Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More proof of the U.S. downfall. Viva la france!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The inside of that plane sure looks big and comfy, but I bet they will squeeze in a few hundred extra chairs in there to keep the ticket prices down
    The enemy cannot push a button if you disable his hand.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by PLATO
      Also, Boeing looked at doing a super jumbo, but decided not to persue it due to a predicted lack of market and a desire to concentrate on more volume producing units.
      The market likely wouldn't support two mega-jumbo makers plus Airbus is being massively subsidized by various governments to build this plane. How does a company which doesn't recieve any cash subsidies compete against a company that recieved truckloads of free government cash?
      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by BeBro


        Last number I read is 139 planes that are ordered plus talks about some 20 more. Profit should be made with ca. 250 sold planes. Airbus hopes to sell over 700, of course I have no idea if they reach that. Price is ca. 280 Millionen Dollar per plane.
        139 On order is pretty strong. That should put the plane well on its way to profitability.

        Boeings latest, The 7E7 Dreamliner, should go into service in 2008. Initial orders on it look very strong as well with 112 on order as of 12/22/04.
        "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Re: Re: More proof of the U.S. downfall. Viva la france!

          Originally posted by Oerdin


          Bah, you krauts can't even get the Frenchies to give you equal representation on the board of directors or in the executive suite.
          Nah, we just like to stay in the background, arranging and controlling everything
          Blah

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Oerdin


            The market likely wouldn't support two mega-jumbo makers plus Airbus is being massively subsidized by various governments to build this plane. How does a company which doesn't recieve any cash subsidies compete against a company that recieved truckloads of free government cash?
            You saying Boeing doesn't get govt subsidies?
            "On this ship you'll refer to me as idiot, not you captain!"
            - Lone Star

            Comment


            • #21

              From the Economist, January 13th 2005.



              A hulking beast joins the dogfight

              Airbus is about to unveil its new A380 super-jumbo (pictured). Will the 555-seat monster leave Boeing trailing in its wake?


              AP.

              AS DISTINCTIVE Routemaster double-decker buses disappear from the streets of London, Airbus is set to unveil a double-decker passenger jet that it hopes will repeat the success of a vehicle that is every bit as iconic: Boeing’s 747. The European consortium’s A380 super-jumbo, which is to be formally unveiled at a lavish ceremony on Tuesday January 18th, will break the 747’s longstanding monopoly of the big-jet market when it enters service in 2006. Everything about the new plane is big, from its capacity of 555 paying customers and range of 15,000km (9,320 miles) to the purpose-built hangar, one of Europe’s largest enclosed spaces, at its construction site near Toulouse in southern France. Bigger, longer-range versions are planned and so far orders have been taken for 149 super-jumbos, over halfway to break-even point.

              The size of the project reflects estimates about the future demand for air travel. Despite the recent travails of big airlines, both Airbus and Boeing expect a tripling of air-passenger traffic over the next 20 years. But the transatlantic rivals disagree about how the demand should be met. Airbus thinks an extra 16,600 new large planes (over 100 seats)—a doubling of the number of passenger aircraft currently flying—will do the trick, and expects that the average number of seats in aircraft will increase by 20%, to 215. By contrast, Boeing expects sales of 18,600 slightly smaller planes.

              Airbus is hoping that the A380 will help it retain the lead it gained over Boeing in 2003, when, for the first time since the European consortium emerged as a rival to Boeing in the early 1970s, it delivered more aircraft than its American competitor. Airbus, to Boeing’s extreme displeasure, kept the number-one slot in 2004 by delivering 320 planes compared with 285 from its rival, according to figures released this week.

              Boeing’s seemingly unassailable lead over Airbus was founded on the success of the 747, which entered service in 1970. The original jumbo jet could carry twice as many passengers as the next largest plane then flying and had a greater range, allowing, for example, a long transatlantic flight without refuelling. Its cost per passenger mile was around one-third less than its rivals. A huge home market for the jumbo and the rest of the Boeing range ensured its ascendancy. Some 1,400 747s have been sold to date.

              However, only 15 were delivered last year. And as the jumbo has aged, Boeing’s domination of the commercial airways has foundered. The aerospace giant’s product line is ailing, and attempts to revive it have met with only partial success. The big airlines showed little interest in an upgraded jumbo. And a red-faced Boeing was forced to withdraw its Sonic Cruiser, a plane intended to fly at near the speed of sound, after airlines rejected the idea that passengers would pay a hefty premium for such rapid transit.

              Boeing’s latest attempt to put things right, the 250-seat 7E7 “Dreamliner”, is born out of a belief that passengers will demand, and future deregulation allow, a big increase in “point-to-point” travel: direct flights between small and medium-sized cities, as opposed to the traditional hub-and-spoke model, in which international passengers fly between a few major airports and are then taken to more out of the way places on feeder flights. Boeing hopes the new plane will prove popular with the time-conscious business flyer. It says that the 7E7’s advanced engines will cut airlines’ fuel costs by 20%. So far it has received 56 firm orders.

              The A380, by contrast, is designed to fly between big hubs. Its critics say it will mean longer journey times for passengers with onward flights to smaller destinations. But Airbus is claiming a similar step-change to the one that accompanied the launch of the 747: operating costs will be 15-20% lower than those of any rival aircraft, it says. To add to Boeing’s discomfort, Airbus announced in December that it would introduce the A350 in direct competition with the Dreamliner, offering much the same specifications.

              Boeing’s fears that it would be left in Airbus’s wake also prompted it to attack on another front. In October, America made a formal complaint to the World Trade Organisation alleging the payment of billions of dollars of “unfair” subsidies to Airbus. Boeing claims that “launch aid” has enabled Airbus to roll out five new products in the past ten years while it has managed just one. Like Airbus’s rapid response to the Dreamliner, the European Union immediately said that it would file a counter-claim over large sums of aid going to Boeing through indirect government subsidies from its relationship with NASA and the Pentagon. This week, the EU said that it was ready to compromise to resolve the dispute and both sides agreed to suspend hostilities (and subsidies) for three months of negotiations.

              The huge projected market for passenger jets over the coming years will allow both aircraft-makers to sell plenty of new planes. The A380 aside, Airbus and Boeing seem evenly matched. The success of the super-jumbo may well determine how much higher the Europeans fly than the Americans in the next few years.
              Que l’Univers n’est qu’un défaut dans la pureté de Non-être.

              - Paul Valery

              Comment


              • #22
                Bah, in a few years the Chinese will have reversed engineered airliners and will conquer the market in 30 years.
                If you don't like reality, change it! me
                "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Oerdin


                  The market likely wouldn't support two mega-jumbo makers plus Airbus is being massively subsidized by various governments to build this plane. How does a company which doesn't recieve any cash subsidies compete against a company that recieved truckloads of free government cash?
                  I wish that I could remember the article I read. I don't think that Boeing was afraid of competing. I believe that they simply thought a project like the 7E7 would be more profitable. The A380 carries 555 passengers and the 7E7 carries 289. They probably realized that with Airbus concentrating its efforts on the A380 that they could corner a more lucrative mid-size market with a similarly advanced plane.

                  Both have extended range and high fuel efficiency and between them should dominate the international routes within the next 10-12 years. Boeing, I think, made the smart decision. There are many more routes that would support a 289 passenger plane than would support a 555 passenger plane.
                  "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    How long do you think it will take the airlines to rip out the bar and bed in order to cram in knee-to-butt seating?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Yeah they are already arguing that the plane could carry much more than those 555, depending on the seating (does that word exist ).
                      Blah

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jaakko


                        You saying Boeing doesn't get govt subsidies?
                        Boeing does not recieve cash subsidies. The closest thing to a subsidy is military purchases of aircraft and/or the standard government promotion of national products which every government on earth does.

                        Local governments provide incentives for companies to build factories in their town but that's small potatos and not controlled by the federal government. Airbus recieves 2-3 times that amount in hard cash for every plane it makes.
                        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I like it, simply for the efficiency and relative environmental friendliness.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            while I do think this airliner is an impressive feat. I have to side with Boeing on this one.

                            I do believe there won't be much demand for this jet except for international overseas travel. But for travel within the contiental U.S. I just don't see much use for something that big.

                            I'm always reminded of 9/11. Those planes were nearly empty!!! a 747 with only 40 passengers is not very economical. I hardly think a 555 passenger jet with 40 passengers will do very well.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Oerdin


                              Boeing does not recieve cash subsidies. The closest thing to a subsidy is military purchases of aircraft and/or the standard government promotion of national products which every government on earth does.

                              Local governments provide incentives for companies to build factories in their town but that's small potatos and not controlled by the federal government. Airbus recieves 2-3 times that amount in hard cash for every plane it makes.
                              What really counts is the result the subsidies have on each company's respective bottom lines, wouldn't you agree? Also, if there's really such a huge difference between Airbus and Boeing, surely you have the numbers to back it up?
                              "On this ship you'll refer to me as idiot, not you captain!"
                              - Lone Star

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Dissident
                                I do believe there won't be much demand for this jet except for international overseas travel. But for travel within the contiental U.S. I just don't see much use for something that big.
                                Infidel!
                                Blah

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X