Boeing Fires Back

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Announced new version of 777 the 777-20lr. the longest range passenger jet in the world, can fly 9420 nm (over 10800 regular us miles) non stop. With the winds they can fly London to Sydney non stop.

As big as the gas tanks are, they better have one HUGE potty tank for that trip! :D

LINK
 

aplasticspork

macrumors regular
May 27, 2004
199
0
Seattle Wa.
LA to Johannesburg??? that's got to be one hell of a long flight...i've dont Atlanta to Johannesburg nonstop before they switched to airbus planes on that flight, and it was 14 hours long. what crazy person would want to be on an airplane for that long??? (says the one that thinks of 10 hour flights as short hops...) :eek:
--andrzej
 

KingSleaze

macrumors 6502
Feb 24, 2004
410
0
So. Cal
I can just see the number of cases of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) aka 'economy seat syndrome' increase. Potentially fatal blood clots from enforced inactivity. I think I can take longer to get there. More breaks.
 

Duff-Man

macrumors 68030
Dec 26, 2002
2,976
2
Albuquerque, NM
Duff-Man says...while I think the A-380 will be a technological/aerodynamic success I can't say that I would like to fly on one, especially in cattle-class. The Boeing looks to me like it has much more potential for sales (not that I am in that business and know anything about it) - it's great to be able to fly such distances but you have to put butts in the seats to make it worthwhile...the A-380 seems only feasible on select routes whereas the Boeing can fill seats on a wider range of routes...and not feel as cramped in for the passengers as well....I know whenever I fly any distance (more than 3 hours) I try to find the flight with the smallest plane - faster boarding and faster unloading...oh yeah!
 

absolut_mac

macrumors 6502a
Oct 30, 2003
935
0
Dallas, Texas
williamsonrg said:
"But aren't you all excited about flying on the Airbus A380 with 600+ of your closest friends?" he asked sarcastically.
No Airbus for me A380 for me.

At least not until I get a satisfactory answer as to why the tail fell off that one over New Jersey back in 2001.
 

whocares

macrumors 65816
Oct 9, 2002
1,496
0
:noitаɔo˩
virividox said:
stop making planes bigger
stop making planes fly longer

JUST MAKE THEM FLY FASTER

:)

Amen to that!


absolut_mac said:
No Airbus for me A380 for me.

At least not until I get a satisfactory answer as to why the tail fell off that one over New Jersey back in 2001.
And no Boeing for me. Why do they just fall out the sky over NY Sound? :rolleyes: :p :cool:
 

combatcolin

macrumors 68020
Oct 24, 2004
2,284
0
Northants, UK
Duff-Man said:
Duff-Man says...while I think the A-380 will be a technological/aerodynamic success I can't say that I would like to fly on one, especially in cattle-class. The Boeing looks to me like it has much more potential for sales (not that I am in that business and know anything about it) - it's great to be able to fly such distances but you have to put butts in the seats to make it worthwhile...the A-380 seems only feasible on select routes whereas the Boeing can fill seats on a wider range of routes...and not feel as cramped in for the passengers as well....I know whenever I fly any distance (more than 3 hours) I try to find the flight with the smallest plane - faster boarding and faster unloading...oh yeah!
You are aware that the Airlines want to, and can quite easily install Gyms, shops etc.

Airbus are trying to get away from the "Cattle Class" (like it!!) and towards something more, well sort of like a Cruise experience.
 

Santaduck

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2003
627
0
Honolulu
I wonder if the new Boeing would be subject to the same Airport requirements.

Last I heard only 4 (or was it 6) airports in the US are planning to make the infrastructure and operational changes to accomodate the Airbus behemoth.
 

DakotaGuy

macrumors 68040
Jan 14, 2002
3,993
3,101
South Dakota, USA
I have flown in different Airbus models, in Boeing planes, in old Douglas MD 80's, DC 9's and DC10's, and last but not least I took a trip over the ocean and back in a Lockheed L1011, Tristar. The L1011 was a good flight for an old plane! If I had my choice however to select the plane I would be flying in I would always pick Boeing. 777's are awesome and I see on their website they are working on the new 787 now. Very nice aircraft. The model of the 787 looks very sleek!
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
virividox said:
stop making planes bigger
stop making planes fly longer

JUST MAKE THEM FLY FASTER

:)
Unfortunately, you then have to negotiate the sound barrier, which makes a loud noise (see: Concorde). Of course, on trans-oceanic flights perhaps this could be done over water, but I suppose the potential time-savings are not worth the extra fuel costs (to the airlines) and ticket prices (to the customer).

BTW, I have heard the Airbus is too large for almost all US Airports...makes it kinda a hard sell, one would think. Sure, it can land at JFK, but West Coast Airports (which get a lot of International routes) are pretty much out of luck. Is this true? Any more info?
 
blackfox said:
Unfortunately, you then have to negotiate the sound barrier, which makes a loud noise (see: Concorde). Of course, on trans-oceanic flights perhaps this could be done over water, but I suppose the potential time-savings are not worth the extra fuel costs (to the airlines) and ticket prices (to the customer).
QUOTE]


fuel costs, bah, INSTALL NUCLEAR REACTORS ONTHE PLANES!!!


heheh yeah i know i can only dream, but man sometimes flying long haul flights makes me mad, i have to do it 4-5 times a year, when flying biz or 1st its cool, but man when ur in econ it can be the pitts
 

bubbamac

macrumors 6502
Dec 24, 2003
260
0
combatcolin said:
You are aware that the Airlines want to, and can quite easily install Gyms, shops etc.

Airbus are trying to get away from the "Cattle Class" (like it!!) and towards something more, well sort of like a Cruise experience.
Don't hold your breath. Gyms, shops, etc. will not be a feature you'll see on board a real airplane.

Butts in seats are what pay for the plane - you can't put a butt in a seat in the middle of the gym.
 

bubbamac

macrumors 6502
Dec 24, 2003
260
0
Faster's not going to happen anytime soon, either.

It's got to do with utilization of the plane, and when the passengers want to arrive.

Most folks like to arrive before noon after an ocean crossing that left in the afternoon or evening the night before. Current aircraft allow this, then about 1-4 hours to clean the airplane, then back across the pond.

Faster airplanes begin to mess with the scheduling of the flights. People say they want to get there faster, but when push comes to shove, they'd rather not leave a 2am to arrive in time for breakfast. Airlines must keep the airplane moving, or it's losing money. More sit time = lost money.
 

combatcolin

macrumors 68020
Oct 24, 2004
2,284
0
Northants, UK
bubbamac said:
Don't hold your breath. Gyms, shops, etc. will not be a feature you'll see on board a real airplane.

Butts in seats are what pay for the plane - you can't put a butt in a seat in the middle of the gym.
True, but a lot of Airlines now want to increase their revenue stream and have had enough with wafer thin bums per seat margins.

The Airbus is the first Airplane to try and do something different.
 

williamsonrg

macrumors 6502
Sep 8, 2004
278
0
Denver, CO
combatcolin said:
You are aware that the Airlines want to, and can quite easily install Gyms, shops etc.

Airbus are trying to get away from the "Cattle Class" (like it!!) and towards something more, well sort of like a Cruise experience.
And I hope that YOU are aware that it's up to the airlines to actually put those things into the plane. The 747 was supposed to have a piano bar as well, but the airlines decided they'd rather have as many seats as possible. Actually, Airbus is trying to make a lot of money off the "cattle" experience.
 

williamsonrg

macrumors 6502
Sep 8, 2004
278
0
Denver, CO
blackfox said:
Unfortunately, you then have to negotiate the sound barrier, which makes a loud noise (see: Concorde). Of course, on trans-oceanic flights perhaps this could be done over water, but I suppose the potential time-savings are not worth the extra fuel costs (to the airlines) and ticket prices (to the customer).

BTW, I have heard the Airbus is too large for almost all US Airports...makes it kinda a hard sell, one would think. Sure, it can land at JFK, but West Coast Airports (which get a lot of International routes) are pretty much out of luck. Is this true? Any more info?

There are currently 4 US airports who SHOULD be able to handle the A380 by the time it's in service: San Franisco, LA, Miami, and JFK. That's it.

As for a faster plane, the Boeing Sonic Cruiser was going to fly just under the speed of sound, but after 9/11, the airlines just didn't want to spend the money on it.
 

Black&Tan

macrumors 6502a
Mar 4, 2004
736
0
combatcolin said:
You are aware that the Airlines want to, and can quite easily install Gyms, shops etc.

I don't think I want to be in any room with barbells/dumbbells when turbulence decides to occur. Or the freak downdrafts that can cause a plane to drop thousands of feet in seconds.
 

Black&Tan

macrumors 6502a
Mar 4, 2004
736
0
virividox said:
JUST MAKE THEM FLY FASTER
Actually, they can fly faster. You notice that when a plane sits on the tarmac for 30-45 minutes after scheduled departure time, they still usually manage to land on time at the planned location. They choose to fly slower for fuel economy.

Maybe we could get them to fly faster if the airlines installed large hamster wheels at each seat and the passengers in economy/steerage had to work for their flights. That would also end incidences of deep vein thrombosis.

:)