mickyman

Whilst the development of the Airbus A380 was going on,there
was an open discussion conducted through the media between
Boeing and Airbus,about the future needs of the aviation
industry.
Airbus predicted that Aircraft would need in future to be bigger
hence the A380.
Boeing took the opposite view and hence the B787.

Keeping in mind the recent increases in oil prices across the globe
who do you think called it right?

MM

TwinAisle

Who called it right? Both of them. They serve different margins, each can do tricks the other can't. Both will do well over the 30-50 years of the projects.

mickyman

Twinaisle

I understand what you allude too about the different
target areas from the two manufacturers but with the
huge increases in oil prices seen recently was Boeing right to
concentrate on the 787 and not build a bigger competitor
to the A380.Or do you think that the two have now
claimed their own seperate ground without competing against
the other.

MM

Donkey497

I'd suspect that the answer is somewhere between "neither" and "both".

The airbus A380 strategy is following the Hub & Spoke model which relies on shuttling large volumes of passengers between major regional hubs which are in turn need to be served by highly fuel efficient spoke services to & from smaller local airports.

The problem with this approach is that the fuel efficiency in terms of passenger kilometers / miles for the spoke services isn't as good as that for the hub services. Although Ryanair, EasyJet et al are very good at extracting the maximum efficiency from the 737 / A319, the simple fact is that the short-haul routes have too much time spent in the climb relative to the cruise time and too few passengers carried per flight to match the long haul A380/747 economies.

The other major problem with this is that passemgers are pretty fed up with this traditional model which is a hangover from the relatively short haul origins of the industry. If you consider the UK airscene as a microcosm of the industry as a whole. The UK Government, then BAA & now Ferrovial have throughout the development of the industry by a combination of controlled investment, legislation & social engineering, effectively funnelled all long-haul flights through London. This has meant that the remainder of the UK airports have failed to meet their potential and it has been damaging for the country as a whole, by artificially concentrating trade, industry, housing and population in the extreme sout eastern corner of the country. The net result is that the few hubs become overloaded and distinctly unpopular with transfer passengers and the extremities at the end of the "spokes" are left largely without investment as the hubs become money-pits. In a catch 22 situation the hubs are so heavily loaded that they need constant heavy maintenance, but heavy maintenance can only be done effectively when the hub is shut down, but the hub cannot be shut down as the income from the hub is needed to pay for interest charges, wages and interim maintenance. Hence it becomes a vicious circle of repeated interim patch-ups upon patch-up.

Boeing's point to point approach with relatively high numbers on a single flight also has merit, but as I mentioned above, the hub and spoke model is the prevalent air transport environment, and while there may be sufficient general demand to justify the development of the 787, the necessary global infrastructure such as local/regional airports with efficient ground transport, suitable length of runway, terminal capacity and the catchment area also needs to be in place for a truly succesful point to point model.

Currently, we have to remember that we are still in the relative infancy of the aviation industry and that all of the infrastructure is simply not in place.

If you consider parallels with the shipping industry, you would see that the hub and spoke model operates in partnership with the point to point model for transportation of goods (& people). In combination with this many of the transport modules (ships) have the range and capacity to serve both models. Commercial, engine-driven shipping has been operating for over 2 centuries now, during which engine and fuel types have changed quite markedly and the infrastructure of ports has developed considerably from a position which had developed significantly to suit earlier (sea)port models. We are barely over a century into flight, much less than that for commercial air travel, hence the infrastructure simply is not so well developed as it needs to be.

The current level of fuel costs may coincidentally drive the development of other engine forms and fuels, in the pursuit of enhanced efficiency, but as has been recently stated in various media, the level is driven largely by short term market speculation and naked, self-driven panic rather than a real shortage of fuels.

Sustained levels of fuel costs at or above this level WILL inevitably result in global economic slowdown which WILL result in the same market speculators being some of the major casualties (& I for one will not be in the slightest sorry for them).

What this will mean for the industry in the short term is further early retirement of less fuel efficient airframes like we had after 9/11, probably the resurgance of new short-hop turboprops over older 50-70 seat & smaller jets on short-hop, "climb & dive" services. Longer term, it might just tend to drive the development of more flexible aircraft capable of fulfilling both the point to point and hub / spoke models.

Who knows, this could be a positive thing. As has been proved in the past, in times of stress, great developments can come to the fore....


Time will tell, but it'll probably be on a timescale that will not have a lot of meaning to us mere mortals.

PAXboy

There is not sufficient demand for airframes in the world for both the major manufacturers to supply the full range across, say A318~380. We can already see that the US has combined (major) commercial airliner development into a single company, as have Europe.

There are then a number of small companies such as Embraer and DHC for the turbo props and commuter stuff, as well as the Biz jets. The Russians and the Chinese each have their companies.

Once Airbus had decided to make the 380 the only commercial decision left for Boeing was to NOT to make a competitor. They went for the 78 and a further extension to the life of the 74, which was very sensible.

Therefore ... everyone has won! Your question is answered!

NWSRG

As a passenger, do I want to travel point to point, with 250 other bodies, or point to hub to hub to point, with 500 other bodies for the longest bit...

Personally, I think the 787 (or A350) route is the one I would prefer...and I wonder how the economics will stack up. I'll guess that, per passenger, the A380 is cheaper on it's particular leg, but add in the one or two minor flights at each end, and maybe a single 787 hop begins to look more cost effective?

mickyman

Having the A380 in service we are able to 'do the sums'
and evaluate the economics.
Boeing look to have turned the corner in assembly
of the 787 but obviously no measurements of the in service
economics can be had at this time - just predictions.
It will be interesting to compare how the two aircraft
match the specifications/promises on the initial
drawing boards.
Both companies encountered significant
delays during assembly which were not factored.
Has anybody any idea how the economics in service
of the 380 compare to the predicted?

MM