ANA launches 7E7 with 50 (!) orders

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-05-20 01:12pm

Boeing 7E7 finally gets a launch customer in All Nippon Airways. Launch order of 50 aircraft is, IIRC, biggest in Boeing's history.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-05-20 01:18pm

Good news for Boeing.

As a side note, I read in Time that the Japanese government is going to subsidize part of the 7E7's development costs...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-20 01:25pm

I hope they choose the Trent 1000 over the GE-NX. I want to rub it in TheWinkel's face given he also said P&W were superior to GE as well as RR yet aren't in the 7E7 programme (that's how good they are).

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-20 02:43pm

I didn't even know that the 7E7's were capable of trans-Pacific flight.
Anyway, that;s the first sign that Boeing's smaller faster cheaper jets buisness model bitchslap Airbus's A-380 bloated flying hotel idea.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-05-20 03:08pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:Anyway, that;s the first sign that Boeing's smaller faster cheaper jets buisness model bitchslap Airbus's A-380 bloated flying hotel idea.

Besides, is there really a big demand for oversized, luxerious jumbo jets these days? Even sales of the 747 were sagging before any orders of the A380 were taken. IMO, the only way the A380's prodigious size is going to make it worthwhile is if you rip out all the "flying hotel" items, allowing the aircraft to seat 700-750, rather than the 550 it is currently designed to (that's only 10% more than a 747, yet the A380 has 50% more floorspace). Eventually, I think A380 customers will end up configuring their aircraft in this manner.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-05-20 04:15pm

Meh, I would have preferred if they would have gone with the Sonic Cruiser they were planning to bring out. But no, they had to go with a more "conventional" design.

I mean serious, how could anyone pick this:

Over This:

Damnit I dont want a more "efficient" ride, I want a FASTER ride.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-20 04:17pm

I was quite pissed off at first about that. Given at that time Concorde was looking to be retired and Boeing had the only other real sleek airliner design out there (even the Tu-144 doesn't do Siberian cargo runs anymore I'm told), to have it cancelled seemed a waste.

Though really it seems to work that way now since faster airliners have many more problems, not least the engineering and sound pollution problems. So the SST probably wouldn't be accepted anyway.

This puts a downer on scramjet airliners in my lifetime (woefully optimistic anyway).

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-05-20 04:22pm

The Sonic cruiser was going to fly at just under Mach 1 which made it keep inline with noise pollution laws while allowing a 15-20% faster ride. IIRC it also had other features in its design to keep noise down as well.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-05-20 05:50pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:I didn't even know that the 7E7's were capable of trans-Pacific flight.
Anyway, that;s the first sign that Boeing's smaller faster cheaper jets buisness model bitchslap Airbus's A-380 bloated flying hotel idea.

You might overlook the slight detail that Airbus is already very strong in the short to medium range aircraft market.
And the A380 is selling quite good, too. So there are many airlines buying them...

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-05-20 05:57pm

The attraction to airlines with the mega Airbus isn't it's luxury potential, but packing maximum bodies into it for maximum efficiency for maximum profit.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-20 06:03pm

Frank Hipper wrote:The attraction to airlines with the mega Airbus isn't it's luxury potential, but packing maximum bodies into it for maximum efficiency for maximum profit.

But of course. Carrying the best part of 1000 people in economy across the globe is something any airline would want dearly.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-05-20 10:50pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote: But of course. Carrying the best part of 1000 people in economy across the globe is something any airline would want dearly.

Until there's an accident, and there's a thousand dead people. Pfft.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-20 11:18pm

Lonestar wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote: But of course. Carrying the best part of 1000 people in economy across the globe is something any airline would want dearly.
Until there's an accident, and there's a thousand dead people. Pfft.

Keep in mind the basic A380 only seats 555, and a shortened 480-passenger version is planned. The 800 seat monster will be only a small fraction of orders and isn't even ready for production.

But the real problem is that the A380's is too big for many airport setsup, both on the tarmac and inside the terminals (not enough seating mainly) so at least the mega version of the plane is going to limited to a fairly small number of airports, several are having terminals built or rebuilt specifically to handle the thing. But that's not going to be a common thing. It will be interesting to see if the A380 really can get into the multi hundreds in production.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-05-20 11:36pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Keep in mind the basic A380 only seats 555, and a shortened 480-passenger version is planned. The 800 seat monster will be only a small fraction of orders and isn't even ready for production.
.

But that won't last long, and you know it. As has been already stated, there is 50% more floorspace with only 10% more passengers? I can't see it taking that much more engineering to rip out the hotel crap and put in more seats. Especially as so manny airlines are in financial binds and need all the efficiency they can get.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-05-20 11:41pm

AFAIK, the super-seating version of the A380 may never see the light of day -- it'd take too long to evacuate in an emergency.

As for the Sonic Cruiser, there was no real chance of it being built. Come on, the thing would have had higher operating costs in an era where airlines are slashing costs left and right.

Airbus is indeed strong in other markets besides that where the A380 is intended, but the 737NGs are doing well and the 7E7 should allow Boeing to regain considerable marketshare, especially in US routes.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-05-21 12:13am

Isn't the Tu-144LL a test-bed for Boeing's cooperation with Tupolev on some sort of supersonic passenger aircraft?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-21 08:49am

Dahak wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:I didn't even know that the 7E7's were capable of trans-Pacific flight.
Anyway, that;s the first sign that Boeing's smaller faster cheaper jets buisness model bitchslap Airbus's A-380 bloated flying hotel idea.
You might overlook the slight detail that Airbus is already very strong in the short to medium range aircraft market.
And the A380 is selling quite good, too. So there are many airlines buying them...

the problem is that current airports cannot handle A-380's both in loading and takeoff/landing. Even now only a handfull of airports are upgrading their runways and terminals to accomodate the A380. This is the exact reason why Boeing opted for the 7E7 over the SonicCruiser, it fits existing infastructure.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-05-21 01:26pm

Dahak wrote:You might overlook the slight detail that Airbus is already very strong in the short to medium range aircraft market.

So is Boeing, whose 737 series continues to sell quite well despite it's age. The 7E7 will be superior (in all the ways that matter to airline manegement) to it's equivilent Airbus competitors, which should allow Boeing to grab considerable market share in that sector.

And the A380 is selling quite good, too. So there are many airlines buying them...

Only the airlines who have heavy traffic between the major hubs will have any use for it (the major hubs like Heathrow or O'Hare are the only airports that could ever support the aircraft), meaning that total sales will be limited at best. I predict the A380 will sell relatively well for the first few years, then sales will fall off sharply as all the airlines who would have any use for the aircraft have taken all they need...

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-21 02:02pm

Ma Deuce wrote: Only the airlines who have heavy traffic between the major hubs will have any use for it (the major hubs like Heathrow or O'Hare are the only airports that could ever support the aircraft), meaning that total sales will be limited at best. I predict the A380 will sell relatively well for the first few years, then sales will fall off sharply as all the airlines who would have any use for the aircraft have taken all they need...

thats why my gut feeling on the A380 tells me that it will flop in the long term. The trend in air travel , at least in the US, is longer range travel from smaller regional airports. If i can fly trans-atlantic from the local regional airport with the smaller terminal and runway , and avoid the clusterfuck of Boston-Logan or JFK, i will. Many people feel that way. The 7E7 will serve that market, the A380 (nor the 747-series) will not. Boeing sees this and they are betting all their chips on the right hand.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-05-21 04:42pm

There's also some talk about pairing up several smaller aircraft and having them fly in very tight formation as birds do, improving fuel economy and allowing the aircraft to split off to different destination airports at the end of cruise. Needless to say, this has previously been a bad idea (TM) but crazy autopilots are making this option more and more attractive.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-21 05:20pm

Howedar wrote:There's also some talk about pairing up several smaller aircraft and having them fly in very tight formation as birds do, improving fuel economy and allowing the aircraft to split off to different destination airports at the end of cruise. Needless to say, this has previously been a bad idea (TM) but crazy autopilots are making this option more and more attractive.

I was reading a recent paper in the Journal Of Biology the other day on the aerodynamics and hydrodynamics of animals that use such forces as beneficial effects. Quite interesting, but there's a world of difference between birds and dolphins doing it and then airliners. The skies are crowded enough as it is.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-05-21 05:27pm

Really airspace crowding in open areas will cease to be a problem for the forseeable future as soon as we start flying point-to-point instead of along designated airways.