Business History Books » Business Consultant » The new Boeing high speed jet-will it be worth it?
The new Boeing high speed jet-will it be worth it?
Question:
– The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about 7.5 to 5.5 hours. But at what price per passanger. Those of you looking for the ever cheaper trip will not be the first to see this plane since it will originally be configurated for Business and First class passengers paying a premium on their already high price fares. Historically, the planes that have worked have always been more economical than the planes they replaced. This will be true of the AirBus A-380 giving per passenger consumptions (liters per 100 km) perhaps 20 or more % lower. The Concorde failed on this score and was a loser commerically. Had the French at the time developed an up grade Caravelle they would have had a commerically successful plane. Air Travel consultants at the time warned them that there was an insufficient market for the Concorde. The figure for the new Boeing is known to be higher, but we have not been told yet. But the market has changed and most airlines make big profits on the business class and give some indications of wanting to get out of the sardine class market. So the Boeing is likely to be a success. What makes it a gamble depends on the extra fuel consumption for transporting the same person the same distance. If this is 20-30% then flying at 20% faster is market supportable. If the fuel consumption is 50% more, they may be in trouble. Lastly, fuel costs. Remember, "cheap" fuel may no longer be available around 2030 and beyond. So the fuel costs will progressively increase faster than standard of living over the next 30 years. If so, the winning plane will be the Airbus 380. We will have a good idea how things will be going in 15 years. Earl
Response:
> I’d like to know which Boeing jet you’re talking about as a > "near-the-speed-of-sound" airliner. This is because the aircraft > flying trans-Atlantic are already flying at "near the speed of sound." > Try .92 Mach. That leaves only .08 Mach room for improvement, hardly > enough to save 2 hours on a trans-Atlantic crossing.
Very strong argument, but WRONG!!! The typical transatlantic liner flies at about 0.82 to 0.85 mach. This gives the Boeing some room for improvement, but not 2 hours from the US east coast. The 747 is the fastest, being designed when fuel was cheaper. If the plane is expected to cruise at 0.95 mach, they will have to demonstrate that it can safely fly faster, just in case of a rapid descent, etc. I don’t know if there will be enough engine power to maintain the apeed, but the plane would have to be controllable when slightly supersonic. Not mach 2, I’d guess. IMO __IF__ Boeing is able to design the plane that flies at the stated speed with low-enough fuel consumption, they will have a winner. When will we learn that this is really a transonic (or supersonic) plane in disguise? Perhaps after Boeing has moved its headquarters to a place where the Greens are less likely to firebomb them. Bob C.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > — > The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after > it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. > It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about 7.5 > to 5.5 hours. > But at what price per passanger. > Those of you looking for the ever cheaper trip will not be the first to see > this plane since it will originally be configurated for Business and First > class passengers paying a premium on their already high price fares. > Historically, the planes that have worked have always been more economical > than the planes they replaced.
And there is every reason to believe this will be the case with this new plane also. The aerodynamic design looks like it should be quite a bit more efficient that your current standard twin. Or for that matter than the Airbus white elephant. Although to be fair, there might be a bit of a tradeoff between either faster *or* more efficient. (And yes, for anyone who cares, we can get into some level of technicality.)
Response:
> > Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics? > Tail/tale/canard.
Oh, speaking French, eh. OK, you win this one. :-)
Response:
I don’t know this for sure, but I THOUGHT the L-1011 was the fastest commercial airliner, but then again there aren’t that many of those great planes left and the ones that do fly aren’t going from NA to Eur. Alan so true and so sad. The L1011 is already missed. It was my favorite plane by far. Mike Quint Going to have fun on the GGC2002 go to www.GGC2002.com The Official cruise of the RTC
Response:
John Zumsteg writes: > When a company prices its product according to demand, it can hardly be > called "gouging." …
On the contrary, that is exactly what "gouging" means. Some find it ethical; some don’t. May I suggest that this discussion is misplaced in rec.travel.europe? I’m not sure what would be the right newsgroup, but this isn’t it. — Mark Brader, Toronto | Some people like my advice so much that they frame it
Response:
> Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics?
Tail/tale/canard.
Response:
> Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics?
Perhaps not a good choice of words 
Response:
>Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics? >:-)
If this were a moderated travel group you’d not be allowed to use those two words in the same sentence, even with a smiley. ;-) — <www.worldtable.com> Food/Wine/Travel - new offer for car rental and leasing in Europe posted 21 June 2000
Response:
> But 20% isn’t really all that much of an improvement, First Class has > been going more towards lots of space for each person, and facilities, > the Airbus as it’s much larger will have much more scope to add space > and facilities.
Do you seriously expect the airlines would leave space for non-revenue usage? Non-revenue space beign pushed through air is pretty costly.
Response:
> > Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics? > Perhaps not a good choice of words
Eh, I wasn’t argiung on the China incident 
. (That’s in the other newsgroup.)
Response:
> I think that both will be operated in the same way. The objective is > just to make money, after all. There is no premium for flying on a 747, > even though it is the fastest plane in the air at the moment (as far as > I can remember).
I don’t know this for sure, but I THOUGHT the L-1011 was the fastest commercial airliner, but then again there aren’t that many of those great planes left and the ones that do fly aren’t going from NA to Eur. — ARZ http://www.alanzeleznikar.com/
Response:
> That is what people already pay flying first > class on the same plane, or more.
True. I’ve never understood why anyone would pay that much more for first class, unless he had an unlimited supply of money. And I know that most first-class passengers do _not_ have unlimited supplies of money, so something must motivate them. > The market is upgrading to the point that > airlines are more and more be interested in JUST > the Business and First Clase customers.
I don’t know. I know that on transatlantic flights, often the entire cost of the flight is paid for by cargo, so all the pax revenue is gravy, anyway. This may be true for some transpacific routes, also, but I’m not sure. > They will ask and get premium prices, whatever > those are (i.e. $5000).
Maybe. But Concorde seats were very limited; seats on this new aircraft will be plentiful. It may not be possible to fill them at premium rates, especially once any airline decides to offer them at regular rates. > So my projection is that the AirBus 380 will > be dedicated to Cattle Car passenger configurations, > the Boeing to Business and First Class.
I think that both will be operated in the same way. The objective is just to make money, after all. There is no premium for flying on a 747, even though it is the fastest plane in the air at the moment (as far as I can remember). > It might be less. But planes used to travel a bit > faster 15 years ago but the airlines found that a > small reduction in speect produces significant > fuel savings, so they cut back.
They could have economized in the same way by increasing altitude–except that the aircraft couldn’t fly much higher. The new aircraft will fly significantly higher. Another huge reason for the slowdown, though, is increasing traffic, and more complex routing of aircraft.
Response:
> Because the tail has been replaced by canards.
Hmm.
Response:
> > Because the tail has been replaced by canards. > Hmm.
What is it? You don’t like ducks? Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics?
Response:
>So my projection is that the AirBus 380 will be dedicated to Cattle Car >passenger configurations, the Boeing to Business and First Class.
No more class envy on board. Perhaps a necessary precaution in this time of air rage. ;-) >The other issue of returning to day flights from NY to Paris (AF001 did this >prior to Concorde), thus avoiding losing a nights sleep. NY to London does >this now and cutting the flight by two hours to Paris would allow returning >to day service for the other airlines. They don`t like it because currently >configuration they can take a night trip to Paris, turn the plane around and >send it back to NY during the day. Turn around take a couple of hours and it >would be hard to configurate even with a 5.5 hour flight time (2 times 5.5 >= 11 hours, + 3 hours makes 14 hours. Most of the year one can`t do >NY=>Paris=>NY during the daylight hours. If they leave NY at 7AM they might >be able to get make before midnight NY time.
Michael Forrest suggested, in response to a post about bicycle tours, that the ideal tour would be a circular route that was downhill all the way. In the same vein, the ideal flight would not only arrive before it left, but return before it left. ;-) — <www.worldtable.com> Food/Wine/Travel - new offer for car rental and leasing in Europe posted 21 June 2000
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> — > >> The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after > >> it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. > >> It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about > 7.5 > >> to 5.5 hours. > The sceptic in me says that this looks very much like a fixed wing version > Nothing like the B 2707
Indeed. And an aerodynamic design that could easily be 10-20% more efficient than the current standard one. (Because the tail has been replaced by canards. Which provide positive lift.)
Response:
>–
You may want to change your software, this is a valid sig sep so many news clients will not display the whole of your message if configured to ignore sigs. > Cheaper than the Concorde, I’m sure. A 20% improvement in speed isn’t > worth a 5x increment in price. >That is what people already pay flying first class on the same plane, or >more.
But 20% isn’t really all that much of an improvement, First Class has been going more towards lots of space for each person, and facilities, the Airbus as it’s much larger will have much more scope to add space and facilities. Jim.
Response:
>> — > The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after > it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. > It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about 7.5 > to 5.5 hours.
The sceptic in me says that this looks very much like a fixed wing version of one of the supersonic models that Boeing investigated about the time that Concorde was launched and then they cancelled. Is it perhaps a crude attempt at either "me too-ing" or "don’t you dare buy an A380 because we will have something better" Gerrit Come and visit Western Australia – you’ll love it!
Response:
> But at what price per passanger.
Cheaper than the Concorde, I’m sure. A 20% improvement in speed isn’t worth a 5x increment in price. > Historically, the planes that have worked have > always been more economical than the planes they > replaced.
The new Boeing will be more economical, too. It’s just that it will trade capacity for speed. I don’t expect it to be the gas-guzzler that the Concorde was, in part because it is subsonic, and in part because it has technology that is 40 years more recent. If the tickets cost more, it will be as a result of gouging on the part of airlines, not because of any inherent lack of economy in the aircraft. > What makes it a gamble depends on the extra fuel > consumption for transporting the same person the > same distance. If this is 20-30% then flying at 20% > faster is market supportable. If the fuel consumption > is 50% more, they may be in trouble.
Higher speed doesn’t always mean more fuel. The SR-71, the world’s fastest plane, gets better fuel efficiency than a standard commercial jet, because of its extremely high flying altitude (at which there is very little air resistance, even at Mach 3.5). In fact, the higher and faster it flies, the less fuel it requires.
Response:
> This is because the aircraft flying trans-Atlantic > are already flying at "near the speed of sound." > Try .92 Mach.
More like 0.8 Mach, which is a fairly typical number from what I recall of specs on recent aircraft. The 747 is among the fastest, and newer models have tended to be slower, not faster.
Response:
> >> — >> The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after >> it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. >> It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about > 7.5 >> to 5.5 hours. > The sceptic in me says that this looks very much like a fixed wing version
Nothing like the B 2707
Response:
– > But at what price per passanger. > Cheaper than the Concorde, I’m sure. A 20% improvement in speed isn’t > worth a 5x increment in price.
That is what people already pay flying first class on the same plane, or more. The Concorde is clearly a dated airplane and I was not really comparing the price of the new Boeing with Concorde. The market is upgrading to the point that airlines are more and more be interested in JUST the Business and First Clase customers. Concorde already got a surcharge rate off the First class. So my expectation is the that new Boeing will focus on the Business and First class as a high profit market and at the beginning with a surcharge on those rates. So getting a Paris-NY round trip tourist class ticket, usually running around $600 now, in the slow months, will not mean paying $900 on the new Boeing and getting a faster trip. At first they will not have tourist rates on the new Boeing. They will ask and get premium prices, whatever those are (i.e. $5000). So my projection is that the AirBus 380 will be dedicated to Cattle Car passenger configurations, the Boeing to Business and First Class. > Historically, the planes that have worked have > always been more economical than the planes they > replaced. > The new Boeing will be more economical, too. It’s just that it will > trade capacity for speed. I don’t expect it to be the gas-guzzler that > the Concorde was, in part because it is subsonic, and in part because it > has technology that is 40 years more recent.
Relatively all the planes from that period were gas guzlers, the Concorde was bound to be. Certainly a subsonic will not be Concorde level, I`d expect about a 30% increase in consumption. I am waiting to see the numbers they were supposed to be out this week? > What makes it a gamble depends on the extra fuel > consumption for transporting the same person the > same distance. If this is 20-30% then flying at 20% > faster is market supportable. If the fuel consumption > is 50% more, they may be in trouble. > Higher speed doesn’t always mean more fuel.
The current expectation is a higher consumption at mach 0.95 than 0.80. It might be less. But planes used to travel a bit faster 15 years ago but the airlines found that a small reduction in speect produces significant fuel savings, so they cut back. I have been crossing the Atlantic since the early 60s, and my memory is that the NY to Paris flight was an hour shorter in the early days. The problem is, of course, is that a good tail wind will still allow one to cut the flight by almost an hour but that is not due to plane air speed. The other issue of returning to day flights from NY to Paris (AF001 did this prior to Concorde), thus avoiding losing a nights sleep. NY to London does this now and cutting the flight by two hours to Paris would allow returning to day service for the other airlines. They don`t like it because currently configuration they can take a night trip to Paris, turn the plane around and send it back to NY during the day. Turn around take a couple of hours and it would be hard to configurate even with a 5.5 hour flight time (2 times 5.5 = 11 hours, + 3 hours makes 14 hours. Most of the year one can`t do NY=>Paris=>NY during the daylight hours. If they leave NY at 7AM they might be able to get make before midnight NY time. Earl
Response:
> If the tickets cost more, it will be as a result of gouging on the part > of airlines, not because of any inherent lack of economy in the > aircraft.
When a company prices its product according to demand, it can hardly be called "gouging." The amount of money people will pay for seats on a route determines the fare; for a company to charge less than what the market will bear goes against their mission to make a profit for their shareholders. If I owned stock in an airline that was selling seats for less than people would pay, I’d sell that stock in a minute.
Response:
There’s an interesting slant on the Airbus A380 versus Boeing Sonic Cruiser debate: the Sonic Cruiser represents a radical departure from the long-term strategy that took Boeing from undisputed king of the airliner world to second-place. Under the Boeing regime that reached its peak with Ron Woodard as President of Boeing Airplane, the company committed itself to, as Woodard once said, "Never building a new airplane;" that is, building derivatives of existing airplanes. So the company has built the 737-300, 400, 500, 600, and 700; the 767-300ER, the 777-300 ER (I’m not sure of that nomenclature) and, to counter the A380, the "super" 747. Just the announcement of the Sonic Cruiser has taken Boeing out from under the cloud of "me-too-ism." Boeing made its fortune by building great airplanes that often were technologically the best, but the last decade or so has seen nothing really new. The Sonic Cruiser is, if nothing else, new, and may change airlines perception of the company. Now whether airlines could turn that technological newness into sales is another thing. I once heard a woman about to board an MD-83 say that she knew it was a 727 because it had three engines… most people don’t know and don’t care what airplane they’re on. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > — > The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after > it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. > It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about 7.5 > to 5.5 hours. > But at what price per passanger. > Those of you looking for the ever cheaper trip will not be the first to see > this plane since it will originally be configurated for Business and First > class passengers paying a premium on their already high price fares. > Historically, the planes that have worked have always been more economical > than the planes they replaced. This will be true of the AirBus A-380 giving > per passenger consumptions (liters per 100 km) perhaps 20 or more % lower. > The Concorde failed on this score and was a loser commerically. Had the > French at the time developed an up grade Caravelle they would have had a > commerically successful plane. Air Travel consultants at the time warned > them that there was an insufficient market for the Concorde. > The figure for the new Boeing is known to be higher, but we have not been > told yet. But the market has changed and most airlines make big profits on > the business class and give some indications of wanting to get out of the > sardine class market. So the Boeing is likely to be a success. > What makes it a gamble depends on the extra fuel consumption for > transporting the same person the same distance. If this is 20-30% > then flying at 20% faster is market supportable. If the fuel consumption > is 50% more, they may be in trouble. > Lastly, fuel costs. Remember, "cheap" fuel may no longer be available > around 2030 and beyond. So the fuel costs will progressively increase > faster than standard of living over the next 30 years. If so, the winning > plane will be the Airbus 380. > We will have a good idea how things will be going in 15 years. > Earl
Response:
– The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about 7.5 to 5.5 hours. But at what price per passanger. Those of you looking for the ever cheaper trip will not be the first to see this plane since it will originally be configurated for Business and First class passengers paying a premium on their already high price fares. Historically, the planes that have worked have always been more economical than the planes they replaced. This will be true of the AirBus A-380 giving per passenger consumptions (liters per 100 km) perhaps 20 or more % lower. The Concorde failed on this score and was a loser commerically. Had the French at the time developed an up grade Caravelle they would have had a commerically successful plane. Air Travel consultants at the time warned them that there was an insufficient market for the Concorde. The figure for the new Boeing is known to be higher, but we have not been told yet. But the market has changed and most airlines make big profits on the business class and give some indications of wanting to get out of the sardine class market. So the Boeing is likely to be a success. What makes it a gamble depends on the extra fuel consumption for transporting the same person the same distance. If this is 20-30% then flying at 20% faster is market supportable. If the fuel consumption is 50% more, they may be in trouble. Lastly, fuel costs. Remember, "cheap" fuel may no longer be available around 2030 and beyond. So the fuel costs will progressively increase faster than standard of living over the next 30 years. If so, the winning plane will be the Airbus 380. We will have a good idea how things will be going in 15 years. Earl
Response:
> I’d like to know which Boeing jet you’re talking about as a > "near-the-speed-of-sound" airliner. This is because the aircraft > flying trans-Atlantic are already flying at "near the speed of sound." > Try .92 Mach. That leaves only .08 Mach room for improvement, hardly > enough to save 2 hours on a trans-Atlantic crossing.
Very strong argument, but WRONG!!! The typical transatlantic liner flies at about 0.82 to 0.85 mach. This gives the Boeing some room for improvement, but not 2 hours from the US east coast. The 747 is the fastest, being designed when fuel was cheaper. If the plane is expected to cruise at 0.95 mach, they will have to demonstrate that it can safely fly faster, just in case of a rapid descent, etc. I don’t know if there will be enough engine power to maintain the apeed, but the plane would have to be controllable when slightly supersonic. Not mach 2, I’d guess. IMO __IF__ Boeing is able to design the plane that flies at the stated speed with low-enough fuel consumption, they will have a winner. When will we learn that this is really a transonic (or supersonic) plane in disguise? Perhaps after Boeing has moved its headquarters to a place where the Greens are less likely to firebomb them. Bob C.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > — > The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after > it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. > It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about 7.5 > to 5.5 hours. > But at what price per passanger. > Those of you looking for the ever cheaper trip will not be the first to see > this plane since it will originally be configurated for Business and First > class passengers paying a premium on their already high price fares. > Historically, the planes that have worked have always been more economical > than the planes they replaced.
And there is every reason to believe this will be the case with this new plane also. The aerodynamic design looks like it should be quite a bit more efficient that your current standard twin. Or for that matter than the Airbus white elephant. Although to be fair, there might be a bit of a tradeoff between either faster *or* more efficient. (And yes, for anyone who cares, we can get into some level of technicality.)
Response:
>> — > The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after > it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. > It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about 7.5 > to 5.5 hours.
The sceptic in me says that this looks very much like a fixed wing version of one of the supersonic models that Boeing investigated about the time that Concorde was launched and then they cancelled. Is it perhaps a crude attempt at either "me too-ing" or "don’t you dare buy an A380 because we will have something better" Gerrit Come and visit Western Australia – you’ll love it!
Response:
> But at what price per passanger.
Cheaper than the Concorde, I’m sure. A 20% improvement in speed isn’t worth a 5x increment in price. > Historically, the planes that have worked have > always been more economical than the planes they > replaced.
The new Boeing will be more economical, too. It’s just that it will trade capacity for speed. I don’t expect it to be the gas-guzzler that the Concorde was, in part because it is subsonic, and in part because it has technology that is 40 years more recent. If the tickets cost more, it will be as a result of gouging on the part of airlines, not because of any inherent lack of economy in the aircraft. > What makes it a gamble depends on the extra fuel > consumption for transporting the same person the > same distance. If this is 20-30% then flying at 20% > faster is market supportable. If the fuel consumption > is 50% more, they may be in trouble.
Higher speed doesn’t always mean more fuel. The SR-71, the world’s fastest plane, gets better fuel efficiency than a standard commercial jet, because of its extremely high flying altitude (at which there is very little air resistance, even at Mach 3.5). In fact, the higher and faster it flies, the less fuel it requires.
Response:
> This is because the aircraft flying trans-Atlantic > are already flying at "near the speed of sound." > Try .92 Mach.
More like 0.8 Mach, which is a fairly typical number from what I recall of specs on recent aircraft. The 747 is among the fastest, and newer models have tended to be slower, not faster.
Response:
> >> — >> The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after >> it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. >> It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about > 7.5 >> to 5.5 hours. > The sceptic in me says that this looks very much like a fixed wing version
Nothing like the B 2707
Response:
– > But at what price per passanger. > Cheaper than the Concorde, I’m sure. A 20% improvement in speed isn’t > worth a 5x increment in price.
That is what people already pay flying first class on the same plane, or more. The Concorde is clearly a dated airplane and I was not really comparing the price of the new Boeing with Concorde. The market is upgrading to the point that airlines are more and more be interested in JUST the Business and First Clase customers. Concorde already got a surcharge rate off the First class. So my expectation is the that new Boeing will focus on the Business and First class as a high profit market and at the beginning with a surcharge on those rates. So getting a Paris-NY round trip tourist class ticket, usually running around $600 now, in the slow months, will not mean paying $900 on the new Boeing and getting a faster trip. At first they will not have tourist rates on the new Boeing. They will ask and get premium prices, whatever those are (i.e. $5000). So my projection is that the AirBus 380 will be dedicated to Cattle Car passenger configurations, the Boeing to Business and First Class. > Historically, the planes that have worked have > always been more economical than the planes they > replaced. > The new Boeing will be more economical, too. It’s just that it will > trade capacity for speed. I don’t expect it to be the gas-guzzler that > the Concorde was, in part because it is subsonic, and in part because it > has technology that is 40 years more recent.
Relatively all the planes from that period were gas guzlers, the Concorde was bound to be. Certainly a subsonic will not be Concorde level, I`d expect about a 30% increase in consumption. I am waiting to see the numbers they were supposed to be out this week? > What makes it a gamble depends on the extra fuel > consumption for transporting the same person the > same distance. If this is 20-30% then flying at 20% > faster is market supportable. If the fuel consumption > is 50% more, they may be in trouble. > Higher speed doesn’t always mean more fuel.
The current expectation is a higher consumption at mach 0.95 than 0.80. It might be less. But planes used to travel a bit faster 15 years ago but the airlines found that a small reduction in speect produces significant fuel savings, so they cut back. I have been crossing the Atlantic since the early 60s, and my memory is that the NY to Paris flight was an hour shorter in the early days. The problem is, of course, is that a good tail wind will still allow one to cut the flight by almost an hour but that is not due to plane air speed. The other issue of returning to day flights from NY to Paris (AF001 did this prior to Concorde), thus avoiding losing a nights sleep. NY to London does this now and cutting the flight by two hours to Paris would allow returning to day service for the other airlines. They don`t like it because currently configuration they can take a night trip to Paris, turn the plane around and send it back to NY during the day. Turn around take a couple of hours and it would be hard to configurate even with a 5.5 hour flight time (2 times 5.5 = 11 hours, + 3 hours makes 14 hours. Most of the year one can`t do NY=>Paris=>NY during the daylight hours. If they leave NY at 7AM they might be able to get make before midnight NY time. Earl
Response:
>–
You may want to change your software, this is a valid sig sep so many news clients will not display the whole of your message if configured to ignore sigs. > Cheaper than the Concorde, I’m sure. A 20% improvement in speed isn’t > worth a 5x increment in price. >That is what people already pay flying first class on the same plane, or >more.
But 20% isn’t really all that much of an improvement, First Class has been going more towards lots of space for each person, and facilities, the Airbus as it’s much larger will have much more scope to add space and facilities. Jim.
Response:
>So my projection is that the AirBus 380 will be dedicated to Cattle Car >passenger configurations, the Boeing to Business and First Class.
No more class envy on board. Perhaps a necessary precaution in this time of air rage. ;-) >The other issue of returning to day flights from NY to Paris (AF001 did this >prior to Concorde), thus avoiding losing a nights sleep. NY to London does >this now and cutting the flight by two hours to Paris would allow returning >to day service for the other airlines. They don`t like it because currently >configuration they can take a night trip to Paris, turn the plane around and >send it back to NY during the day. Turn around take a couple of hours and it >would be hard to configurate even with a 5.5 hour flight time (2 times 5.5 >= 11 hours, + 3 hours makes 14 hours. Most of the year one can`t do >NY=>Paris=>NY during the daylight hours. If they leave NY at 7AM they might >be able to get make before midnight NY time.
Michael Forrest suggested, in response to a post about bicycle tours, that the ideal tour would be a circular route that was downhill all the way. In the same vein, the ideal flight would not only arrive before it left, but return before it left. ;-) — <www.worldtable.com> Food/Wine/Travel - new offer for car rental and leasing in Europe posted 21 June 2000
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> — > >> The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after > >> it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. > >> It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about > 7.5 > >> to 5.5 hours. > The sceptic in me says that this looks very much like a fixed wing version > Nothing like the B 2707
Indeed. And an aerodynamic design that could easily be 10-20% more efficient than the current standard one. (Because the tail has been replaced by canards. Which provide positive lift.)
Response:
> That is what people already pay flying first > class on the same plane, or more.
True. I’ve never understood why anyone would pay that much more for first class, unless he had an unlimited supply of money. And I know that most first-class passengers do _not_ have unlimited supplies of money, so something must motivate them. > The market is upgrading to the point that > airlines are more and more be interested in JUST > the Business and First Clase customers.
I don’t know. I know that on transatlantic flights, often the entire cost of the flight is paid for by cargo, so all the pax revenue is gravy, anyway. This may be true for some transpacific routes, also, but I’m not sure. > They will ask and get premium prices, whatever > those are (i.e. $5000).
Maybe. But Concorde seats were very limited; seats on this new aircraft will be plentiful. It may not be possible to fill them at premium rates, especially once any airline decides to offer them at regular rates. > So my projection is that the AirBus 380 will > be dedicated to Cattle Car passenger configurations, > the Boeing to Business and First Class.
I think that both will be operated in the same way. The objective is just to make money, after all. There is no premium for flying on a 747, even though it is the fastest plane in the air at the moment (as far as I can remember). > It might be less. But planes used to travel a bit > faster 15 years ago but the airlines found that a > small reduction in speect produces significant > fuel savings, so they cut back.
They could have economized in the same way by increasing altitude–except that the aircraft couldn’t fly much higher. The new aircraft will fly significantly higher. Another huge reason for the slowdown, though, is increasing traffic, and more complex routing of aircraft.
Response:
> Because the tail has been replaced by canards.
Hmm.
Response:
> > Because the tail has been replaced by canards. > Hmm.
What is it? You don’t like ducks? Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics?
Response:
> Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics?
Perhaps not a good choice of words
Response:
>Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics? >:-)
If this were a moderated travel group you’d not be allowed to use those two words in the same sentence, even with a smiley. ;-) — <www.worldtable.com> Food/Wine/Travel - new offer for car rental and leasing in Europe posted 21 June 2000
Response:
> But 20% isn’t really all that much of an improvement, First Class has > been going more towards lots of space for each person, and facilities, > the Airbus as it’s much larger will have much more scope to add space > and facilities.
Do you seriously expect the airlines would leave space for non-revenue usage? Non-revenue space beign pushed through air is pretty costly.
Response:
> > Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics? > Perhaps not a good choice of words
Eh, I wasn’t argiung on the China incident . (That’s in the other newsgroup.)
Response:
> I think that both will be operated in the same way. The objective is > just to make money, after all. There is no premium for flying on a 747, > even though it is the fastest plane in the air at the moment (as far as > I can remember).
I don’t know this for sure, but I THOUGHT the L-1011 was the fastest commercial airliner, but then again there aren’t that many of those great planes left and the ones that do fly aren’t going from NA to Eur. — ARZ http://www.alanzeleznikar.com/
Response:
> If the tickets cost more, it will be as a result of gouging on the part > of airlines, not because of any inherent lack of economy in the > aircraft.
When a company prices its product according to demand, it can hardly be called "gouging." The amount of money people will pay for seats on a route determines the fare; for a company to charge less than what the market will bear goes against their mission to make a profit for their shareholders. If I owned stock in an airline that was selling seats for less than people would pay, I’d sell that stock in a minute.
Response:
There’s an interesting slant on the Airbus A380 versus Boeing Sonic Cruiser debate: the Sonic Cruiser represents a radical departure from the long-term strategy that took Boeing from undisputed king of the airliner world to second-place. Under the Boeing regime that reached its peak with Ron Woodard as President of Boeing Airplane, the company committed itself to, as Woodard once said, "Never building a new airplane;" that is, building derivatives of existing airplanes. So the company has built the 737-300, 400, 500, 600, and 700; the 767-300ER, the 777-300 ER (I’m not sure of that nomenclature) and, to counter the A380, the "super" 747. Just the announcement of the Sonic Cruiser has taken Boeing out from under the cloud of "me-too-ism." Boeing made its fortune by building great airplanes that often were technologically the best, but the last decade or so has seen nothing really new. The Sonic Cruiser is, if nothing else, new, and may change airlines perception of the company. Now whether airlines could turn that technological newness into sales is another thing. I once heard a woman about to board an MD-83 say that she knew it was a 727 because it had three engines… most people don’t know and don’t care what airplane they’re on. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > — > The large Air Bus will be in service before and a couple of years after > it we will be greated with a near the speed of sound jet. > It is reported to be able to cut the New York-Paris trip down from about 7.5 > to 5.5 hours. > But at what price per passanger. > Those of you looking for the ever cheaper trip will not be the first to see > this plane since it will originally be configurated for Business and First > class passengers paying a premium on their already high price fares. > Historically, the planes that have worked have always been more economical > than the planes they replaced. This will be true of the AirBus A-380 giving > per passenger consumptions (liters per 100 km) perhaps 20 or more % lower. > The Concorde failed on this score and was a loser commerically. Had the > French at the time developed an up grade Caravelle they would have had a > commerically successful plane. Air Travel consultants at the time warned > them that there was an insufficient market for the Concorde. > The figure for the new Boeing is known to be higher, but we have not been > told yet. But the market has changed and most airlines make big profits on > the business class and give some indications of wanting to get out of the > sardine class market. So the Boeing is likely to be a success. > What makes it a gamble depends on the extra fuel consumption for > transporting the same person the same distance. If this is 20-30% > then flying at 20% faster is market supportable. If the fuel consumption > is 50% more, they may be in trouble. > Lastly, fuel costs. Remember, "cheap" fuel may no longer be available > around 2030 and beyond. So the fuel costs will progressively increase > faster than standard of living over the next 30 years. If so, the winning > plane will be the Airbus 380. > We will have a good idea how things will be going in 15 years. > Earl
Response:
John Zumsteg writes: > When a company prices its product according to demand, it can hardly be > called "gouging." …
On the contrary, that is exactly what "gouging" means. Some find it ethical; some don’t. May I suggest that this discussion is misplaced in rec.travel.europe? I’m not sure what would be the right newsgroup, but this isn’t it. — Mark Brader, Toronto | Some people like my advice so much that they frame it
Response:
> Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics?
Tail/tale/canard.
Response:
> > Or do you need a crash course in aerodynamics? > Tail/tale/canard.
Oh, speaking French, eh. OK, you win this one. :-)
Response:
I don’t know this for sure, but I THOUGHT the L-1011 was the fastest commercial airliner, but then again there aren’t that many of those great planes left and the ones that do fly aren’t going from NA to Eur. Alan so true and so sad. The L1011 is already missed. It was my favorite plane by far. Mike Quint Going to have fun on the GGC2002 go to www.GGC2002.com The Official cruise of the RTC