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

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dissident
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.

The airlines will just cut back the number of flights per day in order to squeeze more people on per flight which does decrease costs. Boeing's idea about direct point to point flying is probably the better one which will be cheaper and faster for travels but it is dependent upon governments changing regulations to allow it. Will European governments change regulations in a way which will help consumers and a big foreign aircraft maker but harm the local manufacturer?

I don't know but I won't hold my breath.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Jaakko
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?

This has been gone over in thread after thread here on poly. Look in one of them and you will find your link.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Dissident
a 747 with only 40 passengers is not very economical. I hardly think a 555 passenger jet with 40 passengers will do very well.

I went to the US a few years ago and was very surprised to see how empty the planes were, when traveling within the US. The planes were about twice as big as those in Swedish domestic flights, but there were barely half as many people onboard. About 2/3 of the seats were empty.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Oerdin


This has been gone over in thread after thread here on poly. Look in one of them and you will find your link.

I'm not going to dig through hundreds of posts in search for your argument, so I guess this debate ended before it even began.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The airlines will just cut back the number of flights per day in order to squeeze more people on per flight which does decrease costs. Boeing's idea about direct point to point flying is probably the better one which will be cheaper and faster for travels but it is dependent upon governments changing regulations to allow it. Will European governments change regulations in a way which will help consumers and a big foreign aircraft maker but harm the local manufacturer?

I'm not sure if I understand that, what is so special about direct point to point flight that it would need a special permission in the EU? Does it play a role how big the target airports are? Generally European airlines are free to order whatever planes they wish, Airbus or Boeing. I don't think there are any regulations that keep Boeing out of the Euro market. The German Lufthansa operates planes from both Airbus or Boeing, and AFAIK so do most bigger Euro airlines.

[Combat Ingrid]

As the European air space is already crowded, they will probably have few problems convincing the people that we need fewer flights and bigger planes, not the other way around.

[PLATO]

Boeings view of the future:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/3-5.html

Deliveries
Single-aisle and regional jets will comprise 76% of deliveries over the next 20 years. Airlines will use these smaller airplanes to offer more frequencies in domestic service and short-haul international flights.

The regional jet segment has grown rapidly in recent years and now represents 14% of the world fleet. Over the next 20 years, the share should increase to 17%. The adoption of regional jets has been greatest in North America. Regional jets are used in a variety of applications, such as turboprop replacement, mainline service replacement and frequency augmentation in off-peak hours, and hub extension in thin markets.

European carriers also will operate a large number of regional jets, especially in hub bypass and point-to-point markets. Although not at the high absolute numbers experienced in Europe and North America, other regions, such as China, will expand their use of regional jets over the next 20 years.

Twin-aisle airplanes are popular with airlines. Some intermediate-size types are now capable of serving intercontinental markets that once were restricted to long-range 747s. Airlines also can take advantage of lower operating economics of twin-aisle jets to replace older 747s. Further, most growth in the world’s airlines will manifest as increased frequencies and new city pairs served by small- and intermediate-size airplanes.

The large-airplane market is small. The intermediate-size fleet will more than double, augmented by 5,154 deliveries. By comparison, the world fleet of 747-size and larger airplanes is projected to grow by approximately one-fourth over the next 20 years, augmented by 787 passenger and freighter airplane deliveries. There will continue to be specialized applications for 747-size and larger airplanes, such as on dense routes flown by a limited number of airlines.

[:) Smiley]

Airplanes, pfft.

High speed rail

Shinkansen 700 series 16 car train
1,300 seats, 285 km/h

[Pekka]

That bird is seriously a beauty... wow.

I hope they make tons of them so they become the standard for transatlantic flights, because those flights are seriously a pain in the butt, literally. I would like to travel in one of those instead of being rammed into the small seats with some weirdos on both sides, fighting for the elbow space and almost paralyzing myself before getting finally up after hours and hours of pain and non-mobility.

[DanS]

I also think that Boeing is correct in not going after this market. After all, they're not selling many 747s nowadays.

But I'm not sure.

Anyway, wouldn't it be Vive la France? "Viva" is Spanish or something.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Pekka
That bird is seriously a beauty... wow.

I hope they make tons of them so they become the standard for transatlantic flights, because those flights are seriously a pain in the butt, literally. I would like to travel in one of those instead of being rammed into the small seats with some weirdos on both sides, fighting for the elbow space and almost paralyzing myself before getting finally up after hours and hours of pain and non-mobility.

No doubt. At 6'1" and 220lbs, a long airline trip is a real pain. I always request an aisle seat. The only plane that I have flown on in the last couple of years that was bearable was a 777. That's a nice plane...still cramped, but the individual TV and a little extra leg room goes a long way.

[Pekka]

PLATO, true... I've noticed American planes are usually a bit bigger. These Euro planes are so small.. being a fairly tall man myself, my legs just wont go there. You know it starts really hurting after some time. YOur shins drive through the seat edges and .. uh oh it really is uncomfortable. And there are like 2 different positions you can use for your legs, and you change between them to keep the blood flowing. It's frustrating and makes your flight alone painful, and then there are of course the other things as well. When you start eating, you need to stick your elbows to your stomach so you won't be beating the person next to you trying to eat etc etc.. the isle is the only place to be, because you get some room for one leg and then you can position yourself a bit.. but you need to be careful, if you start sleeping, your leg can go a bit too far and the staff with their trollies and all that, they bump into you all the time and it's embarrasing because it must be more of a pain in the butt for THEM. So you try to keep yourself compact, and it means you can not rest at all eventually.

I always have those same problems in trans-altantic flights, however usually domestic flights in US go better because planes are a bit larger inside so your legs fit better. Also more space too so .. it's still not luxury but there's potential already. And sometimes domestic flights aren't so full, where as trans-atlantics are usually ALWAYS full.

And because I'm a bit frustrated, I really don't feel like chatting up with anyone. It's nto that i want to be rude, I'm just uncomfortable and I want to rest, but I can't. Numerous times I have started a chat 'I'm sorry I don't want to seem rude.. I'm just tired'. It's also that I'm not usually very interested in chatting if there's ntohing to chat about. It's not that I want to be an *******, it's just that I really really don't care . So that adds to the uncomfortness level a lot. You know they always have headphones, and the plug ins are in the ... arm rests, and that is occupied by someones arm, or even if it wasn't, youi still have to squeeze in to use them because your elbow would otherwise be in someones face.

So no, I don't like flying. It's not because of flyings sake, it's because of the level of being uncomfortable. If it's a long flight, it's a problem. In short fligts (couple of hours) it's not a big deal you can just read a book or paper and it's over. In 10 hour flights IT IS a problem.

And definitely the individual TVs come along way of making it more comfortable. Because you can just.. forget about it all.. I've found that all jet blue flights I've used have had decent space, even almost luxurious, and individual TVs. It's really great because they're a cheapo airliner .. suits me very well.

[Sava]

I wonder how many skyscrapers one of those things could take out.

[Dr Strangelove]

I heard that some models of the plane would seat up to 800 passengers. Can you imagine the stink when one of those babies goes down?

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Pekka
When you start eating, you need to stick your elbows to your stomach so you won't be beating the person next to you trying to eat etc etc..

Try to order vegetarian or kosher meal next time. You get better food and you are usually served first too, so you can wave your elbows around a bit more

I met a guy once who was neither Jewish nor vegetarian, but he usually ordered that kind of food just for the above-mentioned reasons (minus the elbows)