I think the trend will be towards smaller aircraft.  The only area of huge expansion in the UK seems to be towards the no frills sector.  I believe that as this market expands further the public will demand more destinations and more flights.  The companies will then need large numbers of smaller aircraft to serve the more diversified demand.

It could go the otherway but the companies, in my opinion, would need to start a sort of "bus" system where the large aircraft stops at say 6 destinations in a circular route and people get on and off at each stop, but I feel that this is unlikely.

Will

the 7E7 is the way forward:) i am definatly going to end up being the biggest supporter of this aircraft(if they drop the dreamliner name)
but really there will be a place for super jumbos, boeing have even considered a new 747 which is  stretched
-400 series
in reality though it is impossible to even guess where we will be this time next year let alone 20 years. anything can happen, including more terrorist attacks(which have been hinted at)

Some good points here.

If you work it out on a cost per-seat mile basis, the 747-400 is the worlds most efficient aircraft to operate. This of course mean you have to fill it....

I don't know what the exact cost of operating a 747 LHR-JFK, but I used to work for a tour operator, and I had to ring up and charter 4 SpanAir Airbus A320's from Prestwick to Majorca every week, they cost about £14,000 each to buy all the seats and pay the aircrew, taxes, fuel, landing fees etc. I imagine a LHR-JFK flight would be nearer 140-160K.

Ric B.

Japan uses a 747 SP specifically designed for short haul commuter  transport. It holds 600 passengers and flies to destinations one or two hundred miles from origin. Its much like a bus transit, leaving at a specific interval , no check in baggage, and you pay as you board, at one-third the cost. Somehow, the aircraft is mostly full when it leaves.

In comparison, in San Diego, CA, we have about thirty flights going to Los Angeles which is about 120 miles as the crow flies. Most of these flights (737,320, MDs) are barely half full, often a quarter full. In addition, San Diego has many commuter planes (twin turbos) flying to LA, often half full. It's a fact that driving  the distance is quicker than flying. Got efficiency?

I believe that much like land transport, we should concentrate on mass transportation. Get rid of the hub. Schedule busy routes using A380s or stretched 747, leaving every other hour (depending on the traffic) which can accomodate eight hundred to a thousand passengers at low fares. The New York to D.C. route will be an ideal route, also Boston to New York.

Expand the use of turbo-prop commuters to cover municipal airports. Converted H53 helos may be used.  But my answer to the  orginal question. More jumbos for mass air transit, more turbo-props for municipal.

Hogans Alley

After watching many television shows on the airline industry, I believe there is no place for SSTs anymore. Airliners are more concerned with how many people they can cram into one of thoes aluminum sausages. I belive the future will be a mix of luxury and economy. Airlines such as QANTAS and Virgin Atlantic have plans to make the A380 the ultimate luxury liner. However the sardine can airliners such as My Travel will be exploiting the A380's high seating capacity. Closer to home, Jet Blue, Air Canada, and West Jet are promising to add more luxury to economy by adding satellite TV to their services. US Airways, Jets Go, and the other express airliners are planning to add more comfort on short routes for cheaper fairs. It is a golden age for the small express liners as the larger ones are charging too much. In other words, you wont see a lot of A380s and SSTs but rather A320s and B737s will continue to dominate the sky.