If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Contra Costa Times)   AirBus set to unveil big-ass airplane that can seat up to 800. That's twice the number of screaming toddlers onboard a 747   (cnn.com) divider line 322
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

16861 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2005 at 3:34 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



322 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-01-17 03:51:34 PM
chrisell: thanks for backing me up. See one of my many earlier posts :-)

right back at you. :)
 
jph
2005-01-17 03:52:53 PM
chrisell:

The 747X is not the same thing as the 747 Advanced. And for the latter, gee, who should I believe, you or The Wall Street Journal? Also, look on Google News and there are articles about the 747 Advanced.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/back/back9.html

Go/no-go is to occur in two months or so.

Show me a statement on the wing root problem. Until you indicate an authoritative statement, I will believe you are full o fit.
 
2005-01-17 03:53:13 PM
One thing I've noticed about air travel in the US these days,... there are very few flights on large airliners. Most flights are short hops between smaller airports and hubs, involving small regional jets and 737s. The only thing that the larger aircraft (747s) are used for are transatlantic flights and very long distances (Los Angeles to Sydney, for example). But most of the people flying in the US are going quickly between US cities, for low cost. I don't even think Southwest Airlines (by far, the #1 airline, IMHO) even owns a 747 (I don't even think they own anything larger than a 737). But for some reason, they're one of the last remaining airlines in the country that even seems to be making money. Perhaps there is something to be learned here,...

/also likes that direct flight between Louisville and Phoenix on Southwest ;-)
 
2005-01-17 03:54:06 PM
"it flew at an altitude of 6ft and traveled a distance of 4ft. but then the wood panels caught on fire when it started to rain"

/I know I'm messin up the Mr. Burns quote from last night
 
2005-01-17 03:54:08 PM
Dimensiation: Whats that from?

You're kidding, right?

Twilight Zone: Nightmare at 30,000 Feet

/zoner
 
2005-01-17 03:54:09 PM
mrbah:

This is such a good idea. Too bad the airlines won't take the hint and realize they can make a lot more cash this way then putting in 10,000 rows of seats.

Virgin Atlantic Airways already has placed their bid for 6 (I think) A380s. So trust me. You'll get to see that on an A380. Might even see real beds too.
 
jph
2005-01-17 03:54:24 PM
Another article (from four days ago) containing info on the 747 Advanced:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/207810_airbus14.html
 
2005-01-17 03:55:18 PM
Actually,

One of the things Boeing is betting on is that a lot of airports won't be willing to spend the millions of dollars necessary to modify their facilities to accommodate the larger dimensions of the Airbus A380. Just for comparison:

Boeing 747-400
Wingspan: 211 feet 5 inches
Length: 231 feet 10 inches
Height: 63 feet 8 inches

Airbus A380-800
Wingspan: 261 feet 10 inches
Length: 239 feet 6 inches
Height: 79 feet 1 inches

The 14 US Airports most likely to handle the A380 by 2010 estimate the cost of upgrades to run nearly $2.1 Billion, far more than the $520 Million that Airbus has estimated for the same airports. Some aviation experts think that probably no more than a dozen airports worldwide will make the alterations necessary to accommodate the A380 in this decade.
 
2005-01-17 03:55:49 PM
I miss the Sonic Cruiser. I work beside the airport and I was looking forward to seeing those things on the glide path.
 
jph
2005-01-17 03:56:04 PM
cashman:

Southwest Airlines only owns 737s. And actually, there are some 777/747-type airliners in use in the U.S. between large airports (ORD, SFO, LAX, JFK, DFW, ATL, etc.), but yes, they're mostly in use on international hops. It's not that there's no traffic...just that in this country, people tend to prefer frequency.
 
2005-01-17 03:56:06 PM
Apologies - it's "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet"
 
2005-01-17 03:57:18 PM
Dimensiation [TotalFark]
"skinink
Whats that from?"


"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet", Twilight Zone. Shatner must've been hoping he was only looking at a Tribble ...

 
2005-01-17 03:57:22 PM
"xolik"

LMAO
 
2005-01-17 03:58:31 PM
Great. Just farking great. Now we'll have terrorists who aspire to to take out 4 buildings at a time.
 
2005-01-17 03:59:30 PM
doccm9: Maybe they should put a police station on it?
 
2005-01-17 03:59:49 PM
doccm9

Yeah, because that's happened so often.
 
2005-01-17 04:00:11 PM
jph: It's the 747 Advanced

Boeing axed it already. Just sayin' ;)

Anyway, here's some pic goodness for those of you who haven't already seen it:


 
2005-01-17 04:00:33 PM
I've got yer airbus... IN MY PANTS

These companies have it all wrong...

Old and busted: Bigger and bigger fuselages
New hotness: Articulated aircraft
 
2005-01-17 04:00:38 PM
2005-01-17 03:44:26 PM jph

All of you nimrods who said "Nice knowing you, Boeing" are showing your lack of knowledge.


While you are certainly correct in that statement and it is far too early to write off Boeing, this new airliner is a very serious challenge and could sink Boeing.

However, to do that, Airbus has to do a lot of things exactly perfectly. I read (somewhere, don't remember exact source) that said those contracts to purchase this new plane are encumbered and require some very specific and difficult deliverables from Airbus.

On the other hand, the 747 family has a proven track record of reliability and profitability. That can help Boeing a lot if they can deliver on their plans.
 
2005-01-17 04:00:46 PM
Meh.

I'm (barely) old enough to remember when the 747 first came out. The upper deck was supposed to be a bar complete with piano, a place where passengers could stroll so they could get out of their seats to pass the time, much like taking a trip by rail. In reality, the airlines tossed out that non-revenue nonsense and stuffed in more seats.

I'm with LineNoise here...

A suggestion to anyone who works for an airline out there. Have preferred seating for people up front who have only one REAL carry on bag, or none at all and can quickly get the fark out of the way. I'll fly you every time.

I fly Southwest, carry only a briefcase, and try to sit near the front of the plane. In an aisle seat if possible. I want to get the F off the plane and get on with my day.
 
2005-01-17 04:00:49 PM
Ever since the management team from McDonald Douglas pushed out the old leadership, Boeing has become a hidebound dinosaur that has lost the ability to innovate and become dependant on handouts from the department of defense.
 
2005-01-17 04:00:50 PM
Boeing will be around for a nice, LONG time. HaywoodJablonski, although The Journal is certainly a credible source, you may go want to go back and double check all that. Boeing's future gives not a rat's ass over the 7E7; the future of Boeing depends solely on future government contracts for military planes, and they aren't going anywhere.

Personally, from what I've seen and read, the A380 is a farked-up idea of the airlines telling passengers what they want. The days of massive planes carrying huge amounts of people to major cities is over; there's a REASON the big carriers are all going bankrupt and/or needing huge government bailouts. The real future of aviation is in the 7E7 and smaller planes carrying low numbers of passengers to where they want to go. For reference, see Ryanair, Freedomair, Southwest, VirginBlue...
 
2005-01-17 04:01:25 PM
Here are some more pics via Drudge:






 
2005-01-17 04:03:12 PM
Sweet crap on stick, a plane with an onboard CASINO?! Book me on the next direct Dallas to Sydney flight!
 
jph
2005-01-17 04:04:36 PM
The thing some of you don't understand about the A380 versus 7E7 is that they represent a difference in what direction each manufacturer believes the market will take. Airbus believes that everyone will fly a small aircraft (A320/B737/regional jet) to a hub, and then fly an A380 between hubs, and then connect to another A320/etc. Boeing believes that people will want to fly point-to-point, non-stop. That's why the 7E7 is intended to be able to fly between most points on the globe, non-stop, and burn less fuel in the process. It's not intended to get 600 people from JFK to Paris, and for those people to connect to those two points via other routes. It's intended to get you from Houston to Berlin. And if you don't think there's a market for it, think again. Continental does it now, and they'd do it more often if they could fly further. There are other airlines that operate in a similar manner.
 
2005-01-17 04:04:36 PM
the super guppy

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=406472&WxsIERv=QWVybyBTcGFjZWxpbmVzIDM3N 1NHVCBTdXBlciBHdXBweQ%3D%3D&WdsYXMg=QWlyYnVzIFNreWxpbms%3D&QtODMg=TWFuY2hlc3Rl ciAtIEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgKFJpbmd3YXkpIChNQU4gLyBFR0NDKQ%3D%3D&ERDLTkt=VUsgLSBFb mdsYW5k&ktODMp=SnVseSAxNSwgMTk5MA%3D%3D&BP=0&WNEb25u=RGVyZWsgRmVyZ3Vzb24%3D&xs IERvdWdsY=Ri1HRFNH&MgTUQtODMgKE=&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=OTEw&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMy0wOC0y Mg%3D%3D&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&sok=V0hFUkUgIChhaXJjcmFmdF9nZW5lcmljID 0gJ0Flcm8gU3BhY2VsaW5lcyAzNzcgR3VwcHknKSAgT1JERVIgQlkgcGhvdG9faWQgREVTQw%3D%3D &photo_nr=5
 
2005-01-17 04:05:07 PM
Quick! Someone hide this before the airlines get wind of it:



/Compensating for something?
 
2005-01-17 04:05:21 PM
Enderski:

Ha, Boeing will be bringing out 7E7, its the size of a 737 but more economical. So cost per seat will be lower, the budget airlines will eat it up, and thats the real market growth is.


If you have flown lately, you'll have noticed that there are traffic jams on the runways during peak hours as busy airports. A bunch more 7e7s aren't going to help -- but planes like the A380 look like a good solution.
 
2005-01-17 04:07:14 PM
Ok guys, now what?
 
2005-01-17 04:07:40 PM
In all honesty, I couldn't give a crap about "cattle cart" on this behemoth. If this puppy comes even remotely close to the business class their touting, I'm down like a clown. Would be a great way to travel to and from Europe.
 
2005-01-17 04:07:47 PM
Napoleon complex...overcompensation?

And here I was thinking the "Mine has to be bigger than yours" thing was ending among the SUV's..*sigh*
 
jph
2005-01-17 04:07:49 PM
Also unstated in all of this — Boeing's plan is to follow up (within less than 5 years) the 7E7 with a replacement for the 737 and MD-80, using derivative technology. And that market is where the real volume is...Southwest, WestJet, easyJet, RyanAir, etc.
 
2005-01-17 04:08:35 PM



Still safer than driving a car
 
2005-01-17 04:08:51 PM
jph digging through my archives right now.....
You, uh, work in the aerospace industry with us do you?
 
2005-01-17 04:08:58 PM
Sweet crap on stick, a plane with an onboard CASINO?!

feh. I'll wait for the one with lapdancing stewardesses. That would certainly make a trans-pacific flight seem short.
 
2005-01-17 04:09:39 PM
Ahh...the A380. One of the reasons DIA (aka DEN) now has a 16,000-foot long, 200-foot wide runway. Otherwise, hot weather and high altitude meant no superjumbos could take off here (well, loaded superjumbos).

Oh, and you know every airline in the USA will pack that sucker with 800 coach seats.
 
2005-01-17 04:10:07 PM
theigorway: A bunch more 7e7s aren't going to help...

Yes they will, because they won't BE at the major airports. Instead of being at LAX, they'll be at Orange County airport. Instead of being at Boston, they'll be at Hanover. Etc. Like I, and others, have said, the 7E7 will reduce congestion by elimnating the "hub" concept and taking passengers directly where they want to go, cutting out the busy airports.
 
2005-01-17 04:10:30 PM
rebby
Think of all the franchises you could cram into it! Starbucks, McDonalds, H&R Block...
_______________________________________________________
Considering all the places Starbucks are popping up I wouldn't be too surprised to find one on these big planes.
 
2005-01-17 04:10:47 PM
jph One more thing - you do know about the Airbus A350 I presume? Direct competition to the 7E7 ?
 
2005-01-17 04:10:59 PM
2005-01-17 04:00:49 PM theigorway

Ever since the management team from McDonald Douglas pushed out the old leadership, Boeing has become a hidebound dinosaur that has lost the ability to innovate and become dependant on handouts from the department of defense.

When Boeing lost the Joint Strike Fighter procurement to the Lockheed Martin team, many people predicted that Boeing would no longer manufacture manned combat aircraft for the US military. Thay have some cool designs for UAV's, though... seems to me that the balance between manned and unmanned military aircraft has yet to be decided.
 
2005-01-17 04:11:20 PM
LineNoise

Hang On Voltaire

"I dunno, on a 3 hour flight I would happily throw a hundred bucks or two at a craps table or some blackjack to pass the time. I would think you could pick up close to the cost you could if you used the space for a seat, without having to incur the extra charges a passenger (ground service, fuel, insurance, etc) comes with. Plus that casino could be in operation on every flight, whereas it would not be uncommon for the plane to fly only 80% full."

Oh I would too, but you figure that the return to a casino on a craps table is something like 5% profit and I don't think it would make up for it unless the limits were huge and then no one would bother gambling.
 
2005-01-17 04:11:39 PM
Thanks mel and skinink. Thats what I thought, but I couldn't remember the name. Wonder if I can find it for download.
 
2005-01-17 04:12:26 PM
the terminals will be a nightmare.

i'm not gonna wait in today's american security probes/scans for something like that. even if it's expensed, the hell with that. i'd have to wait an hour for my luggage. if it's re-routed, which happens allot on usa's planes overseas, it'll take 3 hours to get everyone's luggage. my god, what a nightmare that plane is going to make for travelers.

i'm in agreement, just make the seats more roomy and i'd pay the extra 20-30 bucks or whatever it costs to loose 16 seats per plane split up between remaining ones.
 
2005-01-17 04:12:28 PM
What you see:


What the airlines see:
 
2005-01-17 04:12:40 PM
MRBAH, so that's what happened to the super guppy... I was wondering about that.
 
2005-01-17 04:12:41 PM
Or more runways?
 
2005-01-17 04:12:41 PM
zymurgist:

I'm (barely) old enough to remember when the 747 first came out. The upper deck was supposed to be a bar complete with piano, a place where passengers could stroll so they could get out of their seats to pass the time, much like taking a trip by rail. In reality, the airlines tossed out that non-revenue nonsense and stuffed in more seats.

Back in the '70's the 747s had nine seats across in coach, and there was a coach lounge area in the back of the plane where you could stretch, hang out, etc. Last summer I flew to London from SFO on a BA 747 that went 10 seats across, with seats virtually out to the tail. It's very likely the same thing will happen with this monstrosity. Also, jasmo has it right - there isn't an airport in this country that could handle this thing today, and the cost of upgrading (think of two-level jetways) and the time required will put a major cramp into this plane's future.
 
2005-01-17 04:13:02 PM
bah, it'll be the folly of every airlines that buys it. It'll be the SST of the new millenium.

(SST was supposed to open the world up to faster travel, all it did was lose money)
 
2005-01-17 04:13:07 PM
Is this where the secret discussion starts?

Mmmmm, planes!
 
2005-01-17 04:13:18 PM
theigorway:

If you have flown lately, you'll have noticed that there are traffic jams on the runways during peak hours as busy airports. A bunch more 7e7s aren't going to help -- but planes like the A380 look like a good solution.


Actually, I have yet to see that here in Denver. The joys of six non-intersecting runways. Of course, I do avoid weekend travel, etc. America would be a lot better off building new airports/runways in my opinion. We need them awful bad.

Now, John Wayne, I have *NEVER* left that place without waiting 30-60 minutes on the freakin' tarmac.
 
Displayed 50 of 322 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report