Boring airliners?

[John Gaquin]

> wrote in message
>
> P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

Nothing extraordinary to comment on. Big is not new. The 380 is only a few
feet larger than a 747; beefier, longer wing for the weight, but essentially
they've just added a second floor. New design challenges, 'tis true, but
the real question is where it will fly, and how often, and how full, to pay
for itself.

JG

[John Gaquin]

"john smith" > wrote in message news:7Tfce.14750
>
> FYI... here in Columbus Ohio we discussed that issue 15 year ago.
> It is an ATC problem getting the aircraft up to altitude Columbus to
> Europe and getting them down Europe to Columbus. The flight paths interfer
> with with Clevland, New York and Detroit operations.

I think that with a strong probability of full airplanes making those climbs
and descents, arrival and departure paths could have been worked out.

[Dylan Smith]

Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).

But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.

I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
way they've done with the 737 for years?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
> 7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).
>
> But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
> engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
> dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.

Yes, but interesting doesn't pay the bills in the airliner business.


> I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
> midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
> Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
> way they've done with the 737 for years?

Maybe, but I believe the 777 is an "old" airplane and they needed
something new to compete with the "new" airplanes from the bus.

I always have thought that Airbus was an accurate, yet unfortunate, name
choice for an airplane company. Talk about pedestrian...

Matt

[[email protected]]

Hopefully some airlines build a smokers lounge in that tube.
It looks big enough.
Would be an improvement, a drink, a smoke and getting extremely bored
instead of just being bored and the feeling your legs are going to drop
off any minute.

-Kees

P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

[Jay Honeck]

> P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH someday...

What else can be said?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Matt Whiting wrote:
> Maybe, but I believe the 777 is an "old" airplane and they needed
> something new to compete with the "new" airplanes from the bus.

Yet they apparently don't feel that need with the 737 - the first model
which came out decades ago, yet they keep making new versions of it. I'd
expect a new 777 (which isn't actually an old design by airliner
standards) would be far less expensive to improve than building a
completely new ...well, tube with wings.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Ron Natalie]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
> 7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).
>
It's a marvel of modern ugliness...it looks hydrocephlic.

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:14:37 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.
>
>It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH someday...
>
>What else can be said?

Not sure it can land there. I read that it's so heavy, only a few
airports in the US can take it.

Corky Scott

[Greg Farris]

In article >, says...

>Maybe, but I believe the 777 is an "old" airplane and they needed
>something new to compete with the "new" airplanes from the bus.
>
>I always have thought that Airbus was an accurate, yet unfortunate, name
>choice for an airplane company. Talk about pedestrian...
>


I agree. The French often get screwed up when they invent "English" names.
It seems they fail to consider the connotations to English speakers. One of
the most advanced ADSL providers in France is called "wannadoo" - The poor
souls who to subscribe to them have to have an e-mail address
- and be the object of ridicule throughout the English
speaking world.

"Airbus" doesn't sound like the most technologically advanced airliner in
the world. It sounds like something slow and uncomfortable, with a toilet
in the back.

G Faris

[CV]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Dylan Smith wrote:
>
>> Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
>> 7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).
>>
>> But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
>> engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
>> dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.
>
> Yes, but interesting doesn't pay the bills in the airliner business.

.... they have a lot Toulouse ...

CV

[Paul kgyy]

Most passengers don't want to think about the fact of flying. Close
the window shades, watch the movie, drink the booze, pretend you're at
home. Not a lot of room for interesting design in this concept, unless
you could make the plane look like a suburban house with wings. Too
bad it has to be a tube...

[Stefan]

Greg Farris wrote:

> I agree. The French often get screwed up when they invent "English" names.

You seem to miss that Airbus is *not* a French company. And the Brits
tend to be at least as sensible for connotations as the Yanks.

> "Airbus" doesn't sound like the most technologically advanced airliner in
> the world.

It sounds exactly like what airliners are today: Nothing adventurous,
nothing fancy, just simple and safe transport.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Greg Farris wrote:

> I agree. The French often get screwed up when they invent "English" names.

You seem to miss that Airbus is *not* a French company. And the Brits
tend to be at least as sensible for connotations as the Yanks.

> "Airbus" doesn't sound like the most technologically advanced airliner in
> the world.

It sounds exactly like what airliners are today and what most people are
looking for: Nothing adventurous, nothing fancy, just simple and safe
transport.

Stefan

[James]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>
>> Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
>> 7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).
>>
> It's a marvel of modern ugliness...it looks hydrocephlic.
Kind of looks like a 747 that had taken too many steroids!!

[Jay Honeck]

>>It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH
>>someday...
>>
>>What else can be said?
>
> Not sure it can land there. I read that it's so heavy, only a few
> airports in the US can take it.

Interesting. I read somewhere that it's actually rather "light on its feet"
because it has so many wheels...

Of course, that doesn't change the overall weight -- but it should allow it
to operate out of Wittman. (Heck, a C-5 Galaxy had no trouble -- nor did
that even bigger Soviet Antonov...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> It sounds exactly like what airliners are today and what most people are
> looking for: Nothing adventurous, nothing fancy, just simple and safe
> transport.

Speaking of safety -- I wonder if the A380 has a composite rudder?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Speaking of safety -- I wonder if the A380 has a composite rudder?

Certainly. And I guess you can crash the A380 like any other plane if
you really want to and act accordingly.

Stefan

[Jay Honeck]

>> Speaking of safety -- I wonder if the A380 has a composite rudder?
>
> Certainly. And I guess you can crash the A380 like any other plane if you
> really want to and act accordingly.

I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
much more sensitive than necessary?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <G67ce.31010$NU4.15176@attbi_s22>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Certainly. And I guess you can crash the A380 like any other plane if you
>> really want to and act accordingly.
>
> I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
> much more sensitive than necessary?

In the A380? Only at most 4 people in the world have actually
manipulated the controls in-flight. Since they are testing the plane, if
the rudder pedal boost is too sensitive - well, that's the point of test
flights to work out these sorts of bugs.

All technologies have their problems - we've had one A300 go down due to
a lost tail, but we've also had two B737s go down due to unexplained
rudder hard-overs. Overall, both Boeing's and Airbus's records are
outstanding.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
> much more sensitive than necessary?

It was necessary because the rudder must have enough authority to keep
the plane straight if flown on only two engines on the same side. The
investigation of the accident (to which you apparently refer) clearly
states that most other airliners (747 comes to mind) would also have
lost its rudder. But I would think they have enhanced the software to
limit rudder usage, although I don't know. I don't know, either, whether
the involved airline has enhanced their pilot training. Do you really
want to restart this discussion?

Stefan

[Steve]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
> 7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).
>
> But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
> engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
> dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.
>
> I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
> midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
> Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
> way they've done with the 737 for years?
>

Development costs would have killed the Sonic Cruiser. Yes, teh A380 is
pretty unremarkable, but it's based on proven technology.

The 757 does as many milk runs (UK int Europe and vice versa) as any 737
ever did, but with greater capacity.

[Steve Foley]

I thought it was the width compared to narrow taxiways/gate areas that
limited the operations, rather than the weight.

I'm sure they could fly it in empty if weight were the problem.

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:14:37 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >> P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.
> >
> >It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH
someday...
> >
> >What else can be said?
>
> Not sure it can land there. I read that it's so heavy, only a few
> airports in the US can take it.
>
> Corky Scott

[ShawnD2112]

Boeing dropped the Sonic Cruiser because the airlines convinced them to.
The speed increase over standard subsonic didn't gain you enough time to
make it worth paying extra for a ticket. For instance, London to New York
(the most profitable city pair in the world) is an average of about 7-8
hours. The Sonic Cruiser would only save about 45 - 60 mins but would cost
substantially more to operate. With a steady stream of 747s and 777s going
between the two, there's plenty of capacity at cheap prices so people would
have to value the time saved more than the money spent on the ticket. Time
saved wasn't going to be substantial enough to make it viable. It was only
supposed to be high-subsonic or low supersonic (can't remember which) but it
wasn't going to be Mach 2 like Concorde, so the speed difference was too
small.

Boeing were told to apply the same technological development to a
super-efficient (hence the "E" in 7E7) subsonic airliner of 767 size
(between 757 and 777) and then they'd have something. It won't replace the
777 as it's not intended to be that big (last time I touched the project,
anyway).

The two aircraft are based on different philosophies of how the airline
industry is going to grow - big gambles on both sides. Airbus reckon it'll
be about bigger hub-and-spoke operations like there tend to be now.
Emirates plan to suck large volumes of pax out of the US and Europe to Dubai
where they'll then parcel them out to A340s and such on to their final
destinations (or, in some cases, into other A380s for the bigger routes) or
to a follow-on hub.

Boeing reckon people will buy more point-to-point tickets, which won't
support larger airplanes but would be commercially viable with smaller and
more cost-efficient aircraft. It could finally open up that long-ignored
Columbus OH - London route that's been languishing unexploited for so long!

It's going to be interesting to see what a true Open Skies agreement will do
to this development in the industry. I think one or the other maker will
have a fleet of commercial dinosaurs on it's hands in about 10-15 years, but
it'll be anybody's guess at this point which one it'll be.

Shawn


"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
> 7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).
>
> But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
> engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
> dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.
>
> I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
> midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
> Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
> way they've done with the 737 for years?
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
> "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Chris]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in >
> I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
> much more sensitive than necessary?
> --

I am sure Jay that the people at Airbus are locked onto these newsgroups
just to be sure they have caught everything that needs catching from the
resident experts at aircraft design and engineering.

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

>In article <G67ce.31010$NU4.15176@attbi_s22>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Certainly. And I guess you can crash the A380 like any other plane if you
>>> really want to and act accordingly.
>>
>> I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
>> much more sensitive than necessary?
>
>In the A380? Only at most 4 people in the world have actually
>manipulated the controls in-flight. Since they are testing the plane, if
>the rudder pedal boost is too sensitive - well, that's the point of test
>flights to work out these sorts of bugs.
>
>All technologies have their problems - we've had one A300 go down due to
>a lost tail, but we've also had two B737s go down due to unexplained
>rudder hard-overs. Overall, both Boeing's and Airbus's records are
>outstanding.

And AA1 into Jamaica Bay in 1958.

[Greg Farris]

In article >, says...
>
>
>Greg Farris wrote:
>
>> I agree. The French often get screwed up when they invent "English" names.
>
>You seem to miss that Airbus is *not* a French company.
>

Expected that response. Doesn't affect my opinion on the matter.

[Greg Farris]

In article <TM6ce.30985$NU4.10589@attbi_s22>, says...
>

>
>Interesting. I read somewhere that it's actually rather "light on its feet"
>because it has so many wheels...
>


Apparently so. Runways in france have recently required extensive
reinforcement to accommodate the B777-300 - works which were apparently not
mandated for the A380.

G Faris

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article <TM6ce.30985$NU4.10589@attbi_s22>,
> says...
>>
>
>>
>>Interesting. I read somewhere that it's actually rather "light on its
>>feet"
>>because it has so many wheels...
>>
>
>
> Apparently so. Runways in france have recently required extensive
> reinforcement to accommodate the B777-300 - works which were apparently
> not
> mandated for the A380.
>
> G Faris
>

The Max Takeoff weight of the 777-300 is 660,000#s the A380 is 1,235,000.

Maybe the reason the work was not mandated for the A380 is that there is
only one flying

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:G67ce.31010$NU4.15176@attbi_s22...
> >> Speaking of safety -- I wonder if the A380 has a composite rudder?
> >
> > Certainly. And I guess you can crash the A380 like any other plane if
you
> > really want to and act accordingly.
>
> I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
> much more sensitive than necessary?
> --

I believe that the rudder on the 380 is all fly by wire. All it would take
is a software write.
--
Jim in NC

[Dean Wilkinson]

Losing the rudder is one thing, losing the vertical stab is another thing
entirely...

Boeing addressed the 737 problem by redesigning the yaw damper system and
retrofitting it in the field, so bringing this up to defend the flaw in the
A300 is a non-sequiter argument. The fact remains, the A300 has a design
flaw of some kind that needs to be fixed. If Airbus wants to try to sweep
it under the rug, they are just going to wind of killing more people. They
need to proactively investigate the design and determine what is wrong, the
come up with a real fix. Tapping on the tail doesn't cut it...

Dean

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was
apparently
> > much more sensitive than necessary?
>
> It was necessary because the rudder must have enough authority to keep
> the plane straight if flown on only two engines on the same side. The
> investigation of the accident (to which you apparently refer) clearly
> states that most other airliners (747 comes to mind) would also have
> lost its rudder. But I would think they have enhanced the software to
> limit rudder usage, although I don't know. I don't know, either, whether
> the involved airline has enhanced their pilot training. Do you really
> want to restart this discussion?
>
> Stefan

[Dean Wilkinson]

Dylan,

If you followed the airline industry, you'd realize that the 787 fills a
different market segment than the 777 does. The 787 is not an
intercontinental machine, its a regional machine, and will serve as a
replacement for the 757/767 models. Once the 787 is done, Boeing will
replace the 737 with a plane that utilizes the same technology as the 787.
Its going to be all about efficiency with the cost of fuel going up.

Dean Wilkinson
Former Boeing 777 engineer, maybe soon to be back at Boeing on the 787

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
> 7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).
>
> But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
> engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
> dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.
>
> I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
> midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
> Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
> way they've done with the 737 for years?
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
> "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Greg Farris]

In article <akbce.54$332.39@okepread02>, wr.giacona@coxDOTnet says...
>
>
>
>"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>> In article <TM6ce.30985$NU4.10589@attbi_s22>,
>> says...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>Interesting. I read somewhere that it's actually rather "light on its
>>>feet"
>>>because it has so many wheels...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently so. Runways in france have recently required extensive
>> reinforcement to accommodate the B777-300 - works which were apparently
>> not
>> mandated for the A380.
>>
>> G Faris
>>
>
>The Max Takeoff weight of the 777-300 is 660,000#s the A380 is 1,235,000.
>
>Maybe the reason the work was not mandated for the A380 is that there is
>only one flying



No - As cited above, it's the number of wheels.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> Hopefully some airlines build a smokers lounge in that tube.
> It looks big enough.
> Would be an improvement, a drink, a smoke and getting extremely bored
> instead of just being bored and the feeling your legs are going to drop
> off any minute.
>
> -Kees
>
> P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.
>

What comments are you looking for? I for one never dissed the A380 and
never expected that it wouldn't fly. It isn't the largest airplane to
ever fly and with today's CFD and wind tunnel capability, there is
almost zero chance of an airplane of that nature NOT flying
successfully. The real test of the A380 will be economic rather than
aerodynamic.


Matt

[Benjamin]

> I'm sure they could fly it in empty if weight were the problem.

And who's going to pay for that?

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

> It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH someday...
> What else can be said?

Aw, come on Jay!
You already saw the Beluga last year.
The only difference is the A380 has seats inside.

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
> much more sensitive than necessary?

That was a pilot training issue, not a design error. Remember?

[john smith]

ShawnD2112 wrote:
> Boeing reckon people will buy more point-to-point tickets, which won't
> support larger airplanes but would be commercially viable with smaller and
> more cost-efficient aircraft. It could finally open up that long-ignored
> Columbus OH - London route that's been languishing unexploited for so long!

FYI... here in Columbus Ohio we discussed that issue 15 year ago.
It is an ATC problem getting the aircraft up to altitude Columbus to
Europe and getting them down Europe to Columbus. The flight paths
interfer with with Clevland, New York and Detroit operations.

[Morgans]

"john smith" > wrote

> FYI... here in Columbus Ohio we discussed that issue 15 year ago.
> It is an ATC problem getting the aircraft up to altitude Columbus to
> Europe and getting them down Europe to Columbus. The flight paths
> interfer with with Clevland, New York and Detroit operations.

THAT sounds more like an excuse than a reason. Someone with the mojo
doesn't want it to happen, is more like the real problem.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

>> I'm sure they could fly it in empty if weight were the problem.
>
> And who's going to pay for that?

Why, the French taxpayers, I'm sure!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was
>> apparently much more sensitive than necessary?
>
> That was a pilot training issue, not a design error. Remember?

While technically true, it's unfair to single out the actual pilot of the
doomed aircraft. Almost all of us believed that what he did would NOT have
resulted in the total destruction of the airplane.

I still believe that they should use software to limit rudder input
sensitivity, as (if I'm recalling properly) the flight data recorder showed
that the pilot's rudder pedal input was absurdly small -- like 5 pounds of
pressure (?) -- to get the rudder to swing from lock-to-lock.

Hell, that's way less than what is required in my Pathfinder. Airbus needs
to address that problem. (I would be surprised if they haven't already done
so.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Greg Farris]

In article <e9ice.32169$r53.26018@attbi_s21>, says...

>
>I still believe that they should use software to limit rudder input
>sensitivity, as (if I'm recalling properly) the flight data recorder showed
>that the pilot's rudder pedal input was absurdly small -- like 5 pounds of
>pressure (?) -- to get the rudder to swing from lock-to-lock.
>
>
Yes - but the A300 was not FBW - so no software protection.
It sounds legit to say there's at least a partial training question, as he
used repeated, rapid, stop-to-stop swings, in turbulence. That's a lot of
mechanical effort.

G Faris

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

After the X Prize, this is non-news. Now, had the A380 been taken into the
upper atmosphere... :)

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> that the pilot's rudder pedal input was absurdly small -- like 5 pounds of
> pressure (?) -- to get the rudder to swing from lock-to-lock.
>
> Hell, that's way less than what is required in my Pathfinder.

This is rather a problem of yor spam can which requires absurdly high
control input forces.

Stefan

[[email protected]]

Hi Matt,

I was just teasing. ;-)
Well, the rudder isue is adressed again.

-Kees

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:14:55 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
>midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?

It's the 787 (inevitable from the start; they were just getting a
cheap publicity boost by announcing the denomination, or denominating
the announcement, whatever).

It doesn't replace the 777 but the 757, the last one of which was
finished yesterday, and the line is now closed.

It actually does seem a bit different from the Boeing/Airbus
predecessors. Indeed, I'm suspicious that they'll try to squeeze extra
revenue out of the difference (in the 1960s there was a significant
surcharge on jet planes, even when no prop planes were flying at the
advertised price). Likely it will be a three-class airplane to cash in
on those who want to fly something new and (a little bit) different.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:07:31 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>You seem to miss that Airbus is *not* a French company. And the Brits
>tend to be at least as sensible for connotations as the Yanks.

The sensitivity is very different, however. When I lived in England, I
was startled to find a range of books called Cheap Editions, and the
place where I got my teeth fixed part of the Health Scheme. To an
American, cheap meant shoddy, and scheme meant something close to
crooked.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Stefan]

Cub Driver wrote:

> The sensitivity is very different, however. When I lived in England, I
> was startled to find a range of books called Cheap Editions, and the

I'll always remember that American who proudly stated: Hey, I'm
certified! in a British environment. He earned big amusement and never
understood why.

The question remains: Why should Airbus care about the connotations
their name causes in the USA when their main market most probably will
be Europe, Arabia and Asia?

Stefan

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, ShawnD2112 wrote:
> It's going to be interesting to see what a true Open Skies agreement will do
> to this development in the industry. I think one or the other maker will
> have a fleet of commercial dinosaurs on it's hands in about 10-15 years, but
> it'll be anybody's guess at this point which one it'll be.

I don't think it's an 'either-or' game. The 7E7 and A380, at least as
far as I can see, are different tools for different jobs. The A380 will
do well where you need LOTS of capacities and you have the normal
constraints on building new runways. The 7E7 will do well on the routes
where you simply can't fill anything bigger, and may open up new routes
that were previously uneconomical. I expect both will succeed - one may
end up more profitable than the other, but I doubt either will flop
because they both have their place right now.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Dean Wilkinson wrote:
> If you followed the airline industry, you'd realize that the 787 fills a
> different market segment than the 777 does. The 787 is not an
> intercontinental machine, its a regional machine, and will serve as a
> replacement for the 757/767 models.

.... in which case why the planet of hell are all the pundits discussing
the A380 and 7E7 as head-on competitors? If that is the case their roles
are completely orthoganol.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Cub Driver wrote:
> It doesn't replace the 777 but the 757, the last one of which was
> finished yesterday, and the line is now closed.

What will we do for our excess wake turbulence now!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[ShawnD2112]

More like there aren't enough people near Columbus who want to go to London
and, more importantly, not enough people in London want to go to Columbus.
Only one Buckeye fan over here, you see. :-)

Shawn
"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> ShawnD2112 wrote:
>> Boeing reckon people will buy more point-to-point tickets, which won't
>> support larger airplanes but would be commercially viable with smaller
>> and more cost-efficient aircraft. It could finally open up that
>> long-ignored Columbus OH - London route that's been languishing
>> unexploited for so long!
>
> FYI... here in Columbus Ohio we discussed that issue 15 year ago.
> It is an ATC problem getting the aircraft up to altitude Columbus to
> Europe and getting them down Europe to Columbus. The flight paths interfer
> with with Clevland, New York and Detroit operations.

[David CL Francis]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 at 14:16:28 in message
>, Dean Wilkinson
> wrote:

>Boeing addressed the 737 problem by redesigning the yaw damper system and
>retrofitting it in the field, so bringing this up to defend the flaw in the
>A300 is a non-sequiter argument. The fact remains, the A300 has a design
>flaw of some kind that needs to be fixed. If Airbus wants to try to sweep
>it under the rug, they are just going to wind of killing more people. They
>need to proactively investigate the design and determine what is wrong, the
>come up with a real fix. Tapping on the tail doesn't cut it...

Can you give a reference that shows where the 'flaw' in the A300 design
is?

There are three principle factors in an in-flight structural failure.

1. The design requirements. These are laid down by aviation
authorities, not designers. If these are wrong or insufficient
then they need revising for all aircraft of that class.

2. The designers who must meet those requirements and convince the
aviation authority that design and testing shows that these
requirements are met.

3. Those who fly and operate the aircraft and must see that all
maintenance training and operation are within the design limits.

If there is a flaw in which category is it? Over the years there have
been crashes in which all of the above have been in error. You cannot
design, build and operate an aircraft which is proof against _all_
errors or mistakes whether accidental or deliberate.

--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 at 06:55:00 in message
>, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>The sensitivity is very different, however. When I lived in England, I
>was startled to find a range of books called Cheap Editions, and the
>place where I got my teeth fixed part of the Health Scheme. To an
>American, cheap meant shoddy, and scheme meant something close to
>crooked.

The National Health Service I think you will find it is called.
--
David CL Francis

[George Patterson]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> ... in which case why the planet of hell are all the pundits discussing
> the A380 and 7E7 as head-on competitors?

I didn't know they were. The articles I've read all pit the A380 against the 747.

> If that is the case their roles are completely orthoganol.

Agree.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:00:38 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>I'll always remember that American who proudly stated: Hey, I'm
>certified! in a British environment. He earned big amusement and never
>understood why.

Then there was the gent (batman?) who asked the Fulbright women: "What
time shall I knock you up in the morning?"
>
>The question remains: Why should Airbus care about the connotations
>their name causes in the USA when their main market most probably will
>be Europe, Arabia and Asia?

Wow. Same reason why Boeing should care what it calls its planes in
Europe, despite the fact that it is a much smaller market than the
U.S. A sale is a sale.

Airbus is indeed a terrible name. People seem to have accepted it,
though. Of course most people don't have the faintest idea what
airplane they're flying on, neither manufacturer nor model.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:00:04 GMT, David CL Francis
> wrote:

>The National Health Service I think you will find it is called.

True, but everyone in Manchester called it the Health Scheme.

When I came home from England, I was drafted, and in time I was sent
overseas. We had to get our teeth fixed up first. By luck of the draw
I got the colonel in charge (one avoids high-ranking officers in the
army medical corps: why would a good dentist stay in the service?). He
drilled out one of my British fillings, then called all the
lieutenants and captains around him (leaving a room full of GIs with
their mouths propped open). "Look at this!" he cried. "Red mercury! I
haven't seen that since the 1930s!"

This was all some time ago, of course.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:22:41 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>... in which case why the planet of hell are all the pundits discussing
>the A380 and 7E7 as head-on competitors? If that is the case their roles
>are completely orthoganol.

Yes, it's the A350 that's the would-be 787 Killer. (I wish you would
stop calling it an E. That was a very stupid, and happily very
temporary, move on Boeing's part.)

The 380 competes with the 747, which must make Boeing very nervous.
Crikey, the poor old 747 is a third of a century old.

Given the success of the 787, one wonders whether the A350 will ever
get off the ground. Perhaps planes have gotten so expensive now that
Airbus will concentrate on building busses, and Boeing on building
streamliners.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[John Ousterhout]

I prefer my airliners boring.

If I want excitement I'll try for a ride in a Pitts.

Speaking of over-water flights, we'll all chip in for fuel if you fly to
Pinckneyville.

- John Ousterhout -


Dylan Smith wrote:
> Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
> 7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).
>
> But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
> engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
> dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.
>
> I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
> midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
> Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
> way they've done with the 737 for years?
>

[John Ousterhout]

Although they are intended for different markets, they are competitors
in that each company has spent so much on development that they have
literally 'bet the company' on the success or failure of the A380 and
the 787.

Each manufacturer believes that every Airline sale of the newest models
will also include many of their other aircraft -- ones that have already
been amortized and are making a profit.

- John Ousterhout -


Dylan Smith wrote:>
> ... in which case why the planet of hell are all the pundits discussing
> the A380 and 7E7 as head-on competitors? If that is the case their roles
> are completely orthoganol.
>

[James Robinson]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> Dean Wilkinson wrote:
> >
> > If you followed the airline industry, you'd realize that the 787 fills a
> > different market segment than the 777 does. The 787 is not an
> > intercontinental machine, its a regional machine, and will serve as a
> > replacement for the 757/767 models.

The 787 is most certainly an intercontinental machine.

One version will have a range in excess of 8,000 nm. (15,000 km), which
will be enough to carry it between the US west coast and Australia.
They are also planning a shorter range version with 3,500 nm range,
which would handle service within continents, as well as shorter North
Atlantic runs.

> ... in which case why the planet of hell are all the pundits discussing
> the A380 and 7E7 as head-on competitors? If that is the case their roles
> are completely orthoganol.

The intercontinental 787 may not be a direct competitor with the A380 in
terms of routes. For example, there is now frequent 747 service between
Europe and South Africa. The A380 will likely displace many of the 747s
now in that service, since the passenger volumes can justify larger
aircraft. The 787 might fly the routes, but with limited capacity might
not be the aircraft of choice on the part of the airlines.

The 787 will, however, compete for many of the same passengers as the
A380 on US/European routes, as an example. Airbus is betting that the
larger, more efficient aircraft will be needed for heavy volume trunk
routes, like NYC-LON, NYC-AMS, NYC-FRA, or NYC-PAR particularly in light
of the need for slot controls at some of the airports in those cities.

Boeing is betting that many passengers not destined to the larger cities
would prefer to fly on non-stop flights using efficient aircraft that
serve other airports, but where the routes don't have the volumes to
support the A380. For example, if a passenger wanted to fly between
Raleigh/Durham and Munich, it might be possible to offer a non-stop
flight using a 787, rather than forcing a passenger to be routed through
larger cities on each continent. If the fares are competitive, the
passenger would likely choose the non-stop flight.

Using the South African example, it might be possible to offer non-stop
787 service to Durban for the holiday crowd from a number of European
cities, with would not be justified with a 747 or A380.

It's kind of a parallel to the use of regional jets to fly non-stop
between smaller airports, rather than forcing all passengers onto larger
aircraft routed through major hubs.

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:28:08 GMT, John Ousterhout
> wrote:

>Although they are intended for different markets, they are competitors
>in that each company has spent so much on development that they have
>literally 'bet the company' on the success or failure of the A380 and
>the 787.

That may be true of Boeing (though the 787 looks like a winner at this
point, so it is perhaps an easier bet than say the 747). But it's not
true of Airbus. If the 380 doesn't make a profit, Airbus just doesn't
repay the launch aid. What a business model!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com