It's official: A3XX to be built, first delivery 2005
Jun 23, 2000, 6:32 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UA1P, US2
Posts: 177
It's official: A3XX to be built, first delivery 2005
"Noel Forgeard, the new chief executive of Airbus, said the group had firm interest in 52
A3XX planes. He said 37 of these came from the five carriers that have announced their
interest in the plane :
-Emirates,
-Singapore,
-Air France,
-Virgin Atlantic
-and leasing firm ILFC.
Fifteen other firm expressions of interest were from three other airlines."
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/2000...rbus_dc_3.html
------------------
check it out : The Airline First and Business Class Service Reviews web site at
http://www.stormloader.com/havane/sl...roduction.html
A3XX planes. He said 37 of these came from the five carriers that have announced their
interest in the plane :
-Emirates,
-Singapore,
-Air France,
-Virgin Atlantic
-and leasing firm ILFC.
Fifteen other firm expressions of interest were from three other airlines."
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/2000...rbus_dc_3.html
------------------
check it out : The Airline First and Business Class Service Reviews web site at
http://www.stormloader.com/havane/sl...roduction.html
Jun 23, 2000, 10:06 am
#2
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Programs: AA PLT, SPG GLD, PC PLT SPIRE
Posts: 4,531
Great website with the descriptions of the different first & business class. Since I have experienced international first class only once (back when Delta still had a separate first class but there sure weren't any sleeper suites), I have only heard of what the front of the bus looks like, but never really seen it (except for quick envyous glances through the curtain).Just to be able to see the different products and compare what the different airlines call first/business shows that there is a HUGE difference.
I've always wanted to be able to compare different products quickly w/out having to keep searching through all the airlines' different sites.
It just makes me even more envyous about flying up at the front of the bus. One day....
Regarding the Airbus a3xx, I doubt that the airlines are going to put such luxurious amenities as a spa, nursery, conference rooms, etc. on the plane. Luxurious amenities make for great marketing and look great for PR, but from an economical point of view, not very likely.
Since only the first class passengers will most likely be allowed to use the in-flight spa, the price increase to a 1st class seats needed to justify a spa is not realistic. Also, on an average flight, how many business travelers are traveling with enough companions to justify an in-flight conference room? Will an airline put in a conference room just so that a business traveler has extra room to spread out their work? Unlikely. Since at least 1/2 of the "business route" flights are at night, who is going to be using the conference room at night? Again, I believe that the increased seat cost needed to justify taking out seats (which are revenue producers) and replacing them with spas and conference centers (which are marginal revenue producers at best) will be hard to pass along to the flying public. Since we all know that the airlines are out there to make a profit, those of us back in the back of the bus will not be able to partake of any such luxuries. 500+ of us will be packed in like sardines along with the 10 1st class and 46 business class seats.
To a certain degree, the skies have an unlimited amount of space for more and more planes to fly in. The planes just have to fly different (and maybe not as efficient or quick routes such as JFK to LHR via the south atlantic
) or polar routes over Canada & Russia. The limiting factor for major international hub airports (LHR, JFK, Tokyo etc.) will be the number of landing slots and gates that are available at any one time for an airplane to arrive, load and unload passengers, and depart. It doesn't do any good to have a 500 passenger plane idling away at JFK with no where to go and unload. With the extra time needed to deplane passengers, clean and cater, and board a 500+ seat monster, an airline could have brought in and turned around a couple of 777's or a340's. An a3xx just won't be able to be turned around as quickly as needed. In the future, airlines will even more so need to quickly turn around their planes and make efficient use of their fixed number of gates (think Southwest). Just think of the mess boarding 500+ passengers will be?
Needless to say, if the a3xx comes to fruition, I will definately try to fly it just to experience it b/c it sounds pretty exciting.
[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 06-23-2000).]
I've always wanted to be able to compare different products quickly w/out having to keep searching through all the airlines' different sites.
It just makes me even more envyous about flying up at the front of the bus. One day....
Regarding the Airbus a3xx, I doubt that the airlines are going to put such luxurious amenities as a spa, nursery, conference rooms, etc. on the plane. Luxurious amenities make for great marketing and look great for PR, but from an economical point of view, not very likely.
Since only the first class passengers will most likely be allowed to use the in-flight spa, the price increase to a 1st class seats needed to justify a spa is not realistic. Also, on an average flight, how many business travelers are traveling with enough companions to justify an in-flight conference room? Will an airline put in a conference room just so that a business traveler has extra room to spread out their work? Unlikely. Since at least 1/2 of the "business route" flights are at night, who is going to be using the conference room at night? Again, I believe that the increased seat cost needed to justify taking out seats (which are revenue producers) and replacing them with spas and conference centers (which are marginal revenue producers at best) will be hard to pass along to the flying public. Since we all know that the airlines are out there to make a profit, those of us back in the back of the bus will not be able to partake of any such luxuries. 500+ of us will be packed in like sardines along with the 10 1st class and 46 business class seats.
To a certain degree, the skies have an unlimited amount of space for more and more planes to fly in. The planes just have to fly different (and maybe not as efficient or quick routes such as JFK to LHR via the south atlantic
) or polar routes over Canada & Russia. The limiting factor for major international hub airports (LHR, JFK, Tokyo etc.) will be the number of landing slots and gates that are available at any one time for an airplane to arrive, load and unload passengers, and depart. It doesn't do any good to have a 500 passenger plane idling away at JFK with no where to go and unload. With the extra time needed to deplane passengers, clean and cater, and board a 500+ seat monster, an airline could have brought in and turned around a couple of 777's or a340's. An a3xx just won't be able to be turned around as quickly as needed. In the future, airlines will even more so need to quickly turn around their planes and make efficient use of their fixed number of gates (think Southwest). Just think of the mess boarding 500+ passengers will be? Needless to say, if the a3xx comes to fruition, I will definately try to fly it just to experience it b/c it sounds pretty exciting.
[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 06-23-2000).]
Jun 23, 2000, 10:27 am
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UA1P, US2
Posts: 177
Originally posted by onedog:
Great website with the descriptions of the different first & business class.
Great website with the descriptions of the different first & business class.
------------------
check it out : The Airline First and Business Class Service Reviews web site at
http://www.stormloader.com/havane/sl...roduction.html
Jun 23, 2000, 5:26 pm
#4
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
I wasn't around back when the 747's had lounges upstairs, but we all know what happened to them. Luxury was nice for a while, but price pressure forced them to turn this area into real seating.
Aircraft are *not* cruise ships, where you can just add luxury at will, and make the ship bigger. Just to keep it flying you've got to expend fuel -- and although it seems cool, lounges, spas, etc. are not an efficient or very smart use of that fuel which we take take for granted so easily.
Oh, I don't like SUVs either...
Aircraft are *not* cruise ships, where you can just add luxury at will, and make the ship bigger. Just to keep it flying you've got to expend fuel -- and although it seems cool, lounges, spas, etc. are not an efficient or very smart use of that fuel which we take take for granted so easily.
Oh, I don't like SUVs either...
Jun 23, 2000, 9:19 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,330
Read my thread nearby on larger restrooms on CURRENT planes!
[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 06-23-2000).]
[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 06-23-2000).]
Jun 24, 2000, 6:41 am
#6
Join Date: May 2000
Location: The first word spoken from the moon
Posts: 117
I'm waiting for the aircraft that will do New York<>Toyko in 4 hours. The purpose of air travel, I believe, is to get from point A to point B in the shortest amount of time. I just don't see the logic in delivering 500 people a pop to a destination without having a corresponding decrease in flight time.
Just a comment from someone that has been in the last middle seat on a full flight.
Just a comment from someone that has been in the last middle seat on a full flight.
Jun 24, 2000, 8:59 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Massachusetts, USA; AA Plat, DL GM and Flying Colonel; Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 24,233
I'd change that to "in a reasonably short amount of time." There are tradeoffs between speed and other cost factors, especially fuel. As you approach the speed of sound closer than the Mach .85-.9 or so that every modern jet aircraft (except the Concorde) cruises at, the power needed goes WAY up. Exceed it, and fuel consumption goes through the roof as do aircraft design requirements. That's why the Concorde, aside from sonic boom issues, is a losing economic proposition even at a surcharge over subsonic first class. You just can't go faster at reasonable cost. The number of people who will pay many times the subsonic fare to save a few hours is tiny.
That's why airliner speeds, again excepting the Concorde, haven't increased significantly since the 707. The technology just doesn't scale linearly in that direction. If you could make airplanes 20% faster for 20% more cost, or even 50% more cost, people would have done it - but you can't.
That's why airliner speeds, again excepting the Concorde, haven't increased significantly since the 707. The technology just doesn't scale linearly in that direction. If you could make airplanes 20% faster for 20% more cost, or even 50% more cost, people would have done it - but you can't.
.
Jun 25, 2000, 1:07 am
#10
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Syracuse, Boston, Athens
Posts: 995
Originally posted by Efrem:
That's why airliner speeds, again excepting the Concorde, haven't increased significantly since the 707.
That's why airliner speeds, again excepting the Concorde, haven't increased significantly since the 707.
------------------
"Ex Uno Plures"
Jun 26, 2000, 4:45 pm
#11
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 685
The solution for the cost of going faster is to go ABOVE the atmosphere. Obviously this has different problems, but once we solve them, we can go a lot faster for cheaper. cf. http://www.xprize.org
Jun 26, 2000, 6:17 pm
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,330
Re the Concorde, many of us forget this first flew in 1967 .... 33 years ago!
There are FANTASTIC low priced specials often up on www.concorde.co.uk - usually half the already cheap Goodwood Travel prices ... worth checking out if you even visitng the UK. Trips to Egypt, Greeenland, Petra etc.
There are FANTASTIC low priced specials often up on www.concorde.co.uk - usually half the already cheap Goodwood Travel prices ... worth checking out if you even visitng the UK. Trips to Egypt, Greeenland, Petra etc.
Jun 26, 2000, 6:30 pm
#13
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,976
I am pretty sure that concorde is now profitable for BA (in terms of day to day operation) - although the UK government did write off the development and purchase costs and if that had not happened it would make a huge loss.
Jul 1, 2000, 12:02 am
#14
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, NE (OMA or LNK)
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Starwood/Marriott, Hilton, IHG
Posts: 1,345
I'll say "cattle," you say "car." "Cattle"..."Car"..."Cattle car"
Now in unison, let's all say...
mmmooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I'll believe the "boarding more passengers in a shorter amount of time" when I see it. But, as a Boeing shareholder and American citizen, it pains me to see US flag carriers such as US put thier trust in Airbus. Just about every Airbus airframe has been developed and marketed at heavy Euro government subsidies.
I guess since US Airways expects the fed (read that to mean you and I) to bail them out when they run out of operating cash, buying from a European supplier is par for the course. Steve Wolf and company never cease to amaze me, even in the land of Bank of America and First Union!
Now in unison, let's all say...
mmmooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I'll believe the "boarding more passengers in a shorter amount of time" when I see it. But, as a Boeing shareholder and American citizen, it pains me to see US flag carriers such as US put thier trust in Airbus. Just about every Airbus airframe has been developed and marketed at heavy Euro government subsidies.
I guess since US Airways expects the fed (read that to mean you and I) to bail them out when they run out of operating cash, buying from a European supplier is par for the course. Steve Wolf and company never cease to amaze me, even in the land of Bank of America and First Union!
Jul 6, 2000, 9:20 am
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,330
Benefit is for REAL long haul airlines.
Thats where the "flight" time will be saved.
Qantas is about to order 10 it seems. To now fly to Europe or USA east coast from Syd, Qantas MUST have one stop even on Jumbo 747's.
That chews up abpout 2-3 real lost hours with flight path deviations, slow down for landing pattern, messing about on ground, and getting out of BKK, SIN, LAX, SFO, etc and then flying onwards.
The new plane will do those flights NON-STOP. Thats 20 hours to London, not 24!
Hardly Concorde, but hey, I've done these routes dozens of times, and 4 hours shaved off is a real dream to lust after!
These monster things also are same width as 747 I understand so can apparently use all the existing standard airbridges and gates.
[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 07-06-2000).]
Thats where the "flight" time will be saved.
Qantas is about to order 10 it seems. To now fly to Europe or USA east coast from Syd, Qantas MUST have one stop even on Jumbo 747's.
That chews up abpout 2-3 real lost hours with flight path deviations, slow down for landing pattern, messing about on ground, and getting out of BKK, SIN, LAX, SFO, etc and then flying onwards.
The new plane will do those flights NON-STOP. Thats 20 hours to London, not 24!
Hardly Concorde, but hey, I've done these routes dozens of times, and 4 hours shaved off is a real dream to lust after!
These monster things also are same width as 747 I understand so can apparently use all the existing standard airbridges and gates.
[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 07-06-2000).]