|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: A380 - world's largest pasenger aircraft - makes maiden flight
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-29-2005 02:41 PM
What makes you think that there isn't a viable business case for the A380? After all, there has been a market for long-range, widebody passenger jets since the late '60s. Unlike the short to medium range market, there has been no fundamentally new model since the 747. OK, they probably will never sell as many units as a plane in the 737 sector of the market would, but given that Airbus say that their break-even point will be 250 sales, it seems that they've allowed for that.
Yes, 850 passengers on a single aircraft makes it a terrorist target, increases the likely death toll if one crashes or is sabotaged, raises the potential for passenger disorder and needs investment by airports. But when the 747 came on the market it too had 250 more seats than anything else in service: doubtless these issues were raised and were dealt with then.
If I understand Airbus' rationale correctly, the A380 is designed to carry a large number of people over long distances as cheaply as possible. There is a well established market for that (unlike for the Concorde), and if someone comes along with an aircraft which cuts the operating cost per passenger mile, then it surely stands a chance of taking a share of that market?
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 04-29-2005 03:00 PM
Aren't there still quite a few 747's still "mothballed" at various sites?:
http://www.geocities.com/afwjr/pictures.html
http://www.avocetprojet.com/news16.php
quote:
After more than two years of the longest and deepest slump in aviation history, the makers of airplanes and their parts are setting their sights on a turnaround.
But when exactly that will happen depends, in part, on the graveyards. Stretched across thousands of acres in New Mexico, Arizona and California are huge parking lots where carriers mothballed hundreds of jets when the airline market began to seriously crater after Sept. 11, 2001. At the peak, more than 2,100 airplanes sat among the tumbleweeds -- about 14% of the world-wide jetliner fleet.
How fast -- and how many of -- those planes are returned to service or scrapped will help determine everything from how many jetliners Boeing Co. and rival Airbus build in 2004 to the financial outlooks for companies that make much of their profits by supplying spare parts for some of the jets that were parked.
Beyond that, the other major trend in aviation is that everybody seems to have a different vision of the future -- and is pursuing it vigorously. Airbus is banking on the planned A380, which will accommodate anywhere from 555 to 800 passengers, while Boeing thinks passengers will choose the comfort of its 7E7 Dreamliner, a smaller and faster jet. Meantime, smaller aircraft -- regional jets and minijets -- continue to make inroads into the market of their larger counterparts.
Here's a look at some specific trends...
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 04-29-2005 06:38 PM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I was speaking from a financial\marketability point of view... not safety. Concorde never made anyone a dime, but it was a big money sinkhole.
Concord made British Airways over 20m UKP per annum, in the good old days. Rather more than a dime, and pretty impressive for the fleet size. But as you say, in the end, economics got it - slowdown after 9/11, refit costs after the crash, and increasing maintenance costs all put those final nails in the coffin.
In terms of making the things, that never made money, as American protectionism ensured that the things would never get much action in the states, and that's where all the money was to be made, so of the dozens of planes ordered and optioned, they were all canned.
At the time (and this is getting on for half a century ago), European thinking and American thinking went different ways, the Europeans were convinced people would pay to travel quickly, the Americans that people would rather travel cheaply. History shows the American way was correct, the 747 ruled the skys for volume transport, and the anti-Concord measures were never needed, even had Concorde been incredibly sucessful. I'd like to think the the American reaction to Concorde couln't happen in the enlightened 21st century, but I doubt it'll ever be put to the test.
So now Airbus are trying to beat Boeing at what was their own game. And again there is a difference in opinion between America and Europe over which way the market will pan out. It'll be years before we know the answer.
Of course, the really good news is that flying is a dying business - fuel prices are rising and will continue to rise forever, so the days of cheap plane journeys are coming to an end. You would have to assume that what volume market for air travel remains will (based on history) be the plane with the right capacity and the best fuel economy.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-01-2005 05:18 AM
I think he's suggesting that for political reasons, no American airlines bought any and they were also banned from using some US airports, ostensibly on account of the noise they made.
I don't know to what extent that's true or not, but the Concorde certainly wasn't the ideal design for airline service. It could only carry 100 passengers and it had a range which effectively limited it to one regular route - London or Paris to New York or Washington. Even, say, Frankfurt to New York was too far. Given that the further a plane flies, the greater supersonic travel equals a time advantage, I can see that it wouldn't have been an attractive possibility for US airlines. The distance from east coast to west probably isn't long enough for the huge extra operating costs to justify the 60-90 minute time saving, and Concorde didn't have the range to do transpacific flights.
During the brief period when Concorde was able to make an operating profit, this was due to business travellers who needed to travel from Europe to the east coast of America and back in one day. In the '80s and early '90s, there were just enough of these to keep the plane viable, but even then only if the R & D costs were written off and the production models given to BA & Air France for free. Then the Internet, videoconferencing and other communications technologies came along which removed that market, and business travel slumped. A radio documentary I heard about this recently said that by the late '90s, BA was having to offer cut price tourist tickets on Concorde because full-price bookings had fallen to the point at which the planes were rarely even 50% full. Sadly, of course, it was one of these tourist charters which crashed in 2000.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic