747-400`s future
The Boeing proposal for the CX-HLS program looked much like the eventual "winner", the Lockheed C-5. Somewhere I might have some drawings in my C-5 records. High wing, front and rear ramps, the lot. The RFP drove the design.
I differ to superior knowledge on BA services.
GF
I differ to superior knowledge on BA services.
GF
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You cited the MD-11 before, but now it's the imaginary MD-12.
Where do we find anything at all which remotely suggests that the concept was abandoned because of fears of killing too many passengers, or because of pressure by the FAA? Neither are the case, and both are lies.
The same is correctly said of the 747.
Further, Flight 103 has nothing to do with the subject. You're going to suggest that a terrorist act caused Boeing (et al) to elect not to build aircraft holding more passengers, ostensibly because more passengers might be killed in a terrorist act? That's even more ridiculous than your previous assertion.
You're still going to stick with the story that the FAA influenced this?
Where do we find anything at all which remotely suggests that the concept was abandoned because of fears of killing too many passengers, or because of pressure by the FAA? Neither are the case, and both are lies.
The same is correctly said of the 747.
Further, Flight 103 has nothing to do with the subject. You're going to suggest that a terrorist act caused Boeing (et al) to elect not to build aircraft holding more passengers, ostensibly because more passengers might be killed in a terrorist act? That's even more ridiculous than your previous assertion.
You're still going to stick with the story that the FAA influenced this?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guppy
Yes, it was a large factor. I can not find a refrence to substantiate it but am damb sure you can not find one to prove me wrong. There were variants of the md-11 the MD-12 was on the books with potential.
MD11/MD12-undeveloped models
This is back in the day when there was a market for large as they can be aircraft operating hub to hub.
MD11/MD12-undeveloped models
This is back in the day when there was a market for large as they can be aircraft operating hub to hub.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not so sure the size limitation was FAA-driven - but it may well have been customer driven.
I know there was some hesitancy in the late 60s-early 70s about operating trijets on long overwater routes. It didn't last long - operating statistics soon overcame that objection. And in another decade ETOPS became common.
I know there was some hesitancy in the late 60s-early 70s about operating trijets on long overwater routes. It didn't last long - operating statistics soon overcame that objection. And in another decade ETOPS became common.
Guest
Posts: n/a
yet again the 777-300 is getting old to. If its the 300ER then yes it could be. Also if boeing does not make a 777-300F then the 777-300 series will be scrapped and thats it.
Also somewhere on the net it says the 777 will be sold out in 2012. Is this true or some guy starting some debate? On boeings order list the 777 currently has 50 777s on order and 40% of them are for fed ex
Also somewhere on the net it says the 777 will be sold out in 2012. Is this true or some guy starting some debate? On boeings order list the 777 currently has 50 777s on order and 40% of them are for fed ex
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it was a large factor. I can not find a refrence to substantiate it but am damb sure you can not find one to prove me wrong.
Of course you can't find anything to substantiate it, because you're wrong. You're talking out your backside.
One doesn't need to prove a negative. You made a false assertion and can't back it up. That's good enough.
You may as well assert that red is green, and can't back that up, either. I needn't prove that red isn't green, because it's not.
747's ultimate future? Pots and pans.
I'm not so sure the size limitation was FAA-driven - but it may well have been customer driven.
This had nothing to do with the baseless and wild assertion that airlines were afraid of killing too many passengers, or that the FAA was concerned about the same, because such a ridiculous, wild notion simply isn't true. It also had nothing to do with the reason that the 747 has no full length upper deck.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guppy, I brought up dirt.
Dirt is often not published.
Have your false assertion as you wish.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747 forever:
That's right, you don't know. From Boeing's website:
"The 787-8 Dreamliner will carry 210 - 250 passengers on routes of 7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles (14,200 to 15,200 kilometers), while the 787-9 Dreamliner will carry 250 - 290 passengers on routes of 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles (14,800 to 15,750 kilometers)."
I don`t know about the 787. Its 1/3 of the 747 in size! Do airlines really want to use such small thing to replace something 3 times the size of it? I think its between the 777 and the a380
"The 787-8 Dreamliner will carry 210 - 250 passengers on routes of 7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles (14,200 to 15,200 kilometers), while the 787-9 Dreamliner will carry 250 - 290 passengers on routes of 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles (14,800 to 15,750 kilometers)."
747forever
While I don't doubt your sincerity in admiring the 747, you have to look at the cold-blooded facts. Airlines are commercial enterprises that must earn a return on their investor's investment by appealing to paying passengers. There will be routes that can support the 744 or the A380, but it is a minority of all city-pairs. Passengers, including yourself I'd bet, want to travel with the fewest stops and the least fare--that is what will dictate the future's airliners.
The 787 and A350 are the future for the reason they are going to be 20%-25% cheaper per seat-mile to operate and should be profitable on "thinner" routes and by allowing profits while giving passengers frequency they demand. The premium passengers want to leave on their schedule, not the airline's.
A US example--everyone used to fly to LAX to fly to Hawaii, wherever in Hawaii they were staying. Now, one can fly, non-stop, from about 10 mainland islands. And 3 more destinations in Hawaii now have service, rather than just Honolulu with connections to Kona, Maui, Kauai, Honolulu.
That is where airline routes have been going since the 767 introduced ETOPS from Halifax to London in 1985.
GF
While I don't doubt your sincerity in admiring the 747, you have to look at the cold-blooded facts. Airlines are commercial enterprises that must earn a return on their investor's investment by appealing to paying passengers. There will be routes that can support the 744 or the A380, but it is a minority of all city-pairs. Passengers, including yourself I'd bet, want to travel with the fewest stops and the least fare--that is what will dictate the future's airliners.
The 787 and A350 are the future for the reason they are going to be 20%-25% cheaper per seat-mile to operate and should be profitable on "thinner" routes and by allowing profits while giving passengers frequency they demand. The premium passengers want to leave on their schedule, not the airline's.
A US example--everyone used to fly to LAX to fly to Hawaii, wherever in Hawaii they were staying. Now, one can fly, non-stop, from about 10 mainland islands. And 3 more destinations in Hawaii now have service, rather than just Honolulu with connections to Kona, Maui, Kauai, Honolulu.
That is where airline routes have been going since the 767 introduced ETOPS from Halifax to London in 1985.
GF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When transatlantic travel was exploding 25 years ago, a lot of secondary routes/destinations were opening up - CVG-LGW was one of the first. Passengers loved the thought of arriving at a midwest airport directly, without negotiating immigration/customs at JFK or ORD. But the market was clearly too small for the Jumbo, so a 767 or A310 was ideal.