Airbus: 7E7 is rushed and ridiculous

[SLuca]

From The Engineer, 11 June 2004

Rushed and ridiculous

By Richard Fisher

Airbus has attacked the high proportion of composites used in
Boeing's 7E7 Dreamliner, branding the aircraft's
development 'rushed' and 'ridiculous'.
The 7E7 will contain double the amount of composites used in the
Airbus A380 - including most of the fuselage and wings. But Airbus
claims Boeing has rushed through the technology before it is
sufficiently matured.
Colin Stuart, Airbus vice-president of marketing, said composites
should be introduced with caution in aircraft design. 'If you start
to look at the various loads on composites [in an all-composite
fuselage], it is absolutely the wrong thing to do.'
Current composite material is unsuitable for many areas of the
fuselage claimed Alain Garcia, executive vice-president of
engineering. 'It's perfect for tension and fatigue, but poor for
compression.'
Airbus has stepped up the war of words with Boeing after the US
company criticised weight increases in the A380. Airbus claims the
7E7 will be heavier than Boeing has admitted. 'The 7E7 carries the
weight penalty of a compromised and rushed design,' the company said.
Dr Jürgen Klenner, Airbus senior vice-president of structure
engineering, said today's carbon fibre is often no more than 'black
aluminium' - with the same attributes as traditional materials
-
offering few benefits for the extra cost. Carbon fibre does have
weight advantages, but according to Klenner the cost of the raw
material is up to 500 per cent higher. 'We do not apply a material
because it is trendy, we do it when we are convinced it is mature
enough. There are crucial questions that have not yet been
answered,' he said.
There are concerns that composites present a higher fire risk,
delaminate in humid conditions, and are more expensive to repair.
Prof Phil Irving, civil aviation authority expert in damage
tolerance at Cranfield University, said engineers should dripfeed
composites into aircraft design to avoid 'unexpected
failures. 'There is always a risk when introducing something new on
to an aircraft, no matter how many tests. There's always something
we haven't realised.'
Bird strike, stones or taxiing accidents would greatly reduce the
compressive strength of composites such as carbon fibre. 'You can
avoid the problem by making it thicker, but that has economic
implications. It's rather difficult to see how you can have a whole
fuselage made of composites.'
Airbus chief executive Noel Forgeard claimed the 7E7 would have
identical technology to the A380. 'This is why Boeing has strongly
discounted it to sell it,' he said. Airbus accused Boeing of
tinkering with the 7E7's supposedly advanced technology during its
development, saying the final product will be more conventional and
heavier than originally claimed.
Stuart said: 'They have rushed this aircraft through in a ridiculous
way.'But Boeing denies this, pointing out that the aircraft was
developed in parallel to, rather than after, the company's now-
cancelled project, the Sonic Cruiser.
A Boeing spokesman said: 'We've put a great amount of work into
composites, drawing on the work we've already done on the 777 and a
whole variety of military aircraft. The 7E7 is a bold move, but if
you look at the efficiency and environmental advantages it's a move
in the right direction.'
The 7E7 will contain 50 per cent of its weight in composites, making
it lighter and more fuel-efficient, Boeing claims. The A380
structure contains under 25 per cent composites, while Airbus chose
not to use the carbon fibre wing planned for its future military
aircraft.
Boeing announced this week it expects up to 200 orders for the 7E7
in 2004. Only Japan's All Nippon Airways and Air New Zealand have
placed orders, compared with 129 orders to date for the A380.
Airbus's approach for the A380 is in sharp contrast to Boeing's
claims for the smaller Dreamliner. Airbus is focused on shipping up
to 550 people between megahub airports, while Boeing believes flying
faster and lighter point-to-point is the future of air travel.

[Airbubba]

>>...Colin Stuart, Airbus vice-president of marketing, said composites should be introduced with caution in aircraft design.<<

Airbus sure speaks from tragic experience on this one...

[Huck]

The 7E7 ain't certificated yet....

Anybody else remember what happened to the Beech Starship? FAA dug in hard on that one.

[747FOCAL]

I got to admit, we are in for a rough ride on this one. Every manufacture that has tried to build a large airplane entirely from composite has failed misserably. :(

[Panama Jack]

Sure. . . . and Boeing and others insist that the A-380 is too big. The war of words is on.

[Thunderball 2]

Airbus: Market segmentation is in the eye of the beholder
Dateline: Wednesday June 09, 2004

The theory that future international traffic development increasingly will be given over to nonhub, point-to-point flying dominated by aircraft such as Boeing's newly launched 217/289-seat 7E7 is not supported by recent history, and particularly not by trends in Asia, where ultra-large aircraft like the 550-seat A380 will be in heavy demand for many years to come, according to Airbus VP-Market Forecasts and Research Laurent Rouaud.

Speaking last week at the Airbus Technical Press Briefing in Toulouse, Rouaud claimed that in the years 1998-2003, only one new route was launched between Tokyo Narita and a secondary city in the US or Canada (Houston) while four were suspended (Narita to Calgary, Portland, Las Vegas and Toronto).
Furthermore, 50% of US-Narita passengers stay in Tokyo while 60% of US-Seoul passengers likewise remain in the South Korean capital, according to Rouaud, who cited data from BACK Aviation. Taking a position often made by US hub-and-spoke carriers, he argued that even relatively large cities cannot support nonstop point-to-point service. Dallas and Guangzhou, two cities of approximately 4 million people each, do not generate enough O&D traffic for one flight per week, he claimed, again citing BACK Aviation data.
And although passengers may prefer nonstops to connections, they vote with their pocketbooks. US Commerce Dept. surveys and CIC Research show that among economy-class passengers, ticket price is twice as important as the availability of a nonstop flight in airline selection criteria, while among business- and first-class passengers frequent-flier programs and price are each twice as important as the availability of a nonstop.
Asia is also different from Europe and the US in that the region's urban population is highly concentrated in 11 primary cities. According to Rouaud, 80% of Europe-Asia flights are operated on primary routes. Even on the transatlantic, "core routes continue to grow." Citing data from OAG, he said the top 20 transatlantic routes' seat capacity market share was 40% in 2003 while the remaining 60% was spread over 216 other routes--both figures unchanged from 1990.--Perry Flint

[Lu Zuckerman]

I worked on the V-22 specializing on structural repairs mainly on the composite structure. The US Navy specified the primary means of repairing the composite structure. After introducing structural damage on the composite skin and repairing it according to the Navy instructions we tried to verify the efficacy of the repair by X-ray NDT. The repair material specified by the Navy was opaque to X-rays and there was no way to verify the repair.

The V-22 is as big a B-17 +/- a couple of inches and the rear of the fuselage that would run from the rear of the wing on the B-17 to the tail (representing ½ of the entire structure) is in fact one piece. If this section of the fuselage suffered combat damage or ground handling damage the entire structure had to be returned to Boeing for repair in the autoclave that was used to build it.

If the 7E7 suffered handling damage there may not be any one in the area that could repair it assuming it could be repaired and the repair verified. If the damage were substantial the aircraft would be grounded until it could be repaired. In flight the composite structure would perform flawlessly assuming adequate testing but it would be on the ground where the problems would arise.


:E :E

[unmanned transport]

The Raytheon Premier (Exec. Jet) has proven it's fuselage to be very successful. A tape laying machine lays the fibre on to a large mandrel shaped like the fuselage. What a great way to build a modern fuselage with someone sitting monitoring a machine. No more labor intensive assembly with aluminum skins held together with thousands of rivets. Stressed skin fuselages have been around for a long time but it's is great to move on and develop a new way to manufacture fuselages.

[SLuca]

I think many of you miss the point.
Airbus is feeling the heat, there less interest in the A380 than expected and much more for the 7E7 than Airbus thought.
Additionally, Airbus is faced with many unexpected weight problems with the A380, as they did and still do with the A340-500 and A340-600, despite being derivatives of existing airplanes. The A345 and A346 are clearly under delivering in terms of fuel burn and reliability while the 777-300ER, as every Boeing since the 747, is delivering more than promised with better fuel burn and lower weight and better reliability than targeted.
Airbus inability to fix the A346 and A345 is starting to upset the airlines that are losing faith in Airbus’s ability to deliver what they promised with the A380
Airbus has now to resort to heavy discounting to sell the A346 and A345 and they’re noticing they still can’t get an airline to commit to the A380 without heavy discounting.
The Chinese, while readying a mega order for the 7E7, are unfortunately moderately interested in a small A380 order, claiming that the A380 is not the kind of airplane best suited to the future of aviation in China.
It is clear that the 7E7 will slowly kill the A330, which is Airbus cash cow and best airplane.
The 7E7 will also make the conventional A380 look like an old generation airplane, which for the flagship of a company claiming to set the standards is a bit humiliating.
Airbus is stuck with the costly development of the A380, the A400M with an all composite wing, and is beginning to show signs of panic in face of the huge interest generated by the 7E7 which is clearly about to set the standards hence the silly comments “rushed” and “ridiculous”.

[Cejkovice]

wasn't there a bit of that 'panic' at boeing too which is all of a sudden looking at new 747 derivatives.....again :=

[CargoOne]

Recently in Aircraft Commerce (April/May 2004) there was a 5-page analysis of ultra-longhaul routes and 345/7E7. Interesting reading. Basic summary was the idea of "long-thin routes" has failed at SQ and EK with A345. It works, but there is no commercial success becuase there is a lack of point-to-point passengers. A345 became a prestigious and expensive toy, but not a yield improving tool. Furthermore there is literally just a few other routes where anyone can deploy A345 without facing constant losses and no perspectives.
Article also basically says it is likely 7E7 would be just a replacement for 767s on existing routes, not a new routes explorer.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Blah de blah de blah de blah de blah. Please, gentlemen, there is no reason for us to start an A v B thread; the companies involved are fully capable of their own mudsliging. Pathetic.

[MarkD]

It would be nice if Airbus could produce an A310 replacement sometime soon, CCQ with 33x/34x - better that than hoping to cram more people into 321s or keeping the 310 line open and hoping 7e7 doesn't fly.

[Flight Safety]

I don't know if the 7E7 will actually replace the A330, since the 2 aircraft are not quite in the same size class (the A330 being larger). It's possilbe that the 7E7 will make the long thin market profitable, since it's a significantly smaller aircraft than the 345, as the 345 may be too large an airplane to explore these routes.

Just to comment on the composite fuselage, the Beech Starship is another good example of how well this can work. While the Starship was not a commercial success, to my knowledge Raytheon keeps all 50 of the original Starships flying. When an owner wants to sell a Starship, Raytheon buys it back, then does any maintenance work needed on the aircraft, then sells it to the next buyer. I understand they do this to demonstrate that a composite aircraft can have a long life, since Raytheon is heavely invested in composite airplanes.

[Tallbloke]

Flight Safety,

I think you will find that Raytheon are buying back StarShips in order to scrap them, they no longer wish to support them partly because of the expense of repairing the fuselage.

[PaperTiger]

Correct tallbloke.

Starships are doomed, Jim.
http://www.starshipdiaries.com/today.html

[treadigraph]

Flight Safety, about to reply exactly the same as TallBloke... that's what I read in various mags recently. All are being scrapped, save a couple that are going into museums. Shame, lovely looking aircraft...

[Torquelink]

The Aircraft Commerce article referred to by CargoOne also said that, while SQ and EK assumed that they'd be able to charge a premium for A345 non-stop service, they haven't managed to make it stick and now charge the same business class fare as the one-stop services. Thus the high seat-mile cost aircraft isn't pulling in a premium to pay for it. Article also said that long-haul hub bypass wouldn't work as at least one end of the route would need to be a large hub in order to generate sufficient high yield pax. All these comments would seem to apply to the 7E7 (long range variants) and the B777-200LR too.

[Flight Safety]

Darn, sorry to hear that about the Starships. :sad: I guess I hadn't kept up to date on their fate lately.

I had the privilege the other day to see one of the 3 original prototype Lear Fan 2100s. Not much to look at on the inside (since it was a prototype), but it was beautiful on the outside. It seems that remaining Lear Fan airframes are used rather extensively for composite airframe damage and impact testing, judging from a quick search of the Internet.

[Wino]

Well, that has to be more of a problem with the seatmile costs of the A340-500 which hasn't turned out to be great.

Remember when you bypass a hub you reduce the miles of the trip plus the cycle on the aircraft so if the costs are anywhere near the same it is cheaper to bypass the hub.

If the A340-500's costs are that high it speaks VERY badly about the aircraft


Don't believe me Draw and 3 points on earth. Unless they are perfectly aligned youare a forming a triangle.

It may not have worked for singapore, but it might work much BETTER for singapore's competitors who would be bypassing singapore. In the case of singapore, they would be effectively competing with themselves.

Cheers
Wino

[Tallbloke]

Wino..
The economics of the aircraft are irrelevent if there are insufficient passengers wishing to travel. My understanding is that this is certainly the reality that Singapore are facing with the SIN-LAX route

[Wino]

Depends on the SIZE of the aircraft relative to the number of pax.

You fill a 747-400 and its seat mile costs are far lower than the a340. But you come up 150 pax short on the 747, suddenly the a340 is profitable.

The problem with the 340-500 is that it isn't a large enough difference in size from the 747. Start generating nearly similar seatmile costs though a little higher with a 200 pax jet and suddenly you have a whole new ball game. (and not a big jet stripped of all pax and weight to get the range)

Cheers
Wino

[Flight Safety]

If the passenger demand for long thin routes is as low as some are indicating, then the 7E7 should be the best aircraft available to start to make these routes profitable (at 217 and 253 seats respectively for 7E7-8 and 7E7-9). This is mainly due to its projected lower operating costs, and its relatively small size for a twin aisle. I do think a thin route aircraft must have 2 aisles for comfort on long flights, so I think the 7E7 will be small enough and efficient enough (as a twin aisle) to be the first aircraft to make these routes work.

[ironbutt57]

Why are Airbus attacking the 7E7? is it possible that they see it as a credible competitor and wish to discredit it? If it is "ridiculous" why waste the time to attack it? For sure interesting times ahead!!! Too bad the pointy end resembles the Comet....coincidence?

[mjv]

I think most of your guy's missing the point, I actually don't care if its a boring or air-bus! 7E7's and A380's are playing not on the same field.

for me it's all about safety and I can not call a composite fuselage safe or easy to handle. How often you have loaders, caterers bumping into door surroundings, cargo doors of a fuselage ?
small bumps you will not even see or recognise, scratches you have to protect ASAP, major damages will blow the whole boeing calculation (25%less ops costs.....). I saw a couple of comp. elevator taps and ailerons after a lightning strike, but I don't want to see such a damage on a comp. fuselage.

let's wait and see!

mjv

[bugg smasher]

Blah de blah de blah de blah de blah. Please, gentlemen, there is no reason for us to start an A v B thread; the companies involved are fully capable of their own mudsliging. Pathetic.
Actually, FFF, some posters here seem to have direct knowledge of inner workings, I myself am not only fascinated as to what drives the various marketing teams, but am directly influenced in my job by those tactics and decisions.

Market conditions are in enormous flux, the battle of the giants is a hugely fascinating spectacle.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Sorry, what I was trying to say was that Boring and Airboos are depriving us, the PPRUNE A+B bashing squad, the sole privilige of arguing like school children. I belive someone should write both the A and B marketing departments have them stop bashing each other, as that is clearly a task much better handled by the proone squaddies. :E

However, I didn't quite realise that this thread could spawn a somewhat reasoned debate, and so apologise.

I'm hoping that Boeing's got it right with the E7; that it'll deliver the promised savings, be a major technolgically leap forward and that the forecast demand for long/thin routes will materialise and provide a market for the aircraft. I have no doubt it will be a fantastic 767 replacement on medium-range routes.

On the other hand, I am also hoping that Airbus got it right with the A380, and belive they are correct in forecasting increased hub-to-hub traffic and that the best way to cope with that demand is bigger aircraft. I am also hoping that Airbus will launch a credible competitor to the 7E7, and not just an A330-200 "light" as has been proposed. A true 310 successor with the new generation engines being made for the 7E7 would make for an interesting competitor, and at the end of the day all I'm interested in is competition to ensure that we, the costumers, get the best aircraft for the money. I don't give a damn what badge is on the back of the kite, so to speak, although I must confess to have a certain affection for Lockheed quality, Douglas robustness, Boeing logic and Airbus technology.

[Flight Safety]

Here's a link to a Boeing press release from June 13th, 2003 where the composite structure is discussed. (Link here (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q2/nr_030612g.html) )

These quotes are from this press release:
Following months of intensive study and analysis, the company has selected a graphite combined with a toughened epoxy resin as the main composite. The wings will also include TiGr composites -- a combination of titanium and graphite. Titanium is a strong metal known for its light weight and durability. Graphite is a stable form of carbon.
Boeing will be using structural health monitoring technologies on the 7E7 -- providing operators with real time, continuous data collection concerning the health of the airframe. The company is conducting developmental work on embedding sensors in the 7E7 structure to detect impacts and monitor structural integrity.
The combination of improved materials properties and the structural health monitoring system will create earlier understanding of any structural repair requirements, allowing operators to better schedule and manage their maintenance activities.
I sure hope they get this right.

[trainer too 2]

Wino

Remember when you bypass a hub you reduce the miles of the trip plus the cycle on the aircraft so if the costs are anywhere near the same it is cheaper to bypass the hub.

The problem is that you are substituting fuel for payload and thus are able to operate direct. Hence your operating cost ex fuel might be lower but your fuel cost per pax way up. (This is for any aircraft even boeing :rolleyes: ) The way to make it up is in yield i.e. income.

Good example: LH MUC-EWR with a 737!! They can only make it with the 737 with additional fuel tanks thus less payload (Pax and cargo) but fly only business pax.

So your reasoning is as good as doing an NDT check on the 7E7: it does not work :8

[Wino]

But by your reasoning the old trunk routes would still exist.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you did no use an aircraft OPTIMIZED for long duration flight.

If what you were saying was correct then fuel stops would be all the rage especially for freighters, and whenever possible, these are avoided.

Cheers
Wino

[trainer too 2]

Optimesed in aviation is always a compromise and as said before the idea of the parties involved (EK and SIA) was that yields would go up sky high.

The old trunk routes still exist and are only getting bigger! But as the whole system is still growing the smaller routes became sustainable for direct flights. Nothing new..:8

[Torquelink]

If global traffic resumes trend growth of 5.5% p.a. (IATA stats) global traffic will double in approx 12 years and triple in 20 so one would assume that there'll be plenty of opportunity for all aircraft types - big and small. Traffic growth should also lead to larger aircraft on point to point hub-bypass routes thus reducing smc and making the route more viable at a given fare.

Seems to me that the 7E7 is a brave attempt to make ultra long-haul hub bypass viable. As mentioned in this thread, the longer the sector, the greater the cost to be amortised over a relatively small number of pax and the lower the productivity of the aircraft e.g. 250 seats x 1 x 17 hour sector/day = 250 seats available for sale/absorb costs vs typical loco: 150 seats x 13 x 1 hour sectors/day = 1,950 seats available for sale/absorb costs (ok - these are extremes and costs would obviously reflect 13 cycles as opposed to 1). But, clearly, small ultra long haul aircraft need v low costs to compensate for their low (relatively) productivity and thus very high seat-sector costs - especially if there isn't a yield premium to help. It seems that the A340-500 isn't it but maybe the B7E7. . .:hmm:

[Wino]

The optimization of aircraft for their jobs is a VERY easy thing to prove, and somthing that Airbus has obviously failed at with the A340-500 (not such a serious thing for them as they don't care about the developement costs, those were born by the taxpayer. Oh boy, what a disaster that would have been for boeing though)

The best example that I can give you of that is the A300-605r vs 767-300 and 200.

As an American Airlines pilot I got first hand knowledge of both and also can read the corp reports on both.

They look alike, weigh about the same but they are anything but similar. The 767 makes tons of money on the Atlantic for AA, but when the A300 was forced on the Atlantic iby the premature retirement of the MD11, it was a big loser for AA as the stage lengths were too long for the design and cargo and people had to be left behind. The smaller 767 could actually carry MORE people and freight across the Atlantic than the slightly larger A300600. On the other hand larger cargo and slightly larger pax capacity of the A300 on SHORT range routes makes the aircraft IDEAL for the caribbean, and as desperately as American would like to replace a small fleet type there is no other aircraft in the world that is as efficient over that distance with that capacity. The Wing of the A300 was designed for shorter stage lengths than the 767.

So just because Airbus got it wrong with the A340-500 doesn't mean Boeing will with the 7e7. Its just that another derivative (which is all the a340-500 and 600 are) were not good enough to do the job in this case. And for the same reason simply shrinking the A330 won't make a good short hauler either....

So what have we proved? I guess only that the A340-500 is a failure.

CHeers
Wino

[Torquelink]

Mmm - it's still a helluva challenge to make the economics work out at extreme range - whether a derivative or a clean sheet design. What shrink has ever worked (I'm referring to aircraft rather than the medical fraternity!): 747SP, A340-200 etc etc.? (I'd put the 777-200LR in that category too). But, even the 7E7 will find it hard to generate a worthwhile return on 8,000nm sectors and my bet is that it'll turn out to be much more of a straight 767 replacement - flying similar ranges.

[Flight Safety]

Torquelink, one thing's for sure, if the 7E7 (-8, -9 and possibly -3 models) fly shorter routes and don't have to carry the fuel for longer routes, there should be plenty of payload capability. In fact it's payload numbers may be very good for what are now long routes for 767 and A330.

[rotornut]

Reuters

Boeing sees possible orders for 600 7E7 planes
Thursday June 17, 10:59 am ET

NEW YORK, June 17 (Reuters) - Boeing Co. is speaking with airlines about as many as 600 orders for its new 7E7 commercial plane, though there is no guarantee those orders will be made final, a company spokeswoman said on Thursday.
The figures were first discussed at a stakeholder briefing in London on Wednesday, spokeswoman Lori Gunter said.

The 600 figure "figure refers to the number of proposals that are in with a variety of customers around the world," a Boeing official in London told Reuters.

The company had said earlier that Boeing believes as many as 500 orders could be realized by the time the plane takes its first flight in late summer 2007.

Already two airlines have announced orders for Boeing's latest jet, the company's first new airplane in more than a decade. The plane is expected to carry 200 to 300 passengers and use about 20 percent less fuel than current wide-bodies.

Boeing expects more orders for the 7E7 later in the year, Gunter said, though she said those announcements would be "at the discretion of the airlines. We wait for them to finish their evaluations and make their decisions," she said.

[Torquelink]

I expect you're right FlightSafety: 20% lower smcs than the 767-300ER plus greater comfort for the pax plus much more payload and below deck volume for cargo. Sounds a winning combination to me (provided they resolve the composites issues). Wonder how Airbus will respond?

[yorkshirechillies]

perhaps i'm being naive, but, don't you think that a significant amount of airlines will end up ordering both the 7e7 and the a380? the two aircraft are clearly designed for different roles.

[WHBM]

What shrink has ever worked
A319 for a start.

[rotornut]

Going back a bit, take a look at this picture from an earlier thread:

http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/viewphoto.main?LC=nav2&picid=916

What would have happened to a composite 7E7 fuselage in this type of accident? And would it be repairable, practically speaking?

[Flight Safety]

Here's an interesting read. This article from AIAA basically covers various strategies that Airbus might use to counter Boeing's launch of the 7E7. I thought this might be relevant given the initial subject of this thread.

AIAA PDF article (http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/insights.april04.pdf)

[JJflyer]

Should that have been a 7E7 with all composite fuselage you would not have seen the type of damage as occured on the B747.

Damage would most likely have been repairable as it was in the case of that B747.

JJ

[747FOCAL]

yah the composite would have shattered internally and the next time you took off it would be flight 587 all over again.

[BDANtheman29]

From what I've seen of the new 7E7, it seemed to be desigened very well and this is likely just an Airbus tactic to draw attention to their huge A380 set to roll out of Toulouse in a few years. I am sure that Boeing would not allow for the possibility of an aircraft to have such problems, especially with increased European (and more recently, Brazilian) competition. Granted, they took a chance on the B747 and it paid off beautifully, but I don't think they have the same luxury for a gamble.

[Eboy]

"The theory that future international traffic development increasingly will be given over to nonhub, point-to-point flying dominated by aircraft such as Boeing's newly launched 217/289-seat 7E7 is not supported by recent history, and particularly not by trends in Asia, where ultra-large aircraft like the 550-seat A380 will be in heavy demand for many years to come, according to Airbus VP-Market Forecasts and Research Laurent Rouaud.
Speaking last week at the Airbus Technical Press Briefing in Toulouse, Rouaud claimed that in the years 1998-2003, only one new route was launched between Tokyo Narita and a secondary city in the US or Canada (Houston) while four were suspended (Narita to Calgary, Portland, Las Vegas and Toronto). "

First, the 7E7 will have a higher percentage of it made in Asia (about 30% in Japan, as I recall) compared to the A380. The better the 7E7 sells in Asia, the better Asian aeronautical companies will perform. I can see that factor winding its way back to the selection process.

Second, Airbus's Rouaud using 1998-2003 for Japan route analysis is misleading, as Japan's economy was in a slump then and is now in recovery.

[Yawn]

Personally I think the 7e7 will be a winner but for another reason than outlined in this thread.

At present a start-up airline needs to find 350 passengers to fill a 747. The inital market penetration required is huge.

The 217 seat 7e7 is much easier for a start-up airline to begin international operations. So if a domestic operator wanted to branch out into international flights it is much easier to do this by purchasing a 130m 7e7 that has a potential breakeven of 150 seats than a 200m 747 with a breakeven 300.

I feel that 7e7 will have a greater appeal: to traditional airlines as a hub breaker and to start-ups as a way to take on the majors and their higher cost structures on the heavily trafficed routes.

The A380 may be a great aircraft but there are only 10 to 15 airlines that have the market size and route structure to use a 550 seat aircraft.

[BDANtheman29]

I agree. The 7E7 will be more appealing to a larger variety of airlines where the A380 is limited to the biggest airlines. This is a step in the right direction for Boeing: take on the competition first then work on speed (Sonic Cruiser) later and increased capacity (Blended Wing Body (BWB) later.

[DomeAir]

It's the move away from conventional design that I find the most exciting aspect of the 7E7 as compared to the A380, which although as big and impressive as it is, does not really offer much in the way of progress.

Compare this with the 7E7, which will see significant changes in the way commercial jets are designed and configured: extensive use of composites throughout the entire aircraft, conventional bleed air systems replaced by electrically based systems, ability to alter engine/airframe combinations (eg. GE one day, RR the next), and the overall cabin enhancements. And they haven't even mentioned what is going to be up front yet...

Some will argue that such fundamental changes are too risky, however, let’s not forget that Boeing became the giant that it is (was?) by doing exactly that many years ago. The timing of the 7E7 may be a little early to fully capture some of the emerging technologies, but I have no doubt that that the systems being designed into the 7E7 are the way of the future. Airbus is kidding itself if it thinks otherwise...of course it is hard for them to say that when their biggest program is yet to fly.

:hmm:

[BahrainLad]

Ah yes of course, the A380 is only a bloated A340 whereas the 7E7 is the true innovator.

What about the high pressure hydraulics, GLARE, carbon fibre, cutting edge avionics.....even cabin windows that don't need blinds?

Yawn....I don't really understand: what's to stop your startup buying 767s/330s/777s? I hardly think there are many wannabee airline execs sitting around with business plans saying "thank god the 7E7 is coming so we don't have to buy 747s!"

[Bre901]

And of course, Airbus put all its resources on the 380 and is not working on anything else.

[Looks like I managed to kill this thread. But, for once, I find this rather pleasant]

[wsherif1]

Panama Jack's comment.

"Sure. . . . and Boeing and others insist that the A-380 is too
big! The war of words is on."

Question - What amount of force would move the 430 ton mass
of the Airbus 380 laterally, when struck broadside by a rotating
wake vortex, or strong wind shear in thunderstorm activity?

All the applied force, up to that point, would be absorbed in the
aircraft's structure!

There must be a limit on the maximum size of an aircraft. The
engineers have evidently failed to consider the effects of inertia!

[The Invisible Cat]

Uh-oh, Mr wsherif1 is back with his heavy thoughts :uhoh: :uhoh:

One is wondering, should this thread be left to die peacefully or should it be just moved where it belongs ...


|
v




















No, no, not JetBlast but Spotter's balcony :} :}