AIRBUS 3XX???

By: Anonymous - 20th June 2000 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

I agree with Mathew. When I firs broke this article here I git replies that It will be to big to fit in some airports etc. Even mathew mailed me there. As he is saying for China I think that the 3XX is not good enough for China as the national airlines of china are not being able to mentain there 747 then how will they menatin and mannage the 3XX

Cheers
Kabir

By: Anonymous - 20th June 2000 at 22:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

OK guys, let's get real here.

I'm old enough to remember the introduction of the B707 and DC8 into service and obviously was therefore well aware of the massive jump in size when the 747 came on stream.

What you are saying now was said then. In the mid 1950s, long haul flying was the preserve of the rich or the important. So how did the airlines fill 189 seats when the DC7 and L1049 had seats for around 90-110. Well in those days they had to push hard against the legislators to reduce prices for economy passengers. But the public wanted air travel, cities were happy to pour concrete to build the extra 3000 or more feet of runway needed at most airports to allow the somewhat underpowered early four jets to get airborne and when Boeing announced the 747 as a "stopgap" for use of passengers "until everyone was flying supersonic", there was a feeling of "here we go again"

Except this time the aircraft could use the available concrete (though some terminals had to rapidly expand), the market was still growing and the predicted "handful" of cities that would ever need 747 service soon became a flood.

Airbus and Boeing have done their homework. There is no massive technology leap here as with the 707 and 747. The airframes are extensions of current technology and the engines are currently produced cores uprated.

While airlines talk about flying gyms, saunas and shopping malls on board, don't forget the lounges, piano bars and other short lived gimmicks on the early 707s and 747s used to woo passengersand quickly ditched when seat sales matched the capacity potential of the airframes.

Boeing announce its stretched 747s at Farnborough in 1996 (I was in the room at the time) then quickly forgot about them when the airlines signalled they didn't yet want the aircraft and weren't pushing Airbus either.

Airbus is being slow to announce A3XX production because, unlike Boeing who will use an add on to the current fuselage and new wings, they will have a complete new build.

The initial reaction to A3XX is that only certain city pairs will generate enough traffic to warrant its use. I'll bet that 5 years after the introduction of the new aircraft, they'll be as common as the 747 was in 1975.

Airbus may have a harder time than Boeing in selling as the stretch 747 will fit many fleets with 400srs as there is bound to be a great deal of commonality. The Airbus will also be a true double decker and require a lot of new concepts regarding ground handling and the marketing of what, currently, will look like a much bigger aircraft than the stretch 747, though capacities will be similar.

The airlines are ready to order and the likes of Singapore, Emirates and Virgin do not back losers. The Asian market is recovering from the 1998 down turn and needs massive capacity. Fuel prices and the enviroment lobby militate for fewer flights so larger aircraft will be the norm.

What the real debate should be about is how these aircraft gain interline traffic and how to feed from smaller aircraft into the super jumbos without causing gate chaos, both airside and landside.

As to maintaining the aircraft once in service, there always are problems with new aircraft. Thankfully we have learnt from the days of 707 handling problems, DC10 cargo doors etc. and, with airlines around the world in every country now having to compete (and safety is a competion item - ask Alaska) you can be sure that the current poor records in certain countries will either get better or the airlines concerned will go out of business

By: Anonymous - 8th July 2000 at 18:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

I agree with you. I think the A3XX is to big and and too expensive to be a profitable. It way me a technical success and I think that Boeing will not go ahead with the proposed B747 Stretch as the world is not ready for a airliner of that size.

By: Anonymous - 9th July 2000 at 16:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

In my opinion the Airbus A3XX will be successfull.
In the south east of england it forecast that passenger numbers will double by the year 2015.
The exisiting south east airports cannot with the exisiting terminal capacity cope with double the number of passengers. The only way to cope with that number is to put more people onto each aircraft in other words make best use of each slot. My self and others are campaigning hard to get terminal five built at heathrow as soon as possible. This new terminal will have facilities to cope with super jumbos like the Airbus A3XX afterall the four exisitng terminals cannot cope with 650 people coming off one of these aircraft.
If we are to continue to enjoy air travel for the good of all then aircraft have to get bigger. It is becoming not uncommon for people to enjoy two holidays a year, plus go away at christmas and easter not forgetting a bit of skiing.

If any body would like further information about the campaign to get terminal five at heathrow built as soon as possible please contact
e-mail geraldine_watson@baa.co.uk who is the campaign manager for Heathrow Ltd who own heathrow airport.

By: Anonymous - 28th July 2000 at 08:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

Does any one know if the airports being upgraded and constructed in China are being done withthe A3XX in mind (or any mother 'mother')? Come to think of it, is anyone anywhere where else doing it?

KZ

By: Anonymous - 21st August 2000 at 21:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

I THINK THE 3XX WILL BE A SUCCESS. YES THE 747 IS A TRIED AND TESTED DESIGN, EVEN IF BOEING BUILD A 747X THE BASIC DESIGN WILL NOT HAVE CHANGED THAT MUCH SINCE THE 747 CLASSIC 100s. MY POINT IS THAT THE 747 MAY WELL CONTINUE TO SELL WELL, BUT ITS TIME FOR A NEW DESIGN AND THE A3XX FITS THE BILL.
THE 747 CANNOT CONTINUE TO BE MODIFIED WITH BIGGER SPAN WINGS, EXTENDED (FURTHER)UPPER DECK,INCREASED GROSS WEIGHT ETC, THERE IS A LIMIT TO HOW MUCH YOU CAN CHANGE...TIME FOR BOEING PERHAPS TO CONSIDER A TOTALLY NEW DESIGN, SAME GOES FOR THE 737S BEING PRODUCED NOW, ITS OLD PLANES WITH A NEW MASK...A3XX WILL DO WELL I AM SURE OF THAT

By: Anonymous - 23rd August 2000 at 03:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

I disagree. New for the sake of new is not the best answer. It is a given that the 747X will be more efficient, less expensive, and more environmentally friendly then the A3XX. Airbus has done a poor job in designing the A3XX. Yes there is a future need for passenger aircraft capable of carrying 500-550 passengers, but aerodynamics dictate that the 747X Stretch will be a better aircraft than the A3XX.

By: Anonymous - 4th September 2000 at 20:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

Sorry folks but I'm back from holiday and unsupported statements are not going to get through :-).

Where and by whom is it "a given" that the 747X will be more efficient, less expensive and more environmentally friendly than the A3XX?

Who says Airbus has done a poor design job on the A3XX and in what way?

How do aerodynamics dictate the B747X will be a better aircraft?
Size and efficient aerodynamics are NOT mutually exclusive. The B747 is way bigger and aerodynamically bulkier than the B777 but is still the faster aircraft.