Originally Posted by SEA_Tigger
Airbus has been doing the exact same thing for decades with the A320, A330, and A340 programs (which are delivered to TLS and HAM as pre-built major sub-assemblies), and it hasn't hurt them any. If anything, it is a point of confidence for current and potential 787 customers seeing how well it has worked for Airbus.
The main difference is that Boeing is more or less only doing the assembly line, while Airbus is doing the assembly line at Toulouse or Finkenwerder after receiving parts of the plane from their own factories…
Looking at the value chain of an aircraft, Airbus is doing a lot more on their own than Boeing, therefore keeping lots of knowledge in house while Boeing is simply putting the pieces together...
Originally Posted by SEA_Tigger
Which more and more is being filled with the shinkansen. When you add traffic delays to/from the airport (especially HND) and then security delays, it is often faster to take the train. And Japan continues to lay new track to service cities that currently only have air as a high-speed option.
I would surprise me if people take the Shinkansen as an alternative means of travel on international routes…only because the number of 747 departures at HND and NRT declined, it is no sign that airlines do not need a plane with 450-500 seats, roughly 4 out of 10 departures are still on 744`s ....
Originally Posted by SEA_Tigger
Very true. Just as the 787-10, even though smaller in passenger (but larger in cargo) capacity, will "eat the A380 for breakfast", CASM-wise. Two 787-10s will carry the same number of passengers, and around four times the cargo, of an A380 at vastly lower trip and per-seat costs.
The 787 is a model, nothing more at this point, all facts about potential savings etc. are pure speculation, two aircraft with the same number of seats will not be cheaper to operate than one aircraft…once again a victim of the media hype and Boeing propaganda using highly subjective numbers...boring stuff actually
.
Originally Posted by SEA_Tigger
If you had studied history, you would know that Boeing did not offer the 747X because it did not appear to offer the benefits the A3XX did and therefore the largest expected operators - SQ, LH and QF - all chose the A3XX, instead.
Even Boeing has stated that the decision not to go ahead with the 747X was a huge mistake, so your comment does not make sense.
AF, LH and SQ just to name a few showed lots of interest in the mid 1990`s, actually long before Airbus announced the A 380 !! Certainly the orders for the 744 collapsed after Airbus announced to go ahead with the A 380, because who wants to fly a 40 year old fuselage, if you can fly state of the art technology ??
Assuming there is no demand for the A 380, why did Boeing decide to build the 747-8 ?
Just looking at the bare naked numbers of Airbus, Boeing, ICAO, IATA and several consulting companies we will see continued strong growth...
Unfortunately neither airports nor ATC do have the capacity to handle those numbers , if airlines would fly 4 787 instead of 2 748/380. Give LAX a call, give LHR a call, give Eurocontrol a call, you will get the same answer...
A huge part of intercontinental travel will still be operated by aircraft with 500 and more seats...