kinda surprising, one would think that with 150ish A319/320’s already in the fleet AND a need to continue to play the manufacturers against each other that UAL would have ordered some more ‘busses. Big win for Boeing IMO.

I never understood at all why this concept was so controversial to some. It seemed like a good idea to me at the time, and still does. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw it at some time in the future. If they A380 had it, perhaps LAX wouldn’t have to shut down half the airport whenever one was taxiing.

I wonder if the Alabama plant will increase the standing of Airbus at Delta? American has already ponied up to the NEO, but Delta will need a large order in the next few years to replace ancient MD-88, used MD-90s, and old A320’s. I could see Delta ordering 2-300 airplanes in a two or three years (assuming they continue to reduce debt in the meantime). By the time Delta needs large numbers of narrowbodies, the NEO should be up an running, or just about so.

Delta has always been a lukewarm Airbus customer, only ordering 9 A310’s themselves, all the other 310’s, 320’s and 330’s were inherited from the mergers/acquisitions with Pan Am an Northwest, perhaps this Ala. factory tips the balance to Airbus for future Delta orders.

A Boeing plant in Europe, why not?

WRT Western Europe, the “why not” would be the massive taxation on persons and corporations to support a social welfare system that is clearly unsustainable and might even be said to be on the verge of collapse.

If Boeing were ever to assemble in Europe, my guess is that the plant would be somewhere in Eastern Europe. Even that is a long shot IMHO.

Ok….lets consider, for example, your argument using SFO. Hasn’t JAL already said they’re going to start 787 service from Japan to SJC? They’re using a smaller, long range airplane to avoid SFO and deliver the business pax nearer to where they want to go, the silicon valley.

I see this happening over and over. Only a few airports (LHR for example) are resisting the urge to expand, and in some of those cases, alternatives exist.

I see that market starting to rebound over the next 15-20 years.

The driver will be lack of runway slots. The airlines will be forced to carry 500 passengers in one slot than 550 in 2.

I don’t buy that argument.

What do ORD, ATL, HND, FRA, CDG, SEA, and HKG all have in common? They’ve all added runways in the last 10-15 years. In HKG, of course, they built a whole new airport that doubled runway capacity, and they are now talking about building a third. Then consider that China has more than 60 airport construction projects going right now…..there was an article in Aviation Week last year, the amount of airport construction in China right now is mind boggling. They have at least 6 airports under construction right now that will copy the 4 parallel runway layout of ATL/CDG/LAX. Imagine building 6 CDG’s in one country! And I haven’t even mentioned KIX, which is now talking about a third runway!

The “old gateways” of JFK, SFO, and LHR, will continue to be marginalized by long range twins overflying them and lack of political will to expand.

Quite…I wonder what the per seat cost differences are for a BA 747-400 and 777 on the same route?

When I fly to the UK its on a BA 747-400, I assume they’re still using them because they have them and are probably paid for.
Or it because it’s usually full and the 777 doesn’t have enough seats?

Boeing has said in marketing campaigns that the 777-300ER carries 90% of the payload but only burns 70% of the fuel. Many factors go into total cost/seat, but it is possible to “guesstimate” fuel/seat. Fuel always varies based on a lot of factors, but a “ballpark” burn for a 772 is about 17,000 lb/hr (7.7 tonnes), the 773ER is about 20,000 (9 t). A 744 burns about 25,000 (11.4), GE’s a little less. Not sure about RR on the 744, once again these burns vary based upon many factors but I believe they are reasonably accurate. If you know the seating capacity, you can use the numbers above to get a rough estimate of fuel burn per seat. Near as I can tell, a nice ballpark number for the A380 is about 32,000 or 14.5 t.

If you want to see how much an aircraft can be patched up, you only have to
look at one of the USAF’s KC-135s.

If I had just spent 200 million Euros on my new “state of the art” 500 seater, I really wouldn’t want to be comparing it to a 55 year old military tanker.