Originally Posted By: edwardh1
I thought airbus went big plane but slower, and Boeing bet on small and fast? re design?
This is a separate issue from the 340 discussion and really highlights the A380 vs. 787 decision.
About 20 years ago, Boeing did a study that looked into the future of air travel. Boeing concluded that the future would have more point-point service as the hubs reached capacity. It was their contention that a smaller, longer range airplane, about 250 passengers, could connect major hubs and smaller, medium size markets. Denver-Tokyo for example. Boeing began design work on an airplane called the "Sonic Cruiser" that was intended to cruise at .95 IMN. Much faster than today's airplanes, and that was intended to cut the flight time down on long, medium size routes.
But fuel shocks, financial pressures, bankruptcy, all in the early 2000's had the airlines clamoring for efficiency, not speed. Boeing reconsidered and began design work on the "7E7"...E for efficiency. Composite structure, new auxiliary systems architecture, aerodynamic improvements, all to cut down on fuel burn, beating even the 777, which was, at the time, the most efficient airliner built. When the design was finalized, the 787 was born.
During that time, Airbus thought that the world really needed an even larger airplane than the 747 to connect the hubs. Designed to operate at a much lower cost per seat-mile than the 747, and to compete with the 777 for efficiency. As air travel increased, Airbus reckoned, airlines would need to move more passengers with the same number of slots at slot-restricted airports like Paris, London, Hong-Kong, JFK. It would have longer range than previous airplanes so that cities like Sydney could be served. The double decker, super jumbo A-380 was born.
But the 380, while it cruised at reasonable speed, and could go very far, wasn't bought up by the major carriers. FedEx and UPS canceled their orders. Air France (which practically HAD to buy it) isn't happy with the revenue performance. Lufthansa isn't making money with it. QANTAS is turning theirs back in when the lease is done. The super jumbo never met design goals on fuel efficiency, it has always over-burned on fuel, despite some engine tweaks. And airlines haven't had the bookings to justify moving 600 people at once between hubs. Because of its enormous ground footprint, only a few airports in the world can handle it, and those had to spend billions to increase taxiway size, re-space parking, reinforce concrete ramp areas to handle the weight.
If it weren't for the Middle East 3, the airplane would've been a sales disaster. As it is, Airbus likely won't make the 250 sold that they needed to break even on the R&D cost.
Boeing called it correctly. Here's an example: United flies the 787 from SFO to Chengdu, China. What? Why, you say? Chengdu, in addition to being a provincial capital, is the home of Foxcon - maker of Apple's products. There's a strong connection between Silicon Valley and Chengdu. Enough to justify a flight nearly every day, connecting those two cities.
The 787 was built for just that route. 220 passengers in a fast, fuel-efficient airplane with the range to do it. Every other competitor on the SFO-Chengdu route connects passengers through a major hub. Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bejing. That adds several hours to each trip, because the airplane doesn't fly direct, has to slow down, and land, and then you deplane, go through customs, re-board, etc. So, going direct, saving several hours, avoiding air traffic control issues that happen at every hub saves time, saves fuel, and allows a more competitive product than that traditional hub-spoke model.
There are dozens of city pairs that United alone serves in this manner. DEN-NRT for example. Out of EWR, we serve a dozen European cities directly, that other airlines serve only through hubs. GLA, EDI, and others.
Boeing was right: the future of air travel is fractionalization: direct service to mid-size cities. The perfect airplane for that is mid-size, ultra long range, fuel efficient and reasonably fast.
The 787.