AIRBUS 3XX???

Member for

20 years

Posts: 1

Howdy Ho!
I want to talk about the new airbus to be released in 2006. The thing is; boeing already have plans to build a larger 747 and have already found potential customers. If the two companies continue getting bigger, we won't need other aitcraft because half the population of the world will be able to fit onto one flight.
I really don't think the 3XX will be successful enough to get off the ground (not literally), and I think boeing will stiil be ahead.
See ya!

Original post

Member for

20 years

Posts: 13

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

Hi there!
I think that the future market will be large enough to sustain both aircraft. If China alone keeps growing at its present rate the there will be millions each year that can afford air travel for the first time, and will ot wait long to buy their first ticket. So that in the medium term not one half of the world's population but getting close to one fifth will indeed be stting in airplanes. And growth in air travel is still taking place in Europe and America (especially Latin America)so that, if ATC is not to break down completely, larger aircraft will be needed - and in such numbers as to give both manufacturers enough to build.

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

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

Member for

20 years

Posts: 13

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

Concerning airport infrastructure, I guess one could fairly say that the markets where the stretch 747s and/or A3XXs are likely to be needed first are gearing their airports up to be able to cope - HKG, SIN, KUL, KIX are all projects that are large enough and BKK and SEL are following suit. But elsewhere? Parts of Europe are already de facto eco-dictatorships where mentioning "airport expansion" will raise massive objections...

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.

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.

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

Member for

20 years

Posts: 269

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

I doubt the A3XX will be a success. Reasons why?

1. Many of the world's major airlines already see the erstwhile 747 as being too large for many of their existing routes.

2. Due to the reason above, 747 sales have died off in recent years, and this is a smaller aircraft than the A3XX.

3. Twin jets are the future. Just look at how well the A330, 767 and 777 have done in long haul markets in recent years. Many airlines view four engined airliners as more expensive to maintain. Airlines with 747's as their long haul workhorse have twice the number of engines to maintain than say an airline which operated a fleet of 777's. Which do you think would be the more expensive fleet to maintain?

4. Expansion is needed at many airports to cope with the sheer size of the A3XX. Trouble is, expansion is a dirty word at many major airports these days. Just look at Heathrow. Terminal 5? Yeah, right.

I wish Airbus all the luck in the world, I really do. They have produced some fine aircraft in the past, but I just don't think they have thought this one through enough.

Member for

20 years

Posts: 28

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

Heathrow's terminal 5 was concieved with exactly the A3XX in mind. The arguements for it are more passenger movements with little or no increase in aircraft movenments. The direct benefit is that one larger aircraft will move more pasengers with less noise than two smaller aircraft. Also slots are at a premium at some airports such as LHR, therefore aircraft movements cannot increase as a result of increased passenger movements.

Whether it is liked or not, air travel is on the increase, so the choice is either more airports or maximise the use of existing airports with larger aircraft. If we look five or six years ahead when the A3XX is due to enter service then for the reasons above there will be a market for it. Boeing also seem to think so as they are actively sounding out their customer base for a stretched 747.

The main problen face by airports will be passenger handling. As for the physical size of the aircraft, it will fit into a standard 80 square meter box which most major airports allow for, so where the 747 ventures the A3XX will follow.

If the A3XX is launched then there will be a market for it and it will be a success.

Profile picture for user keltic

Member for

20 years

Posts: 1,709

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

I will a success because;

-Air traffic congestion and limited slot.
-Alliances will tend to concetrate flights with code-share.
-Growing number of passangers in places like China, Japan,
..etc.
-Extra space for extra fancies. It´s clear that the times of
packed cabins with seats is over. Airlines are racking their
brains to offer things which others don´t (cabins in Virgin,
dancing floors, synagogas, lounges and so on. There´s a battle
to offer the very best). If the plane offers the same operating operating costs than a B777 or A340 with extra space I don´t see any problemn of having extra space.
-Regionalization of long haul flights, ETOPS flights are good for the USA. In Europe long haul flights departs from a limited number of airports. Many european airlines operate fully booked B747-400 and would appreciate bigger planes rather than more fecuencies (in terms of operational costs).
-Passangers like big four engines aircraft. This is trivial but may incline the preference of many people to get a A3XX flight.
-No competence in that segment. High season charter flights,
flights to Mecca, cargo options, transport of other big things...and so on.
-EADS should have good reason to launch it and having such a colossal risk.

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

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.

Profile picture for user keltic

Member for

20 years

Posts: 1,709

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

Competing with an old design, an stretch is a poor idea. I expect something more original from Boeing. Innovation....please.

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.

Member for

20 years

Posts: 8

RE: AIRBUS 3XX???

What is to stop both the 747X & the A3XX from both being successful? take the A320 vs 737 battle, same sized aircraft,same range, about the same price and both have/are being sold into their thousands. Airlines pick a jet, usually having a specific route in mind because of its operating costs and payload size and if there are two companies vieing for the same market the airline will buy the one with most commonality with its other aircraft. Airlines prefer one company over another, Qantas & Air New Zealand are both Boeing operators, Swissair/Sabena & JetBlue are Airbus operators, if an airbus operator decides to put the A3XX on a route against a Boeing operator, the boeing operator will have no choice but to put the 747X on the same route just like what happens today with the various markets round the world. And currently many of the largest airports in the world are about the same age, so in the course of upgrading their terminals they are expanding facilities. Besides an aircraft photographer like me never turns down more photo oportunites, I think there'll be some awesome photography in the next 10 years or so as a whole lot more airliners reach our skies, There won't just be today's business to contend with, there'll be new airlines and regional airlines going long distance because of these two great airliners......Imagine in 10years time EasyJet might be flying 747Xs & JetBlue flying A3XXs, exciting times await in the aviation industry.