imported_Shivetya
Platinum Member
- Jul 7, 2005
- 2,978
- 1
- 0
Anyone know the break even point on 787 sales?
For the 380 I last read they were nearing 400+ to break even.
For the 380 I last read they were nearing 400+ to break even.
The 380 however, requires much more space at the airport and a redesign of terminal facilities for all but a few existing locations.Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Hedging your bets is expensive, and I think Boeing is betting on the fact that the market will go in one particular direction instead of needing a broad range of products. Huge planes are great, but I think the market is somewhat limited. As midsize airports grow, the idea of hub and spoke systems will shrink in importance. Making good midsize planes like the 787 way more desirable than a plane even larger than a 747 for all but the absolute major routes. And Boeing has the 777 near the top end, which will probably fill many large aircraft needs. Conceding the absolute top of the market to Airbus might not be a major issue if the top of the market isn't all that big.
True, but space at major airports usually can't expand and with a populous developing world its hard to imagine no need for large planes. Not only that, but the A380 carries a relatively small price premium over the larger 777s (17%), while offering a whole lot more (52% more seats, more passenger room, lower running costs etc).
We'll know who made the right bets in a decade, but Airbus looks in a better position right now.
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Hedging your bets is expensive, and I think Boeing is betting on the fact that the market will go in one particular direction instead of needing a broad range of products. Huge planes are great, but I think the market is somewhat limited. As midsize airports grow, the idea of hub and spoke systems will shrink in importance. Making good midsize planes like the 787 way more desirable than a plane even larger than a 747 for all but the absolute major routes. And Boeing has the 777 near the top end, which will probably fill many large aircraft needs. Conceding the absolute top of the market to Airbus might not be a major issue if the top of the market isn't all that big.
True, but space at major airports usually can't expand and with a populous developing world its hard to imagine no need for large planes. Not only that, but the A380 carries a relatively small price premium over the larger 777s (17%), while offering a whole lot more (52% more seats, more passenger room, lower running costs etc).
We'll know who made the right bets in a decade, but Airbus looks in a better position right now.
Originally posted by: Wreckem
The 787 has some potential design flaws that need to be checked by flight tests/crash tests.
It is yet to be seen if the thing is going to shatter into pieces if it crashes. It is also yet to be seen if the copper in the wings to conduct lightning strikes will hold up with the constant pressure/abuse put on it.
They had to put copper in the wings to conduct lightinging because it would otherwise shatter the wing.,
Dan Rather had an interesting report on the 787 a month or so back.
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Boeing has a modified version of the 747 that can be rolled out if the market indeed decides it likes ultra large aircraft like the A380. So far the market has not liked such large aircraft. The 767, A330, and other mid sized jets have been the workhorse of intercontinental travel. Boeing is betting on the fact this is not going to change, even with a global population taking advantage of flight.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Boeing has a modified version of the 747 that can be rolled out if the market indeed decides it likes ultra large aircraft like the A380. So far the market has not liked such large aircraft. The 767, A330, and other mid sized jets have been the workhorse of intercontinental travel. Boeing is betting on the fact this is not going to change, even with a global population taking advantage of flight.
I find it interesting than I've flown between some major hubs, including international ones, many times and I've NEVER flown on a 747. The largest plane I've been on was a 777, and that was between some pretty large domestic and international hubs. I'm sure there are larger routes than Dulles in DC to Paris, but probably not very many of them.
Wow, that seems like a decent amount for how big they all are.Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Once they are ready for production about how long does it take to make each one of these planes?
A380 - full production is 4 / month
Boeing 787 - full production is 10 /15 month
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Wreckem
The 787 has some potential design flaws that need to be checked by flight tests/crash tests.
It is yet to be seen if the thing is going to shatter into pieces if it crashes. It is also yet to be seen if the copper in the wings to conduct lightning strikes will hold up with the constant pressure/abuse put on it.
They had to put copper in the wings to conduct lightinging because it would otherwise shatter the wing.,
Dan Rather had an interesting report on the 787 a month or so back.
lmao Dan Rather.
Name a commercial airliner that didnt shatter to pieces in a major crash
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Wreckem
The 787 has some potential design flaws that need to be checked by flight tests/crash tests.
It is yet to be seen if the thing is going to shatter into pieces if it crashes. It is also yet to be seen if the copper in the wings to conduct lightning strikes will hold up with the constant pressure/abuse put on it.
They had to put copper in the wings to conduct lightinging because it would otherwise shatter the wing.,
Dan Rather had an interesting report on the 787 a month or so back.
yet another report where he was basically ridiculed by experts. The basis seemed to be one disgruntled engineer.
Frankly, shattering on impact is the least of your worries.
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Martin
I don't know why Boeing isn't hedging its bets as Airbus is doing. The A350 could have come earlier, sure, but when it goes into production Airbus will have a full lineup of products, from the cheapo A320s to the 380, whereas Boeing won't have anything in the top end other than the by-then 45 year old 747.
Hedging your bets is expensive, and I think Boeing is betting on the fact that the market will go in one particular direction instead of needing a broad range of products. Huge planes are great, but I think the market is somewhat limited. As midsize airports grow, the idea of hub and spoke systems will shrink in importance. Making good midsize planes like the 787 way more desirable than a plane even larger than a 747 for all but the absolute major routes. And Boeing has the 777 near the top end, which will probably fill many large aircraft needs. Conceding the absolute top of the market to Airbus might not be a major issue if the top of the market isn't all that big.
True, but space at major airports usually can't expand and with a populous developing world its hard to imagine no need for large planes. Not only that, but the A380 carries a relatively small price premium over the larger 777s (17%), while offering a whole lot more (52% more seats, more passenger room, lower running costs etc).
We'll know who made the right bets in a decade, but Airbus looks in a better position right now.
Originally posted by: Wreckem
The 787 has some potential design flaws that need to be checked by flight tests/crash tests.
It is yet to be seen if the thing is going to shatter into pieces if it crashes. It is also yet to be seen if the copper in the wings to conduct lightning strikes will hold up with the constant pressure/abuse put on it.
They had to put copper in the wings to conduct lightening because it would otherwise shatter the wing.,
Dan Rather had an interesting report on the 787 a month or so back.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well once passengers start experiencing the more comfortable environment of 787 vs 380 and such i think anyone that has a choice would choose 787 over 380 any day.
Originally posted by: Finality
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well once passengers start experiencing the more comfortable environment of 787 vs 380 and such i think anyone that has a choice would choose 787 over 380 any day.
Thats funny since ppl already comment that the A380 is already 50% quieter than anything else out there. Having flown various A320s 737s, A340s and 777 I can say that I prefer the Airbus planes in terms of comfort never the Boeing's.
The 787 might change that but I doubt it will be a huge difference over the A380.
Originally posted by: PottedMeat
Originally posted by: Finality
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well once passengers start experiencing the more comfortable environment of 787 vs 380 and such i think anyone that has a choice would choose 787 over 380 any day.
Thats funny since ppl already comment that the A380 is already 50% quieter than anything else out there. Having flown various A320s 737s, A340s and 777 I can say that I prefer the Airbus planes in terms of comfort never the Boeing's.
The 787 might change that but I doubt it will be a huge difference over the A380.
Is a American Airlines 777 comfort level the same as a Delta 777?
Originally posted by: Finality
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well once passengers start experiencing the more comfortable environment of 787 vs 380 and such i think anyone that has a choice would choose 787 over 380 any day.
Thats funny since ppl already comment that the A380 is already 50% quieter than anything else out there. Having flown various A320s 737s, A340s and 777 I can say that I prefer the Airbus planes in terms of comfort never the Boeing's.
The 787 might change that but I doubt it will be a huge difference over the A380.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Finality
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well once passengers start experiencing the more comfortable environment of 787 vs 380 and such i think anyone that has a choice would choose 787 over 380 any day.
Thats funny since ppl already comment that the A380 is already 50% quieter than anything else out there. Having flown various A320s 737s, A340s and 777 I can say that I prefer the Airbus planes in terms of comfort never the Boeing's.
The 787 might change that but I doubt it will be a huge difference over the A380.
i doubt its much quieter. the fundamental pain of air travel isn't noise, its the air. low pressure/very dry air required to keep the aluminum planes from deteriorating leads to the discomfort people feel on long travel flights. the 787 is the only plane that addresses this.
Airbus says the A380 will be quieter and more efficient than any other large aircraft - the small chase plane actually made more noise than its huge cousin. The lack of sound appeared to justify the extra six months spent on it after airlines demanded that Airbus make the plane even less noisy than it already was.