wheres the 777-200LR and 300-ER both of those are soon to be availiable
and wheres the 7E7? that i have a feeling will blow anything airbus can come up with out of the water.
my vote goes to boeing anyway i dont like airbus, the A340 is horribly underpowered and something tells me the A380 will end up the same and also end up a huge flop.
777's are the way to go for the foreseeable future
and its really not fair to compair the 380 to the 747 because of the huge age differance in the two, the 747 is god knows how old in its design where as the 380 is prob less than 10 years on the drawing board.

Ill go for Airbus for justa couple of reasons
1. Boeing is waisting its money making upgraded versions of already great planes (i think soon the 777 is goin to have 10 versions...)

2. Boeing does not believe that makin even bigger and more unique jets will bring in more money.

3. Their military sector may not have a bright future; they recently lost the JSF comptetions to Lockheed...
(which is getting most military contracts these days)

The resons why Airbus is doin good:

1. Their A380 will definely be a hit and passesngers would love to take a ride in one (just like the 747)

2.Airbus understands the fact that skies are getting crowded, and its doin something about it.

3.It can come up with new building materials, and incredible ways to improve curent jets and futere ones.

Ill admit im a Boeing guy myself but they havent been doin so well. Either way ill go for both.

I believe that Boeing are spending money on stupid things, like said before.  They are losing military contracts and i belive that they are a spent force in the aviation industry as we know it!  I could be wrong?

I totally agree with Fozzer, he can ride in my front seat anyday..........

There's a market for both the 747 and A380, but I think the overall wide body market will still favor the 767/7E7/777/A330/340 as time goes on.

For the cargo market, the only significant new cargo planes are 747-400F versions.  If Antonov can get its marketing act together, the -124 can make significant inroads into the heavylift cargo market.  The cargo A380  can make inroads into the 747 cargo market.

The A300 Beluga is a "special mission" cargo carrier, limited even by when it can open it's cargo hatch! It's basically a short range airplane intended to carry components from the subassembly areas to the main production facilities within Europe.

Now - If Lockheed were to market a civilianised C-5 to go after the heavy lift market, that's a different thing.



Quote:

I'm in favor of Boeing. In case everyone has forgotten, they are currently putting a totally new aircraft on the drawing board...

i'd go for airbus if they made any good bombers for  WW2.... oh looky, THEY DIDN'T!!!

Quote:


Yes, if Airbus wastes too much money on that 'white whale' they're goin nowhere. But there is a way to fit these mammoth crafts into airports; folding wings. These were to be supposed to be incorporated in the upgraded 777 series but i dont know if Boeing indeed did this. And with regards to your hijack remark i think that is not a proper and fair statement. Any crazy hijacker can hijack a 747 and wreak havoc. It can happen in any aircraft and yes it would be horrible if it happened to an A380 but thats not Airbus's fault. Its up to the airlines and airport guards to make sure that doesnt happen.

In todays marketplace in is only prudent to consider if the new plane may draw the attention of the less scrupulous crowd...and niave to assume it won't.

Folding wings...on a commercial airliner? Possible, and had been considered...but imagine the regulatory nightmare in getting the type certificate.

As for the issue of aiports not being able to handle the 747...not true that there were no aiports to handle it. CYYZ (Toronto International) made only minor changes to allow better service to the new type. A lengthened section of hardened runway for instance. It didn't need to be done, but it was better if done. Only one runway was done initially, the other waited until volume made it worthwhile. Several airports in major centres could handle the 747...but some adjustments were required.

The A380 isn't the same. There is no airport that is capable of dual level or front/rear pax operations as required to load/unload the A380. Some airports stated (when faced with the same question about the super-747) that they were not interested. Terminal infrastructure wasn't capable of handling the extra load so why make room for the plane?

Some transport pundits opined that the super-747 would be used in a "Super-Hub/Feeder" arrangement wherby only a very few, select centres would be serviced. All other centres would be fed from transfer flights. Studies showed that this would actually increase the number of flights through these centres. Concern was also raised that passengers would find faster service if they flew a smaller widebody type direct to destination, bypassing the Super-Hub.

The A380 faces all the same challenges as the Super-747...but in a market tainted by such things as 9/11 and SARS.

You have to admit that Airbus has a big set of brass ones. It wasn't that long ago that industry analysts stated that the biggest way Airbus could damage Boeing was by going out of business! The increased demand for Boeing products could have resulted in massive outlays of capital while Boeing expanded. Boeing would have been, or very near, over-extended.

i'll go for Boeing. Airbus is waisting too much money on their A380. the market is too small to get the investment back.

when you look to the mid range AC's, i think Boeing will remain the leader. their 777 series is pleased by a lot of airlines and passengers as well as the old but still good 747 series.
the nm cost is much cheaper than lets say an A340...and for airlines that's the most important thing.

i don't want to say Airbus planes aren't good. i'm glad that Airbus Industries exist! imagine yourself aviation with only one big passenger jet constructor! we would still be flying around with the 707...of course with upgrades (707-900  )

Quote:


This will not be a problem since the jet bridge will connect to the bottom deck only (747..??) The A380 will be allowed only at airports that can accomodate it and that are willing to change some features. I think Airbus is aware of that though. Now the A-380 might not revolutionize anything but think about it. I heard some airlines were planning on constructing dormatories, lounge, etc., on the second deck of the plane. The A-380 will undoubtably be used only on transpacific-transatlantic flights where passengers want to feel confortable on a long journey. I mean honestly, how many people can say they were not impressed by the 747 and havent wanted to get a ticket to get on one. Although the A380 is basically a 747 with another deck, hat amuses passengers....and thats the golden opportunity. We here may not think its such a radical idea, but people will care only about what it offers them on their trip-- just because its something new and has not been done before. The only problem Airbus faces on its A380 is the emergency exits. They are having problems placing them in the right place since the aircraft is so large.

I go Airbus, everybody says that the A380 is to big for the airports it’s a waste of money, even Boeing is saying that if I’m not wrong.
My point is this speech is not new the same was used when Boeing was developing the 747, and what happened next the airports were adapted to it, it is in production until today and Boeing is constantly updating the project. Boeing is the company that is today because of its pioneer spirit when they risked everything on the 707 and afterwards in the 747. Now they seem to be lost without their pioneer spirit. Personally I rather Boeing airplanes but we must not close our eyes in front of the evidences if Boeing doesn’t change their currently strategy they’ll have trouble in a near future.
Airports modifications needed for the A380 shouldn’t be a issue the Aeronautic technology can’t be ruled by the airports, if you never adapt them we would still have airplanes that are able to operate in grass fields.

Suppose y'all didn't happen to know something about airbus. They are making something else right now - other than the 380 - I will give more info after the press briefing.

Hmm, I think Airbus will probably have the lions share of the market, its an international conglomerate, and therefore has immense resources and depth, but I think anyone who thinks Boeing are going out of business is kidding themselves. They are just too well established and powerful to be counted out. I think their main strength will lie in the domestic market from now on though... Americans being proud of things with Made In America stamped on them, e.g. Harley Davidson, Levi, Corvette etc etc, and that is no bad thing either.
Personally I wish I had a Boeing Stearman at home, but I doubt I'll be able to afford one on my current wages

Ozzy