Ship 741Just a few years ago, weren’t some on this board portending disaster for Delta on the LAX-SYD route? Not only have they persisted on that route, but they eventually got a code share agreement with Virgin Australia, and not satisfied with that, now have 49% of Virgin Atlantic……interesting.
SRB appears to be an interesting media figure, but not an airline manager. It will be interesting to see what this agreement portends. I can’t imagine BA or other competitors at LHR will be glad to see Delta get more LHR access to high value business customers.
Ship 741I assume that the space lost to fuselage insulation and fittings are relatively constant across manufacturers (though some will claim an advantage), so extra inches in overall width are extra inches given to the cabin.
Thus, 10 extra inches on a 777 configured in 10 abreast seating is one extra inch per seat, given the same aisle width. That seems not insignificant to me. Then again, perhaps 10 abreast won’t be a realistic option for the 350 due to the smaller space.
Of course there is an aerodynamic cost to the wider fuselage, which some U.S. airlines have found to their detriment. I believe that JetBlue actually made the news a few years ago due to the large number of fuel stops their A320’s had to make with their transons (JFK-West Coast). Meanwhile, competitors narrower 737’s were making the flight non-stop. The alternative is to incur a payload penalty and leave people behind to facilitate an attempt at a non-stop.
Ship 741I’ve looked around the internet and came up with the following fuselage widths (in inches):
B767 – 198
A300/330/340 – 222
B787 – 226
A350 – 234
B777 – 244
I’ve always thought it interesting that Airbus chose the XWB moniker to show the supposed superior comfort factor of the 350 over the 787, yet they remain curiously quiet of the comparison vis a vis the 777…..I mean, after all, they’re trying to run the 772 out of the marketplace with the narrower 350…..The 777 and 350 have almost exactly the same wing area, yet the 350 is 10 inches narrower…..:)
Ship 741Wonderful news! Best wishes for a healthy baby and mama.
Ship 741Wonderful news! Best wishes for a healthy baby and mama.
Ship 741The tail looks too small to me…..particularly the vertical stab, which appears really short. Perhaps an optical illusion?
Ship 741I don’t think the moment an AD comes in all operations should grind to a halt to fit in the repairs and I’d quite happily board a 777 tomorrow. But it does stop and make you think how quickly things can change and you shouldn’t stay complacent where safety is concerned.
*Actually, perhaps it was almost inevitable with the A330? I believe Airbus received 27 reported incidents regarding faulty Thales pitot tubes prior to issuing the AD? Boeing has had just 2 previous crew mask short circuiting induced cockpit fires. http://avherald.com/h?article=408ec81b
You are on the right track. In my experience….26 years in the industry, in the U.S., here is what happens…….A problem is noted in the field and reported through channels…..engineers (the degreed kind) evaluate, and if necessary, issue a service bulletin, which is generally optional compliance…….if the problem continues, more SB’s are issued……if, after a period of time, the problem continues, an AD may be issued……Airworthiness Directives are mandatory compliance……having said that, the methods of compliance may vary…..for example, in this case there might be a repetitive inspection that is required every 50 flight hours until the “terminating” action, ie., the modification that re-routes the wires, etc., and upon completion of that action, no further special inspections are necessary.
If a reported discrepancy is very serious, the whole SB process might be bypassed and an AD might be issued immediately. In an extreme case, and emergency AD might be issued which requires inspection or terminating action prior to further flight.
If an accident occurs, and during the course of the investigation, focus is brought upon some component or system which has a series of SB’s or AD’s on it, well, thats a smoking gun. AF 447 and the Paine Stewart accident are textbook examples.
Fleet Technical Management along these lines are routine at a large airline….these issues are being worked all the time. A few years ago, Southwest caused a lot of pain for all the other airlines when they were accused of being too cozy with their local FAA, who supposedly gave them too much levity in complying with required maintenance actions. After that happened, the FAA came in with a very heavy hand at all carriers, to the extent that a lot of passengers were inconvenienced with no positive effect on safety. But hey, it sold newspapers, and now the same bureaucrats (the federal government) are in charge of health care.
Ship 741Yet ANOTHER MD-11 landing incident…..the crew were extremely fortunate the wing did not break off, causing the airplane to roll 180 degrees and slide down the runway upside down, as has happened in other accidents, with the inevitable fireball.
This accident scenario seems to be playing out again and again, its hard to escape the conclusion that accidents of this type will continue until the aircraft type is retired. IMHO the design is fatally flawed.
Ship 741So if this thread proceeds like prior threads…….anyone responding to the two political statements will be warned and the thread will be locked……meanwhile the two anti-Romney political statements stand without any intervention at all from the moderators……hmmmmmm.
Ship 741Thank you for quantifying that the 773 has almost twice the cargo volume per pax vis a vis the A380!
IIRC, Joe Sutter also pointed out that the two main decks (floor between the main deck and upper deck) restrict available volume on the main deck when onfigured in a freighter version vis a vis the 747.
Thanks also for admitting that the current version of the 380 is not optimized for the wing area.
Ship 741I don’t think Airbus have over-estimated the need for VLAs. Last year Airbus forecast a market demand for 730 VLAs over the next 20 years. Over the past 10 years Airbus and Boeing have sold 363 747s and A380s, if they can continue that sale rate over the next 20 years – then Airbus will have accurately forecast the market demand.
With regard to gauging the market……..Airbus wanted to kill Boeing’s “cash cow,” the 747. Even though the market was already moving away from very large 4 engine airplanes. Because they let ego get involved with the market forecast and concentrated on a huge airplane, they did not build a viable competitor to the 777. Thus, Boeing have had a 17 year free run with an airplane with no real competition (the 777). By the time Airbus get back in the game in a few more years time with the A350, Boeing will announce firm plans to update the 777.
Meanwhile, Airbus has no real competitor to the 787, as their very good product (for now) in that segment the A330 won’t be able to compete with the 787 going forward. In summary, Airbus is providing no real competition for the 787, late competiton for the 777, and have few orders for their flagship, the A380. What a mess!
In case you still don’t believe me regarding Airbus mis-reading the market……..consider this: Why did they even build the A340? The only answer I can come up with is that they were afraid of ETOPS in 1991-2. What a mistake. They ended up with their only really viable competitor (the 330) in the long range widebody market being limited by a too-low MTOW to really maximize it’s potential. IMHO, they should increase the MTOW on the 330 even more than they have already announced, re-engine with GEnx engines, and offer it at cut-rate prices to compete with the 787 while the 350 dukes it out with the 777X.
Don’t even get me started on the A310, which got run out of the market by the 767-300ER, which would fly 1,200 nm further with 40 more people on the same engines.
The only thing Airbus has really done right IMHO as far as gauging the market was with the A320, which had a much greater payload range capability due to the larger wing than the 737-3,4,500, forcing Boeing to finally do the NG series too late (after Boeing lost UAL). For example, UAL was unable to take off with a full load of pax from their hub in DEN with a 733 and make it to the east coast, also unable to takeoff with full pax from ORD on a hot day with a 733 and make it to the west coast flying against the wind, thus UAL went with the A320 and Boeing lost a long and loyal customer. Furthermore, Airbus has arguably got a leg up in the NEO vs Max battle, as their airplane is better sized (larger wing/gear center structure giving more ground clearance for bigger engines). The only advantage the Boeing has in the payload range battle is that their fuselage is a little narrower (less drag).
If and when the market demands a VLA, you can bet Boeing will put forward a real competitor, an all new airplane, that will probably be 20 years advanced over the 380. I don’t see that happening for quite awhile.
Ship 741Yes and no. It’s a mix of both IMO.
While it is true that those who want them have ordered, further interest however is no doubt being stifled due to ongoing wing issues, engine issues and of course availability.
No one in their right mind is going to order such a publicly known beast until serious issues such as the wing rib cracking are resolved.Besides, sales for the A380 slowed well before any financial crisis.
The only reason it’s sold so many is because Emirates have order about half the total order book. Take Emirates out of the picture and you have a small order book.Also, the market for VLAs is much smaller than Airbus counted on. With Boeing eating into a few orders with their 748i, the A380 has even less orders guaranteed to it.
+1
Hear Hear! Good on ya! Agree with all.
Ship 741Oh, NO!
Hong Kong still threatening to cxl their 10 A380 orders……
I wonder if there is a date by which they have to decide?
Ship 741Yep. Even more convinced of it after this post.
So you learn Joe Sutter has a book, you claim to have read it, claim there are compelling arguments* for not stretching the upper deck and yet you didn’t name any.
Right. Dead on.
*Oh, and I didn’t mention Mach-Area rule in the prior post as with modern 3D CAE techniques allowing detail refinement of the wing fairing it isn’t the obstacle as it once was. If that is where your heading with this, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Oh, no! You’ve caught me. I had the temerity to reference Joe’s book but didn’t include the exact references or page numbers! I’m a horrible liar that comes on here only to spread my lies and tarnish Europe’s White Elephant! (Sarcasm intended)
Alternatively, I could continue on, but what’s the point? You’re not willing to be convinced. For me, the double decker configuration doesn’t work well because you can’t carry any cargo when you have a full load of passengers (when all the people check bags you run out of volume in the holds). The fuselage is so stubby that the underfloor holds aren’t long enough to accomodate cargo. I’ve heard that some airlines actually gain more revenue from a 773, in a high density config they can carry close to 500 people (for example AF has a 472 seat config.) and still carry 10-20,000 lb of cargo. Compare that to 515 peeps and no cargo. I can’t remember if Sutter mentioned this consdieration or not, I do recall him mentioning the problem with evacuating a lot of people from that high off the ground. Woe to me, I returned to book to the library, I didn’t know there was gonna be a quiz!
Ship 741Now, now, that is being very disingenuous with the truth. In fact – it is blatantly dishonest.
The original 747 design was double deck, however it was abandoned due to concerns over cargo capacity (loading door size – hence the original ‘hump’ for the nose door) and passenger evacuation.
If the upper deck was such a bad idea, why did Boeing stretch it (more than once) over the life of the 747? 🙂
Yes, it would appear the cargo reason for Boeing’s rejection of the idea is solid – compare A380F to 747-8F. However the passenger evac issue has been satisfactorily solved.
There are ~255 odd A380s on order, there are ~35 747-8Is on order. That is not indicative of an intrinsic problem with double-deckers… no matter how much your preconceptions wish it to be so.
You can argue about the large aircraft market size, at least there you have foundations for something. You cannot argue that the 380 is a failure because it is double deck, as it is clearly out-selling the segment competition.
Calling me dishonest? Really? wow.
I recently read Joe Sutters’ book and found his arguments why Boeing didn’t stretch the upper deck the whole length compelling.
The A380 is a failure for multiple reasons, the double deck being only one.
Sign In
