Boeing press conference

David747 · Post by **David747** » 22 Mar 2007, 16:54

RC20 wrote: Boeing has been working with the FAA on those issues to be sure there are no show stoppers. There are a number of all composite aircraft flying, so its not totally new (none in that certification category ).

FAA is allowing the Dreamlifter to move parts as part of the certificating process.

Correct.

And yes, the A380 landing in the US is news, but not the most significant news. A whole new industry and era in aviation is being created by Boeing.
They have turned the industry on its head, and have set in motion the state of the art for the next 30 years. Its not super glitzy, but its a once in a lifetime event.

I didn't say the A380 Landing in the United States is the most significant news, now with that being said, Airbus is also a part of introducing a new Era of avation with the A380, and Airbus since the consortium has been created has done a lot to promote and set into motion technology well into the 21st century. That continues today with the A380.

The A380 is just a big aircraft. Nothing new, nothing innovative, Boeing did it 40 years ago, the Russians have done it. Sort of like the tail fin era in autos. Yep, the last ones were amazing, but what had the biggest impact on the auto industry was the VW Bug.

Right, Boeing did it 40 years ago with the 747, but what is new about the A380 is not its size but the potential of doing what the 747 did, and reduce the cost of travel like the 747.

regi · Post by **regi** » 22 Mar 2007, 17:32

and no mentioning of the lost order to AB for + 20 A350 for Aeroflot?

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 22 Mar 2007, 18:18

regi wrote:and no mentioning of the lost order to AB for + 20 A350 for Aeroflot?

Old news. Its mentioned somewhere on here.

boeing797 · Post by **boeing797** » 23 Mar 2007, 03:46

David747 wrote:

Right, Boeing did it 40 years ago with the 747, but what is new about the A380 is not its size but the potential of doing what the 747 did, and reduce the cost of travel like the 747.[/quote]

If B787 delivers Boeing's promise what do we benefit from A380? Extra hours of flying?

achace · Post by **achace** » 23 Mar 2007, 05:39

Sorry 797 you are quite wrong!
One A380 will do the work of two 787, and maybe even slightly faster.
It can cruise at 0.86 against its guaranteed 0.85.

Cheers
Achace

boeing797 · Post by **boeing797** » 23 Mar 2007, 14:48

achace wrote:Sorry 797 you are quite wrong!
One A380 will do the work of two 787, and maybe even slightly faster.
It can cruise at 0.86 against its guaranteed 0.85.

Cheers
Achace

As a passenger do I care A380 do twice the work of B787? Sure It can cruise a little faster, saving me some time, but what about the time I wait to board, transfer flight? I just care if flying A380 is cheaper than B787. You have any idea? I guess we just compare cost per seat-mile between the 2 planes right?

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 23 Mar 2007, 20:59

Airbus recently released their cost assessment for the various aircraft. .

The A380 was listed first, the 787 next. How much of that is valid is????? What it does backup though, is Boeing claim that the twins are as or more economical than the big 4 engine aircraft (and the A340 has already been superseded)

Frankly, I do not see the A380 doing what the 747 did. It looks to be a niche market, needed by some, but not a lot (155 sales more or less in 7 years now?, and noting that while the 787 has not even flown, its sales keep going on).

So, the real question is, what would airlines do if the A380 did not exist, or they cancelled it?

Heavy routes they would buy 747-8I, and if needed supplement it with a 777 or 787. They might find its more flexible. I have seen Alaska Airlines mix and match their routes with the 3 sizes of the 737NG. Maybe find they could go direct, lower landing costs, different schedules that work etc.

JAL dropped 747-400 service on one route to Europe. They lost 5% revenue as a result of that. They gained 15% revenue because the 777 that replaced it was more efficient.

If you need jus one A380, do you buy one and incur all that cost, or do you mange your fleet differently. Big move like Emirates it seems to be no question that if its available, you go with A380. There is only one carrier like that in the whole world. Airbus has bet their future on that. Long term (and held up so fare) 25% or your orders are still with a single airline.

So, it still has to prove itself a commercial success, not just a technical achievement. Concord was a technical achievement, but it was never a commercial success. And when it the competition thing got serious (and fuel prices went up) both BA and AF dropped it like a hot potato.

A380 has the stuff on paper to be competitive, no questions, but that’s only in fuel burn and direct costs. Can it and will it do that with all the support that has to go into it, and all those huge costs benefiting a small number of them in each airline that buys it?

achace · Post by **achace** » 24 Mar 2007, 04:13

RC20 makes a lot of sense.

The A380 really isnt all that innovative. It has some things like high pressure hydraulics, but basically it is a big airplane that appears to have met its performance guarantees except for weight, and I guess that will get fixed.

The market is going to be replacing the 747 over the next few years. Over 1000 in service, and it is a logistic impossibility to suggest 777, 787 and 350XWB can replace them all.

Maybe the 380 will eventually break even, but wont be a hit with the EADS shareholders.

Boeing did a major turnabout when they announced the 748 after earlier saying there wasnt a market for its original stretch 747, so some hope for the 380, and Boeing must be expecting a few hundred sales forthe 748.

Cheers
Achace

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 24 Mar 2007, 09:31

Boeing was smart comming up with the 748. For a relativly small investment they came up with an AC that will take sales away from the A380. They also came up with IMHO the best freighter in the world. Because Boeing has so much less invested in the 748 it will make money even if only the freighter sells. Sales of the Pax version is all gravy and takes sales away from the A380. Smart move Boeing!!!

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 25 Mar 2007, 10:53

Whatever figures may be thrown around by Airbus or Boeing, one thing for for is that the 787 is selling and the 380 is not.

Ruscoe

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 25 Mar 2007, 19:24

The A380 isn't selling now because of all the delays. I think once the A380 enters service and proves itself it will start picking up more sales. The A380 will never sell as many AC as the 787 because there is a smaller market for Jumbos. There are a lot of older 747-400 AC coming up for replacement now but not all will be replaced with a 747-8I or A380. Some are being replaced with B777's now. More may even be replaced with the 787 or A350 in the future. This leaves the Jumbo market pretty small. Boeing is better off now because they have less money invested in the 748. Even better, Boeing has no Jumbo freighter competitor now that the A380F is on hold. It is going to be hard for Airbus to sell enough A380's to make money.

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 25 Mar 2007, 19:39

boomer535 wrote:The A380 isn't selling now because of all the delays. I think once the A380 enters service and proves itself it will start picking up more sales. The A380 will never sell as many AC as the 787 because there is a smaller market for Jumbos. There are a lot of older 747-400 AC coming up for replacement now but not all will be replaced with a 747-8I or A380. Some are being replaced with B777's now. More may even be replaced with the 787 or A350 in the future. This leaves the Jumbo market pretty small. Boeing is better off now because they have less money invested in the 748. Even better, Boeing has no Jumbo freighter competitor now that the A380F is on hold. It is going to be hard for Airbus to sell enough A380's to make money.

This is a good post.
I will add that the twin engine widebody jets are going to be the way of the future. The four engine birds are dieing

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 25 Mar 2007, 23:32

I think the 747-8F freighter will do very well. Its closest competition will be all the converted 747-400's that will and are coming on the market. That Nose door, bigger payload, and better fuel burn will help sell the new 747-8F over the converted 747's. There still is a market for Jumbos but how big can two engine widebodies get? How about a new three engine Jumbo? Would it be worth it to develop?

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 25 Mar 2007, 23:47

boomer535 wrote:I think the 747-8F freighter will do very well. Its closest competition will be all the converted 747-400's that will and are coming on the market. That Nose door, bigger payload, and better fuel burn will help sell the new 747-8F over the converted 747's. There still is a market for Jumbos but how big can two engine widebodies get? How about a new three engine Jumbo? Would it be worth it to develop?

February 2001 was a sad time for me. Thats when the last MD 11 rolled off the assembly line

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 26 Mar 2007, 00:37

I flew on a lot of DC10's in the 70's and liked them a lot. I think I saw a drawing of a blended wing Jumbo under development at Boeing. I think that it had three engines. I don't see a big enough market for it though. Maybe a replacement for the 787 in 20 years. The 787 hasn't even flown yet and I am already writing about it's replacement!! The real money is going to be in the replacement for the B737 and A320. Boeing is ahead here too. They have the composite experience thanks to the 787 that Airbus lacks. If they can get the right engine Boeing can make a killing in this market.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 26 Mar 2007, 02:51

achace wrote:Sorry 797 you are quite wrong!
One A380 will do the work of two 787, and maybe even slightly faster.
It can cruise at 0.86 against its guaranteed 0.85.

Cheers
Achace

No, two 787's (or A350XWB's) will do twice the work of one A380. Since they carry one-half the passengers, the smaller planes can depart the same city for two different destinations at the same time and, thus perform twice the work. Only if all 555 passengers want to depart one city for another at the same time, will the A380 come into its own.

Otherwise, the smaller palnes will give the airlines greater flexibility for more routes.

achace · Post by **achace** » 26 Mar 2007, 05:25

Its all a matter of semantics Smokejumper.

Obviously no airline will use a 380 or 747 on routes where they cannot get at least 70% load factor.

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

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 26 Mar 2007, 06:23

achace wrote:Its all a matter of semantics Smokejumper.

And economics, too.
Some rules of transport apply to all kind of transport means.
1 - Railways will put double deckers in line on high density sectors.
Because schedules do not allow two train in the same slot, when there is high demand.
2- Smaller stations can not enjoy stops of all trains.
Meaning not all airports can serve all airports.
There will be lots of airports that only will see the belly side of the superjumbos.

Maybe operating a smaller aircraft will cost less, but many smaller will cause airport services tax to rise in smaller airports. Not counting the pollution per passenger/mile, including pre and after flight pollution caused by the multiple personnel coming and going to these smaller airports. Which in consequence will provoke higher taxes on these ground transportations.

imho, concentration of high capacity tractors to selected major airports is a better solution. The point is to connect these major airports to a clean swift (hi-speed) and efficient public transport system.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 26 Mar 2007, 14:42

There are city pairs for which super large planes will work, but they are limited in number.

If a city pair has 4,000 passengers traveling between them per day and the route is served by 4 airlines, the airlines have the choice of offering 7 A380 flights per day or 16 B787/A350 flights per day or a combination there-of).

The greater frequency afforded by the smaller planes is a real marketing advantage since the paying traveler can choose the most convenient time of departure.

In order to be profitable, planes must have a critical load factor of about 75% or more (there is a lot of variance in this number depending on whether both fixed and variable costs are included), in order to cover all the costs of offering the flight. Additionally, smaller planes offer a lot of flexibility and can profitably fly between less-dense city pairs, while offering better schedules and frequencies.

If you can fill a large plane, it can make you a lot of money, but if you can not fill it, it will eat your lunch quickly. The cost elasticity of these planes can make for a quickly descending, slippery slope.

Recall Sir Richard Branson’s advice – “it’s easy to become a millionaire; just start with a billion and start and airline!”

Post by **ElcoB** » 26 Mar 2007, 15:05

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.