Boeing Fires Back

[stubeeef]

So how many rolls of Toilet Paper do you need for 150 people going London to Sydney?
Even better how much Scotch! Don't forget the pilots need some scotch too!

You could probably watch the Matrix trilogy, and the Lord of the rings trilogy, and lots of teletubbies too!

This would seem to be about a 19-20hour flight. Not sure just a W.A.G.

 

[zyuzin4]

I'll stick to my ERJ-145s thanks

 

[absolut_mac]

And no Boeing for me. Why do they just fall out the sky over NY Sound?

Actually, it didn't. But unfortunately the FAA doesn't want you to know the truth, for the same reason that Iraqi prisoners of war can sue the US government for being tortured, but American POWs who were tortured in the first gulf war can't sue the government of Iraq.

That is, they don't want it to happen because it will cost them both money and *friends*.

The whole tobacco fiasco should have proven to anyone who thought that the government is looking out for them, that in reality it only does when both your and their interests coincide.

A cynical point of view I know, but I take everything that the government says with a large grain of salt, especially if they tell me that it's in my best interests.

 

[Black&Tan]

Actually, it didn't. But unfortunately the FAA doesn't want you to know the truth

Are you suggesting it was shot down?

 

[bubbamac]

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.

Usually, when there's a long departure taxi followed by an on time arrival, it's because the airline knows that there's a long taxi at that time of day. Occasionally, a freak tailwind or much less headwind than normal will contribute, but it's rare.

Airliners normally fly within 3 to 6% of max speed - you can't make up much time adding 15 - 25 miles/hour. Go too slow, and you burn more fuel/mile.

 

[williamsonrg]

Usually, when there's a long departure taxi followed by an on time arrival, it's because the airline knows that there's a long taxi at that time of day. Occasionally, a freak tailwind or much less headwind than normal will contribute, but it's rare.

Airliners normally fly within 3 to 6% of max speed - you can't make up much time adding 15 - 25 miles/hour. Go too slow, and you burn more fuel/mile.

Precisely.

 

[combatcolin]

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.

Gyms and Bars are at the end of the spectrum yes, but having more legroom would be at the other end of said spectrum would make their planes more attractive to customers.

Another very cool aspect is beds on planes.

Virgin already do this but with more space you can get more passengers.

Do, however get a slight feeling that were arguing the strong points of our respective Aero industry's products - If planes were the other way round we would be making each others arguments!!

 

[MongoTheGeek]

I personally prefer boeing planes. Just a generally nicer ride.

I am rather disappointed that they didn't go for a plane like the A380. There are routes where 747s loaded heavy make several runs a day. Additionally introducing a new larger more efficient plane can really change the economies of scale.

The A380 is a great plane for developing China.

What they really need in these long haul trans-oceanic flights is video poker in the chairs.

 

[bubbamac]

There are routes where 747s loaded heavy make several runs a day. Additionally introducing a new larger more efficient plane can really change the economies of scale.

1. You're right about several runs/day. But that's what the paying passengers want. They want to leave when they want to, and arrive when they want to. Putting one larger piece of equipment to take the place of two smaller ones usually doesn't work. This, by the way, has been a driver for the proliferation of small (50 seat) jets.

2. The economies of scale... well, at some point, that's true. Right now, the cheapest airplane for airlines to run is the 757-300 - not one of the larger models. It has to do with crew costs, seats/cost of plane, fuel economy...

 

[G4scott]

It seems like Boeing wants to make longer flights in smaller, more comfortable and fuel efficient planes. Their new 747, I believe, is just a direct response to the latest offerings from Airbus.

The 787 promises to fly up to 8,500 nautical miles, with 223 passengers, and use 20% less fuel while still flying at mach .85

Also, it seems as if it would make flying much more comfortable. It's completely new type of design allows for bigger windows, more storage and cabin space, and also better efficiency.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/flash.html

 

[Makosuke]

I'm all for this new 777 and the coming, smallish (but efficient) 787. The smaller planes tend to get better fuel economy (the 777 gets much better mileage per passenger than the 747, for example), which is good for everybody and will get proportionally better if and when fuel prices rise farther. They're also easier to board and seem to me more comfortable--I much prefer riding on 777s for the SF-Tokyo flight I make frequently when compared to the larger 747s. Maybe airbuses are more comfortable than Boeing planes, but I'm not looking forward to riding on an A380.

Given the increasing fuel costs and growing financial problems for airlines (and all it'll take is one airline bombing to see a significant decrease in passenger volume) it seems like Boeing is making the smarter move with their smaller, more efficient planes. Airbus is banking on giant, ever-more-crowded hubs, where it's better to load up one huge plane than three little ones. There no doubt will be some of those, and if they're right the A380 will be the next 747.

But if traffic doesn't increase as much as expected (or goes down), and fuel costs go up (which will drive costs up and passenger volume down further), then Boeing is going to look very smart with their "smaller, more efficient planes, more direct flights" strategy.

Time will tell, and there may well be room for both--the A380 servicing China to India or whatever, and the 787 handling a lot of the smaller airport traffic.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

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.

By the time the A380 starts flying there may be a few more US airports, or shortly there after. Among the others are Chicago and Dulles (DC). Other cities that may come on line a year or so after depending on demand are Seattle, Dallas, and Denver.

Given that the A380 is designed to feed a hub/spoke system, this seems to a good mix of cities.

 

[spacepower7]

Many options

Personally, I prefer the smaller 787, long distance flights without having to have layovers and changing flights.

I know these claims of exercise lounge and bars will give into seats. The original 747 had a piano bar and lounge located in the upper bouble. I challenge you to find a 747 (besides Air Force One) that offers these.

And if the Airbus 380 does have these, it will be restricted to first class passengers. Imagine a line of 100 people wanting to use a treadmill and shower, I'd hate to be the last one in line.

Terrorism: Why blow up a plane with 200 people when you can blowup one with 600 people. Airbus 380 will be a prime target for terrorists. Like AQ's plane to blow up 8 planes over the Pacific Ocean. They were planing to blowup the bigger planes.

While airport screening in the USA isn't as good as it should be, it is still better than Europe and the rest of the world. Even after 9/11, I had a metal fork and knife on an Inter-European flight. I then flew from CDG Paris to the USA, where I was stopped and searched for 20 minutes, without checking my shoes. I had to have my shoes checked when I arrived in the US, before I could even get out of the International terminal.

The next day the same Paris airport, same airline, let Richard Reid, the UK shoe bomber on a flight to the USA without checking his shoes.

Yeah, I am paranoid, but I won't be flying on 380's till the rest of the world catches up on airport screening.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Personally, I prefer the smaller 787, long distance flights without having to have layovers and changing flights.

I know these claims of exercise lounge and bars will give into seats. The original 747 had a piano bar and lounge located in the upper bouble. I challenge you to find a 747 (besides Air Force One) that offers these.

And if the Airbus 380 does have these, it will be restricted to first class passengers. Imagine a line of 100 people wanting to use a treadmill and shower, I'd hate to be the last one in line.

Terrorism: Why blow up a plane with 200 people when you can blowup one with 600 people. Airbus 380 will be a prime target for terrorists. Like AQ's plane to blow up 8 planes over the Pacific Ocean. They were planing to blowup the bigger planes.

While airport screening in the USA isn't as good as it should be, it is still better than Europe and the rest of the world. Even after 9/11, I had a metal fork and knife on an Inter-European flight. I then flew from CDG Paris to the USA, where I was stopped and searched for 20 minutes, without checking my shoes. I had to have my shoes checked when I arrived in the US, before I could even get out of the International terminal.

The next day the same Paris airport, same airline, let Richard Reid, the UK shoe bomber on a flight to the USA without checking his shoes.

Yeah, I am paranoid, but I won't be flying on 380's till the rest of the world catches up on airport screening.

Many of the options on the A380 being presented by Airbus will never see the light of day. And for the few like VA, they will be short lived. In the Asia market (like some routes in Japan) I see 800+. Remember a Japanese airline that lost something like 500+ when their plane flew into a mountain.

 

[Banker]

PAINFUL

I've done 13.5 hrs Melbourne to Johannesburg. Also 9.5 hours Melbourne to Hong Kong 9 hours rest into a 14.5 hours Hong Kong to Los Angeles, followed by a 3.5 hours Los Angles to Chicago. I woke up screaming in pain from the cramps in my legs. DVT before it ever existed.

I used to sleep horizontal in the planes, plus move around, exercise, drink water, and everything - before they used to warn you about DVT.

Humans are not built for that duration of flight!!!!

 

[geese]

Airbus A380 fanboy

boeIng SUCKZZZZZZ!!!!! THey are For babieS!!!! ROFL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AIRBUS RULEZ!

 

[Platform]

boeIng SUCKZZZZZZ!!!!! THey are For babieS!!!! ROFL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AIRBUS RULEZ!

Would not really say that Boeing suck but Airbus has better airplanes (fly by wire only the 777)
And the winglets on airbus are better too

 

[stubeeef]

I've done 13.5 hrs Melbourne to Johannesburg. Also 9.5 hours Melbourne to Hong Kong 9 hours rest into a 14.5 hours Hong Kong to Los Angeles, followed by a 3.5 hours Los Angles to Chicago. I woke up screaming in pain from the cramps in my legs. DVT before it ever existed.

I used to sleep horizontal in the planes, plus move around, exercise, drink water, and everything - before they used to warn you about DVT.

Humans are not built for that duration of flight!!!!

While in the navy and stationed in Guam, I did some of those flights, nothing like 9 hours in cattle class! Of course 1st class for 9 hours is an alcholics wet dream.

 

[booksacool1]

I don't see many of these Long-Distance or High speed aeroplanes coming into service, because the passenger doesn't like to spend hours sitting in a plane, and going faster then the speed of sound is noisy. Its always about the passenger. Thats partly why turboprops went out of fashion - to loud, often the passengers complained and prefered to pick airlines with proper jets.

This is where I feel the A380 has got it right. It has more legroom, wider seats for the passenger, larger aisles. And for the companies, it has a lower seat to km cost. For the environmentalists, it burns less fuel then the 747.

Some of the newer boeing airplanes, while they might appeal to the passenger, don't carry enough passengers to be significantly more economically viable then the 747/A380.
Then again, spending even more time in an airplane, thanks to the 777 is not what most passengers would want.
I prefer making stops, the long distance flights make me and most other passengers irritable.

So I guess what i'm saying is that I think there will be a gradual industry shift for high passenger planes from the 747 to the A380.
The 777 doesn't really look like a great achievement, considering the size of the fuel tanks. I don't think it will do much.

 

[stubeeef]

While I think that longer flights will be a bain of biz aviation, if it cuts of 6-10 hours off a trip, it will attractive just for that.

I would fly from Guam to Greensboro NC, from arriving at the airport from Guam to getting off the plane in Greensboro, it was 27+ hours. It took 3 to 4 legs depending on the airline. If I could take 6+ hours off that trip, I would have bought the ticket, cost depending. If I can't afford more than cattle class, than 2 stops for Airport Cuisine will be too expensive too.

Valid arguments either way, the market will tell us the answer. You have to admire the capital at risk in both ventures.

 

[geese]

Would not really say that Boeing suck but Airbus has better airplanes (fly by wire only the 777)
And the winglets on airbus are better too

I were just having a laugh! Trying to juxtaposition Mac vs Windows fanboy-ism to aeroplanes.

Must aeroplanes i've been on have been Beoing 737, but thats only because I fly with Ryanair most of the time. the most pikeyest airline in the world.

AIRBUS WINGLETZZ RULE!!!!!!!!

 

[vixapphire]

why so big?

i don't get the airbus at all; the thinking that a flight carrying 600+ people isn't one of the richest terrorist targets that exists is something i can't get my mind around.

i read something recently that the EU, particularly the french, have conditioned the relief of thai debt following the tsunami on a commitment of the thai gov't to buy 6 of the new superliners! anyone familiar with how big a ticket these things are? it's crushing... if true, that is really an amazing statement. uh, whatzat again about the heartless americans being the great oppressor of the third world? puh-leez; business as usual.



p.s. the boeing 707 is still the most handsome design statement, as appearances go with regard to airliners, in my opinion. OT, but what the hell...

 

[stubeeef]

AIRBUS WINGLETZZ RULE!!!!!!!!

they are OBVIOUSLY inferior to boeing winglets, lets face it. They are a cheap copy in constant need of repair, they are the most virus prone of all winglets! They are made under contract in SE Asia, by prisoners and forced child labor, with brittle crap metal and plastic!!!!!

 

[williamsonrg]

they are OBVIOUSLY inferior to boeing winglets, lets face it. They are a cheap copy in constant need of repair, they are the most virus prone of all winglets! They are made under contract in SE Asia, by prisoners and forced child labor, with brittle crap metal and plastic!!!!!

But Airbus winglets are more customizable... it's what all the professionals fly with.

 

[stubeeef]

But Airbus winglets are more customizable... it's what all the professionals fly with.

The customizing features just make it WORSE, more suseptable to loading failure, and make it look bulkier, comes in awful colors, produce extra heat, and use more energy, while increasing drag, causing slower flights, and angrier passengers. This is well known and documented!

Everyone knows that Boeing makes a leaner, more effeicent, aerodynamic, one button winglet!