It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Airbus - the fightback continues

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Talking of late delivery fines, I heard that Boeing is facing them over the Australian and Turkish 737-AEWs.




posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I've been watching this thread, and it has been very entertaining to say the least. Just to throw my two cents in, forgive me if i am mistaken or my info is off, but Airbus is firstly owned by EADS and BAE which are two companies that are top notch defense companies, so their will always be alittle problem over ruling bodies, but Airbus makes exceptional products. Everyone knew that the A380 wouldnt be problem free, with the size and technology it was only a matter of time. Airbus made the mistake of schedualling them too tightly and should have left some time for problems.

To be honest, Airbus could be in alot worse place then they are, and have done a good job of shuffling managment and getting new plans going to fix everything. when the A350 XWB get kicked off farther then it is, the market will start to slide again. The 380 can also blow the 747-8 away. JCINS, ive been reading ATS for a long tme and arguing with waynos about planes may be one of the hardest things to do unless you are intelgurl.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
World records are great achievements and not to be sniffed at, but you must surely realise that the record flight was a special effort with extra fuel and only 35 passengers, made up of Boeing execs, crew and journalists? This is not the actual commercial operational range of the type, no airline could operate a 777 carrying only 35 passengers!

At Boeing's website it says that the 777-200LR's range is 17446 kms. Link: www.boeing.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
The range is calculated by the longest flight taken. It's the same with top speed for fighters. They calculate it based on optimum conditions and altitudes.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   


At Boeing's website it says that the 777-200LR's range is 17446 kms.


Yes I have seen that however it does not state what conditions are required to achieve it and even that figure is a couple of thousand kilometres short of the record flight, which just goes to prove the truth of what I said in the passage you quoted. The figures used by flight, which were supplied directly by the manufacturers, assume an identical load of passengers in identical conditions to allow for direct comparison between models. The figures on Boeings website (as well as the ones on Airbus' of course) are designed to promote the aircraft to customers and assume 'best case' scenarios.

Do you wish to address those questions I posed to you during the run of this thread, which have remained unanswered, or are we done?

[edit on 31-7-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I told you to cite stats on fuel efficiency, not seat per mile costs.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
You told me? Well pardon me your majesty but since when do you tell me what to do?

In any case, you never actually said any such thing, I think you are losing your marbles pal, you keep imagining conversations that never happened


Maybe thats why you are incapable of answering the points put to you?

Whats with the fuel efficiency demand anyway? that is only a single factor which is already included in the seat/mile costs. Fuel costs money and the more that is used the more it costs = seat mile costs go up. Therefore the fact that the seat/mile costs of the 787 are roughly 8% higher and the 777 25% higher than the A350 already tells you what you need to know. If the 787 was more fuel efficient it would be less expensive per seat mile to operate wouldn't it?

I think you are getting desperate now and just trying to stoke an argument for the sake of it as you are reduced to grasping for irrelevancies to argue over. Don't worry JCINS, it doesn't bother me.



[edit on 31-7-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
irrelevancies to argue over.

Oh, so fuel efficiency is irrelevant? Then why is this the #1 issue for all airlines?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
JCINS, you have still not explained why you are fixated on the range of the A340 and what is its relevance to the A350/787 discussion.

You have still not explained how you think orders of 21 and 79 A340-500 &600 proves I was incorrect in my assertion that the markets acceptance of those models is poor.

You have not addressed why you believe the claims on Boeings website regarding the 787's efficiency include comparison with the XWB.

You have not explained why you think the A350 cruising at m0.85 is a failing when the same speed in the 787 is a success.

Just tossing in spurious demands to deflect the course of the discussion away from difficult questions wont wash. Either address the points or admit you got it wrong, thats all you need to do.

I don't actually think you know what you are talking about, you even thought that the A320 was Airbus' first model on the market, which displays a particular lack of knowledge.

Here again, you display your ignorance by saying;


Oh, so fuel efficiency is irrelevant? Then why is this the #1 issue for all airlines?


when I have just explained that fuel efficiency *is already* a component of the seat/mile cost analysis I gave you yesterday.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
You have still not explained how you think orders of 21 and 79 A340-500 &600 proves I was incorrect in my assertion that the markets acceptance of those models is poor.

Because Airbus is a government-owned company supported by subsidies from EU member countries. So how much aircraft Airbus sells is irrelevant, the EU member countries will always subsidise it.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   


Because Airbus is a government-owned company supported by subsidies from EU member countries. So how much aircraft Airbus sells is irrelevant, the EU member countries will always subsidise it.


Never mind the attempts to move off topic, obvious sign of trolling if there ever was one, how do you say that 21 orders of a plane is not poor market acceptance? Or did you just call 'incorrect' without thinking.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Seat per mile cost is a statistic and is irrelevant. What is relevant is fuel efficiency itself. In terms of fuel efficiency, the 787 is better than any other long-range plane.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
Seat per mile cost is a statistic and is irrelevant. What is relevant is fuel efficiency itself. In terms of fuel efficiency, the 787 is better than any other long-range plane.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]


proof?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   


You have not addressed why you believe the claims on Boeings website regarding the 787's efficiency include comparison with the XWB.

I have said why - because I think that they update their website.



You have not explained why you think the A350 cruising at m0.85 is a failing when the same speed in the 787 is a success.

I didn't say it's a failure, I just said that the A350XWB can fly only as fast as the 787.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   


I have said why - because I think that they update their website.


You might think that, but it proves nothing. That information has been on the Boeing website for many months before even the original A350 was designed, you are making assumptions and cannot back them up. Not a strong position in a debate.

For all I know the 787 may well have *some* advantage in fuel efficiency, but the A350 can come back with its higher capacity which means greater revenue per flight assuming a full aircraft. Thats IF the 787 is more fuel efficient which I do not know and which you cannot demonstrate.

How do you think this greater efficiency is achieved by the 787 over the A350 XWB? Maybe its the lightweight structures? Oh no, the A350 has all that. Maybe its the advanced aerodynamics? Oops the A350 has that too. Then perhaps its the Trent or GEnx engines that power the 787............er, and the A350-800 and 900. I guess its just because its 'better' then?





I didn't say it's a failure, I just said that the A350XWB can fly only as fast as the 787.


Nevertheless, you raised it as a negative point citing it as a reason why the XWB will lose out to the 787. If both aircraft have the same cruising speed it is not a factor in the choice between them, so you are wrong again.

In fact going right back to the first comment you made in this thread, why do you not think Airbus is mounting a fightback?

I'd say new management plus a completely new model is pretty conclusive proof that it is and that is wht the thread was started for, not an argument about which is the better aircraft. That is something the customers will, as ever, decide.

PS; I like how you based your view that the 787 is better on the fact that it has sold more in a year than the new Airbus has in a week. Credit where its due, there is a stroke of genius in something as funny as that


Heres a couple of quotes for you, since you keep churning the Boeing website up as if it proves anything;


Airbus says the new plane will at least match the Dreamliner on fuel efficiency and flying range, while exceeding the 777 on both measures.



John Leahy called the A350 XWB "a step ahead of the 787 and a leap ahead of the 777."


Now, why should Boeings claims carry any more weight that Airbus'??
Before you turn that around and ask why Airbus should be believed over Boeing, I don't. I treat all manufacturers claims equally and try to make my own mind up from whatever evidence I see.

On the other hand you have taken 'blind faith' a step further by openly stating that you believe the 787 is more efficient than the XWB because you think thats what Boeing means on its website despite no such claim being spelled out on it! Bizarre!

[edit on 31-7-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
Seat per mile cost is a statistic and is irrelevant. What is relevant is fuel efficiency itself. In terms of fuel efficiency, the 787 is better than any other long-range plane.


No its not kid, the U2 probably has better fuel efficiency than any other long range plane.


But since that would be like comparing apples and oranges, we use the seat/mile comparison to actually even things out and enable valid comparisons between aircraft of different sizes and different ranges. Sorry if its a little complicated for you but thats just the way it is.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Just to make something clear. It has been argued that Boeing overtook Airbus in 2005.

The top 100 Aerospace companies was published in Flight today and it has Airbus at No1 for commercial aircraft and Boeing at No 2. Boeing however is at Number 1 in the military list and also at number 1 in the overall list so I'm not trying to knock them. I also think that Boeing is certain to be number 1 in all three lists for next year (my opinion), I just wanted to clear up the 2005 rankings.

I notice that the No 1 fastest growing Aerospace company in 2005 was Latecoere. I thought they had been defunct for half a century




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join