If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:12:44 GMT, "Hilton"
wrote: OK, here's my question. Aircraft manufacturers will do just about anything to get 1% fuel savings. Boeing says the 787 will be 20% more efficient - HOW? And why is everyone OK with it? I'm just curious, I'm not doubting their claims, but sometimes if things sound too good to be true... One assumes they're saying 20 percent more efficient than the 777, and that it's accomplished by cutting weight, streamlining design, and buying better engines. The engines of course are fungible. Airbus proposes to use them on its 787 killer (which will probably never get off the ground). -- 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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote:
Airbus would be smart to quietly drop its 787 killer, just as Boeing quietly dropped its 380 killer. Are you referring to the 747X that no-one bought or the almost-supersonic plane that Boeing engineering couldn't live up to Boeing marketing promises? Hilton |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Bull****, Boeing doesn't receive government subsidies... tax breaks don't
count and they are tiny compared to what Airbus gets... wrote in message oups.com... No 7x7 either. -Kees |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380.
1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets. 2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes. 3. Pilot pay is going down, so it is no longer a big money savings reducing the number of pilots by flying larger planes. 4. Gas costs are going up, and will continue to rise for the next several years. Fuel efficiency is key. With these factors in mind, it is at the least very risky to be putting all of your eggs in one basket with the A380. If it does not sell like hot cakes, Airbus is going to take a bath, and the Euro taxpayers are going to be footing the bill. "G Farris" wrote in message ... In article , says... Boeing may well be the market leader this year, on the strength of the 787. I find this very tenuous. If Boeing does manage to slow the hemmorrage of market share this year, it will be thanks to a traditional agreement with the Japanese, and not to any purported strengths of a plane that does not exist, and that no one knows much about, except that it has wavy lines on the floor instead of straight ones. (Are these supposed to help drunken passengers navigate, or are they a metaphor for Boeing's own management strategy?). They year is young yet. Airbus is about to proceed with the most spectacular rollout since the 747 - and I have not seen any billboards saying, "Would the last one to leave Toulouse please turn out the lights . . ." The prestige and media coverage of the event can only enhance their posture (unless of course the rollout ends the way the initial A320 demonstration did)! And Boeing, in their wavering wisdom, have chosen this moment to announce the end of the 747 program. What stupidity! Not to end it, I mean - but to announce it now - to say to all the asian carriers who use almost exclusively jumbos "YES, we have NO ANSWER to Airbus's A380!" They have thus spent time and money gold-plating the silver platter on which they deliver this lucrative market to their competitor. I'm American, and I would love to see Boeing at least maintain parity with Airbus in deliveries, as well as maintaining their stature as a technological flagship of American industry. Byt then, I went to University of Minnesota, and I quickly learned the futility of rooting for any of their teams! G Faris |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"faky" wrote Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380. 1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets. 2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes. First of all, I want to state that I am not an airbus fan. The whole state purpose of the 380, is to get more passenger capacity at airports that have no more available landing slots, due to the airport being at maximum movement capacity. Heathrow is one example. The 380 would have to be put on a route that had enough demand to another city, to keep it full. Demand has to be at levels higher than what the current slots will carry, with the present planes. That is the only big advantage, and will be the only routes the 380 is slated to run on. -- Jim in NC |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
faky wrote:
Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380. 1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets. 2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes. 3. Pilot pay is going down, so it is no longer a big money savings reducing the number of pilots by flying larger planes. 4. Gas costs are going up, and will continue to rise for the next several years. Fuel efficiency is key. With these factors in mind, it is at the least very risky to be putting all of your eggs in one basket with the A380. If it does not sell like hot cakes, Airbus is going to take a bath, and the Euro taxpayers are going to be footing the bill. I don't think the 380 was designed for domestic routes where the hub and spoke system dominates. It was designed for international routes which have pretty much a hub to hub design inherently. I suspect it will do well in that application. Matt |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 faky wrote: Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380. 1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets. 2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes. 3. Pilot pay is going down, so it is no longer a big money savings reducing the number of pilots by flying larger planes. 4. Gas costs are going up, and will continue to rise for the next several years. Fuel efficiency is key. From a US perspective, you're quite correct. But the A380 isn't geared really towards the US market. With these factors in mind, it is at the least very risky to be putting all of your eggs in one basket with the A380. If it does not sell like hot cakes, Airbus is going to take a bath, and the Euro taxpayers are going to be footing the bill. I don't htink Airbus is doing this. They still have their fuel efficient winners in the A318/319/320. That is what has been their big winners and encroachment into Boeing's turf in N. America. The A380 is going to be for those bigger, more heavily populated tourist cities that people will fly to/from en masse. At the most, the US will probably only see the A380 at 5 airports, and possibly another 3 - 4 in Canada; those being New York (JFK), LAS, LAX, SFO, and ORD. With Canada, YVR for sure, but possibly YYZ and YUL. Other than that, it's going to be used in the Europe/Asia/Oceania/Middle East market, and used in full. You need to think more on the global perspective with the A380, not just regional. BL. - -- Brad Littlejohn | Email: Unix Systems Administrator, | Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCaAxjyBkZmuMZ8L8RAr0OAKClul3QcHjM88Xf++16vP cnUuKuSwCgjjVl 0xizzc3cZJDpDt7cpisfeCI= =lye9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Of course the A-380 is a huge gamble, and I agree it is the Europeans' savings they are gambling with. Taxes, actually. Taxes come before savings and private consumption, or instead of them. -- 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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"G Farris" wrote: ...I look to other indicators of management success, and I'm afraid I do not discern a bright, shining beacon at Boeing. Tee-hee! Beauty. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Information on A310 that lost it's rudder enroute to Canada from Cuba | Corky Scott | Piloting | 3 | March 27th 05 03:49 PM |
Australia chooses Airbus tankers | John Cook | Military Aviation | 0 | April 16th 04 10:25 AM |
Airbus 15 minutes of fame over? | Buzzer | Military Aviation | 5 | January 20th 04 04:42 AM |
Airbus Charts Course for Military Contracts | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 24th 03 11:04 PM |
Airbus Aiming at U.S. Military Market | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 21st 03 08:55 PM |