Airbus: 7E7 is rushed and ridiculous

[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]

Bugg Smasher

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.

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]

Boeing Link

Here's a link to a Boeing press release from June 13th, 2003 where the composite structure is discussed. (Link here )

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 ) 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

[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..

[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. . .

[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/view...nav2&picid=916

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