Boeing selects 7E7 engines

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:43:49 +0800, Nik wrote:


I think your thinking on this subject is fundamentally flawed. The
question
is not whether or not there is a market for the A380 but whether it will
create a market. What you likely will see is something similar to what
the
747 achieved only on a much wider scale. It'll popularise
intercontinental
travel further and hence taking part in the significant change of what
air
travel is that we are (perhaps not in Canada!) witnessing at the moment.

The 747 was a disaster to all parties involved. Until late in the game
when Boeing finally managed to get a postive cash flow from the white
elephant.

A 767 would then have been much preferable. It's largley the 747 which
produced the unbalanced business model that is now plaguing the industry.

Those airlines that are either still buying 747s or 380 are by and large
operating in areas where the prevailing conditions really belong in the
past when countries had a single gateway, flying was a status symbol and
so were big planes.

Hong Kong is an artificiality that's bound to eventually shrink to its
natural size when airlines diversify to the actualy destinations.
Starting with Shanghai.

You certainly hasn't been in Asia lately! Why mention Shanghai? Absolutely
irrelevant in this context! In the next decade or two there will be about 40
to 50 million people living in the Pearl River delta alone. There will be
one or two major airports serving this population. There will be plenty of
need for 380 in and out of here - Shanghai or not. Now, having Shanghai with
a population in its hinterland along the Yangtze about the same, Shanghai
with the present speed of economic development will be in need of several
380 on its own right! Remember both Shanghai and The Pearl Delta are
possibly the two most important places of production of mass consumer goods
in the world today.

I never saw the 767 doing anything significantly in Asia. SAS stopped using
them to HK allegedly because it was far too small to make a profit in spit
of always being full to the brim and being at least 30 to 40 percent more
expensive between CPH and HK than almost everybody else.

No Canada is not typical for the rest of the world.

Nik.

In article ,
"Nik" wrote:


You certainly hasn't been in Asia lately! Why mention Shanghai? Absolutely
irrelevant in this context! In the next decade or two there will be about 40
to 50 million people living in the Pearl River delta alone. There will be
one or two major airports serving this population. There will be plenty of
need for 380 in and out of here - Shanghai or not. Now, having Shanghai with

I dn;t know if you have heard the rumour that SQ will dump vast portions
of its 747-400 fleet and replace it with 777-300ERs......

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:08:42 +0800, Nik wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news

The 747 was a disaster to all parties involved. Until late in the game
when Boeing finally managed to get a postive cash flow from the white
elephant.

A 767 would then have been much preferable. It's largley the 747 which
produced the unbalanced business model that is now plaguing the industry.

Those airlines that are either still buying 747s or 380 are by and large
operating in areas where the prevailing conditions really belong in the
past when countries had a single gateway, flying was a status symbol and
so were big planes.

Hong Kong is an artificiality that's bound to eventually shrink to its
natural size when airlines diversify to the actualy destinations.
Starting with Shanghai.

You certainly hasn't been in Asia lately! Why mention Shanghai? Absolutely
irrelevant in this context!

I mentioned Shanghai as one of potentially many entry points that will
progressively take away market share from HKG.

I plan to go to China this summer. Probably a week in Xiamen followed by
a week in Beijing. I imagine I'll fly to Shanghai an on to
XMN, rather than through HKG, seems more convenient. Connections from
both destinations to Canada are viable only because they operate on 767s.

In the next decade or two there will be about 40
to 50 million people living in the Pearl River delta alone. There will be
one or two major airports serving this population.

Why only one or two, not 10 or so?

There will be plenty of
need for 380 in and out of here - Shanghai or not. Now, having Shanghai with
a population in its hinterland along the Yangtze about the same, Shanghai
with the present speed of economic development will be in need of several
380 on its own right! Remember both Shanghai and The Pearl Delta are
possibly the two most important places of production of mass consumer goods
in the world today.

I never saw the 767 doing anything significantly in Asia. SAS stopped using
them to HK allegedly because it was far too small to make a profit in spit
of always being full to the brim and being at least 30 to 40 percent more
expensive between CPH and HK than almost everybody else.

No Canada is not typical for the rest of the world.

Not Canada, North America, South America, most of Europe except France
which needs to pay back their high speed rail, and to some extent the UK
which benefits from LHR being a European hub.

And my guess is, a good chunk of Asia too. A 747 is probably too big for
connections from Canada to KIX or NGO, for instance. And the same is
likely true from most US points.

Forget the dinosaurs. The business model is changing.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:26:04 GMT, Not the Karl Orff
wrote:

In article ,
"Nik" wrote:


You certainly hasn't been in Asia lately! Why mention Shanghai? Absolutely
irrelevant in this context! In the next decade or two there will be about 40
to 50 million people living in the Pearl River delta alone. There will be
one or two major airports serving this population. There will be plenty of
need for 380 in and out of here - Shanghai or not. Now, having Shanghai with

I dn;t know if you have heard the rumour that SQ will dump vast portions
of its 747-400 fleet and replace it with 777-300ERs......

Have you heard the rumours that SQ will dump vast proportions of its
747-400 fleet and replace it with 380s? Though of course that's not a
rumour, that's a fact. Watch the schedules on their routes in to
places such as LHR, FRA, SYD, MEL, you'll see 744s disappear and 380s
replace them!
--==++AJC++==--

In article ,
AJC wrote:


Have you heard the rumours that SQ will dump vast proportions of its
747-400 fleet and replace it with 380s? Though of course that's not a
rumour, that's a fact.

Yo got facts ot back that up? Well, neither do I but I'll take a bet
that SQ will have a lot more (2-4x) 777s than A380s.

Watch the schedules on their routes in to
places such as LHR, FRA, SYD, MEL, you'll see 744s disappear and 380s
replace them!

Doubt it. SQ doesn't need that many A380s.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:51:24 GMT, devil wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:08:42 +0800, Nik wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news

The 747 was a disaster to all parties involved. Until late in the game
when Boeing finally managed to get a postive cash flow from the white
elephant.

A 767 would then have been much preferable. It's largley the 747 which
produced the unbalanced business model that is now plaguing the industry.

Those airlines that are either still buying 747s or 380 are by and large
operating in areas where the prevailing conditions really belong in the
past when countries had a single gateway, flying was a status symbol and
so were big planes.

Hong Kong is an artificiality that's bound to eventually shrink to its
natural size when airlines diversify to the actualy destinations.
Starting with Shanghai.

You certainly hasn't been in Asia lately! Why mention Shanghai? Absolutely
irrelevant in this context!

I mentioned Shanghai as one of potentially many entry points that will
progressively take away market share from HKG.

I plan to go to China this summer. Probably a week in Xiamen followed by
a week in Beijing. I imagine I'll fly to Shanghai an on to
XMN, rather than through HKG, seems more convenient.


In what way do you think it is more convenient to transfer in Shanghai
(immigration, claim baggage, customs, check baggage) rather than Hong
Kong (airside transfer)?


Connections from
both destinations to Canada are viable only because they operate on 767s.

In the next decade or two there will be about 40
to 50 million people living in the Pearl River delta alone. There will be
one or two major airports serving this population.

Why only one or two, not 10 or so?


Because these people will be travelling to a relatively few number of
destinations. Their travelling needs will (have to be) served by high
density aircraft that will be operating in some of the most crowded
air lanes and in to some of the most congested airports in the world.
There are going to be phenomenal numbers of Chinese taking long-haul
overseas holidays. Their destinations are going to be the standard
destinations of choice for other Asians, that means they are going to
be flying in to LHR, FRA, CDG, SYD, AKL, LAX, NYC, etc. Their
long-haul flights are not going to be in low-capacity aircraft from
every provincial town in China, they are going to be in high-capacity
aircraft operating from a few select hubs.


There will be plenty of
need for 380 in and out of here - Shanghai or not. Now, having Shanghai with
a population in its hinterland along the Yangtze about the same, Shanghai
with the present speed of economic development will be in need of several
380 on its own right! Remember both Shanghai and The Pearl Delta are
possibly the two most important places of production of mass consumer goods
in the world today.

I never saw the 767 doing anything significantly in Asia. SAS stopped using
them to HK allegedly because it was far too small to make a profit in spit
of always being full to the brim and being at least 30 to 40 percent more
expensive between CPH and HK than almost everybody else.

No Canada is not typical for the rest of the world.

Not Canada, North America, South America, most of Europe except France
which needs to pay back their high speed rail, and to some extent the UK
which benefits from LHR being a European hub.

And my guess is, a good chunk of Asia too. A 747 is probably too big for
connections from Canada to KIX or NGO, for instance. And the same is
likely true from most US points.


As has already been said, forget Canada, it is a disaster area as far
as commercial aviation is concerned, and as for the US, as it retreats
further in to isolationism it is not representative of the forthcoming
travel patterns in the growth areas of the world.

--==++AJC++==--

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:35:46 GMT, Not the Karl Orff
wrote:

In article ,
AJC wrote:


Have you heard the rumours that SQ will dump vast proportions of its
747-400 fleet and replace it with 380s? Though of course that's not a
rumour, that's a fact.

Yo got facts ot back that up? Well, neither do I but I'll take a bet
that SQ will have a lot more (2-4x) 777s than A380s.

Watch the schedules on their routes in to
places such as LHR, FRA, SYD, MEL, you'll see 744s disappear and 380s
replace them!

Doubt it. SQ doesn't need that many A380s.

--==++AJC++==--

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:35:46 GMT, Not the Karl Orff
wrote:

In article ,
AJC wrote:


Have you heard the rumours that SQ will dump vast proportions of its
747-400 fleet and replace it with 380s? Though of course that's not a
rumour, that's a fact.

Yo got facts ot back that up? Well, neither do I but I'll take a bet
that SQ will have a lot more (2-4x) 777s than A380s.


Of course they may end up with more 777s than 380s, they will serve
different markets, both will be needed, but the 380s will replace 744s
on routes that need capacity, 777s will replace 744s on routes that
need increased frequency, or those where combined services can be
separated. MH do it, for example on their KUL-AMS route. The 744s were
'replaced 'by 772s. To be more accurate the KUL-AMS-MAN 744 route was
split in to separate direct 772s. As traffic has continued to increase
the AMS route is now back to a 744. They didn't keep the 772 and add
extra frequency, that sort of route doesn't need more than daily
frequency, it makes more business sense to bring in larger aircraft.
Same has happened with CX splitting their AMS/MAN and SQ with AMS/EWR.

Watch the schedules on their routes in to
places such as LHR, FRA, SYD, MEL, you'll see 744s disappear and 380s
replace them!

Doubt it. SQ doesn't need that many A380s.


I will make a note of posting the before and after schedules when the
time comes, showing 744s being replaced by 380s.
--==++AJC++==--

"AJC" wrote in message
...
As has already been said, forget Canada, it is a disaster area as far
as commercial aviation is concerned, and as for the US, as it retreats
further in to isolationism it is not representative of the forthcoming
travel patterns in the growth areas of the world.

How is it, exactly, that you think the US is "retreating
into isolationism" in any way that will affect its travel
patterns?

Bob M.

AJC wrote:
be flying in to LHR, FRA, CDG, SYD, AKL, LAX, NYC, etc. Their
long-haul flights are not going to be in low-capacity aircraft from
every provincial town in China, they are going to be in high-capacity
aircraft operating from a few select hubs.

This is especially true when the air rights allow a limited number of flights
between two countries. It isn't just the airport congestion at issue.