Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Airbus versus Boeing

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Dear all,

The feeling is that the Sonic Cruiser has been shelved as opposed to abandoned.

Cheers

BHR




posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Dear all,

The feeling is that the Sonic Cruiser has been shelved as opposed to abandoned.

Cheers
BHR

shelved??? any links to back that up?



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I think the Boeing is better than the Airbus. Simply because the Boeing has a beautiful past, the airbus doesn't.

The A380 will not ever really carry 800 passengers, because of its luxury configuration at the 1st class. The 2nd class may hold as many passengers as a 747 2nd class. We all know that 747 businessclass is not really full, istead, nearly empty. So are there 300 passengers to pay for the luxury of an A380 1st class? Well, we are going to see that.

Also, fuel efficiency is worse with planes carrying more passengesr than planned, so I doubt that an A380 will carry 800 passengers for the longest trip. But we will see the results.

What I really hate is that Airbus is involving more organizations to build the paers, and there isn't ONE factory doing the whole lot. This is a target of potential failure. Also, the huge advertisement around the A380 combined with total secret, is frightening. Reminds me of the great Concorde-conspiracy of France, when that plane crashed. Very disturbing.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Vertu
What I really hate is that Airbus is involving more organizations to build the paers, and there isn't ONE factory doing the whole lot. This is a target of potential failure.

whats a "paers"? or did you mean "planes".

Its possible that having the planes major part being built in 16 locations all through-out Europe could be bad. Some get to the main factory by a barge, and the other by road, I dont think they fly any of it to the site (please "Airbusers" correct me if i'm wrong).

I saw a video of them moving a section of a fusalage threw a small town, and the people weren't very happy about it, some where, but most said something like "This used to be a nice quite town, but now we will have to have this thing parading threw our steets once a week!"

Boeing wont construct the 787 in all one place either, they will build 35%, Japan will build 35%, and Vought/Alenia will build 26%, and 4% other. So basically they will have 2 locations elsewhere that will make big parts. Which isn't to bad, because Boeing is modifing there 747 with an extra big hump, so it will be big enough to carry the parts for the 787, the 787's fusalage will be able to fit inside the modifier 747.






posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vertu
I think the Boeing is better than the Airbus. Simply because the Boeing has a beautiful past, the airbus doesn't.


- As every person with a brain must be aware these days 'past performance is no guarantee of future performance'.


The A380 will not ever really carry 800 passengers, because of its luxury configuration at the 1st class. The 2nd class may hold as many passengers as a 747 2nd class. We all know that 747 businessclass is not really full, istead, nearly empty. So are there 300 passengers to pay for the luxury of an A380 1st class? Well, we are going to see that.


- As I understand it the A380 (or versions there-of) is being certified to around 800 passangers.
What it actually ends up carrying will be a matter for the airlines and their accountants, but approx 800 is to be the 'licenced limit'.


Also, fuel efficiency is worse with planes carrying more passengesr than planned, so I doubt that an A380 will carry 800 passengers for the longest trip. But we will see the results.


- Sorry but this just sounds like silly amatuer Boeing-fan speak.


What I really hate is that Airbus is involving more organizations to build the paers, and there isn't ONE factory doing the whole lot.


- What like every major manufactuer of almost everything of anyy size these days?

I take it you missed Boeing doing this with Japan on the 787, hmmm?
Everybody does this (and has done for decades) .....do you really think Boeing make aircraft brakes or control system actuators or the flight computers etc etc?!
Even the car makers 'outsource' a stack of components and have done for years.

Wake up to the way of the world guy.


This is a target of potential failure.


- Nonsense. That's the whole point about CAA/FAA certification and certified suppliers.


Also, the huge advertisement around the A380 combined with total secret, is frightening. Reminds me of the great Concorde-conspiracy of France, when that plane crashed. Very disturbing.


- This is simply ridiculous. What "Concorde conspiracy"?

Thanks to Concorde's enormous global profile the Concorde crash was one of the most widely reported upon investigations ever.
How many planes have you ever heard of having several TV programs devoted to analyzing the causes of the accident and the subsequent remedy/prevention program?

If you find something so public a "very disturbing" "conspiracy" I suggest a visit to a shrink for some therapy in gaining a sense of proportion and how to recognise and deal with reality.

Honestly, you Boeing fans......you could at least attempt to restrict your emotive nonsense a little and avoid the totally ludicrous, hmmm?

Murcielago; check out the Airbus Beluga for details of what Airbus transport by air
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 5-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Let's state that your opinions are correct. Perhaps one day we will see the A380 carrying 800 pax.

But there is one little problem: the cargo area of the A380 is only slightly larger than the 747, yet the passenger capacity is almost the double. Now let's state that those on board a 747 could perfectly fit their multiple luggages in the cargo area with 400-500 pax on board... what the hell will 800 pax do with a Boeing 747's cargo area?

I have a feeling, that it is questionable that A380s will ever carry 800 pax due to several problems of this plane. No doubt, that the actual aim is to carry 550 passengers. There is a reason for that.

So we see that there isn't that much difference in practise between the two jets, yet in price the A380 is more expensive with some $80 million (or more).

Also, due to the increasing number of 747s, airports are not going to reconstruct their terminal system from 500pax/plane to 800pax/plane. There IS a difference, and they will simply not let that plane burst 300 more passengers at one time. I think, it is clear.

[edit on 5-4-2005 by Vertu]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vertu
Let's state that your opinions are correct. Perhaps one day we will see the A380 carrying 800 pax.


In this day and age, you are most definately going to see an A380 with 800 passengers on board. It probably wont happen until the first A380 is sold second hand to another airline, but it will happen. It happens with the 747, it will happen with the A380.



But there is one little problem: the cargo area of the A380 is only slightly larger than the 747, yet the passenger capacity is almost the double. Now let's state that those on board a 747 could perfectly fit their multiple luggages in the cargo area with 400-500 pax on board... what the hell will 800 pax do with a Boeing 747's cargo area?


As standard, with 550 - 600 passengers on board, the A380 carries a LOT of cargo, 38 LD3s or 13 pallets. If an airline was to increase the passenger count to the maximum certified for, then it would probably use some or all of this cargo space for passenger luggage.



I have a feeling, that it is questionable that A380s will ever carry 800 pax due to several problems of this plane. No doubt, that the actual aim is to carry 550 passengers. There is a reason for that.


The reason is the same as why most airlines put 450 passengers into a 747 and not the 550 or more that the 747 is actually certified for (hell, the 777 is certified to carry over 400 passengers). There is no 'several problems with the plane', stop spreading FUD. Most airlines will fly a 3 class configuration, because tehy have more chance of filling a three class configuration on the routes that the aircraft will fly.



So we see that there isn't that much difference in practise between the two jets, yet in price the A380 is more expensive with some $80 million (or more).


Yes, whatever. An A380 is more fuel efficient per passenger on board than a comparable 747, plus as standard it will carry up to 100 more passengers. I have proven this in previous posts on the A380, if you want I can dig up the figures.



Also, due to the increasing number of 747s, airports are not going to reconstruct their terminal system from 500pax/plane to 800pax/plane. There IS a difference, and they will simply not let that plane burst 300 more passengers at one time. I think, it is clear.
[edit on 5-4-2005 by Vertu]


Actually, for the vast majority of cases, its the AIRLINES that will be doing the upgrading. In most airports, the big airlines (Virgin Atlantic, British Airways etc) lease the stands from the airport on a longterm basis, and the airlines are responsable for ensuring that the stand has capacity for any aircraft it will take. This means that if the airline wants to put in a second deck skywalk then it can, its not hte airports job, they just have th ensure that the taxiways and runways can take the weight of the aircraft.

Well, once again we seem to have someone who NEVER THOUGHT that aircraft were going to get bigger. What did you think, that the 747 was king and going to rule forever? Aircraft get bigger because it fulfils one of the two ways of increasing profits in todays market. Ive said it before, I shall repeat it now: you can move more people for the same cost or you can move the same amount of people for less. The A380 covers the first of those, the 787 covers the second.

Airports are getting busier, much busier. Tokyo International Airport (Haneda) saw 272,000 flights in 2003. Gatwick, London saw 242,000 flights in 2003. Heathrow London saw 463,000 flights in 2003. And these figures just increase every year. What does this mean? Simple - airports have a maximum capacity in the number of takeoff and landing slots available, once you reach the minimum seperation distance between each aircraft taking off or landing, you reach the natural maximum capacity for that airport.

To overcome this natural maximum, you need to build new runways, which costs a LOT of money, gets you into bad PR with people living around the airports, and almost always gets governments involved. During this time, the cost of a landing or takeoff slot is going to increase (yes, airlines pay for slots), and this is going to be a cost per aircraft, it doesnt matter what aircraft it is, at most airports the cost is fixed (at some airports the slower older aircraft will have a penalty placed against them because they require greater seperation). THis means that it costs as much to land a large aircraft carrying more paying customers than it does to land a smaller aircraft carrying less paying customers. Guess what airlines are going to do?



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

shelved??? any links to back that up?


Check out the links in my post jsut before BillHicksRules posted, it has been 'cancelled' or 'shelved' or whatever, its currently not an actively developed project. Boeing did it *very* quietly, with basically a murmer to the general public and absolutely no announcement on its website (apart from the fact that the Sonic Cruiser pages havent been updated since mid 2002).

It maybe that they take the project back up again later on, but for now they put all their hopes on the 787, which was a parallel project to the SC.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   
RP/Murcielago,

I have no links how ever if you catch the Discovery Channel program about the future of Air Transport you will see an interview with one of the Boeing Big Wigs stating that they have put the Sonic Cruiser plans on a shelf for now. He was quite clear that they still considered it a viable project for the future. The program I believe was made in mid 2004.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Couple more links for you.

www.guardian.co.uk...
static.highbeam.com...

Its definately not a current project.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
RP,

Thanks for those links backing up my point.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Exactly. So far it seems that Boeing 747-400ER is the competitor of the Airbus A380. Well, it isn't. The new Boeing 747A (Advanced) is on its way, and its parameters seem to be better than the A380. However, the A380 may keep (good or bad) surprises during its first flight. We'll see.

How about this link for the fans?
Boeing 747 Advanced



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Vertu,

Having read that article I still think that the 700+ seat A380 outdoes the 500 seat 747A.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Still, it does illustrate that Boeing has had to rethink its "no competitor for the A380 because there is no market" stance.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Waynos,

You are right.

It shows that Airbus are setting the path and Boeing are having to follow it.

Never a good way to run a business.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Vertu,

Having read that article I still think that the 700+ seat A380 outdoes the 500 seat 747A.

Cheers

BHR


That's right. But we still don't know exact informations about the A380, and it's only an estimation that with 800 pax, it will only fly 9000KMs. Even with 550 pax, its range is estimated to be 1000km lower than the Boeing 747A.

So what is more important for the airlines? A massive jet with 800 pax, or a Jumbo with a huge range (and speed) enabling new city pairs? Well, this is the question, and we STILL know nothing than estimation about the A380.

Also, the 800 pax would be quite good if the A380 was meant to be a longrange plane , and it really did the job at 14000km with 800 pax . But that range is only estimated with 550pax. That is very close to the Boeing 747A, still its range is lower.

It is understood that Boeing doesn't want to build a superjumbo, because it is satisfied with the 747.

I still want to see when will the A380 outperform the Boeing747A.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Vertu,

I think you best check your facts on the 747A as opposed to the A380.

According to your link the A380 is a greater range aircraft.

Cheers

BHR

[edit on 11-4-2005 by BillHicksRules]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Vertu this is a most interesting tack; in fact is pretty laughable really.

You want to slam the Airbus A380 with silly 'question marks' over it's capabilities even though it is just a couple of months off of the real flights which will prove and demonstrate all it's specs (and most manufacturers are rarely that far out these days, right?).....

.... and yet the latest Boeing sketch/paperplane/concept (at the earliest several years away from any kind of flight and proof - if it even ever happens; and in any case hardly a 'frozen' proposition at the moment, so anyone can just guess their heart out as to what it might be capable of, hmmm? ) and it's estimates and mere projections you accept as concrete and gospel!

If empty speculation is the best you Boeing fans can manage I'd give up if I were you.

Thankfully the airlines go for something a lot more concrete.....

....and before it's even lifted a wheel off of the ground the A380 is now just about 50%+ to recouping it's break-even costs.
That says a damned sight more (from people a damned sight harder to impress) than this silly quibbling we're often treated to here by the Boeing fan-boys.

BTW you tell me, am I being too hard?
Can you not see just how silly this kind of Airbus criticism is?)


[edit on 11-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Vertu this is a most interesting tack; in fact is pretty laughable really.

You want to slam the Airbus A380 with silly 'question marks' over it's capabilities even though it is just a couple of months off of the real flights which will prove and demonstrate all it's specs (and most manufacturers are rarely that far out these days, right?).....


All the performance, consumption data is just guessing at the side of Airbus, not actual facts. They could be impressive when the actual flight takes place.

Furthermore, the Boeing is experimenting on a lot better engine to consume less fuel on its new 747A, the Airbus hasn't taken the chance on new engines. Therefore, the range of the 747A must be better than the A380s, since this is a primary aim of Boeing, altogether with the speed. When they'll start building the 747A, they will have exact data on the A380 (and its possible modifications), Boeing will already know how to make a better 747A.

Anyway, we'll see what will the A380 come up with. Perhaps, it will be the best plane, perhaps it will be a marketing failure.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Vertu,

"All the performance, consumption data is just guessing at the side of Airbus, not actual facts. They could be impressive when the actual flight takes place."

I am sorry I must have missed it but when did the 787 or 747A make their first flights?

Cheers

BHR






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join