Re: Boeing cancels 747-500X/600X?

Date:         02 Mar 97 15:18:05 
From: (Terry Schell)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References:   1 2 3 4 5
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure (H Andrew Chuang) writes:

>In article <airliners.1997.536@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
>Terry Schell <> wrote:
>>I guess what I am saying is that I don't buy the "reducing congestion"
>>argument for the next generation super-jumbo.  If there were intense
>>congestion problems we would be seeing pressure to replace the smaller
>>planes with bigger ones... but the current trend in most markets is
>>the opposite.

>In Europe and in the US, airlines are not using bigger planes to replace
>smaller ones.  This is not true in East/Southeast Asia.  Malaysia (MH)
>and Thai (TG) replaced some of their A300s with A330s.  In fact, for
>MH, they dumped their whole A300 fleet after they have taken deliveries
>of the A330.  That's at least 20-30% increase in capacity.  Singapore will
>replace some of its A310s with the B777; and that's about 40-50% increase
>in capacity.  I would say the majority of the A330 orders and some of the
>B777 orders made by East Asian airlines are for replacing smaller planes
>(e.g., Philippine, Korean, Cathay, etc.)

I should have mentioned that Asia seems to be a bit of an exception,
but I really don't think that it makes economic sense at this time to
build planes that offer a 15-20% increase in passengers per cycle but
will require massive airport modifications.  It would make more sense
just to expand the handful of airports that would benefit from these
larger planes so that they can cope with 450-500 passenger per cycle
planes (or route more flights around them).

Only time will tell what happens to the airport congestion in Asia,
but personally I don't think it will get *that* much worse even if
passenger miles in asia triple or quadruple in the next decade; I
think the growth will come in new markets rather than in the
established (ie, congested) ones.

Terry Schell