Did Boeing "blow" it?

[tonyw]

Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?

[ QUOTE ]
Two - buy larger aircraft to replace all the small ones. If you can cram the same number of folks into five 380s and drop the 200 RJs you've reduced the bottleneck, the landing fees (I know weight comes into play but this is a simplified example) and the number of crew. This is why, in Asia, no one has dropped their 747s (on domestic routes no less) for the "super efficient" RJs. They need seats because a lot of people fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

As Lee Corso would say, not so fast, my friend.

You are assuming that the people who are taking advantage of the many flights per day that are available to them because of the RJs will give up that flexibility to get on one flight per day with the A380.

And you're also assuming that all airports that now fly RJs can handle the A380. Now, I know that you're going to say that only podunk little airports can't handle it.

Well, would you consider a small airport called LAX one of these airports?

And you better hope that they don't try to cram all the people onto one A380 instead of many RJs. Why?

What does that do to the demand for pilots?

 

[pilot602]

Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?

It was an over-simplified example.

The point is Airports are a pain in the @$$ to expand and an even bigger pain in the @$$ to build from scratch. This means we have a relatively fixed number of gates. At some point you have to choose between clogging up the system with 200 airplanes (and dealing with the nightmares that situation creates) or going with fewer, larger aircraft (and dealing with the nightmares those create).

[ QUOTE ]
You are assuming that the people who are taking advantage of the many flights per day that are available to them because of the RJs will give up that flexibility to get on one flight per day with the A380.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes flexibility of schedule is nice but it's a tradeoff. We simply don't have the capacity in terms of airports to offer a flight to everywhere, every hour. It's just not realistic. This is still mass transportation which means it's not going to fit everyone's schedule perfectly. You want true flexibility? Learn to fly yourself and buy/rent an airplane, charter an aircraft or drive your happy @$$ 1,700 miles one-way over three days.

In the meantime hop the flight that best fits your schedule and deal with the "inconvenience."

[ QUOTE ]
And you're also assuming that all airports that now fly RJs can handle the A380. Now, I know that you're going to say that only podunk little airports can't handle it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said it wasn't an endorsement for the 380. The point was larger aircraft will be needed. Running around with 200 small jets instead of running 100 larger jets creates more scheduling problems that it solves. Why? Because there are a set number of gates in this country!

The more airplanes you try to jam into the same number of gates creates problems. The other solution is build more runways, and gates but it's nearly impossible. Logan has been trying to add one new runway for over 30 years!

And when, on God's green Earth, has management - or the flying public for that matter - ever given one $#|^ about a pilot's plight?

 

[Tired]

Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see the reason why, when you've got lots of people switching from 747s to 777s because they can't fill the 747, you need a plane that's going to have even more empty seats to fill. Dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something unique to the US. Middle Eastern and Asian airlines can still fill seats, guess who is ordering the A380. And what about cargo airlines, Fedex has an order in I believe.

When the 747 was being developed people were saying the same things...to many seats, too big for the airports. I don't think anyone would argue that today.

 

[BoeingDrew]

Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?

[ QUOTE ]
Actually the sonic cruiser would have been the (sub)sonic cruiser!

[/ QUOTE ]

my bad, that sonic part lead me to belive it was a supersonic aircraft, but after doing some reserch I found the webpage of the sonic cruiser. After reading about it, it seems like it would have been a very cool airplane, but i guess Boeing didn't see a market for it.

 

[stultus]

Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?

[ QUOTE ]
Can the A320 series be ETOPS certified? I know there are plenty of 737NG's doing transoceanic flying, Aloha or example... but no Airbus narrowbodies.


[/ QUOTE ]

PrivatAir flies a A319, DUS-EWR on behalf of Lufthansa...I've seen it parked on the tarmac at EWR pretty often.

 

[tonyw]

Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?

You're right, of course. Japan can fill the A380. But a lot of airlines can't, and are shifting from 747s to 777s. Some of the LA to Sydney or San Fran to Sydney or LA to Auckland type routes are being flown with 777s now, and not just by UAL, but by Qantas and Air New Zealand.

Also, when the 747 was being developed, keep in mind that there was room in the number one aviation market, the North American market, to expand airports. You can't do that now. There is physically no room to expand LAX, and you can't get the A380 in there right now.

Things are a little different now. I really think Boeing blew a chance to really take a huge step forward with the Sonic Cruiser!

 

[Tired]

Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?

London Heathrow, JFK, and SFO are supposedly going to be ready for a A380 in 2006/2007. You can't tell me if those airports can be ready LAX can't. From the articles I've read it's not impossible, the airport authority just has to decide to do it.

 

[tonyw]

Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?

Yeah, the airport authority has to decide to do it. And then you'll have the community protests over new facilities, trying to raise the money in bonds when you're already facing huge deficits, and so on.

They MIGHT be able to get the bond offer ready by 2005/2006. Actual construction won't actually take place before then.

Also, I wasn't 100 percent accurate in saying that the A380 can't go into LAX. It can. In the satellite terminal, which means it doesn't make too much sense for passengers but it does make sense for cargo.

Which is pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. The A380 makes sense for cargo and some Asian routes, but not for the North American market.

 

[Minuteman]

Converted 737 impresses Navy pilots, says Boeing

[ QUOTE ]
A Boeing 737 business jet seems to have gained approval from Navy pilots during a recent demonstration tour designed to increase Boeing's chances of supplying the Navy with up to 150 of the aircraft.

The demonstration tour of five Navy bases included vigorous maneuvers such steep climbs, dives and turns never experienced by passengers of commercial 737s, often while running on only one engine.

"The Navy folks were very impressed. This is a real competitive advantage we have," said Boeing Integrated Defense Systems spokesman Randy Harrison, about the 737's capabilities.

Boeing is competing against Lockheed Martin Corp. for the contract for the "multi-mission maritime aircraft," known in the industry as the MMA. A win could be a significant boost for the Puget Sound economy, rivaling the impact of the 100-aircraft Boeing 767 tanker contract, now suspended following ethical violations by top Boeing officials.

The flying tour was one step in Boeing's campaign to win the MMA contract, which is to be announced next June. The proposals are due Dec. 29, and both Boeing and Lockheed Martin are now doing the second-phase work under development contracts from the U.S. Navy. Boeing's contract, awarded in February, was for $20.5 million.

The MMA contract would include supplying up to 150 airframes, and then converting them to into high-technology submarine and surface ship monitoring aircraft. The converted Boeing 737s also would pack considerable firepower, including bombs carried in an internal bomb bay, and missiles carried on their wings.

Lockheed Martin's proposal is based on an upgraded P-3 surveillance aircraft, which is in turn based on the former Lockheed Electra passenger aircraft, which first flew in 1957. That production line would have to be revived to build the four-engine prop-driven aircraft.

A Boeing win could bring 800 engineering and development jobs to Kent, which is a designated "capability center" for the company's expertise in airborne surveillance technology. If the conversions were done here instead of in Wichita, Kan., the contract would bring even more jobs than the construction of the basic airframes.

(American City Business Journals Inc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, is there anything (Boeing believes) the 737 can't do?