[Specop_007]

Like I said, if it aint Boeing I aint going. Click
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')ARIS - Airlines around the world punished Airbus on Wednesday for delays in the delivery of its A380 superjumbo, demanding compensation, reconsidering orders — and in one case, striking a major deal with its rival Boeing Co.

Shares in Airbus' parent company crashed and Boeing's soared as repercussions of the production problems with the world's biggest passenger plane resonated throughout the industry.

[Zardoz]

Yeah, it could turn out that one bad decision by Airbus, and one good one by Boeing, will result in a complete reversal of fortunes for both organizations.

The A380 certainly seemed like a good idea at the time, when the decision to go ahead with the brute was made, but things sure have changed, haven't they? And to make matters worse, the big fella will apparently be even heavier and less fuel-efficient than planned.

Of course, like we've been saying in several other threads, air travel as we know it is doomed, unfortunately, but at least a slight increase in fuel efficiency will keep some airlines running a little while longer.

[Andy]

The A380 never to me seemed like a good idea. Even in 2000, I was aware of peak oil on the horizon and knew that it would sink them. New aircraft developments are doomed in my opinion. That includes the 787 which I maintain will be too little, too late. A 20% increase in efficiency simply will not be enough to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. As I have said, all the cost effective increase in transportation efficiency lay on terra firma in the form of trains, buses, automobiles etc. In many cases, simply a switch from gasoline to diesel will gain 25% easily.

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'L')ike I said, if it aint Boeing I aint going.

[thor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '
')The A380 certainly seemed like a good idea at the time, when the decision to go ahead with the brute was made, but things sure have changed, haven't they? And to make matters worse, the big fella will apparently be even heavier and less fuel-efficient than planned.

[airstrip1]

It is the travel model as much as the aircraft which is flawed. The new Airbus relies on people using a hub and spoke system whereby the big airplane only flies to the major destinations and travellers have to take a second flight to their local airport. This additional journey is going to negate most of the fuel cost savings from the Airbus. As a traveller Boeings point to point model seems more convenient. Also since the passenger has to go through fewer landings and take offs to get to their destination it should also be safer. When I saw pictures of the big Airbus landing at Heathrow I am afraid that the words that went through my head were 'Spruce Goose'.

[Andy]

Airstrip,

I am not so sure Boeings point to point model will work either. In an era of declining travel, those point to point markets will drop off first. It is the traditional hubs that will continue doing business as they tend to have better surface transport links for feed. There is a reason London, Chicago, Tokyo, Hong kong etc. developed into hubs. They were natural. What may work is high speed/higher speed rail, bus to a hub and then intercontinental travel from such destinations.

I guarantee you, the last cities to see a total collapse in aviation will be the likes of New York, San Francisco, Chicago, London, Tokyo. Cities like Manchester U.K, Atlanta, Charlotte, Munich etc. will see traffic collapse and people taking the train, bus or car 150 - 300 miles to the major airports to catch their intercontinental flight.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('airstrip1', '.')..Boeings point to point model...

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'L')ike I said, if it aint Boeing I aint going.

[untothislast]

Airplanes/schmairplanes; if we're moving into a hydrogen economy, I say let's get some good old fashioned airships back up there. Sure, we had the R101 and Hindenburg disasters, but they were years ago, and we could always use helium instead. It just means the screams will be higher pitched.

(Incidentally, I spent last Saturday walking around the factory at Broughton, UK, where they make the wings for Airbus. Incredible production technology - but as the correspondents say here, the decision to go for bulk and size was made without due regard to PO.)

[airstrip1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('airstrip1', '.')..Boeings point to point model...

[airstrip1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', 'A')irstrip,

I am not so sure Boeings point to point model will work either. In an era of declining travel, those point to point markets will drop off first. It is the traditional hubs that will continue doing business as they tend to have better surface transport links for feed. There is a reason London, Chicago, Tokyo, Hong kong etc. developed into hubs. They were natural. What may work is high speed/higher speed rail, bus to a hub and then intercontinental travel from such destinations.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('airstrip1', '.')..There is plenty of documentary evidence to show that the decision was predicated around a particular travel model.