Airbus vs. Boeing

Smaller is sometimes better

from WinCustomize Forums

I'm on the plane to San Francisco as I write this. A few moments ago, one of the passengers became seriously ill. Apparently he's going to be okay, at least well enough to make it to our final destination.

But the vent got me thinking, the new Airbus 380 mega plane simply isn't viable. It's going to lose to the new offerings from Boeing.  Here's why:

The more people you pack onto a plane, the greater the odds that something will happen with one of them that requires the entire plane to make an emergency landing.  You put 500+ people on a plane and you increase the odds of passengers having their plans disrupted over an emergency.

There is also the problem of boarding. It takes a very long time to board a plane. One of the reasons I dread flying is because of the monumental waste of time involved.  If my flight is at 1pm. I get there at noon. And typically the plane doesn't leave the ground until 1:45pm.  Bigger planes compound that by increasing the boarding time. And boarding time increases non-linearly as you add passengers.

There are other issues involved as well such as bigger planes are less flexible (you have to use them on very busy routes).

Boeing's strategy of having smaller planes I think is the way to go.

business
11,341 views 9 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just being on a regular-sized plane is a feat in itself. It’s also very unnerving, because of a lack of space. I do hate the wait time, plus, now if you get to the airport an hour before is not enough time anymore, at least where I live it isn’t. They won’t let you board even if there is time. The plane sits for 45 minutes on the runway before taking off. So leaving at the scheduled time rarely happens. It does concern me greatly the air quality on the planes and whether or not you’re going to catch what someone else has, i.e., a cold or something else, that’s air borne. So, you’re right, bigger doesn’t mean better. It just means there’s more likelihood of, as you say, more problems.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
i felt sorta the same way about the 747 and the concorde.  use of the airbus as a freight hauler apparently appeals to fedex and ups tho since both have ordered some. if industrial nations are judged by their manufacturing capability and the top of that rung is currently the airplane, then united europe may now have the edge.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't know about Boeing's smaller planes! I flew to Amsterdam recently on a KLM jumbo that squeezed in 456 passengers. Sleep is impossible and even sitting comfortably is not an option. I think, with Airbus , or Boeing, air travel is going to get more uncomfortable. I don't have the money to go business so get ready for cramped cigar tubes, no matter the make.
Reply #5 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Kingbee: I'd say the Space Shuttle would argue more for whose industrial capacity is better.

There's not much of an engineering feat involved in producing a larger aluminum cylinder to cram people into.

 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'd say the Space Shuttle would argue more for whose industrial capacity is better.


i believe the standard is based on commercial production.  whereas it was once ships, then trains, it's now planes. im not at all happy about the situation in either event...if there's a market (i believe i heard fedex and ups have ordered like 125 of these) id much prefer they were made here. 

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, creating the biggest commercial passanger planes on earth is some achievements, right?
And having able to pack hundreds of people into one plane is a great plus to reduce time needed to tend smaller, more numerous planes.
Maybe it's time to make a in-plane health regulation, better going-to-fly passangers coordination or even in plane all-in medical bay.
Plenty Smaller planes = plenty of traffic is a thing to think too.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
China just decided to buy 80 Boeing 787(7E7) Dreamliner jets by 2008 for their upcoming Olympics.

I know the recent trend for both aircraft manufacturers of new aircraft is style and comfort for passengers and economic operating costs (maintenance, fuel consumption etc.).

Airbus, with the 380 family of aircraft, hopes to fill a market for long distance routes for passengers and shipping. But with an aircraft that size, brings up the question of airport compatibility, and maintenance facilities. How expensive will it be to modify existing facilities to accommodate the 380? Is their really a sizable market for it? Maybe in shipping thanks to the global economy.

Boeing management at one time considered building a 500+ passenger airliner, but felt there wasn't enough of a market to justify it. Boeing instead concentrated on 223-259 passenger aircraft with 20% better fuel efficiency and lower operating cost. With emphases on increased comfort and convenience for passengers, I think that Boeing will sell more aircraft. Plus there is no need to modify existing infrastructures to accommodate the airframe.

Both are fine aircraft, they are just embodiments of different strategies.

I do think there will be an explosive market in the future for 500+ passenger airliners, but not until aircraft has SRAMJET engines. And of course there will be major overhauls to facilities if not down right building of new facilities.

Ah, SRAMJET, I could go to Sydney and watch an F1 race and be home in time for supper.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
One issue I have with the A380 is the fact that airports throughout the US will have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade runways and gates. The aircraft is about 50ft wider than a 747, about the same length and considerably heavier. There is so much concern about the weight of the plane that Airbus had to develop a primerless paint.