Japanese give Airbus the SNUB over A380
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the 7E7 was mentioned in this thread...
Has anyone else noticed the rather interesting shaping of the tail surfaces on the latest photos of the 7E7? It seems possible to me that some significant area ruling is being applied to the shape of the 7E7. If so, then maybe something useful from Sonic Cruiser research is being applied to the 7E7.
The 7E7 proposed economic cruise speed is about as high as a 747-400. If the Citation X biz-jet can cruise economically at .90 mach, while still being conventional in design, is it possible to get a conventional airliner to cruise economically close to .90 mach with the same heavy use of area ruling that the Citation X has?
I bring this up because this year Boeing is outselling Airbus in the single aisle market, but Airbus is outselling Boeing in the 2-aisle market. One of the reasons seems to be that Airbus FBW 2-aisle aircraft are faster than the 767, which is why it will die soon in my view. I know the 747 and 777 are fast, but the 767 can't touch the popular A330, and I think the 7E7 is aimed squarely at the A330. The 777 on the otherhand is already a strong A340 competitor.
If Boeing wants to capitalize on their own predictions that point-to-point long haul will predominate over hub-to-hub in the future, then they need to be selling more 2-aisle aircraft than Airbus. Since the A380 is being built to lead the hub-to-hub future, I don't see that Boeing has any choice but to develop the 7E7 to further develop the point-to-point strategy. Right now, Airbus seems able to offer the jets for both stratagies.
Has anyone else noticed the rather interesting shaping of the tail surfaces on the latest photos of the 7E7? It seems possible to me that some significant area ruling is being applied to the shape of the 7E7. If so, then maybe something useful from Sonic Cruiser research is being applied to the 7E7.
The 7E7 proposed economic cruise speed is about as high as a 747-400. If the Citation X biz-jet can cruise economically at .90 mach, while still being conventional in design, is it possible to get a conventional airliner to cruise economically close to .90 mach with the same heavy use of area ruling that the Citation X has?
I bring this up because this year Boeing is outselling Airbus in the single aisle market, but Airbus is outselling Boeing in the 2-aisle market. One of the reasons seems to be that Airbus FBW 2-aisle aircraft are faster than the 767, which is why it will die soon in my view. I know the 747 and 777 are fast, but the 767 can't touch the popular A330, and I think the 7E7 is aimed squarely at the A330. The 777 on the otherhand is already a strong A340 competitor.
If Boeing wants to capitalize on their own predictions that point-to-point long haul will predominate over hub-to-hub in the future, then they need to be selling more 2-aisle aircraft than Airbus. Since the A380 is being built to lead the hub-to-hub future, I don't see that Boeing has any choice but to develop the 7E7 to further develop the point-to-point strategy. Right now, Airbus seems able to offer the jets for both stratagies.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Arroyo
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me if I'm wrong but my feeling is that Boeing 7E7 is a solution that takes into account the simple fact that airlines burned more cash than thez earned in the past 25 years.
After the worldwide recession (US+JAPAN+Europe), amplified by 11/9, plus SARS, plus Desert Storm, plus plus plus... I guess that airlines might rather bet on an A/C you can use in almost any circonstances instead of a mega-jumbo that will end up in the Mojave desert at the very first crisis striking again the airline business.
Both pretenders say they intend to improve the cost/revenue ratio by 20%. But where is the gain if people fear flying ? Investing less in smaller A/C that cost you less if you have to return them to the lessor means less financing requirments and less risks in case things takes again a bad turn.
After the worldwide recession (US+JAPAN+Europe), amplified by 11/9, plus SARS, plus Desert Storm, plus plus plus... I guess that airlines might rather bet on an A/C you can use in almost any circonstances instead of a mega-jumbo that will end up in the Mojave desert at the very first crisis striking again the airline business.
Both pretenders say they intend to improve the cost/revenue ratio by 20%. But where is the gain if people fear flying ? Investing less in smaller A/C that cost you less if you have to return them to the lessor means less financing requirments and less risks in case things takes again a bad turn.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotornut wrote: Deliveries to PMB are scheduled to begin in 2007. The A380s will be operated by Malaysia Airlines on key trunk routes to Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.
All what is important to me as a flight crew are the little words: trunk routes... who cares how big an airplane is or who builds it. What counts are available jobs. You guys keep drooling about the A380 - for me I would prefer 2 smaller airplanes operating the same routes: more jobs.
All what is important to me as a flight crew are the little words: trunk routes... who cares how big an airplane is or who builds it. What counts are available jobs. You guys keep drooling about the A380 - for me I would prefer 2 smaller airplanes operating the same routes: more jobs.
Pegase Driver
Yes Burger , but more airplanes means more infrastucture and that exactly what we apparently cannot expand, so the larger aircraft seems to be the logic solution if ( and a big if ) traffic forecasts are correct.
For thoser here old enough to remember the same discussions occurred when the 747 arrived in 1969. ( airport congestions, evac times, too big, etc...)
During the end of the 1970's recession , many side use of the 747s was found and done , like flying tourists massively to the Canaries and to Palma, transporting flowers from Africa, and bringing back cheap electronics from Hong Kong.etc.. not many ended up in the desert.. unlike the 727s, the workhorse in those days.
The 747 had a magnificient carreer, I do not think the 380 will be different.
For thoser here old enough to remember the same discussions occurred when the 747 arrived in 1969. ( airport congestions, evac times, too big, etc...)
During the end of the 1970's recession , many side use of the 747s was found and done , like flying tourists massively to the Canaries and to Palma, transporting flowers from Africa, and bringing back cheap electronics from Hong Kong.etc.. not many ended up in the desert.. unlike the 727s, the workhorse in those days.
The 747 had a magnificient carreer, I do not think the 380 will be different.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC Watcher, I agree with your main point, however if I may, I could summarize it with one word "flexibility". The 747 was designed to be flexible, both as a carrier of passengers and a carrier of freight.
The A380 won't have the same flexibilty. I believe it will be an excellent passenger carrier, and it will make an excellent package freighter, but it will lack the 747's ability to carry bulky freight. This means its uses as a freighter would be somewhat restricted during slow times compared to a 747.
I would also point out that I'm personally not sure of Airbus's numbers when it comes to what percentage of seats on an A380 need to be filled for it to break even on a flight. The aircraft's empty weight will be 200,000 lbs more than the empty weight of a 747. While the basic A380 is advertised to carry 25 percent more passengers that a 744, its empty weight is 50 percent more than an empty 744. Again, Airbus claims the A380 can break even with a higher percentage of empty seats, but I don't see how given these weight issues.
If the break even load point actually turns out to be higher than Airbus is currently predicting, than this would also limit the A380's flexibility as a passenger carrier during slow times.
The A380 won't have the same flexibilty. I believe it will be an excellent passenger carrier, and it will make an excellent package freighter, but it will lack the 747's ability to carry bulky freight. This means its uses as a freighter would be somewhat restricted during slow times compared to a 747.
I would also point out that I'm personally not sure of Airbus's numbers when it comes to what percentage of seats on an A380 need to be filled for it to break even on a flight. The aircraft's empty weight will be 200,000 lbs more than the empty weight of a 747. While the basic A380 is advertised to carry 25 percent more passengers that a 744, its empty weight is 50 percent more than an empty 744. Again, Airbus claims the A380 can break even with a higher percentage of empty seats, but I don't see how given these weight issues.
If the break even load point actually turns out to be higher than Airbus is currently predicting, than this would also limit the A380's flexibility as a passenger carrier during slow times.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also ATC watcher, 75 percent of all 747s purchased were purchased for their RANGE, not their payload. For 25 years the 747 was the longest ranged aircraft in the world. If the airlines could have had smaller aircraft connecting those cities they would have.
Infact, if you look at the Atlantic, for all practical purposes the 747 is dead there. Yes there are SOME 747s there, but for the most part the 747 was killed over the atlantic by the 767/a330/a340. SMALLER aircraft.
Why go from Pittsburg to JFK to LHR when you can simply go from Pitt to anywhere in Europe non stop if you want... And that takes care of the infrastructure problems as well.
JFK which once upon a time was maxed out all the time is a virtual ghost town now most of the day except for an exceptionally brief evening rush. INfact slot restrictions at JFK have been lifted except for a 3 hour period now.
The solution to congestion is point to point, not bigger aircraft between the hubs. You have seen it across the USA (driven by Southwest) and you are seeing th same effect in Europe driven by Ryanair. Its only a matter of time till the technology catches up and you start doing it with longer and longer flights...
Yes, there will be a market for SOME a380s. However, if you take out the 747s that were purchased for RANGE instead of payload from the 747 order book, Boeing is a bankrupt company that doesn't exist anymore, killed by the 747 program.
Of course that could never happen to Airbus though
Cheers
Wino
Infact, if you look at the Atlantic, for all practical purposes the 747 is dead there. Yes there are SOME 747s there, but for the most part the 747 was killed over the atlantic by the 767/a330/a340. SMALLER aircraft.
Why go from Pittsburg to JFK to LHR when you can simply go from Pitt to anywhere in Europe non stop if you want... And that takes care of the infrastructure problems as well.
JFK which once upon a time was maxed out all the time is a virtual ghost town now most of the day except for an exceptionally brief evening rush. INfact slot restrictions at JFK have been lifted except for a 3 hour period now.
The solution to congestion is point to point, not bigger aircraft between the hubs. You have seen it across the USA (driven by Southwest) and you are seeing th same effect in Europe driven by Ryanair. Its only a matter of time till the technology catches up and you start doing it with longer and longer flights...
Yes, there will be a market for SOME a380s. However, if you take out the 747s that were purchased for RANGE instead of payload from the 747 order book, Boeing is a bankrupt company that doesn't exist anymore, killed by the 747 program.
Of course that could never happen to Airbus though
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety, what is area ruling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino,
How do you get bankrupt when the 737 and 777 sell more than any airbus model? All the R&D cost of the 747 series was paid off a long time ago. The line goes away not the company. They are only producing 1 month anyway.
How do you get bankrupt when the 737 and 777 sell more than any airbus model? All the R&D cost of the 747 series was paid off a long time ago. The line goes away not the company. They are only producing 1 month anyway.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oi 747focal, is that true? 
777 - orders 622, delivered 460
A319 - orders 920, delivered 556
A320 - orders 1671, delivered 1234
Current figures from Boeing and Airbus sites!!
777 - orders 622, delivered 460
A319 - orders 920, delivered 556
A320 - orders 1671, delivered 1234
Current figures from Boeing and Airbus sites!!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747Focal
A330/340 Orders / Deliveries: 812/532 ....
A32x Orders / Deliveries: 3083/2086
B737NG Orders / Deliveries: 2240/1402 (Including BBJs)
Airbus has outsold Boeing by a substantial margin in both 2002 and 2003. In the meantime Boeing has announced plans to close the 757 line, with the 767 teathering on the brink of extention, having sold only 10 copies in all of 2003, which coincidentially makes it the second best selling Boeing of 2003! That is sad ... The 747 sold only 3 (three) copies, which leaves Boeing with only the 737 doing well.
Here's hoping the 7E7 will be formally launched. The aviation world will not benefit from the demise of Boeing. Here's also hoping that Boeing will bring the new technologies gained from 7E7 development over to a 737 replacement, which is roughly 10 years overdue.
A32x Orders / Deliveries: 3083/2086
B737NG Orders / Deliveries: 2240/1402 (Including BBJs)
Airbus has outsold Boeing by a substantial margin in both 2002 and 2003. In the meantime Boeing has announced plans to close the 757 line, with the 767 teathering on the brink of extention, having sold only 10 copies in all of 2003, which coincidentially makes it the second best selling Boeing of 2003! That is sad ... The 747 sold only 3 (three) copies, which leaves Boeing with only the 737 doing well.
Here's hoping the 7E7 will be formally launched. The aviation world will not benefit from the demise of Boeing. Here's also hoping that Boeing will bring the new technologies gained from 7E7 development over to a 737 replacement, which is roughly 10 years overdue.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
newswatcher,
Let's be honest:
737 delivered = 4552 oh god that number is gonna be hard to beat.
:ooh
747 delivered = 1338 it will be 30 years before there will ever be that many A380s flying and you can bet your fanny there never will be that many A380s flying.
777 delivered = 462 and nothing on the bus plate can even compete.
Let's be honest:
737 delivered = 4552 oh god that number is gonna be hard to beat.
:ooh747 delivered = 1338 it will be 30 years before there will ever be that many A380s flying and you can bet your fanny there never will be that many A380s flying.
777 delivered = 462 and nothing on the bus plate can even compete.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selective blindness 747focal? You said
I have quite clearly posted that both the A319 and A320 models have exceeded the 777 figures. That is "models" not "family".
With reference the 747, since it has been flying for a little over 30 years, it would be reasonable to allow that long for the A380 to "catch up"!
737 has always been recognised as the work-horse of modern short-haul flying. I did not dispute those figures!
......777 sell more than any airbus model
With reference the 747, since it has been flying for a little over 30 years, it would be reasonable to allow that long for the A380 to "catch up"!
737 has always been recognised as the work-horse of modern short-haul flying. I did not dispute those figures!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops sorry. Did not mean to get your nickers in a bind. I had not realized that the Bus had sold as many A320s as they have and for some reason I thought there were more than 462 777s.
If you look at dollars collected by the manufacturer, the 777 asking price is about 4 times as much as an A320.
If you look at dollars collected by the manufacturer, the 777 asking price is about 4 times as much as an A320.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747Focal
Let's take it one more time, shall we?
777 Orders / Deliveries: 622/460
A330/A340 Orders / Deliveries: 812/532
Boeing has sold less NGs than Airbus has sold A32x family aircraft, by a rather substantial margin actually.
Oh, now I know, you're going say that I should include the 767 with the 777 when comparing to A330/340, and the 737-3/4/500 when comparing with the A32x series. Right mate, you win
Well, how about this one then. Airbus vs Boeing, total orders and deliveries in 2003:
Boeing Orders / Deliveries (All models): 229/258 (Did someone spot the discrepency?)
Airbus Orders / Deliveries (All models): 300/303 (Did someone spot the discrepency, albeit on lesser scale?)
Get that 7E7 rolling guys, it's needed!
777 Orders / Deliveries: 622/460
A330/A340 Orders / Deliveries: 812/532
Boeing has sold less NGs than Airbus has sold A32x family aircraft, by a rather substantial margin actually.
Oh, now I know, you're going say that I should include the 767 with the 777 when comparing to A330/340, and the 737-3/4/500 when comparing with the A32x series. Right mate, you win
Well, how about this one then. Airbus vs Boeing, total orders and deliveries in 2003:
Boeing Orders / Deliveries (All models): 229/258 (Did someone spot the discrepency?)
Airbus Orders / Deliveries (All models): 300/303 (Did someone spot the discrepency, albeit on lesser scale?)
Get that 7E7 rolling guys, it's needed!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
I am new here and I have posted only once before. I am not a pilot and I do not work for a commercial aviation industry. However, my job takes me to Japan frequently and I have read on Japanese press regarding current domestic aviation situation in Japan.
I do understand that there is a lot of Airbus vs. Boeing thing. I do believe that Airbus vs. Boeing thing do exist for real in the mind of airline executives. How much that influences the business decision is anybody’s guess. It is true that historically Japanese commercial aviation has favored Boeing more than Airbus. ANA has announced that in next few years ANA will replace A321 and A320 with 737NG. JAS had A300 but after merger of JAL and JAS, the new JAL management has not showed any interest toward Airbus aircraft.
From what I have heard and read about Japanese commercial aviation today, beside Airbus vs. Boeing, there may be other reasons ANA and JAL do not want anything larger than 747 at this moment. Japanese domestic commercial aviation enjoyed government regulated system until early ‘90s. Under the regulated system both ANA and JAL (back then JAS also) enjoyed the system almost guaranteed some profit, or a government support when they didn't make a profit. Japan has two peak travel seasons; end of the year travel, and August summer vacation. During those two peak travel seasons there is enough demand for ANA and JAL to completely fill seats on its 747-400D. Which ANA’s 747-400D has a seating of C 27 and Y 542, and JAL’s 747-400D has a seating of C 24 and Y 544.
During those two peak travel seasons, it can be impossible to obtain a ticket on domestic travel. However, during non-peak season it is almost unheard of in domestic Japanese travel that a flight is sold out. I have flown on 747SR and 747-400D domestically in Japan many times before. Almost always I had an empty next seat, that was for pretty much all passengers. ANA and JAL could operate under that kind of business structure under the government regulated system. You may remember back in ‘70s when the commercial aviation was regulated in the US, all cross-country flights were by 747, DC-10, or L1011. Sure there were no other aircraft which could fly cross-country non-stop. However, it was often that those flights were less than 50% full during the off season, and airlines could afford to do so.
Now Japanese domestic commercial aviation is deregulated. There have been new entrants such as Skymark, Air Do, and Sky Net Asia. ANA and JAL have carefully studied the deregulated commercial aviation in the US. ANA and JAL do not want to make the same mistake as some airlines did in the US under the deregulation. One thing ANA and JAL have realized is the over capacity. Under the regulated system, both ANA and JAL could make a profit under the business model based on the peak travel season, and let their flight fly less than 50% capacity during off season. ANA and JAL realized that they could no longer do that under the deregulated system. ANA and JAL are looking into making the business model more or less based on the off peak season. The recent reduction in passenger demand due to the US terrorist attack, the Gulf war, and SARS scare made ANA and JAL more convinced that they have to change their business structure based on off peak season demand.
Under such business structure, ANA and JAL needs aircraft smaller than current 747-400D, not larger than 747-400D. Under regulated system ANA and JAL never oversold seats on domestic flights. Even during peak travel season, ANA and JAL did not oversell flights, and there were people on the waiting list at the airport waiting for a last minute cancellation. However, now ANA and JAL are implementing the yield management system similar to one used by the US airlines. Under the guidance of the transportation ministry, ANA and JAL has established denied boarding compensation guideline on year 2000 for domestic flights. Yes, this is just one of many other business plans ANA and JAL has. Another major point is labor cost. JAL has already had few cases where new wage plan was found illegal by the court.
Both ANA and JAL now hire flight attendants as a temporary worker under one year contract. They have lower pay scale, less flight hours, and very limited benefits. After working as a temporary worker for three years, based on the performance and company demand, they have an opportunity to become a full time worker. Both ANA and JAL have established small subsidiary company and all ground staff now works for the subsidiary company. All check-in agents at an airport are employed by a subsidiary company, they do not work directly for ANA or JAL. Mechanics and dispatchers all are in same situation now at ANA and JAL.
Under these new business plan ANA and JAL has for deregulated environment, it is understanding that ANA and JAL both want an aircraft smaller than 747-400, not larger than 747-400. This is what I have read about over at Japan. Just another point of view. Thanks for reading.
I am new here and I have posted only once before. I am not a pilot and I do not work for a commercial aviation industry. However, my job takes me to Japan frequently and I have read on Japanese press regarding current domestic aviation situation in Japan.
I do understand that there is a lot of Airbus vs. Boeing thing. I do believe that Airbus vs. Boeing thing do exist for real in the mind of airline executives. How much that influences the business decision is anybody’s guess. It is true that historically Japanese commercial aviation has favored Boeing more than Airbus. ANA has announced that in next few years ANA will replace A321 and A320 with 737NG. JAS had A300 but after merger of JAL and JAS, the new JAL management has not showed any interest toward Airbus aircraft.
From what I have heard and read about Japanese commercial aviation today, beside Airbus vs. Boeing, there may be other reasons ANA and JAL do not want anything larger than 747 at this moment. Japanese domestic commercial aviation enjoyed government regulated system until early ‘90s. Under the regulated system both ANA and JAL (back then JAS also) enjoyed the system almost guaranteed some profit, or a government support when they didn't make a profit. Japan has two peak travel seasons; end of the year travel, and August summer vacation. During those two peak travel seasons there is enough demand for ANA and JAL to completely fill seats on its 747-400D. Which ANA’s 747-400D has a seating of C 27 and Y 542, and JAL’s 747-400D has a seating of C 24 and Y 544.
During those two peak travel seasons, it can be impossible to obtain a ticket on domestic travel. However, during non-peak season it is almost unheard of in domestic Japanese travel that a flight is sold out. I have flown on 747SR and 747-400D domestically in Japan many times before. Almost always I had an empty next seat, that was for pretty much all passengers. ANA and JAL could operate under that kind of business structure under the government regulated system. You may remember back in ‘70s when the commercial aviation was regulated in the US, all cross-country flights were by 747, DC-10, or L1011. Sure there were no other aircraft which could fly cross-country non-stop. However, it was often that those flights were less than 50% full during the off season, and airlines could afford to do so.
Now Japanese domestic commercial aviation is deregulated. There have been new entrants such as Skymark, Air Do, and Sky Net Asia. ANA and JAL have carefully studied the deregulated commercial aviation in the US. ANA and JAL do not want to make the same mistake as some airlines did in the US under the deregulation. One thing ANA and JAL have realized is the over capacity. Under the regulated system, both ANA and JAL could make a profit under the business model based on the peak travel season, and let their flight fly less than 50% capacity during off season. ANA and JAL realized that they could no longer do that under the deregulated system. ANA and JAL are looking into making the business model more or less based on the off peak season. The recent reduction in passenger demand due to the US terrorist attack, the Gulf war, and SARS scare made ANA and JAL more convinced that they have to change their business structure based on off peak season demand.
Under such business structure, ANA and JAL needs aircraft smaller than current 747-400D, not larger than 747-400D. Under regulated system ANA and JAL never oversold seats on domestic flights. Even during peak travel season, ANA and JAL did not oversell flights, and there were people on the waiting list at the airport waiting for a last minute cancellation. However, now ANA and JAL are implementing the yield management system similar to one used by the US airlines. Under the guidance of the transportation ministry, ANA and JAL has established denied boarding compensation guideline on year 2000 for domestic flights. Yes, this is just one of many other business plans ANA and JAL has. Another major point is labor cost. JAL has already had few cases where new wage plan was found illegal by the court.
Both ANA and JAL now hire flight attendants as a temporary worker under one year contract. They have lower pay scale, less flight hours, and very limited benefits. After working as a temporary worker for three years, based on the performance and company demand, they have an opportunity to become a full time worker. Both ANA and JAL have established small subsidiary company and all ground staff now works for the subsidiary company. All check-in agents at an airport are employed by a subsidiary company, they do not work directly for ANA or JAL. Mechanics and dispatchers all are in same situation now at ANA and JAL.
Under these new business plan ANA and JAL has for deregulated environment, it is understanding that ANA and JAL both want an aircraft smaller than 747-400, not larger than 747-400. This is what I have read about over at Japan. Just another point of view. Thanks for reading.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flopster,
To be fair the 737NG has only been offered for HALF the time that the A320 has been offered. If you included 300/400/500s sold during the same time period that the A320 was offered, boeing wins. If you include on A320 sold since the NG was offered boeing wins again...
Same thing for the 330/340 vs 777. 330 and 340 go back to well before the 777. 330 was designed to beat the 767 which it did. ofcourse the 767 was designed to beat the 310/300-600 which it most certainly did. 777 has pretty effectively buried the 330/340 since it came out... however the 777 is a little large, hence the need for something in the 7e7 size...
747focal. The 747 has been the largest profit center for boeing for a VERY long time. The developement costs have been fully amortized. Much of the expense of building an aircraft (cockpit and engines) aren't that much different than a 737 (cockpit the same, but a few more engines) yet you get a HUGE increase in sticker price due to the greater "value" of the work the747 can do. But the 737 are barely a break even aircraft. The real money for boeing has always been in the larger aircraft...
Without the 747s purchased for range the production run of the 747 would have been similar to the A300 A310 production run which airbus even in their most optomistic moments has never claimed was a profitable program.
Cheers
Wino
To be fair the 737NG has only been offered for HALF the time that the A320 has been offered. If you included 300/400/500s sold during the same time period that the A320 was offered, boeing wins. If you include on A320 sold since the NG was offered boeing wins again...
Same thing for the 330/340 vs 777. 330 and 340 go back to well before the 777. 330 was designed to beat the 767 which it did. ofcourse the 767 was designed to beat the 310/300-600 which it most certainly did. 777 has pretty effectively buried the 330/340 since it came out... however the 777 is a little large, hence the need for something in the 7e7 size...
747focal. The 747 has been the largest profit center for boeing for a VERY long time. The developement costs have been fully amortized. Much of the expense of building an aircraft (cockpit and engines) aren't that much different than a 737 (cockpit the same, but a few more engines) yet you get a HUGE increase in sticker price due to the greater "value" of the work the747 can do. But the 737 are barely a break even aircraft. The real money for boeing has always been in the larger aircraft...
Without the 747s purchased for range the production run of the 747 would have been similar to the A300 A310 production run which airbus even in their most optomistic moments has never claimed was a profitable program.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino, however you try and dress it up, Boeing does appear to be losing the battle this year, not only on numbers, but also on value. From Businessweek, earlier this year:
Several US analysts are reported as forecasting that it could be at least 2010 before Boeing starts beating Airbus on annual orders. We shall see! 
But this impressive record isn't giving Boeing a lead in its latest race against Airbus. Just look at the numbers. By mid-June, Airbus had won 64% of this year's airplane orders -- 161, vs. 92 for Boeing, including firm orders and memoranda of understanding. But in total value, where it counts the most, Airbus' share is 76% of this year's orders, with list prices totaling about $26.7 billion versus only $8.2 billion for Boeing. If this lead holds up, it would be the third year in a row Airbus won not only more orders, but also more of the lucrative widebody variety. Says Airbus CEO No'l Forgeard: "Airbus is taking the lead in a market [that] was considered the home ground of our competitor."
Bear Behind
Wino - I have to take issue with your figures, old chap. You say:
If you include A320 sold since the NG was offered, Boeing wins again.
Info. I have kicking around, admittedly to end November, says that since November 1993 (date of authorisation to offer of NG), 737NG 2237 orders
A320 series 2396 orders
Don't reckon the picture's changed much since end of November - maybe the bus gets something on top from QANTAS?
Ergo electric wonderjets win that one.
If you include A320 sold since the NG was offered, Boeing wins again.
Info. I have kicking around, admittedly to end November, says that since November 1993 (date of authorisation to offer of NG), 737NG 2237 orders
A320 series 2396 orders
Don't reckon the picture's changed much since end of November - maybe the bus gets something on top from QANTAS?
Ergo electric wonderjets win that one.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all,
I find it very amusing that this thread has pretty much split itself on geographical grounds. Europe v America.
As to who sold more of what, when and to whom. Grow up!!! Neither side plays fair and the customers (airlines) also have vested interests. Everyone is bribing everyone else in the aviation industry, hoping to get an edge and hoping not to get caught and prosecuted.
If Boeing, Airbus and most of the airlines had to operate on merit and honest money from customers we would still be flying Vickers Vimy’s and taking weeks to get anywhere.
Cheers
BHR
I find it very amusing that this thread has pretty much split itself on geographical grounds. Europe v America.
As to who sold more of what, when and to whom. Grow up!!! Neither side plays fair and the customers (airlines) also have vested interests. Everyone is bribing everyone else in the aviation industry, hoping to get an edge and hoping not to get caught and prosecuted.
If Boeing, Airbus and most of the airlines had to operate on merit and honest money from customers we would still be flying Vickers Vimy’s and taking weeks to get anywhere.
Cheers
BHR