Boeing General
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Studi,
The costs of the airbus go up because the interest on the loans made to develope the aircraft continue to accumulate untill you repay those loans. So every day of delay on the claimed 10 billion in development costs = many 10s of millions of dollars in cost over runs, and all those employees are sitting around getting paid as well while no aicraft move out the door.
Of course that only applies for a commercial company and not a state sponsored jobs program that doesn't have to make financial risk benefit decisions before launching a program. Boeing really did bet the whole company on the 747. If it had failed they would have been out of the passenger jet business just like Lockheed and douglas are. Airbus of course will just get the german/french tax payers to foot the bill
Also. The market for the 380 is not nearly has big as you think. The aircraft that killed the 747 was not a bigger aircraft. It was a smaller aircraft. More than two thirds of all 747s sold were sold for the RANGE not capacity. Panam didn't want that LARGE and airplane, they had to accept the aircraft as a byproduct of its range. The 767 killed the 747 on the atlantic, and the the 777 came along and killed it on the pacific.
If you take the 2/3rds of the sales out of the picture that were sold for range instead of capacity than boeing sold only about 400 aircraft over 40 or so years. They would be out of business.
Cheers
Wino
The costs of the airbus go up because the interest on the loans made to develope the aircraft continue to accumulate untill you repay those loans. So every day of delay on the claimed 10 billion in development costs = many 10s of millions of dollars in cost over runs, and all those employees are sitting around getting paid as well while no aicraft move out the door.
Of course that only applies for a commercial company and not a state sponsored jobs program that doesn't have to make financial risk benefit decisions before launching a program. Boeing really did bet the whole company on the 747. If it had failed they would have been out of the passenger jet business just like Lockheed and douglas are. Airbus of course will just get the german/french tax payers to foot the bill
Also. The market for the 380 is not nearly has big as you think. The aircraft that killed the 747 was not a bigger aircraft. It was a smaller aircraft. More than two thirds of all 747s sold were sold for the RANGE not capacity. Panam didn't want that LARGE and airplane, they had to accept the aircraft as a byproduct of its range. The 767 killed the 747 on the atlantic, and the the 777 came along and killed it on the pacific.
If you take the 2/3rds of the sales out of the picture that were sold for range instead of capacity than boeing sold only about 400 aircraft over 40 or so years. They would be out of business.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, Airbus/Euro phobia seems to shape the argument of some.
It does seem odd to me - while Boeing is trying to sell the 748i, and potential customers want it bigger at the expense of range - to use questionable historic data to argue what operators want in the future.
I would appear to me, while Boeing continously seems to up their estimates for the number of Very Large Aircraft needed, that Airbus is ahead in that game, and are not the one who have changed their tune.
It does seem odd to me - while Boeing is trying to sell the 748i, and potential customers want it bigger at the expense of range - to use questionable historic data to argue what operators want in the future.
I would appear to me, while Boeing continously seems to up their estimates for the number of Very Large Aircraft needed, that Airbus is ahead in that game, and are not the one who have changed their tune.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you arrive at the statement that 2/3 of all 747 were sold due to range? Doesn't seem to make sense to me then that each version of the 747 was bigger than the previous one. This trend will be continued with the 747-8. It must have something to do with capacity and not with range.
The BIG difference between the 2 is RANGE. for 30 years the 747 ruled the world as the worlds longest ranged airliner. The 777-200lr finally took that away from it. All the growth in the 747 was put to range.
There is a SMALL market for capacity. but not a large one. the ability to connect more city pairs profitably on non stop services without need to go to a hub and change planes reduces the market for very large aircraft. Boeing has NOT raised their estimates of the market, which is why they haven't launched an all new aircraft.
Don't believe me? what is the predominant short haul aircaft these days? In the USA its the 737/a320. etc.... It WAS bigger aircraft for a while. The dominant domestic aircraft at AA for the longest time was the DC-10. A DC-10 full still has lower seat mile costs than a 737, but you have to fill it.
Same thing is happening in Europe. A300 is gone. b757 is leaving, being replaced with SMALLER jets not bigger ones.
Same thing happend on the atlantic. 747s became A310/767/dc-10 have now become 757s in many cases. smallest aircraft that can connect two cities pulls all the hub connection traffic that those city pairs used to generate.
787s are gonna exacerbate the trend.
yes there are a FEW city pairs that can justify 700 seat aircraft, some of the year, and even fewer that can do it year around. But its a miniscule market and its under attack as people bypass hubs.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing has NOT raised their estimates of the market, which is why they haven't launched an all new aircraft.
In two years Boeing have doubled their estimate. I would say they are aligning themselves with the estimates made by Airbus pretty well.
And, as I said, it seems that the potential 748i customers Boeing have spoken to, want a bigger aircraft. Even at the expense of range.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So when are Boeing going to formally launch the pax version of the 747-800 then? Who will be the launch customer? Its interesting that EK have ordered the freighter version..I wonder if they will transfer their latest 777 order into 747-800's? Also, what are Airbus doing about the A330 & A340 in terms of increasing the competitive edge of Airbus against the 777 and 787?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 380 will be fine, it has one major advantage over all of the others and that is the carbon footprint per passenger has to be wildly less than other aircraft. This may not be a massive deal just now but give it a few years and i am sure that it will be far more important. Things will start to change when it enters airline service and becomes proven.
The 747 had its share of problems at the beginning and endangered the boeing company but the problems where sorted. Talk of cancellations by airlines i am sure in the most part is spin to get decent discounts and compensation from airbus.
The idea of a joint boeing/airbus company is laughable and worrying at the same time, can you imagine how a company with that sort of monopoly could operate !. The world needs competition and so needs at least 2 large airliner manufacturers, and these companies are very similar just the american gov helps boeing in slightly different ways to the european way of helping airbus, both lots of governments aware that these manufacturing jobs are some that might actually stay in the western world as they are not easily transferrable to the far east etc.
The 747 had its share of problems at the beginning and endangered the boeing company but the problems where sorted. Talk of cancellations by airlines i am sure in the most part is spin to get decent discounts and compensation from airbus.
The idea of a joint boeing/airbus company is laughable and worrying at the same time, can you imagine how a company with that sort of monopoly could operate !. The world needs competition and so needs at least 2 large airliner manufacturers, and these companies are very similar just the american gov helps boeing in slightly different ways to the european way of helping airbus, both lots of governments aware that these manufacturing jobs are some that might actually stay in the western world as they are not easily transferrable to the far east etc.
Bear Behind
Don't worry, Wino is just a Unionized American who believes that Airbus is taking jobs from good ol' Americans. And nobody else in the world should have a job other than Americans "cuz that just ain't fair, boi". He's sore that it's not only the U.S. that can produce jetliners.
Now if we're talking about RANGE, a coupl o' facts fo' ya, there boi:
1) It was the A340-500 that offered a longer range than the 747 fbefore the 777-200LR. Airbus played the range game before Boeing did. 777-200LR came more than 2 years after the A340-500. The A340-500 beacme the world's longest ranged airliner.
(By the way, I love thae markeitng schpeel from Boeing that says that the -200LR will fly from the U.K. to Australia nonstop. It never talks about the return flight, does it?)
2) How many A340-500s have been sold? How many 777-200LRs? And how many 747s? If it's range that the airlines want, how come the A340-500 and 777-200LR, when you add their sales figures TOGETHER, have sold less than one tenth as many units as the 747?
Hmm, doesn't quite add up, does it?
Wino seems to believe that the air traffic saturation situation will magically become a non-issue and that slot constrained airports like LHR, FRA, MUC, AMS, CDG etc. will find a solution - he doesn't seem to realise that Europe is not like the U.S. and that there is only a finite amount of land available for expansion. He therefore can't see past the slot constraint argument that larger aircraft become necessary in order to reduce traffic congestion.
Now, let's look at the A300/757 argument, shall we?
A300 - getting old. Quite inefficient. 767 the same. Relatively high fuel burn, certainly high maintenance costs. 757, ditto but even worse on the fuel burn front - very inefficient but great performance. Being replaced by? 737-800s, A320s and A321s. Why? Because there's nothing in the market to replace them of the same size. 787-3 is too much aeroplane for what it does, hence not a bestseller. Why have a -3 when you could have all of that capability in a -8? Northwest bought A330s as did USAirways. Continental took 767-400s (bet they wish they hadn't now - residual values must be disastrous). These have effectively replaced the DC-10 size category. A step down in capacity? Erm, no, not really. American is making do with 767s and abusing 777s. Well, Ok, but is that really beacuse they haven't had the disposable income to buy into the slightly larger airfcraft? Or after Sept 11th did they see demand drop and therefore smaller aircraft to be used?
No market for the A380? Get out of here! I guess you believe that Elvis is working in Wal-Mart?
Now if we're talking about RANGE, a coupl o' facts fo' ya, there boi:
1) It was the A340-500 that offered a longer range than the 747 fbefore the 777-200LR. Airbus played the range game before Boeing did. 777-200LR came more than 2 years after the A340-500. The A340-500 beacme the world's longest ranged airliner.
(By the way, I love thae markeitng schpeel from Boeing that says that the -200LR will fly from the U.K. to Australia nonstop. It never talks about the return flight, does it?)
2) How many A340-500s have been sold? How many 777-200LRs? And how many 747s? If it's range that the airlines want, how come the A340-500 and 777-200LR, when you add their sales figures TOGETHER, have sold less than one tenth as many units as the 747?
Hmm, doesn't quite add up, does it?
Wino seems to believe that the air traffic saturation situation will magically become a non-issue and that slot constrained airports like LHR, FRA, MUC, AMS, CDG etc. will find a solution - he doesn't seem to realise that Europe is not like the U.S. and that there is only a finite amount of land available for expansion. He therefore can't see past the slot constraint argument that larger aircraft become necessary in order to reduce traffic congestion.
Now, let's look at the A300/757 argument, shall we?
A300 - getting old. Quite inefficient. 767 the same. Relatively high fuel burn, certainly high maintenance costs. 757, ditto but even worse on the fuel burn front - very inefficient but great performance. Being replaced by? 737-800s, A320s and A321s. Why? Because there's nothing in the market to replace them of the same size. 787-3 is too much aeroplane for what it does, hence not a bestseller. Why have a -3 when you could have all of that capability in a -8? Northwest bought A330s as did USAirways. Continental took 767-400s (bet they wish they hadn't now - residual values must be disastrous). These have effectively replaced the DC-10 size category. A step down in capacity? Erm, no, not really. American is making do with 767s and abusing 777s. Well, Ok, but is that really beacuse they haven't had the disposable income to buy into the slightly larger airfcraft? Or after Sept 11th did they see demand drop and therefore smaller aircraft to be used?
No market for the A380? Get out of here! I guess you believe that Elvis is working in Wal-Mart?
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 340-500 and the 340-600 didn't meet there promises and have not sold. They are pretty much doa. The airplane didn't do its job ECONOMICALLY. A lot like concorde...
The 777 200 LR is selling well now (delta among other now putting them online)
American used to operate MANY 747s. They did away with them well before 9/11, and the last 747s they operated were the 747SP. (yes the smallest ones ever made with the long range, though 400s were later stretched to that range) They were replaced by the MD-11, which also didn't make its promises, so the SPs were brought back for a while till the 777's arrived.
I didn't say there was NO market for the A380. Just a TINY one.
And boeing has NOT raised there forecast for large aircraft. You moved the goal posts by 100 seats. they are still forecasting 500 or so aircraft with a capaity of over 500 seats. You included 400 or more seats... Different animal.
And 757 production ended with the 737-900 as the replacement, but that hasn't sold well even though it has the capacity and better fuel burn.
Cheers
Wino
The 777 200 LR is selling well now (delta among other now putting them online)
American used to operate MANY 747s. They did away with them well before 9/11, and the last 747s they operated were the 747SP. (yes the smallest ones ever made with the long range, though 400s were later stretched to that range) They were replaced by the MD-11, which also didn't make its promises, so the SPs were brought back for a while till the 777's arrived.
I didn't say there was NO market for the A380. Just a TINY one.
And boeing has NOT raised there forecast for large aircraft. You moved the goal posts by 100 seats. they are still forecasting 500 or so aircraft with a capaity of over 500 seats. You included 400 or more seats... Different animal.
And 757 production ended with the 737-900 as the replacement, but that hasn't sold well even though it has the capacity and better fuel burn.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How to design an Airbus
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And boeing has NOT raised there forecast for large aircraft. You moved the goal posts by 100 seats. they are still forecasting 500 or so aircraft with a capaity of over 500 seats. You included 400 or more seats... Different animal.
As I said, the arguments used by some are shaped by less than rational motives.
