Airbus A380 or Boeing

The new European SuperJumbo will apparently carry 550 or 800 passengers (depending on who you listen to), Boeing's offering will carry considerably less but it will be an efficient and flexible plane capable of very long hauls.

The Airbus will need special king-sized runways, the Boeing won't.

Then there are the questions of check-in and baggage collection, both of which will be loads of fun with 800 passengers, particularly after a 10 hour flight.

And there's the question of security.

All in all, which would you bet on?

 

Frankly, both.

Boeing's point-to-point strategy is all very well, but there are airports such as LHR, FRA, etc where it is not possible to fly any more planes. The airports are full. This is where the A380 will rule.

Conversely, there are airports that see little traffic and have plenty of room for more, smaller traffic. Boeing's strategy says that the passengers want to fly directly from there to where they want to go, so that needs smaller, longer-ranged, more efficient planes which is what the 787 is.

The media and many nutcases on airliners.net forums believe that one or other approach will win.

Both are entirely valid. For example, 787 or no 787, no airline is ever going to fly point to point between leeds-bradford int. and ontario CA. Or Prestwick to San Diego. Thus you have to go to a busy hub airport, and fly to another busy hub airport to get on a plane to where you do want to go. So... the A380 allows expansion of capacity at slot-limited airports like LHR.

Another point is that departures are timed such that you arrive at a reasonable time of day. That's why QANTAS and BA have flights from LHR to melbourne within a few minutes of each other, despite code-sharing and the oneworld alliance. If you want more capacity to MEL from LHR do you put a third flight on? Are there enough passengers for 3 full 747s, or is the third aircraft going to run at a loss most of the time? And this is where the A380 makes sense also.

But the 787 makes a lot of sense too. It's a longer-ranged, more efficient replacement for the 767 and 757-300. It will open up profitability on a route like Manchester - San Francisco which is too low demand for a 747, A380 or 777. So, you no longer have to change planes in chicago or atlanta, get there quicker, etc.

Commercially, both projects are doing very well. The A380 needs more sales to break even, but this is a long term project. It's not about sales in the first year or two (and let's remember, it hasn't flown yet). It's sales over 15-20 years. The 787 has plenty of sales, but it doesn't yet physically exist and is bringing so many new technologies to the industry that it's more of an unknown. It's also a much cheaper plane than the A380.

Overall though, Airbus outsold Boeing for the first time ever in 2003. The feat was repeated in 2004 with B's market share down to 43%. Competition is good though, as it drives the industry forward.

 

Do we really want to fly non-stop to Sydney? The longest I've done is Tokyo(11hours) and that's plenty long enough. People need that stop-over on the way to Oz.

 

Both IMO.

 

Neither the A380 nor 787 will fly non-stop to sydney. Boeing claim that the 777-200LR will, but in reality with any significant passenger/cargo load it won't manage that. Maybe london - perth or sydney - nyc (but probably not the other way... winds).

Not stopping over would allow better route optimisation, save time on ascent, descent, etc, and would cut the trip to about 18 hours, so it's not as bad as it might seem.

 

You and I clearly have different definitions of "bad", Isaac. I've done the London-Melbourne trip many times and around 12 hours (London-Singapore or London-Bangkok) being fired through the air in a tube of metal is about as much as I want to endure at a stretch. Perhaps if I could sleep on planes it would be OK, but I can't, at least not in steerage.

 

Am really looking forward to my 14 hour flight to Kuala Lumpar later this year not. I've done 10hours before and that nearly killed me. I can't stay still for that long!

 

I expect some of my taxes have been helping to develope the Airbus A380 so I may as well vote for it. As to long haul flights the most I've done has been London - Anchorage and back three times some years ago in rather packed Jumbos full of punters traveling the Great Circle route between Japan and Europe (well before LHR-OSA via Russia was allowed).

Great Circle Mapper

 

The Airbus A380 is a great big ugly lump of a plane and I wouldn't fly in it at all if ever I was in position to choose. The 747 is a swan in comparison.

London-Perth would I imagine be feasible for the Boeing. Less stops means less hassle for everyone if you ask me.

 

i've done a 17 hr to sri lanka (non-direct) manchester-london-bahrain-columbo.
it was a bitch of a flight, all in all, door to door took a ballbreaking 23 hrs!!

worth it tho'

 

Got to be the boeing, if the A380 falls out the sky (I'm still not convinced It'll be able to take off yet), kiss goodbye to 500+ people, plus who wants to spend 5 hours with 500 other passengers, na not for me. Just another cram them in, fill to the brim philosophy, more crowded airports, longer waits, nope the thing is a huge white elephant!