Sign in to follow this  
Guest jdu

747 vs 380

Recommended Posts

Why hasn't Boeing ever made a 747 version with an upper deck that goes the length of the fuselage - similar to the configuration on the airbus 380? Based on the pre orders for the 380, it looks like there is a market for something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I think Boeing has experimented with the idea before but never decided to take further action with it....

Share this post


Link to post

The reason is simple - it would have been completely different airplane requiring new wings, etc. The cost (and risk) would be enormous. You can only modify the original design by so much and anything beyond is like building the new airplane from scratch.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Why hasn't Boeing ever made a 747 version with an upper deck that goes the length of the fuselageBecause that would be ugly. :-lol

Share this post


Link to post

The reason is a strategic miss by Boeing. They thought the A380 would be a flop and put their development resouces into other projects, such as the Sonic Cruiser, which turned out to be the real flop. The A380 was a hit with the airlines, and now Boeing find that they are in trouble, with both the A320, A340 and A380 eating away at their core business. So they announce the Dreamliner, which fits into the only segment where Airbus hasn't got any comparable aircraft in the foreseable future. Probably a smart move... - Oyvind

Share this post


Link to post

>The reason is a strategic miss by Boeing. not sure. There is probably no room for 2 manufacturers doing 550+ pax airplanes. >other projects, such as the Sonic Cruiser, which turned out to>be the real flop. Not a flop but a trial balloon. And a good one too. I applaud Boeing for thinking outside of the box and openly discussing with the industry possible design options. And whether the industry is ready for some new approaches - that's a different subject.>The A380 was a hit with the airlines, way too soon to make such declarations. How many airports will be able to handle this airplane (22 by 2009 is definitely not many), what will be the total sales of this type in the future ?. We can revisit these question 10 years from now. If there is going to be a move away from hub-and-spoke operations then A380 may end up not being a 'hit' down the road.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post

>>The reason is a strategic miss by Boeing. >>not sure. There is probably no room for 2 manufacturers doing>550+ pax airplanes. Perhaps, but I suspect Boeing belived there wasn't even room for one, othervise they would have tried to be that one. They wouldn't knowingly give a profitable business to Airbus.>>>other projects, such as the Sonic Cruiser, which turned out>to>>be the real flop. >>Not a flop but a trial balloon. And a good one too. I applaud>Boeing for thinking outside of the box and openly discussing>with the industry possible design options. And whether the>industry is ready for some new approaches - that's a different>subject.>Yes, I applaud Boeing's initiative, and I think that we need a new sexy, dream-inducing aircraft now that the Concorde is gone.>>The A380 was a hit with the airlines, >>way too soon to make such declarations. How many airports will>be able to handle this airplane (22 by 2009 is definitely not>many), what will be the total sales of this type in the future>?. We can revisit these question 10 years from now. If there>is going to be a move away from hub-and-spoke operations then>A380 may end up not being a 'hit' down the road.>At least they have a lot of orders already, and airports will rebuild their terminals if there is a need for it. However the A380 isn't likely to serve anything else than the major international hubs. I also think that the hub and spoke system is likely to stay, as hubs tend to be situated near or in major cities, like London, Tokyo etc., where the need for travel is the strongest due both to the population density and the density of businesses. - Oyvind

Share this post


Link to post

The Cons of the A380,1. Airliners will only be able to afford a handful of them, meaning less flights to less destinations. The 7E7 on the other hand will be cheaper, meaning the opposite.2. The emmens size of the aircraft will make it landable at runways only designed to support its weight, which aren't many. The 7E7 will be able to land at about 80% of the paved runways(and even some un-paved runways)in America.The saftey implications are obvious.I'll do some more research and come back with more.Current conclusion, the A380 is a very risky and dangerous undertakeing

Share this post


Link to post

This screams for a reply:1: So the airlines have to choose between the 7E7 and A380? The A380 will compete against the 747, not the 7E7. Many airlines currently own both 767s and 747s and use them for different needs. Why don't you mention that the 747 is expensive (it is VERY expensive, but airlines still own lots of them) or that it there are quite few airports in the world that see the 747 in sheduled service, yet it is considered a huge success. Does the reasoning only work against Airbuses? Lots of direct longhaul flights to smaller airports isn't an option anyway with most airlines, as they can't afford to have that kind of a global network, and prefer to form business alliances with other airlines.Also, airlines usually lend money to buy aircraft, so that means they can afford as many 380s as they can profitably put into traffic.2. I don't see the problem, the smaller airports don't need a 550 passenger aircraft anyway. The only places that will see the kind of traffic that calls for a 380 are major hubs like LHR, LAX and FRA. Some of these airports are becoming so congested that the only way of moving more passengers is to use larger aircraft, which is exactly what the 380 is made for. It takes shorter time to move one A380 than two 7E7s.- Oyvind

Share this post


Link to post

Good reply, Oyvind. Perhaps there are a few Boeing a really excited user on here ? ;-)Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post

>This screams for a reply:>>1: So the airlines have to choose between the 7E7 and A380?>The A380 will compete against the 747, not the 7E7. Many>airlines currently own both 767s and 747s and use them for>different needs. Why don't you mention that the 747 is>expensive (it is VERY expensive, but airlines still own lots>of them) or that it there are quite few airports in the world>that see the 747 in sheduled service, yet it is considered a>huge success. It is considered a huge success becaus it was the first widebody in the world, starting a whole new class.>Does the reasoning only work against Airbuses? O.K, let me get this straight, I have nothing against Airbuses.>Lots of direct longhaul flights to smaller airports isn't an>option anyway with most airlines, as they can't afford to have>that kind of a global network, and prefer to form business>alliances with other airlines.O.K, so lets say one airline has 10 A380s, and another has 8. When they form alliances, they have 18 all together, right? If the both had bought 7E7's and merged the total number would have been around 36. More aircraft=more flights=more buisness.>Also, airlines usually lend money to buy aircraft, so that>means they can afford as many 380s as they can profitably put>into traffic.One problem with that, is that you run into the problem of only filling up half the aircraft on certain routes. If you by a smaller aircraft, and have more passengers that it can handle, you just buy another one. The 7E7 will save money on routes that dont need 550 person capacity>2. I don't see the problem, the smaller airports don't need a>550 passenger aircraft anyway. The only places that will see>the kind of traffic that calls for a 380 are major hubs like>LHR, LAX and FRA. Some of these airports are becoming so>congested that the only way of moving more passengers is to>use larger aircraft, which is exactly what the 380 is made>for. It takes shorter time to move one A380 than two 7E7s.Your flying from LAX to DFW, and you have an engine fire that consumes 2 engines on the right side. The only airport near by can't accomidate the A380. Need I say more?>- Oyvind

Share this post


Link to post

>O.K, so lets say one airline has 10 A380s, and another has 8. When they form alliances, they have 18 all together, right? If the both had bought 7E7's and merged the total number would have been around 36. More aircraft=more flights=more buisness.http://www.hifisim.com/images/as2betateam.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

>Your flying from LAX to DFW, and you have an engine fire that>consumes 2 engines on the right side. The only airport near by>can't accomidate the A380. Need I say more?>In an emergency there are probably many airports that can handle an A380. It supposed to have about the same runway needs as a 747. Even my local airport, that can best be described as a regional airport which typically handles 737-size aircraft, sometimes gets visits by the AN-124, which I believe is the world's second largest aircraft (after the incredibly big AN-225). It isn't a daily event, but there are no problems when it happens.- Oyvind

Share this post


Link to post

>In an emergency there are probably many airports that can>handle an A380. It supposed to have about the same runway>needs as a 747. On paper, yes it is supposed to have the same perfomance, but will it in real life? And when Airbus calculated the perfomance, did they factor in the weight of the passengers, fuel,and baggage PLUS one or two engines out?>Even my local airport, that can best be>described as a regional airport which typically handles>737-size aircraft, sometimes gets visits by the AN-124, which>I believe is the world's second largest aircraft (after the>incredibly big AN-225). It isn't a daily event, but there are>no problems when it happens.The AN-124 was designed for short field perfomance, the A380 wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post

>And when Airbus calculated the>perfomance, did they factor in the weight of the passengers,>fuel,and baggage PLUS one or two engines out?>If they didn't it would be an extremely basic mistake, and I'd like to believe that a company that is clever enough to produce the 380 plus a range of other well designed airliners consider such cases. If necessary fuel can be dumped to bring down the weight, and landing runway distance is mostly dependent on brake effectiveness, reverse trust isn't all that effective. Anyway I think the 2 engines out scenario is a little bit extreme, as it would translate to a both engines out situation in the 7E7 which would have an even greater disaster potential.

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair to both Airbus and Boeing, the decision to develop a completely new airframe is one that if frought with risks. The decision goes well beyond market size, position and competitive analysis - it also goes to capital. You have to have access to a lot cash to develop new airplanes. The fatal competition between McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed in trijets emptied MD's coffers - a defecit that was not made up by profits from the DC-10. All accounts say that the company pretty much broke even on that airplane, even with 400 units manufactured. This is why Douglas was unable to introduce a truly new airplane design after the DC-10. Every plane in its stable for the thirty years following the first flight of its three engine wide body was based on a platform that first took to the skies no later than the early 1970s. This means that you have to approach new plane decisions with a lot of care - the price of failure can mean the end of the company. A lot has been written about the great risks that Boeing took on with the 707 and the 747. Those risks were very, very real. Today, this is an area where Boeing is at a distinct disadvantage to Airbus, which, while being a far more like a private company than it was years ago, still has very murky finances that lead one to believe that it still has access to a lot of government capital - especially for a project that will create a lot of high wage, union jobs in Europe. Thus, Boeing will be far less likely to jump into a market it is not convinced exists (and it still isn't as far as I can tell - and we may never know if it is profitable given Airbus' vague private/public structure).Now, having said all of this, Airbus has been eating Boeing's lunch repeatedly in the marketing and engineering department. It took Boeing years to finally bring all of its cockpits under a single design standard (the five large displays seen in the 777, the NGs, the large 767s and the 747s). The A330/340 has a remarkable wing - it can be fitted with either two or four engines depending on the expected use of the aircraft. Airbus has also been quick to stretch or shorten its basic 320 design to meet airline demand.Add to that the fact that Airbus can likely sell its planes below cost, and Boeing finds itself in a tough position. It literally has to be much smarter in choosing what projects to take on. It has far fewer insurance policies than do the folks in Tolouse. And I have to say, I'm not sure they have risen to the challenge that well. Their responses are a lot like Douglas' in the 1980s and 1990s. Apart from the triple seven, their airframes are also all based on designs that are over thirty years old, including the baby 717 they inherited from Douglas. Times, I might add, when jet A was a lot less expensive. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The 7E7 is an interesting experiment, and Boeing is betting a lot on the hope that our air system will become far more decentralized and less hub driven. We shall see. So, getting back to the original question, it is well known that Boeing has looked at a full two deck version of the queen of the skies many times, but has never seen the market to justify the risk of sinking millions into development. Unlike Airbus, Boeing can't afford many mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, another dupe. To much coffee this am.

Share this post


Link to post

Just to comment on Boeing's finances: Unlike Airbus, Boeing gets a lot of income from lucurative millitary contracts. The US spends a lot more on millitary than the whole of Europe put together, and now that Boeing has aquired MD, Lockheed Martin remains the only real rival in the millitary sector. The profits from millitary contracts are essentially govenment subsidies as shopping abroad is no real option in the Pentagon. - Oyvind

Share this post


Link to post

There were over 100 preorders for Concorde, yet only a dozen or so were actually built.The first A380 customer has already delayed delivery, not a good sign.It's also noteworthy that not a single aircraft has been sold after the introductory pricing offered to the first 100 aircraft ordered expired.

Share this post


Link to post

If Airbus has the finances to afford mistakes, then why is it delaying the first flight due to budget constraints? If engine thrust isn't a key factor in stopping, then why do they have thrust reversing? Now when it comes to contruction, haw many countires is the A380 going to be built in? The 7E7 is only going to be in 3 Japan, America, and one other, it's name is slipping my mind. Tha A380 is going to built in alot more (France, Spain, China, Italy, and who knows where else?!?). Plus, have you seen the paths the peices have to travel to get to the final assembly? The wing boxes are loaded into a ship in China, sail around Africa, to a port in Spain (I think) then transported by truck through narrow city streets (some are gravel) to the final assemby plant, and that only the wing box! Also, did you hear how Spain is saying that it is going to pull out because it wants more that 8% of the work share? If Airbus has to keep on shuffling the workload around, the A380 is going to remain on paper! Also, majority of the airlines are either delaying or even cancelling orders, if the A380 is so good, the why are they doing that? The 7E7 only has 50 orders, and all of those are firm, over half of the A380s orders are options. >The US spends a lot more on millitary than the whole of Europe put >together.Thats because the U.S. doesn't like the idea having to rely on the so-called "United Nations" to keep us safe!:-hah

Share this post


Link to post

One more question, am I the only American in this string?

Share this post


Link to post

I think that the issue of these "lucrative" contracts was started by EADS in response to complaints about their government subsidies. :) Gov't contracts do not have much effect on the commercial division at all. Even if it did, that would not be enough to allow Boeing to sell airplanes at a loss, in order to improve market share. You've been reading too much propoganda. Publications like AW&ST will give you MUCH more balanced and factual information on issues like this.

Share this post


Link to post

>You've been reading too much propoganda. Publications like>AW&ST will give you MUCH more balanced and factual information>on issues like this. >I happen to agree. Those government "subsidies" in form of military contracts is a typical Airbus/European propaganda. I am surprised how many times it gets repeated.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this