Is there a market for the 380?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did a tour of the Boeing factory about 4/5 years ago, the price they quoted was about 220 for the 777 and 200 for the 747 then. I doubt whether Airbus will admit what breakeven is for the 380. However the majors have not even started ordering yet. Good routes? Europe -Australia and Europe South Africa where one end is in summer and the other winter- so low seasons are short. Add on Europe-Far East, and you have a large market already. When they start appearing on LAX/SFO- Far East, people are not going to want to travel on an old fashioned 747! They'll sell, big time.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think more of what is killing the 747 market accept for freighters is the 777. If there was a 777F there would be no 747F sales. Costs are much lower on the 777. Why, 2 engines instead of 4.
Mr. Boeing has been quietly working a two engine version of the something that looks a lot like a 747, but with 2 engines for a couple of years. Yes they looked at it a long time ago, but no engine existed that could satisfy engine out criteria.
Mr. Boeing has been quietly working a two engine version of the something that looks a lot like a 747, but with 2 engines for a couple of years. Yes they looked at it a long time ago, but no engine existed that could satisfy engine out criteria.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: s.e. england
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to everyone for your opinions. You have all given me some information that I wasn't aware of, though I am still not entirely convinced that Boeing has dropped any balls. I think terrorism has to play some role (even if it is small and temporary). Less people in the States are flying to international destinations. As for other parts of the world...we'll have to see. Perhaps if the situation gets no better and the long queues at the security gates with 500+ passengers may have some people happier to board 744 or 777's.
I did preface my first post by saying that I am not in the airline industry so I can not be accused of saying I know for a fact the 380 is not needed. I am interested to see what will happen and although I don't doubt anyone's information I will come back to this discussion if the 380s fail to deliver what has been promised. With that said, if they do well then I can take the "I told you so" like a man.
Cheers!
I did preface my first post by saying that I am not in the airline industry so I can not be accused of saying I know for a fact the 380 is not needed. I am interested to see what will happen and although I don't doubt anyone's information I will come back to this discussion if the 380s fail to deliver what has been promised. With that said, if they do well then I can take the "I told you so" like a man.
Cheers!
I've said it before, and I will say it again. The advantage for the A380 is cost structure. The resources in aviation that are either increasingly expensive (where they are marketed) or in short supply (where they are regulated) are overwhelmingly the ones that vary with aircraft movements, not load. These are the semi-variable costs in econospeak.
You don't need more slots or more air traffic capacity to load more pax - you need them if you are going to put on another flight. Where strict noise restrictions exist, this limits the number of movements, not the load. (I wonder how long it will be before permission to move out of hours is marketised? Say you are QC8 and need to dispatch late at night from LHR. Wouldn't it be a nice little earner for the CAA if, instead of quotas, they sold the permit? So - does it cost more to pay for the go or to put up the pax for the night?) Even fuel varies less with load than with per-movement factors (specific consumption, wind, range, alternates). Can anyone really see Leeds Bradford - or Indianapolis - expanding to provide enough slots for all these 7e7s in the teeth of public nimbyism?
Clearly, what is needed is to squeeze as much payload as possible into each flight (slot, route, ton of fuel..). Point to point will remain a luxury - which is as well, because the rising cost of each movement will demand high fares. The LH 738 operation might work out, but this has a limit - namely that the travellers who can afford $5000 fares are concentrated in places near hubs!
You don't need more slots or more air traffic capacity to load more pax - you need them if you are going to put on another flight. Where strict noise restrictions exist, this limits the number of movements, not the load. (I wonder how long it will be before permission to move out of hours is marketised? Say you are QC8 and need to dispatch late at night from LHR. Wouldn't it be a nice little earner for the CAA if, instead of quotas, they sold the permit? So - does it cost more to pay for the go or to put up the pax for the night?) Even fuel varies less with load than with per-movement factors (specific consumption, wind, range, alternates). Can anyone really see Leeds Bradford - or Indianapolis - expanding to provide enough slots for all these 7e7s in the teeth of public nimbyism?
Clearly, what is needed is to squeeze as much payload as possible into each flight (slot, route, ton of fuel..). Point to point will remain a luxury - which is as well, because the rising cost of each movement will demand high fares. The LH 738 operation might work out, but this has a limit - namely that the travellers who can afford $5000 fares are concentrated in places near hubs!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of interesting and valid points. Personally when I have been down the back of a 747 on a long flight my main gripe is with the seat pitch. If they use the extra size of the A380 to increase the seat pitch that will substantially increase the popularity of flying long haul. Then all you would need is to speed up security procedues at airports, especially in the USA. You never know flying could become fun again.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is one thing that will absolutely never happen. That could be done just as easily with ANY aircraft, but it would cut into profits. So it will NEVER happen.
Cheers
Wino
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino
"Do you really think airbus can break even on only 250 airframes"
No i doubt they could, but i reckon twice that number ought to do the trick. Lets face it, a new type takes a long time to "break even" however, if it smashing the competitor out of the water, then I am sure that will suffice until Airbus roll out their "n" th A380......
"Do you really think airbus can break even on only 250 airframes"
No i doubt they could, but i reckon twice that number ought to do the trick. Lets face it, a new type takes a long time to "break even" however, if it smashing the competitor out of the water, then I am sure that will suffice until Airbus roll out their "n" th A380......
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
"That is one thing that will absolutely never happen. That could be done just as easily with ANY aircraft, but it would cut into profits. So it will NEVER happen".
Errr Wino are not AA doing just exactly that ? Check out the "More Room" bit on their site ( ran a big TV ad campaign too)
"That is one thing that will absolutely never happen. That could be done just as easily with ANY aircraft, but it would cut into profits. So it will NEVER happen".
Errr Wino are not AA doing just exactly that ? Check out the "More Room" bit on their site ( ran a big TV ad campaign too)
Bear Behind
Wino,
Kindly check facts before posting. List price for A380 is closer to 300 million than 200 million. May we assume that the rest of your figures are 50% out?
129 orders are FIRM orders, not orders plus options. With all of the options that figure is more like 200. So the orderbook you state isn't as small as you seem to think, either.
I'm not even going to dignify your remarks about subsidies with a response.
Have a nice day, now, y'all.
Kindly check facts before posting. List price for A380 is closer to 300 million than 200 million. May we assume that the rest of your figures are 50% out?
129 orders are FIRM orders, not orders plus options. With all of the options that figure is more like 200. So the orderbook you state isn't as small as you seem to think, either.
I'm not even going to dignify your remarks about subsidies with a response.
Have a nice day, now, y'all.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with Wino regarding the price paid by launch customers for the A380. I guess a discount per aircraft may average around 15%, so giving close to $250m per aircraft, which would mean around $50b for 200 aircraft right so maybe they will break-even none the less??
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also way lowballed the developement costs by a similar amount because it allowed us to work with round numbers.
Don't forget to pump those up to reality. And also don't forget to add the cost of the factory in as well.....
Cheers
Wino
Don't forget to pump those up to reality. And also don't forget to add the cost of the factory in as well.....
Cheers
Wino
Bear Behind
There's only one of us spouting "crap" here, as you so eloquently put it, but my beef is with the argument you put forward. Let's refrain from personal insult, shall we?
I was merely pointing out that the numbers you quoted weren't accurate. So please, tell me what these airlines paid and pray do tell how much the A380 really cost? Are you SURE the factory isn't included in the 10 billion (or whatever it was)? Or do you just personally doubt it? Where do I ever state that those airlines paid list price? But a 15% discount on 300 million means more cash in the coffers than a 15% discount on 200 million doesn't it? Which allows the development costs to be recouped quicker doesn't it? So where's the "crap" in that?
Is your bone of contention the fact that jobs are being taken away from U.S. citizens? Europeans don't have a right to have jobs in the aerospace industry, then?
Why was the Indianapolis Maintenance Center for United paid for by the state of Indiana? (and now lies empty...)
Why did Washington state give Boeing enormous tax breaks?
Why is Boeing looking for subsidy from the Japanese for the 7E7?
Why does the USAF attempt to order 100 767 tankers at above any price relative to the product at JUST the moment that Boeing is looking to launch the 7E7?
How level is the playing field now?
Now there's thread creep on a monumental scale.
Is there a market for the A380? Of course there is. How big is it? Well, quite big, actually. How big? Time will tell. Markets develop, shift and change, you know. And the example of Concorde is a very poor one, though apt in a lot of ways. There was an amount of scuppering there from certain factions on the other side of the Atlantic. This time the Europeans have got their act together to an extent where that really won't be allowed to happen again because Europe as a whole has too high a population for the U.S. to ignore - a trade war would hurt!
I was merely pointing out that the numbers you quoted weren't accurate. So please, tell me what these airlines paid and pray do tell how much the A380 really cost? Are you SURE the factory isn't included in the 10 billion (or whatever it was)? Or do you just personally doubt it? Where do I ever state that those airlines paid list price? But a 15% discount on 300 million means more cash in the coffers than a 15% discount on 200 million doesn't it? Which allows the development costs to be recouped quicker doesn't it? So where's the "crap" in that?
Is your bone of contention the fact that jobs are being taken away from U.S. citizens? Europeans don't have a right to have jobs in the aerospace industry, then?
Why was the Indianapolis Maintenance Center for United paid for by the state of Indiana? (and now lies empty...)
Why did Washington state give Boeing enormous tax breaks?
Why is Boeing looking for subsidy from the Japanese for the 7E7?
Why does the USAF attempt to order 100 767 tankers at above any price relative to the product at JUST the moment that Boeing is looking to launch the 7E7?
How level is the playing field now?
Now there's thread creep on a monumental scale.
Is there a market for the A380? Of course there is. How big is it? Well, quite big, actually. How big? Time will tell. Markets develop, shift and change, you know. And the example of Concorde is a very poor one, though apt in a lot of ways. There was an amount of scuppering there from certain factions on the other side of the Atlantic. This time the Europeans have got their act together to an extent where that really won't be allowed to happen again because Europe as a whole has too high a population for the U.S. to ignore - a trade war would hurt!
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well since we want to go into innaccuracies.
The "Tax breaks" given by the state of Washington were to bring the state into alignment with the tax policies of other states, and not specific to Boeing. Infact those exact same breaks are available to Airbus should they decide to do aircraft work in the state of Washington. Are similar grants to boeing available to from the EU as were given to Airbus?
The Maintenance center was not paid for by the state of indiana though it is most certainly empty. Again, as the space if vacant it is available for lease should Airbus like to use it.
Actually the Airforce has been trying to get tankers for quite some time now. The price paid would still be less than trying to operate the old E's Incase you haven't noticed the operational tempo of the US military has been quite high and there is a critical shortage of tankers available, but once again congress if fiddling while Rome burns....
But you can't complain at all about any military pecurement because Airbus's military contracts are larger than Boeing...
As to airbus aircraft prices. No airline in the world pays list price for airliners Everyone knows that. Huge discounts happen on those. Launch customers get even larger discounts than that...
My bone of contention is not the jobs.
My bone of contention is that profitable companies are being destroyed by government jobs agencies. Airbus perverts the free market by not having to pay its R and D expenses...
Maybe its time for a taste of your own medicine. By effectively dumping aircraft (not having to pay developement costs so you are selling the aircraft below their cost) you have initiated a trade war already. And you can't claim its to catch up if you have 50 percent of the market already...
And I see that once again its America's fault that concorde flopped. If it was such a great aircraft, why couldn't it go somewhere else than America. Surely there are other city pairs the same distance or less as london and NY... Infact if you were to take a globe you would be astonished at the number of places on earth similar distances apart and not part of America, yet the concorde couldn't make a go of that either. Certainly that wouldn't be America's fault, would it?
Cheers
Wino
The "Tax breaks" given by the state of Washington were to bring the state into alignment with the tax policies of other states, and not specific to Boeing. Infact those exact same breaks are available to Airbus should they decide to do aircraft work in the state of Washington. Are similar grants to boeing available to from the EU as were given to Airbus?
The Maintenance center was not paid for by the state of indiana though it is most certainly empty. Again, as the space if vacant it is available for lease should Airbus like to use it.
Actually the Airforce has been trying to get tankers for quite some time now. The price paid would still be less than trying to operate the old E's Incase you haven't noticed the operational tempo of the US military has been quite high and there is a critical shortage of tankers available, but once again congress if fiddling while Rome burns....
But you can't complain at all about any military pecurement because Airbus's military contracts are larger than Boeing...
As to airbus aircraft prices. No airline in the world pays list price for airliners Everyone knows that. Huge discounts happen on those. Launch customers get even larger discounts than that...
My bone of contention is not the jobs.
My bone of contention is that profitable companies are being destroyed by government jobs agencies. Airbus perverts the free market by not having to pay its R and D expenses...
Maybe its time for a taste of your own medicine. By effectively dumping aircraft (not having to pay developement costs so you are selling the aircraft below their cost) you have initiated a trade war already. And you can't claim its to catch up if you have 50 percent of the market already...
And I see that once again its America's fault that concorde flopped. If it was such a great aircraft, why couldn't it go somewhere else than America. Surely there are other city pairs the same distance or less as london and NY... Infact if you were to take a globe you would be astonished at the number of places on earth similar distances apart and not part of America, yet the concorde couldn't make a go of that either. Certainly that wouldn't be America's fault, would it?
Cheers
Wino
Bear Behind
First point - might well be true, but why would they want to do that?
Second point - no it isn't, it's already been leased (tentatively), though a vertain someone in the know was the one who told me that the IMC was paid for by Indiana. If you know people high in the United eng. org., you'll probably know who.
Third point - may be less but still over the odds....
What military contracts would they be? As far as I know they only have the A400M, don't they? And that A310 tanker thing of which there are what, half a dozen? Compare that to Boeing's mil. work.
Your next point is no doubt true - launch customers no doubt get big discounts. But tell me, what gives more to Airbus - 85% of 200 million or 85% of 300 million?
Where did you hear that Airbus R&D is paid by anyone other than Airbus?
I haven't dumped aircraft - I can't. I'm a lowly engineer for an company that knows the A380 well. But I'm stongly pro A380 and anti-poor-Boeing-it's-not-fair-they're-not-nice-to-us-in-Europe-meisters. Too good for too long. Don't get me wrong. I love the Boeing products too - without them I wouldn't have a job. I don't love the whingeing, though. I mean, airlines continued ordering aircraft. What were Airbus supposed to do? Stop building them? "Nope. Sorry. Wino says we're dumping aircraft. Can't let you have any aircraft, matey! Come back when Boeing are churning 'em out and we might be allowed to talk". What ARE these subsidies you keep banging on about? Oh, loans, I see.
And on your final point - my belief is that, yes it is. It would always have made sense only over water due to the sonic boom (or vast expanses of desert). You evidnetly didn't hear about the service to Bahrain, Singapore and Rio, then? Or are they all a part of America now?
This is my last post on the subject unless it returns to the original point - is there a market. This bashing isn't getting anybody anywhere.
Second point - no it isn't, it's already been leased (tentatively), though a vertain someone in the know was the one who told me that the IMC was paid for by Indiana. If you know people high in the United eng. org., you'll probably know who.
Third point - may be less but still over the odds....
What military contracts would they be? As far as I know they only have the A400M, don't they? And that A310 tanker thing of which there are what, half a dozen? Compare that to Boeing's mil. work.
Your next point is no doubt true - launch customers no doubt get big discounts. But tell me, what gives more to Airbus - 85% of 200 million or 85% of 300 million?
Where did you hear that Airbus R&D is paid by anyone other than Airbus?
I haven't dumped aircraft - I can't. I'm a lowly engineer for an company that knows the A380 well. But I'm stongly pro A380 and anti-poor-Boeing-it's-not-fair-they're-not-nice-to-us-in-Europe-meisters. Too good for too long. Don't get me wrong. I love the Boeing products too - without them I wouldn't have a job. I don't love the whingeing, though. I mean, airlines continued ordering aircraft. What were Airbus supposed to do? Stop building them? "Nope. Sorry. Wino says we're dumping aircraft. Can't let you have any aircraft, matey! Come back when Boeing are churning 'em out and we might be allowed to talk". What ARE these subsidies you keep banging on about? Oh, loans, I see.
And on your final point - my belief is that, yes it is. It would always have made sense only over water due to the sonic boom (or vast expanses of desert). You evidnetly didn't hear about the service to Bahrain, Singapore and Rio, then? Or are they all a part of America now?
This is my last post on the subject unless it returns to the original point - is there a market. This bashing isn't getting anybody anywhere.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah well now we get to the old Airbus vs Boeing debate that goes on and on and on...
Here's the deal children Airbus gets some very sweet financing deals and so does Boeing (incidentally I reckon Boeing's military business is in quite a different league to Airbus but there you go)
But let's not forget these deals are not just limited to aerospace (any UK taxpayers remember how much we had to anti up to Mr De Lorean thanks to the pols falling for the we'll build the factory here and ship em back spiel) The concept has been repeated time and time again (ever wondered why Nissan pick one spot over another to build their cars?).
The question is (or was) Is there a market for the A380?
If we consider the last time a really big aircraft was introduced - in.... ah yes 1969 because what else is there to use as a comparison? We see that over the life of the programme (well from 69 to now) they have been sold at a rate of about one every 9 days-ish. Meanwhile, since Airboos has been actively taking orders for the 380 they averaged about one every 8 days or so.
There is nothing seriously scientific about this it's rule of thumb SWAG I've just taken some Airboos and Boeing sales/delivery data and naged it about.
Obviously there have been a number of spikes (747 in 68-71 and again in the late 80s - and the 380 at the time of launch) but the interesting part is the A380 market appears (for now) to be not that wildly different from the 747s.
Incidentally in 1967 Boeing reckoned that it would take till about 1978 to recover the cost od developing the 747, but largley dur to the early 70s oil crisis hyper inflation etc it took till around 1986 - oh and by the way...Joe Sutter told me that.
Another digression when I was looking at the 747 data I discovered the disturbing fact that the pax 744 backlog is down to 13 (plus another 23 frieghters) bet that making more than a few people in Seattle go eeek! But it also implies that everyone who is going to want one has got one.
OK back to the usual your subsidy is bigger than mine slanging....
Here's the deal children Airbus gets some very sweet financing deals and so does Boeing (incidentally I reckon Boeing's military business is in quite a different league to Airbus but there you go)
But let's not forget these deals are not just limited to aerospace (any UK taxpayers remember how much we had to anti up to Mr De Lorean thanks to the pols falling for the we'll build the factory here and ship em back spiel) The concept has been repeated time and time again (ever wondered why Nissan pick one spot over another to build their cars?).
The question is (or was) Is there a market for the A380?
If we consider the last time a really big aircraft was introduced - in.... ah yes 1969 because what else is there to use as a comparison? We see that over the life of the programme (well from 69 to now) they have been sold at a rate of about one every 9 days-ish. Meanwhile, since Airboos has been actively taking orders for the 380 they averaged about one every 8 days or so.
There is nothing seriously scientific about this it's rule of thumb SWAG I've just taken some Airboos and Boeing sales/delivery data and naged it about.
Obviously there have been a number of spikes (747 in 68-71 and again in the late 80s - and the 380 at the time of launch) but the interesting part is the A380 market appears (for now) to be not that wildly different from the 747s.
Incidentally in 1967 Boeing reckoned that it would take till about 1978 to recover the cost od developing the 747, but largley dur to the early 70s oil crisis hyper inflation etc it took till around 1986 - oh and by the way...Joe Sutter told me that.
Another digression when I was looking at the 747 data I discovered the disturbing fact that the pax 744 backlog is down to 13 (plus another 23 frieghters) bet that making more than a few people in Seattle go eeek! But it also implies that everyone who is going to want one has got one.
OK back to the usual your subsidy is bigger than mine slanging....
Last edited by Ace Rimmer; 12th Aug 2004 at 06:55.
Bear Behind
Quite. And lots of those 74s are getting long in the tooth now, so the replacement market is quite large, is it not? How many 744s have been delivered? And there's your market for A380s, more or less.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the whole point Pada-K-Bear, the 744 is being replaced by the B777 family and the A330/340 family, NOT by the A380.
The A380 is introducing a category of it's own and yes, the demand is for a few by each of the major carriers to satisfy a few routes which, unfortunately, won't add up to a break even figure.
I'm not swayed by large orders from Emirates etc. as they will dump them as soon as they discover they don't need them. The carriers that will count are the likes of LH, BA, AF, UAL, JAL etc. etc.
Well, that is my view, anyway!
The A380 is introducing a category of it's own and yes, the demand is for a few by each of the major carriers to satisfy a few routes which, unfortunately, won't add up to a break even figure.
I'm not swayed by large orders from Emirates etc. as they will dump them as soon as they discover they don't need them. The carriers that will count are the likes of LH, BA, AF, UAL, JAL etc. etc.
Well, that is my view, anyway!
Bear Behind
Omark,
Patently not true.
Orders from AF (747 operator), LH (ditto), QANTAS (ditto), Malaysian (ditto), Singapore (ditto), Virgin (guess what, ditto again!)... are you seeing a pattern here yet? No? Thai (747 operator) announcing that they will. FedEx wanting something to replace MD11s on their higher density routes. Emirates, Qatar et al are exceptions but are patently trying to lift traffic from the "traditional" long haul airlines and want a tool that will allow them to do it. How do you differentiate yourself from the existing airlines? Price will do it nicely, thank you very much. Oh yes, and making damn sure no-one else can get the aircraft into their fleets because you have so many production slots!
Your 777 and A330/A340 statement really doesn't hold water when you look at who has ordered it, who is interested in it and which of them operate 747s today. Ultimately, I believe BA will do it, and I believe JAL and CX will do it for their long haul as well. NW may well go that route, but United's days as a serious long haul player may be numbered, so they may well not do and rely on LH feeding the Chicago hub with A380s then dispersing that traffic throughout the US.
Patently not true.
Orders from AF (747 operator), LH (ditto), QANTAS (ditto), Malaysian (ditto), Singapore (ditto), Virgin (guess what, ditto again!)... are you seeing a pattern here yet? No? Thai (747 operator) announcing that they will. FedEx wanting something to replace MD11s on their higher density routes. Emirates, Qatar et al are exceptions but are patently trying to lift traffic from the "traditional" long haul airlines and want a tool that will allow them to do it. How do you differentiate yourself from the existing airlines? Price will do it nicely, thank you very much. Oh yes, and making damn sure no-one else can get the aircraft into their fleets because you have so many production slots!
Your 777 and A330/A340 statement really doesn't hold water when you look at who has ordered it, who is interested in it and which of them operate 747s today. Ultimately, I believe BA will do it, and I believe JAL and CX will do it for their long haul as well. NW may well go that route, but United's days as a serious long haul player may be numbered, so they may well not do and rely on LH feeding the Chicago hub with A380s then dispersing that traffic throughout the US.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you completely discount the fact that over 70 percent of all 747s were bought for their RANGE and not their size? So the 30 percent of 747s that were bought for their size are available for trade up, but what killed the 747 on the north atlantic was not a bigger aircraft. It was a smaller one that could now fly that range efficiently.
And as the 777/340s grew in range they replaced more and more 747s even though the 340's seat mile costs were higher if you filled both aircraft. The problem is that airlines most markets couldn't support a 747 so the smaller 340s 767s and 777 were better for the job since they could fly that distance profitably now.
Amazing how easily you discount the last 15 years of history or so...
CHeers
Wino
And as the 777/340s grew in range they replaced more and more 747s even though the 340's seat mile costs were higher if you filled both aircraft. The problem is that airlines most markets couldn't support a 747 so the smaller 340s 767s and 777 were better for the job since they could fly that distance profitably now.
Amazing how easily you discount the last 15 years of history or so...
CHeers
Wino