Boeing to halt development of 747X!
 

I just read a story on the aol finacial pages that Boeing has decided to halt development of the super-jumbo 747x in favor of a concordesque plane described as a mid-sized (250 pax), delta-winged aircraft that would fly just below the sound barrier cutting some 90 min. off Trans pacific flights.

Boeing has been unable to take any orders for the 747x as apposed to the Airbus super-jumbo which has over 60 orders.

Sorry for the paraphrase, I have no idea how to link to this story. Doc?

Boeing to shelve superjumbo

Cutting down flight time is more attractive to me than being on a plan with 600 other people.

See also:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/002125.html

See also:

GENERAL TRAVEL FORUM

Djlawman

Absolutely. http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/photo.html

I only hope this new Boeing plane will be real before I am too old to fly or...

I've seen a picture similar to this more than 12 years ago, painted with the NW livery. I was really young at the time (say, in the single digits), so I don't remember the details of the article.

Since this new plane is a long-range, perhaps it'll compete with Airbus in terms of speed, which business travellers would perhaps appreciate.

- Pat

Remember the story of the Concorde and the 747. The Concorde was supposed to be the superior aircraft because it offered shorter travel times which was supposed to appeal more to business travelers. We saw what happened to Concorde orders.

Boeing plugged on with the 747 making the seat mile cost cheaper and more profitable than the Concorde. The 747 is one of the most abundant airframes in the sky today.

It seems like Airbus might find their 747 in the A3XX.

I'd really hate to see Airbus taking a more dominant role. I find Airbus aircraft so uncomfortable.

[This message has been edited by SFOJFK (edited 03-30-2001).]

I would fly a faster plane in the 767 or 777 layout. I have no interest in flying the Airbus boxcar or cattlecar.

Boeing is doing the smartest thing possible and I am ready to bet, that those Asian airlines will race to get the faster smaller plane before the big warehouses. Just watch the Airbus orders slow down or evaporate in the exhaust of the Delta wing.

Given the price of concorde tickets, supersonic travel is still the perogative of the rich (or business traveller with v good travel policy).

Concorde failed for 2 reasons
- fuel costs; remember the oil price hikes of the early 70's
- Noise; or at least that was the initial reason it was not given for not allowing landing rights in USA (-although I prefer to beleive there was an element of "Not invented Here" syndrome http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif ). When Flying, cincorde flys directly over my house approx 10 minutes after take off and yes, it is very loud

I do not see any technical advances that significantly reduce noise levels of a supersonic craft, and fuel costs are still volatile. Therefore I think that Boeing are taking a BIG RISK here & that airbus will win out unles the running costs are low enough for the airlines to be able to offer a sensibly priced economy seat.


------------------
Chris Elvin

weasel, Did you miss the point that this is a subsonic or Mach .95 Delta wing plane based on the 767 layout? It is NOT a SUPERsonic aircraft!

[This message has been edited by ROADRUNNER (edited 03-30-2001).]

Just wondering, how big of a deal 90 mins off a 11 - 16 hours transpac flight are. (?)
By comparision, I was lucky to fly the Concorde between Paris and Washington once. Considerable time saving: 5 hours on a 8 1/2 hour flight. Am I missing someting?

I could forsee the beancounters at the airlines CFO office really warming up to the A-380, once true operating costs/seatmile$ are available.

I'll take the 90 minute transpacific savings or whatever on a transcontinental. The 767 layout would be a bonus!

The thing that hurt the Concorde most was that it created a sonic boom, thus precluding it from flying supersonically over land. Because the 20XX is subsonic, it won't suffer that problem. And because it will be flying the same distance in less time, presumably it will use less fuel. Of course, that assumes that it is as fuel efficient on a per/mile basis as a 767/777/A340/A380. The direction of the airline industry seems to be going more toward point-to-point long distance service. See, for example, BA's new nonstop from San Diego to London. You couldn't support an A380 or a 747 on that flight. But because you can support the seats on a 777/767 on that flight, you could use the 20XX for that route too.

And the San Diego airport is my home port. Schedule it and I will fly! Sure wish we had Transpacific flights out of here.