A380 biggest customer is looking to jump ship.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_06_13_2012_p03-02-467042.xml
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_06_13_2012_p03-02-467042.xml
The fat lady is about to sing for the A380
- Thread starter azsynthetic
- Start date
- Status
This is a high stakes poker game for Boeing and AirBus. Guess wrong and you end up in bankruptcy court.
Airbus would just get a bailout.
I really wonder what is going to happen to the air transport industry. We're down to only 2 major airframe manufacturers from the days when we had 4 major western manufacturers and a couple behind the iron curtain. Both of the remaining ones are constantly in danger of either bankruptcy then a major reduction in force if a new model fails to catch on as planned.
Then look at the mess the airlines are in- merging, bankrupt, teetering on bankruptcy, emerging from bankruptcy because of a merger, cutting back on routes, charging for checked bags, thinking about charging for carry-on space, cutting to the bone on in-flight service... And passengers universally HATE the process of flying and only do so because there's no other choice.
Not an industry I'd plan a future around, myself. And yet its a vital part of the travel infrastructure. How do you fix that mess?
Actually a co-worker had a solution that he calls "I don't give a **** flying." Make all the security steps optional. Section off part of the airports for travelers who "don't give a ****" about possibly being hijacked. They sign a waiver absolving the airline and government of responsibility, get a card they show at the airport entrance, and then just board the plane and FLY like the old days. The airlines lock the pilots in the cockpit behind those new security doors so that NO action from outside the cockpit can affect them or operation of the plane at all. If a terrorist comes aboard, the passengers pile-drive his butt to the floor and hog-tie him. Then everyone on the flight gets free booze to celebrate.
Then look at the mess the airlines are in- merging, bankrupt, teetering on bankruptcy, emerging from bankruptcy because of a merger, cutting back on routes, charging for checked bags, thinking about charging for carry-on space, cutting to the bone on in-flight service... And passengers universally HATE the process of flying and only do so because there's no other choice.
Not an industry I'd plan a future around, myself. And yet its a vital part of the travel infrastructure. How do you fix that mess?
Actually a co-worker had a solution that he calls "I don't give a **** flying." Make all the security steps optional. Section off part of the airports for travelers who "don't give a ****" about possibly being hijacked. They sign a waiver absolving the airline and government of responsibility, get a card they show at the airport entrance, and then just board the plane and FLY like the old days. The airlines lock the pilots in the cockpit behind those new security doors so that NO action from outside the cockpit can affect them or operation of the plane at all. If a terrorist comes aboard, the passengers pile-drive his butt to the floor and hog-tie him. Then everyone on the flight gets free booze to celebrate.
No they would not get a bailout. The people Airbus will be asking for a handout are now asking for handout themselves. Plus, how would that look while they are trying to sue Boeing for receiving subsidies from the US government?
Last edited:
Personally I don't have a huge amount of faith that Boeing can or will make a decisive business decision with the 777. At least not quickly. They made such a mess of the 787 program at the start....and seemed very reluctant to adapt when those issues came to light. It will be many years before that inability dissipates and the aircraft makes a profit. With the 737Max taking center stage right now, and the sales of the current 777 doing well, my guess is that Boeing will miss the boat that Airbus MUST exploit (due mainly to the A380 debacle).
the way the air travel and cargo are nosediving, one of them should go under. On the other way, too big to fail. Interesting.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I really wonder what is going to happen to the air transport industry. We're down to only 2 major airframe manufacturers from the days when we had 4 major western manufacturers and a couple behind the iron curtain. Both of the remaining ones are constantly in danger of either bankruptcy then a major reduction in force if a new model fails to catch on as planned.
Then look at the mess the airlines are in- merging, bankrupt, teetering on bankruptcy, emerging from bankruptcy because of a merger, cutting back on routes, charging for checked bags, thinking about charging for carry-on space, cutting to the bone on in-flight service... And passengers universally HATE the process of flying and only do so because there's no other choice.
Not an industry I'd plan a future around, myself. And yet its a vital part of the travel infrastructure. How do you fix that mess?
Actually a co-worker had a solution that he calls "I don't give a **** flying." Make all the security steps optional. Section off part of the airports for travelers who "don't give a ****" about possibly being hijacked. They sign a waiver absolving the airline and government of responsibility, get a card they show at the airport entrance, and then just board the plane and FLY like the old days. The airlines lock the pilots in the cockpit behind those new security doors so that NO action from outside the cockpit can affect them or operation of the plane at all. If a terrorist comes aboard, the passengers pile-drive his butt to the floor and hog-tie him. Then everyone on the flight gets free booze to celebrate.
Regardless of much of the public negativity towards commercial flying, people will fly. There is no viable choice in many circumstances. You either fly, or deal with an even more inconvenient alternative. Boeing has been receiving many aircraft orders....in the billions of dollars. They have a backlog and are still hiring workers as production increases. I suspect Airbus is doing the same. With the older aircraft using hugely expensive amounts of fuel, the race to obtain fuel efficiency in their fleets is on. I think the two manufacturers will most likely survive one another in the foreseeable future. Being a Boeing employee myself, I obviously hope that the 787 and the 737Max shows the industry that we are ahead in this game. As for the airlines themselves and customer service? Folks seem to choose the low cost budget airlines (with often very poor service) such as Southwest over more expensive ticket prices (and better service). So it's sort of customer driven to some respect that the industry is the way it is. I think overall it's fuel prices however.
I really wonder what is going to happen to the air transport industry. We're down to only 2 major airframe manufacturers from the days when we had 4 major western manufacturers and a couple behind the iron curtain. Both of the remaining ones are constantly in danger of either bankruptcy then a major reduction in force if a new model fails to catch on as planned.
Then look at the mess the airlines are in- merging, bankrupt, teetering on bankruptcy, emerging from bankruptcy because of a merger, cutting back on routes, charging for checked bags, thinking about charging for carry-on space, cutting to the bone on in-flight service... And passengers universally HATE the process of flying and only do so because there's no other choice.
Not an industry I'd plan a future around, myself. And yet its a vital part of the travel infrastructure. How do you fix that mess?
Actually a co-worker had a solution that he calls "I don't give a **** flying." Make all the security steps optional. Section off part of the airports for travelers who "don't give a ****" about possibly being hijacked. They sign a waiver absolving the airline and government of responsibility, get a card they show at the airport entrance, and then just board the plane and FLY like the old days. The airlines lock the pilots in the cockpit behind those new security doors so that NO action from outside the cockpit can affect them or operation of the plane at all. If a terrorist comes aboard, the passengers pile-drive his butt to the floor and hog-tie him. Then everyone on the flight gets free booze to celebrate.
Regardless of much of the public negativity towards commercial flying, people will fly. There is no viable choice in many circumstances. You either fly, or deal with an even more inconvenient alternative. Boeing has been receiving many aircraft orders....in the billions of dollars. They have a backlog and are still hiring workers as production increases. I suspect Airbus is doing the same. With the older aircraft using hugely expensive amounts of fuel, the race to obtain fuel efficiency in their fleets is on. I think the two manufacturers will most likely survive one another in the foreseeable future. Being a Boeing employee myself, I obviously hope that the 787 and the 737Max shows the industry that we are ahead in this game. As for the airlines themselves and customer service? Folks seem to choose the low cost budget airlines (with often very poor service) such as Southwest over more expensive ticket prices (and better service). So it's sort of customer driven to some respect that the industry is the way it is. I think overall it's fuel prices however.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Regardless of much of the public negativity towards commercial flying, people will fly. There is no viable choice in many circumstances. You either fly, or deal with an even more inconvenient alternative. Boeing has been receiving many aircraft orders....in the billions of dollars. They have a backlog and are still hiring workers as production increases. I suspect Airbus is doing the same. With the older aircraft using hugely expensive amounts of fuel, the race to obtain fuel efficiency in their fleets is on. I think the two manufacturers will most likely survive one another in the foreseeable future. Being a Boeing employee myself, I obviously hope that the 787 and the 737Max shows the industry that we are ahead in this game. As for the airlines themselves and customer service? Folks seem to choose the low cost budget airlines (with often very poor service) such as Southwest over more expensive ticket prices (and better service). So it's sort of customer driven to some respect that the industry is the way it is. I think overall it's fuel prices however.
Yes, people will fly because they have to, and the airlines will grind along painfully on razor-thin profit margins, always teetering on the edge and always at risk of any big up-swing in fuel prices. My rhetorical question (I don't think there is an answer) is how can that industry get back to something close to its golden years (60s-80s) when flying was reasonably pleasant, affordable, and the airlines were profitable without making the customers angry from the time they entered one airport until the time they left at their destination?
I agree that the budget airlines are doing the best. Poor service? I disagree. Southwest service, for example, is very friendly and efficient compared to AA, Delta, United, etc. And the funny thing is that while those others still offer good service in first class (I have enough AA miles to regularly upgrade), in coach the service is about equal to SWA. Sure, you CAN buy a $5.00 stale sandwich if you want to, but that's the only advantage I see and frankly I'd rather carry on my own bag of chicken nuggets than eat that mess. As for seating, unless you're at least a first-tier frequent flier on the big guys, you're probably getting a middle seat if you don't book weeks in advance. On Southwest you can pay your $10 for "Early Bird" check-in, and you are pretty much guaranteed and A or B boarding position. So provided you're anywhere close to being on-time in physically arriving at your gate you can get a decent seat. Or you can skip the $10 at manually do an on-line check-in RIGHT at 24 hours prior and usually achieve the same thing if you're a fast click when the clock rolls over that last second.
I think the tables have actually turned, and the "budget" airlines now offer more practical, useful service than the big boys, at least for the casual traveler.
The airframe makers will find a way to soldier on, but if the industry contracts it will eventually ripple down. The difference in fuel economy between an old MD-80 and a new 737 may be huge and is a real incentive to get rid of the MD-80 (except for the fact that maintenance on them is so cheap because they're reliable as bricks), but when the MD-80s retire and the old 737 "Classics" are gone, then what? Is the fuel efficiency difference between the newest 737 and an aging 757 great enough to put the 757 into the 3rd world or freight hauling significantly before its end-of-life (as happened to all those 727s and DC-10/MD-11s 10-15 years ago)? Or is replacement going to slow down once most of the 1980s-built aircraft are replaced?
Regardless of much of the public negativity towards commercial flying, people will fly. There is no viable choice in many circumstances. You either fly, or deal with an even more inconvenient alternative. Boeing has been receiving many aircraft orders....in the billions of dollars. They have a backlog and are still hiring workers as production increases. I suspect Airbus is doing the same. With the older aircraft using hugely expensive amounts of fuel, the race to obtain fuel efficiency in their fleets is on. I think the two manufacturers will most likely survive one another in the foreseeable future. Being a Boeing employee myself, I obviously hope that the 787 and the 737Max shows the industry that we are ahead in this game. As for the airlines themselves and customer service? Folks seem to choose the low cost budget airlines (with often very poor service) such as Southwest over more expensive ticket prices (and better service). So it's sort of customer driven to some respect that the industry is the way it is. I think overall it's fuel prices however.
Yes, people will fly because they have to, and the airlines will grind along painfully on razor-thin profit margins, always teetering on the edge and always at risk of any big up-swing in fuel prices. My rhetorical question (I don't think there is an answer) is how can that industry get back to something close to its golden years (60s-80s) when flying was reasonably pleasant, affordable, and the airlines were profitable without making the customers angry from the time they entered one airport until the time they left at their destination?
I agree that the budget airlines are doing the best. Poor service? I disagree. Southwest service, for example, is very friendly and efficient compared to AA, Delta, United, etc. And the funny thing is that while those others still offer good service in first class (I have enough AA miles to regularly upgrade), in coach the service is about equal to SWA. Sure, you CAN buy a $5.00 stale sandwich if you want to, but that's the only advantage I see and frankly I'd rather carry on my own bag of chicken nuggets than eat that mess. As for seating, unless you're at least a first-tier frequent flier on the big guys, you're probably getting a middle seat if you don't book weeks in advance. On Southwest you can pay your $10 for "Early Bird" check-in, and you are pretty much guaranteed and A or B boarding position. So provided you're anywhere close to being on-time in physically arriving at your gate you can get a decent seat. Or you can skip the $10 at manually do an on-line check-in RIGHT at 24 hours prior and usually achieve the same thing if you're a fast click when the clock rolls over that last second.
I think the tables have actually turned, and the "budget" airlines now offer more practical, useful service than the big boys, at least for the casual traveler.
The airframe makers will find a way to soldier on, but if the industry contracts it will eventually ripple down. The difference in fuel economy between an old MD-80 and a new 737 may be huge and is a real incentive to get rid of the MD-80 (except for the fact that maintenance on them is so cheap because they're reliable as bricks), but when the MD-80s retire and the old 737 "Classics" are gone, then what? Is the fuel efficiency difference between the newest 737 and an aging 757 great enough to put the 757 into the 3rd world or freight hauling significantly before its end-of-life (as happened to all those 727s and DC-10/MD-11s 10-15 years ago)? Or is replacement going to slow down once most of the 1980s-built aircraft are replaced?
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Regardless of much of the public negativity towards commercial flying, people will fly. There is no viable choice in many circumstances. You either fly, or deal with an even more inconvenient alternative. Boeing has been receiving many aircraft orders....in the billions of dollars. They have a backlog and are still hiring workers as production increases. I suspect Airbus is doing the same. With the older aircraft using hugely expensive amounts of fuel, the race to obtain fuel efficiency in their fleets is on. I think the two manufacturers will most likely survive one another in the foreseeable future. Being a Boeing employee myself, I obviously hope that the 787 and the 737Max shows the industry that we are ahead in this game. As for the airlines themselves and customer service? Folks seem to choose the low cost budget airlines (with often very poor service) such as Southwest over more expensive ticket prices (and better service). So it's sort of customer driven to some respect that the industry is the way it is. I think overall it's fuel prices however.
Yes, people will fly because they have to, and the airlines will grind along painfully on razor-thin profit margins, always teetering on the edge and always at risk of any big up-swing in fuel prices. My rhetorical question (I don't think there is an answer) is how can that industry get back to something close to its golden years (60s-80s) when flying was reasonably pleasant, affordable, and the airlines were profitable without making the customers angry from the time they entered one airport until the time they left at their destination?
I agree that the budget airlines are doing the best. Poor service? I disagree. Southwest service, for example, is very friendly and efficient compared to AA, Delta, United, etc. And the funny thing is that while those others still offer good service in first class (I have enough AA miles to regularly upgrade), in coach the service is about equal to SWA. Sure, you CAN buy a $5.00 stale sandwich if you want to, but that's the only advantage I see and frankly I'd rather carry on my own bag of chicken nuggets than eat that mess. As for seating, unless you're at least a first-tier frequent flier on the big guys, you're probably getting a middle seat if you don't book weeks in advance. On Southwest you can pay your $10 for "Early Bird" check-in, and you are pretty much guaranteed and A or B boarding position. So provided you're anywhere close to being on-time in physically arriving at your gate you can get a decent seat. Or you can skip the $10 at manually do an on-line check-in RIGHT at 24 hours prior and usually achieve the same thing if you're a fast click when the clock rolls over that last second.
I think the tables have actually turned, and the "budget" airlines now offer more practical, useful service than the big boys, at least for the casual traveler.
The airframe makers will find a way to soldier on, but if the industry contracts it will eventually ripple down. The difference in fuel economy between an old MD-80 and a new 737 may be huge and is a real incentive to get rid of the MD-80 (except for the fact that maintenance on them is so cheap because they're reliable as bricks), but when the MD-80s retire and the old 737 "Classics" are gone, then what? Is the fuel efficiency difference between the newest 737 and an aging 757 great enough to put the 757 into the 3rd world or freight hauling significantly before its end-of-life (as happened to all those 727s and DC-10/MD-11s 10-15 years ago)? Or is replacement going to slow down once most of the 1980s-built aircraft are replaced?
I didn't elaborate on the service issue as much as I should have. While you are correct that when compared to other U.S. carriers (excluding a handful such as Alaska Airlines) Southwest is at least equal. (Although the seating and boarding procedure is akin to loading a Greyhound). What I was actually comparing the low budget domestic carriers to was the international routes and European airlines that still cater to that service the older folks here recall (excellent food and superior flight attendants).
I certainly agree that the MD-80 is a super low maintenance aircraft. The head of my division at Boeing used to be a big suit at the old Northwest Airlines, and he said the same thing.
The new 737Max should be a good improvement over the current model in terms of fuel economy. The 787 certainly is over it's predecessors. Just wish Boeing would be making a profit off it sooner. I believe you are correct about production rates slowing down once the older aircraft are replaced. But that's probably over 10 years away or longer.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Regardless of much of the public negativity towards commercial flying, people will fly. There is no viable choice in many circumstances. You either fly, or deal with an even more inconvenient alternative. Boeing has been receiving many aircraft orders....in the billions of dollars. They have a backlog and are still hiring workers as production increases. I suspect Airbus is doing the same. With the older aircraft using hugely expensive amounts of fuel, the race to obtain fuel efficiency in their fleets is on. I think the two manufacturers will most likely survive one another in the foreseeable future. Being a Boeing employee myself, I obviously hope that the 787 and the 737Max shows the industry that we are ahead in this game. As for the airlines themselves and customer service? Folks seem to choose the low cost budget airlines (with often very poor service) such as Southwest over more expensive ticket prices (and better service). So it's sort of customer driven to some respect that the industry is the way it is. I think overall it's fuel prices however.
Yes, people will fly because they have to, and the airlines will grind along painfully on razor-thin profit margins, always teetering on the edge and always at risk of any big up-swing in fuel prices. My rhetorical question (I don't think there is an answer) is how can that industry get back to something close to its golden years (60s-80s) when flying was reasonably pleasant, affordable, and the airlines were profitable without making the customers angry from the time they entered one airport until the time they left at their destination?
I agree that the budget airlines are doing the best. Poor service? I disagree. Southwest service, for example, is very friendly and efficient compared to AA, Delta, United, etc. And the funny thing is that while those others still offer good service in first class (I have enough AA miles to regularly upgrade), in coach the service is about equal to SWA. Sure, you CAN buy a $5.00 stale sandwich if you want to, but that's the only advantage I see and frankly I'd rather carry on my own bag of chicken nuggets than eat that mess. As for seating, unless you're at least a first-tier frequent flier on the big guys, you're probably getting a middle seat if you don't book weeks in advance. On Southwest you can pay your $10 for "Early Bird" check-in, and you are pretty much guaranteed and A or B boarding position. So provided you're anywhere close to being on-time in physically arriving at your gate you can get a decent seat. Or you can skip the $10 at manually do an on-line check-in RIGHT at 24 hours prior and usually achieve the same thing if you're a fast click when the clock rolls over that last second.
I think the tables have actually turned, and the "budget" airlines now offer more practical, useful service than the big boys, at least for the casual traveler.
The airframe makers will find a way to soldier on, but if the industry contracts it will eventually ripple down. The difference in fuel economy between an old MD-80 and a new 737 may be huge and is a real incentive to get rid of the MD-80 (except for the fact that maintenance on them is so cheap because they're reliable as bricks), but when the MD-80s retire and the old 737 "Classics" are gone, then what? Is the fuel efficiency difference between the newest 737 and an aging 757 great enough to put the 757 into the 3rd world or freight hauling significantly before its end-of-life (as happened to all those 727s and DC-10/MD-11s 10-15 years ago)? Or is replacement going to slow down once most of the 1980s-built aircraft are replaced?
I didn't elaborate on the service issue as much as I should have. While you are correct that when compared to other U.S. carriers (excluding a handful such as Alaska Airlines) Southwest is at least equal. (Although the seating and boarding procedure is akin to loading a Greyhound). What I was actually comparing the low budget domestic carriers to was the international routes and European airlines that still cater to that service the older folks here recall (excellent food and superior flight attendants).
I certainly agree that the MD-80 is a super low maintenance aircraft. The head of my division at Boeing used to be a big suit at the old Northwest Airlines, and he said the same thing.
The new 737Max should be a good improvement over the current model in terms of fuel economy. The 787 certainly is over it's predecessors. Just wish Boeing would be making a profit off it sooner. I believe you are correct about production rates slowing down once the older aircraft are replaced. But that's probably over 10 years away or longer.
And another nail in the A380 coffin, a 21% fuel saving from the 787 straight from ANA.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-nippon-air-aims-to-grow-international-capacity-2012-06-10
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-nippon-air-aims-to-grow-international-capacity-2012-06-10
Excellent. That's one of the few actual statements I've seen where the 787's real world fuel usage has been mentioned. I was beginning to think the aircraft must not save all that much on fuel.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Excellent. That's one of the few actual statements I've seen where the 787's real world fuel usage has been mentioned. I was beginning to think the aircraft must not save all that much on fuel.
Well, I knew that it would at least eventually save a lot of fuel... but I was starting to wonder if it wouldn't happen until GE and Rolls-Royce did a whole series of planned product improvements on their engines to make them fully meet Boeing's original specs. The 787 design, start-to-finish, has revolved around efficiency and now that seems to be paying off. Airbus went for capacity along with efficiency on the A380, and that wound up making it less competitive in terms of efficiency. Its just too stinkin' big, and any empty seats translate to a loss of operating efficiency.
Excellent. That's one of the few actual statements I've seen where the 787's real world fuel usage has been mentioned. I was beginning to think the aircraft must not save all that much on fuel.
Well, I knew that it would at least eventually save a lot of fuel... but I was starting to wonder if it wouldn't happen until GE and Rolls-Royce did a whole series of planned product improvements on their engines to make them fully meet Boeing's original specs. The 787 design, start-to-finish, has revolved around efficiency and now that seems to be paying off. Airbus went for capacity along with efficiency on the A380, and that wound up making it less competitive in terms of efficiency. Its just too stinkin' big, and any empty seats translate to a loss of operating efficiency.
The A-380 is one of the cleverest tricks Boeing ever played. By putting out the rumor they were developing a super jumbo airliner, they got Airbus to waste resources on the A-380 as Boeing was moving ahead with practical airliner design and re-design. I may still be called a 737, but it sure doesn't look and feel much like the original from the 60's.
I still think the best comfort airliner ever built was the 727, called the whisperjet by Continental Airlines.
I also LIKE flying on Southwest.
I still think the best comfort airliner ever built was the 727, called the whisperjet by Continental Airlines.
I also LIKE flying on Southwest.
We are still doing block upgrade on the 787 FMS so the fuel saving will be better yet in a couple of year.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
I didn't elaborate on the service issue as much as I should have. While you are correct that when compared to other U.S. carriers (excluding a handful such as Alaska Airlines) Southwest is at least equal. (Although the seating and boarding procedure is akin to loading a Greyhound). What I was actually comparing the low budget domestic carriers to was the international routes and European airlines that still cater to that service the older folks here recall (excellent food and superior flight attendants).
SWA has improved their boarding process a lot. Its still open seating, but getting a line position when you check in and print your boarding pass is a huge improvement. You no longer find the obsessive-compulsives standing in a line position at the gate an hour before the flight (I've actually seen people sleeping in a line position years ago!) to be the first ones into the aluminum tube. Grow up, already! Now you can take your time and still have a good boarding slot. Its really the best of open seating with the best of assigned seating. Unless you're a last-minute traveler and get stuck at the end of "C" group. But the same happens with assigned seating on the traditional airlines- SOMEONE is going to be last aboard, get stuck in a middle seat, and not find any overhead bin space.
Agreed that international flights still get good service, but the volume (for US carriers anyway) comes from people flying around domestically. Quality of the whole experience- airport door to airport door, including TSA screening and crabby counter agents, is what really needs fixing.
I didn't elaborate on the service issue as much as I should have. While you are correct that when compared to other U.S. carriers (excluding a handful such as Alaska Airlines) Southwest is at least equal. (Although the seating and boarding procedure is akin to loading a Greyhound). What I was actually comparing the low budget domestic carriers to was the international routes and European airlines that still cater to that service the older folks here recall (excellent food and superior flight attendants).
SWA has improved their boarding process a lot. Its still open seating, but getting a line position when you check in and print your boarding pass is a huge improvement. You no longer find the obsessive-compulsives standing in a line position at the gate an hour before the flight (I've actually seen people sleeping in a line position years ago!) to be the first ones into the aluminum tube. Grow up, already! Now you can take your time and still have a good boarding slot. Its really the best of open seating with the best of assigned seating. Unless you're a last-minute traveler and get stuck at the end of "C" group. But the same happens with assigned seating on the traditional airlines- SOMEONE is going to be last aboard, get stuck in a middle seat, and not find any overhead bin space.
Agreed that international flights still get good service, but the volume (for US carriers anyway) comes from people flying around domestically. Quality of the whole experience- airport door to airport door, including TSA screening and crabby counter agents, is what really needs fixing.
I just really hope that Boeing truly pulls out all the stops to make the new 737Max a real winner. With Airbus knowing that they must 'catch-up' to Boeing in the fuel sipping category, the new A320Neo is sure to make the race very tight. Airbus seems to take a bit more risk than Boeing does. My concern is that they will not be afraid to spend more on a redesign and thus end up with a more fuel efficient aircraft. Same goes for the newest A350-1000 vs. a new? 777.
Based on our estimates, the Neo and the Max will be within 2% of each other when it is all said and done. What will be critical is maintenance and airframe evolution. There will not be a A350-1000 vs new 777 because they will be in two different classes by then. The A350-1000 will more than likely be competing with the double stretched 787. The future 777 will be replacing the 747 per Boeing vision.
Looks like Boeing went into smaller efficient planes while Airbus went into bigger efficient planes market. Looks like Boeing will sell well in western markets while Airbus has bigger potential in Asian markets. When oil spikes again we will see who wins.
- Status
