Originally Posted by Threy
The 748 will be based on a 40 year old airframe, one that Boeing should have forced 10 years ago as a logic step after the 744.
So many "Airbus cheerleaders" like to toss these figures around. As I noted in the other thread, the A330, A340, and A350 are all based on a 30 year old airframe - the A300.
However, both only apply to the fuselage diameter. The interiors, the electronics, the wings, the engines, and just about everything else is totally different on the 748I just as it is on the A350.
But it's so much easier to just echo the same tired "talking points", because "positive reinforcement" of people's pre-conceived notions is all they want to hear. A vs. B is like R vs. D in it's dynamics.
Boeing`s terribele strategies in the late 1990s cost them the market leadership and now they have to discount like crazy, what used Airbus` big weakness, especially in the US...
Boeing's "terrible strategies" in the 1990's forced them to refocus and reapply themselves in the 2000's, and it is paying off with the second best year of order's in the company's history. And their stock is at an all-time high, so evidently "discounting like crazy" means that margins are just "awesome" instead of "unbelievable" cause the company is reporting solid earnings.
QF will likely replace their 744 with A380 aircraft.
It is unlikely QF can replace every 744 with an A388. QF seem to agree, with a total of 22 A388s on order or option but operating a total of 36 743s and 744s.
Some airports that take 744s cannot adequately support A388s. And adding capacity when there is no demand means fares must fall to stimulate that demand. While QF might have a stranglehold on certain markets like LAX-SYD where they could add capacity and not lower prices, SYD-LHR is going to be flooded with upwards of two to three times the current capacity as QF, SQ, EK, VS and who knows whoelse add A388s. That is why QF was looking for a "hub-buster" to try and capture some high-yield passengers and keep from having to discount F, C, and Y fares to ensure the planes go out at capacity.
Will (Airbus) produce a smaller A380 to compete with the 748 or will they build a bigger A380?
Airbus will never build an A387. The current A388 is too "small" for her wings, so her performance suffers for it. An even smaller version would be a fiscal disaster for operators.
The stretch A389 is the "proper" size, but Airbus was uncomfortable with launching it as the initial model until they could gather test data. However, it will happen as EK and FedEx desperately want it.
Some airlines have interest in a bigger 773 and even bigger 744 , but the original airframe is simply too old.
Age has nothing to do with it. It's
capability. If you run out of space before you run out of weight, an A380F is an advantage. And that seems to mostly/only happen when you fly packages, which is why EK, FedEx, and UPS ordered it. If you run out of weight before space, the 747F is better, which is why all of the world's bulk-cargo carriers continue to choose it. And if you need/desire it, you can front-load on a 747.
Launching it with order from CargoLux and Nippon Cargo is saying a lot, cause airlines are probably the definition of a Boeing customer...
Ah yes, bad old "Japan Inc." I got news for you - ANA Cargo, NH, and JL aren't controlled my MITI. That's why NH actually bought (and continues to take delivery of) A320s. And why JL has 28 A300s. That Airbus sure is wiley! They somehow snuck past the Boeing gatekeepers and signed orders before they were thrown out! And somehow flew the planes in under the cover of darkness so the authorities didn't notice!
Not long ago visiting the Boeing plant I was told that the Soniccruiser is the next best thing, than it was the small interconti plane doing point to point routes, all of a sudden Boeing seems to believe in the mass markets again
Another favorite talking point of "Airbus cheerleaders" is that Boeing said "the 744 is as big as anyone will ever need". Yet they all forget the 747-500X and the 747-600X, both of which were floated
before Airbus started the A3XX program because Boeing felt there was a market for a larger plane. However, the program was going to be close to $7 billion in mid-1990s dollars and the airframe price was going to be $200 million. When shopped to airlines, they had a heart-attack on the price.
When Airbus launched the A3xx program in the late-1990s, airlines were making money hand over fist, so the $250 million A3XX pricetag was more palatable. Nevertheless, Boeing offered cheaper versions - the 747-400X, the 747-400XS, the 747-X, and the 747-XS. However, being an all-new design, the airlines felt the A3XX had better traction so they decided to spend the extra cash on a new plane rather then save money updating their existing fleets.
Boeing then had two choices - fight Airbus head to head with it's own $15 billion clean sheet design or go a different direction.
For the former, Boeing felt the market was small - under 1000 frames. Set against a combined $30 billion in development for both companies, that means
each plane they sold would need to bring in $300 million
just to break even. And that assumed the orders were split 50-50. And at $300 million, that means planes went out at list or list was set at some insane level - say twice a 744 (while only providing for 50% more capacity). And that assumed nobody bought more 744s and that nobody traded 742s and 743s in for A346s and 773ERs.
For the latter, Concorde, despite her insane fares, was doing fine across the Atlantic as people needed to get where they were going and were willing to pay whatever premium was necessary.
Crunching the numbers and the odds, number two looked better then number one. Fuel was dirt cheap (well under a dollar a gallon) so even though the SC burned a 777's fuel while hauling a 767's payload, it didn't matter and the airlines were assured of high fares to offset the higher operating costs. And when an airline like AA steps up and says they will order
hundreds as a launch customer, well...
Of course, the Tech BOOM happened, 9/11 and SARS crippled air traffic, and Iraq and natural disasters around the world more then doubled the price of JetA. So Concorde stopped operating, the SC was cancelled, and Boeing and Airbus both re-trenched and started work on fuel-efficient, low-operating costs airframes.