Boeing press conference

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

SN30952
Posts: 7151
Joined: 31 Jul 2003, 00:00

Post by SN30952 »

smokejumper wrote:Additionally, smaller planes offer a lot of flexibility and can profitably fly between less-dense city pairs, while offering better schedules and frequencies.
Not true smokejumper, it is not the size of aircraft that offer flexibility, but the number of aircraft offering better schedules and frequencies.
That's like a football team, the better your bench, the better flexibility on the field. If you got no attackers on your bench, where is your flexibility in your front line? It has nothing to do with the size of your players, but with the number on the bench.

smokejumper
Posts: 1033
Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
Location: Northern Virginia USA

Post by smokejumper »

ElcoB wrote:
smokejumper wrote:There are city pairs for which super large planes will work, but they are limited in number.
...
I would add the following to your well-balanced view:

* General expection is that aviation-traffic will grow in the coming years.

* This growth will only be possible if airports can expand to handle more passengers and/or more planes.

* In many cities, airport expansion is limited because of lack of space, more rules for noise and pollution restriction.

* The above means, for some airports the number of slots is hard to raise and therefore capacity/plane will have to be bigger to handle the expected passenger-growth.

And that's where the A380 comes in.
Basically, I agree with your take - travel will increase and airports are space-constrained. However, will the need for mega-sized planes grow sufficiently in the next 5-6 years to warrant continued production of the A380?

Airbus has 166 orders for the plane with about 160 yet to be produced. If they produce only 3 per month (probably an uneconomic production rate), this represents a 53 month (4.5 years) production life cycle. Long lead time items need to be ordered about 2 years in advance, so unless major new orders are gained by the end of 2009, continued production becomes speculative.

I do not feel that the projected long-term market growth (say 10+ years) willl materialize soon enough to help Airbus, in this case.

smokejumper
Posts: 1033
Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
Location: Northern Virginia USA

Post by smokejumper »

SN30952 wrote:
smokejumper wrote:Additionally, smaller planes offer a lot of flexibility and can profitably fly between less-dense city pairs, while offering better schedules and frequencies.
Not true smokejumper, it is not the size of aircraft that offer flexibility, but the number of aircraft offering better schedules and frequencies.
That's like a football team, the better your bench, the better flexibility on the field. If you got no attackers on your bench, where is your flexibility in your front line? It has nothing to do with the size of your players, but with the number on the bench.
Thank you, you made my point! I too would rather have a larger number on the bench (say 20 250-seat planes) than fewer (say 10 550 seat planes). Southwest Airlines can use larger planes than the B737-700 on many routes, but they stick with the smaller aircraft for the flexibility in schedule frequency.

SN30952
Posts: 7151
Joined: 31 Jul 2003, 00:00

Post by SN30952 »

smokejumper wrote:Thank you, you made my point! I too would rather have a larger number on the bench
Don't (we) all aviation-enthusiasts would like to see that too.
But some analysts (not: annalists, sorry :oops: ) over the weekend published conclusions about the EU-US 'open sky' agreement, some concluded that the agreement will push small(er) airports out of that market. A conclusion I can adhere too.
If that is so, smokejumper, you will have your populated bench but no practicable (usable air)field.

btw, Smokejumpers are most often deployed to fires that are extremely remote. These super jumbos are not designed for remote airports. :wink:

smokejumper
Posts: 1033
Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
Location: Northern Virginia USA

Post by smokejumper »

SN30952 wrote:
smokejumper wrote:Thank you, you made my point! I too would rather have a larger number on the bench
Don't (we) all aviation-enthusiasts would like to see that too.
But some analysts (not: annalists, sorry :oops: ) over the weekend published conclusions about the EU-US 'open sky' agreement, some concluded that the agreement will push small(er) airports out of that market. A conclusion I can adhere too.
If that is so, smokejumper, you will have your populated bench but no practicable (usable air)field.

btw, Smokejumpers are most often deployed to fires that are extremely remote. These super jumbos are not designed for remote airports. :wink:
If you'd like to see some of the remote Idaho airstrips we flew into in the early 1960's, go to:

http://www.mountainflying.com/soldier6.htm

and

http://www.mountainflying.com/milehi2.htm

The Johnson Flying Service pilots who flew us were the best in the world! I have many great memories of DC-3 and C-45 flights into these fields. If I could only go back 45 years (and have a good bcak and knees again), I'd still be a Smokejumper and not just go to reunions and drink beer! BTW, since 1940, there have only been about 5,800 Smokejumpers and the early guys are dying off.

SN30952
Posts: 7151
Joined: 31 Jul 2003, 00:00

Post by SN30952 »

smokejumper wrote:I'd still be a Smokejumper and not just go to reunions and drink beer! BTW, since 1940, there have only been about 5,800 Smokejumpers and the early guys are dying off.
The forest departments in the remote mountains in N. Thailand could use guys like you as trainers and/or consultants to solve their recurrent forest fires.

Readers who do not know The smoke jumpers, can maybe rent the movie?

Here for easier retrieval @ your shop:
Image

RC20
Posts: 547
Joined: 09 Dec 2005, 00:00

Post by RC20 »

achace wrote:Its all a matter of semantics Smokejumper.

I'm sure you wouldnt expect any airline to use two 737 instead of one 787 either.

Its the same argument.

The 380 and 748 will be high density movers, certainly not purchased for low load factor routes.

Cheers
Achace
I have to disagree. Alaska Airlines uses 737s almost exclusively, and they are getting rid of the MD80s.

At times they have 2-3 of them leaving Anchorage for Seattle, all within a few minutes of each other.

Its the flexibility that works, as some go on beyond Seattle, some turn around and back to Anchorage.

Some run routes not through Seattle. I would have thought they would have picked up a 767 or A330 to do the heavy use Seattle- Anchorage-Seattle run, but the ability to mix, match and split has trumped that thought, and they do not plan on anything other than 737s (and its a 1500 mile flight, and the are not a LCC) .

American downsized and gave up their 747s.

Obviously some airlines think the A380 works, and maybe it does, but smaller jets work as well. Its an interesting contrast of models.

Be that what it may, the slowdown in A380 sales has as much to do with the fact that the discounts were off, and they quit selling. There was no movement in sales just before all the delays became public, and it was flying. That’s a bad sign.

Now its in trouble, discounts are back on, and they have gained some sales from existing carriers. No new carriers, and it seems a good guess that MAS will back out. With the freighter sales dropped, on the surface they are about even (though a loss of 40 aircraft in this market is a huge hit, let alone probably no freighter sales ever.

The damming statistic is that its sold more or less 160, in 7 years. Break even is 420 ( per Airbus), and as high as 520 according to the worst figure I have seen. And how is that calculated? Is it 420 sales in 10 years? Airbus has always claimed a lot more sales in 20 years. What does that mean if it doesn’t do that for another 20? The ROI just gets worse and will suck the life out of Airbus, and at some point you have to let it go (if I am right and it does not sell enough fast enough). 3 steps back, for 2 steps forward is going backwards, even if slowly.

Compare that to the 747-8 with 80 combined sales, and solid prospects on the options, pushing it upwards of 100+ in 2 years. Boeing just would not do a new 747 until the interest was there, and they obviously judged it well.

787 is even more stunning, as it keeps selling well even just before its first flight, when airlines are normally the most nervous about buying an aircraft (let alone a huge leap like this one is). And while options and purchase rights are normally nebulous, its obvious that those will be picked up with this aircraft if it proves its merit.

If Airbus does not get the A350 right? (and Emirates is publicly vocal that they are not happy with it).

User avatar
bits44
Posts: 1895
Joined: 03 Aug 2004, 00:00
Location: Vancouver CYVR

Post by bits44 »

An important piece of the puzzle is Airports, and more specifically Airport expansion. The major hub Airports have all been around for a long time in most cases, and when they were planned and built the planners put them in sparsely populated areas away from residential areas.

As we all know population increases every year and those empty spaces have filled with homes and businesses, and are now squeezing those Airports on every side.

So the big gateways are totally restricted as far as expansion is concerned, and noise levels are regulated, as well as hours of operation.

If any of you have been to LAX you'll know what congestion means.

The major Airports of the world are now starting to suffer the same fate, except for the middle east where they just build into the desert. The other major factor is there are no places left to build new Airports unless you want to build it hours away from major cities and travellers will not stand for that.

The majority of travellers just want to get on a plane, go directly to where they want to go, and get off. I have yet to find anyone that enjoys flying to a hub, sitting in a holding area for hours, and flying eventually to their destination on a trip that should take half the time. I recently travelled via AA from YVR to DFW then to DCA it took over eleven hours total.

If you lay out that trip on a map, you'll see how how ridiculous it was to fly through DFW, a non-stop direct flight would have been about half the time.

As was mentioned in prior posts the load factor is the important criteria for determining the size of the aircraft and the Airlines strive to hit a minimum 75% load, or better.

So in most cases smaller aircraft, high load factors, more frequent service, cheaper landing fees, and quick turnaround are what makes money, and keeps travellers happy
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.

smokejumper
Posts: 1033
Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
Location: Northern Virginia USA

Post by smokejumper »

As to the issue of airports, I believe that (at least in the US) airport capacity is not the major issue. Most (not all) major cities have alternates that they can develop. For example, while LAX is totally congested, Burbank can handle more flights and Palmdale is also available, as well as John Wayne in Santa Anna and Long Beach International in Long Beach. All are within 25 miles (40 Km) of downtown Los Angeles. These airports currently exist have existing airline service and are underutilized.

In the case of New York, Stewart International (a closed USAF base) in Newburgh and Islip Airport in Islip can supplement JFK, LaGuardia and Newark. Philadelphia is also served by three airports, including Philadelphia, North Philadelphia and Wilmington (Delaware), and can be served by closed military base airports. San Francisco is also served by major airports in Oakland and San Jose.

The Boston area is currently served by Logan International, Providence (Rhode Island) and Manchester (New Hampshire) and can also be served by airports west of the city. Other cities have similar options.

Of course, these cities need to improve high speed transportation links to these airports to improve access. True, these high speed transportation links will cost money, but they would also serve the local populations and spur development. And, don’t forget that any improvements to the existing airports to handle very large airports also cost billions of dollars.

The US has closed a number of military airports around the country; many are proximate to major metropolitan areas. It might be less expensive and offer many other advantages (development, expanded tax base, improved commuter transportation, etc.) if these airports were used rather than buy a limited number of very large airplanes. Smaller airplanes offer greater flexibility for both the airlines and the passengers.

I am not sure about the current situation in other parts of the world, but for the US, I feel that development of alternate airports is a better option.

User avatar
bits44
Posts: 1895
Joined: 03 Aug 2004, 00:00
Location: Vancouver CYVR

Post by bits44 »

I am not sure about the current situation in other parts of the world, but for the US, I feel that development of alternate airports is a better option.
I would think the airline industry would agree with you, many are doing just that, and especially LCC's seem to be really utilizing alternates and getting very good load factors as a bonus.

As well the costs for NAV and Landing fees is reduced.
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.

User avatar
bits44
Posts: 1895
Joined: 03 Aug 2004, 00:00
Location: Vancouver CYVR

Post by bits44 »

A very interesting read from Heathrow and its slot allocations:


http://www.iag-inc.com/articles/ACL%20S ... r%2007.pdf
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.

RC20
Posts: 547
Joined: 09 Dec 2005, 00:00

Post by RC20 »

I think Hawaiian Airlines represents the wave of the future.

They fly from Hawaii to Riverside California at night when their fleet is not in use. They use a 737 for that mission!

Yep, it has the range and the ETROPs certification. They make money because its not sitting there doing nothing, Riverside has lower landing fees.

So, the open skies thing is fare more likely to fragment the market. Smaller players can get in if they can find the city pairs that work.

Today’s 737 (and A320 I think) can jump the Atlantic, and tomorrows versions even more so and efficient. 787 is as good or better on the economics as the 747 and A380 (current version).

User avatar
Spottersgek
Posts: 9
Joined: 29 Mar 2007, 07:53
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Spottersgek »

when i worked @ the Airbus space in Toulouse i have been in the A380. And all what i could say was.. WOW WOW WOW WOW. My face looked like a cartoon. Such a huge plane. wow wow wow.

but i think, it's overkill so big.
i'm not crazy, i'm a plane

boeing797
Posts: 108
Joined: 01 May 2005, 00:00

Post by boeing797 »

Boeing wins another order of 10 B787s.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/c ... 3C3521D%7D

User avatar
DFW
Posts: 254
Joined: 30 Dec 2005, 00:00

Post by DFW »

Are we still on this thread? :shock:

Let's start new threads here for stories not related to the "Boeing Press Conference" (the pictures from Smokerjumper were cool though).
:D
The Avianca story is interesting because apparently they think they're getting their 787s in 2010. Could they have snapped up Aeroflot's vacated slots? Boeing basically said the delivery time was to be worked out.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?

User avatar
cageyjames
Posts: 514
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 00:00
Location: On Lease to PHL

Post by cageyjames »

RC20 wrote:I think Hawaiian Airlines represents the wave of the future.

They fly from Hawaii to Riverside California at night when their fleet is not in use. They use a 737 for that mission!
I assume you mean Aloha and Ontario? :? Only AQ's 73Gs are capable of that flight and they don't fly to ONT (or "Riverside").

I've flown AQ from SNA to HNL and it wasn't too much fun. If the 73G is the wave of the future for transpacific or transatlantic flights, count me out... Give me HA and their widebodies any day.
US Airways - Fly with US

User avatar
fleabyte
Posts: 237
Joined: 02 Dec 2005, 00:00
Location: Colorado and Colombia

737 replacement

Post by fleabyte »

Fanciful thinking:

What if Boeing cut 50 feet off the 787-3 and created a 787-2 and 787-1. If the -3 is to seat 290-330 persons, then the -2 could seat 240, and the dash 1 could seat 200. A new wing and engines.

Now that takes the 757-200 replacement and also the 737-900ER, so the 797 can concentrate and optimize in the 140 passenger spot. It could have a fuselage like a fat A320, and seat 90-180.

then you might have an interesting family of short and fat aircraft:

787-10 - gets rid the 777-200ER
787-9 - 767-400, A330-300
787-8 - 767-300ER, A330-200
787-3 - A300

787-2 - 757-200, 757-300
787-1 - 737-900ER

797-4 - 737-800
797-3 - 737-700
797-2- 737-600
797-1 - 737-200, 500


Then Boeing could concentrate on a large aircraft to replace the 777-300ER and 747-8i.

Post Reply