cant challenge their politicians and their corporate oligarchs and monoliths.

(Remember that movie?...a reactionary, frustrated, laid-off, aerospace worker gone berserk..with a gun..)

This vast new "Silent Generation" are like cows, ripe for a mass slaughter. And there are quite a few million of them walking around this Great Land I might add. They say nothing about how their politicians and corporate oligarchs -sell their country out-, receive millions if not billions in US taxpayer subsidies while they lay Americans off, and yet they'll point the finger of blame at -someone else- be it Japan, Europe or the man on the moon.) Then they seemingly rally around the same back-stabbing politician creeps come electiontime..and then wind up getting their asses canned by their company when it comes time to move operations to Mexico..but they'll still not challenge. It's still all Europe or Japan's fault. So the process repeats itself and repeats itself ad nauseaum. Getting worse each time.

I suggest a read of Morris Berman's "The Twilight of American Culture" while we are at it. Quite a good book. It'll open your eyes if you want them to be opened.

MAC

Go to the non-aviation forum.

Gee thanks Fly-by-Pilot, I was just going to suggest that to 747-451...BTW, do you have anything intelligent to add to this thread above the level of sniping or deducing "BS"? Baffle me please!

MAC

I think a big factor on the success or failure of any VLA would be Heathrow Airport. I talked about this before on another thread. Most airlines that order their VLAs will send them to Heathrow, which will probably see more of these planes than any other airport. Heathrow cannot facilitate them right now. The proposed new T5 is will be able to facilitate these VLAs. But lets say T5 is rejected and they don’t make the necessary adjustments (and I haven’t heard of any new renovation plans) to handle these aircrafts, what then? It’s going to be a major blow and disincentive for anyone to purchase them. What do the rest of you think?

I believe T5 will be built eventually. If that doesnt get built -in time- for the A3XX, I see several gates at Terminal 4 being "kit bashed" quickly to handle the airplane and at least a few in one of the terminals in the central area modified similarly. I cant believe LHR would overlook the A3XX or have no contingency in place in case T5 doesnt happen as quickly as some would like.

I also expect an effort to get a few A3XX capable gates at Gatwick and Manchester. London need only look to CDG as it's competitor airport to the south and see they can handle this airplane airfieldwise and plans are already underway to accomodate the A3XX at the new Aerogare area. Frankfurt and Munich also will see modifications if they are not already in process or finished I believe.

In Asia, the new Inchon Intl Airport to serve Seoul, Korea will have at least 2 A3XX gates with room to expand for more (it's quasi Atlanta-like in layout), and plans are there for the same gate space at Osaka Kansai, Taipei's Chiang Kai Shek Intl Airport will have several A3XX capable gates once their just opened Terminal 2 complex is complete (half the terminal is open), Hong Kong CLK will have them, as will Singapore. SIN's terminal expansion is agressively underway, take a look at the airport overviews selections at the main Airliners.Net webpage and view through a couple pages to see the cockpit view of SIN on approach, lots of construction underway there. Amazing the changes a year and a half since I was last back there. Kuala Lumpur's new airport also features A3XX capable gates.

MAC

Louis,

Well, LHR has now approximately six years to improve their facilities to handle the A3XX-100. They have to anyways due to the fact that SQ (and very likely VS, QF and CX) may start flying these planes to LHR by the fall of 2006 at latest.

Already, airports like FRA, MUC, and the new Inchon International Airport that will replace Kimpo International Airport in SEL are already designed to handle the A3XX-100; SFO's new International Terminal can easily be upgraded to support several A3XX-100's parked there at once, and SIN will have its new terminal ready in 2005 with full A3XX compatibility.

It's not if LHR will upgrade their parking gates to support the A3XX, but when.

Yes. Inchon, Frankfurt, CDG and even JFK are making modifications to handle VLAs, but the BAA hasn’t done a thing. I hope T5 does get built (from an enthusiast’s standpoint), but the latest polls show that 96% of to population is against it. I haven’t heard of a contingency plan either. If T5 is rejected, then the BAA better get their asses in gear and start thinking of something. But seeing the way they operate makes me more pessimistic. Maybe someone who’s an expert with the BAA can shed some light on this. PhilB?


Louis

P.S. Inchon looks really beautiful. Can't wait to fly there this summer!

P.P.S. Still, say nothing is done with Heathrow in the next 10 years, what then? It definetely will affect orders.

Louis,

By the time the A3XX becomes operational (e.g. Spring 2006), Eurostar train operations could be upgraded to the point that 160+ km/h operations on both sides of the Channel Tunnel will be possible. That means one potential idea is to have airlines that potentially fly to LHR/LGW fly to CDG instead (CDG has plenty of room for even more terminals and runways) and have the passengers who go onto London take the Eurostar train to Waterloo station in London using an expanded version of the TGV station now at CDG.

LOL! Eurostar trains may reach 160+km/hr, but not on the UK side! Yes, they could connect through Paris. But don't forget how expensive the Eurostar is. It's much cheaper to fly to Paris than take the train. British rail tickets cost an insane amount of money considering the distances traveled (even the Heathrow Express costs a bundle). It’s not that viable of an option.

Oh, yeah. I'm not laughing at you, but the idea that any train will reach that speed on the English side of the channel.

Louis,

I believe that they've already begun the construction of a new high-speed line for Eurostar from Waterloo to the British end of the Channel Tunnel, now scheduled for 2002 completion.

Once that is complete, Eurostar passenger trains can go from London to Paris in well under 3 hours non-stop.

Remember, Eurostar even today carries more passengers between London and Paris than all the airline operations from all London area airports to CDG/ORY combined on a per year basis.

May I have more info about the design about the A3XX-capable gates? Would they allow upperdeck boarding?

A3XX Success Or Bust?

Bust.

Indianguy, Adria, Udo, etc, please don't freak out and start a war.

BTW, just my 744 cents.

I now declare war on you, B744!  

Regards
Udo  

Tupolev:

The plane is designed so that the upper deck will be boarded from the front door and the lower deck through the "forward" door, both on the main deck. There is a wide staircase in the very front of the plane for the pax coming through the front door. Traffic analyses have been done in this configuration.

B744:

If you start a war, others can't start the same war again. If you say the A3xx will be "Bust" please say why you think this, and "Bowing RuLeZ" isn't enough.

I am certain I'll get flamed for this, but...

The routes on which you'll see the A3XX flying in the future are the ones on which airlines are now flying full or near-full 747's. And those are going to be long-haul flights between congested airports, or some short-to-medium-haul flying within Asia and Europe.

Remember that 80 to 90 percent of the passenger jets (excluding regionals) flying right now are 737's, DC-9/MD-80/90's, and A32X's. If airlines need to increase capacity on those routes due to congestion, they'll be buying 757's, 767's, 777's, A330/340, larger 737's or A32X's. If the airlines were so desperate for capacity at present, we'd see a LOT more 747-400's being ordered right now.

Many of the most congested airports in the US could never handle an A3XX - certainly never at LaGuardia or Washington National. Expansion at DCA could only come with 757's/A321's, and at LGA with 767's. At Newark, Continental would be far more likely to upgrade its smaller planes and add service a less-travelled times (I went through there a week ago during the mid-morning and it was pretty quiet). Boston has only one runway that could really handle an A3XX, and most of its problems happen when the weather is poor. And, by the way, Logan is not "land-locked" - it's more water-locked, since it sticks out into the harbor. Its main problem is proximity to noise-sensitive neighborhoods.
And JFK is really only busy during the early evening - that's why it's only slot-restricted from about 5 PM to 9 PM. It's quite quiet the rest of the day. MIA is also only busy during American's morning and afternoon banks, and they're flying 727's, 757's, and A300's, not 747's. SFO's congestion problems are caused by its weather and United's large Shuttle operation there, which flies, you guessed it, 737's. Aircraft size upgrades would entail 757's, 767's, or comparable Airbus products, not A3XX's. What's flying into LAX? Mostly UA and WN's 737's, as well as AA's MD-80's.

Airlines provide service based on what business travelers want. If an airline currently offering 8 767's from JFK-LAX (roughly every 2.5 hours, say from 6 AM to 11:30 PM) switched to 4 A3XX's (every 6 hours, from 6 AM to midnight), you can bet they'd lose a lot of high-yield travelers who really don't want to wait 5 hours for the next flight. The BOS-NYC-WAS shuttles don't fly 747's every four hours, they fly 727's, 737's, MD-80's (on CO), and A320's hourly because business travelers want frequency and will vote with their wallets.

Is the A3XX needed for some routes? Unquestionably! Certainly trans-Pacific and trans-Eurasian (i.e. western Europe-east Asia/Australia) markets, *in the absence of liberalized bilateral aviation treaties*. Consider also that arguments about upgraded airports being able to handle the A3XX also argue against it, since the new airports also have considerably more airfield capacity, allowing for more flights instead of larger ones. Narita, for example, is finally adding a second runway. Transatlantic? Probably not, since the most common transatlantic aircraft now is the 767, and that would be upgraded to the 777, 345, or 747 before the A3XX. Perhaps some of the service to Heathrow due to slot constraints.

My personal opinion is that the market for the plane is somewhere in between Airbus and Boeing's estimates. I also believe that considering the size of the development cost, and considering Airbus's likely profit margin per plane, that going ahead with the A3XX is a poor investment decision. I just don't believe that the return on the cost of capital is sufficient, and I wouldn't be pleased with it as an Airbus/EADS/BAe shareholder.

I'm absolutely agree that A3XX is not a plane to save the Mankind from "Great Slot Crisis" or "running out of airspace". It's not THAT big, and even if 1500 are built (more than 747s to date!), most of the flying things will still be narrowbodies. Or should we replace 7 daily CRJ flights with one weekly 767?

O K guys, you are all pretty much missing the point.

As far back as 1991, the FAA was becoming extremely worried about the lack of airspace in various parts of the "lower 48".

It carried out a number of studies and deduced something revolutionary was needed if, by 2010, the skies of America were not to be like the George Washington Bridge on a Friday teatime.

In December 1994 I was running a conference in London on the privatisation of air traffic control.

I invited a speaker from the FAA for the US perspective and they confirmed details. I sent an attendee list, as a courtesy, ten days before the conference to the FAA at Independence Avenue and received a fax asking if, because the conference had attracted around 100 people including the CEOs of every major ATC provider plus equipment supplier CEOs, they could substitute the speaker so they could announce a revolutionary scheme.

Intrigued, I agreed and December 8 1994, at an hotel on the northern edge of Heathrow, Mr L Lane Speck, Director, Air Traffic Rules and Procedure Service, FAA announced (to the sound of over 100 very highly paid jaws dropping in disbelief) the inception of Free Flight (variously spelled Free Flite or Freeflite depending on which department put out releases).

Without going into all the detail, this was a revolutionary ATC system whereby ATC would no longer "control" but would "monitor".

A flight would leave a Terminal Area and fly its own course to its destination TMA using an upgraded TCAS, monitored by an upgraded Conflict Alert System and backed up by aircraft to aircraft communication, thus putting into reverse President Eisenhower's Airways and later Jetways and VOR system introduced after the Grand Canyon accident.

The first slide shown in the presentation said:

"We must dare to think "unthinkable thoughts". We must learn to explore all the options and possibilities that confront us in a rapidly changing world. We must learn to welcome and not fear the voices of dissent. We must dare to think about "unthinkable" things. Because when things become "unthinkable" thinking stops and actions become mindless."

The "unthinkable" was to be introduced to restructure te National Rote Program to support the concept of Free Flight to simplify the use and management of system wide fuel efficient and minimum time track routing opportunities.

As of July 1994, the planners forsaw an initial stage from January 1995 of the system going nation wide above FL390 over a 30 day period. The next stage was during February 1995 to bring the level down to FL370, to FL350 by the end of March, and then to FL330 west of the Mississippi by end of April, to the East by the end of May.

By the end of September 1995 the level was down to FL290 and the new system would then be handling all traffic at FL290 and above using equipment then current.

As you can imagine, Lane Speck's conference slot (the last of the afternoon) went on way past finishing time and his table was oversubscribed at dinner.

The whole basis of the argument for free flight was to free up airspace, use technology to prevent log jams and pre-empt the problems forseen by more frequent flights between the most popular points in the US by smaller aircraft ( a prediction now come true with RJs on erstwhile 737 flights, 737s on erstwhile 757 flights and a seemingly unending growth spiral).

Well the trial got under way but not as expansively as first mooted. Certain city pairs were selected plus certain entry points to gateway routes for traffic entering the US.

By 1997 a great deal of negotiation and planning had been done and a lot of figure work had been put before the relevant bodies to show the overall cost and impact predictions if the system were to be implemented at the optimum level, i.e. to involve ALL traffic above 5,000 feet.

It was at this point that I became involved again as Mr Speck invited me to Washington to discuss launches of the project to a range of bodies.

Before I could get there, someone in the FAA was called to account by Congress as the cost to the industry for new TCAS, conflict monitor equipment and training was being quoted in the tens of billions of dollars range.

The FAA retrenched somewhat and proposed trials in Hawaii and Alaska where all flights would have to be properly equipped, the monitoring equipment would be installed and, because of the good traffic mix in both States (without too much congestion!) a realistic live scenario could be watched.

By the time I reached Washington in March 1997, the idea was before a Congressional Committee. The FAA had increased its traffic estimates based on the orders for RJs and smaller medium haul aircraft and they were confident the trials would go ahead and I was given an outline brief to prepare a number of launch meetings.

That all ground to a halt that summer when Congress refused, not to think "unthinkable things", but to pay "unthinkable sums of money".

The equipment manufacturers were (obviously) for the idea. The GA lobby wasn't, airlines had mixed thoughts and continued ordering RJs as if the system would be implemented before the 2009 "meltdown".

I gather it still survives in a much modified form in upper airspace but the RJs are causing mighty congestion by both their frequency and slower rate of climb/overall speed as everyone nose to tails it from VOR to VOR.

Just today I found the following on AvFlash:

-------
BIG AIRPORTS AND BIG JETS -- GARVEY ON BIG ATC PROBLEMS...
Jane Garvey addressed some of the nation's key airport operators last week to announce that changes to air traffic control procedures are imminent. After meeting with major carriers, the FAA has realized that
Boston, Chicago and Washington each can destroy the flow of traffic across the entire country if their systems are compromised, whether by technical problems or just airplane overload. While Garvey made no attempt to pretend she'd stumbled across the universal miracle cure, she did put forth a list of 21 procedural changes meant to loosen the knots.
Proposals range from better stacking of arriving aircraft to negotiating the use of military airspace during bad weather.

------

So we are still looking at the airports to solve the problem. Yet what the FAA said 6 years ago is still true, the problem is in the air.

If business people demand regular flights on smaller, slower jets, if airlines continue to schedule departures in waves, if hub and spoke ops continue to expand, by 2009 the prediction will come true, air fares will be through the roof as pax pay for 3 hour sectors (gate to gate) with only 50 minutes in the air.

Common sense, the cost of fuel, the cost of crew, maintenance and the cost of purchasing smaller aircraft to serve the still rapidly growing market will eventually force the airlines to buy bigger. En route charges being imposed by the FAA, not to mention multiple landing fees will eventually price the small aircraft and frequent schedule out of the market on the major trunk routes.

But the killer of the RJ and the birth of the VLA on US jetways will be the day when TV and radio stations give flight logjam bulletins on an hourly basis as they do traffic flashes for drivers today.

For cost, environmental reasons and for the sheer need to be able to get there, people will be forced to accept less frequent service on bigger airplanes - period.

Free Flight MIGHT have put off that day for a good number of years. It looks now if only the VLA can.

I don't intend to start a war, I said it was my opinon. (744 cents,  )

I just did the "747-400" cents just for grins, so relax.

My last post was my 2 cents.

My reason for my OPINION is that the 747X is cheaper, easier to operate, less costly for airports, airlines with a large 747 fleet, etc. It's just that the plane is just way cheaper than the A3XX, yet it has little less capacity.

Remember, these are my opinions, don't flame me for them.      

Rgds,

B744

BTW, I'd be happy to explain the reasons I state these opinions, but I already have many times.

Did I see someone writing about the demise of American culture again? In a thread about aviation? I think someone needs to get a refill on their Xanax and calm down.

America Bad!
Boeing Bad!
Europe perfect!
Airbus Wonderful!

Or should that read?

Boeing: Poor, Victimized, misunderstood corporation
Joe McCarthy: Who's Joe McCarthy?

Europe: Loathesome, underhanded, scheming, rotten, nasty, awful, Socialist! Look out under your bed, there may BE ONE under it!!!

Airbus: EVIL and a good reason for a new arms race to wipe out Europe

In that order.

In my next lesson, we'll attempt to define the Roman Alphabet, with 13 letters tomorrow and 13 letters on Thursday. Followed by numbers starting with One. Can we all say One? Good! Now it's nap time, everyone get your towels out and lets sing a campfire song....

Thanks so much Wingman.
You straightened -everything- out for us!
We're grateful for that.


MAC

Excellent post!

Free Flight, while a dream will not be viable given the current state of affairs with the current ATC system and the points you bring up illustrate the glaring reality that

A.) The system needs to be fixed, but it wont. These words spoken in days a supposed "budget surplus" mind you. Incredible!

B.) The US ATC system cannot expand under it's current guise and operational capability (it's stop gap at best especially when you see the various methods now using military ADZ areas for commercial traffic and now airlines using lower altitude airways to fly commercial jets on at greater fuel burn, telling us what? that it's getting DAMN jammed up there!)

C.) We -ALREADY- get airport arrival and departure delay reports in the New York Metro areas on the major networks and radio, informing people of delays in and out of the three major airports, so the idea of a constant "Metro Airborne TRAFFICWatch" like we get in the mornings and evenings for road traffic is not out of the question and not long to be a feature.

D.) We continue to live in a world where some people deny the need for a VLA. Based upon various schemes which serve each other to support this myth, which inevitably circle around the word called "stubborn". The 'Forest could be defined as the Trees' to some and still they would see the Sahara Desert. That's what we are dealing with.

Great Post Phil! I hope people read it, -understand- it, and take the blinders off.

Regards
MAC

A Correction:

C.) We -ALREADY- get airport arrival and departure delay reports in the New York Metro areas on the major networks and radio, informing people of delays in and out of the three major airports, so the idea of a constant "Metro Airborne TRAFFICWatch" like we get in the mornings and evenings for road traffic is not out of the question and -not long from now will we see it as a daily feature-.

Smaller planes are the rage nowadays. Just look at the regional jets and the popularity of the 737/A320 class aircraft. In the long haul arena, smaller planes like the 767,777 and A330-200 are popular. Lets look at the biggest plane around, the 747-400. For the year 2000, BA has delivered only 19 747-400s so far this year, out of which 11 are freighters. Last year they delivered 38 747-400s, out of which 8 were freighters (got this info from BA web site). So it seems to me that there is not much demand for this plane. Now lets look at the A3XX. Assuming Airbus sells 20 a year, they would need 20 years to breakeven on the standard 400 units on a new plane program. There is no indication that bigger planes are more popular, eventhough traffic is growing, airports are being congested etc, etc. I don't think airlines will switch to big planes, there is no trend I can see. Maybe in another 10 years time things will be more clear. I suspect the A3XX will be postponed for another 10 years, BA will launch the 747-500/600 and keep it in production for another 10 years. Since the A3XX will cost about $12 billion, it would be unwise to launch it when the trend is towards smaller planes.

sv11.

Sv11, I agree, somewhat, the market will go up in the furutre and it may keep the A3XX alive, but the A3XX will have to survive till then, it may not.

Anyway, you will get attacked for your post, I assure that.

Best Regards,

B744

Read PhilB's post.

You will "see the light" hopefully after understanding what he's talking about. In simple terms, "ATC overcrowding" completely demolish the idea that unfettered expansion of flights with wanton abandon can continue. A Strained ATC system has been the target of -how many- news stories in recent months? Lets get real with ourselves and realize this is something that may very well put a lid on this mythological idea of limitless flight expansion. Europe is already experiencing this and now it's appearing -here-.

It's funny how we -conveniently- forget the massive delays of this past summer (in large part to severe weather -AND- ATC system capability problems)...yet some here STILL refuse to address it..Why? Because..their favorite aerospace company's modus operandi may be shot to pieces. That's why. And they dont want to confront it.

MAC

Hey MAC leve your little shack in the woods and come to the civilized world. If you dont like this country then leave, no body is stoping you. If you like Airbus then thats just great, but why do you have to bash Boeing every chance you get.


Where does your hate come from?