Pages: 1 2

 

2007-07-08 22:18:47
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6666|Escea

Couldn't find any threads on this so here it is

Boeing unveils its newest plane in over a decade, the 787 Dreamliner.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6282820.stm



Mcminty: Here's the article from the Seattle Times (ya know, the area where Boeing's 'Wide-Body' factory is. )
2007-07-08 22:41:40
Bernadictus
Moderator
+1,055|7180

Hmm, as far as I can tell, it 1/4th the capacity of the A380, roughly the same range.
But why are they comparing it to the A380, when the direct competitor is the A350.
2007-07-08 22:52:57
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6666|Escea

Bernadictus wrote:

Hmm, as far as I can tell, it 1/4th the capacity of the A380, roughly the same range.
But why are they comparing it to the A380, when the direct competitor is the A350.
Dunno, the A350 doesn't come out for some time I think, so they're comparing it with Airbus' latest plane.
2007-07-09 00:29:09
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|7145|Little Rock, Arkansas

Bernadictus wrote:

Hmm, as far as I can tell, it 1/4th the capacity of the A380, roughly the same range.
But why are they comparing it to the A380, when the direct competitor is the A350.
They aren't comparing them, they're saying that the future of both companies hinges on the success (or lack therof) of these two models. Airbus is betting on the people-in-a-zoo approach to flying, and Boeing is not. Only time will tell.

I can tell you, I would prefer to fly on a smaller plane to a larger one. Shorter loading and unloading times, less wait for baggage, and less chance I might get stuck on a plane with a crying infant.
2007-07-09 00:35:39
some_random_panda
Flamesuit essential
+454|6834

blisteringsilence wrote:

Bernadictus wrote:

Hmm, as far as I can tell, it 1/4th the capacity of the A380, roughly the same range.
But why are they comparing it to the A380, when the direct competitor is the A350.
They aren't comparing them, they're saying that the future of both companies hinges on the success (or lack therof) of these two models. Airbus is betting on the people-in-a-zoo approach to flying, and Boeing is not. Only time will tell.

I can tell you, I would prefer to fly on a smaller plane to a larger one. Shorter loading and unloading times, less wait for baggage, and less chance I might get stuck on a plane with a crying infant.
True.  It would be hell waiting for your suitcase on an A380.
2007-07-09 00:40:43
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7064|London, England
Funny how this time round it's the USA going for not-so big and economical whilst the Europeans go for all out BIG. What has the world come to. I'm sure Texans at least must be wondering this.

The A380 is supposed to be compaired with the 747 though, not the 777/787/F-22 Raptor. Different classes, i believe Airbus are developing a plane to compete with the 787. All in the name of competition.
2007-07-09 00:50:19
KuSTaV
noice
+947|6955|Gold Coast
LOL.^

Meh. Its another plane, I guess. I want Video on Demand on EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT before I see that plane, and it has to be updated VoD too, travelled to Europe from Aus with shitty Non-VoD there, and on the way from London to Hong Kong, I had VoD, but it was last months stuff, so I had already seen it. And then from HK to Brisbane, I had a shitty A320, with no seat-entertainment thing, only the crappy big screen up front, the type of plane for domestic use and 2 hours, on an 8 hour flight.....FFS. That plane is a bad idea IMHO, but if it keeps the competition running, then meh. Boeing still owns long haul flights anyway. Havent seen an A380 at all in RL.
noice                                                                                                        https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png
2007-07-09 01:51:44
<BoTM>J_Aero
Qualified Expert
+62|6909|Melbourne - Home of Football
If you're flying a long haul-international route like Sydney to London at around 22 - 24 hours, I can understand perfectly why an airline wants an A380 with large capacity for passengers and less fuel use than the 1.8 (rough approximation) 787 Jumbo's or Dreamliners it would take to carry the same amount of passengers. Short-haul flights like the 1 hour between Melbourne and Sydney are much more suited to the capabilities of planes like the dreamliner, where loading and unloading times are more of a factor, and flights leave more often. This is why airline companies like Qantas will adopt a mix strategy, buying dreamliners for domestic, short-haul routes, and A380's for the long-haul international trips.
2007-07-09 04:32:18
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|7165|Sydney, Australia
Lol, I got up this morning to watch it live on Boeing's website... Can't wait to see it fly in Qantas colours.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Ii believe Airbus are developing a plane to compete with the 787. All in the name of competition.
The A350 is expected in 2012, so by then Boeing will have a serious foothold in that particular market.
2007-07-09 04:52:58
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7118|Canberra, AUS

KuSTaV wrote:

LOL.^

Meh. Its another plane, I guess. I want Video on Demand on EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT before I see that plane, and it has to be updated VoD too, travelled to Europe from Aus with shitty Non-VoD there, and on the way from London to Hong Kong, I had VoD, but it was last months stuff, so I had already seen it. And then from HK to Brisbane, I had a shitty A320, with no seat-entertainment thing, only the crappy big screen up front, the type of plane for domestic use and 2 hours, on an 8 hour flight.....FFS. That plane is a bad idea IMHO, but if it keeps the competition running, then meh. Boeing still owns long haul flights anyway. Havent seen an A380 at all in RL.
Flying Jetstar?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-07-09 06:30:49
KuSTaV
noice
+947|6955|Gold Coast
^qantas.
noice                                                                                                        https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png
2007-07-09 08:44:53
chittydog
less busy
+586|7279|Kubra, Damn it!

KuSTaV wrote:

^qantas.
No wonder. If you're going between Hong Kong and anywhere you should fly Cathay Pacific. Much nicer.
2007-07-09 08:48:18
chittydog
less busy
+586|7279|Kubra, Damn it!

"Boeing has won more than 600 orders from customers eager to hold the jet maker to its promise that the midsize, long-haul jet will burn less fuel, be cheaper to maintain and offer more passenger comforts than comparable planes flying today."

Sounds awesome. Anything that lowers airline prices is A-OK in my book.
2007-07-09 09:12:36
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7205

chittydog wrote:

Sounds awesome. Anything that lowers airline prices is A-OK in my book.
This won't do that.
2007-07-09 09:15:40
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6969|South Florida
and jet-leasing companies are offering the Dreamliner at an astonishing premium rate of $1 million a month.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2007-07-09 09:16:47
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7205

Mitch wrote:

and jet-leasing companies are offering the Dreamliner at an astonishing premium rate of $1 million a month.
ok?
2007-07-09 09:17:31
chittydog
less busy
+586|7279|Kubra, Damn it!

usmarine2005 wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Sounds awesome. Anything that lowers airline prices is A-OK in my book.
This won't do that.
Why not? It's claiming lower weight and operating costs.
2007-07-09 09:18:35
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7205

chittydog wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Sounds awesome. Anything that lowers airline prices is A-OK in my book.
This won't do that.
Why not? It's claiming lower weight and operating costs.
Speaking of US airlines only....it won't lower your prices.
2007-07-09 09:24:46
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6969|South Florida

usmarine2005 wrote:

chittydog wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


This won't do that.
Why not? It's claiming lower weight and operating costs.
Speaking of US airlines only....it won't lower your prices.
If you want to lower airline prices, simply pass a law that says you must be born in the US to fly a plane in the US. Then, arm your pilots with guns so they can shoot the fucking terrorists. Instantly this will reduce prices because i know i would feel more safe on an un-hijackable plane!. This would lead to more people flying which will in turn lower the prices per person that airlines need to charge...
15 more years! 15 more years!
2007-07-09 09:25:47
chittydog
less busy
+586|7279|Kubra, Damn it!

usmarine2005 wrote:

chittydog wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


This won't do that.
Why not? It's claiming lower weight and operating costs.
Speaking of US airlines only....it won't lower your prices.
Thanks for clearing that up.
2007-07-09 09:26:38
nlsme
Member
+48|6859|new york
The A-380 is a disatser, more then half of the orders have been pulled, not only pulled but with the declaration they would not re-order. The A380 is designed for a "CHANGE" in air trafiic routed to Main Hub flights, where you woyuld have to board a flight to get to the Airport of departure, then another smaller flight after the A-380 to the final destination. Boeing sees the future in air travel as being one where you go to your CLOSEST airport, board ONE plane, and arrive at your destination. I would rather take one flight then three.

Last edited by nlsme (2007-07-09 09:28:42)

2007-07-09 09:27:43
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7205

chittydog wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

chittydog wrote:


Why not? It's claiming lower weight and operating costs.
Speaking of US airlines only....it won't lower your prices.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You have to train pilots and mechanics on it.  You basically now have a new cost bracket because of the new airplane.  New parts.  New ramp and hangar equipment.  New tooling. 


etc....
2007-07-09 09:28:42
EVieira
Member
+105|6922|Lutenblaag, Molvania

usmarine2005 wrote:

chittydog wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


This won't do that.
Why not? It's claiming lower weight and operating costs.
Speaking of US airlines only....it won't lower your prices.
Why not? Both Boeing and Airbus advertise  that their state-of-the-art planes are aimed at lowering costs. The difference is just approach, the A380 puts more seats per flight and the 787 is lighter and more efficient, but with less seats.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-07-09 09:30:43
chittydog
less busy
+586|7279|Kubra, Damn it!

usmarine2005 wrote:

chittydog wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


Speaking of US airlines only....it won't lower your prices.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You have to train pilots and mechanics on it.  You basically now have a new cost bracket because of the new airplane.  New parts.  New ramp and hangar equipment.  New tooling. 


etc....
Makes a lot of sense. Those of us not in the business don't think about that stuff.
2007-07-09 09:41:47
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7205

EVieira wrote:

Why not? Both Boeing and Airbus advertise  that their state-of-the-art planes are aimed at lowering costs. The difference is just approach, the A380 puts more seats per flight and the 787 is lighter and more efficient, but with less seats.
It saves money in the long run.  But you know who the money goes to.....not the passenger.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard