The 747-800 series.. anyone know about this?

[Jakemaster]

Yes, but over time Boeing has been much more oriented towards Long Range effiecient travel.  I mean, the 747 was their only true Jumbo jet, since then all developements have been for efficient long range.  

[Chris_F]

Personally I think the A380 was a big mis-step for Airbus.  The commecial success of an airplane (over decades, like the 747) is directly tied to the commercial success of the airlines which fly them.  Big planes are built on the premis that hubbing (flying passengers in to a central hub, then beyond to another hub, then to their destination) is the way of the future, and when the 747 was born it was.

But, at least in the US, and I assume elsewhere, what is happening to the big hubbing airlines?  Bankrupcy or dire straits.  They can't compete with the "discount" airlines like Southwest which fly smaller planes direct to destinations.  The whole "dollars per passenger seat mile" metric turned on its ear.

So, in 10 years where will the passenger market be?  Will we passengers give up our cheap, direct flights in favor of more expensive two and three connecting flight trips?  I think the opposite, hubbing for all except freight will be a thing of the past and airlines will be buying small, efficient planes to allow direct flights.  The key to future airline success will be small planes which can be turned around and put back in the air VERY quickly, spending as little time on the ground as possible.

It just makes sense (to me).  Flying direct to destinations is something customers want.  When you hub you have to swap around luggage which takes a LONG time, stranding your big, expensive plane on the ground where it isn't producing any revenue for you.  Big planes take even longer to turn around and get flying again, and are more expensive to leave stranded on the ground.  Add in the complexities of airport life, canceled connecting flights, delayed flights, re-booking passengers, re-swapping luggage to accomodate, and the genius of the SouthWest is aparent.

This relates directly to the airplane market.  The 787, although not as sexy as the gigantic A380, was a much wiser investment.  I don't think we'll see a full double deck 747 any time soon.  Although I have no doubt that Boeing will continue to marginally (and cheaply) expand the 747 line just to service its old hub based customers as long as those airlines can remain in business, but they're smart to not bet the future of their company on that outdated practice.

[Woodlouse2002]

Airbus would not have gone along with the A380 if any of that was the case. The A380 was developed not to compete with small twins that can go direct to any airport, it was built to fly the long distance routes that the 747 has been doing for years such as the Heathrow-JFK runs etc where a lot of people want to go a long way on a route that very few twin engined airliners can do.

[Craig.]

Its also design for the asian routes, where they sometimes send 4 747's full of passengers a day on short routes. Per airline. The A380 can in most case reduce the number of flights needed in theory 40% that will have a huge benifit to the enviroment and airport congestion.

[legoalex2000]

i just dont see that. the only places i see the A380 going is if it's crossing the sea, or if it's going from say Chicago to Maachu pichu. because it's such a big airfract, airports must spend more money on the follwing if they plan to accept the A380:

bigger taxiways
bigger runways
bigger hangars
new landing systems (mabye???)

the 2 biggest problems with the A380 is maintainence and fuel. this hog probably takes in 1/4 more than the 747, which no matter how fuel efficent for something like this, will still cost a lot. the other part is maintainence, hangars would have to get bigger, and new equipment needs to be installed.

I know for a fact that amongst O'Hare's spending, 10 million is expected to go to expanding 5 taxiways from  runway 14R/32L to the terminal.

which i guess wot be a problem for mayor daley, who is gonna rearrange all the runways to make something like 6 parallel runways or whatever. idiot.

*rant number 35285729582 over*

Ramos

[Nexus]

Ramos, the asian market is very underestimated.
FYI, I think it's ANA who is the only customer with B744 without winglets, just because they fly so short distances and want to cram in every passenger possible. I mean it's simple maths, really. It's faster and more efficient for ATC to handle one aircraft carrying 800pax than four planes with 200pax each.
The A380 is infact very suitable for domestic and regional routes in dense urban areas.

And yes the A380 will carry some 200 tons of fuel, but it is some 20%  more fuel efficient than the 744 and  has a 15-20% lower cost per  passenger seat, so despite all the fuel it needs, the A380 is more economical, no matter how you see it.

And what do you mean with new landing system? I think you're fumbling in the dark a little bit. The A380 isn't even the largest (heaviest) plane built, it is still the An-224 and that one flew back in the late 80's!

Airbus A380 will be such a force that hub airports cant afford NOT to upgrade their terminals etc. That's how the industry works. And btw...the workload on each of the 20 wheels on the A380 is actually less than on a 747...

[legoalex2000]

*clunk*

sorry, fumbling in the dark

i understand that, but i see the American hubs a little iffy on upgrading terminals, (and i'm mostly speaking O'hare) is already in the midst of rebuilding terminals.

i agree with chris on this.

[Theis]

The A380 isn't even the largest (heaviest) plane built, it is still the An-224 and that one flew back in the late 80's!

i though it was the AN-225???


Cheers Theis

[Craig.]

the A380 was never designed to please the Americans. alot of Airports in the US are ready for it despite only UPS and Fed-ex buying them. The US passenger numbers dont even come close to that in asia. for example a flight from Detroit to Memphis might fill a DC9 only 90%, only ever done that trip once when it was full. so lets say thats 80 passengers over 950 miles. A simmilar trip from one side of India to another would fill a 747 full. 4 times a day.

[Hagar]

You have to appreciate that there is a very strong anti-aviation lobby that can only get stronger. Many people see airliners as a nuisance & serious threat to the environment & their views are being taken just as seriously by some politicians & even governments. It makes sense to carry as many passengers as possible on one aircraft rather than a number of smaller aircraft. It would also help ease the overcrowded airspace over countries like the UK where congestion around international airports & the load on ATC is a serious problem. This in turn leads to problems at airports handling larger aircraft & larger numbers of passengers in a short time. I heard exactly the same objections to the 747 when it was first announced so this is nothing new.

Most of these arguments seem to be on a national basis rather than looking at the facts. We have two major aircraft manufacturers in direct competition with each other taking a massive gamble on the requirements of the airlines in the next few years. Success depends on the airlines themselves as they make the decisions. I hope that there is room for both as if either fails it could cause a severe loss of jobs & even affect the economy of the respective countries the manufacturers are based in.

[Nexus]

i though it was the AN-225???


Cheers Theis

You're obviously correct, my bad  :)

[concordski]

[quote]I think all it is is an improvement over the current boeing design.

[Craig.]

the MD11 was never efficient. It was supposed to be, but it never turned out that way. Had it done then MD would still be with us today.

[Bubblehead]

Come to think of it I've read a lenghty article about building a stretch version of their 747. Their philosphy was that there is sense spending design money when they have a half-done design aircraft already. The new engines (4) were much bigger of course but the buble did not go back all the way. Considering savings on design, tooling, manuals and training, they may be ahead of the AB380 in terms of cost on investment. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see much interest in the sale of the 380s. The 7e7 (787) seem to the hot aircraft in the market.

Bubblehead

[Bubblehead]

I believe that our sir transportation system is totally flawed and inefficient partly because the market is geared towards our way of life, that is, leave at our leisure. for example, in San Diego (which has on-going airport growing pains) there are at least thirty commuting flights a day to Los Angeles. Many of these flights take off with less than a third full. Perhaps the hub system has got something to do with it.

I don't know if this concept will work for us but in Japan, they have B747SPs designed to hold 600 passengers (no baggage, just carry ons) on short flights (about a hundred miles) leaving  at regular schedules each day. The passengers simply go on board (no reservations) and pay for the ticket on board, pretty much like a bus.

However, if we are unable to solve our land transportation (too many single occupants driving gas gussling vehicles ) what makes us think that we can likewise solve our air tranport fiasco (antiquated ATC equipment, crowded skies, etc.). We're lucky that we have not suffered too many air disasters but let's not push our luck.

I dream of the day when we have cross country bullet trains.

Bubblehead