Boeing Mulls Stretching 777 to Knock Out Airbus A380
As far as being interested in your traveling experience, sure, but let there be no doubt that economics is a greater concern of airline execs. This evidenced by the sluggish sales of 4 holers when contrasted with twins.
I really don't think very many passengers take a lot of interest in the equipment. The majority of economy class won't even know what aircraft they're booked on until they board it. If you're a business traveller paying out of your own pocket and travelling in your own time then yes, you can fly when you want with who you want, but in most cases business travellers don't have that flexibility. They're time and budget constrained and don't have the luxury of being able to pick flight times and routings that will allow them to fly on particular aircraft types. In my company, you get offered the cheapest flight with convenient timings, and I believe this is pretty common practice.
As to personal priorities, while I'm always interested in the equipment I'm flying on it's some way down my list. Timings, prices and airline (in that order) are all more important to me if I'm paying out of my own pocket.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight mode, you can try calling people out on an opinion, but that just marks you as closed minded. You can only "call out" on facts. The reality there is that the 777 is more economical and flexible. But on comfort, many people, though far from all, find the 777 seating in F and J more comfortable than the 380, despite the higher noise level. I certainly do. I can't say I noticed a lot of difference in Y, though the 380 lower deck ablutions are far more pleasant than the 777's. But my point about people saying the 777X cabin won't compete stands - no-one knows what that cabin will be like, so saying that you'd always prefer the 380 is illogical.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines do not want to drop this amount of coin on an airframe it seems.
Waiting for what happens in the ME. They know of the looming problems at the ME3. Once some crisis managers have swept through, a lot of slots for new aircraft will become available, at good prices. I wouldn't order anything now, just wait for the bang in the pit. So this argument is no indicator.
The 773er lacks the legs to carry a useful load longer than 12hr, its payload restricted even on a ADL to DXB! The 77x will improve on this. But Pax will still be loaded like sardines to ensure the seat/mile costs are as advertised.
As for the move from 4 to 2 engines it has had many economic benefits to all the worlds airlines and the stretching of ETOPS regs has, how shall we say, enhanced this.
I still however feel sorry for the crew on a twin, who are going at some stage, to have to deal with multiple engine failure on a dark and stormy night over some inhospitable part of the planet
All three are great aircraft. Orders would suggest that airlines think the cheaper 350s and 787s are a better fit.
And both companies try to stretch their successful design, in order to get an even more economical aircraft. Very logical and legitimate and QED many times, so where's the problem with Boeing doing the same with the 77X?
Airbus does not do it with the whale and i guess they perfectly know why!
Last edited by glofish; 21st Jul 2016 at 04:41.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A380 wake issues should be mitigated in the future with RECAT, and of course even today there is no wake separation required between a pair of A380s, which is not the case for two Heavies on approach: So the benefits of A380 ops will increase if a critical mass is there, even if just over a period of ten minutes or so.
Where did this 1% of LHR traffic figure come from? It's more like 3.5% at the moment, which is a lot more significant.
Where did this 1% of LHR traffic figure come from? It's more like 3.5% at the moment, which is a lot more significant.
The A380 wake issues should be mitigated in the future with RECAT, and of course even today there is no wake separation required between a pair of A380s, which is not the case for two Heavies on approach: So the benefits of A380 ops will increase if a critical mass is there, even if just over a period of ten minutes or so.
Where did this 1% of LHR traffic figure come from? It's more like 3.5% at the moment, which is a lot more significant.
Where did this 1% of LHR traffic figure come from? It's more like 3.5% at the moment, which is a lot more significant.
It doesn't seen to be as much of an issue following a 400 or 777 and bizzarly the worst non 380 wake I suffered from was produced by and A340!
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes don't count on 4 saving the bacon.
The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic passenger service flight from Karratha to Perth
at Flight Level 310 (31,000 ft). As the aircraft entered cloud while diverting around a large
thunderstorm, there was a sudden and significant rise in the outside air temperature. A
short time later, all four engines progressively lost power and the aircraft was unable to
maintain altitude. During the next 17 minutes, numerous attempts to restore engine power
were made without success until, approaching 10,000 ft altitude, normal engine operation
was regained.
At 2051.43 hours, the crew transmitted a Mayday call advising that the aircraft was passing
FL 190 in an emergency descent, unable to maintain altitude, and heading for Meekatharra.
The purser was then briefed to prepare for a forced landing in approximately 12 to 15 minutes.
The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic passenger service flight from Karratha to Perth
at Flight Level 310 (31,000 ft). As the aircraft entered cloud while diverting around a large
thunderstorm, there was a sudden and significant rise in the outside air temperature. A
short time later, all four engines progressively lost power and the aircraft was unable to
maintain altitude. During the next 17 minutes, numerous attempts to restore engine power
were made without success until, approaching 10,000 ft altitude, normal engine operation
was regained.
At 2051.43 hours, the crew transmitted a Mayday call advising that the aircraft was passing
FL 190 in an emergency descent, unable to maintain altitude, and heading for Meekatharra.
The purser was then briefed to prepare for a forced landing in approximately 12 to 15 minutes.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter if 2 holer is better than 4 holer, airlines cannot fill 450+ seats on many routes every day, unless the owner (state or non-state) ready to subsidize the rest. STC created this myth and every airline manager is struggling to bust this myth.
So true notapilot. 610 pax on board three days ago. 614 on board on the way back.
Paxing All Over The World
I agree that many/most pax have no idea what machine they are riding. However, when my friend found the SQ experience in PE on a LHR~SIN~SYD was not what she had expected from the advertising, but the return legs were exactly what she expected: She learnt that the T7 was bad and the 380 Good. Same carrier, same cabin. Different experience. That does begin to add up for mature pax who have become more discerning and who share the information with their friends as an integral part of telling their holiday story and showing photographs. Junior pax with less money will always go for the cheapest.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well, apart from two incidents where pilot error starved their working twins (Air Canada, Air Transat), i can only recall multiple engine failures/problems with 4-holers! i.e. BA/KLM 747 volcanic ash, so more engines do not protect you more there
In the example given however, having 4 engines which they were trying to relight, gave them double the chance of getting one to relight over a twin.
Just saying.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Running out of gas because you don't have enough on board and have decided to takeoff without any fuel gauges(AC 767) will affect an aircraft from a Cessna 150 to a B-52.
Admittedly, the A330 aircraft may have been more vulnerable based on the situation at the time because of a simpler fuel system in Twins making it easier to pump most of it out prior to discovering that you screwed up big time.
Admittedly, the A330 aircraft may have been more vulnerable based on the situation at the time because of a simpler fuel system in Twins making it easier to pump most of it out prior to discovering that you screwed up big time.
The 1983 Boeing 767 Air Canada fuel exhaustion incident was not caused by pilot error.
But JammedStab's point is that if you takeoff with insufficient fuel to make your destination, you're going to have a problem regardless of the number of engines.
Don, regarding the 777X order book, before the 787 and A350, 300 orders for a wide body two years before first flight would be considered outstanding (and don't forget, a lot of those 787s were sold below cost
). Given that the 777X is basically sold out for the first few years after EIS, there is little reason to place an order now - better to wait and see how well it actually performs once it starts flying.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
610 pax on board three days ago. 614 on board on the way back.
No, you will say, and rightly so, because this 2 class 380 was not as well equipped as a 3 class T7 ........
Ahaahhh -> Suddenly it is the company that decides which outfitting on what aircraft operates that route, not the aircrafts fault if it is lacking some luxury, but apparently that argument only counts when the 380 represents the less luxurious version.
I always said that you can fit a shower into a Tupolev, but you might not sell more of them either way, passengers liking it or not.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, glofish, I guess we all know that you can outfit *any* airframe with boundless luxury - or not. The points in favor of the 380 are the reduced noise level and the reduced cabin altitude. Both of which do matter on long-haul flights, wether you want to believe it or not. You simply arrive in better shape. And yes, I am in a position to make that comparison (T7, 748 vs A380) far more often than I would like to.
Still has a bar goldfish. Pax not complaining.
The points in favor of the 380 are the reduced noise level and the reduced cabin altitude. Both of which do matter on long-haul flights, whether you want to believe it or not. You simply arrive in better shape.
Quietness, roominess and low cabin altitude were supposed to be attributes of 787 too, but most airlines squeezed in an extra seat and omitted the heavy sound insulation in economy. Result - no net passenger benefit, other than a better cabin pressure.
I think Airbus with A380 and A350 have got the size pretty right - the airlines have been reluctant to squeeze in extra seating, presumably because it really would be taking the piss to do so. With Boeing's products they seem to be able to just about get away with it, so they do. For example, a 9-across 777 is far nicer than the usual 10-across that most airlines fly.
The best sort of business for an airline is regular passengers who are loyal. Providing a superior ride is absolutely the most reliable way of achieving that, especially if the price differential is negligible. Having built up such a business, the airline would be taking a big risk if they renewed their fleet with aircraft that revert to cramped and noisy, for then the only difference left to discern between airlines is price.
In the case of Emirates, they've built a huge business with A380 being a big (and popular) part of that. Swapping A380 for, well, anything else is potentially going to be a capacity reduction and (depending on what was bought) a ride quality reduction too. Both would be unappealing propositions for Emirates and loyal, regular passengers alike.
If the capacity reduction was unavoidable (i.e. no extra airport slots), a 777X would have to be about 33% more efficient than an A380 to generate the same profit per flight as an A380. Sounds unlikely, especially if RR keep improving the Trent 900.
If capacity can be preserved (i.e. slots are available, so two flights can be flown instead of a single A380) then 777X sounds like the wrong aircraft - it'd be too much capacity. Two A350s or 787s would be a better match than two 777Xs. Given that the A350 is reportedly very comfortable and 787s (when fitted with 9-across seating) aren't, buying A350 sounds like a safer bet for Emirates in the round. Unless they're able to persuade Airbus to stretch or pep up the A380.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ has no plans to replace their A380s with another VLA. MH trying to sell their A380s. AF cannot fill their A380s. Even QR/EY are not super exited about whales.