Should boeing risk losing their position as the leading jumbo jet
manufacturer or should they follow their marketing instincts and build
a plane that goes point to point.

Building a plane that goes from point (a) to point (b) is always a good idea.

...especially if it finally lands where its supposed to ;)

I think you are really asking about the conflicting views of Boeing and Airbus.

Airbus reckons that there is a good market for large aircraft that can
only land at large(ish) airports - hubs.

Boeing are saying that the future demand is for smaller aircraft with
very long range, flying from regional airport to regional airport.

Actually I believe that airlines are interested in only one thing, the
cheapest cost per pax - which is largely down to fuel efficiency
although maintenance, capital (finance) cost and crew costs come into
it.

Personally I can't see a great deal of advantage in extra long range
as one would probably (well certainly for seriously long flights) need
to change crews and I'm not sure what the IATA regs say about pilots
'sleeping' on board for 14 hours and then taking over.

I'm also not convinced about the demand for regional to regional, if
the demand were there the airlines would be doing it big time already.

I seem to remember that Boeing got it wrong before, when they produced
slightly faster aircraft.  The airlines might say that they like the
idea of trimming the odd hour off a flight, but realistically they do
not give a toss as that could easily be lost in stacking. They are,
however very interested in fuel efficiency.

Boeing were also saying that passengers would feel uncomfortable in an
A380 as it is so huge they could literally get lost.
This is nonsense - it is just the same as having two 767s flying one
on top of the other.

Airbus have been making silly statements about having gyms, bars and
casinos on the A380 - this is arrant nonsense, airlines want to pack
any available space with seats, and the crew do their best to keep
people strapped and trapped in their seats. They do not like the
cattle on the hoof.

I think that the clincher is to look at all the small airports that
have been massively redeveloped to accomodate the 747.
Small aircraft are only really useful if you cannot get enough pax to
fill a big one.

Hi Hishrak,

Frde has hit the nail firmly on the head. I concur with every point
made. The balance of aircraft capacity, efficiency and flight
frequency is what it's all about. Bums in seats in other words.

As an aside (without the data to back it up) I understand that the
A380 may be approaching it's zero fuel weight limit with passengers
alone. If true, a trailing aircraft might have to be employed to carry
the bags and freight!

I'm a Boeing fan myself. Bring back the 727's I say!

Phil

Is it really a case of deciding which basket to put your eggs in?
Surely there are different types of planes for different markets.
There are big planes to service the long haul, major international
airports and smaller planes to service the low cost operator regional
airports. If there is an increase in this end of the market then the
operators will simply put in more flights, (even leasing planes) until
it becomes a decision to increase the size and importance of that
particular airport. If they do, will the airport Increase landing fees
to recoup their investment thus eroding the low cost provider?s
advantage? Is the market trend perceived as low cost operations moving
into the medium haul? Whatever the future is, as Jerry and Phil have
said, the airline will only be interested in fuel efficiency at
maximum capacity. Surely it?s a question of the airlines having
confidence in their own market and telling the manufacturers what they
want to buy, or do the manufacturers feel the need to second guess the
market.

To make an analogy; out of town shopping centres have never looked
back since their inception but it never stopped anyone going into town
to shop. Isn?t it a case of different products for different maekets?

Capitaine,

Dead right. Different kites for different markets, plus differing
frequencies of RPT flights. I know of one airline purchasing both
Boeing and Airbus fleets. My question to them was about duplictated
tooling and licensing for their LAME's. (Licensed Aircraft Maintenance
Engineers). Their simple answer was of the capital cost, not the
ongoing costs. I'm sure they are smarter than I, but where do we draw
a line between placing all eggs in one basket and hedging our bets? I
presume that there is a real cost in choosing either path. They chose
the hedging option.

Wet or dry leasing of aircraft in my mind is a great option, as you
mentioned. Wet leasing moreso. All care and profit with reduced
responsibility. Makes sense in the world of business. A bit like
employing people on contract instead of wages. Distancing oneself from
responsibility seems to equate to profits, or in the least, quick
decision changes. It doesn't matter of course that families might be
affected by short-term notice terminations of contract! It's their
fault that they chose to agree to a contract, is it not? Like hell!

Refer my comment on the A380 zero fuel weight limitation: I also
understand that one particular major hub does not have the capacity to
accommodate the aircraft, again if my source is factual. This means
that the capital (or loan) acquired has to realise a return provided
that the runway is upgraded to receive the aircraft. These guys are
talking about strengthening a tunnel below the tarmac by the way.
Different ownership in that case. One flys planes, the other charges
landing fees as the owner of the airport.

Ain't this just fun for all? I wonder where the truth lies. (Do excuse the pun)

Phil

OK, "duplictated" to be read as "duplicated"

Phil,

Try to take a distance from the implications of the leasing thing.
What I meant was that if one of the low cost operators has more
sustained demand than capacity on a particular route they could get a
plane from someone else whilst they have one or more built to increase
their fleet. Also, if they want to try out low cost medium haul, then
they don?t have to commit themselves to larger planes if the service
just isn?t going to work.

Commercial decisions of operators to distance themselves from
responsibility, was not part of the original question and was not what
I was addressing in my post above.


Best regards

Norman

You know, you might have a good idea there.

Both Boeing and Airbus could supply aircraft that they built - but the
purchaser reneged - complete with cockpit crew.

Actually I have seen something similar some years ago, one of my sadly
long gone clients had a small fleet of A320s, they needed something
more for the summer and hired a 727 (forgive me I'm not that good on
marques) 140 seater with a complete team of Scandie pilots, an
external paint job and an internal redeck in the airline's livery.

The pilots turned up with wives and disappeared into rented
accomodation in Surrey, they self rostered and that plane flew just
about non-stop.

They had to - the rest were ex-Navy chopper pilots who knew the Airbus
like ... and were fanatics - but were not Boeing stamped.

Always from base. LGW.

For some reason it never went 'tech' which I suspect, is because it
was spectacularly well maintained.

I would call that a 'Damp Lease'
- it is certainly an interesting prospect.
Optimization by simplification.