747 vs 380

[Guest enave]

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.

[Splash_One 0]

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

[michal 44]

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

[Guest AAF]

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

[Guest oyvindhansen]

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

[michal 44]

>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.

[Guest oyvindhansen]

>>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

[Guest jdu]

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

[Guest oyvindhansen]

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

[Christopher Low 5,325]

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

[Guest jdu]

>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

[gosta 0]

>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

[Guest oyvindhansen]

>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

[Guest jdu]

>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.

[Guest oyvindhansen]

>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.