Airbus versus Boeing

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
(*cough* EU loans *cough* or *cough* US military R&D 'investment'? *cough*)

Oh come on now you know perfectly well that AIRBUS is entilted to any and all R&D findings related to LCA that Boeing makes using military R&D.

Just when I get out they pull me back in!

Originally posted by websurfer
How long of a runway would an airbus require compared to the 7E7 for both takeoff and landing?

What about the damage done to the runway due to its massive size?


My guess is that the number of airports the airbus could land at would be limited due to its massive size compared to the 7E7. This would call for a lot of transfers from one airplane to the next.

The A380 actually requires a shorter runway for both landing and takeoff than the 747-400, so theres no shortage of runways in emergancies. Weight wise? Again, no issues at all, its the width of the taxiways that some airports might have isssues with, but in emergancies thats no issue at all.

Why dont you come out and say it 'Im a Boeing fan, Im just making excuses so I sound like I know what Im talking about'?

id say the 7EIGHT7 not 7E7 would require way less runway than the a380
They are both totally differant airplanes, its like comparing a cessna to
a C-5 galaxy.

The a380 is meant to stand up to the 747-400
the 787 is meant to be a 767 and a330 replacement, i think

ta!

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter

The a380 is meant to stand up to the 747-400

The 380 is hectic, it has like a cafe and bar in it.

Love to fly in it one day.

Likewise, the 787 is going to be good as well, i loved the 747.


[edit on 21-3-2005 by rapier28]

rapier28
The 380 is hectic, it has like a cafe and bar in it.

dont believe everything you see.

everyone has seen the luxurious pictures of a bar, big comfy chairs, stair case, etc. It all comes down to what the airliner owner wants, and all the care about is profits, and the most obvious way to get more bang out of your buck is to cram everyone into a plane with a small seat and have them share armrest. The more people they can get onto the plane, the more money they make.

Originally posted by thehamsamiam
If the Air Bus is built like a french car or french wine then I will take a Boeing any day.

- Well if that is really what you think then obviously you haven't really much of a clue about either then.

French Champaign really is second to none (along with many of their fine wines) and many many French cars have long been technologically advanced and stylish.

.......and how anyone from the land (if you are indeed American) of the SUV (like the rest of the world can't see exactly what you guys are compensating for! ) can dare criticise any other car manufacturer as making questionable machines I just don't know.

Stick to tinned beer and that incredibly impressive ( ) semi-truck thing (and remember to enjoy the gas mileage at today's gas prices. )

Originally posted by Murcielago
everyone has seen the luxurious pictures of a bar, big comfy chairs, stair case, etc. It all comes down to what the airliner owner wants.

- Quite right; there was a time at the start of the 747's 'career' when pics were circulating showing it with at least a bar, but that idea was quickly shoved out of the way to make room for seats and lower fares.
It seems that is what most of the people want (although the standard pitch for legroom is appalling IMO).

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
French Champaign really is second to none (along with many of their fine wines) and many many French cars have long been technologically advanced and stylish.

For real now, aside from its quirks the Citron (sp?) In regards to wine, alas the Frnch make many fine wines but Australia, Napa etc all are at that level or higher in some cases. Esp when you factor cost. Champange can only come from France, so can you really compare? If you compare them to U.S. makers you are correct.

Back on topic. The L-1011 actually had a downstairs lounge in the cargo hold as an option. I believe PSA ordered a few in this manner. But as Murcie and Sminkley pointed out those looking for casions and bars will not find them if at all. Virgin Atlantic may, but the reality is all avalible space will be given up to seats beofre long.

Originally posted by UnMature

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
The two planes are totally differant airplanes and meant for differant markets,
Size dosnt really matter. the Antonov 225, the worlds Heavyest(lol spelling) plane can land on a dirt strip because of all its landing gear. It depends the way the a380s load is spread out
On the an225 the weight is spread out well
heres a pic

Bull hockey! That thing cannot land on a dirt strip! There is no feasable way you could make a dirt strip long enough or wide enough to set that mammoth down on.

By the way I like how there are 20 some odd wheels in the back and only 2 on front

Pilot forgot to drop the other 17 pair of wheels up front.

OK 1st the on topic stuff.....

Originally posted by sigung86
By the way I like how there are 20 some odd wheels in the back and only 2 on front

- There's actually 4 (or is it 6?) wheels at the front.

Now the skit stuff -

Originally posted by FredT
For real now, aside from its quirks the Citron (sp?)

- You're kidding me Fred.

There is, of course, some of the quirky stuff I grant you - but that's what you get when a people ask (and for a change actually mean it) for things to actually not look identical to the next and genuinely demonstrate some individuality and innovation.

There have been some very fine French cars by Renault (my brother had a very nice Safrane, an otherwise ordinary large-ish family car but nicely tricked out with the gadgets), Peugeot (how can you not say their new 407 coupé is not stylish.....and all as a 'normal priced familt car' too? Or the rally style version of the 206 is not a genuine cool looking wee monster?) and the Citreon brand is rightly renouned for sporty advanced cars.

Don't fight it, the French make some very nice stylish cars man.

......and don't forget, in stark contrast to all but a handful of Euro-aping small volume US car makers, just about all European cars actually 'handle' and make country driving (ie roads with corners) fun. Straight lines are ok for a while (enjoyed a little drag racing in my time too you know) but the twisties are where it's at.

In regards to wine, alas the Frnch make many fine wines but Australia, Napa etc all are at that level or higher in some cases. Esp when you factor cost.

- Yeah but the original point was basically nothing more sophisticated than 'French = sh*t' wasn't it?
I know you are an American Fred and I know this is what passes for humour in the US in places these days but really.....

......seriously Fred, if I were American I'd be embarrassed at the level this anti-French (and by extension anti-Europe) stupidity has descended to, it really panders to and brings out your worst elements and instincts......and, let's be honest, generates a response in kind.

Champange can only come from France, so can you really compare? If you compare them to U.S. makers you are correct.

- You see this is where it can be seen to be as silly as it is. There are some very nice Californian wines.

.....and it has f*ck all to do with the political persuasion of the USA at any given moment.

Funny this coming up. When I was buying my new car I compared the the Citroen C5 with the Chrysler Neon, both available almost new and in my budget locally from a dealer who is my mate. Without going into too much detail (off topic already, lol) the chrysler felt cheap and tacky and the suspension was so soft I was in danger of getting sea sickness, the Citroen was superb and I bought it, its a lovely car and being British I am hardly pro French anyway. The point to this, in relation to the posts above, is merely that its an instance of the American product not just being inferior, but massively so.

Actually, Japanese cars are pretty good.

Good fuel economy and reliability. All the U.S cars seem to have bad fuel economy and petrol is so damn expensive here.

Id take the 7E7 any day, imagine trying to go through baggage claim and customs with 555 other passangers! That is just way too many people for me, on one plane.

Also i believe boeing strategy lies under what they believe will be the future of air travel. This, from what i remeber, is the hub network, where people are connected to different airports where ever their carrier has a major hub. Its not so much as carrying 555 to one location, its about connecting the dots. But who knows what will end up being more cost and time efficient.

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Mr.E]

Originally posted by Mr.E
Id take the 7E7 any day, imagine trying to get your baggage claim and customs with 555 other passangers!

That is just way too many people for me, on one plane.

Also i believe boeing strategy lies under what they believe will be the future of air travel. This, from what i remeber, is the hub network, where people are connected to different airports where ever their carrier has a major hub. Its not so much as carrying 555 to one location, its about connecting the dots. But who knows what will end up being more cost and time efficient.

Remember the history of airtravel:

In the beginning you had short haul travel, small numbers of people moving from point London to Paris, then better aircraft came along and you had the same number of people moving across the atlantic.

Then came jets, and you had 50, then 70 then 100 people travelling from London to New York. Then came aircraft such as the 747 and 767 which increased passenger counts to 400 and 300 respectivly, but they were STILL doing the hub system - London to New York etc.

Then came the travel revolution, more people wanted to travel, and to more destinations. This made point to point more financially viable for airlines, and suddenly you could fly from Atlanta to Berlin or similiar destinations and due to the increased passenger counts you could do this cheaper. This revolution tho was largely limited to Europe-America routes, and never really penetrated the longhaul routes mainly because the routes didnt attract the same number of passengers and required either stopovers or more expensive aircraft - the 777, 747ER or the A340.

The main point im putting across here is that to go from hub to point to point on the transatlantic routes, in the main the aircraft never changed. It simply became cheaper to use the same aircraft in different ways because of the larger number of passengers.

The same will eventually happen on longhaul routes, but in the meantime theres still a fairly large market for the A380, and the A380 will STILL be used in teh same routes when point to point starts to include longhaul destinations. Over the next 20 years, you can bet your arse that eventually airports will in the course of normal upgrade and expansion be able to take the A380 in normal traffic.

It does amaze me that the general 'feeling' i get on this board (and others) is that aircraft wouldnt get any larger, that somehow the 747 was *it* and noone would want, or get, anything bigger. In the course of human evolution, one of the main things was moving increasingly larger groups of people from point A to point B cheaply, and the 707 did it, the 747 did it, and now the A380 will do it. You can either move the same amount of people cheaper or you can move more people for the same cost, those are the two options and the A380 covers one while the 7E7/787 covers the other.

i guess the deciding factor will be price..I think ultimately most people will choose the cheapest airfare, not the type of plane. I know when I fly I look for the cheapest price first (im sure most people do as well). If the A380 can provide that because of the 555 passengers flying, then they will win. If the Boeing planes prove to be more economical, then they will win.


It all comes down to which one will provide the cheaper ticket price.

oops double post....please delete

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Mr.E]

i tihnk they r still going ahead with the sonic cruiser

Originally posted by spyrolot
i tihnk they r still going ahead with the sonic cruiser

No, it was cancelled not that long ago.

in my 100 years of flight book that was published last year it said it was for 2008 and howstuffworks.com mentions it

Boeing replaced the Sonic Cruiser with the 787, it has been cancelled, that is why we are getting the 787, Boeing could not afford to develop them both concurrently and the 787 was less of a gamble.

Originally posted by spyrolot
in my 100 years of flight book that was published last year it said it was for 2008 and howstuffworks.com mentions it

The program was cancelled in 2002.

www.thetravelinsider.info...
www.rose-hulman.edu...

But Boeing denies this, pointing out that the aircraft was developed in parallel to, rather than after, the company's now-cancelled project, the Sonic Cruiser.

Source

The Sonic Cruiser project was finally abandoned by December 2002, in favor of the slower but fuel-efficient Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Source
The Boeing Sonic Cruiser page hasnt been updated since May 2002.