From: carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) Organization: Kindergarten Date: 29 Feb 96 01:24:25 References: 1 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
<rna@gsb-birr.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)> wrote: >There's no question that Boeing makes a lot of its money from the 747, That only happens because the 747 has been around for a long time. The A3XX is Airbus' self destruction button. Boeing's own production estimates for the 747 derivatives look pretty conservative (~25/year). It may be because (i) in case of a downturn, large aircraft orders may suffer more than others, (ii) Boeing is already factoring in some Airbus competitor, (iii) Boeing is trying to make the market look small to scare Airbus or (iv) the market is small indeed. I stick with option (iv). Demand for the 747 has been inflated in the past because there was no "slightly smaller" alternative and because of range. Now there is the A340, the 777-300 and there will be some very long range 777. These aircraft steal some 747 orders. Three of the largest 747 operators (LH, SQ and BA) are already lined up at Boeing's launchpad before the aircraft are frozen. Airbus' project only has a chance if it captures some of the other big 747 customers (AF, JL, UA, NW, CX, ANA, Korean, QF), which sounds unlikely. Even if the plane looks great on paper, airlines will be wary to commit to a brand new $250m plane when they can opt for a derivative of something that has proved to work well. >It's also hard to justify even from a industrial policy viewpoint. >Even if you accept that Europe "must" have the capability to build >transport aircraft, that's been achieved with the A330/340 program. There is also the A300 ST, which has a huge fuselage but very likely limited range and is being pushed as a military transport.